Vol 2 Section 7 Surface Water Quantity - Alberta€¦ · ntity\Fig07.02-01 Study Areas.mxd RGE 5 RGE 3 TWP 97 TWP 95 RGE 9 RGE 7 RGE 1 W4 TWP 99 TWP 101 C r e e k C r e e k J a c

$Page 1: Vol 2 Section 7 Surface Water Quantity - Alberta€¦ · ntity\Fig07.02-01 Study Areas.mxd RGE 5 RGE 3 TWP 97 TWP 95 RGE 9 RGE 7 RGE 1 W4 TWP 99 TWP 101 C r e e k C r e e k J a c$
Cenovus TL ULC Telephone Lake Project Volume 2 – Environmental Impact Assessment December 2011

Table of Contents

SECTION 7.0 – SURFACE WATER QUANTITY TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

7.0 SURFACE WATER QUANTITY .................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Assessment Approach ......................................................................................... 7-4

7.3.1 Surface Water Quantity Issues ........................................................... 7-4 7.3.2 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................ 7-4

7.4 Methods ............................................................................................................... 7-4 7.4.1 Data Sources ...................................................................................... 7-4 7.4.2 Computational Methods ...................................................................... 7-8

7.5 Baseline Case ...................................................................................................... 7-9 7.5.1 Baseline Climate ................................................................................. 7-9 7.5.2 Baseline Hydrology ........................................................................... 7-16 7.5.3 Baseline Summary ............................................................................ 7-31

7.6 Application Case ................................................................................................ 7-31 7.6.1 Surface Facilities ............................................................................... 7-36 7.6.2 Watercourse Crossings ..................................................................... 7-38 7.6.3 Water Sourcing and Impacts of Water Use ...................................... 7-38 7.6.4 Impacts of Subsurface Operations ................................................... 7-38 7.6.5 Impacts on Annual Total Discharge and Total Runoff ..................... 7-39 7.6.6 Impacts on Peak Flows ..................................................................... 7-40 7.6.7 Impacts on Low Flows ...................................................................... 7-41 7.6.8 Impacts on Existing Water Licences ................................................. 7-41 7.6.9 Management and Mitigation of Impacts............................................ 7-41 7.6.10 Summary of Application Case Impacts ............................................. 7-43

7.7 Planned Development Case .............................................................................. 7-43 7.8 Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 7-43 7.9 Summary ............................................................................................................ 7-44 7.10 Literature Cited .................................................................................................. 7-44


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

PAGE LIST OF TABLES

Table 7.4-1: Regional Streamflow Monitoring Stations ........................................................... 7-5 Table 7.4-2: Regional Climate Monitoring Stations ................................................................. 7-5 Table 7.5-1: Frequency Analyses on Adjusted Monthly and Annual Total Precipitation

for the PPA ......................................................................................................... 7-12 Table 7.5-2: Adjusted Maximum 24-Hour Total Precipitation for the PPA ............................ 7-12 Table 7.5-3: Estimated Lake Evaporation for the ALSA ........................................................ 7-14 Table 7.5-4: Potential and Areal Evapotranspiration for the ALSA ....................................... 7-16 Table 7.5-5: Catchment Areas for Sub-Basins in the ALSA .................................................. 7-16 Table 7.5-6: Manual Streamflow Measurements in the ALSA .............................................. 7-18 Table 7.5-7: Mean Annual Total Discharge and Runoff Data for Regional WSC

Stations .............................................................................................................. 7-22 Table 7.5-8: Estimated Annual Total Discharge and Runoff for Catchments in the

ALSA .................................................................................................................. 7-25 Table 7.5-9: Regional Flood Discharge Relationships .......................................................... 7-27 Table 7.5-10: Flood Discharges for Watercourses in the ALSA .............................................. 7-27 Table 7.5-11: Recorded Minimum Daily Discharges at WSC Stations ................................... 7-29 Table 7.5-12: Winter Discharge Measurements at the ALSA .................................................. 7-29 Table 7.5-13: Existing Water Licences in the ALSA ................................................................ 7-32 Table 7.5-14: Summary of Hydrological Characteristics at Streamflow Measurement

and Monitoring Locations ................................................................................... 7-34 Table 7.6-1: Summary of Disturbances ................................................................................. 7-37 Table 7.6-2: Curve Numbers for Disturbed Areas ................................................................. 7-39 Table 7.6-3: Impacts of Surface Facilities on Annual Total Discharge and Annual Total

Runoff ................................................................................................................. 7-39 Table 7.6-4: Impacts of Surface Facilities on Peak Flows ..................................................... 7-40 Table 7.6-5: Impacts of Surface Facilities on 7Q10 Low Flows ............................................ 7-41 Table 7.6-6: Mitigation Methods for Hydrological Impacts .................................................... 7-42 Table 7.6-7: Application Case Impacts .................................................................................. 7-43


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

PAGE LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7.2-1: Aquatics Local and Regional Study Areas .......................................................... 7-2 Figure 7.2-2: Catchments in the ALSA ...................................................................................... 7-3 Figure 7.4-1: Regional Climate and Streamflow Monitoring Locations .................................... 7-6 Figure 7.4-2: Hydrology Monitoring Locations .......................................................................... 7-7 Figure 7.5-1: Precipitation at Aurora and Fort McMurray Climate Stations ............................ 7-10 Figure 7.5-2: Regional Seasonal Precipitation Correlation ..................................................... 7-11 Figure 7.5-3: Estimated Monthly and Annual Total Precipitation in the PPA ......................... 7-13 Figure 7.5-4: Evaporation and Evapotranspiration in the PPA ............................................... 7-15 Figure 7.5-5: Rating Curves for Stations B2 and E2 ............................................................... 7-19 Figure 7.5-6: Recorded 2006 Hydrographs ............................................................................ 7-20 Figure 7.5-7: Unit Discharges for 2006 Monitoring Season .................................................... 7-21 Figure 7.5-8: Historical Mean Monthly Discharges at Regional Streamflow Monitoring

Stations .............................................................................................................. 7-23 Figure 7.5-9: Regional Correlations of Seasonal and Annual Total Discharge and

Runoff ................................................................................................................. 7-24 Figure 7.5-10: Historical Regional Annual Maximum Daily Discharges ................................... 7-26 Figure 7.5-11: Regional Flood Discharges ............................................................................... 7-28 Figure 7.5-12: Low Flow Discharges ......................................................................................... 7-30 Figure 7.5-13: Water Licences .................................................................................................. 7-33 Figure 7.6-1: Hydrology Assessment Nodes, Application Case ............................................. 7-35


Page 7-1

7.0 SURFACE WATER QUANTITY

7.1 Introduction

Surface water quantity or hydrology refers to the dynamics of flows in surface water systems, such as wetlands, lakes and channels and the relationships among precipitation, surface storage, evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface runoff and groundwater. Surface runoff refers to the flow of water into streams, lakes and water bodies from adjacent upland sites. Surface water quantity is a key component for the assessment of other aquatic resource indicators, including fisheries and water quality, and is linked to the relevant groundwater systems. This section of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) describes the potential Telephone Lake Project (Project) hydrological impacts within the aquatic local study area (ALSA).

7.2 Study Area

The boundaries of the Proposed Project Area (PPA), the ALSA and the aquatic regional study area (ARSA) are shown on Figure 7.2-1. Although the impacts of the Project on local hydrology are likely to be spatially limited, these impacts, as well as other Project activities, may affect local streams in the headwater area of three watersheds. These headwater areas and the immediate downstream reaches of headwater streams are included within the ALSA (Figure 7.2-2). Baseline and Project impacts on local hydrology, water quality, and fisheries and other aquatic resources will be assessed in the ALSA. The ALSA includes the Firebag River watershed from its headwaters to an area approximately halfway between the headwaters and the mouth of the Firebag River, where it enters the Athabasca River. The ARSA boundaries were established with the same principles used for definition of the terrestrial regional study area. Project effects on the aquatic environment may interact with the effects of other projects in the Firebag River watershed; therefore, the entire Firebag River watershed is contained within the ARSA. The ARSA includes the Firebag River watershed from its headwaters to a point close to the mouth (the location of the long-term discharge monitoring station operated by Environment Canada), and the Marguerite River watershed from its headwaters to its confluence with the Firebag River.

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE0

3399

01_T

elep

hone

Lake

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

ume

02 S

ectio

n 07

- Su

rface

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.02-

01 S

tudy

Are

as.m

xd

RGE 3RGE 5

TWP97

TWP95

RGE 1 W4RGE 7RGE 9

TWP99

TWP101

Cre

ek

Creek

Jackpine

Cree

k

Creek

River

River

Nor

thSt

eepb

ank

Firebag

River

River

Creek

River

Creek

River

Hill

Saskat chewan

Al ber ta

RGE 24 W3 RGE 22

TWP93

Marguerite

River

Creek

Reid

JohnsonLake

River

RichardsonRive

r

River

Richar

dson

Bourassa

Wicken

kamp

Lake

FirebagLake

SimonsonLake

Descharme

River

SabineLake

McClellandLake

AudetLake

KearlLake Otter Lakes

TelephoneLake

Atha

basc

a

Muske

g

High

Jackpine

Riv

er

Steepbank

Firebag

Moo

se

East

Trout

Iyinimin

Black Fly Creek

Marguerite

Wallace

Steepbank

Riv

er

River

LegendAquatics RSA

Aquatics LSA

Proposed Project Area

Open Water

Watercourse

±

Source: Cenovus, © Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved,GeoBase®, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.2-1

KW

Fig07.02-01 Study Areas11-12-05

DATE:

MW EH AMECFINAL MAPPING BY:PROVIDED BY:

AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

UTM Zone 12 NAD83Aquatics Local and Regional

Study Areas

10 0 10 205

Kilometres1:600,000

Cenovus TL ULCTelephone Lake Project

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE0

3399

01_T

elep

hone

Lake

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

ume

02 S

ectio

n 07

- Su

rface

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.02-

02 L

SA

Cat

chm

ent.m

xd

RGE 3 RGE 2RGE 5 RGE 4

TWP 95TWP 94

TWP 93TWP 92

RGE 1 W4 RGE 25 W3

TWP 97TWP 96

River

Creek

River

Creek

River

Hill

Saskat chewan

Alb ert a

OtterLakes

TelephoneLake

High

Firebag

Trout

Wallace

Steepbank

500

550

450

600

400

650

600

550

550

550

600

500

650

550

600

650

550

650

65065

0

500

550

600

500

500

550

550

600

600

500

550

550

550

550

550

500

500

500

600

600

550

550

550

550

550

550

500

500

600

600

550

600

500

550

600

600

550

550

500

650

550

550

650

550

550

600

550

550

550

550

550

500

550

550

550

550

550

500

500

550

550

650

550

500

600

600

650

500

600

550

60055

0

550

550

550

600

500

550

550

550

500

600

550

550

550550

550

500

550

500

600

600

550

550

550

600

600

550

550

500

550

550

550

650

650

550

500

500

550

550

600

500

600

500

550

550

550

550

550

550

600

550

500

550

600

600

550

550

550

550

500

600

500

550

550

600

550

LegendAquatics LSA

Open Water

Watercourse

CatchmentABCDEFG

TopographyMajor Contour (50 m Interval)

Minor Contour (10 m Interval)

±

Source: Cenovus, © Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved,Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.2-2

KW

Fig07.02-02 LSA Catchment11-11-22

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

UTM Zone 12 NAD83Catchments in the ALSA

4 0 4 82

Kilometres1:300,000



Page 7-4

7.3 Assessment Approach

7.3.1 Surface Water Quantity Issues

On the basis of the Terms of Reference, the Guide to EIA preparation (AENV 2011), recent EIA submissions, regional plans, and common stakeholder comments through the supplemental information request (SIR) process, the surface water quantity issues that may arise in connection with the Project include:

• watercourse crossings;

• water sourcing and impacts of water use;

• impacts of subsurface operations;

• impacts on annual total discharge and total runoff;

• impacts on peak and low flows; and

• impacts on existing water licences.

7.3.2 Assessment Criteria

The criteria used in the assessment of Project-specific and cumulative effects related to the Project are based upon the calculated changes in flow patterns and quantities. To the extent possible, these changes are quantitatively estimated as changes in volume flows or as a percentage change relative to baseline and/or historical data. Project-induced changes to the baseline hydrologic regime are evaluated in terms of changes in flow patterns (summer and winter), flood peaks (timing and magnitude), low flows (timing and magnitude), and the overall water balance. Biological impacts due to these changes (e.g., impacts of changes in flows on fish populations and/or fish habitat) are discussed in Volume 2, Section 9.0. The impact ratings described in Volume 2, Section 3.0 were applied in the surface water quantity impact assessment.

7.4 Methods

To establish baseline hydrological conditions for the ALSA and ARSA, a number of relevant flow-related parameters were collected during the baseline investigation, including: annual total flows (or runoff), peak flows, drought flows, and qualitative information on drainage patterns. Data collected within the ALSA during the 2006-2007 baseline monitoring period provided the basis for relating long-term regional hydrological data to watercourses within the ALSA.

7.4.1 Data Sources

Long-term historical climate and streamflow data are unavailable for the ALSA. However, there are several hydrometeorological monitoring sites found regionally from which data were obtained to provide the basis for characterizing the climate and hydrological characteristics of the ALSA and ARSA.


Page 7-5

Regional streamflow data were obtained from the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) stations listed in Table 7.4-1 and operated by Environment Canada. The locations of the WSC streamflow monitoring stations are shown on Figure 7.4-1.

Table 7.4-1: Regional Streamflow Monitoring Stations

Station Name Station Number

Period of Record

Station Operator Comments

Firebag River near the Mouth 07DC001 1971 – 2010 WSC Year-round 1971 – 1986 Seasonal (Mar-Oct) 1987 – 2005

Douglas River Near Cluff Lake 07MA003 1975 – 2010 WSC Year-round 1975 – 2005 Clearwater River at the Outlet of Lloyd Lake

07CD006 1973 – 1995 WSC Year-round 1973 – 1995

Descharme River Below Dupre Lake 07CD007 1977 – 1995 WSC Year-round 1977 – 1995

In addition, two temporary continuous streamflow monitoring stations were installed in the ALSA. The first gauge was installed on an unnamed tributary to the Firebag River (Station B2); the second station was installed on the mainstem of the Firebag River near the downstream end of the ALSA (Station E2). The locations of the temporary continuous streamflow monitoring stations as well as the locations of additional manual streamflow measurements are shown on Figure 7.4-2. Meteorological data from the six climate stations listed in Table 7.4-2 were used to characterize the climate in the ALSA. The Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) operates a climate monitoring station at Fort McMurray Airport, approximately 60 km southwest of the Project, with climate records from 1944 to the present. Monthly data up to 2007 are available; however, data after 2005 is incomplete or based on estimated values. With a period of record of 61 years up to 2005, updating the data with the 2 additional years would provide limited additional value to the baseline analysis. A second station, Aurora, is located in the Muskeg River watershed approximately 30 km west of the Project on the Shell Jackpine lease. The Aurora station was established in 1995 and is operated under the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP). The locations of the climate monitoring stations are shown on Figure 7.4-1.

Table 7.4-2: Regional Climate Monitoring Stations

Station Name Station Number

Period of Record

Station Operator Comments

Fort McMurray 3062693 1944 – 2005 MSC Year-round Aurora C1 1995 – 2005 RAMP Year-round Muskeg LO 3064740 1959 – 2005 MSC Seasonal (May – September) Bitumont LO 3060705 1962 – 2005 MSC Seasonal (May – September) Richardson LO 3065492 1960 – 2005 MSC Seasonal (May – September) Johnson Lake LO 3063563 1965 – 2005 MSC Seasonal (May – September)

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE0

3399

01_T

elep

hone

Lake

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

ume

02 S

ectio

n 07

- Su

rface

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.04-

01 C

limat

e S

tream

flow

Site

s.m

xd

#*

#*

#*

#*

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Firebag

Rive

r

Atha

basc

a

GalootLake

River

Saskatchewan

Alberta

FortMcKay

FortMcMurray

¾¾63

LloydLake

ForrestLake

PattersonLake

McClellandLake

RiverClearwater

River

Steepbank

Muske

g

River

Stee

pban

kR

iver

Nor

th

07DC001(Firebag River)

07CD007(Descharme River)

07CD006(Clearwater River)

07MA003(Douglas River)

C1 (Aurora)

Muskeg LO

Bitumont LO

Richardson LO

Johnson Lake LO

LegendAquatics RSA

Aquatics LSA

Open Water

Watercourse

Hydrology Site!( Environment Canada Climate Station

!( RAMP Climate Station

#* Water Survey of Canada Streamflow Monitoring Station

±

Source: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Cenovus, © Environment Canada, RAMP, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.4-1

KW

Fig07.04-01 Climate StreamflowSites 11-12-05

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

UTM Zone 12 NAD83Regional Climate and Streamflow

Monitoring Locations

10 0 10 205

Kilometres1:1,000,000


S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE0

3399

01_T

elep

hone

Lake

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

ume

02 S

ectio

n 07

- Su

rface

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.04-

02 L

SA

Mon

itor S

ites.

mxd

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(


TWP 95TWP 94

TWP 93TWP 92

RGE 1 W4 RGE 25 W3

TWP 97TWP 96

River

Creek

River

Creek

River

Hill

Saskat chewan

Alb ert a

OtterLakes

TelephoneLake

High

Firebag

Trout

Wallace

Steepbank

E3

B2

C1

E2

E1

A1

B1

E1a

500

550

450

600

400

650

600

550

550

550

600

500

650

550

600

650

550

650

65065

0

500

550

600

500

500

550

550

600

600

500

550

550

550

550

550

500

500

500

600

600

550

550

550

550

550

550

500

500

600

600

550

600

500

550

600

600

550

550

500

650

550

550

650

550

550

600

550

550

550

550

550

500

550

550

550

550

550

500

500

550

550

650

550

500

600

600

650

500

600

550

60055

0

550

550

550

600

500

550

550

550

500

600

550

550

550550

550

500

550

500

600

600

550

550

550

600

600

550

550

500

550

550

550

650

650

550

500

500

550

550

600

500

600

500

550

550

550

550

550

550

600

550

500

550

600

600

550

550

550

550

500

600

500

550

550

600

550

LegendAquatics LSA

Open Water

Watercourse

CatchmentABCDEFG

TopographyMajor Contour (50 m Interval)

Minor Contour (10 m Interval)

!( Hydrology Manual Streamflow Measurement

!( Hydrology Continuous Streamflow Monitoring

±


QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.4-2

KW

Fig07.04-02 LSA Monitor Sites11-11-22

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

UTM Zone 12 NAD83Hydrology Monitoring Locations

4 0 4 82

Kilometres1:300,000



Page 7-8

Additional data sources included:

• National Topographic System maps;

• site assessments conducted in April 2006; and

• streamflow measurements gathered at several locations within the PPA in spring, summer and fall of 2006 and winter 2007.

Water licensing and water use data were obtained from Alberta Environment and Water (AENV). 7.4.2 Computational Methods Baseline conditions for the Project have been defined based on recorded hydrological and meteorological data from local and regional monitoring stations. The methods are described in the following sections for each of the measurable parameters selected for hydrology. 7.4.2.1 Climate (Precipitation, Temperature and Evaporation/Evapotranspiration) Baseline climatic conditions in the ALSA were defined based on recorded year-round data from the Fort McMurray and Aurora climate monitoring stations, and seasonal (May to September) precipitation and temperature data from four regional fire lookout stations. Records for the Fort McMurray station, which is operated by the MSC (MSC 2011) date from 1944. The Aurora station, located in the Muskeg River watershed, has been in continuous operation since 1995 and is operated under the RAMP program (Husky 2004). The regional fire lookout stations have records of daily total precipitation and average daily temperature dating back to 1960. Long-term data from the Fort McMurray station have been compared to the shorter-term data for the Aurora station. For climate elements of air temperature and humidity, the Aurora data are very similar to the Fort McMurray data (Birch Mountain 2006). It was concluded that for these elements the long-term Fort McMurray data can be taken as representative of conditions within the ALSA. Seasonal daily total precipitation data from the fire lookout towers and the Fort McMurray and Aurora (Husky 2004) stations were used to develop a precipitation-elevation relationship that was used to transfer data from the long-term Fort McMurray station to the ALSA. Frequency analyses were conducted on monthly total precipitation data to estimate total precipitation amounts for events ranging between the 1:100 year return period dry month and the 1:100 year return period wet month.

7.4.2.2 Mean Annual Total Discharge and Runoff

Baseline conditions were defined based on recorded streamflow data from regional WSC monitoring stations (Water Survey of Canada 2011) and from the two temporary stations installed within the ALSA in April 2006. All of the long-term WSC streamflow monitoring stations have collected year-round flow and annual total discharge data. Since 1987, Station 07DC001 (Firebag River) has been operating on a seasonal basis (March to October).


Page 7-9

Regional comparisons of monthly, seasonal and annual total discharge were undertaken. Discharges were related on the basis of drainage area and used to estimate monthly, seasonal and annual discharges in ungauged watercourses within the ALSA. 7.4.2.3 Peak Discharges Flood frequency analyses were conducted on recorded annual maximum daily snowmelt and rainfall flows from the regional streamflow monitoring stations. The results were correlated on the basis of drainage area. Equations of the form

QRP = C * Ax

were developed for both snowmelt and rainfall events, where QRP is the peak flow for a given return period flood event, A is the drainage area of the catchment, and C and x are coefficients and exponents, respectively, resulting from the correlation. 7.4.2.4 Low Flows Regional winter low flow data is evaluated based on data from the WSC stations (Clearwater, Douglas, Descharme and Firebag rivers) and from winter manual streamflow measurements made at selected locations within the ALSA in February 2007. Since this data is limited, baseline low flows have also been evaluated qualitatively based on regional and local experience and anecdotal evidence. 7.4.2.5 Hydrological Assessment Nodes Baseline hydrological parameters were computed for the streamflow monitoring sites shown on Figure 7.4-2. Because most of the streamflow monitoring sites were not located within the PPA, assessment nodes were identified within or immediately downstream of the PPA for the hydrological impact assessment. Hydrological parameters were computed for each assessment node for the Baseline and Application Case assessments. 7.5 Baseline Case 7.5.1 Baseline Climate 7.5.1.1 Precipitation A mass curve of cumulative precipitation (Figure 7.5-1) shows that the cumulative precipitation at Aurora has been very similar to that at Fort McMurray over the 10-year common period of record, with approximately 0.1% difference between the cumulative totals at the two sites at the end of the 10-year period (Husky 2004). Syncrude Canada Ltd. (1996) compared regional long-term seasonal total precipitation data from the fire lookout stations with longer-term data from Fort McMurray and derived a relationship between annual total precipitation and elevation. This relationship was updated for this study using data to 2005 (Figure 7.5-2). Using the relationship between elevation and seasonal total precipitation, precipitation at the PPA (average elevation 516 masl) is estimated to be approximately 107% of the precipitation at Fort McMurray (369 masl).

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

01 P

reci

p C

ompa

rison

.mxd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-1

KW

Fig07.05-01 Precip Comparison11-11-21

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NAPrecipitation at Aurora and Fort

McMurray Climate Stations

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05

Date

Cum

ulat

ive

Prec

ipita

tion

(mm

)

Fort McMurray (MSC)Aurora Climate Station (RAMP)

Note: where Aurora Climate Station was missing precipitation data, it was assumed to be equal to precipitation at Fort McMurray.


Muskeg LO

Johnson Lake LO

Richardson LO

Bitumont LO

Fort McMurray

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

Summer (May-Aug) Total Precipitation (mm)

Elev

atio

n (m

asl)

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

02 P

reci

p C

orre

latio

n.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-2

KW

Fig07.05-02 Precip Correlation11-11-21

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NARegional Seasonal

Precipitation CorrelationCenovus TL ULCTelephone Lake Project


Page 7-12

Monthly and annual total precipitation amounts from Fort McMurray were adjusted for the elevation difference at the PPA and frequency analyses were conducted on the resultant precipitation totals. The results of the frequency analyses are provided in Table 7.5-1 and shown on Figure 7.5-3.

Table 7.5-1: Frequency Analyses on Adjusted Monthly and Annual Total Precipitation for the PPA

Period Adjusted Total Precipitation1 (mm)

100-Year Wet 10-Year Wet Average 10-Year Dry 100-Year DryJanuary 54.3 36.3 20.9 8.5 3.8 February 50.4 29.7 15.5 6.1 2.8 March 53.1 31.8 17.5 7.5 3.9 April 55.5 41.2 22.1 6.1 1.5 May 128.0 75.6 38.5 14.2 6.1 June 197.0 123.0 73.7 34.3 17.8 July 171.0 137.0 93.1 39.8 17.0 August 189.0 130.0 71.0 23.7 8.1 September 172.0 98.3 49.9 19.1 8. 7 October 95.0 57.0 29.5 8.4 0.0 November 68.1 41.1 23.0 10.1 5.4 December 56.1 36.5 22.3 10.5 5.9

Annual Total 723.0 613.0 477.0 358.0 275.01 Based on frequency analyses conducted on recorded mean monthly and mean annual total precipitation at

Fort McMurray adjusted to Elev. 516 masl. Records from the Fort McMurray station show that approximately 73% of the total annual precipitation occurs as rain, primarily during the summer and early fall (May to September) and approximately 27% as snow during the late fall to early spring (October to April). Maximum 24-hour precipitation data for the PPA were derived by transforming data from Fort McMurray to the PPA on the basis of elevation. The estimated 24-hour total precipitation results for the PPA are presented in Table 7.5-2.

Table 7.5-2: Adjusted Maximum 24-Hour Total Precipitation for the PPA

Return Period (years)

24-Hour Total Precipitation1

(mm) 24-Hour Precipitation Intensity

(mm/hr) 2 41.1 1.7 5 51.3 2.1 10 68.3 2.8 25 82.0 3.4 50 92.1 3.8 100 104.1 4.3

1 Based on intensity-duration-frequency curves for Fort McMurray adjusted to Elev. 516 masl.

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

03 P

reci

p Te

leph

one

Lake

.mxd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-3

KW

Fig07.05-03 Precip TelephoneLake 11-12-05

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NAEstimated Monthly and Annual Total

Precipitation in the PPACenovus TL ULCTelephone Lake Project

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Mon

thly

Tot

al P

reci

pita

tion

(mm

) 1:100 Year Wet1:10 Year WetAverage1:10 Year Dry1:100 Year Dry

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Year

Ann

ual T

otal

Pre

cipi

tatio

n (m

m)

1:100 Year Wet

1:10 Year WetAverage Year

1:10 Year Dry1:100 Year Dry


Page 7-14

7.5.1.2 Temperature

Daily mean temperatures recorded at the Aurora climate station and at Fort McMurray have been compared in previous studies (Husky 2004). Temperatures are generally comparable, and long-term temperature records for the Fort McMurray climate station are considered to be representative of temperatures at the PPA.

7.5.1.3 Evaporation and Evapotranspiration

Pan evaporation is not measured at either the Fort McMurray or Aurora climate stations. Lake evaporation data were estimated using the WREVAP evaporation model (Morton et al. 1985), which computes lake evaporation based on recorded climate data, including temperature, relative humidity, sunshine duration and global radiation. This model is generally accepted as an industry standard for calculating evaporation. The derived evaporation data are summarized in Table 7.5-3 and Figure 7.5-4.

Table 7.5-3: Estimated Lake Evaporation for the ALSA

Month Lake Evaporation1 (mm)

Depth = 1 m Depth = 2 m Depth = 5 m January -3 -3 -3 February -2 -3 -3 March 13 8 0 April 57 46 20 May 101 95 66 June 120 118 105 July 131 131 128 August 106 112 122 September 55 64 86 October 21 27 49 November -1 1 20 December -5 -4 -1

Annual Total 593 592 589 1 Negative values indicate condensation by which water vapour changes to liquid or

solid state. The total annual depth of evaporation does not change appreciably for different lake depths, but there are minor differences in the monthly pattern. Deeper lakes have more thermal mass. Hence, they are cooler in the spring (less evaporation) and warmer in the fall (more evaporation). Evapotranspiration values for Fort McMurray and regional projects (Synenco 2006) have been used to estimate the evapotranspiration values summarized in Table 7.5-4 and presented on Figure 7.5-4 for the ALSA.

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

04 E

vap

Tele

phon

e La

ke.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-4

KW

Fig07.05-04 Evap TelephoneLake 11-12-05

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NAEvaporation and Evapotranspiration

in the PPA

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170


Month

Mon

thly

Lak

e Ev

apor

atio

n (m

m)

1-m Deep Lake

2-m Deep Lake

5-m Deep Lake

Estimated using Morton evaporation model and climate data from 1953 to 2000

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170


Month

Mon

thly

Eva

potr

ansp

iratio

n (m

m)

Potential

Areal



Page 7-16

Table 7.5-4: Potential and Areal Evapotranspiration for the ALSA

Month Evapotranspiration1 (mm)Potential2 Areal3

January -2.2 -2.2 February 0.2 0.2 March 20.3 12.6 April 92.6 18.6 May 158.0 39.0 June 165.0 63.7 July 165.0 79.2 August 133.0 53.5 September 61.7 16.0 October 17.8 10.3 November -1.3 -1.3 December -2.3 -2.3

Annual Total 808.0 287.3 1 Negative values indicate condensation by which water vapour changes to liquid or solid state. 2 Potential evapotranspiration is the evapotranspiration that would occur from a very small area

with an unlimited supply of water. 3 Areal evapotranspiration is limited by water availability and the cooling effects of

evapotranspiration on the surrounding air.

7.5.2 Baseline Hydrology 7.5.2.1 Surface Water Drainage Patterns

The PPA and the ALSA are located in the headwaters area of the Firebag River. The Firebag River drains westward into the Athabasca River, approximately 56 km north of Fort McMurray. The Firebag River watershed is roughly circular in shape, and drains approximately 5,990 km2. The Marguerite River is the only major tributary to the Firebag River and accounts for approximately 28% of the watershed area (Sekerak and Walder 1980). The headwater tributary catchments within the ALSA are shown on Figures 7.2-1 and 7.2-2. The catchment drainage areas of the Firebag River headwater tributaries and the proportion of the Cenovus TL ULC (Cenovus) PPA within the tributary catchments are presented in Table 7.5-5.

Table 7.5-5: Catchment Areas for Sub-Basins in the ALSA

Catchment Total Drainage

Area (km2)

Area of Catchment Within the PPA

(km2) (%)

A 178 27.0 15.2 B 468 90.2 19.3 C 477 130.6 27.4 D 77 23.6 30.5 E 240 49.1 20.4 F 43 0.0 0.0 G 120 0.0 0.0


Page 7-17

Ground elevations vary from the high point of approximately 667 masl along the southern edge of the ALSA to approximately 400 masl at the northwest edge of the ALSA. The average ground surface gradient within the PPA is approximately 0.35%.

7.5.2.2 Regional Hydrological Information

As previously noted, there are no long-term historic streamflow data available within the ALSA. Hence, baseline hydrologic conditions were defined based in part on long-term recorded discharge data (WSC 2011) from the regional WSC streamflow monitoring stations listed in Table 7.4-1. Locations of the WSC stations are shown on Figure 7.4-1.

7.5.2.3 Local Hydrological Information

Field investigations were conducted to acquire site-specific data on hydrologic conditions within the ALSA. The first field investigation was conducted between 30 April and 3 May 2006. Manual streamflow measurements were conducted at several watercourses within the ALSA, and continuous operation water level monitoring stations were installed at two locations:

• Station B2, located near the mouth of a headwater tributary to the Firebag River in Sub-basin B; and

• Station E2, located on the main stem of the Firebag River just downstream of the ALSA. The locations of the hydrology monitoring sites are shown on Figure 7.4-2. Water level monitoring stations were installed to gather hydrologic data local to the PPA, and to provide a means to correlate current data to historical records. These stations were installed on 30 April 2006 and water levels were measured and recorded every 15 minutes. The stations were removed from the channels for the winter on 17 to 18 October 2006. Ice covers were beginning to form on the channels by that date. Manual streamflow measurements were conducted at the two water level monitoring stations on four occasions over the 2006 to 2007 monitoring period to provide the initial points on the channel rating curve relating water depth to discharge. Additional manual streamflow measurements were made at five additional sites over the open water flow period between April and October 2006. The locations of the manual streamflow measurement sites are shown on Figure 7.4-2. The results of the manual streamflow measurements are summarized in Table 7.5-6.


Page 7-18

Table 7.5-6: Manual Streamflow Measurements in the ALSA

Monitoring Site

Measured Discharge (m3/s)30 Apr. to

3 May 2006 1 to 3 Aug. 2006 17 to 19 Oct. 2006 22 to 26 Feb. 2007

A1 2.30 1.33 0.349 0.755 B1 0.944 0.977 NM1 NDF1 B2 3.90 4.20 0.643 0.074 C1 0.513 0.060 0.020 NDF E1 14.2 NM2 NM2 NM2 E1a NM 0.175 0.061 NDF E2 26.8 25.3 9.84 15.9 E3 NM2 12.8 6.61 2.04

1 NM indicates No Measurement; NDF indicates No Discernible Flow. 2 Site E1 discontinued after first measurement. Measurement location moved downstream to Site E3 that

provided better flow measurement characteristics in August 2006. Rating curves relating water level (stage) to discharge were developed for the two continuous streamflow monitoring stations using the results of the manual streamflow measurements. The rating curves for Stations B2 and E2 are shown on Figure 7.5-5. The rating curves and the recorded water levels from the two continuous water level monitoring stations were used to compute mean hourly and mean daily discharges in the channels. The resulting hydrographs for the 2006 monitoring season are shown on Figure 7.5-6. Mean daily water levels and mean daily discharges for Stations B2 and E2 are presented in Volume 3, Appendix E. The peak mean daily discharge of 120 m3/s recorded at the WSC Firebag River Station on 16 July 2006 (Figure 7.5-6) was the eleventh highest mean daily discharge recorded at the station over the 30-year period of record and has an estimated return period of approximately 5 years. Overall, 2006 had higher than average discharges. As shown on Figure 7.5-6, the recorded hydrographs at Stations B2 and E2 follow the hydrograph recorded at the downstream WSC station fairly closely. All three hydrographs show a snowmelt peak during the first week of May, followed by streamflow recession until the rainfall runoff peak in mid-July and a smaller rainfall peak in early September. Unit discharges (daily mean discharge divided by catchment drainage area) from Stations B2 and E2 and the active WSC stations (Firebag River and Douglas River) for the 2006 monitoring season were compared (Figure 7.5-7). It was determined that:

• Douglas River is generally less responsive to rainfall runoff events than the watercourses in the Firebag River watershed, as evidenced by the generally attenuated unit discharge curve shown on Figure 7.5-7. This is due to lesser topographical relief and more lake storage in the Douglas River watershed than in the Firebag River watershed;

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

05 R

atin

g C

urve

s.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-5

KW

Fig07.05-05 Rating Curves11-11-22

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NARating Curves for Stations B2 and E2

Rating Curve for Tributary to Firebag River at Site B2

97.7

97.9

98.1

98.3

98.5

98.7

98.9

99.1

99.3

99.5

99.7

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

Discharge (m3/s)

Wat

er S

urfa

ce E

leva

tion

(m)

Discharge Measurements

Rating Curve (Water Levels => 98.6 m)

Rating Curve (Water Levels < 98.6 m)

Notes:1. Local benchmark at assumed elevation of 100.0 m.2. Power portion of rating curve applicable for discharge less than 6.0m3/s or water surface elevation less than 98.6m.3. Linear portion of rating curve applicable for discharge equal to or greater than 6.0m3/s or water surface elevation equal to or greater than 98.6m.4. Additional discharge measurements (especially at higher discharges) would help to define the rating curve with greater certainty for discharges above 4.2m3/s .

y = 98.3x0.0017

y = 0.0242x+98.456

Rating Curve for Firebag River at Site E2

98.0

98.2

98.4

98.6

98.8

99.0

99.2

99.4

99.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Discharge (m3/s)

Wat

er S

urfa

ce E

leva

tion

(m)

Discharge Measurements

Rating Curve (Water Levels => 98.87 m)

Rating Curve (Water Levels < 98.87 m)

y = 98.29x0.0018

y = 0.00855x+98.644

Notes:1. Local benchmark at assumed elevation of 100.0 m.2. Power portion of rating curve applicable for discharges less than 26.8 m3/s and water surface elevations less than 98.87 m.3. Linear portion of rating curve applicable for discharges greater than or equal to 26.8 m3/s and water surface elevations greater than or equal to 98.87 m.4. Additional discharge measurements (especially at higher discharges) required to define the rating curve with greater certainty for discharges above 26.8 m3/s.


Rating Curve for Tributary to Firebag River at Station B2

Rating Curve for Firebag River at Station E2

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

06 D

aily

Dis

char

ge.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-6

KW

Fig07.05-06 Daily Discharge11-11-22

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NARecorded 2006 Hydrographs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

30-A

pr

7-M

ay

14-M

ay

21-M

ay

28-M

ay

4-Ju

n

11-J

un

18-J

un

25-J

un

2-Ju

l

9-Ju

l

16-J

ul

23-J

ul

30-J

ul

6-Au

g

13-A

ug

20-A

ug

27-A

ug

3-Se

p

10-S

ep

17-S

ep

24-S

ep

1-O

ct

8-O

ct

15-O

ct

Mea

n D

aily

Dis

char

ge (m

3 /s)

Station B2

Station E2

WSC Station 07DC001


S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

07 U

nit D

isch

arge

.mxd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-7

KW

Fig07.05-07 Unit Discharge11-11-21

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NAUnit Discharges for 2006

Monitoring Season

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

1-May

15-M

ay

29-M

ay

12-Ju

n

26-Ju

n

10-Ju

l

24-Ju

l

7-Aug

21-A

ug

4-Sep

18-S

ep

2-Oct

16-O

ct

30-O

ctU

nit D

isch

arge

(m3 /s

/km

2 )

WSC 07DC001 - Firebag RiverWSC 07MA003 - Douglas RiverStation B2Station E2



Page 7-22

• the unit discharge rates for the two continuous streamflow monitoring stations on the main stem of the Firebag River (Station E2 and WSC 07DC001 – Firebag River near the Mouth) are very similar over the entire monitoring season except during the July peak flow events, when Station E2 has higher unit discharge rates. This is as expected, as smaller watersheds typically have higher unit discharge rates than larger watersheds for similar peak flow events;

• Station B2, which has the smallest drainage area of all four stations, displays the highest unit discharge rates of all the stations during the July peak flow events. As noted above, higher unit discharge rates are expected in smaller watersheds for the same or similar peak flow events; and

• unit discharge rates at Station B2 are generally lower than at the other monitoring sites. This reflects the lowland characteristics of the catchment upstream of Station B2. Higher unit discharges at Station E2 and the Firebag River WSC station reflect higher runoff from the mountainous areas in the headwaters of these catchments.

7.5.2.4 Monthly and Annual Total Discharges and Runoff

Mean monthly discharge data were obtained for the WSC stations listed in Table 7.4-1. Minimum, average and maximum mean monthly discharges were plotted from the historical records, as shown on Figure 7.5-8. Annually, flows increase in March or April due to snowmelt and peak in May. Summer low flows occur in late summer (August or September) and rainfall in the fall maintains or increases flows slightly before flows recede to their annual low flows in February or March. Mean monthly discharges recorded at the Clearwater River at the Outlet of Lloyd Lake (WSC Station 07CD006) and Descharme River Below Dupre Lake (WSC Station 07CD007) are attenuated by the effects of lake storage immediately upstream and are, therefore, not considered to be representative of summer flow conditions in watercourses within the ALSA. On an annual basis, however, total discharges are comparable, as demonstrated on Figure 7.5-9, which plots mean annual total discharge and mean annual runoff against catchment drainage area. Mean seasonal total discharge and runoff data are summarized in Table 7.5-7 for the WSC stations.

Table 7.5-7: Mean Annual Total Discharge and Runoff Data for Regional WSC Stations

Station Name Drainage Area(km2)

Mean Annual Total Discharge(dam3)

Mean Annual Runoff(mm)

Clearwater River1 4,250 754,200 177 Descharme River1 1,690 309,600 183 Firebag River 5,990 915,500 153 Douglas River 1,690 321,500 190

1 Stations discontinued in 1995.

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

08 H

isto

rical

Mea

n D

isch

arge

.mxd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-8

KW

Fig07.05-08 Historical MeanDischarge 11-11-21

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NA

Historical Mean Monthly Dischargesat Regional Streamflow

Monitoring Stations

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMinimum 11.6 9.1 8.2 9.1 27.6 20.7 17.1 14.7 11.3 11.2 12.4 13.4Average 17.5 16.1 15.5 19.2 34.5 33.2 28.4 24.2 22.6 23.5 21.3 19.5Maximum 22.8 21.4 20.4 25.4 41.5 42.0 38.8 35.3 29.6 33.6 29.4 25.4

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0M

ean

Mon

thly

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

WSC Station 07CD006 - Clearwater River at the Outlet of Lloyd LakeMean Monthly Historical Discharge (1973-1995)

Minimum

Average

Maximum


0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Mea

n M

onth

ly D

isch

arge

(m

3 /s)

WSC Station 07CD007 - Descharme River Below Dupre LakeMean Monthly Historical Discharge (1977-1995)

Minimum

Average

Maximum


0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Mea

n M

onth

ly D

isch

arge

(m

3 /s)

WSC Station 07CD001 - Firebag River near the MouthMean Monthly Historical Discharge (1971-2010)

Minimum

Average

Maximum


0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Mea

n M

onth

ly D

isch

arge

(m

3 /s)

WSC Station 07MA003 - Douglas River Near Cluff LakeMean Monthly Historical Discharge (1975-2010)

Minimum

Average

Maximum


S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

09 D

isch

arge

Run

off C

orre

latio

n.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-9

KW

Fig07.05-09 Discharge RunoffCorrelation 11-11-21

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NARegional Correlations of Seasonal and

Annual Total Discharge and Runoff

Clearwater River

Descharme River

Firebag River

Douglas River

y = 488.62x0.8712

R2 = 0.9936

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10 100 1,000 10,000

Drainage Area (km2)

Mea

n A

nnua

l Tot

al D

isch

arge

(dam

3 )

Clearwater River

Descharme River

Firebag River

Douglas River

y = -0.0071x + 199.59R2 = 0.8664

10

100

1,000

10 100 1,000 10,000

Drainage Area (km2)

Mea

n A

nnua

l Run

off (

mm

)

Comparison of Seasonal Runoff

y = -0.0041x + 103.31

y = -0.0045x + 136.19

1

10

100

1000

10 100 1,000 10,000

Drainage Area (km²)

Seas

onal

Run

off (

mm

)

2006 May-Sept Runoff

Firebag and Douglas Rivers Historical May-Sept Runoff

Descharme and Clearwater Rivers Historical May-Sept Runoff

WSC (All Stations) Mar-Oct Runoff

B2

E2

Fire

bag

Riv

er

Des

char

me

Riv

erD

ougl

as R

iver

Cle

arw

ater

Riv

er



Page 7-25

Seasonal data recorded at Stations B2 and E2 during the 2006 monitoring season were compared to data collected at the Firebag River and Douglas River WSC stations for the same period. It was found that flows along the mainstem of the Firebag River (Station E2) were slightly above historical averages for the period of May to September 2006. In contrast, flows recorded over the same period at Station B2 were below expected values. As Catchment B (Figure 7.2-2) is generally flatter than the catchments further east along the east edge of the ALSA, Station B2 is more representative of lowland conditions than Station E2 and is, therefore, expected to have less runoff. Baseline annual total discharges and runoff from the catchments within the ALSA were computed at selected locations within the ALSA. The monitoring site locations are shown on Figure 7.4-2 and the results are summarized in Table 7.5-8.

Table 7.5-8: Estimated Annual Total Discharge and Runoff for Catchments in the ALSA

Monitoring Site

Drainage Area (km2)

Estimated Annual Total Discharge(dam3)

Estimated Annual Runoff(mm)

A1 178 35,300 198 B1 107 21,300 199 B2 411 80,800 197 C1 19.2 3,830 199 E1a 25.1 5,000 199 E2 2,840 409,600 179 E3 1,850 344,900 186

In the Firebag River, approximately 82% of the total annual discharge occurs during the period of April to October. In the Douglas River, discharges over the same period represent only 69% of the annual total discharge, and in the Clearwater River and Descharme River, seasonal discharges represent 68% and 65% of the annual total discharge, respectively. As the ALSA is located entirely within the Firebag River basin, it is estimated that approximately 82% of annual total discharges in the ALSA occur over the period of April to October. 7.5.2.5 Peak Discharges Regionally, annual peak discharges typically occur in April or May due to snowmelt, with high discharges sustained through July due to basin storage and early summer rain. Peak flows can also occur in late summer (August and September) due to rainfall events. Annual maximum daily discharges recorded at the WSC stations listed in Table 7.4-1 are presented on Figure 7.5-10. The Firebag River near the Mouth station (Station 07DC001) recorded the highest flood event over the available period of record in 1985. Lesser floods occurred in 1979, 1989, 2005, 2008, and 2009. At the Douglas River near Cluff Lake station, the highest maximum daily discharge of record was recorded in 1985; lesser floods occurred in 1992, 1995, 1997 and 2005. The attenuating effects of upstream lakes on peak discharges in Clearwater River and Descharme River can be seen on Figure 7.5-10 that shows much less variability of annual maximum daily discharges from year to year in these two watersheds.

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

10 H

isto

rical

Max

Dis

char

ge.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-10

KW

Fig07.05-10 Historical MaxDischarge 11-11-21

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NAHistorical Regional AnnualMaximum Daily Discharges

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Annu

al M

axim

um D

aily

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /s

)

WSC Station 07CD006 - Clearwater River at the Outlet of Lloyd Lake(1974-1994)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Annu

al M

axim

um D

aily

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /s

)

WSC Station 07CD007 - Descharme River Below Dupre Lake(1979-1994)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

Annu

al M

axim

um D

aily

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

WSC Station 07DC001 - Firebag River near the Mouth(1975-2010)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Annu

al M

axim

um D

aily

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

WSC Station 07MA003 - Douglas River Near Cluff Lake(1976-2010)



Page 7-27

Peak discharges in the Firebag and Douglas rivers are consistently higher than in the Descharme and Clearwater rivers over the range of return periods considered. Because the peak flow characteristics of catchments within the ALSA are best represented by the Firebag River and Douglas River watersheds, only data from the Firebag River and Douglas River stations were used to derive regional drainage area – peak discharge relationships. In large watersheds, peak discharges generated from rainfall runoff are smaller than the peak discharges generated from snowmelt runoff, whereas in small watersheds rainfall runoff peak discharges are larger than snowmelt runoff peak discharges. This is because intense storm events producing heavy precipitation and resultant flooding are typically localized; whereas, snowpack and factors affecting rate of snowmelt (temperature, etc.) are less variable on a larger regional basis. Hence, regional relationships were developed separately for rainfall and snowmelt flood events. The coefficients derived for the snowmelt and rainfall flood discharge relations shown on Figure 7.5-11 are presented in Table 7.5-9.

Table 7.5-9: Regional Flood Discharge Relationships Flood Return Period (years)

Regression CoefficientC

Regression Exponent X

Rainfall Flood Events100 0.0128 1.1368 10 0.0017 1.3183 2 0.0005 1.3907

Snowmelt Flood Events100 0.0060 1.2119 10 0.0069 1.1447 2 0.0091 1.0427

Maximum daily snowmelt and rainfall flood discharges were computed at selected locations within the ALSA. The monitoring site locations are shown on Figure 7.4-2 as either manual streamflow measurement or continuous streamflow monitoring locations and the results are summarized in Table 7.5-10.

Table 7.5-10: Flood Discharges for Watercourses in the ALSA Flood Discharges (m3/s) for Snowmelt Events

Monitoring Site

Drainage Area (km2)

2-Year Return Period



A1 178 2.020 2.600 3.200 B1 107 1.190 1.450 1.730 B2 411 4.840 6.780 8.830 C1 19.2 0.198 0.203 0.215 E1a 25.1 0.262 0.276 0.298 E2 2,840 36.300 61.900 91.900 E3 1,850 23.200 37.900 54.700

Flood Discharges (m3/s) for Rainfall EventsMonitoring Site

Drainage Area (km2)




A1 178 0.674 1.570 4.630 B1 107 0.332 0.800 2.600 B2 411 2.160 4.750 12.000 C1 19.2 0.030 0.084 0.368 E1a 25.1 0.044 0.119 0.499 E2 2,840 31.700 60.700 108.000 E3 1,850 17.500 34.500 66.300

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

11 F

lood

Dis

char

ge.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-11

KW

Fig07.05-11 Flood Discharge11-12-05

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NARegional Flood DischargesCenovus TL ULC

Telephone Lake Project

REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF SNOWMELT FLOOD EVENTS(Regressions using Firebag and Douglas River Data only)

y = 0.006x1.2119

y = 0.0069x1.1447

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10 100 1000 10000

DRAINAGE AREA (km2)

MA

XIM

UM

DA

ILY

DIS

CH

AR

GE

(m3 /s

)100 Year

10 Year

2 Year

y = 0.0091x1.0427

Regional Analysis of Rainfall Flood Events(Regressions using Firebag and Douglas River Data only)

y = 0.0128x1.1368

y = 0.0017x1.3183

y = 0.0005x1.3907

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10 100 1000 10000

Drainage Area (km2)

Max

imum

Dai

ly D

isch

arge

(m3 /s

)

100 Year

10 Year

2 Year


Page 7-29

7.5.2.6 Low Flows

Minimum daily and monthly mean discharges recorded by WSC in the larger regional watersheds are summarized in Table 7.5-11.

Table 7.5-11: Recorded Minimum Daily Discharges at WSC Stations

Station Name Minimum Mean Daily

Discharge for Period of Record (m3/s)

Minimum Mean Monthly Discharge for Period of

Record (m3/s)

7Q10 Discharge (m3/s)

Clearwater River 7.86 (26 March 1982) 8.2 (March 1982) 11.50 Descharme River 5.03 (14 January 1994) 5.5 (February 1993) 5.62 Firebag River 4.24 (25 October 1981) 5.7 (March 1982) 5.91 Douglas River 3.00 (26 February 1979) 3.0 (March 1979) 3.68

Minimum mean daily discharges recorded at the regional streamflow monitoring stations are presented on Figure 7.5-12, which shows that minimum daily discharges for sites located downstream of lakes are much higher than in watercourses without similar upstream surface storage. The drainage areas upstream of the regional WSC stations are much greater than the drainage areas upstream of the monitoring locations within the ALSA and the rivers monitored by WSC have documented flow throughout the year. In smaller catchments, such as the Firebag River headwater tributaries in the ALSA, channels could be frozen to the bed over the winter period. The winter under-ice flow measurements undertaken in 2007, shown on Figure 7.5-12, are, therefore, used as a guide to the size of catchment in which zero winter flows could be expected. The results of the winter flow measurements are summarized in Table 7.5-12.

Table 7.5-12: Winter Discharge Measurements at the ALSA

Monitoring Site

Upstream Drainage Area (km2)

February 2007 Measured Discharge(m3/s)

Measured Unit Discharge(m3/s/km2)

A1 178 0.858 0.0050 B1 107 NDF1 0.0000 B2 411 0.084 0.0002 C1 19.2 NDF 0.0000 E1a 25.1 NDF 0.0000 E2 2,840 18.0 0.0060 E3 1,850 2.04 0.0010

1 NDF = No Discernible Flow. Based on the results of regional streamflow data and the winter streamflow monitoring investigation, minimum stream discharges will occur during the winter months and are likely to be zero in channels with drainage areas of less than 25 km2.

Winter 2006 Discharges at Monitoring Sites

y = 2E-06x1.9206

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000

Drainage Area (km2)

Min

imum

Mea

n D

aily

Dis

char

ge (m

3 /s)

Winter 2006 Measured Streamflow

B2

A1

E2

E3

B1CE1a

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE

0339

901_

Tele

phon

eLak

e_E

IA\A

rcG

IS\A

pplic

atio

nRep

ortF

igur

es\V

olum

e 02

Sec

tion

07 -

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

12 L

ow F

low

Dis

char

ge.m

xd

Source: Cenovus.

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-12

KW

Fig07.05-12 Low Flow Discharge11-11-21

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

NALow Flow Discharges

Minimum Stream Discharges at WSC Stations

y = 0.3932x0.2734

y = 0.1378x0.484

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

10 100 1000 10000

Drainage Area (km2)

Min

imum

Mea

n D

aily

Dis

char

ge (m

3 /s)

Non-Lake Affected Watercourses

Lake Affected Watercourses

Douglas

Descharme

Clearwater

Firebag



Page 7-31

7.5.2.7 Open Water Areas

The principal surface water body in the ALSA is Telephone Lake, located along the northwest boundary of the PPA. Telephone Lake has a surface area of approximately 90 ha. The maximum observed lake depth is 2.1 m. There are no bathymetry (lake bed contours) or storage volume data available for the lake.

7.5.2.8 Existing Water Licences

Data for existing groundwater and surface water licences in the Firebag River watershed presented in Table 7.5-13 were obtained from AENV. The locations of the licenced withdrawals points are shown on Figure 7.5-13.

7.5.3 Baseline Summary

The baseline hydrological characteristics for the hydrology streamflow measurement and continuous streamflow monitoring sites shown on Figure 7.4-2 are summarized in Table 7.5-14.

7.6 Application Case

Hydrological impacts of the Project may arise from:

• construction and operation of pads, plant site and linear (roads, pipelines) facilities;

• subsurface operations; and

• water consumption during construction and operation of the Project. The potential hydrological impacts of the Project are assessed and quantified for specific locations within the ALSA and ARSA in the following sections. The locations of the hydrology assessment nodes are shown on Figure 7.6-1. Methods for monitoring and mitigating the impacts are described below.


Page 7-32

Table 7.5-13: Existing Water Licences in the ALSA

Approval ID Interim License # Approval Name Use1 Effective

Date Expiry Date Source Allocation

Volume (m3)

Location

Groundwater Licenses

00156685-00-00 00156685 00 00 Office/Suncor Energy (Oil Sands) SOTHER 05-Nov-01 04-Nov-11 Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 730 NW 1-95-6-W4M

00233808-00-00 00233808 00 00 Injection/Suncor Energy Inc. INJECTN 25-Sep-06 24-Sep-16 Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 620,500 NE 11-95-6-W4M

00208894-00-00 00208894 00 00 00208894 00 01

Suncor Energy Inc. CAMPS 07-Jul-2004 06-Jul-2014 Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 365,000 NE 11-95-6-W4M SW 14-95-6-W4M

00237661-00-00 00237661 00 00 Industrial/Suncor Energy Inc. SOTHER 22-Feb-07 21-Feb-17 Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 18,250 SW 13-95-6-W4M

00240806-00-00 00240806 00 00 Industrial/Suncor Energy Inc - F00237661 SOTHER 08-Aug-07 21-Feb-17 Unnamed Aquifer - Potable 127,750 SW 13-95-6-W4M

00151147-00-00 00151147 00 00 Camp/Suncor Energy (Oil Sand) CAMPS 06-Sep-01 05-Sep-11 Unnamed Aquifer - Unclassified 36,500 11-95-6-W4M

Surface Water Licenses

00159019-00-00 00159019 00 00 00159019 00 01

Oil Extraction/Suncor Firebag - F00159019 (Oil Sands)

GAS/PTRO 08-Jan-02 08-Jan-12 North Steepbank River 95,000 NE 11-95-6-W4M

00253054-00-00 00253054 00 00 00253054 00 01

Suncor Energy Inc. INDUSTRIAL 06-Feb-2009 06-Feb-2019 Surface Runoff 250,000 SW 13-95-6-W4M NE 14-95-6-W4M NW 12-95-6-W4M

1 Use is as listed by Alberta Environment. “SOTHER” is for other purposes (could be recreation, habitat, drainage, etc.), “INJECTN” is for well injection, and “CAMPS” is for camp domestic water use.

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE0

3399

01_T

elep

hone

Lake

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

ume

02 S

ectio

n 07

- Su

rface

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.05-

13 W

ater

Lic

ense

s.m

xd

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#* #*#*#*

#*


TWP 95TWP 94

TWP 93TWP 92

RGE 1 W4 RGE 25 W3

TWP 97TWP 96

River

Creek

River

Creek

River

Hill

Saskat chewan

Alb ert a

OtterLakes

TelephoneLake

High

Firebag

Trout

Wallace

Steepbank

00253054-00-00

00253054-00-00

00253054-00-00

00156685-00-00

00237661-00-00

00233808-00-00

00151147-00-00

00253054-00-00

00208894-00-00

00208894-00-00

00240806-00-00

LegendAquatics LSA

Open Water

Watercourse

#*License Number(See Table 7.5-13 for License Details)

±

Source: Cenovus, © Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved,Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd., Suncor

QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.5-13

KW

Fig07.05-13 Water Licenses11-12-05

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

UTM Zone 12 NAD83Water Licenses

4 0 4 82

Kilometres1:300,000



Page 7-34

Table 7.5-14: Summary of Hydrological Characteristics at Streamflow Measurement and Monitoring Locations

Monitoring Site

Drainage Area

Mean Annual Total Discharge

Mean Annual Runoff

Maximum Daily Flood Discharges for Snowmelt Events

(m3/s)

Maximum Daily Flood Discharges for Rainfall Events

(m3/s)

7Q10 Low Flows

(km2) (dam3) (mm) 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year (m3/s)A1 178 35,300 198 2.020 2.600 3.200 0.674 1.570 4.630 0.007 B1 107 21,300 199 1.190 1.450 1.730 0.332 0.800 2.600 0.003 B2 411 80,800 197 4.840 6.780 8.830 2.160 4.750 12.000 0.034 C1 19.2 3,830 199 0.198 0.203 0.215 0.030 0.084 0.368 0.000 E1a 25.1 5,000 199 0.262 0.276 0.298 0.044 0.119 0.499 0.000 E2 2,840 409,600 179 36.300 61.900 91.900 31.700 60.700 108.000 1.380 E3 1,850 344,900 186 23.200 37.900 54.700 17.500 34.500 66.300 0.606

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Cen

ovus

\CE0

3399

01_T

elep

hone

Lake

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

ume

02 S

ectio

n 07

- Su

rface

Wat

er Q

uant

ity\F

ig07

.06-

01 A

LS

A N

odes

.mxd

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(


TWP 95TWP 94

TWP 93TWP 92

RGE 1 W4 RGE 25 W3

TWP 97TWP 96

River

Creek

River

Creek

River

Hill

Saskat chewan

Alb ert a

Trib

. A

Trib. B

OtterLakes

TelephoneLake

High

Firebag

Trout

Wallace

Steepbank

Cb

Cc

Da

Ca

E2Legend

Aquatics LSA

Telephone Lake Project Footprint

Open Water

Watercourse

CatchmentABCDEFG

!( Hydrology Assessment Node

±


QA/QC:

KW

December 2011

CE0339901PROJECT:

ANALYST:

Figure7.6-1

KW

Fig07.06-01 A LSA Nodes11-11-22

DATE:


AMEC

PROJECTION/DATUM:

UTM Zone 12 NAD83Hydrology Assessment Nodes

Application Case

4 0 4 82

Kilometres1:300,000



Page 7-36

7.6.1 Surface Facilities

Figure 7.6-1 shows the maximum Project footprint (without progressive reclamation) overlying the catchment boundaries. Pertinent features of the surface facilities within the PPA include:

• total land disturbance of 1,606 ha, of which 59.3 ha (approximately 3.7%) is on previously disturbed land. The net increase in disturbed areas due to the Project is 1,547 ha;

• a 256 ha central processing facility (CPF) for the full development;

• a 16 ha construction camp;

• total pad area of 615 ha;

• 18 ha as a Project laydown area;

• approximately 505 ha of linear development, including 40 ha for the 100 m wide main access right-of-way (ROW) and 465 ha for Project ROW (typically 58 m wide) for internal roads, pipelines and utility lines; and

• one water source well located near the CPF to withdraw from the Quaternary aquifer for construction and domestic water use.

Facility layout plans have utilized existing disturbed areas wherever possible to reduce total disturbances in the ALSA. Expected disturbances within the PPA are summarized for the catchment area upstream of each node in Table 7.6-1. Total areas of disturbance due to the Project as a percentage of drainage area upstream of selected study nodes (shown on Figure 7.6-1) range from 2.8% at Node Cc to 10.4% at Node Ca. In the Firebag River watershed, the surficial disturbance due to the Project is 0.1% of the upstream drainage area at Node E2 (located at the continuous streamflow monitoring Station E2). The most critical watercourse from a hydrological impacts perspective is Tributary A of Catchment C (shown on Figure 7.6-1), which has the greatest proportion of disturbance resulting from the Project. Stormwater runoff from the pads, construction camp and the plant site will be collected in stormwater ponds or collection areas. The quality of the collected runoff water will be tested and, if meeting minimum water quality criteria, will be discharged to surface watercourses. Collected runoff water not meeting minimum water quality criteria for discharge may be diverted to the process water stream.


Page 7-37

Table 7.6-1: Summary of Disturbances

Node Stream Name Drainage Area Upstream of Node (km2)

Disturbed Areas within the ALSA (km2) Percentage of Drainage Area Disturbed (%)

Baseline1

(Existing) Baseline + Project

Baseline (Existing) Conditions

Project Disturbances

Baseline + Project Disturbances

Ca Catchment C Tributary A 50.0 0.64 5.87 1.3 10.4 11.7 Cb Catchment C Tributary B 112 1.31 7.17 1.2 5.2 6.4 Cc Catchment C at the Mouth 554 8.82 24.29 1.6 2.8 4.4 Da Catchment D at the Mouth 77.1 1.71 6.10 2.2 5.7 7.9 E2 Firebag River Downstream of ALSA 2,843 518.45 533.92 18.2 0.5 18.8

1 Baseline disturbances include industrial/cleared areas, seismic lines, roads and trails, wellsites, existing rights-of-way, and recently burned (forest fire) areas.


Page 7-38

7.6.2 Watercourse Crossings

Thirteen pipeline and access road crossings of identified surface water channels will be required for the Project, including eleven watercourse crossings in Catchment C (Figure 7.6-1) and two watercourse crossings in Catchment D. Pipeline crossings will be installed in accordance with AENV’s Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunications Lines Crossing a Water Body (AENV 2003a). The crossing method, either trenchless or with flow isolation, will be determined based on the channel classification and as deemed appropriate based on local fisheries and fish habitat considerations. Volume 2, Section 9.0 identifies all the crossings associated with the Project as being on Class C watercourses, and prescribes flow isolation techniques to be used for construction at all crossings. The type of road crossings, either culverts or bridges, will be determined based on the stream classification and to minimize the potential impacts of the crossings. Road crossings will be installed in accordance with AENV’s Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (AENV 2003b).

7.6.3 Water Sourcing and Impacts of Water Use

Water for the Project will be sourced from the Quaternary aquifer (for domestic/camp use and construction) and the McMurray topwater zone (steam generation and plant utility water). No water will be sourced from surface water bodies. Estimated water requirements for the Project are provided in Volume 1, Section 7.0. Water withdrawals from the Quaternary aquifer for domestic/camp use will occur for the lifetime of the Project. The impacts of groundwater withdrawals from the Quaternary aquifer on surface water bodies are dependent on the proximity of the source well to a surface water body, the depth and extent of the cone of depression around the well, and the estimated reduction in muskeg interflow to the surface channel. The location of the Quaternary water well is not yet fixed. However, the hydrogeological impact investigation (Volume 2, Section 6.6) does not anticipate any appreciable effect on discharges in local watercourses due to Quaternary water withdrawals. The effects, if any, will be examined during the Alberta Water Act licensing process for the well, once located. There is no direct hydraulic connection between the surface water system and the Middle McMurray topwater zone (Volume 2, Section 6.6). Hence, no surface water impacts are anticipated as a result of groundwater withdrawals from the top water zone.

7.6.4 Impacts of Subsurface Operations

The results of hydrogeological analyses indicate that no surface water impacts are anticipated as a result of subsurface operations (Volume 2, Section 6.6).


Page 7-39

7.6.5 Impacts on Annual Total Discharge and Total Runoff

Clearing of vegetation and construction of infrastructure (roads, well pads, pipelines and plant site) for the Project will affect surface water runoff and infiltration rates and hence will result in changes to total runoff to and discharges in streams. The magnitude of these changes has been based on the areal extent and nature of changes that are expected to occur. The impacts of the Project have been quantitatively assessed by altering the runoff coefficients for the disturbed areas to reflect the altered runoff characteristics. The runoff coefficients applied in the total runoff assessment are provided in Table 7.6-2.

Table 7.6-2: Curve Numbers for Disturbed Areas

Disturbance Type Runoff Coefficient Cleared (e.g., pipeline ROW) Gravel Surface (e.g., roads and pads) Industrial Areas (e.g., plant site)

0.50 0.63 0.72

The impacts have been quantified for the complete Project build-up (i.e., full plant site development and 90 well pads) and the following assumptions:

• progressive reclamation is not undertaken, resulting in a maximum well pad disturbance of 90 pads. This is a conservative (worst case) assumption; and

• runoff from the pads and central facility (plant site, camp, etc.) is captured in stormwater runoff ponds included in the disturbance footprint.

The impacts of the Project on annual total discharge and total runoff for the assessment nodes are summarized in Table 7.6-3.

Table 7.6-3: Impacts of Surface Facilities on Annual Total Discharge and Annual Total Runoff

Node Stream Name Annual Total Discharge Annual Total Runoff

Baseline(dam3)

Application(dam3)

Change(%)

Baseline (mm)

Application(mm)

Change(%)

Ca Catchment C Tributary A 10,000 10,600 5.8 200 212 5.8 Cb Catchment C Tributary B 22,400 23,000 2.7 199 205 2.7 Cc Catchment C at the Mouth 108,700 110,400 1.6 196 199 1.6 Da Catchment D at the Mouth 15,400 16,000 3.4 200 207 3.4 E2 Firebag River Downstream

of ALSA 520,800 522,800 0.4 183 184 0.4

The impacts of the Project on mean annual runoff at the assessment nodes in the ALSA are expected to range from low to moderate.


Page 7-40

7.6.6 Impacts on Peak Flows Peak flows in surface channels may also be affected by clearing of vegetation and construction of infrastructure. Times of concentration for developed areas are typically reduced and the proportion of runoff is typically higher from disturbed or developed areas than from natural areas, which can increase peak flows above pre-development conditions. However, runoff from areas with low times of concentration (e.g., CPF and well pads) will be captured and detained for testing prior to release, which will attenuate (reduce) peak flows. The magnitude of these possible peak flow changes has been based on the areal extent and nature of changes that are expected to occur in each catchment. The impacts have been quantified for the complete Project build-up (i.e., full CPF development and maximum pads) and the following conservative assumptions:

• progressive reclamation is not undertaken, resulting in a maximum well pad disturbance; and

• runoff from the pads and the CPF is captured in stormwater runoff ponds. The pad and plant site stormwater ponds will be sized to capture the runoff from the 1:10 year 24-hour duration storm event or as directed under the terms and conditions of any approvals for the Project.

The impacts of the Project on the 1:10 year and 1:100 year peak flows for the assessment nodes are summarized in Table 7.6-4.

Table 7.6-4: Impacts of Surface Facilities on Peak Flows

Node Stream Name 1:10 Year Peak Flow 1:100 Year Peak Flow

Baseline(m3/s)

Project(m3/s)

Change (%)

Baseline (m3/s)

Project (m3/s)

Change (%)

Ca Catchment C Tributary A 3.70 3.65 0.7 11.6 12.8 7.7 Cb Catchment C Tributary B 9.71 9.84 -1.4 30.1 31.9 4.1 Cc Catchment C at the Mouth 14.50 14.50 1.3 45.5 46.7 1.7 Da Catchment D at the Mouth 5.51 5.48 0.6 17.1 18.1 4.7 E2 Firebag River Downstream of

ALSA 31.50 31.70 -0.5 97.5 98.3 0.6

To be conservative, the stormwater ponds at the pads and CPF have been assumed to have the capacity capture flows up to the 1:10 year 24-hour duration rainfall event. Due to the resultant flood peak attenuation at the pads, borrow pits and central plant site, the impacts of the Project on the 10-year return period peak flows are expected to be low in all watercourses. Due to the cumulative attenuation of flood peaks at the well pads and the CPF, flood peaks at the downstream end of the ALSA (Node E2) are expected to be very slightly (0.5%) lower than for pre-development conditions.


Page 7-41

Because the stormwater facilities at the pads and CPF were assumed be designed for the 1:10 year event, only partial attenuation is afforded to the 1:100 year return period event. The estimated impacts of the Project on the 100-year return period flood events are, therefore, higher than for the 10-year event and are expected to range from low to moderate. Flood events up to and including the 1:10 year return period event, which would include channel forming discharges with return periods of between 5 and 10 years, are not measurably affected by the Project. Hence, instream erosion and sedimentation patterns are not expected to be affected by the Project.

7.6.7 Impacts on Low Flows

The impacts of the Project on average annual and peak runoffs are estimated to be low to moderate, as shown in Tables 7.6-3 and 7.6-4. Similarly, the impacts to low flows are also likely to be low. The impacts of the Project on low flows were estimated based on observed local and regional baseline winter flows, frequency analyses on regional low flow data and the impacts of the Project on annual total runoff. The estimated impacts of the Project on 7Q10 low flows are summarized in Table 7.6-5.

Table 7.6-5: Impacts of Surface Facilities on 7Q10 Low Flows

Node Stream Name 7Q10 Low Flow Discharge

Baseline(m3/s)

Project(m3/s)

Change (%)

Ca Catchment C Tributary A 0.001 0.000 0.0 Cb Catchment C Tributary B 0.003 0.000 0.0 Cc Catchment C at the Mouth 0.060 0.001 0.8 Da Catchment D at the Mouth 0.001 0.000 0.0 E2 Firebag River Downstream of ALSA 1.380 0.001 <0.1

The impacts of the Project on low flows are expected to be low. Hence, the Project will have no measurable impacts on the instream flow needs of the Firebag River and the Athabasca River.

7.6.8 Impacts on Existing Water Licences

The Project will result in no impacts to existing water licences or water users in the ALSA.

7.6.9 Management and Mitigation of Impacts

Most of the potential hydrological impacts of the Project can be effectively managed through mitigation. Where mitigation is not feasible, hydrological monitoring of the affected surface water systems is recommended, as dicussed below. The Project has been designed using constraints mapping, which included hydrological considerations. Thus, the placement of the central facility, pads, and corridors has been laid out so as to minimize or mitigate, wherever possible, potential hydrologic impacts. Further, potential


Page 7-42

hydrological impacts and generalized mitigation methods are summarized in Table 7.6-6. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the surface water mangement plan to minimize the impacts of the Project on the hydrologic regime of the PPA. In all cases, every effort will be made to maintain natural drainage patterns and minimize disruptions to surface flows. Mitigation measures affecting hydrology are also discussed in the Conservation and Reclamation Plan (Volume 1, Section 13.0).

Table 7.6-6: Mitigation Methods for Hydrological Impacts

Development Aspect Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Roads • May block near-surface flows

through muskeg and wetland areas.

• Provide culverts at all defined surface channels, at all low points along the alignment and at regular intervals through wetland areas to provide cross-drainage.

• Sedimentation during construction.

• Utilize appropriate sediment control techniques to prevent sediments from entering watercourses.

• Fish habitat at channel crossings. • Install bridges/culverts as deemed appropriate by the fisheries biologist and in accordance with AENV’s Code of Practice (AENV 2003a).

• Sedimentation during road maintenance/grading.

• Culvert structures should be long enough to ensure that road grading operations do not result in the deposition of road gravel into the channel. Similarly, bridges should be equipped with side rails high enough to contain road gravel on the surface and prevent it from being graded into the channel.

Pipelines • Sedimentation during construction.

• Utilize appropriate sediment control techniques to prevent sediments from entering watercourses.

• Instability of disturbed channel banks at crossings.

• Select stable crossing locations and avoid steep crossing approaches where possible. Utilize erosion control measures on approach slopes.

• Restore and stabilize channel banks to prevent bank erosion.

• Flow interruption during construction.

• Install crossings in accordance with AENV’s Code of Practice (AENV 2003b).

Plant Site, Camp and Well Pads

• Increased runoff. • Construct stormwater ponds or collection points to capture and detain stormwater runoff in order to attenuate peak flows.

• Sediment entrainment in and potential contamination of runoff.

• Construct stormwater ponds or collection points to detain stormwater for sediment settlement and to allow for water quality testing prior to release. Contaminated runoff to be treated prior to release or recycled to the plant water system.

• Disturbance to existing surface channels and drainage patterns.

• Locate surface facilities at least 100 m from surface watercourses wherever possible, including from potentially fish-bearing streams.


Page 7-43

Based on the proposed Project footprint, all pads and facilities (excluding road and pipeline crossings) are located 100 m or more from defined surface watercourses where possible. 7.6.10 Summary of Application Case Impacts The areal disturbances of the Project range from 2.8 to 10.4% of the total drainage area of the affected catchment (Table 7.6-1). Hence, taking into consideration streamflow monitoring accuracies (accuracies within 5% are achievable 95% of the time, according to WSC, 1981) and natural flow variability (recorded mean annual flows from the WSC streamflow monitoring stations vary by more than ±75% from the long-term average), the estimated impacts on average annual runoff, peak flows and low flows are likely below detectable levels in almost all of the affected catchments. Impacts are most likely to be observed in the small tributary channels in Catchments C and D. The expected hydrologic impacts of the Project are summarized in Table 7.6-7.

Table 7.6-7: Application Case Impacts

Attribute or Indicator Assessed Direction Geographic

Extent Magnitude Duration Frequency Reversibility Confidence Final

Impact Rating

Mean Annual Discharge and Runoff

Negative Local Low to Moderate

Long-term

Continuous Reversible Moderate Moderate

Peak Flows Negative Local Low to Moderate

Long-term

Seasonal Reversible Moderate Moderate

Low Flows Negative Local Low Long-term

Seasonal Reversible Moderate Low

7.7 Planned Development Case The Planned Development Case assesses the cumulative effects of the Project in combination with the effects of all existing, approved and proposed projects in the ARSA. As indicated in Volume 2, Section 3.0, no other projects are proposed within the ARSA. Project impacts within the Firebag River downstream of the ALSA are predicted to be less than 1%. These impacts will be futher attentuated when the Firebag River discharges to the Athabasca River; therefore, the Project impact on changes in Athabasca River flows will not be measureable. 7.8 Monitoring Monitoring to ensure that mitigation measures are effectively reducing or eliminating the potential impacts of the Project or to identify any required remedial measures will form part of the operational plan. Specific aspects of the monitoring program may include the following:

• routine monitoring of road crossings to ensure that culverts are not blocked by ice, sediment, debris or beaver dams. Monitoring will be undertaken each spring during breakup and following high flow events. Specific note will be made of road settlement at culvert crossings, which may indicate failure of the structure, as well as erosion of the embankment at the inlet and the outlet and degradation of the channel bed immediately downstream of the crossing;


Page 7-44

• in wetland/muskeg areas, water levels on both sides of the road will be routinely monitored to ensure that ponding, indicating drainage obstruction, does not occur or that mitigative measures can be implemented in a timely fashion if cross-drainage is demonstrated to be impeded;

• monitor pipeline crossings after spring breakup and after high flow events to ensure that banks are stable and not eroding. Similarly, monitor crossing approach slopes each spring after breakup to assess the stability of the slope and revegetation/erosion control measures; and

• monitor water levels in stormwater ponds and maintain a sufficient storage capacity for the design storm event at all times over the spring to fall (April to October) period. Ensure that stormwater ponds are emptied when necessary, and monitor sediment accumulations to ensure that the storage capacity of the ponds is maintained.

7.9 Summary

Construction and operation of the Project will include clearing for construction and operation of access roads and utility ROWs, well pads, the central plant site, camp and associated surface facilities. Clearing and development for the Project are expected to result in increases to mean annual discharges due to higher runoff coefficients on developed areas. The effects of the Project on lesser return period flood events (i.e., the 1:10 year flood) are low and for greater return period peak flows (i.e., the 1:100 year flood) are low to moderate. Low flows are not expected to be affected to any measurable extent. The overall impacts of the Project are low, with moderate impacts on mean annual runoff and peak discharges projected for the watercourses passing through the PPA. The Project will have a negligible impact on the cumulative effects of regional developments. Mitigation measures, coupled with the proposed monitoring activities, will maintain the potential impacts of the Project at or below the levels assessed herein.

7.10 Literature Cited

Alberta Environment (AENV), 2011. Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta – Updated February 9, 2011. Alberta Environment, Environmental Assessment Team, Edmonton, Alberta. Environmental Assessment Guide 2009-2. 26 pp.

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2003a. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2003b. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunications Lines Crossing a Water Body. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta.


Page 7-45

Birch Mountain Resources Ltd. (Birch Mountain). 2006. Hammerstone Project Application and Environmental Impact Assessment. Report by AMEC Earth & Environmental for Birch Mountain Resources Ltd. Calgary, Alberta.

Husky Oil Operations Limited (Husky). 2004. Sunrise Thermal Project Submission. Report by AMEC Earth & Environmental for Husky Oil Operations Limited. Calgary, Alberta.

Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC). 2011. Meteorological Database. Available at: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html. Accessed June 2011.

Morton, F.I., F. Ricard and S. Fogarasi. 1985. Operational Estimates of Aerial Evapotranspiration and Lake Evaporation – Program WREVAP. National Hydrology Research Institute, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Sekerak, A.D. and G.L. Walder. 1980. Aquatic Biophysical Inventory of Major Tributaries in the AOSERP Study Area. Volume I: Summary Report. AOSERP Report No. 114. Prepared by LGL Limited for Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program. Edmonton, Alberta.

Syncrude Canada Ltd. 1996. Climate and Surface Water Hydrology, Baseline Data for Aurora Mine EIA. Report prepared by AGRA Earth & Environmental Limited for Syncrude Canada Ltd. Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Synenco SinoCanada Partnership (Synenco). 2006. Northern Lights Mining and Extraction Project Application. Consultants report prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. for Synenco SinoCanada Partnership. Calgary, Alberta.

Water Survey of Canada (WSC). 2011. Internet Hydrometric Database for Published Streamflow Data. Available at: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O/index_e.cfm?cname=main_e.cfm. Accessed June 2011.

Documents

Vol 2 Section 7 Surface Water Quantity - Alberta€¦ · ntity\Fig07.02-01 Study Areas.mxd RGE 5 RGE 3 TWP 97 TWP 95 RGE 9 RGE 7 RGE 1 W4 TWP 99 TWP 101 C r e e k C r e e k J a c