Assessment of Long-Term Vegetation and Site Conditions at Reclaimed Yukon Mineral Exploration Sites
There have recently been many changes in the way mining exploration projects operate, including new technologies, new exploration targets and new environmental regulations. Following recent amendments, to the Yukon Quartz and Placer Mining Acts, a significant new piece of legislation came into effect in December, 1999. The Yukon Quartz Mining Land Use Regulations, administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now requires the reclamation of disturbed land on mining claims. But what happens at these reclaimed sites several years after the work is finished? Is there more than one way to successfully reclaim such land? How do local conditions affect the regrowth of plants on these sites and how much preparation of the reclaimed surface is needed? This report may not provide answers to all these questions, but it presents data collected at several Yukon sites, each with different ages and having had different reclamation treatments. From these observations, patterns on the success or failure of revegetation programs emerge and provide information on the rate and extent of natural revegetation at reclaimed mining trenches.
Several types of reclamation sites were looked at in several different areas of Yukon, both above and below the treeline. Three of these were exploration trenches that were backfilled and revegetated as part of an experimental reclamation program in 1995. These reclaimed exploration sites included the Red Ridge trench, near Annie Lake in the Whitehorse area, the Nucleus trench, west of Carmacks and the Hawk trench near Dawson City. Each of these reclaimed trenches were revegetated with different seed and fertilizer mixes. This report summarizes how these sites looked in 1999, four years after the reclamation work was done.
At Division Mountain, west of Braeburn, several coal trenches and drill pads were reclaimed by a mineral exploration company between 1995 and 1997. These sites were also looked at in 1999 in order to measure the success of the revegetation program. The last place visited in 1999 was Jason Knoll near Macmillan Pass where a number of exploration trenches and drill pads were reclaimed in the early 1980s. This site provides a look at the longer-term success rate of a revegetation program near the treeline.
Refilled and contoured trenches, with rough and loose surfaces seem to revegetate well. The replacement of original soil is most important and makes the most significant contribution to the revegetation process, particularly at high elevation sites or sites in extreme climatic conditions. The replacement of tree debris significantly improves habitat conditions for small mammals by decreasing access and visibility for predators.
Datasets available for download
Additional Info
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Last Updated | October 20, 2025, 02:23 (UTC) |
| Created | October 20, 2025, 02:23 (UTC) |
|
Domain / Topic
Domain or topic of the dataset being cataloged.
|
|
|
Title
Title for the Dataset.
|
Assessment of Long-Term Vegetation and Site Conditions at Reclaimed Yukon Mineral Exploration Sites |
|
Description
A description of the dataset.
|
There have recently been many changes in the way mining exploration projects operate, including new technologies, new exploration targets and new environmental regulations. Following recent amendments, to the Yukon Quartz and Placer Mining Acts, a significant new piece of legislation came into effect in December, 1999. The Yukon Quartz Mining Land Use Regulations, administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now requires the reclamation of disturbed land on mining claims. But what happens at these reclaimed sites several years after the work is finished? Is there more than one way to successfully reclaim such land? How do local conditions affect the regrowth of plants on these sites and how much preparation of the reclaimed surface is needed? This report may not provide answers to all these questions, but it presents data collected at several Yukon sites, each with different ages and having had different reclamation treatments. From these observations, patterns on the success or failure of revegetation programs emerge and provide information on the rate and extent of natural revegetation at reclaimed mining trenches. Several types of reclamation sites were looked at in several different areas of Yukon, both above and below the treeline. Three of these were exploration trenches that were backfilled and revegetated as part of an experimental reclamation program in 1995. These reclaimed exploration sites included the Red Ridge trench, near Annie Lake in the Whitehorse area, the Nucleus trench, west of Carmacks and the Hawk trench near Dawson City. Each of these reclaimed trenches were revegetated with different seed and fertilizer mixes. This report summarizes how these sites looked in 1999, four years after the reclamation work was done. At Division Mountain, west of Braeburn, several coal trenches and drill pads were reclaimed by a mineral exploration company between 1995 and 1997. These sites were also looked at in 1999 in order to measure the success of the revegetation program. The last place visited in 1999 was Jason Knoll near Macmillan Pass where a number of exploration trenches and drill pads were reclaimed in the early 1980s. This site provides a look at the longer-term success rate of a revegetation program near the treeline. Refilled and contoured trenches, with rough and loose surfaces seem to revegetate well. The replacement of original soil is most important and makes the most significant contribution to the revegetation process, particularly at high elevation sites or sites in extreme climatic conditions. The replacement of tree debris significantly improves habitat conditions for small mammals by decreasing access and visibility for predators. |
|
Tags / Keywords
Keywords/tags categorizing the dataset.
|
|
|
Format (CSV, XLS, TXT, PDF, etc)
File format of the dataset.
|
|
|
Dataset Size
Dataset size in megabytes.
|
|
|
Metadata Identifier
Metadata identifier – can be used as the unique identifier for catalogue entry
|
|
|
Published Date
Published date of the dataset.
|
2011-04-04 |
|
Time Period Data Span (start date)
Start date of the data in the dataset.
|
|
|
Time Period Data Span (end date)
End date of time data in the dataset.
|
|
|
GeoSpatial Area Data Span
A spatial region or named place the dataset covers.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Access category
Type of access granted for the dataset (open, closed, service, etc).
|
|
|
License
License used to access the dataset.
|
Open Government Licence - Yukon |
|
Limits on use
Limits on use of data.
|
|
|
Location
Location of the dataset.
|
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/2b2886ea-92db-406f-9215-ac5d44fb0ca5 |
|
Data Service
Data service for accessing a dataset.
|
|
|
Owner
Owner of the dataset.
|
Government of Yukon | Gouvernement du Yukon |
|
Contact Point
Who to contact regarding access?
|
Yukon Geological Survey |
|
Contact Point Email
The email to contact regarding access?
|
|
|
Publisher
Publisher of the dataset.
|
|
|
Publisher Email
Email of the publisher.
|
[email protected] |
|
Author
Author of the dataset.
|
|
|
Author Email
Email of the author.
|
|
|
Accessed At
Date the data and metadata was accessed.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Identifier
Unique identifier for the dataset.
|
|
|
Language
Language(s) of the dataset
|
|
|
Link to dataset description
A URL to an external document describing the dataset.
|
|
|
Persistent Identifier
Data is identified by a persistent identifier.
|
|
|
Globally Unique Identifier
Data is identified by a persistent and globally unique identifier.
|
|
|
Contains data about individuals
Does the data hold data about individuals?
|
|
|
Contains data about identifiable individuals
Does the data hold identifiable data about individual?
|
|
|
Contains Indigenous Data
Does the data hold data about Indigenous communities?
|
|
|
Portal Type
Platform type of the source portal.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Version
Version of the datatset
|
None |
|
Source
Source of the dataset.
|
None |
|
Version notes
Version notes about the dataset.
|
|
|
Is version of another dataset
Link to dataset that it is a version of.
|
|
|
Other versions
Link to datasets that are versions of it.
|
|
|
Provenance Text
Provenance Text of the data.
|
|
|
Provenance URL
Provenance URL of the data.
|
|
|
Temporal resolution
Describes how granular the date/time data in the dataset is.
|
|
|
GeoSpatial resolution in meters
Describes how granular (in meters) geospatial data is in the dataset.
|
|
|
GeoSpatial resolution (in regions)
Describes how granular (in regions) geospatial data is in the dataset.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Indigenous Community Permission
Who holds the Indigenous Community Permission. Who to contact regarding access to a dataset that has data about Indigenous communities.
|
|
|
Community Permission
Community permission (who gave permission).
|
|
|
The Indigenous communities the dataset is about
Indigenous communities from which data is derived.
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
|
Number of data rows
If tabular dataset, total number of rows.
|
|
|
Number of data columns
If tabular dataset, total number of unique columns.
|
|
|
Number of data cells
If tabular dataset, total number of cells with data.
|
|
|
Number of data relations
If RDF dataset, total number of triples.
|
|
|
Number of entities
If RDF dataset, total number of entities.
|
|
|
Number of data properties
If RDF dataset, total number of unique properties used by the triples.
|
|
|
Data quality
Describes the quality of the data in the dataset.
|
|
|
Metric for data quality
A metric used to measure the quality of the data, such as missing values or invalid formats.
|
0 Comments