Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project - alberta.ca · CFOP conceptual fisheries offsetting plan CIA...

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

Responses to Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 Statements of Concern Regarding the Project Update (Received January 2016)

April 2016

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page i

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ vii Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. ix 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Approach and Format of SOC Responses ............................................................................2 1.3 FMM Technical Issues Table ...............................................................................................2

2 Key Themes ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment ...........................................................5

2.1.1 Assessment Methods and Completeness ................................................................6 2.1.2 Additional Baseline Data ........................................................................................8 2.1.3 Assessment Methodology .......................................................................................8 2.1.4 Conservatism...........................................................................................................9 2.1.5 Reversibility Criteria .............................................................................................10 2.1.6 Modelling Methods ...............................................................................................10 2.1.7 Additional Assessment Work ...............................................................................11 2.1.8 Appropriate Stage of Engineering ........................................................................11

2.2 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring ..........................................................................12 2.2.1 Project Definition Phase .......................................................................................14 2.2.2 Project Execution Planning Phase ........................................................................19 2.2.3 Implementation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Phase ..........................20

2.3 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................22 2.3.1 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................23 2.3.2 Potential Climate Change Effects on the Project ..................................................24 2.3.3 Incorporating Future Climate Scenarios ...............................................................24

2.4 Agreement and Regulator Requests ...................................................................................27 2.4.1 Agreement Requests .............................................................................................27 2.4.2 Regulator Requests ...............................................................................................28

3 SOC Responses ........................................................................................................................ 29 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................29

SOC 1 ..............................................................................................................................29 SOC 2 ..............................................................................................................................30

3.2 Project Overview ................................................................................................................31 SOC 3 ..............................................................................................................................31 SOC 4 ..............................................................................................................................31 SOC 5 ..............................................................................................................................32 SOC 6 ..............................................................................................................................32 SOC 7 ..............................................................................................................................33


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page ii

SOC 8 ..............................................................................................................................33 3.3 Air .......................................................................................................................................37

SOC 9 ..............................................................................................................................37 SOC 10 ............................................................................................................................37 SOC 11 ............................................................................................................................38 SOC 12 ............................................................................................................................39 SOC 13 ............................................................................................................................40 SOC 14 ............................................................................................................................40 SOC 15 ............................................................................................................................41 SOC 16 ............................................................................................................................41 SOC 17 ............................................................................................................................42 SOC 18 ............................................................................................................................42 SOC 19 ............................................................................................................................43 SOC 20 ............................................................................................................................44 SOC 21 ............................................................................................................................44 SOC 22 ............................................................................................................................45 SOC 23 ............................................................................................................................45

3.4 Hydrogeology .....................................................................................................................46 SOC 24 ............................................................................................................................46 SOC 25 ............................................................................................................................47 SOC 26 ............................................................................................................................47 SOC 27 ............................................................................................................................48

3.5 Water Quality, Aquatics and Fish Habitat Offsetting Plans ...............................................49 SOC 28 ............................................................................................................................49 SOC 29 ............................................................................................................................50 SOC 30 ............................................................................................................................51 SOC 31 ............................................................................................................................52 SOC 32 ............................................................................................................................53 SOC 33 ............................................................................................................................53 SOC 34 ............................................................................................................................57 SOC 35 ............................................................................................................................57 SOC 36 ............................................................................................................................59 SOC 37 ............................................................................................................................61 SOC 38 ............................................................................................................................64 SOC 39 ............................................................................................................................65 SOC 40 ............................................................................................................................66 SOC 41 ............................................................................................................................66 SOC 42 ............................................................................................................................67 SOC 43 ............................................................................................................................67 SOC 44 ............................................................................................................................69 SOC 45 ............................................................................................................................72 SOC 46 ............................................................................................................................73


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page iii

SOC 47 ............................................................................................................................74 SOC 48 ............................................................................................................................74 SOC 49 ............................................................................................................................76 SOC 50 ............................................................................................................................76 SOC 51 ............................................................................................................................77 SOC 52 ............................................................................................................................78 SOC 53 ............................................................................................................................78 SOC 54 ............................................................................................................................79

3.6 Vegetation ..........................................................................................................................80 SOC 55 ............................................................................................................................80 SOC 56 ............................................................................................................................80 SOC 57 ............................................................................................................................81 SOC 58 ............................................................................................................................82 SOC 59 ............................................................................................................................82 SOC 60 ............................................................................................................................83 SOC 61 ............................................................................................................................83 SOC 62 ............................................................................................................................84 SOC 63 ............................................................................................................................84 SOC 64 ............................................................................................................................85 SOC 65 ............................................................................................................................85 SOC 66 ............................................................................................................................86 SOC 67 ............................................................................................................................86 SOC 68 ............................................................................................................................87 SOC 69 ............................................................................................................................87 SOC 70 ............................................................................................................................88 SOC 71 ............................................................................................................................88

3.7 Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................89 SOC 72 ............................................................................................................................89 SOC 73 ............................................................................................................................89 SOC 74 ............................................................................................................................90 SOC 75 ............................................................................................................................90 SOC 76 ............................................................................................................................91 SOC 77 ............................................................................................................................91 SOC 78 ............................................................................................................................92 SOC 79 ............................................................................................................................92 SOC 80 ............................................................................................................................93 SOC 81 ............................................................................................................................93 SOC 82 ............................................................................................................................94 SOC 83 ............................................................................................................................94 SOC 84 ............................................................................................................................95 SOC 85 ............................................................................................................................96 SOC 86 ............................................................................................................................96


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page iv

SOC 87 ............................................................................................................................97 SOC 88 ............................................................................................................................97 SOC 89 ............................................................................................................................98 SOC 90 ............................................................................................................................98 SOC 91 ............................................................................................................................99 SOC 92 ............................................................................................................................99 SOC 93 ..........................................................................................................................100 SOC 94 ..........................................................................................................................100 SOC 95 ..........................................................................................................................101 SOC 96 ..........................................................................................................................101 SOC 97 ..........................................................................................................................102 SOC 98 ..........................................................................................................................102 SOC 99 ..........................................................................................................................103 SOC 100 ........................................................................................................................103 SOC 101 ........................................................................................................................104 SOC 102 ........................................................................................................................104 SOC 103 ........................................................................................................................105 SOC 104 ........................................................................................................................105 SOC 105 ........................................................................................................................106 SOC 106 ........................................................................................................................107 SOC 107 ........................................................................................................................108 SOC 108 ........................................................................................................................108 SOC 109 ........................................................................................................................109 SOC 110 ........................................................................................................................110 SOC 111 ........................................................................................................................110 SOC 112 ........................................................................................................................111 SOC 113 ........................................................................................................................112

3.8 Biodiversity ......................................................................................................................113 SOC 114 ........................................................................................................................113 SOC 115 ........................................................................................................................113 SOC 116 ........................................................................................................................114 SOC 117 ........................................................................................................................114 SOC 118 ........................................................................................................................115 SOC 119 ........................................................................................................................116 SOC 120 ........................................................................................................................116 SOC 121 ........................................................................................................................117 SOC 122 ........................................................................................................................117 SOC 123 ........................................................................................................................118 SOC 124 ........................................................................................................................118 SOC 125 ........................................................................................................................119 SOC 126 ........................................................................................................................119 SOC 127 ........................................................................................................................120


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page v

3.9 Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan ..................................................................121 SOC 128 ........................................................................................................................121 SOC 129 ........................................................................................................................122 SOC 130 ........................................................................................................................122 SOC 131 ........................................................................................................................123 SOC 132 ........................................................................................................................123 SOC 133 ........................................................................................................................124 SOC 134 ........................................................................................................................125 SOC 135 ........................................................................................................................127 SOC 136 ........................................................................................................................127 SOC 137 ........................................................................................................................128 SOC 138 ........................................................................................................................128 SOC 139 ........................................................................................................................129 SOC 140 ........................................................................................................................129 SOC 141 ........................................................................................................................130 SOC 142 ........................................................................................................................130 SOC 143 ........................................................................................................................131 SOC 144 ........................................................................................................................131 SOC 145 ........................................................................................................................132 SOC 146 ........................................................................................................................132 SOC 147 ........................................................................................................................133 SOC 148 ........................................................................................................................133 SOC 149 ........................................................................................................................134

3.10 Traditional Land Use and Knowledge ............................................................................135 SOC 150 ........................................................................................................................135 SOC 151 ........................................................................................................................135 SOC 152 ........................................................................................................................136 SOC 153 ........................................................................................................................136 SOC 154 ........................................................................................................................137 SOC 155 ........................................................................................................................137 SOC 156 ........................................................................................................................138 SOC 157 ........................................................................................................................138 SOC 158 ........................................................................................................................139 SOC 159 ........................................................................................................................139 SOC 160 ........................................................................................................................140 SOC 161 ........................................................................................................................140 SOC 162 ........................................................................................................................141 SOC 163 ........................................................................................................................142 SOC 164 ........................................................................................................................142 SOC 165 ........................................................................................................................143 SOC 166 ........................................................................................................................143


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page vi

3.11 Historical Resources .......................................................................................................144 SOC 167 ........................................................................................................................144 SOC 168 ........................................................................................................................144

3.12 Socio-economic Impacts ................................................................................................146 SOC 169 ........................................................................................................................146 SOC 170 ........................................................................................................................146 SOC 171 ........................................................................................................................147 SOC 172 ........................................................................................................................147 SOC 173 ........................................................................................................................148 SOC 174 ........................................................................................................................148 SOC 175 ........................................................................................................................149 SOC 176 ........................................................................................................................149 SOC 177 ........................................................................................................................150 SOC 178 ........................................................................................................................150 SOC 179 ........................................................................................................................151 SOC 180 ........................................................................................................................151 SOC 181 ........................................................................................................................152 SOC 182 ........................................................................................................................152 SOC 183 ........................................................................................................................153 SOC 184 ........................................................................................................................153 SOC 185 ........................................................................................................................154 SOC 186 ........................................................................................................................154 SOC 187 ........................................................................................................................155

3.13 Métis Consultation .........................................................................................................156 SOC 188 ........................................................................................................................156 SOC 189 ........................................................................................................................156

3.14 Cumulative Effects Analysis and Access Management .................................................157 SOC 190 ........................................................................................................................157 SOC 191 ........................................................................................................................157 SOC 192 ........................................................................................................................158 SOC 193 ........................................................................................................................158 SOC 194 ........................................................................................................................159 SOC 195 ........................................................................................................................159 SOC 196 ........................................................................................................................160 SOC 197 ........................................................................................................................160 SOC 198 ........................................................................................................................161 SOC 199 ........................................................................................................................161 SOC 200 ........................................................................................................................162

4 Closing .................................................................................................................................... 163


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page vii

List of Tables

Table 1-1 FMM Technical Issues Table – Structure and Content Description .....................3 Table 2-1 Key Themes ..........................................................................................................5 Table 2-2 Phased Development of Project Management, Mitigation and

Monitoring Plans and Programs..........................................................................13 Table 2-3 Influence of Regulatory and Community Engagement Processes on

Project Plans to Date ...........................................................................................16 Table 8-1 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring for Community Effects .....................34 Table 8-2 Processes, Policies and Programs to Increase Local Labour ..............................35 Table 33-1 Reach Characteristics of Lower Redclay Creek .................................................55 Table 132-1 Reclamation Material Salvage Depth ...............................................................124

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Planning Schedule for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ...............................15 Figure 33-1 Cross-Section of the Diversion Channel .............................................................56 Figure 48-1 General Site Layout with Waterways, Diversions and FHCL ............................75

List of Appendices

Appendix 136.1 Requested Reference – CONRAD and DFO (2008)


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page viii

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT ABBREVIATIONS

RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page ix

Abbreviations

7Q lowest 7-day consecutive average flow, measured at various intervals (e.g., 7Q2=2-year and 7Q10=10 year)

95UCLM 95% upper confidence limit of the mean ACO Aboriginal Consultation Office AEMERA Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency AEP Alberta Environment and Parks AER Alberta’s Energy Regulator AMP access management plan BATEA best available technology economically achievable BCF bioconcentration factor BMF Biodiversity Management Framework CALA Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. CBM community-based monitoring CC&R closure, conservation and reclamation CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEMA Cumulative Environmental Management Association CFHCP conceptual fish habitat compensation plan CFOP conceptual fisheries offsetting plan CIA cultural impact assessment CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CONRAD Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development COSIA Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance CRA commercial, recreational or Aboriginal CRISP Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada DFOP detailed fisheries offsetting plan EIA environmental impact assessment EPEA (Alberta) Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act EPL end pit lake ERCB (Alberta) Energy Resources Conservation Board ESRD (Alberta) Environment and Sustainable Resource Development ETA external tailings area FFT fluid fine tailings FHCL fish habitat compensation lake FMM Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 FTT froth treatment tailings GHG greenhouse gas H2S hydrogen sulphide ha hectare HADD harmful alteration, disruption or destruction


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page x

HC hydrocarbon compound HQ hazard quotient HSI habitat suitability index HU habitat unit JME Jackpine Mine Expansion JOSMP Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program JRP Joint Review Panel kt kilotonne LARP Lower Athabasca Regional Plan LMP landscape management plan LSA local study area m3/d cubic metres per day MECC Métis Environmental and Cultural Components mg/kg-ww milligrams per kilogram wet weight mg/L milligrams per litre MLUO Métis Land Use and Occupancy Study Mt megatonne NOX oxides of nitrogen (NO, NO2) (gas), or all nitrogen species (e.g., NOx, N2O, N3O) NPI net positive impact OSBCMP Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Program OSCA Oil Sands Community Alliance PAC polycyclic aromatic compound PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PDA Project disturbance area PDC Planned Development Case PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter RAMP Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RMWB Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo ROPC receptors of potential concern RSA regional study area RSC reduced sulphur compound SEIA socio-economic impact assessment SEWG Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group SIR supplemental information request SOC statement of concern t/a tonnes per annum t/ha/a tonnes per hectare per annum Teck Teck Resources Limited the Project Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project TK traditional knowledge TLU traditional land use TOR terms of reference


RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page xi

TRG tissue residue guideline TRS total reduced sulphur VOC volatile organic compound WBEA Wood Buffalo Environmental Association WHEC Wildlife Habitat Effectiveness and Connectivity WHRA wildlife health risk assessment WMMP wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan ZOI zone of influence

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 1 INTRODUCTION

RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016 Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

In 2011, Teck Resources Limited (Teck) submitted an Integrated Application to the

Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment and

Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the

Project). The Project was referred to a federal review panel in 2012. Federal and

provincial reviewers subsequently provided four rounds of supplemental information

requests (SIRs) prior to Teck filing a Project Update in June 2015.

Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 (FMM) provided Alberta Environment and Sustainable

Resources Development a statement of concern regarding the Project in April 2013. Teck

responded to the April 2013 SOC on May 3, 2013. Subsequently, FMM provided

comments on Teck’s response to Round 2 SIRs (December 16, 2013), to which Teck

responded on February 11, 2014. Similarly, FMM provided comments on Teck’s

response to Round 3 SIRs (November 24, 2014), to which Teck responded on January 16,

2015. Most recently, at the request of FMM, Teck funded a technical review of the

Project Update. This latest review, dated December 2015, was received by Teck in

January 2016 and is responded to here. Technical reviews, concerns and requests for

information submitted by FMM are collectively referred to here as statements of concern

(SOCs).

Teck recognizes that responding to a concern is not the same as addressing or resolving

it. As stated throughout the regulatory process, Teck has carefully considered and

incorporated feedback from FMM into Project planning and into the environmental

impact assessment (EIA). This was done within Project needs and constraints and while

meeting the provincial terms of reference and federal requirements for the Project. Teck

remains committed to continue working through outstanding issues with FMM.

Teck is confident that this response package is complete and provides an appropriate

level of detail in response to the FMM December 2015 SOCs (see Section 3). As part of

this submission, Teck has also provided a technical issues table (see Section 1.3). The

approach and format of Teck’s responses, and the key elements of this submission, are

summarized below.



1.2 Approach and Format of SOC Responses

During its review of the December 2015 SOCs, Teck identified overarching themes.

These ‘key themes’ are described in Section 2 and provide an opportunity to discuss

related concerns. The key theme responses provide a basis from which to facilitate and

focus future discussions with FMM. Where an issue does not align with a key theme, or

requires a technical explanation, a separate and specific response to the SOC is provided

in Section 3.

Teck’s responses to the December 2015 SOCs are compiled and summarized in a FMM

technical issues table, which uses the same format as the technical issues table provided

in Volume 1, Appendix 17A of the Project Update. The technical issues table can be

sorted and filtered by discipline and theme and concords similar issues. Teck’s intent in

providing this table is to work through these SOCs with FMM to reach mutually

satisfying outcomes. Teck trusts that providing responses in this manner will best support

efforts to resolve SOCs.

1.3 FMM Technical Issues Table

The technical issues table is an Excel workbook that has two worksheets:

• Legend and User Guide – Provides information to assist users in navigating the

table and sorting information in a manner that meets specific needs and interests.

• 2015 SOCs – Identifies SOCs in the December 2015 SOC package and cross-

references Teck’s responses.

The workbook has a format that is largely consistent with the format of the technical

issues table provided in Volume 1, Appendix 17A of the Project Update. The only

exception is that the updated table includes two additional columns that make it easier to

locate FMM concerns and the corresponding SOC responses. Table 1-1 illustrates the

format of the technical issues table with the new columns and titles highlighted

in bold text.



Table 1-1 FMM Technical Issues Table – Structure and Content Description

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D COLUMN E COLUMN F COLUMN G COLUMN H COLUMN I

SOC Date Source Document or Consultant

TECK Assigned SOC No.

Discipline Theme(s) Type of Concern

Relates to SIR (Round and #) and SOC from 2012

SOC Text Location of Teck Response

Month and Year of SOC (e.g., F2013 = February 2013)1

Source of FMM SOC1

Teck sequential numbering of SOCs

Primary technical discipline

Themes are used to describe and categorize issues. These are different than Key Themes

Types of concern include: information requests, methodology, mitigation, monitoring, and impacts

SIRs that correspond with an SOC are provided here, if identified

Copied from the FMM submission

Location of Teck’s response to the SOC

NOTE: 1 See legend and user guide in the FMM technical issues table for all SOC abbreviations.

To manage the size and usability of the technical issues table, the table references the location of Teck’s response but does not

include the response. Column I (“Location of Teck Response”) directs the reader to one of the following:

• Section 2 of this document, which includes all key theme responses to SOCs

• Section 3 of this document, which includes all individual responses to SOCs

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 2 KEY THEMES


2 Key Themes

Based on its review of FMM SOCs provided for the Project, Teck identified four key

themes (see Table 2-1) that it believes are best addressed with a comprehensive,

collective response. Key theme responses are presented in the following subsections. In

Teck’s view, identifying and responding to key themes will help facilitate and focus

future discussions with FMM.

Table 2-1 Key Themes

Key Theme Description

Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Issues and concerns related to the adequacy of the EIA for the Project, including but not limited to, baseline data, assessment methodology, and desire for additional assessment work.

Management, Mitigation and Monitoring

Issues and concerns related to the desire for detailed engineering design, management and mitigation plans, and monitoring programs.

Climate Change Issues and concerns related to Project design, operation and closure that could be affected by certain climate change scenarios.

Agreement and Regulator Requests SOCs associated with a suggested activity (mitigation or monitoring) that FMM might want to consider in its Agreement negotiations with Teck and SOCs associated with a recommendation to the regulators.

2.1 Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Several of the SOCs Teck has received from Aboriginal communities and stakeholders

relate to the adequacy of the EIA completed for the Frontier Project. These SOCs focus

on the adequacy of baseline data, assessment methodology, modelling methods and level

of engineering detail provided in the Integrated Application and other regulatory

submissions. Teck’s views on the adequacy of the EIA, its methods and completeness are

discussed in this response.

Based on a thorough review of the provincial terms of reference (TOR), federal

requirements and clarifications, and past oil sands EIAs, Teck is confident that (i) the

Project application meets all regulatory requirements, and (ii) the EIA is complete and

ready to proceed to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) process.



Teck’s application for the Project is based on an appropriate level of engineering at this

stage of the development, and it reflects relevant regulations and reference documents. In

preparing its application, Teck:

• adhered to the provincial TOR, the federal requirements and clarifications, relevant

legislation, policies, regulations and directives

• considered technical guidance documents, applicable environmental criteria

(including guidelines, thresholds and objectives), industry best practice documents,

regional environmental frameworks, past oil sands applications, and information and

preferences gathered through consultation with potentially affected Aboriginal

communities and stakeholders

Teck is confident that the quantity and quality of baseline data collected to inform the

Integrated Application and Project Update is sufficient to meet provincial TOR

requirements, support the EIA, and provide regulators, Aboriginal communities and

stakeholders with adequate and appropriate information about current and expected

environmental and socio-economic conditions in the Project area and region.

The assessment methods used in the Integrated Application and Project Update provide

appropriate and robust EIA findings. Further assessment work beyond what has been

included in the Integrated Application, Project Update, five rounds of SIRs and these

current SOC responses would not substantially assist or improve the assessment or

understanding of the Project, nor would it yield substantially different conclusions. Any

remaining differences of opinion about assessment methods, the scope or adequacy of

data collected in support of the Project, or other concerns about the assessment’s

completeness should be discussed within the JRP process.

2.1.1 Assessment Methods and Completeness

As indicated, many of the SOCs Teck has received relate to the adequacy of the EIA

conducted for the Project and the completeness of Teck’s responses to SIRs. Where

possible and appropriate, Teck has provided clarification and additional information in its

response to specific concerns and information requests (see Section 3). However, some

SOCs that question the adequacy of the EIA reflect differences of professional opinion or

preferred assessment methods. Other SOCs are inconsistent with regulatory guidance or

standard practice for oil sands EIAs. Teck will continue to work with Aboriginal

communities and stakeholders to better understand their perspectives; however, Teck is

confident that all TOR requirements have been adequately met and that the EIA is

complete.



Teck considered a large quantity of reference documents in developing its EIA approach.

It also incorporated important information from local and diverse sources such as:

• traditional knowledge

• environmental data from the oil sands region

• recent and relevant scientific literature

• input and advice from initial and ongoing engagement with regulators, Aboriginal

communities and stakeholders

The Project Update further enhanced the thoroughness of the assessment because it

incorporated additional baseline data, emerging science, new regulations, and additional

traditional knowledge. For a complete list of reference documents considered in

developing the EIA approach and methods, see the list of references provided at the end

of each assessment section in the Project Update.

Among the many reference documents Teck reviewed and considered were regulatory

applications and hearing transcripts for other developments in the region. Previous EIAs

and JRP decision reports provided valuable insight into the type of information needed

and the level of effects analysis regulators require to be able to determine whether the

Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, understand the

benefits of the Project, and ultimately decide whether it is in the public interest. Teck also

sought early federal involvement in the review process to provide federal regulators with

the opportunity to participate in the review process from the first Project filing.

Since detailed, project-specific guidance is not available for all aspects of an EIA,

practitioners must apply judgement based on best available information and professional

opinion. Teck has assembled a credible and experienced technical team that has

completed an appropriate and robust EIA for the Project. Teck’s team of consulting

professionals has been involved in nearly every oil sands mine application approved in

Alberta in the past 15 years, which brings a depth of experience and knowledge on key

issues and regional concerns. This level of consultant expertise is supported by Teck’s

more than 100 years mining history and global experience completing EIAs for mining

developments in various jurisdictions and environmental settings since this type of

assessment has been required. Based on all these factors, Teck’s technical team is

eminently qualified to provide professional judgement as needed to support the effects

analysis and conclusions provided in the Integrated Application and Project Update.



2.1.2 Additional Baseline Data

Teck has received a number of requests for additional (or different) baseline data,

including toxicity data, snow survey data, soil inspection points, noise monitoring, socio-

economic data, and invertebrate data. Teck has carefully evaluated each of these requests

and considered the benefit of gathering additional information against the effort, cost and

perceived value of this information. At this stage of the process, additional data gathering

is warranted only if it would improve the application or add environmental value.

Based on this evaluation, additional baseline surveys were conducted after the Integrated

Application was filed and this information was used to inform the Project Update. The

Project Update also incorporated, where possible, information from traditional land use

and knowledge studies that were provided to Teck after the Integrated Application was

filed.

Overall, the body of site-specific environmental data collected since 2008 to support

Teck’s Application for the Project is more than what has been done for other approved

applications in the oil sands region. The quantity and quality of baseline data collected to

inform the EIA for the Project (as submitted in the Integrated Application and Project

Update) meets or exceeds the TOR requirements. Accordingly, Teck’s view is that

additional baseline data is not required to complete the EIA.

Teck understands that some reviewers have an alternate opinion about the adequacy of

the baseline data collected for the EIA, and Teck respects the right of reviewers to offer

opinion on scope and methodology of baseline data collection. Teck will discuss

opportunities for preconstruction baseline monitoring with Aboriginal communities and

stakeholders and will consider monitoring activities that are important to them. However,

it is ultimately the responsibility of Alberta’s Energy Regulator (AER) to determine

whether the EIA is complete, and the role of the JRP to determine, on the basis of the

evidence and argument, whether the assessment methods used by Teck are appropriate.

2.1.3 Assessment Methodology

Some SOCs regarding the Project Update and Teck’s SIR responses express concern

about conservatism and how it relates to the assessment, concerns about reversibility, and

differences of opinion related to assessment assumptions, modelling, issue screening,

statistical analysis and parameter selection. It is Teck’s position that the assessment

methods selected for the Integrated Application and Project Update are appropriate and

provide robust EIA conclusions that regulators can rely on to make decisions, and that

support consultation and engagement with Aboriginal communities about potential

Project effects.



As indicated, the EIA methods were selected to meet the TOR for the Project and

considered relevant reference documents. Since detailed, project-specific guidance is not

available for all aspects of an EIA, practitioners applied judgement based on available

science and professional opinion as is common practice. When selecting assessment

methods, the practitioners balance a number of factors to make a final selection,

including regulatory requirements, scientific rigor, regulator acceptance, stakeholder

input, data availability, practicality and regulatory precedence. It is ultimately the

responsibility of AER to determine whether the EIA is complete, and the role of the JRP

to determine, on the basis of the evidence and argument, whether the assessment methods

used by Teck are appropriate.

2.1.4 Conservatism

Teck has received SOCs that request that modelling methods be revised to remove

excessive conservatism. These requests are based on Teck occasionally identifying that

predicted guideline exceedances are due to conservativeness inherent in the assessment

that can be verified as being conservative by operational monitoring. On this basis, Teck

justifies that the exceedance is not a concern requiring mitigation. Teck recognizes that

there are some disadvantages in overpredicting potential environmental effects; however,

it believes that these consequences are outweighed by the benefits—so long as

assumptions and reasons for the conservatism are clearly stated and understood. Teck has

identified where the EIA is conservative and has provided the appropriate rationale. The

level of conservatism built into each aspect of the EIA was set according to the certainty

in the modelling approach and input data used in the assessment, so that predictions were

not underestimated.

Conversely, several SOCs request that modelling methods be revised to increase

conservativeness. These requests stem from concerns that Teck has not adequately

considered possible adverse outcomes because (i) generic criteria have not been

considered, or (ii) insufficient safety factors have been applied. It is Teck’s position that

the EIA is appropriately conservative because it was informed by guidance documents

and the opinion of experienced professionals (see Section 2.1.1). On balance, some SOCs

request that Teck remove conservativeness and others add conservativeness. Teck

believes the assessment achieved the right balance between the two.

Teck believes that the EIA provides an appropriately conservative assessment of possible

effects and does not intend to reassess conservatism built into models. However, as part

of planning for post-approval monitoring, Teck will identify opportunities to verify and

refine predictions. For additional information about management, mitigation and

monitoring plans for the Project, see Key Theme – Management, Mitigation and

Monitoring (Section 2.2).



2.1.5 Reversibility Criteria

Reversibility is a key criterion required under federal EIA guidance, and several SOCs

focus on reversibility criteria for the effects classification. The approach to reversibility

used in the EIA is similar to proven methods used in previous EIAs in the region,

including those used for existing oil sands mines approved through a JRP process.

Concerns about reversibility tend to focus on (i) whether environmental components are

truly reversible, and (ii) whether effects are likely to be reversed in the timelines

considered by the EIA.

Teck has acknowledged these concerns by conservatively considering a predevelopment

reference condition and by not considering reclamation in prediction outcomes in the

traditional land use assessment. Although Teck considers this approach overly

conservative (see Section 2.1.4), it opted to use this approach in the effects assessment

because it reflects Aboriginal community preferences.

Teck has a successful track record and has received widespread recognition regarding its

ability to reverse the effects of mining at historic and operating properties. As such, Teck

is confident that equivalent land capability will be established when mining is complete.

Through its adaptive management process, Teck will monitor mitigation success and the

progress of reversible components. This process will enable Teck to adjust mitigation

based on observed conditions and evolving societal preferences. For more information

about Teck’s adaptive management process, see Section 2.2.

2.1.6 Modelling Methods

Several SOCs focus on modelling approaches for the EIA and request changes such as:

• additional modifications to model assumptions

• further model validation

• revised screening procedures

• additional statistical analysis

• inclusion of more chemical parameters beyond that provided in the Project Update

Teck considers these SOCs differences of professional opinion regarding assessment

methods. Nonetheless, it has carefully reviewed each request and maintains that the

assessment methods selected for the EIA are the appropriate technical approach to

address the requirements of the TOR.

Teck understands that some reviewers have an alternate opinion, and Teck respects the

right of reviewers to offer opinion on methodology. It is ultimately the responsibility of

AER to determine whether the EIA is complete, and the role of the JRP to determine, on



the basis of the evidence and argument, whether the assessment methods used by Teck

are appropriate. Based on the outcome of past JRP hearings, Teck anticipates that model

validation may be a condition of approval in instances where uncertainty remains.

2.1.7 Additional Assessment Work

Generally, requests for additional assessment work seek further assessment of specific

technical areas or additional geographic areas. Teck’s view is that the EIA and additional

supporting information provided for the Project application are adequate, and that further

assessment work beyond what has been included in the Integrated Application, Project

Update, five rounds of SIRs and these current SOCs is not required.

Teck recognizes that discussion and debate are important part of the regulatory process,

and has considered input and advice provided through ongoing engagement with

regulators, Aboriginal communities and stakeholders. Based on this and the extensive

information included in EIA and Teck’s regulatory application for the Project, Teck is of

the opinion that all contentious items have been identified, discussed and assessed to an

appropriate extent. There is a practical need for any remaining discussion to proceed via

the JRP process where it can be explored and decided upon in a timely manner.

Teck has received several SOCs that request additional or alternate assessment work

related to predevelopment or existing conditions. Examples include:

• further discussion and definition of these conditions

• development of a socio-economic predevelopment condition

• requests for additional health risk assessment work related to these conditions

Teck notes that the TOR does not require assessment of predevelopment and existing

conditions. These temporal snapshots were included to provide context for the mandatory

assessment cases (i.e., Base Case, Application Case and Planned Development Case) and

in response to community preferences. Teck’s view is that adequate and appropriate

information for predevelopment and existing conditions is included in the existing

assessment work for the Project.

2.1.8 Appropriate Stage of Engineering

Some SOCs request information that is typically and most logically provided during

future stages of engineering. Examples include groundwater seepage control system

design, detailed tailings pond emission profiles, expected changes in solvent quality over

time, aircraft flight schedules and bridge design details. The EIA is based on two full

cycles of prefeasibility engineering (i.e., one for the Integrated Application and one for

the Project Update), which is greater than what has typically been done for other oil sands



mine applications in Alberta. Teck intends to complete additional engineering studies;

however, this work should be done after the Project receives the anticipated regulatory

approvals.

Similarly, several SOCs request more detailed modelling of mitigation systems and their

performance. Examples include the groundwater interception system, mitigation for karst

features, drawdown effects, and dyke failure scenarios. Teck has reviewed these requests

and concluded that more detailed modelling will not provide better or different results

than what is presented in the Project Update. EIA predictions reasonably represent what

future conditions will be. Future monitoring requirements are expected to be a condition

of the anticipated approval for the Project, and will test the effectiveness of planned

mitigation. In the unlikely event that monitoring identifies that a particular mitigation

measure is not as effective as predicted, Teck’s adaptive management plan will guide

appropriate action. For details on Teck’s monitoring and adaptive management plans, see

Key Theme – Management, Mitigation and Monitoring (Section 2.2).

2.2 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring

Several of the SOCs Teck has received from Aboriginal communities and stakeholders

relate to management, mitigation and monitoring identified for the Project. Some SOCs

request additional Project detail, primarily detailed engineering designs, management and

mitigation plans and monitoring programs. Teck’s view on these requests and the

proposed evolution of these plans and programs throughout the development and

operation of the Project are discussed in this response.

Based on a thorough review of the provincial TOR, federal requirements and

clarifications, and past oil sands EIAs, Teck is confident that the Project application

meets all regulatory requirements and the Project EIA is complete and ready to proceed

to the JRP process (see Section 2.1). Teck understands and appreciates the interest in

detailed engineering designs, management and mitigation plans and monitoring

programs; however, Teck’s view is that the Project Application is based on an

appropriate level of engineering that describes a project that can realistically be built (see

Volume 1, Section 12.3 of the Project Update). The information provided to date is

appropriate for proposed development projects seeking regulatory approval.

Although the need for various management (e.g., emissions management, water

management, tailings management) and mitigation (e.g., conceptual closure, conservation

and reclamation plan, conceptual fisheries offsetting plan, wildlife mitigation and

monitoring plan) plans and monitoring programs has been identified within the Project

Application, detailed plans and programs need not be finalized at this stage of the Project.

These plans and programs will be developed in further detail, subject to further



engagement with Aboriginal communities, regulators and government agencies, in future

phases of the Project.

Teck recognizes and appreciates the desire to review detailed designs, plans and

programs but has had to balance Project information available at this stage of engineering

with the level of information required to develop detailed designs, plans and programs.

An important part of developing these items is the input and feedback received from

regulators, Aboriginal communities and stakeholders. Further, Teck has had to balance

the desire and willingness of some Aboriginal communities with the expressed reluctance

of other communities to engage on the development of plans and programs before a

Project has received approvals and authorizations. Teck understands that these latter

communities are concerned that participation could be misinterpreted to imply consent,

which Teck understands is not the case. Teck has made best efforts to balance these

viewpoints when advancing plans and programs at this stage of the Project.

Teck recognizes three key phases of development for management and mitigation plans

and monitoring programs aligned with development of the Project (see Table 2-2):

(1) project definition phase

(2) project execution planning phase

(3) implementation and adaptive management phase

Teck will continue to engage Aboriginal communities, listen, consider and respond to

their interests throughout these three key phases of development.

Table 2-2 Phased Development of Project Management, Mitigation and Monitoring Plans and Programs

Phase Description

Project Definition • Conceptualization of management, mitigation and monitoring plans and programs early in the Project timeline

• Based on a prefeasibility study level of engineering • Influenced by engagement with Aboriginal communities, regulatory and government

agencies and stakeholders • Incorporated into the EIA • Meets the provincial TOR and federal requirements and clarifications for the Project • Project definition influenced throughout the regulatory process

Project Execution Planning

• Formalization of management, mitigation and monitoring plans and programs following regulatory approval and sanction of the Project

• Meets conditions of the regulatory approval • Influenced by more advanced engineering • Influenced by engagement with Aboriginal communities, regulatory and government

agencies and stakeholders • Informed by collaboration with existing oil sands developments and regional research

consortia • Influenced by preconstruction monitoring results



Table 2-2 Phased Development of Project Management, Mitigation and Monitoring Plans and Programs (cont’d)

Phase Description

Implementation and Adaptive Management

• Implementation of management, mitigation and monitoring plans and programs • Monitoring of the effectiveness of the management and mitigation plans, including

operational and regionals monitoring programs • Adaptation of the plans, as required, based on monitoring results and engineering

advances • This iterative process allows management, mitigation and monitoring plans to evolve

throughout the life of the Project • Influenced by ongoing input from Aboriginal communities, regulatory and government

agencies and stakeholders NOTE: This table summarizes the key activities within each phase but is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all activities within a phase.

This management, mitigation and monitoring key theme response describes the phase-by-

phase evolution of management and mitigation plans and monitoring programs for the

Project. The influence of key activities within each phase on the development of these

plans and programs is discussed. See Volume 1, Section 12 of the Project Update for an

explanation of Teck’s approach to Project overall implementation.

2.2.1 Project Definition Phase

In the project definition phase, management and mitigation plans and monitoring

programs are conceptual, which is recognized in the provincial TOR. For example, the

provincial TOR for the Project require a conceptual closure, conservation and

reclamation (CC&R) plan and potential plans for fisheries offsetting. Because the Project

timeline spans more than 15 years from initial concept through project start-up, detailed

plans and programs should not be finalized in the midst of the regulatory process.

Figure 2-1 illustrates the information provided in Volume 1, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the

Project Update in relation to the three phases of management and mitigation plan and

monitoring program development that Teck recognizes.



Figure 2-1 Planning Schedule for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

Public DisclosureFinal EIA Terms of ReferenceApplication undertaken and filedRound 1 SIRsRound 2 SIRsRound 3 SIRsRound 4 SIRsProject UpdateJoint Review Panel HearingJoint Review Panel Decision StatementAssociated Project ApprovalsTeck Board of Directors Project Sanction DecisionPrescoping and scoping studiesPrefeasability studiesUpdate to prefeasibilityFeasability preparationFeasability studies and Project Execution PlanDetailed engineering for Phase 1Phase 1, production train 1- site prep. & constructionPhase 1, first oilPhase 1, production train 2 - constructionPhase 1, production train 2 - first oilPhase 2 - constructionPhase 2 - first oil Operational lifePhase 1 and 2 - end of mine lifeClosure completeProject DefinitionProject ExecutionImplementation and Adaptive Management



Plans and programs evolve as input is collected throughout the regulatory and community

engagement processes. As an example, Table 2-3 describes the influences that the

regulatory and community engagement processes have had on the progress of the access

management plan (AMP), biodiversity management plan, detailed fisheries offsetting

plan (DFOP) and wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (WMMP). Teck has advanced

these plans in line with, or beyond, what has historically been done in the oil sands.

Teck’s ability to do so is due, in part, to its extensive mining experience and existence of

similar plans at its operating mines as well as the willing participation of Aboriginal

communities and regulators. Teck recognizes that other plans have been identified and

anticipates additional plans may be identified in the future as the Project, and

commensurately the engineering, progresses. Teck anticipates that management and

mitigation plans and monitoring programs will evolve in a similar manner to what is

discussed below.

Table 2-3 Influence of Regulatory and Community Engagement Processes on Project Plans to Date

Purpose Influence of Regulatory and Community Engagement

Processes on Project Plans

ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

The AMP aims to safely manage all aspects of land access (including type and frequency of access) through or around an area that is being developed.

• Aboriginal communities have shared opinions and concerns during engagement regarding access and access management. These include: (i) loss of, or hindrance to, access to lands and resources considered important for traditional and cultural use, and (ii) increased access by non-Aboriginal land users.

• Teck committed to develop an AMP in Volume 8, Section 6.5.4 in the Integrated Application.

• In response to a provincial information request, Teck presented a draft table of contents for a conceptual AMP (see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 3 SIR 75, Appendix 75a.1).

• In Volume 1, Section 14.8.5 of the Project Update, Teck committed to advance the AMP in 2015, which was achieved by a November workshop with Aboriginal communities and regulatory agencies.

BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

A biodiversity management plan sets out how Teck’s vision of having a net positive impact (NPI) on biodiversity may be achieved, on the basis of information that has been gathered and assessed to date.

• In response to ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 221 and ERCB Round 2 SIR 29b, Teck stated that offset planning should not occur until the anticipated Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval for the Project is received.

• In Volume 1, Section 14.8.3 of the Project Update, Teck discussed its nine-step approach to biodiversity management planning.

• In Volume 1, Appendix 14A of the Project Update, Teck provided an example of Teck’s approach to biodiversity management planning.

• In response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 131b, Teck provided a general timeline for completing the nine-step process. Information is currently available to complete a draft of Steps 1 through 4. Step 5 can be completed in the detailed phase of management, mitigation and monitoring plan and program development. Steps 6 and 7, while underway, require more regulatory certainty. Steps 8 and 9 are implementation, monitoring and adapting actions.



Table 2-3 Influence of Regulatory and Community Engagement Processes on Project Plans to Date (cont’d)



DETAILED FISHERIES OFFSETTING PLAN

A DFOP is a required component of an application for authorization under the Fisheries Act.

• Teck developed a conceptual fish habitat compensation plan which was included in Volume 1, Section 15 of the Integrated Application.

• The conceptual fish habitat compensation plan was revised in 2013, based on engagement with DFO regarding affected fish populations. The conceptual plan was resubmitted in response to ESRD/CEAA Round 2 SIR 30 (see Appendix 30j.1).

• In 2013, the Frontier Fisheries Offsetting Framework, an agreement between Teck and DFO, was developed because of several uncertainties that were external to the proposed fish habitat compensation lake’s function to offset losses in fisheries productivity associated with the Project.

• In July 2014, Teck engaged Aboriginal communities and regulatory and government agencies on the Frontier Fisheries Offsetting Framework.

• Teck included a conceptual fisheries offsetting plan as part of the Project Update (see Volume 1, Section 15.4), which included the Frontier Fisheries Offsetting Framework.

• In April 2015, Teck held a workshop to receive feedback on the fisheries offsetting options included in the Frontier Fisheries Offsetting Framework. Feedback received from Aboriginal communities will be considered in the draft DFOP.

• In response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 164b, Teck describes how feedback from the April 2015 workshop was considered and how decisions were made.

• In November 2015, Teck held a workshop to present decisions regarding fisheries offsetting measures. Teck also identified three opportunities for continued input into the DFOP: (i) identifying a potential fish species assemblage for the proposed fish habitat compensation lake (ii) discussing community interest in the design and execution of fish and fish habitat monitoring (iii) discussing community interest in developing regional Aboriginal fisheries offsetting objectives as a complimentary measure that includes a list of potential offsetting options in the oil sands region that meet regional Aboriginal community desires



Table 2-3 Influence of Regulatory and Community Engagement Processes on Project Plans to Date (cont’d)



WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN

The purpose of a WMMP is to outline how predicted effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat will be mitigated during all phases of a project, how mitigation effectiveness will be monitored, and how mitigation will be adapted, if necessary, based on monitoring results.

• Aboriginal communities have raised a number of concerns during engagement regarding wildlife habitat, abundance and health, and traditional and cultural use of wildlife. Aboriginal communities provided some preliminary guidance on wildlife mitigation, including monitoring.

• In response to ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 440, Teck stated that concerns expressed by potentially affected Aboriginal communities related to wildlife will be considered during the development of a wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan, and that the plan will be developed together with potentially affected Aboriginal communities and regulators.

• Teck has stated that development of a WMMP would begin in 2014 (see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 226). It has since revised this timeline and confirmed that development of the WMMP will be delayed to allow for a plan that will better reflect the updated Project (see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 3 SIR 54).

• Teck has identified specific measures that will be included in the WMMP (e.g., see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 211, ESRD/CEAA Round 3 SIRs 54, 59 60).

• In Volume 1, Section 14.8.4 of the Project Update, Teck states that it “will advance the development of the WMMP using the data and analysis that have been provided in the Project Update; however, the WMMP cannot be completed in 2015 as it will be informed by the Joint Review Panel process.”

• Teck expects that a detailed WMMP will be a condition of the anticipated EPEA approval and that its content will be influenced by provincial direction at that time. Therefore, the WMMP is scheduled for detailed development following regulatory approval.

• In response to CEAA Round 4 SIR 31 Teck provided a framework for a WMMP.

• In Volume 1, Section 14.8.4 of the Project Update, Teck states that “the form and content of the WMMP will be determined in consultation with regulators, Aboriginal communities and stakeholders.”

• On November 5, 2015, Teck held a workshop to discuss guiding principles for a WMMP. Teck heard that continued engagement is extremely important throughout the process of developing the WMMP.



2.2.2 Project Execution Planning Phase

In the project execution planning phase, management and mitigation plans and

monitoring programs will be advanced as their development will be informed by

regulatory approvals, detailed engineering, additional input from Aboriginal

communities, regulatory and government agencies and stakeholders and, preconstruction

monitoring results.

• Regulatory Approvals – The AER decides whether an EPEA approval will be

issued and under what conditions. Management and mitigation plan and monitoring

programs must take into account applicable conditions.

• Detailed Engineering – Once approved and sanctioned by Teck’s Board of

Directors, project engineering and environmental management designs can advance

to a higher level of definition as required to enable tendering for construction.

Engineering and environmental management designs are studied in greater depth and

consider additional geologic and processability test work. The increased level of

understanding gained by continued investment during this phase fully defines a

project (definitive technical, environmental and commercial details). Detailed

management and mitigation plans and monitoring programs that are aligned with the

project execution plan can be produced during this phase. Accordingly, clear

management, mitigation and monitoring actions, and procedures for execution of the

actions, can be determined.

• Additional Input from Aboriginal Communities, Regulatory and Government

Agencies and Stakeholders – Engagement with Aboriginal communities, regulatory

and government agencies and stakeholders is the primary means through which Teck

understands expectations and identifies opportunities to reduce impacts and enhance

potential benefits from Project activities. This engagement will occur early enough to

inform Teck’s engineering and environmental management designs. Continued

engagement during this phase will reveal new detail, improve understanding and

enable refinement of designs and plans.

• Preconstruction Monitoring – The purpose of preconstruction monitoring is to

further develop the baseline of environmental reference conditions as required to

support operational monitoring (discussed in the implementation, monitoring and

adaptive management phase). While much of the preconstruction monitoring takes

place in preparation for and during the regulatory process, the dataset is refined and

becomes more detailed after approval has been granted. With site preparation being

planned to start two years after Project approval, ample time exists to refine the

environmental and socio-economic baseline dataset, as appropriate. In some cases,

preconstruction monitoring results may be required to finalize a mitigation plan.



2.2.3 Implementation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Phase

In the implementation, monitoring and adaptive management phase, management and

mitigation plans and monitoring programs will be evaluated for effectiveness and adapted

as needed on an ongoing basis. Management and mitigation plans and monitoring

programs are subject to refinement throughout the life of a project as lessons are learned

and circumstances change and technologies advance. As a global mining company with

over 100 years of experience, Teck has been recognized for its commitment to effective

environmental management, mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management (for more

information, see http://www.teck.com/about/awards/).

Project-specific and regional monitoring will be part of Teck’s ongoing operations, as

monitoring is a critical learning and adaptive management tool. Regional, multi-

stakeholder organizations provide data, perspective, knowledge and experience that help

identify environmental and socio-economic challenges and solutions. Collaborative

monitoring with Aboriginal communities and regulators, whether through operational or

regional monitoring initiatives, is an area of interest for Teck. Approaches that involve

Aboriginal communities provide key advantages, namely:

• They improve trust and confidence in the data and in management decisions.

• They enable Teck to develop monitoring programs that answer the questions posed

by Aboriginal communities.

• They provide an opportunity to integrate traditional knowledge into the monitoring

program.

• They provide an opportunity for Teck to implement adaptive management solutions

that consider Aboriginal community interests.

Two examples of Teck’s involvement in collaborative monitoring are:

• Teck and Aboriginal communities have had early discussions about Aboriginal

community involvement in the design and execution of a fish and fish habitat

monitoring program, a component of a detailed fisheries offsetting plan (for details,

see the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 164b).

• Under the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA), a Traditional

Knowledge Committee has designed a community-based project to share Fort

McKay traditional knowledge and concerns about local berry populations. Teck will

consider these findings alongside scientific monitoring of berry populations.

Additional themes for future study have been identified, including wetland, medicinal

plant and animal tissue monitoring.

http://www.teck.com/about/awards/



Participation in relevant regional initiatives is important to Teck and will be a

requirement of the anticipated EPEA approval for the Project. Teck acknowledges that

support for multi-stakeholder organizations that include Aboriginal communities, like

WBEA and Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team, is important. Therefore, Teck will

consider and respond to Aboriginal community views on multi-stakeholder organizations

now and in the future. Currently, Teck is a member of the following organizations:

• the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency

• Canada’s Oil Sand Innovation Alliance

• the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association

• the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team (see CEAA Round 5 SIR 134 for an

update on the teams activities)

Adaptive management is a key part of environmental management for the Project and

will allow management and mitigation plans to evolve in step with changing

circumstances, local and regional monitoring results, and advances in science. Teck will

develop an adaptive management plan to enable appropriate response to trends detected

through accrued operational, regional and collaborative monitoring initiatives. See

Volume 1, Section 13.3.4 for a description of Teck’s approach to adaptive management.

Teck has committed to including Aboriginal communities in the development of

mitigation plans and their implementation. For example:

• As part of the CC&R plan, and through a Reclamation Working Group, Teck will

develop and implement a program to salvage and relocate known occurrences of rare

(vascular) species to areas outside the Project footprint. Traditional resource

harvesters will be invited to harvest traditional plants before disturbance. With the

involvement of local Aboriginal communities, Teck will harvest and collect seeds

and individuals (as relevant) of rare and culturally important species for use in

propagation and revegetation efforts.

• As part of the historical resources management plan, Teck will invite members of

local Aboriginal communities to participate in future historical resources assessments

and mitigations where logistically feasible.

In summary, Teck’s view is that the Project application is complete and ready to proceed

to the JRP process. The Project application is based on an appropriate level of

engineering and sufficient mitigation has been identified at this stage of the Application.

Detailed management and mitigation plans and monitoring programs should not be

finalized at this stage of the Project as they need to be informed by the outcome of the

JRP process and additional Aboriginal community and stakeholder input. Teck will

continue to listen and respond to the interests of, and engage with, Aboriginal



communities and stakeholders throughout the three key phases of development:

(1) project definition, (2) project execution planning phase, and (3) implementation and

adaptive management phase. Management and mitigation plans and monitoring programs

cannot be fully detailed until the Project execution and planning phase because detailed

plans rely on a complete regulatory process, advanced engineering designs and additional

input from regulatory and government agencies, Aboriginal communities and

stakeholders. In the implementation, monitoring and adaptive management phase,

management and mitigation plans and monitoring programs will be evaluated for

effectiveness and adapted as needed on an ongoing basis.

2.3 Climate Change

Climate change, the potential effects of future climate change on the Project design and

operation, and requests for additional climate change analysis are themes that exist in

several SOCs received from Aboriginal communities and stakeholders. This response

discusses the general implications of climate change on the Project and explains how

climate change has been considered in the Project’s design, assessment and management

plans.

Teck has considered potential effects of climate change in its regulatory submissions for

the Project, including the Integrated Application, responses to SIRs and the Project

Update. In doing so, Teck has met the requirements of (i) the provincial terms of

reference issued for the Project (AENV 2009), and (ii) the federal guidance document

Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment: General

Guidance for Practitioners (The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Climate

Change and Environmental Assessment 2003). The latter recommends that proponents:

• discuss their project’s contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on both a

provincial and national scale

• consider how climate change could affect the project

As part of the EIA completed for the Project, Teck assessed a range of future climate

change scenarios to evaluate potential effects of future climate conditions (see Volume 5,

Appendix 3C of the Integrated Application). In the Project Update, climate change was

considered quantitatively and qualitatively; for example:

• the updated hydrology assessment quantitatively evaluates several climate change

scenarios (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update)



• the updated air quality assessment considers climate change in quantifying GHG

emissions (see Volume 3, Section 4 of the Project Update)

• for several disciplines, the discussion of prediction confidence considers climate

change (e.g., see Volume 3, Sections 4.6.11, 6.4.7, 6.5.7 and 6.6.5 of the Project

Update)

The breadth and depth of climate change analysis completed for the Project meets

regulatory requirements and is considered appropriate in the context of an EIA.

Additional climate change analysis is not required at this time; however, Teck will keep

abreast of emerging research, regulations and guidelines for managing GHG emissions

from the Project and will look for opportunities to further reduce GHG emissions during

future stages of engineering. For details of Teck’s greenhouse gas management plan for

the Project, see the response to AER Round 5 SIR 39.

2.3.1 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Teck takes its commitment to sustainability seriously and has established short term goals

to implement projects that reduce GHG emissions by 275 kt (kilotonnes) of CO2-

equivalent (CO2e) across its operations by 2020, and long term goals to reduce GHG

emissions by 450 kt of CO2e by 2030. The Project has been designed to operate in an

efficient manner using technically proven and commercially available technology. The

updated Project design incorporates several improvements and mitigation measures that

are expected to:

• reduce the Project’s overall (direct and indirect) GHG emission rate by 21%, and

• reduce the Project’s GHG emission intensity by 12% compared to the Integrated

Application

For a more detailed comparison and discussion of these improvements, see Volume 1,

Section 14.4.2.5 of the Project Update.

Overall, GHG emissions (direct and indirect) from the Project are expected to contribute

approximately 4 Mt (megatonnes) per year. Teck expects that these emissions will not

exceed the 100 Mt annual emission cap established by the provincial government.

Further, with a direct emissions intensity of 38.4 kg of CO2e per barrel, Teck believes that

the Project represents best-in-class for oil sands GHG emissions.

Teck remains active in the area of research and development into commercially and

economically viable technologies to reduce GHG emissions, particularly those that are

applicable to oil sands mining and extraction. This includes methane emissions, which

Canada intends to regulate by 2017. Teck’s involvement in oil sands-related research and

development is largely through its membership in Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation



Alliance and its GHG Environmental Priority Area. Teck anticipates that the Project’s

GHG emission rate and GHG emission intensity will be further reduced during future

stages of engineering, which will consider the Alberta Government’s Climate Leadership

Plan and associated regulations, when available.

2.3.2 Potential Climate Change Effects on the Project

Teck has designed the Project with future climate change in mind and will adaptively

manage the construction, operation and closure of the Project within a potentially

changing climate. The current and final Project design, and its associated management

plans, will consider climate change and its effects. For example:

• Teck’s water management plans, including off-stream storage requirements, comply

with the Surface Water Quantity Management Framework for the Lower Athabasca

River (GOA 2015), which considers future climate change scenarios.

• Operational diversion channel design will consider climate change during future

stages of engineering.

• Potential climate change effects are considered as part of the detailed fisheries

offsetting plan (DFOP).

• The closure plan and planned land capability and vegetation prescriptions for the

Project consider climate change and will be modified based on emerging conditions

and forecasts during operations.

Climate change predictions have inherent uncertainty. As such, adaptive management is a

key aspect of the environmental management for the Project and will be important for

managing potential effects of climate change on the Project. For an overview of Teck’s

adaptive management strategy, see Volume 1, Section 13.3.4 of the Project Update. See

Key Theme – Management, Mitigation and Monitoring (Section 2.2) for additional

discussion about the importance of adaptive management.

2.3.3 Incorporating Future Climate Scenarios

As mentioned, Teck considered multiple climate change scenarios in assessing potential

effects of the Project. These scenarios were assessed as part of the Integrated Application

(see Volume 5, Appendix 3C), and updated scenarios were assessed in the Project Update

consistent with the approach outlined in the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 2 SIR 28,

Appendix 28a.1. In total, 37 different climate scenarios have been considered as part of

the Project assessment work to date (13 in the Integrated Application and 24 in the

Round 2 SIRs and Project Update). These scenarios consider median and extremes of wet

or dry and cool or warm conditions.



Most requests for additional climate change analysis focus on the hydrology assessment,

and it is through the hydrology assessment that Teck has considered the 37 climate

change scenarios referenced above. Although Teck understands the desire of some

reviewers to have additional climate scenarios or datasets assessed, Teck considers the

approach used in the Integrated Application and Project Update to be appropriate and

robust. Further assessment, including refinement of methods used to incorporate climate

change effects in the hydrology assessment, will not meaningfully change the conclusions

of the assessment or its associated prediction confidence. As such, Teck will consider

additional climate change scenarios as part of adaptive management, following Project

approval and as the Project develops over time.

Some SOCs request more information about the effects of climate change on other

modelled assessments, such as the air quality assessment. Teck has considered the effects

of future climate scenarios on other environmental components (i.e., those with potential

to be measurably affected by climate change) by assessing effects on aquatic and

terrestrial resources. Climate change is expected to have a negligible effect on other

environmental components assessed in the Project Update (e.g., air quality, vegetation).

Should future research and monitoring suggest adverse effects from climate change, these

effects will be adaptively managed.

Teck is currently participating in research on extreme climate variability, which some

climate change scenarios indicate could increase in the future. The work is related to the

tree ring study for the Athabasca River completed by the University of Regina

(Sauchyn et al. 2015). Teck has engaged with Dr. Sauchyn through Canada’s Oil Sands

Innovation Alliance (COSIA) to understand the implications of this study on Athabasca

River flows at Fort McMurray. The tree ring study looks at multi-century, historical data

showing the range of climate variability for the Athabasca River. Teck is reviewing this

study and, if appropriate, will determine how it may be incorporated into future stages of

engineering to help prepare for climatic extremes.

In summary, the Integrated Application and the Project Update have appropriately

covered, both quantitatively and qualitatively, climate change and the potential effects of

future climate change related to the Project design and potential Project effects.

Additional assessment at this stage of the Project will not provide meaningfully different

findings. Adaptive management is a key aspect of environmental management for the

Project and provides confidence that Teck is committed to change and adapt as the

Project develops over time. Learning from experience and modifying subsequent actions

in light of that experience will enable the Project to evolve in step with changing

regulations, circumstances, local and regional monitoring results, and scientific advances.

For example, Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan was released in November 2015, and

Teck expects more details on how this plan will be implemented throughout 2016. Teck



has already identified a number of actions that it will take to prepare for anticipated

regulatory changes. These actions relate to Project design, research and development,

continuous improvement, additional emission studies and continued evaluation and

investment in green-energy initiatives (for details, see Volume 1, Section 14.4.2.5 of the

Project Update).

Teck will continue to monitor potential regulatory changes related to GHG emissions as

they evolve and will comply with applicable requirements for the Project. Because the

timing, extent and implementation details for potential regulatory changes are not fully

known at this time, Teck considers additional focus on GHG reductions is premature at

this stage of Project development. However, Teck will continue to focus on research and

strategies to reduce GHG emissions and will seek opportunities to incorporate

improvements into the Project design during future stages of engineering to support

Teck’s short-term and long-term GHG emission reduction goals.

References

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2009. Final Terms of Reference Environmental Impact Assessment Report

for the Proposed UTS Energy Corporation/Teck Cominco Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine

Project. Edmonton, Alberta.

GOA (Government of Alberta). 2015. Surface Water Quantity Management Framework for the Lower

Athabasca River (SWQMF). March 2015. Available at: http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/cumulative-

effects/cumulative-effects-management/management-frameworks/documents/LARP-

SurfaceWaterQuantityMgmt-Feb2015.pdf. Accessed March 2015.

Sauchyn, D.J., J-M. St-Jacques and B.H. Luckman. 2015. Long-term reliability of the Athabasca River

(Alberta, Canada) as the water source for oil sands mining. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 112(41): 12621–12626. October 13, 2015.

The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Climate Change and Environmental Assessment. 2003.

Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment: General Guidance

for Practitioners. November 2003. Cat. No. En106-50/2003E-PDF. Available at:

https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=A41F45C5-1. Accessed February 2016.



2.4 Agreement and Regulator Requests

In December 2015, Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 (FMM) provided Teck and

regulators a SOC regarding the Frontier Project Update. As part of this SOC, FMM

categorized a potential path forward to address each of its concerns. The categories used

by FMM are:

• Agreement – A suggested activity (mitigation, monitoring) that McMurray Métis

might want to consider in its Agreement negotiations with Teck.

• Regulatory – McMurray Métis’ recommendation to the regulators, including

information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project

is ultimately approved).

This key theme response constitutes Teck’s response to all concerns that FMM has

indicated are directed to regulators or an agreement negotiation with Teck. At the time of

drafting this response, Teck is actively negotiating with FMM and hopes to reach a long-

term agreement with the community. Such an agreement would formalize Teck’s

relationship with the community, including how Teck and the community will work

together to manage potential effects of the Project on FMM.

The balance of this key theme response articulates Teck’s specific views regarding

agreement and regulatory requests, including potential next steps.

2.4.1 Agreement Requests

In some cases, the SOCs that FMM has identified as best discussed within a long-term

agreement have been contemplated and spoken to by Teck through the regulatory and

consultation process to date (see examples listed below). Nonetheless, Teck would like to

further discuss these and other requests with FMM to reach an understanding on how to

address the SOC in a mutually satisfactory manner.

• Volume 3, Section 4.8.2 of the Project Update – In addition to focusing on

minimizing odour sources, Teck’s odour management plan will include working with

neighbouring Aboriginal communities to report, identify and manage detectable

odours at identified receptor locations.

• Volume 1, Section 14.4.2.6 of the Project Update – Teck will control dust from

construction, mining and tailings operations using a variety of methods that will be

identified in a dust management plan.

• Volume 3, Section 4.7.1.1 of the Project Update – Participation in relevant regional

initiatives is important to Teck and will be a requirement of the anticipated

Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval for the Project.

Teck recognizes that support for multi-stakeholder organizations that include



Aboriginal communities (e.g., the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association and

Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team), is important to Aboriginal communities.

As such, Teck will consider Aboriginal community views on multi-stakeholder

organizations now and in the future.

• Volume 5, Section 3.5.9 of the Integrated Application – An adaptive strategy will

be adopted to manage the potential effects associated with predicted flow changes in

receiving watercourses. This strategy will involve continuing and expanding

hydrologic and geomorphic monitoring. Should the monitoring data indicate

unacceptable hydrologic effects (e.g., increased channel erosion), mitigation options

(e.g., reduced flow releases) will be considered and implemented. Teck will continue

to discuss watershed management strategies with potentially affected Aboriginal

communities.

• Volume 1, Section 14.8.5 of the Project Update – Teck has committed to begin

developing an access management plan in cooperation with regulators, potentially

affected Aboriginal communities and stakeholders. Its objective will be to minimize

effects on hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping while maintaining public safety,

site development and mining operations.

• Volume 1, Section 18.6.4.2 of the Project Update – Teck will develop and

implement a weed management plan throughout the life of the Project, including

during reclamation and at closure.

2.4.2 Regulator Requests

As part of its December 2015 SOC, FMM included requests directed to regulators. Teck

has not provided a response to requests that were specifically directed to regulators.

Given Teck’s ongoing discussions with FMM, some of these requests may be addressed

prior to the JRP hearing for the Project.

Teck asks that regulatory and government agencies reviewing the Frontier Project

application refrain from making any decisions on regulatory approval conditions at this

time. Teck is of the view that decisions about specific regulator requests should be made

only after the JRP hearing, when all parties’ submissions and evidence can be properly

considered. This will ensure that the implications of these requests to the Project can be

properly considered prior to a decision being made.

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.1 INTRODUCTION


3 SOC Responses

3.1 Introduction

SOC 1

FMM Reference and Topic:

FMM [1], Section 1.9 Requests to the Crown

Requests to the Crowns

Requests for Alberta

McMurray Métis requests that Alberta:

i. develops a comprehensive and inclusive Métis consultation policy, in collaboration with

McMurray Métis and other Métis groups;

ii. directs proponents, including Teck, to consult with McMurray Métis on existing and planned

projects occurring or potentially influencing McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory;

iii. directs the Aboriginal Consultation Office (ACO) and the Alberta Energy Regulatory (AER) to

grant standing to and consult with McMurray Métis regarding the Teck Frontier Project and

other projects within McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory;

iv. involves McMurray Métis and other Métis organizations in a meaningful way in regional

planning, cumulative effects management and monitoring; and

v. negotiates a mitigation and accommodation agreement with McMurray Métis to address

existing impacts on McMurray Metis’ rights.

Teck Response:

i. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

ii. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

iii. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

iv. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

v. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.1 INTRODUCTION


SOC 2


FMM [2], Section 1.9 Requests to the Crown

Requests to the Crowns

Requests for Canada

McMurray Métis requests that:

i. CEAA and other federal departments continue to consult with McMurray Métis regarding the

Teck Frontier Project, and that these consultations are meaningful and that an appropriate

level of capacity funding is made available for these consultations; and

ii. Canada negotiates with McMurray Métis a mitigation and accommodation agreement to

address existing impacts on McMurray Metis’ rights.

Teck Response:



FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW


3.2 Project Overview

SOC 3


FMM [3], Section 2.3 Timing

Project Schedule – Delays, Risks and Uncertainties

McMurray Métis requests that AER requires Teck, before the application is deemed complete, to

provide a risk management plan describing how Teck will modify mitigation, monitoring and

reclamation schedules should there be any delays in the project’s construction and operation and to

address risks associated with bankruptcy and economic uncertainties.

Teck Response:

See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

SOC 4


FMM [4], Section 2.4 Location, Access and Traffic

Managing Access

McMurray Métis requests that the Government of Alberta identifies how it plans to address access

management in this area to avoid impacting or infringing on Aboriginal rights or access to

Aboriginal resources use.

Teck Response:




SOC 5



Managing Access

McMurray Métis requests that Teck continues to engage McMurray Métis in matters related to

access management and safety, road upgrades and maintenance, traffic safety and management,

and spill prevention. McMurray Métis also requests that Teck provides an opportunity for

McMurray Métis’ review and comment on these plans. Also, see recommendations [191] to [193]

and associated discussion.

Teck Response:


SOC 6



Managing Access

McMurray Métis requests that Teck and the Government of Alberta provide opportunities for

consultation and engagement on the permanence of the proposed bridge and that a decision for the

final decommissioning of the bridge includes input from McMurray Métis.

Teck Response:




SOC 7



Managing Access

McMurray Métis requests that Teck provides business opportunities to McMurray Métis-owned

businesses during construction and decommissioning of the bridge.

Teck Response:


SOC 8


FMM [8], Section 2.6 Workforce and Camps

Camp Workforce

McMurray Métis requests that Teck outlines its plans to maximize the use of local labour and limit

the negative effects that its workforce can have on infrastructure, services and traditional land use.

Also, see recommendations in Sections 10 and 12.

Teck Response:

Teck’s management, mitigation and monitoring initiatives with respect to community effects are

identified in Volume 1, Section 16.7.10.2 of the Integrated Application. For ease of reference, these are

summarized in Table 8-1.



Table 8-1 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring for Community Effects

Social Infrastructure Area Management, Mitigation and Monitoring

Housing • Make use of lodge-based accommodations during construction and operations to reduce the Project’s effect on the resident population and associated effects on social infrastructure and housing in the region.

Policing and emergency services

• Maintain explicit and enforced lodge, workplace, and flight policies with regards to the use of alcohol, drugs, and illegal activities

• Make available on-site security services, including controlled gates, check-in procedures, perimeter security fencing, and lodge-based security officers on duty 24 hours.

• Offer in-house security services to assist the RCMP within, and sometimes outside, the Project lease boundaries (e.g., securing accident scenes, assisting with highway closures).

• Develop and implement an emergency response plan that identifies the required personnel, procedures, and equipment resources (e.g., vehicles, fire response, medical response, and rescue).

• Develop required mitigation measures for areas adjacent to the Project based on the FireSmart Wildfire Assessment System and implement in the emergency response plan.

• Enter into mutual aid agreements with the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) and other oil sands companies that include: • responding to motor vehicle accidents on Highway 63 • responding to forest fire threats to Fort McKay • responding to regional spills

• Participate in the management of regional emergencies at the RMWB’s Regional Emergency Operations Centre.

Health services • Make available on-site health services, including an on-site medical facility staffed by qualified health professionals that provides 24-hour on-site primary, emergency, and occupational health services.

• Consider financial and in-kind contributions to the Northern Lights Health Foundation, where appropriate, to support the efforts of Alberta Health Services to meet the needs of Wood Buffalo residents. Recognizing some of the health concerns in the region (see Volume 1, Section 16.7.4.2 of the Integrated Application), Teck is prepared to make health promotion and disease prevention initiatives a focus of its community investment policy.

• Provide helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft access via the on-site aerodrome for injured workers requiring rapid evacuation for off-site medical care.

• Discuss with other industrial proponents near the Project options for coordinating on-site health facilities and resources.

Education • Assess and support school events and education initiatives identified by rural schools in the study area, as appropriate.

Social services • Provide employees with access to the company’s confidential employee assistance plan, which provides support for families and individuals who might experience difficulty dealing with personal, family, or work-life issues that can affect one’s health and well-being.

• Consider support for community level initiatives including social groups providing assistance to those in need.

Recreation infrastructure and services

• Offer shift schedules that provide workers with sufficient time off to enjoy leisure activities in their home communities.

• Make available on-site recreational opportunities and facilities.



Table 8-1 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring for Community Effects (cont’d)

Social Infrastructure Area Management, Mitigation and Monitoring

Transportation • Construct and operate an aerodrome near the Project site. • Use on-site as well as regional lodge accommodations during both construction and

operations to reduce worker commutes. • Use bus service for transporting construction and operations workers. • Limit private vehicles brought to the Project site. • Schedule truck traffic, including oversized loads, to off-peak hours. • Use an on-site concrete batch plant and attempt to source aggregates from pits near

to site. • Enforce lodge, workplace and flight policies with regards to the use of alcohol, drugs

and illegal activities. • Work with the local RCMP to communicate local effects. • Support the efforts of RMWB and the Oil Sands Community Alliance (OSCA) to work

with the provincial government to progress improvements to highway infrastructure in a timely way.

• Keep responsible regional and provincial planners informed of the Project’s development plans and their timing.

• Consult and cooperate with other operators regarding shift scheduling with a view to reduce overlap in commuter traffic.

Municipal infrastructure • Provide water and sewer services for the different mining areas and the associated processing facilities and infrastructure, including on-site lodges.

In the Project Update (see Volume 1, Section 16.4.2.2), Teck states that “the company will develop

policies and standards to guide local labour force development and hiring initiatives to increase the

potential number of qualified local residents.” Volume 1, Section 16.5.7 of the Project Update identifies

the types of processes, policies and programs that Teck is considering implementing (see Table 8-2).

Table 8-2 Processes, Policies and Programs to Increase Local Labour

Social Infrastructure Area Options under Consideration for the Project

Local procurement and employment

• Establish mechanisms to enhance employment prospects of local residents, including preferential consideration.

• Use procurement processes that regard local ownership and prevalence of workers residing locally as positive criteria in goods and services vendor selection competitions.

• Establish monitoring programs that measure local involvement, gather feedback and work with interested parties on how to improve results.

• Proactively engage with regional communities and identify ways of contributing to community growth, development and well-being.

Aboriginal community employment and procurement

• Develop substantial opportunities for local Aboriginal businesses to supply services and products in support of Project construction and operations.

• Hire qualified Aboriginal people from the communities surrounding the Project. • Support education, training and investment initiatives in local Aboriginal communities,

where appropriate.



For further discussion regarding Aboriginal employment and participation in the Project, see the response

to AER Round 5 SIR 43.

Teck is committed to proactively engaging with regional communities to identify ways of contributing to

community growth, development and well-being, and minimizing and mitigating adverse effects. Teck

will monitor the Project’s ongoing effects through its engagement with regional and provincial

stakeholders, Aboriginal communities, and other industry operators in the region.

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.3 AIR


3.3 Air

SOC 9


FMM [9], Section 3.3 Air Quality Assessment and Modelling

Ambient Air Quality Predictions

Regional PM2.5 Management

McMurray Métis recommends that the regulator, in developing a response for PM2.5 management

in the Lower Athabasca air zone and in the subsequent development of a management plan,

consults the McMurray Métis as a stakeholder and provides its members an opportunity to provide

input into policy-making.

Teck Response:


SOC 10



Ambient Air Quality Predictions

Air Emissions Management

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck commits to identifying and evaluating all possible air

emission control options for major emission sources, ensuring that the “best in class” controls and

management practices are selected.

Teck Response:




SOC 11



Tailings Inventory and Emissions

Emissions Related to Increased FFT Storage Volume

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides additional information on how the significant

increase in FFT storage volumes associated with the updated project will impact VOC, Total

Reduced Sulphur (TRS), polycyclic aromatic compound (PAC), and GHG emissions.

Teck Response:

The Project’s increased subsurface storage volume of fluid fine tailings (FFT) is not expected to affect

tailings pond emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total reduced sulphur (TRS) or polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PACs). This opinion is based on a review of the 2013 emission flux

measurements from regional ponds (see Volume 3, Appendix 4A, Table 4A-103 of the Project Update).

Conclusions from this review are summarized as follows:

• High VOC emission rates (indicated as hydrocarbon compound [HC] in Table 4A-103) are associated

only with ponds that receive froth treatment tailings (FTT), which is not related to the amount of FFT

in a pond.

• The relationship between TRS (indicated as reduced sulphur compounds [RSC] in Table 4A-103) and

ponds that receive FFT is not as clear; however, TRS emissions from FFT are expected to be low.

This is largely because the FFT do not contain much carbon in a form appropriate to support

microbial activity that produces H2S (Foght 2015).

• Ponds are not considered a source of PAC emissions because there is no mechanism for the ponds to

release PAC emissions. PAC emissions have not been confirmed by direct measurements of pond

surfaces.

• Elevated methane emissions are associated with the two oldest ponds that receive FTT. There is

potential for the FFT to produce methane that could be proportional to the volume of FFT in the pond.

However, methane formation is often delayed (e.g., 15 years for bubbling and 35 years for intensive

bubbling) (Burkus et al. 2014).

Although the 2013 regional emission measurements include some inherent variability, they are consistent

with the 2011 and 2012 measurements presented in Small et al. (2015).

Teck recognizes that each tailings pond is unique. The company will monitor potential fugitive tailings

pond emissions during operations to understand the emission profiles associated with the Project’s

tailings ponds.



References

Burkus, Z., J. Wheler and S. Pletcher. 2014. GHG Emissions from Oil Sands Tailings Ponds. Part I:

Review of the Tailings Ponds Facts and Practices. Prepared by Alberta Environment and

Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta.

Foght, J. 2015. Microbial metagenomics of oil sands tailings ponds: small bugs, big data. Genome 58:

507–510.

Small, C., S. Cho, Z. Hashiso, and A. Ulrich. 2015. Emissions from oil sands tailings ponds: Review of

tailings pond parameters and emission estimates. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

127: 490–501 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.020.

SOC 12



Acid Deposition

Dust Emissions and Acidification Mitigation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck applies best practices in minimizing dust emissions and

does not rely on base cation deposition for mitigating risks associated with acidification in the

region.

Teck Response:


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.020



SOC 13



Acid Deposition

Dust Emissions and Soil Alkalization

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck assesses the potential for dust-related soil alkalization

impacts.

Teck Response:

See Key Theme – Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Section 2.1).

SOC 14


FMM [14], Section 3.6 Mitigations Measures

Mine Fleet Emissions

Mine Fleet NOX Emissions

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck commits to exploring options to reduce mine fleet NOX

emissions. These options, at a minimum, should include requesting that manufacturers

commercially produce lower NOX-emitting hauler units and evaluating retrofit NOX emission

controls for controlling emissions from existing or new hauler units.

Teck Response:




SOC 15



Cogeneration Units Emissions

Cogeneration NOX Emissions

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck considers selective catalytic reduction as BATEA for its

co-generation units.

Teck Response:

See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4) and the response to AER Round 5

SIR 48.

SOC 16



Cogeneration Units Emissions

Cogeneration NOX Emissions

McMurray Métis recommends that regulators defer establishing NOX limits for the co-generations

units so that emission limits can be established based on regulations current at the time of detailed

design and equipment procurement.

Teck Response:




SOC 17



Mine and Tailings Emissions

Mine Emissions

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck adopts best practices in phasing mine operations to

minimize exposed bituminous surfaces and to minimize mine face emissions.

Teck Response:


SOC 18




Tailings Emissions

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck minimize tailings pond water surface area where possible

as a measure to minimize tailings emissions.

Teck Response:

The areal extent of a pond’s design is determined by considerations such as:

• the volume required to contain the tailings and water

• the availability and quality of the containment material

• the slopes of the internal and external containment walls (i.e., dykes)

Operational considerations and constraints associated with the ponds relate to:

• the amount of construction materials and distance that those materials have to be transported

• the distance that tailings have to be transported during operation and reclamation activities

For end pit disposal, the areal extent is also influenced by the size and depth of the mine pit.



Teck has addressed these considerations in designing tailings areas for the Project (for details, see

Volume 1, Section 6 of the Project Update).

Although the Project will have several ponds, the external tailings areas (ETA 1 and ETA 2) that receive

froth treatment tailings (FTT) will be the main fugitive emission sources. Fugitive emissions from these

tailings areas appear to be related to unrecovered diluent in the froth that is directed to the ETAs.

Measurements of fugitive gaseous emissions from these types of ponds are often expressed as a flux

(i.e., tonnes per hectare per annum [t/ha/a]). An emission measurement expressed as a flux needs to be

multiplied by the representative area (i.e., hectares) to determine the emission rate (i.e., tonnes per

annum [t/a]); however, there are no known studies that indicate fugitive emission rates are physically

dependent on the surface area. Therefore, a reduction in the area of tailings ponds is not considered

proven mitigation.

SOC 19




Diluent Loss Target

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck commits to establishing a diluent loss target of 3

volumes/1000 barrels of production.

Teck Response:




SOC 20


FMM [20], Section 3.7 Community Engagement and Regional Initiatives

Odour Management Plan

Odour Management and Notification Plan

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck works with McMurray Métis throughout the life of the

Frontier Mine Project to develop, adopt and apply an odour management and notification plan to

address odour issues associated with the Frontier Project.

Teck Response:


SOC 21



Haze, Visibility, and Light Pollution

Visibility and Light Notification and Management Plan

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck works with McMurray Métis throughout the life of the

Frontier Mine Project to develop and apply a protocol for receiving and following-up on complaints

or concerns related to visibility or light issues associated with the Frontier Project.

Teck Response:




SOC 22



Regional Initiatives

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck continues to support, participate in, and financially fund

regional multi-stakeholder organizations. McMurray Métis also requests that Teck provides

support for the community to meaningfully participate in these organizations as well as in other

forums such as AEMERA or LARP.

Teck Response:


SOC 23



Sharing Information

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck regularly shares ambient air monitoring and emissions

monitoring data to provide the opportunity for McMurray Métis to observe trends in the Frontier

Project’s environmental performance.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.4 HYDROGEOLOGY


3.4 Hydrogeology

SOC 24


FMM [24], Section 4.6 Groundwater Assessment

Seepage Control System

With regard to the seepage control system, McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides the

opportunity for McMurray Métis to review the proposed seepage or groundwater monitoring plan

submitted to government. McMurray Métis also requests that Teck regularly (i.e., annually) briefs

McMurray Métis on or technically reviews the project’s performance reports on the seepage

control wells, including total volumes captured, and estimates of the percent of process-affected

seepage captured by the wells.

Overall, the seepage-control system design appears to be adequate but there is a greater likelihood

that process-affected seepage could migrate away from the site and so for this reason, McMurray

Métis would like to continue to be consulted on operations and monitoring of the seepage control

system. This is critical; monitoring groundwater and nearby connected surface waters should be

conducted and reported on in a coordinated and transparent manner and findings outside those

predicted in the EIA and Project Update should be promptly reported to the community.

Teck Response:




SOC 25




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with the community on whether or not it is

considered feasible to install the interceptor trench earlier, i.e., before operations cease, if there are

indications of process-affected seepage flowing downgradient of the interceptor wells that might

travel beyond the proposed location of the interceptor trench by the time of closure.

Teck Response:


SOC 26




Additionally, since far-future seepage modelling suggests the potential for off-site migration to the

southeast of the ETAs, McMurray Métis recommends that Teck considers the alternative of

potentially continuing to operate the active hydraulic control system (i.e., with pumping wells) for a

longer period of time beyond operations while the cut-off ditch is phased in and monitoring

indicates that the pumping wells are redundant and can be decommissioned.

Teck Response:




SOC 27



Support Regional Initiatives

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck helps fund completion of groundwater-related CEMA

project initiatives so that recommendations can be forwarded to government that have had multi-

stakeholder involvement and consensus on potential frameworks.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.5 WATER QUALITY, AQUATICS AND FISH HABITAT OFFSETTING PLANS


3.5 Water Quality, Aquatics and Fish Habitat Offsetting Plans

SOC 28


FMM [28], Section 5.3 Water Quality, Aquatics and Fish Habitat Offsetting Plans Key Concerns and Recommendations

Tailings Impoundment Failure and Seepage

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck:

i. provides a full assessment of the impacts to the FHCL, Redclay Creek watershed, Athabasca

River and downstream areas should an External Tailings Area suffer massive structural failure

for any reason;

ii. provides contingency plans and potential mitigation if the barrier walls and seepage capture of

the External Tailings Areas do not perform as anticipated in preventing seepage from

contaminating groundwater and surface waters; and

iii. assesses the potential impacts of discharging up to 40 L/s (3500 m³/d; Figure 7-13) of process-

affected seepage to the fish habitat compensation lake.

Teck Response:

i. See Key Theme – Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Section 2.1).

ii. See Key Theme – Management, Mitigation and Monitoring (Section 2.2).

iii. See the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 167b.



SOC 29



Downstream Water and Sediment Quality


i. adds total and alkylated forms of dibenzothiophene in sediments to the list of monitored

substances for any watercourses or lakes (i.e., FHCL) downstream of the project; and

ii. ensures that the analytical laboratories contracted for water and sediment analyses are capable

of achieving detection limits at criteria intended to protect aquatic life.

Teck Response:

i. See Key Theme – Management, Mitigation and Monitoring (Section 2.2).

ii. Analytical laboratories contracted for Project water and sediment analyses are accredited by the

Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA). Under CALA’s accreditation

program, performance evaluation assessments are conducted annually for laboratory procedures,

methods and internal quality control. Where achievable, the detection limit for each substance

analyzed is less than the corresponding water or sediment quality guideline. Detection limits less than

water and sediment quality guidelines may not be achievable for all samples (e.g., where dilutions are

required because of high dissolved solids or other matrix effects). Teck will continue to confirm that

appropriate detection limits (i.e., less than water or sediment quality guidelines) are used for all water

and sediment analyses conducted for the Project.

In some cases, laboratories that are not CALA-accredited (e.g., university laboratories) may be used

for water and sediment analyses. Non-accredited laboratories would be used only in rare cases where

they provide a specialized service that is not available at an accredited laboratory.



SOC 30



Muskeg and Overburden Drainage – Mercury

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck models mercury and methylmercury loadings to the

FHCL and any downstream waters, including the Athabasca River, considering uptake by

piscivorous fish and waterbirds. Models should consider the potential methylmercury production,

augmentation of mercury export and bioaccumulation under both the Application and Planned

Development (cumulative impact) cases.

Teck Response:

Mercury and methyl mercury loadings to the fish habitat compensation lake (FHCL) will be addressed in

the detailed fisheries offsetting plan (DFOP) for the Project. Similar to the work completed for the Shell

Jackpine Mine Expansion (JME), Teck will use regional data to describe mercury and methyl mercury

concentrations in water, benthic invertebrates, plankton, zooplankton and fish, and will rely on literature

values for anticipated rates of increase. Literature values will be drawn mainly from flooded hydroelectric

reservoirs in northern Canada and Europe. Similar to the work completed for the JME, a conservative

approach will be adopted whereby the highest rates of increase in mercury concentrations (in water and

biota) observed in flooded reservoirs will be applied to the FHCL. This estimate will provide a reasonable

“worst-case” prediction of mercury concentrations and an anticipated timeline to return to baseline

conditions.



SOC 31



Pit Lake Residual Toxicity and Research


i. commits to ongoing participation in pit lake research, including studies of bottom sediments

and possible transfer of contaminants through the aquatic food chain, as well as bioturbation

and wind-induced resuspension of sediments;

ii. provides to McMurray Métis results or reports on any studies into pit lake sediments and

transfer of contaminants to aquatic food webs;

iii. updates its assessment to include the fate and transport of naphthenic acids and PAHs over

time in its pit lakes, and reports on those substances that are expected to exceed effects

benchmarks, notably in sediments; and

iv. develops and provides a hydrological model that predicts the time to fill its pit lakes, and water

losses from source waters such as wetlands and streams, including built-in mitigation to protect

against excessive water drawdown and dry-out of these systems.

Teck Response:



iii. See the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 141e.

iv. Teck has prepared a conceptual closure drainage plan for the Project that estimates the total duration

for developing the closure landscape and drainage system (see Volume 1, Section 13.6.4 of the

Project Update). The level of conceptual design and planning for the Project is comparable to other

regulatory applications and approvals for existing oil sands mines, and is consistent with the terms of

reference for the Project (AENV 2009). The timing of specific activities and drainage features will be

strongly influenced by operational implementation of the mine plan. Teck will continue to refine and

update this plan as part of more detailed future engineering. For this reason, it is not possible to

forecast and provide an accurate, detailed timeline for specific reclamation activities.



References

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2009. Final Terms of Reference Environmental Impact Assessment Report

for the Proposed UTS Energy Corporation/Teck Cominco Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine

Project. Edmonton, Alberta.

SOC 32



Aerial Emissions and Snowmelt Concentrations of Contaminants


i. provides an update of the cumulative impacts of aerial emissions in surface waters, including

any further snow survey results; and

ii. commits to sharing snowmelt data that exceed water quality guidelines, as soon as possible, not

just upon request.

Teck Response:



SOC 33



Loss of Traditionally Significant Surface Waters




i. meets with McMurray Métis to discuss how it might support the community with access to and

preservation of special places, including but not limited to, habitation sites in the Frontier

Project lease;

ii. provides details about the evaluation of the size and length of Red Clay Creek to determine if

the watershed can support connecting the proposed compensation lake to the Athabasca River;

and

iii. provides more information about the hydrogeological and surface water connections between

wetlands in the Red Clay Creek diversion area.

Teck Response:


ii. The fish habitat compensation lake (FHCL) outlet channel will connect the lake to the lower Redclay

Creek channel downstream of the PDA. The lower Redclay Creek channel, which connects to the

Athabasca River, is sinuous, unconfined and divided longitudinally into three reaches based on

differences in channel characteristics (see Table 33-1). The upper Redclay Creek watershed will be

connected to the Athabasca River through the FHCL.

Flow statistics for the lower Redclay Creek downstream of the FHCL are provided in Volume 3,

Section 6.4.5.3, Table 6-10 of the Project Update. The data suggest that flows in the lower Redclay

Creek will:

• be maintained for all seasons

• increase at the start of operation because of release from muskeg drainage and runoff from

cleared areas

• decrease at end of mining due to closed-circuit areas

• increase at closure (except flood flows) from the predevelopment conditions

iii. The diversion channel layout is shown in Volume 1, Section 7.7.2, Figure 7.7-3 of the Project Update.

Figure 33-1 shows a typical cross-section of the diversion channel and illustrates the connections

between water levels in the diversion channel and groundwater in lowland areas (e.g., wetlands)

adjacent to the diversion channel.

The normal operating water level in the diversion channel will be approximately 2 m below the

original ground surface. This will cause local groundwater drawdown during normal-flow conditions.

The drawdown influence is estimated to occur in the area within about 200 m of the diversion channel

banks.

During high flows such as floods, local groundwater tables adjacent to the diversion channel will rise

to the ground surface, and the surficial aquifer will be recharged during such flow events.



Table 33-1 Reach Characteristics of Lower Redclay Creek

Reach Location Length

(m)

Mean Channel

Width (m)

Maximum Depth

(m) Habitat Composition Substrate Late Winter Conditions

1 From the confluence with the Athabasca River upstream to the Redclay Paleochannel

934 10.3 0.83 Run – 74% Riffle – 26%

Fines – 62% Gravel – 14% Cobble – 13% Boulder – 11%

Frozen to the bottom

2 Within the Redclay Paleochannel

11,837 7.1 1.40 Run – 84% Impoundment – 16%

Fines – 100% Unknown

3 From the Redclay Paleochannel upstream to the confluence with the FHCL outlet channel

1,334 6.8 1.01 Run – 73% Riffle – 27%

Fines – 30% Gravel – 16% Cobble – 53% Boulder – 1%

Shallow under-ice depth with no measurable flow



Figure 33-1 Cross-Section of the Diversion Channel



SOC 34


FMM [34], Section 5.4 Fish and Aquatic Habitat Key Concerns and Requests

Fish Rescue from Destroyed or Diverted Streams and Lakes

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck confirms that it will rescue all fish species from all aquatic

habitats that will be destroyed, diverted or isolated, including those that support fish during any

season, and will not limit the rescue operations to those waters that support large-bodied fish

species. McMurray Métis requests the opportunity to be involved in fish rescue and fish habitat

compensation monitoring.

Teck Response:


SOC 35



Tissue Residue Guideline – Mercury in Fish

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides justification and details about the sources of

information, mercury concentrations, species and size of fish that were used to develop the fish

tissue concentration estimates for the Pre-development and Application cases.

Teck Response:

The estimated predevelopment and Application Case mercury fish tissue concentrations were calculated

using a mercury bioconcentration factor (BCF) that was based on the central tendency (95% upper

confidence limit of the mean [95UCLM]) of observed fish tissue concentrations (see additional detail

provided below). The 95UCLM was considered appropriate because (i) it represents a reasonable worst-

case average accumulation of mercury (i.e., highest 95UCLM of multiple years, based on fish species

with the highest observed mercury accumulation) for fish in the receiving environment, and (ii) it is

consistent with the methods applied for estimating mercury exposure in people consuming fish. Although

individual fish tissue concentrations identified as part of regional monitoring might exceed this 95UCLM,

these individual fish would not represent exposure in the fish population as a whole. Furthermore, the



estimated predevelopment mercury fish tissue concentration does not represent an estimate of the existing

or current mercury fish tissue concentrations in the region; the Application Case estimate (which is almost

seven times higher than the predevelopment estimate) is anticipated to be more consistent with the current

average mercury fish tissue concentrations in the region.

Predevelopment and Application Case fish tissue estimates were based on water quality predictions for

predevelopment and Application Case, respectively, and the estimated mercury BCF. As presented in

Volume 3, Section 7.11.5, Table 7-46 of the Project Update:

• The estimated mercury fish tissue concentration (i.e., 0.058 mg/kg wet weight) for predevelopment

conditions was calculated by multiplying the predevelopment median concentration in water

(0.0000004 mg/L) by the mercury BCF (145,673 L/kg).

• The estimated mercury fish tissue concentration (i.e., 0.39 mg/kg wet weight) for the Application

Case was calculated by multiplying the predicted Application Case maximum median concentration

in water (0.0000027 mg/L) by the mercury BCF (145,673 L/kg).

Volume 3, Appendix 12B, Section 12B.9 of the Project Update describes the method for calculating

BCFs for fish. The mercury BCF was calculated based on the predicted predevelopment surface water

quality in the Athabasca River (downstream of Redclay Creek) and the fish mercury exposure point

concentration used in the human health risk assessment for this location.

For additional information on mercury concentrations in fish tissues based on monitoring data, see

Volume 3, Appendix 12B, Section 12B.7 of the Project Update. These data were used to derive the

mercury BCF. As described in Section 12B.7, the most recent fish tissue quality data are available from

the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP 2015) and focus on mercury concentrations in

specific fish species (e.g., lake whitefish, northern pike and walleye). Baseline data used in the Project

Update were entirely based on the most recent three years of available data from RAMP (i.e., 2005, 2008

and 2011) and focus on the Athabasca and Muskeg rivers given their proximity to the Project. The

maximum 95UCLM for walleye (based on the most recent three years of available mercury data) was

used to characterize baseline mercury concentrations in fish tissue. Mercury concentrations in walleye

were selected because they represented the highest mercury concentrations of the three fish species. The

RAMP fish tissue data for mercury were collected from walleye measuring 212 mm to 635 mm fork

length and 91 g to 3,060 g total weight.

The site-specific mercury BCF estimated for the Project Update (145,673 L/kg) is substantially higher

than the recommended values for mercuric chloric (3,530 L/kg) and methylmercury (11,168 L/kg)

(U.S. EPA 1999). Therefore, the site-specific value adds conservatism to the assessment because it results

in higher predicted mercury tissue concentrations than these recommended values.



References

RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program). 2015. Fish Tissue Program Data. Available at:

http://www.ramp-alberta.org/data/Fisheries/Tissue/Tissue.aspx. Accessed December 2015.

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Screening Level Ecological Risk

Assessment Protocol. Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values. U.S. EPA Office of Solid

Waste, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Center for Combustion Science and

Engineering.

SOC 36



Tissue Residue Guideline – Mercury in Fish

Given that Teck’s calculation of future fish tissue residue for mercury under the Application Case

is close to seven times higher than the current level (and ten times higher than the TRG for wildlife

that consume aquatic biota), McMurray Métis requests that Teck addresses potential impacts to

wildlife that consume fish, including waterbirds.

Teck Response:

The updated surface water quality assessment uses a methyl mercury concentration of 0.058 mg/kg-ww as

an estimate of predevelopment fish tissue concentrations (see Volume 3, Section 7.11.5, Table 7-46 and

Section 7.11.6, Table 7-57 of the Project Update). This value does not represent the actual (or existing)

concentrations of methyl mercury in large predatory fish that were used to describe the potential effects of

the Project on wildlife consumers of fish (piscivorous wildlife) in the wildlife health risk assessment

(WHRA). Those details are provided in Volume 3, Section 13 of the Project Update:

• See Tables 13-22, 13-23 and 13-31 for fish methyl mercury concentrations used to assess potential

effects on piscivorous wildlife (horned grebe, whooping crane and river otter)

• See Section 13.5.1.3 for a list of piscivorous wildlife species identified as receptors of potential

concern (ROPC) and included in the WHRA

• See Section 13.7.2 for results and discussion of the wildlife effects analysis related to the methyl

mercury concentrations.

The existing methyl mercury fish concentration used in the WHRA is 0.44 mg/kg-ww.



Results of the WHRA as it relates to methyl mercury are summarized as follows:

River Otter: Predicted methyl mercury hazard quotients (HQs) for river otter exceeded 1.0 for the

existing condition, Base Case, Application Case, PDC, pit lakes and fish habitat compensation lake

(FHCL) scenarios. Fish consumption accounts for 99% of this species’ exposure to methyl mercury.

However, HQ values greater than 1.0 are due, in part, to conservative assumptions applied in the WHRA.

For example:

• Measured mercury concentrations were based on large-bodied sport fish (i.e., walleye) ranging in

length from 200 mm to 600 mm. However, river otters generally prefer fish ranging from 150 mm to

170 mm (Erlinge 1968).

• River otters are expected to consume a variety of herbivorous and piscivorous fish species that would

accumulate various levels of mercury. The WHRA conservatively assumes they eat only walleye, a

predatory fish that tends to accumulate higher levels of mercury compared to smaller fish such as lake

whitefish.

Based on a more realistic set of exposure parameters, the HQs did not exceed 1.0 for the river otter (see

Volume 3, Section 13.7.2.3 of the Project Update).

Horned Grebe and Whooping Crane: Predicted methyl mercury HQs for the horned grebe and

whooping crane exceeded the benchmark of 1.0 in several scenarios. These risks were also based on the

assumption that the horned grebe and whooping crane would exclusively eat large-bodied sport fish

(i.e., walleye) ranging in length from 200 mm to 600 mm. In reality, these fish would be too large for the

horned grebe and whooping crane to eat. Typically the grebe preys on fish that are between 20 mm and

120 mm in length (Piersma 2009), while the whooping crane tends to prey upon minnows that are less

than 20 mm in length (Sonnenblick et al. 2012). As such, the fish size and mercury concentrations

assumed for these two birds are probably unrealistic. With more realistic exposure parameters

(e.g., smaller fish sizes), total mercury concentrations in fish consumed by horned grebe and whooping

crane are expected to be below 0.1 mg/kg-ww. Assuming that existing fish mercury concentrations were

0.1 mg/kg-ww, methyl mercury HQs would not exceed the benchmark of 1.0 for the horned grebe and

whooping crane (see Volume 3, Section 13.7.2.2 of the Project Update).

References

Erlinge, S. 1968. Food studies on captive otters Lutra lutra L. Oikos 19: 259–270.

Piersma, T. 2009. Body size, nutrient reserves and diet of Red-necked and Slavonian Grebes Podiceps

grisegena and P. auritus on Lake Usselmeer, The Netherlands. Bird Study 35: 1, 13–24.

Sonnenblick, K., S. Klosiewski and B.B. Kienbaum. 2012. A Closer Look at Whooping Cranes:

Whooping Crane Education in Wisconsin and Eastern North America. Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources. PUB-ER-661.



SOC 37



Accounting for Residual Impacts on Fish Abundance and Productivity


i. clarifies statements that indicate effects on fish abundance are not anticipated in the aquatics

LSA (when it is known that the compensation lake will not account for all losses in the LSA);

ii. since fish might occur in the lower reaches of Big and Redclay creeks during any open water

season, provides values and percent reduction of low flows (e.g., 7Q2, 7Q10) in addition to a

reduction in mean annual flows, including whether there might be occasions when there is no

flow in these watercourses compared to the current scenario, and then translate this into fish

habitat or productivity losses;

iii. identifies which fish species will lose habitat in Big Creek, Redclay Creek and other waters in

the LSA that will not benefit from the compensation lake;

iv. justifies ranking residual effects to fish as ‘reversible’ and ‘medium duration’ considering

biologically relevant timespans, including the fact that the duration of effects will extend for

several generations of most fish species; and

v. given that the cause of lost aquatic habitat in lower Big and Redclay creeks is lack of flow (due

to withheld or re-directed water), evaluates and considers possible mitigative solutions that

would provide additional instream flow to these watercourses rather than gradually

diminishing flows over the course of operations.

Teck Response:

i. The conceptual fisheries offsetting plan (CFOP) includes a 60 ha fish habitat compensation lake

(FHCL), which would be located in the aquatics LSA and provide a portion of the required offset for

habitat losses associated with the Project. The CFOP also identifies additional offsetting options that

could be used, in whole or in combination, to provide the full offset (see Volume 1, Section 15.4 of

the Project Update). These additional offsetting options include options both within and outside of the

LSA.

Consultation with stakeholders and regulators regarding these offsetting options is part of the ongoing

development of the offsetting plan. Following consultation, Teck will develop a draft detailed

fisheries offsetting plan (DFOP). This plan will include offsetting measures that are located in the



aquatics LSA to account for all habitat losses in the LSA and maintain habitat productivity and fish

abundance in the LSA.

ii. Predicted changes in low flows (i.e., 7Q10 low flow discharge) for Athabasca River tributaries in the

aquatics LSA are provided in the updated hydrology assessment (see Volume 3, Section 6.4.5.3,

Tables 6-9 to 6-11 of the Project Update). These changes range from no change to small increases in

7Q10 flows for Big Creek and Redclay Creek. Because the predicted changes in low flows are small

and consist of flow increases, these changes are considered to have no potential for adverse effects on

fish or fish habitat.

iii. Some fish species may be affected by predicted habitat changes in lower Redclay Creek and lower

Big Creek, but not benefit from the FHCL. This would include species present in affected habitats but

that are not included in the FHCL’s target fish community (and do not otherwise naturally colonize

the lake).

The target fish community for the FHCL is being developed for the draft DFOP as part of the ongoing

refinement of the offsetting plan, based on consultation with regulators and potentially affected

Aboriginal communities. At present, it is known that the FHCL will include some (but not all) of the

affected fish species since the total number of fish species for the FHCL is less than the number of

species present in the two natural watercourses. However, the FHCL system will be designed to allow

for some level of use by all species that use the Big Creek and Redclay Creek watersheds, should they

choose to access the new habitats.

Fish species documented or assumed to be present in lower Big Creek and lower Redclay Creek

include a number of sport fish, sucker and forage fish species (see Volume 1, Section 15.3.2,

Table 15.3-2 of the Project Update). The FHCL (located in the Redclay Creek watershed) will be

designed to provide a variety of habitats that meet all life stage requirements (i.e., spawning, nursery,

rearing, feeding, overwintering) of the various species of the target fish community. In addition, as

part of the development of the draft DFOP, the FHCL outlet channel will be designed to have a

naturalized, geomorphic channel that will be an analogue of the existing Redclay Creek channel at the

location of the FHCL. This design will provide (i) two-way passage for fish species that use the

natural habitats in Redclay Creek, and (ii) useable channel habitats such as riffle/run sequences and

associated diversity of substrates currently present in Redclay Creek. In combination, the FHCL and

outlet channel will provide a variety of new lake habitats as well as riverine habitats similar to the

adjacent Redclay Creek channel. The design will allow all species that use Redclay Creek to use the

FHCL outlet channel as habitat, and to access the FHCL to use the available lake habitats.

Several of the sucker and forage fish species present in lower Redclay Creek or Big Creek are also

present at the FHCL location, indicating these species can be expected to colonize the FHCL and

outlet channel soon after construction. Migratory fish species from the Athabasca River that use

tributary habitats in either Big Creek or Redclay Creek on a seasonal basis will also be able to access

the newly constructed habitats, should they choose to do so.



Most fish species that occur in lower Redclay Creek or lower Big Creek are either already present at

the planned FHCL location (e.g., longnose sucker, white sucker, brook stickleback, fathead minnow,

finescale dace, lake chub, longnose dace, northern redbelly dace, pearl dace, slimy sculpin and trout-

perch), or are migratory species capable of accessing the new habitats in the FHCL system

(e.g., Arctic grayling, burbot, northern pike and walleye). Species that use the lower natural creeks

and are unlikely to access the FHCL or outlet channel include yellow perch, flathead chub and

spottail shiner, three species that are generally known to be associated with the Athabasca River and

to have limited distributions in small tributary watersheds (RAMP 2004).

iv. The updated fish and fish habitat assessment (see Volume 3, Section 8 of the Project Update) rates the

predicted effects of habitat changes on fish habitat productivity and fish abundance in the aquatics

LSA as long duration and reversible. The duration scale is based on the duration of the changes

themselves, some of which are permanent. Effects were considered reversible in light of productive

compensation habitats, as described in the CFOP.

Although some time will be required for the newly constructed offsetting habitats to develop to their

full level of habitat productivity, current monitoring data for existing fish habitat compensation lakes

in the oil sands region indicate that initial habitat productivity develops rapidly, with fish populations

colonizing the new habitats as soon as they are available for use. This rapid colonization occurred in

cases where the new habitats were directly connected to natural fish-bearing habitats, as is the case

for the Project’s FHCL. Colonization also occurred most rapidly for species with the shortest

generational time-span (i.e., small-bodied forage fish species).

The full amount of offsetting habitat for the Frontier Project will be provided during construction,

whereas some of the effects of the Project on fish habitat productivity (e.g., effects on lower Redclay

Creek and lower Big Creek) do not occur at the construction snapshot, but rather, 25 years or later

during the diversion, maximum build-out or closure snapshots. This schedule limits the effects of the

delay in the full development of habitat productivity in the offsetting habitats.

v. Teck does not plan to implement further mitigation strategies that would provide additional flows to

Big Creek and Redclay Creek during operations. The current plan already includes appropriate

mitigation measures to reduce flow changes in lower Big Creek and lower Redclay Creek. However,

potential mitigation options may include pumping water within the release water drainage system

(i.e., to redistribute flow releases between the lower Big Creek and lower Redclay Creek) or using a

portion of the water withdrawn from the Athabasca River to supplement the flows in these two

creeks. Appropriate evaluation and consultation of these options would need to be conducted prior to

any changes to the water management plan described in Volume 1, Section 7 of the Project Update.



References

RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program). 2004. Oil Sands Regional Aquatics Monitoring

Program (RAMP) 2004: Review of Historical Fisheries Information for Tributaries of the

Athabasca River in the Oil Sands Region. Prepared by Golder Associates Limited for the

Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) Steering Committee. February 2004.

SOC 38



Pit Lakes as Fish Habitat


i. further explains the functionality as fish habitat and planned incorporation into local

ecosystems of its large end pit lakes that will be located far from fish that might naturally

colonize them; and,

ii. evaluates and discusses the timing and management of fish colonization of EPLs that ensures

fish are excluded until habitat quality (water, sediments, food) are confirmed to be non-toxic.

Teck Response:

i. The pit lakes are designed primarily as mine closure features. Shallow littoral habitats incorporated

into the lake design provide diverse aquatic habitat for promoting biological productivity. Unlike the

fish habitats that are part of the conceptual fisheries offsetting plan (CFOP), the pit lakes are not part

of the plan to offset the effects of the Project on productive fish habitats. The pit lakes are expected to

provide productive aquatic habitat on the closure landscape in addition to the habitats included in the

CFOP.

As described in the responses to AER Round 4 SIRs 19, 20, 21 and 27, the pit lakes closure drainage

system has naturalized geomorphic watercourse channels that will drain the lakes to downstream

natural watercourses where fish-bearing habitats are present. This will allow fish from downstream

habitats to access upstream portions of the closure drainage system and the pit lakes. The central pit

lake will be connected to the fish habitat compensation lake (FHCL) and lower Redclay Creek, and

the south pit lake will connect to fish-bearing habitat in lower Big Creek. The north pit lake will

connect to Unnamed Creek 18, which is not known to be fish-bearing; however, there are fish-bearing

habitats farther downstream (see the response to AER Round 4 SIR 20).



The fish species with the potential to naturally colonize the pit lakes will be those present in the

connected natural fish-bearing watercourses. The central and south pit lakes are connected to

tributaries of the Athabasca River, so it will be possible for additional fish species to access the lakes

from the Athabasca River.

Presence of fish species in the pit lakes would be through colonization from connected downstream

natural habitats, and these will be species that are able to use the geomorphic closure channels

(e.g., the channels are suitable habitat for migration). Although a number of fish species could

colonize the pit lakes, it is likely that fish distribution in the closure drainage system will be similar to

the natural tributaries of the Athabasca River. Regional fish distribution data show that, in most

natural Athabasca River tributaries, the number of fish species present declines upstream away from

the Athabasca River. This observation suggests that not all species in the natural habitats downstream

of the pit lakes would necessarily access the lakes.

Fish populations would likely become naturally established for species whose life stage requirements

are provided by the habitats in the pit lakes, or in combination with the habitats in the adjacent

connected closure channels. The productivity achieved in the pit lakes for each colonizing species

will depend on the species-specific suitability of the habitats that are present.

ii. Closure monitoring of water quality will determine when the lakes will be ready for colonization and

release to the downstream natural environment. As discussed, colonization will be possible once the

lakes are connected to fish-bearing habitats (as described in response to part [i]). Until then, water

from the Athabasca River will be pumped into the lakes, and there will be no connectivity to

downstream fish-bearing habitats.

SOC 39



Access Management Plans

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with the community about how access to lands

and waters in and near the project area can be facilitated, considering their historical, current and

future-intended traditional uses and the asserted, constitutionally-protected right of community

members to harvest as defined under R v. Powley (2003).



Teck Response:

See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4) and the response to CEAA Round 5

SIR 162.

SOC 40



Climate Change Impacts to Project

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck specifically evaluates and considers how climate change in

addition to all industrial demands might reduce or affect water availability for its project and for

fisheries and aquatic resources in the Athabasca River mainstem and its tributaries on its lease,

considering all other water uses and losses.

Teck Response:

See Key Theme – Climate Change (Section 2.3) and the response to AER Round 5 SIR 66 and

CEAA Round 5 SIR 142.

SOC 41



Consultation – Proposed Bridge over the Athabasca

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with the community on navigation and fisheries

concerns and offsets related to the Athabasca Bridge.

Teck Response:




SOC 42



Future Monitoring


i. consults on all project-specific aquatic monitoring plans, including community-based

monitoring (CBM); and

ii. indicates the responsible government agency and requirements for inspecting culverts to

ensure the required monitoring and maintenance of culverts is conducted.

Teck Response:


ii. See Key Theme – Management, Mitigation, and Monitoring (Section 2.2).

SOC 43


FMM [43], Section 5.5 Fish Habitat Offsetting Plans Key Concerns and Requests

Habitat Calculations and Fish Rescue


i. explains the basis for assumed fish distributions, such as whether Commercial, Recreational or

Aboriginal (CRA) species are assumed to be present if there is access and suitable habitat at

any time of year (e.g., middle Redclay Creek, Big Creek, tributaries of these creeks);

ii. confirms that fish rescue or salvage efforts would include both forage fish and large-bodied fish

species;

iii. indicates whether it considered that fish must occur during all seasons in a watercourse in

order to be included in habitat unit (HU) calculations—for example, if a habitat is temporarily

unsuitable (winter), but is suitable during most of the year, ensure and confirm that this habitat

is accounted for in the offsetting plans; and



iv. provides discussion and side-by-side tabulated values of its HSI or habitat unit calculations for

the Project Update from both before and after the 2013 changes to the Fisheries Act (i.e., how

did the regulatory changes alter the calculations?)

Teck Response:

i. As described in the conceptual fisheries offsetting plan (CFOP) (see Volume 1, Section 15.3.2 of the

Project Update), the fish distribution information used in habitat suitability index (HSI) modelling for

the affected habitats included all documented distribution data, from historical to current, as well as

assumed distributions, which included species not documented to be present but considered likely to

occur. Species not documented in a given habitat were considered likely to occur (i) if habitat

conditions were generally suitable, and (ii) if the species was documented as present in connected,

adjacent habitats. Assumed distributions were developed in this manner for all fish species, including

commercial, recreational and Aboriginal (CRA) species.

As described in the CFOP and Frontier Fisheries Offsetting Framework (see Volume 1,

Section 15.4.3 of the Project Update), additional consultation with potentially affected Aboriginal

communities is part of the process of developing the detailed fisheries offsetting plan for the Project.

This will include consultation on (i) the appropriate fish assemblage for the fish habitat compensation

lake (FHCL); (ii) monitoring the effectiveness of the offsetting measures and the level of fish habitat

productivity; and (iii) the additional offsetting options discussed in the fisheries offsetting framework

(see Volume 1, Section 15.4.4 of the Project Update).

ii. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4) and the response to AER Round 5

SIR 90.

iii. Fish species need not occur in all seasons in a given habitat (watercourse or waterbody) to be

included in HSI modelling and habitat unit (HU) calculations. For example, the HSI models

developed for use in the oil sands region (Golder 2008) assign a suitability value to habitats that have

little or no overwintering potential, such as winter dissolved oxygen levels less than 1 mg/L, or frozen

to the bottom. Further, where no spawning habitat is present for some species, the relevant HSI model

assigns a suitability value to account for potential use by other life stages. All HSI values are used in

the calculation of the cumulative HUs for affected habitats that were accounted for in the CFOP.

iv. There have been no changes in the way habitat losses or alterations (formerly referred to as harmful

alteration, disruption or destruction [HADD]) have been calculated or identified in the Project Update

compared to the Integrated Application. As described in both the conceptual fish habitat

compensation plan (see Volume 1, Section 15.3.2 of the Integrated Application) and the CFOP (see

Volume 1, Section 15.3.2 of the Project Update), habitat losses and alterations were calculated based

on the number of affected HUs.



As in the Integrated Application, productive fish habitats in waterbodies or watercourse segments

were identified as part of the updated fish and fish habitat assessment (see Volume 3, Section 8.4,

Table 8-5 of the Project Update), and all habitats identified as being affected by the Project were

included in HU calculations. This includes habitats that will be lost (i.e., eliminated) or altered

(e.g., flow changes) due to Project development. Permanent and temporary alterations (e.g., during

some operational periods) were both included in the HU calculations. In identifying affected habitats,

no specific consideration was given to whether the affected habitats and associated fish populations

are part of, or support, a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.

Differences in the results of the calculations of HU losses or alterations in the Project Update relative

to the Integrated Application are the result of changes to the Project disturbance area (PDA) and

drainage plan, incorporation of additional baseline data, and incorporation of assumed fish

distributions in the affected habitats. These changes are described in the CFOP (see Volume 1,

Section 15.4.1 of the Project Update), and are not the result of the Fisheries Act amendments.

References

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 2008. Fish Species Habitat Suitability Index Models for the Oil Sands

Region. Version 2.0. October 2008.

SOC 44



Regulatory


i. provides a summary of the content of any discussions with DFO concerning the Project

Update’s regulatory requirements;

ii. summarizes any substantive fish habitat loss calculations, compensation or offsetting plan

changes that might have resulted from exclusive meetings with DFO;

iii. consults with McMurray Métis about any water- or fisheries-related regulatory application

materials and draft DFO Authorizations; and

iv. indicates the approximate timeline for providing the draft detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan.



Teck Response:

i. Teck engages Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to ensure that Project effects on commercial,

recreational and Aboriginal fisheries and the proposed fisheries offsets adhere to DFO’s Fisheries

Protection Policy (DFO 2013a), Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent's Guide to

Offsetting (DFO 2013b) and the Fisheries Act.

Since the Integrated Application, two events have taken place that resulted in the changes presented

in the Project Update:

• On June 6, 2013, Teck received Round 2 SIRs from provincial and federal reviewers. In

ESRD/CEAA Round 2 SIR 42, Teck was requested to reassess the typical number of fish species

in Alberta waterbodies less than 100 ha. In its response to SIR 42, Teck acknowledged that the

actual number of fish species present would likely be higher. Teck has subsequently updated

(i) the fish and fish habitat assessment (see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 2 SIR 30,

Appendix 30a.1 and Volume 3, Section 8 of the Project Update) and (ii) the conceptual fish

habitat compensation plan (CFHCP) for the Project (see the response to ESRD/CEAA Round 2

SIR 30, Appendix 30j.1). The conceptual fisheries offsetting plan (CFOP) (see Volume 1,

Section 15 of the Project Update) is a further revision of the CFHCP that reflects changes to the

Project and to the regulatory requirements since filing the Integrated Application.

• On December 16, 2013, Teck met with representatives from DFO and the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) to discuss the CFHCP that was submitted as part of

the Integrated Application (see Volume 1, Section 15). During the discussion, participants

identified several uncertainties that were external to the fish habitat compensation lake (FHCL)

and its ability to offset losses in fisheries productivity associated with the Project. Given these

uncertainties, participants recognized that a framework between Teck and DFO would help define

a path forward and aid in the development of suitable fisheries offsets for the Project. Teck

agreed to develop a framework for fisheries offsetting that would:

• recognize the need for offsets in addition to the 60 ha FHCL

• confirm Teck’s intention to continue with the current plan for the FHCL as the company

moves toward a regulatory hearing for the Project

• offer some alternative offsetting solutions that could be pursued in parallel

• state Teck’s commitment to continue to progress towards an appropriate outcome whereby

appropriate offsets for losses in fisheries productivity are achieved



ii. As a result of these events (see the response to part [1xxii]), neither of which was an “exclusive

meeting with DFO,” there have been substantive changes to fish habitat loss calculations and the

fisheries offsetting plan for the Project. These changes are summarized as follows:

• Habitat units (HUs) required to offset effects of the Project on productive fish habitats increased

from 1,730,000 in the Integrated Application to 3,599,900. This update was carried forward to the

Project Update1.

• As a result of the Frontier Fisheries Offsetting Framework, five fisheries offsetting options were

identified that could be used in whole or in combination to offset planned losses of productive

fish habitat. These options are presented in the CFOP (see Volume 1, Section 15.4.4 of the

Project Update).

In July 2014, the Fisheries Offsetting Framework was introduced to Aboriginal communities, and in

April 2015 a workshop was held to collect feedback on the five fisheries offsetting options that were

set forth. In its response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 164b, Teck describes how the April 2015 feedback

was considered and how decisions were made.

In November 2015, a second workshop was held where Teck:

• explained that the draft detailed fisheries offsetting plan (DFOP) will include increasing the size

of the FHCL, pursing Grayling Creek watershed restoration, and advancing a community-led

initiative under complementary measures

• identified three opportunities for continued Aboriginal community input into the plan and

gathered feedback that Teck will consider throughout the development of the DFOP. These

opportunities potentially include:

• community input into the fish species assemblage for the FHCL

• community involvement in the design and execution of fish and fish habitat monitoring

• community interest in developing regional Aboriginal fisheries offsetting objectives and

options in the oil sands region


iv. Teck plans to provide the draft DFOP in advance of the Joint Review Panel hearing for the Project.

References

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2013a. Fisheries Protection Policy Statement. October 2013.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2013b. Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent's

Guide to Offsetting. November 2013.

1 Offsetting needs have further increased from 3,599,900 HUs to 5,957,961 HUs. The additional increase in offsetting needs occurred as a result of updates to the lost habitat areas and updated fish species distribution information (see Volume 1, Section 15.3.2 of the Project Update).



SOC 45



Remaining Prior Requests by McMurray Métis – July 2015

McMurray Métis requests responses to the following questions:

i. Do compensatory measures for the offsetting plan need to be determined at the beginning of the

project or are there opportunities to identify compensatory measures throughout the life of the

proposed Frontier Mine?

ii. Could an offsetting measure be developed specific to the McMurray Métis community or is

there a requirement for inclusion of all regional communities?

iii. Could a fish farm (off lease) be considered an offsetting measure?

Teck Response:

i. Measures for the fisheries offsetting plan will be determined at the beginning of the Project.

Subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the carrying on of “any work, undertaking or activity

that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery or

to fish that support such a fishery.” Because there is potential for the Project to cause residual serious

harm to fish, an offsetting plan is required under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act. According

to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the offsetting plan must include the following information:

a) a description of the measures that will be implemented to offset the serious harm to

fish

b) an analysis of how those measures will offset the serious harm to fish

c) a description and analysis of the measures and standards that will be put in place

during the implementation of the offsetting plan to avoid or mitigate any adverse

effects on fish and fish habitat

For more information, see An Applicant’s Guide to Submitting an Application for Authorization under

Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act (DFO 2013).

ii. Teck proposed complementary measures as part of the conceptual fisheries offsetting plan (CFOP) for

the Project (see Volume 1, Section 15.4.4 of the Project Update). Potential exists for these to include

offsetting measures that are specific to the McMurray Métis Community (or other Aboriginal

communities) and support community-specific fisheries offsetting objectives. Teck’s vision for

complementary measures was presented to Aboriginal communities and regulatory agencies at a



fisheries offsetting workshop on November 6, 2015. Information from the November 2015 workshop

is provided with the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 164b, Appendix 164a.2.

iii. It is unknown whether DFO would consider an off-lease fish farm an acceptable offsetting measure.

In the Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting (DFO 2013), DFO

identifies various types of offsetting measures and states that measures “must support and enhance the

sustainability and ongoing productivity of fish that are part of or support a commercial, recreational

or Aboriginal fishery.” DFO also outlines four guiding principles for applying offsetting measures for

fisheries protection:

• Principle 1: Offsetting measures must support fisheries management objectives or

local restoration priorities.

• Principle 2: Benefits from offsetting measures must balance project impacts.

• Principle 3: Offsetting measures must provide additional benefits to the fishery.

• Principle 4: Offsetting measures must generate self-sustaining benefits over the long

term.

References

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2013. Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s

Guide to Offsetting. November 2013. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-

ppe/offsetting-guide-compensation/index-eng.html. Accessed April 2016.

SOC 46



Remaining Prior Requests by McMurray Métis – July 2015

Furthermore, McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides opportunities for land users and

Elders to share traditional knowledge on proposed offsetting locations to provide seasonal

observations and assist in predicting water quality issues associated with the proposed offsetting

options.

McMurray Métis has an interest in identifying regional spawning areas for culturally important

fish species and evaluating the habitat quality of these areas to determine if Teck could implement

ecological restoration activities at these locations as an offsetting option.



Teck Response:


SOC 47



Teck – Aboriginal Community Symposium

McMurray Métis recommends that: “Teck sponsor a symposium for Aboriginal communities in the

Fort McMurray area to meet with service providers conducting the monitoring for the Oil Sands

Monitoring program or other monitoring initiatives to hear presentations on the program designs and

results relating to mercury content in water and fish tissues, reference condition for mercury levels,

testing for water quality by mines and the province, and baseline information for bugs, fish, birds and

wildlife observed in existing compensation lakes”.

Teck Response:


SOC 48


FMM [48], Section 5.6 Concerns Arising from Teck’s Responses to Regulators’ SIR4

SIR4 Question 2 – EDA #2 causing the Loss of Oakley and Small Sandy lakes

McMurray Métis requests that Teck provides one or more appropriate maps that show project

components (not just a gray outline) along with (or superimposed upon) any lost waterbodies,

watercourses, diversions and the compensation lake.

Teck Response:

Figure 48-1 shows the general site layout for the Project, including affected waterbodies, watercourses

and diversions, and the fish habitat compensation lake.

Figure 48-1: General Site Layout with Waterways, Diversions and FHCL

BS1

BS2

Main Pit

NorthPit

RMS E

RMS A

RMS C

RMS F

RMS E RMS D

RMS B

ETA 2

ETA 1

PlantSite

OSSP

Corridor

Landfill

OPP

EDA 2

EDA 1

EDA 3

ETA Drainage Aero

drom

e

ITA 3

ITA 1CFT

ITA 2CFT

Fish HabitatCompensationLake

TIFA

MineMaintenance

Facility

River W aterIn tak e Site

TailingsMaintenanceFacility

Main Pit

RW I Pipelin e

Main Access

RW IAcce

ssRoad

UnnamedWaterbody 12

UnnamedWaterbody 15

UnnamedWaterbody 13

First Creek

U n named Creek 1Unnamed

Waterbody 10

UnnamedWaterbody 7

Athab

asca R

iver

UnnamedWaterbody 8

Big Creek

UnnamedWaterbody 29

Redc

lay C

reek

Redclay Creek

T101

T100

T99

T98

R10 R9T102R11W4

SmallSandyLake

FRONTIERCOMPENSATION

FACILITY

OakleyLake

Acknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS, Hydrology ground truthed by Golder (2008, 2010 & 2014). Project Area Elements: Norwest Corporation, rev4, 2014.

Fron tier Project – Respon se to Tech n ical Reviews an d SOCs (Dec 2015) – FMM

Water Within the PDAUn defin ed W atercourse Defin ed W atercourse W aterbody

Project Area ElementsAccess Drain ag e Chan n el Dyke Cen trifug ed Fin e Tailin g s (CFT) Coarse Combin ed Tailin g s(CCT/SFT/TSRUT) Extern al Disposal Area (EDA) Min ed Plan t Site an d Facilities Fish Habitat Compen sationLak e (FHCL) Reclamation MaterialStock pile (RMS)

Project Disturban ce AreaTown sh ipDefin ed W atercourseUn defin ed W atercourseW aterbody0 2 4 6

KILOMETRESUTM Zon e 12 NAD 831:180,000

Date: 4/1/2016File ID: 123511248-0898 (Original page size: 8.5X11)

Author: AD Checked: CES



SOC 49



SIR4 Question 4 – Lost Flows to Redclay Creek

McMurray Métis requests that Teck evaluates how changes or reductions in flows in tributaries

would impact fish use of those tributaries, specifically in Redclay Creek.

Teck Response:

The fish and fish habitat assessment (see Volume 3, Section 8.5.5.3 of the Project Update) evaluates how

predicted changes in flows would affect fish habitat productivity and fish use of tributaries to the

Athabasca River, including Redclay Creek, Big Creek and Unnamed Creek 19. The changes were

considered negligible with no potential for adverse effects on fish or fish habitat. This is because baseline

data indicate the tributaries do not flow in winter under existing conditions (e.g., frozen-to-the-bottom),

and predicted winter flow changes generally consist of flow increases. For a discussion of the knowledge

gaps and uncertainties associated with the predicted effects, see the conceptual fish and fish habitat

monitoring plan in Volume 1, Section 15.5 of the Project Update.

For an evaluation of changes in flows, including increases and reductions in flow discharge (i.e., mean

annual discharge, mean open-water discharge, and mean 10-year flood peak discharge), as well as

predictions of changes in winter flows (mean ice-cover discharge and 7Q10 low-flow discharge), see the

updated hydrology assessment (Volume 3, Section 6.4 of the Project Update).

SOC 50



SIR4 Question 7 – Cumulative Effects to the Athabasca River

McMurray Métis requests that Teck fully assesses cumulative impacts caused by all industrial

projects in the region to fish populations in the Athabasca River.

Teck Response:




SOC 51



SIR4 Question 9 – Fish Use of Upper Redclay Creek

McMurray Métis requests that Teck provides more informative figures (imagery) depicting all of

Redclay Creek and associated wetlands or ponds in relation to planned project footprint

components, and provides details of fish surveys completed in the middle and upper reaches.

Teck Response:

A figure showing Redclay Creek, associated waterways, ponds and planned Project components is

provided in the response to FMM SOC 48 (see Figure 48-1).

Baseline data on fish and fish habitat in the aquatics LSA includes results of field surveys conducted for

the Project and from other relevant surveys (e.g., baseline studies collected for the Shell Pierre River

Mine project and regional monitoring). Details of fish and fish habitat surveys completed in the upper and

lower reaches of Redclay Creek (i.e., upstream and downstream of the forested wetland complex) are

provided in Volume 2, Section 6 of the Project Update. For example, see:

• Volume 2, Section 6.2, Figure 6-3 for a map of survey locations

• Volume 2, Section 6.2.4 Table 6-2 for an overview of seasonal field sampling

• Volume 2, Section 6.3.4.2 and Appendix 6B for results of recent and historical surveys of Redclay

Creek

Fish and fish habitat data from the Shell Pierre River Mine baseline study suggest that the portion of

Redclay Creek that is in the PDA is fish-bearing. Because of this, potential changes to the portion of

Redclay Creek in the fish habitat compensation lake (FHCL) footprint were assessed, and potential

offsetting measures were included in the conceptual fisheries offsetting plan (CFOP) (see Volume 1,

Section 15.4 of the Project Update). This portion of Redclay Creek was also included in the 2015 Frontier

Aquatics Monitoring Program to collect additional data on fish and fish habitat. Field data from 2015 will

be added to the existing dataset and used in developing a draft detailed fisheries offsetting plan (DFOP)

for the Project (for details, see the response to FMM SOC 44).



SOC 52



SI4R Question 12 – Fish in Unnamed Creek 2 (drains Oakley Lake)

McMurray Métis requests that Teck assesses and considers the possibility that Unnamed Creek 2 is

fish bearing during times of higher water levels, and if there is any chance of fish presence at any

time, includes the habitat in offsetting plans.

Teck Response:

In the preamble to this request, FMM expressed concerns regarding Teck’s response to AER Round 4

SIR 12 where the reviewer requested an assessment of an unnamed tributary to Unnamed Creek 2, not

Unnamed Creek 2. Teck’s response correctly indicated that the tributary to Unnamed Creek 2 does not

provide aquatic habitat.

Teck notes that Unnamed Creek 2 (from its origin at the Unnamed Lake 1 outlet to its terminus at the Big

Creek confluence) was assessed as providing productive fish-bearing aquatic habitat (see Volume 2,

Section 6.3.4.3 and Volume 3, Section 8.5.5.3 of the Project Update). Therefore, Unnamed Creek 2 is

included in the conceptual fisheries offsetting plan for the Project (see Volume 1, Section 15.3.2 of the

Project Update).

SOC 53



SIR4 Questions 16 and 21 – End Pit Lakes

McMurray Métis requests that Teck commits to supporting holistic studies of all reclamation

habitats, and discusses alternative options to end pit lakes for water-related reclamation.

Teck Response:




SOC 54



SIR4 Question 25 – Fish Selected for the Compensation Lake

McMurray Métis requests that Teck continues to consult on fisheries offset plans including species

in the compensation lake and other offset options that may be desired by the community.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.6 VEGETATION


3.6 Vegetation

SOC 55


FMM [55], Section 6.2 Study Areas

Temporal Scope

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides support (financial and data) to McMurray Métis

to define baseline (i.e., pre-development) and existing conditions for Métis Environmental and

Cultural Components identified in the Cultural Impact Assessment, specifically to determine

baseline and existing conditions for measures of the Traditional Land Use Métis Environmental

and Cultural Component.

Teck Response:


SOC 56



Temporal Scope

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck rewrites the assessment conclusions to include conclusions

based on the worst-case scenario. As discussed further in the Closure, Conservation and

Reclamation Plan review section, confidence in reclamation outcomes remains low for

re-establishing equivalent capability to support Traditional Land Uses on reclaimed lands.

McMurray Métis requests that the worst-case scenario assessment is completed prior to the Project

Update being deemed complete by the regulators.



Teck Response:

The updated traditional land use assessment (see Volume 3, Section 17 of the Project Update) is based on

the worst-case scenario as it assumed that all developments were at maximum build-out without

progressive reclamation (see Volume 3, Section 17.3.3.2 of the Project Update). As requested through the

SIR process, information on the worst-case scenario was also provided for the vegetation and wildlife

assessments (see Volume 3, Section 10.3.3.3 and Section 11.3.4 of the Project Update); however, given

that reclamation is a legal requirement under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

(EPEA), the environmental consequence conclusions for these disciplines assume that reclamation occurs.

Teck acknowledges that confidence in reclamation outcomes remains low for re-establishing equivalent

capability to support traditional land uses on reclaimed lands. In response to Aboriginal community

concerns, Teck has outlined specific commitments regarding community involvement in planning and

undertaking Project reclamation (see Volume 1, Section 13.9 of the Project Update). For example, Teck

has confirmed its commitment to co-create a Reclamation Working Group with potentially affected

Aboriginal communities to guide more detailed reclamation planning and monitoring to determine

reclamation success. Teck anticipates that species of traditional importance will be identified by the

Reclamation Working Group(s) and incorporated into reclamation planning as feasible.

SOC 57


FMM [57], Section 6.5 Residual Effects and Mitigation Measures Identified by Teck

Ecosite Phases and Old-growth Forests

McMurray Métis recommends that AER requires, as a condition any approval issued for the

Frontier Project application, that Teck uses the wetlands and uplands state-and-transition

simulation models to support revegetation planning and closure plan validation.

Teck Response:




SOC 58




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding to the community to

parameterize the wetlands and uplands state-and-transition simulation models to assess how

reclamation outcomes support re-establishing traditional land uses.

Teck Response:


SOC 59




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides funding to the community to assess the cultural

impacts of the loss of old-growth forests in the RSA with respect to inter-generational knowledge

transfer, traditional resources only found in old-growth forests and potential effects of climate

change on re-establishing old-growth forests into the future.

Teck Response:




SOC 60



Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plants

McMurray Métis recommends that AER requires, as a condition of any approval issued for the

project, that Teck provides support to AEP to fund annual validation of rare plant community and

species data, tracking and watchlists, and monitoring and research programs.

Teck Response:


SOC 61



Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plants

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck, as part of the adaptive management program, establishes

a rare species research and monitoring program in co-operation with members of the community.

The purpose of the program would be to evaluate the effectiveness of rare plant mitigation

strategies and test alternate strategies.

Teck Response:




SOC 62



Species Diversity


proposed project, that Teck participates in and funds CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group and

specifically contributes to research and monitoring budget items to re-establish species diversity on

reclaimed land, including developing reclamation guidance to plan for species diversity on

reclaimed lands.

Teck Response:


SOC 63



Species Diversity

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides employment opportunities to the community as

part of the seed harvesting program and revegetation program.

Teck Response:




SOC 64



Cumulative Air Emissions

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a summary of the potential effects of dust and

other air emissions deposition on traditional use species (e.g., berries) and describes how Teck will

develop a mitigation plan in collaboration with McMurray Métis and requests that this is

completed prior to the Application being deemed complete by the regulators.

Teck Response:

See the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 151b.

SOC 65



Cumulative Air Emissions

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding to support McMurray Métis’

participation and technical representation at WBEA and the AEMERA Air Component Advisory

Committee.

Teck Response:




SOC 66



Wetlands Reclamation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck summarizes the information currently available relating

to peatland reclamation and indicates if and how it will implement any of this research in the

closure landscape.

Teck Response:

See the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 145.

SOC 67



Wetlands Reclamation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck initiates and supports developing a swamp-reclamation

research program to produce swamp reclamation guidance. McMurray Métis requests that Teck

provides opportunities for the community to participate in such a program and guidance document

development.

Teck Response:




SOC 68



Weed Management Plan

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck avoids applying herbicides in the vicinity of lands used for

traditional land uses by the community.

Teck Response:


SOC 69




In the event that herbicides will be used, McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides

notification to the community of intent to apply herbicides in lands used by the community for

traditional land uses.

Teck Response:




SOC 70




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck specifically avoids removing vegetation or using

herbicides near watercourses and waterbodies.

Teck Response:


SOC 71




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck implements a monitoring program to identify occurrences

of non-native and invasive species in the vegetation LSA and to evaluate the effectiveness of weed

management techniques. McMurray Métis requests that opportunities for community members to

participate in the monitoring are developed and that monitoring results are shared with the

community.

Teck Response:

Teck is committed to effective environmental management, mitigation and monitoring of non-native and

invasive vegetation species. Following Project approval, a weed management plan will be developed and

implemented to limit weeds across the PDA. Teck will evaluate the plan’s effectiveness and adapt it as

needed on an ongoing basis. For additional discussion, see the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 146 and

Key Themes – Management, Mitigation and Monitoring (Section 2.2) and Agreement and Regulator

Requests (Section 2.4).

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.7 WILDLIFE


3.7 Wildlife

SOC 72


FMM [72], Section 7.2 Difference in Scope between Integrated Application and Project Update

Ronald Lake Bison Herd Indigenous Knowledge Research Parallel Process

McMurray Métis recommends that AEP, Teck and other proponents active in the Ronald Lake

bison herd range provide financial support to initiate the Indigenous Knowledge Research Parallel

Process as soon as possible and that this initiative is provided time and capacity to complete its

work prior to any approvals being issued for the proposed project.

Teck Response:


SOC 73



Bison Study Areas

McMurray Métis requests continued involvement in identifying critical habitat for the Ronald

Lake bison herd, particularly if the herd’s status under the Wildlife Act is updated.

Teck Response:




SOC 74



Bison Study Areas

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a plan outlining how Teck will work with other

Aboriginal groups, including McMurray Métis to identify critical habitat for the Ronald Lake

bison herd.

Teck Response:


SOC 75



Caribou Range Study Area

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides opportunities through participation and

development of the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, for McMurray Métis land users and

knowledge holders to assess the bison and caribou study areas delineated by Teck and to

incorporate local knowledge regarding the range of both bison and caribou to validate the study

area boundaries.

Teck Response:




SOC 76



Temporal Scope

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides support (financial and data) to McMurray Métis

to define reference conditions for Métis Environmental and Cultural Components (MECC)

identified in the Cultural Impact Assessment, specifically to determine reference conditions for

measures of the Traditional Land Use MECC.

Teck Response:


SOC 77



Temporal Scope

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck revises the assessment conclusions to include conclusions

based on the worst-case scenario. As discussed further in the Closure, Conservation and

Reclamation Plan review section, confidence in reclamation outcomes remains low for re-

establishing equivalent capability to support Traditional Land Uses on reclaimed lands. McMurray

Métis requests that the worst-case scenario assessment is completed prior to the Project Update

being deemed complete by the regulators.

Teck Response:

See the response to FMM SOC 56.



SOC 78


FMM [78], Section 7.4 Key Issues Identified by Teck

Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

McMurray Métis recommends that the Government of Alberta requires Métis consultation on the

Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan including consultation with McMurray Métis.

Teck Response:


SOC 79




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck acknowledges and includes Métis in the development and

implementation of the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

Teck Response:




SOC 80




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity (financial and data) to McMurray

Métis to conduct Métis environmental knowledge studies to research and develop specific targets or

benchmarks of performance over time of wildlife habitat on reclaimed lands and undisturbed lands

included in the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan study areas.

Teck Response:


SOC 81


FMM [81], Section 7.5 Key Indicator Resources Assessed by Teck

Ronald Lake Bison Herd

McMurray Métis recommends that AEP expedites the change in regulatory status of the Ronald

Lake bison herd to Subject Animal under section 7 of the Wildlife Regulations as soon as possible.

Teck Response:

The status of the Ronald Lake bison herd has been elevated to “a subject animal” by the Alberta Energy

Regulator (The Alberta Gazette, March 31, 2016 [GOA 2016]). With this change in status, Teck

anticipates that development of a management plan for the Ronald Lake herd will be a priority for the

Government of Alberta.

References

GOA (Government of Alberta). 2016. Wildlife (2016 Bison Management – Ministerial) Amendment

Regulation 20/2016. Published in The Alberta Gazette, Part II, March 31, 2016. Volume 112(6).

Alberta Queen’s Printer, Edmonton, Alberta.



SOC 82




McMurray Métis recommends that no further industrial activity is permitted in the Ronald Lake

bison herd range until the change in regulation status to Subject Animal has been completed,

including no oil sands exploration activity, no forestry and no ice bridge access across the

Athabasca River.

Teck Response:





References




SOC 83




McMurray Métis recommends that AEP establishes a co-management board to research and

preserve the Ronald Lake bison herd and that McMurray Métis is provided capacity funding to

participate on such a board.



Teck Response:





References




SOC 84



Boreal Caribou

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck, through the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,

provides opportunities for McMurray Métis land users and knowledge holders to document Métis

Environmental Knowledge of caribou populations in the terrestrial LSA and to contribute to the

design of a monitoring program to assess effectiveness of caribou mitigation and management

strategies for caribou.

Teck Response:




SOC 85


FMM [85], Section 7.6 Residual Effects Identified by Teck

Vegetation and Habitat

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding to support a community-based

project to assess and validate Teck’s worst-case and best-case scenario predictions for project-

specific and cumulative effects to Ronald Lake bison, moose and small mammal habitat using state-

and-transition simulation models developed by CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group. Through

this project, McMurray Métis would develop mitigation, monitoring and research strategies for the

bison herd, moose and small mammals to inform Teck’s Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

and identify reclamation targets for input into the Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan.

Teck Response:


SOC 86



Ronald Lake Bison

McMurray Métis recommends that AEP restricts use of the linear disturbances and new roads in

the Teck leases until such time as the regulation status of the Ronald Lake bison herd has been

changed to prohibit non-Aboriginal hunting.

Teck Response:




SOC 87



Ronald Lake Bison

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck completes further studies of the landscape in the northern

range of the Ronald Lake bison herd and the southern extent of the Wood Buffalo National Park

herd to predict the potential for interaction of the two herds and to develop management strategies

to prevent their interaction and that these studies are completed prior to the application being

deemed complete by the regulators.

Teck Response:

See the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 130.

SOC 88



Moose

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding to McMurray Métis to conduct

a cumulative effects analysis of oil sands development on moose population and abundance

supporting Métis Rights-based activities and to validate Teck’s assumption that moose abundance

should remain unchanged due to the presence of suitable habitat and progressive reclamation

elsewhere in the vegetation and wildlife RSA. This would include an analysis of closure,

conservation reclamation plans for operations in the RSA, measuring moose habitat attributes on

reclaimed lands in the RSA and developing a state-and-transition simulation model coupled to a

moose habitat model to evaluate if the reclamation planning assumptions for re-establishing moose

habitat are achieving the regional habitat outcomes assumed by Teck.

Teck Response:




SOC 89



Boreal Caribou

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides opportunities for McMurray Métis land users

and knowledge holders to participate in caribou research initiatives occurring under COSIA.

Teck Response:


SOC 90



Boreal Caribou

McMurray Métis recommends that the Government of Alberta and Teck consult with the

McMurray Métis community to identify and delineate critical caribou range and habitat to help

Teck identify opportunities for avoidance and mitigation in its road planning. Consultation can also

inform planning and implementation of the Government of Alberta’s caribou range and action

plans.

Teck Response:




SOC 91



Boreal Caribou

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck makes a commitment to provide capacity funding to

McMurray Métis to participate in a multi-stakeholder process to develop the LMP and caribou

range planning; furthermore, Teck should support and encourage the multi-stakeholder approach.

Teck Response:


SOC 92



Black Bear


a cumulative effects analysis of oil sands development on black bear population and abundance

supporting Métis’ Rights-based activities and to validate Teck’s assumption that black bear

abundance should remain unchanged due to the presence of suitable habitat and progressive

reclamation elsewhere in the vegetation and wildlife RSA.

This would include an analysis of closure, conservation and reclamation plans for operations in the

RSA, measuring bear habitat attributes on reclaimed lands in the RSA and developing a state-and-

transition simulation model coupled to a black bear habitat model to evaluate if the reclamation

planning assumptions for re-establishing black bear habitat are achieving the regional habitat

outcomes assumed by Teck.

Teck Response:




SOC 93


FMM [93], Section 7.7 Teck’s Mitigation Measures for Residual Effects

Conservation Agreement

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides more information regarding the intent and

details of the proposed conservation agreement and describes how McMurray Métis will be

consulted in the development and implementation of the proposed conservation agreement.

Teck Response:

A Conservation Agreement ties the development of resources to a commitment for conservation action.

Volume 1, Section 14.8.3 of the Project Update and the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 131 provide

information on Teck’s biodiversity management plan and Conservation Agreement. Teck has stated in the

Project Update (see Volume 1, Section 18.6.4.2) and numerous regulatory filings that it “will work with

the governments of Alberta and Canada and look to their guidance on the development of a Conservation

Agreement.” Teck believes that mitigation measures that could form the basis of a Conservation

Agreement should be developed once the anticipated Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

(EPEA) approval for the Project is received, and involve consultation with regulators, potentially affected

Aboriginal communities and stakeholders.

SOC 94




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck continues to include McMurray Métis community

members in the development and implementation of the WMMP.

Teck Response:




SOC 95




McMurray Métis requests that Teck communicates technical information about the project’s

impacts on the environment and watershed, wildlife, and humans to Elders and younger

community members in plain language documents and verbally through presentations.

Teck Response:


SOC 96




McMurray Métis recommends that project-related documents are presented in plain-language and

oral presentations; specifically, Teck should present the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan in

a manner that is easily understandable by those without scientific training.

Teck Response:




SOC 97



Climate Change Adaptation Decision Support Tool

McMurray Métis recommends that AER requires Teck as a condition of any approval issued for

the proposed project to use the Climate Change Adaptation Decision Support Tool developed by

CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group and co-funded by Natural Resources Canada.

Teck Response:


SOC 98



Climate Change Adaptation Decision Support Tool

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding for McMurray Métis

community members to participate in the parameterization of the Climate Change Adaptation

Decision Support Tool to adequately characterize the climate change observed by land users and

knowledge holders from pre-development conditions.

Teck Response:




SOC 99



Conceptual Models to Support Monitoring Plans

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding to develop a conceptual model

to support monitoring plans for assessing effectiveness of mitigation measures and evaluating

reclamation performance. This conceptual model should be informed by Métis environmental

knowledge as well as expert opinion from scientists.

Teck Response:


SOC 100



Regional Group Participation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck advocates for and participates in multi-stakeholder

groups that require capacity for members of the general public, academics, environmental groups,

scientists and Aboriginal groups, where all members have equal opportunities to engage with

government and industry in monitoring programs and policy bodies.

Teck Response:




SOC 101



Animal Awareness on Lease

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a summary of how it will work with McMurray

Métis community members to develop Animal Management Programs.

Teck Response:


SOC 102



Bridge Crossing Mitigation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a description of how McMurray Métis members

were engaged in bridge design and specifies how Métis environmental knowledge of animal

crossings was incorporated into the bridge design.

Teck Response:

Design of the wildlife passage under the Athabasca River bridge will be finalized during future stages of

engineering and following regulatory approval for the Project. The design and mitigation strategies for

animal crossings will be developed in consultation with Aboriginal communities, regulators and

stakeholders, including Fort McMurray Métis.



SOC 103




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck describes how engaging McMurray Métis members

influenced the development of mitigation strategies for reducing potential impacts of bridge design

on animal crossings on the Athabasca River.

Teck Response:

See the response to FMM SOC 102.

SOC 104




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck engages McMurray Métis members in providing Métis

environmental knowledge on animal crossings on the Athabasca River to incorporate in the bridge

design and associated mitigations.

Teck Response:




SOC 105



Bird Deterrent Systems

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a summary of how data collected through the

Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program were used to evaluate effects on migratory birds and

associated mitigations.

Teck Response:

Teck is aware of four studies investigating the effects of oil sands on migratory birds that are supported

by the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program (JOSMP) or the Alberta Environmental Monitoring,

Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA):

• Status and trend monitoring of listed, rare, and difficult-to-monitor landbirds, led by Dr. S. Song,

Environment Canada

• Cause effects assessment of oil sands activity on migratory landbirds, Part 1 and Part 2, led by

Dr. C. L. Mahon, Environment Canada

• Cause-effects monitoring: waterfowl monitoring, led by S. Slattery, Ducks Unlimited Canada and

J. Ingram, Environment Canada

• Cause-effects monitoring: whooping crane monitoring, led by M. Bidwell, Environment Canada

Abstracts of these studies are available from AEMERA (2016); however, reports detailing results have

not been published. Teck will continue to monitor these and future studies undertaken as part of the

JOSMP, and will incorporate findings from these studies into the Project’s wildlife mitigation and

monitoring plan as appropriate.

References

AEMERA (Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency). 2016. Projects

Summary. Available at: http://aemera.org/our-activities/projects-summary/. Accessed February

2016.



SOC 106



Bird Deterrent Systems

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a summary of the data collected through JOSMP

describing migratory bird patterns; specifically, Teck should discuss any potential for the project’s

external tailings areas (i.e., tailings ponds) to be located within migratory bird routes or potentially

shifting routes. Furthermore, Teck should provide a summary of the data collected through

JOSMP that were used by Teck to evaluate bird deterrent options.

Teck Response:

Recent literature and data on migratory bird patterns and interactions with tailings areas are summarized

in Teck’s response to CEAA Round 5 SIRs 135, 138 and 139. The Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program

(JOSMP) and the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) are

currently studying whooping crane migratory patterns and routes in the oil sands region (Nason 2016,

pers. comm.). In addition, the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Program (OSBCMP) is a regional

program that monitors bird interactions with tailings areas (see the response to CEAA Round 5 SIR 138).

Should additional data or reports become available (e.g., from JOSMP, AEMERA or OSBCMP) that

relate to bird interactions with tailings areas or the migration patterns of migratory birds, Teck will

evaluate the data and determine whether the waterfowl protection plan for the Project needs to be

updated.

References

Nason, T. 2016. Personal communication with Ted Nason, Team Lead, Biodiversity and Land,

AEMERA. Telephone conversation on February 24, 2016.



SOC 107



Access Management Planning

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck funds an Access Management Strategy, including capacity

funding to support McMurray Métis’ participation in the development of the Access Management

Strategy. The strategy should address issues related to fragmentation and predator access to

caribou.

Teck Response:


SOC 108



Access Management Planning

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck allocates funds to support a Teck Frontier project-specific

Métis Environmental Knowledge Assessment, under the Access Management Strategy, which will

determine the pre-development baseline for terrain suitability for subsistence harvesting of fish,

large animals, and fur-bearers and support quantifying measures of the Traditional Land Use

Métis Environmental and Cultural Component (MECC) assessed in the Cultural Impact

Assessment.

Teck Response:




SOC 109



Noise Mitigation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck considers what impact construction- and operation-

related noise might have on wildlife, particularly sensitive and threatened species.

Teck Response:

The effect of noise (sensory disturbance) associated with human disturbance on key indicators (including

species at risk) was assessed using zones of influence (ZOI) as part of the habitat capability and suitability

models. Model ratings for habitat suitability within the ZOI were typically reduced based on factors such

as noise level. The extent of the ZOI and the magnitude of the effect (i.e., rating reduction) are species-

specific and vary depending on the type of disturbance feature, but in some cases can modify the habitat

suitability up to 400 m from the disturbance (see Volume 3, Section 11.4 and Appendix 11D of the

Project Update).

In the updated wildlife assessment, model ratings were based on information published in peer-reviewed

and technical literature and expert opinion. As an example, within 100 m of a winter road, habitat

suitability for boreal caribou was reduced by three ratings, based on information presented in Polfus et al.

(2011). This means that high value habitat (i.e., rated as 1) within 100 m of a winter road would be

reduced to no or very low habitat value (i.e., rated as 4). Rating adjustments and ZOI size for key

indicators are provided in Volume 3, Appendix 11D of the Project Update. For additional discussion, see

the response to AER Round 5 SIR 121 and CEAA Round 5 SIR 139a.

References

Polfus, J.L., M. Hebblewhite and K. Heinemeyer. 2011. Identifying indirect habitat loss and avoidance of

human infrastructure by northern mountain woodland caribou. Biological Conservation 144:

2637–2646.



SOC 110



Noise Mitigation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck assesses the potential impacts of noise from traffic and

heavy machinery on wildlife during construction and operation, including consultation with

McMurray Métis community members.

Teck Response:

As described in the response to FMM SOC 109, the effect of noise (sensory disturbance) associated with

human disturbance on key indicators (including species at risk) was assessed using zones of influence as

part of the habitat capability and suitability models. The assessment considered various noise sources

associated with construction and operation of oil sands projects in the vegetation and wildlife RSA.

Teck will continue to engage Aboriginal communities, including Fort McMurray Métis, in developing a

wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan for the Project.

SOC 111



Access to Information and Participation in Research

McMurray Métis recommends that AER requires that Teck provides direct access to all sources of

information it wishes to reference in relation to the project, especially where they are not accessible

in the public domain; specifically, McMurray Métis requests access to the following publications

referenced in the Project Update:

i. Bohm, H., E. Neilson, B. Thomas, S. Boutin and C. De La Mare. 2012. Wildlife Habitat

Effectiveness and Connectivity Program Annual Report 2012. University of Alberta, Edmonton,

Alberta.

ii. Boreal Caribou Research Program. 1999. Caribou conservation in working landscapes.

Unpublished report. Boreal Caribou Research Program, Edmonton, Alberta.



iii. Carbyn, L.N., D. Huisman, E. Street and D. Anions. 1989. An Analysis of the Decline of Bison

in Wood Buffalo National Park from 1971 to 1981 and a Review of the Status to 1989. Canadian

Wildlife Services. Unpublished manuscript.

iv. Keith, L.B. 1972. Snowshare hare populations and forest regeneration in Northern Alberta.

Unpublished. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

v. Kindopp, Rhona and Vassal, Michael, 2010. Wood Buffalo National Park Bison Survey,

February 2009. Unpublished Parks Canada Report.

vi. Nexen (Nexen Energy ULC). 2013. Algar Caribou Habitat Restoration Program 2012/2013

Phase 2 and 3 Areas. Field Operations Report.

vii. Nexen. 2014. Algar Caribou Habitat Restoration Program 2013/2014 Phase 2 and 3 Areas. Field

Operations Report.

viii. OSLI (Oil Sands Leadership Initiative). 2012. Algar Caribou Habitat Restoration Program Field

Operations: Phase 1 Area.

ix. Ruff, R.L. 1978. A study of the natural regulatory mechanisms acting on an unhunted population

of black bears near Cold Lake, Alberta. Unpublished. Department of Wildlife Ecology.

University of Wisconsin, Madison.

x. Stantec. 2014. Ronald Lake Bison Herd - 2014 Bison Wallow Aerial Survey. Memo to Teck,

October 1, 2014.

Teck Response:

Teck has requested permission from the respective authors to distribute the references and will provide

them as a single submission under separate cover once permission has been granted.

SOC 112




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck supports (through capacity funding and advocacy)

McMurray Métis’ participation on research committees cited in the Project Update, as well as

future research endeavours, including, but not limited to, the following:

i. COSIA Wildlife Habitat Effectiveness and Connectivity (WHEC)



ii. Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets

iii. Algar Historic Restoration Program

Teck Response:




SOC 113




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck supports and advocates for the participation of

McMurray Métis members in research projects cited in the Project Update and, at minimum,

provides access to all publications created from research cited in the Project Update.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.8 BIODIVERSITY


3.8 Biodiversity

SOC 114


FMM [114], Section 8.3 Deficiencies of Biodiversity Assessment in the Project Update

United Nations Convention on Biodiversity Article 8(j)

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck works with the McMurray Métis community to follow up

on the Cultural Impact Assessment to incorporate the intent of the UN Convention on Biodiversity

Article 8(j) and provide capacity for McMurray Métis to understand how the project’s impacts to

biodiversity affects Métis Environmental and Cultural Components and the community’s

opportunities to exercise Métis Rights within their Traditional Territory.

Teck Response:


SOC 115



United Nations Convention on Biodiversity Article 8(j)

McMurray Métis recommends that Terms of Reference for the Biodiversity Assessment of Project

Applications include a requirement to meet the intent of the UN Convention on Biodiversity Article

8(j) and the objective of Canada’s Biodiversity Strategy to “…identify mechanisms to use traditional

knowledge, innovations and practices with the involvement of the holders of such knowledge,

innovations and practices, and encourage the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization

of such knowledge, innovations and practices”.

Teck Response:




SOC 116



Alberta’s Draft Biodiversity Policy

McMurray Métis recommends that the Government of Alberta establishes a multi-stakeholder

committee that includes representation from McMurray Métis to develop policy recommendations

for actual involvement of Métis communities in decision making regarding biodiversity

conservation and management at sufficient levels to exercise constitutionally protected rights to

hunt, fish and trap within reasonable proximity to Métis communities and to support Métis rights

related to cultural and spiritual practices.

Teck Response:


SOC 117



Alberta’s Draft Biodiversity Policy

McMurray Métis recommends that the Government of Alberta includes capacity funding as part of

the multi-stakeholder committee requested in Recommendation [116] for a Métis knowledge

research project to develop goals, management considerations, policy principles, strategic

directions, indicators and thresholds, monitoring programs and proactive management actions and

management responses specific to conserving biodiversity at sufficient levels to exercise

constitutionally protected rights to hunt, fish and trap within reasonable proximity to Métis

communities and to support Métis rights related to cultural and spiritual practices.

Teck Response:




SOC 118



Lower Athabasca Draft Biodiversity Management Framework


committee that provides capacity funding for participation of McMurray Métis and other

Aboriginal communities in the Lower Athabasca Region to complete at a minimum:

i. developing a scope of work and be provided capacity to conduct a collaborative, participatory

research process to gather traditional knowledge to support finalizing the BMF;

ii. defining “within a reasonable proximity of” First Nations and Métis population centres;

iii. identifying key biodiversity areas relevant to First Nations and Métis organizations;

iv. defining a pre-industrial baseline;

v. identifying indicators to measure First Nations and Métis peoples’ continued ability to exercise

constitutionally protected rights to hunt, fish and trap for food and to engage in traditional

land uses and cultural practices associated with these rights;

vi. developing monitoring protocols to evaluate the indicators identified in (v);

vii. deriving thresholds for indicators identified in (v);

viii. deriving management actions and responses when indicator thresholds defined in (vii) are

exceeded; and

ix. defining an adaptive management loop to contribute to improvements in practice based on the

results of monitoring the indicators defined by the communities.

Teck Response:






vi. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

vii. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).



viii. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

ix. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

SOC 119



Lower Athabasca Draft Biodiversity Management Framework

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck is required as a condition of any approval issued for the

proposed project to participate and provide funding for the multi-stakeholder committee referred

to in Recommendation [118].

Teck Response:


SOC 120



Old-growth Forest

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck supports further investigation by McMurray Métis of the

Métis Environmental and Cultural Components (MECCs) defined in the Cultural Impact

Assessment to identify the potential stressors to biodiversity key indicators supporting MECCs and

their subsequent cascading effects and feedback loops on the MECCs. Through this process,

McMurray Métis will be in a position to contribute to developing Teck’s Biodiversity Management

Plan.

Teck Response:




SOC 121



Landscape Biodiversity

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides support to McMurray Métis to conduct further

landscape biodiversity analysis to define how the potential project impacts on Métis space and

cascading effects on Métis Environmental and Cultural Components dependent on Métis space

associated with landscape biodiversity.

Teck Response:


SOC 122



Landscape Biodiversity

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck includes Métis knowledge holders and land users in life-

of-mine closure planning to guide the re-establishment of landscape diversity to support

reclamation of Métis spaces and provide capability for Métis Environmental and Cultural

Components.

Teck Response:




SOC 123



Wildlife Biodiversity

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck supports further development of the state-and-transition

simulation model developed by CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group to validate the reclamation

planning assumptions that existing biodiversity for the RMWB will be sustained and will provide a

source of recolonizing wildlife populations for the mineable oil sands area, once mine reclamation

and closure has occurred.

Teck Response:


SOC 124



Teck’s Biodiversity Management Plan

McMurray Métis recommends that AER requires Teck, as a condition of any approval for the

proposed project, to develop a Biodiversity Management Plan for its project.

Teck Response:




SOC 125




McMurray Métis recommends that AER modifies all existing oil sands mine approvals to include a

requirement for the operators to develop a Biodiversity Management Plan for its projects.

Teck Response:


SOC 126




McMurray Métis recommends that the Government of Alberta provides support and capacity

funding to McMurray Métis to participate in a multi-stakeholder organization mandated to

complete the unfinished biodiversity workplan of CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group and that

AER makes it a condition of all oil sands mine EPEA approvals that the operator participates and

funds such a multi-stakeholder organization.

Teck Response:




SOC 127



Habitat Connectivity

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck commits to including Métis knowledge holders and land

users in wildlife habitat reclamation planning to discuss and plan habitat connectivity strategies.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.9 CLOSURE, CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN


3.9 Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan

SOC 128


FMM [128], Section 9.5 Project Schedule

Principles for Reclamation Planning

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a summary of forestry activity in the lease:

i. prior to Teck’s and the previous proponents’ commenced winter drilling activities (pre-2006);

and

ii. each year since 2006.

McMurray Métis requests that Teck provides this information prior to the Application being

deemed complete by the regulators.

Teck Response:

i. Teck does not have information about pre-2006 forestry activities on the lease. Forestry activities are

managed by Alberta Environment and Parks through Forest Management Agreements and timber

licenses. Alberta–Pacific Forest Industries Inc. and Northland Forest Products Ltd. currently operate,

harvest and manage the forests in the PDA.

ii. See the response to part (i).



SOC 129





proposed project, that Teck uses the Climate Change Adaptation Decision Support Tool in

reclamation planning and that climate change uncertainties are identified and mitigated.

Teck Response:


SOC 130




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity for the community to assess the risk of

climate change to Métis Environmental and Cultural Components using the Climate Change

Adaptation Decision Support Tool.

Teck Response:




SOC 131



Adaptive Management Approach

McMurray Métis recommends that AER requires that, as a condition of any approval issued for

the project, Teck provides funding for and participates in CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group to

further develop the Adaptive Management Framework by incorporating Métis knowledge.

Teck Response:


SOC 132



Soil Characteristics

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides more information regarding how poor

reclamation suitability ratings for the upper and lower lifts might affect reclamation outcomes and

how reclamation practices were adjusted to account for poor reclamation suitability. McMurray

Métis requests that this information is provided prior to the Application being deemed complete by

the regulators.

Teck Response:

Reclamation suitability ratings are not directly considered in the reclamation practices for the Project.

Recent Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approvals for similar oil sands mine

projects (e.g., TOTAL Joslyn North, Approval No. 228044-00-00) specify upland soil salvage by depth

increment (and associated with particular ecosites) and soil texture (but not based on soil quality).

Accordingly, upper and lower lift salvage prescriptions do not consider reclamation suitability because

reclamation material is stockpiled based on lift (upper or lower) and texture (coarse, medium to fine).

From a practical standpoint, once materials are incorporated into the stockpiles and later removed for

reclamation purposes, some mixing is expected, which would alter the suitability of a given sample.



A similar approach was used to develop soil salvage criteria for the Project’s closure, conservation and

reclamation plan; therefore, any consideration of reclamation suitability ratings was indirect. Volume 1,

Section 13.5.2.1, Table 13.5-2a of the Project Update has been updated (as per the response to AER

Round 5 SIR 104) to provide additional clarity regarding these salvage prescriptions (see Table 132-1).

Table 132-1 Reclamation Material Salvage Depth

Salvage Layer Salvage Depth1 Upper Lift

Coarse-textured upland surface soil Overlying LFH, O and upper 20 cm of mineral material Medium- and fine-textured upland surface soil Overlying LFH, O and upper 35 cm of mineral material Fine-textured fluvial fan material Overlying LFH, O and upper 50 cm of mineral material Lower Lift Coarse-textured suitable subsoil material 20 cm or to depth of suitable quality subsoil material, as required Medium- and fine-textured suitable subsoil material

20 cm or to depth of suitable quality subsoil material, as required

Organic soil To depth plus overstripping into underlying mineral2 NOTES: LFH = Surface leaf litter horizon on well drained upland soils. O = Surface organic accumulation, usually peat, on lowland or poorly drained soils. 1 Lower lift salvage depths have been revised as per the response to AER Round 5 SIR 104. 2 While most areas of organic soil will be overstripped and peat deposits removed, areas of deep peat are not

planned to be salvaged (except those that occur in the external tailings areas, which will be savaged).

SOC 133



Lower Lift Salvage Plan

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides clarification of this schedule and more

information on how this approach affects terrain, topography and construction of landforms and

that this information is provided prior to the Application being deemed complete by the regulators.



Teck Response:

The closure terrain, topography, and landform construction are not affected by the soil salvage plan.

Closure landform size, shape, and location are driven by mine planning and environmental factors that

include (but are not limited to):

• the mine sequence, which determines the timing and volumes of overburden materials that are

removed to access the orebody

• original topography and pre-existing drainage patterns, which influence the size (i.e., height and area)

and shape of landforms and how final drainage patterns fit into the closure landscape

• geotechnical considerations, including pre-existing ground conditions, allowable height, side slopes,

and offset distances from key infrastructure such as pit walls and drainage channels

• the relative location of process infrastructure, which is important for landforms such as external

tailings areas that must be close to the plant site

• efficiencies such as minimizing the haul distance from excavation locations to disposal or storage

areas

• sustainability of the closure system, including ground subsidence, geomorphic landforms, pit lakes

and drainage system

For additional clarification regarding the lower lift salvage plan, see the response to AER Round 5

SIR 104e, including Table 104e-1.

SOC 134


FMM [134], Section 9.9 Closure Vegetation

Wetland Communities

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a summary of why the ecosite mapping for the

PDA did not distinguish between the Central Mixedwood and Athabasca Plain Natural sub-regions

and comments on how the revegetation prescriptions for the east side of the PDA were developed to

re-establish vegetation common to the Athabasca Plain Natural Subregion given that the guidelines

apply to the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion. McMurray Métis requests that this summary

is provided prior to the Application being deemed complete by the regulators.



Teck Response:

According to Downing and Pettapiece (2006), both the Central Mixedwood and Athabasca Plain Natural

subregions are part of the Boreal Forest Natural Region. As such, upland communities in the PDA were

appropriately mapped according to the Boreal Mixedwood ecological area described in Beckingham and

Archibald (1996).

In addition, Teck’s revegetation prescriptions reflect the site type approach described in The Guidelines

for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, 2nd Edition (AENV 2010) (see

Volume 1, Section 13.6.2.3 of the Project Update). Site types provide a system of classifying vegetation

communities that is more broadly defined than ecosites and that reflects a broader range of moisture and

nutrient regimes. Using site types to develop revegetation prescriptions:

• reflects species overlap between ecosite phases

• allows for greater flexibility in revegetation prescriptions in recognition of uncertainty in edaphic

conditions on newly reclaimed landscapes

References

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2010. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca

Oil Sands Region, 2nd Edition. Prepared by the Terrestrial Subgroup of the Reclamation Working

Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, December 2009. Fort

McMurray, Alberta.

Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Special

Report 5, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region. UBC Press. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Downing, D.J. and W.W. Pettapiece. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled for the

Natural Regions Committee, Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852. Edmonton, Alberta.



SOC 135



Closure Drainage

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck supports further development of the wetlands land units’

state-and-transition simulation models developed by CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group to link

the state-and-transition simulation models to a hydrological model.

Teck Response:


SOC 136



Access to References

McMurray Métis requests that Teck provides copies of the following documents to McMurray

Métis:

i. CONRAD and DFO (Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development and

Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2008. Geomorphic Characterization and Design of

Alluvial Channels in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd.,

Calgary, Alberta.

ii. Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 2004. Vegetated waterways design guidelines. Prepared for

Syncrude Canada Ltd. Calgary, Alberta.

Teck Response:

i. This report is publicly available and provided as Appendix 136.1.

ii. This report is not publicly available. It was referenced to demonstrate that this type of design

experience is used in the oil sands industry and that it was incorporated into the conceptual design of

the closure drainage systems for the Frontier Project.



SOC 137



Closure Drainage Case Studies

McMurray Métis requests that Teck provides the citations and copies of the publications for the

case studies used and the examples referred to in the Project Update to McMurray Métis and that

this information is provided prior to the Application being deemed complete by the regulators.

Teck Response:

Although the closure drainage case studies and examples referred to in the Project Update are not

published, they summarize relevant oil sands mining industry experience and information that can be used

in preparing the conceptual closure drainage plan and design for the Project.

SOC 138



Regional Collaborative Initiatives

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck facilitates participation of community members and

technical representatives of McMurray Métis in regional collaborative initiatives undertaken by

COSIA.

Teck Response:




SOC 139



Regional Collaborative Initiatives

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck facilitates a workshop with community members and

technical representatives of McMurray Métis to review the fluvial geomorphic design approach

with the community.

Teck Response:


SOC 140



Conceptual Closure Drainage Plan


organization and provides capacity for McMurray Métis to participate in such a committee to

develop a guidance document for construction of treatment wetlands in the oil sands region.

Teck Response:




SOC 141



Conceptual Closure Drainage Plan

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck facilitates participation of community members and

technical representatives of McMurray Métis in development of a guidance document for

construction of treatment wetlands in the oil sands region.

Teck Response:


SOC 142



Monitoring

McMurray Métis recommends that AER, as a requirement of any approval issued for the project,

includes a condition for Teck to share monitoring data and site inspection reports annually with

McMurray Métis.

Teck Response:




SOC 143



Monitoring

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides opportunities for members of McMurray Métis

to acquire training and conduct annual monitoring of the closure drainage systems.

Teck Response:


SOC 144



Seepage

McMurray Métis recommends that AER, as a requirement of any approval issued for the project,

includes a condition for Teck to share seepage management data and reports annually with

McMurray Métis.

Teck Response:




SOC 145


FMM [145], Section 9.10 Biodiversity Management Plan

Post-mining Traditional Land Uses

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck includes and provides capacity funding for members and

technical representatives of McMurray Métis on the Reclamation Working Group(s) to be created

by Teck.

Teck Response:


SOC 146



Uncertainty

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck evaluates mountain pine beetle modelling options and

considers how these models could be linked to the Climate Change Adaptation Decision Support

Tool developed by CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group. McMurray Métis requests that Teck

shares the results of this evaluation with McMurray Métis or includes McMurray Métis in a plan to

proceed with linking the mountain-pine beetle models to the Climate Change Adaptation Decision

Support Tool.

Teck Response:




SOC 147



Returning Lands to the Crown

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity for McMurray Métis to complete

unfinished work of CEMA’s Reclamation Working Group to develop criteria and indicators for oil

sands mine reclamation to evaluate the capability of reclaimed lands to support traditional end

land uses.

Teck Response:


SOC 148



Returning Lands to the Crown

McMurray Métis recommends that AER requires Teck, as a condition of any approval issued for

the project, to include McMurray Métis in the evaluation of any reclaimed lands for reclamation

certification to declare that reclaimed lands provide capability to support traditional end lands

uses.

Teck Response:




SOC 149


FMM [149], Section 9.11 Business Opportunities

Business Opportunities in Reclamation

McMurray Métis requests that Teck commits to providing contracts to Métis-owned businesses for

conducting reclamation activities.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.10 TRADITIONAL LAND USE AND KNOWLEDGE


3.10 Traditional Land Use and Knowledge

SOC 150


FMM [150], Section 10.2 Assessment Framing

Narrow Framing of Assessment

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck frames its assessment of impacts to traditional land use in

terms of how (and not simply whether) the project, incrementally and cumulatively, might impact

traditional land use and how impacts to traditional land use reverberate throughout the socio-

economic and cultural systems of the McMurray Métis community.

Teck Response:


SOC 151


FMM [151], Section 10.3 Definition of Traditional Knowledge

Unduly Restrictive Definition of Traditional Knowledge

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a rationale for its limited definition of

Traditional Knowledge, in comparison with CEAA’s definition. The explanation should refer to the

relevant and up-to-date impact assessment literature and best practices within the impact-

assessment community.

Teck Response:




SOC 152


FMM [152], Section 10.3 Definition of Traditional Knowledge

Unduly Restrictive Definition of Traditional Knowledge

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck revises its definition of Traditional Knowledge in

alignment with the CEAA definition used in the McMurray Métis CIA. Teck should revise the

impact assessment to reflect a broader definition of TK and incorporate the baseline information

provided by the McMurray Métis CIA.

Teck Response:


SOC 153



Inadequate Traditional Land Use Local Study Areas

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck revises its LSA for TLU to incorporate the LSAs for

Acoustics and Air Quality in order to capture more completely the spatial dimensions of potential

project impacts to TLU and that this is completed before the Application is deemed complete.

Teck Response:




SOC 154



Inappropriate “Preferred Use Area”

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding to McMurray Métis to

determine a more appropriate and factually grounded “preferred use area” for the purposes of the

assessing potential impacts to McMurray Métis’ traditional land use.

Teck Response:


SOC 155


FMM [155], Section 10.5 Assessment Criteria

Inadequate Rationale for the Exclusion of Frequency

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a more robust and substantiated rationale for its

decision to exclude “Frequency” from its effects classification and determination of consequence for

TLU. The rationale should refer to the relevant and up-to-date impact assessment literature and

best practices within the impact assessment community.

Teck Response:




SOC 156


FMM [156], Section 10.5 Assessment Criteria

Inadequate Rationale for the Exclusion of Frequency

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck includes “Frequency” as a factor in its effects

classification and determination of consequence for TLU. The “Frequency” of impacts to TLU and

culture should be included in the discussion of potential impacts, the classification table and the

sections on the determination of consequence.

Teck Response:


SOC 157


FMM [157], Section 10.6 Determination of Consequence

Inadequate Criteria for the Determination of Consequence

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a more substantial explanation for selecting the

criteria for the determination of consequence, and in particular for the exclusion of “Frequency”

and “Reversibility”. The explanation should refer to the relevant and current impact assessment

literature and best practices within the impact assessment community.

Teck Response:




SOC 158



Inadequate Criteria for the Determination of Consequence

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck revises its determination of consequence to include

“Frequency” and “Reversibility” in its discussion and rating of the consequence of potential project

impacts to TLU.

Teck Response:


SOC 159



Inadequate Definition of Effects-Classification Criteria

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a more precise and robust definition of

“Geographic Extent.” The explanation should refer to relevant and current impact assessment

literature and best practices within the impact assessment community.

Teck Response:




SOC 160



Inadequate Definition of Effects-Classification Criteria

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a more precise and robust definition of

“Magnitude”. The explanation should refer to relevant and current impact assessment literature

and best practices within the impact assessment community.

Teck Response:


SOC 161



Inadequate Consequence Ratings Explanation

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides a more detailed and rigourous explanation for

how consequence ratings were determined, with reference to each of the criteria used to make the

determination. These explanations should be based, where possible, on the relevant impact

assessment literature and best practices within the impact assessment community.

Teck Response:




SOC 162


FMM [162], Section 10.7 Mitigation, Management, and Monitoring

Lack of Specificity for Traditional Land Use Mitigation Measures

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck negotiates binding and McMurray-Métis-specific

mitigation measures for TLU prior to completion of the Hearing process. Mitigations measures

should include/consider but not be limited to the following:

i. Cultural Sustainability Mitigation Plan;

ii. Community-Based Monitoring Program;

iii. Cumulative Effects Management Strategy;

iv. Community Development Plan;

v. Business Development Plan;

vi. Conservation offsets that address traditional use, wildlife, and other ecological and cultural

objectives;

vii. Protection of historic resources and specific TLU sites;

viii. Community participation in the reclamation plan, access management plan, wildlife mitigation

and monitoring plan, fish habitat offsetting plan, noise mitigation, traffic management plan,

wetlands monitoring, water and tailings management plan and other mitigation and

monitoring plans; and

ix. Capacity funding and participation in multi-stakeholder groups and regional initiatives.

Also, see the recommendations listed in the Cultural Impact Assessment (Clark, 2015, pages 155 to

158) and the TLU Study (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions, 2014, Section 6.4, Pages 47 to 49).

Teck Response:








vi. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

vii. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

viii. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

ix. See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4).

SOC 163



Lack of Traditional Land Use Follow-Up and Monitoring Program

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck commits to designing and implementing a TLU Follow-Up

and Monitoring Program. The program should describe what additional mitigation measures will

be implemented if the proposed measures prove unsuccessful.

Teck Response:


SOC 164




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck negotiates with McMurray Métis regarding the role of the

community in the design and implementation of a TLU Follow-Up and Monitoring Program.

Teck Response:




SOC 165




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck reaches an agreement with McMurray Métis regarding

the role of the community in the design and implementation of a TLU Follow-Up and Monitoring

Program, the completion and implementation of this program should be a condition of project

approval.

Teck Response:


SOC 166


FMM [166], Section 10.8 CEMA’s Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework

Funding to Develop Practitioner’s Guide for Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework

McMurray Métis requests that Teck and the Government of Alberta commit to providing funds to

CEMA or another organization agreeable to McMurray Métis, to complete the Practitioner’s

Guide to Implementing the Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework as part of CEMA’s

Traditional Knowledge Working Group’s 2016 workplan.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.11 HISTORICAL RESOURCES


3.11 Historical Resources

SOC 167


FMM [167], Section 11.2 Métis-specific Historical Resource Information

Lack of a Métis-specific Historical Resource Impact Assessment and Baseline Study

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding historical

resources and ensures that McMurray Métis has opportunities to participate in ongoing historical

resources baseline field studies.

Teck Response:


SOC 168


FMM [168], Section 11.2 Métis-specific Historical Resource Information

Lack of a Métis-specific Historical Resource Impact Assessment and Baseline Study


i. presents a brief summary of some of the historical context for how and where Métis

archaeological material would be located in northern Alberta;

ii. reviews previous research on Métis archaeological sites in Alberta and in neighbouring

provinces;

iii. defines the types of archaeological sites that are associated with Métis land use and occupancy;

and

iv. presents management recommendations for mitigating potential impacts of the project to Métis

heritage resources.

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.11 HISTORICAL RESOURCES


Teck Response:


ii. See Key Theme – Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Section 2.1).

iii. See Key Theme – Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Section 2.1).

iv. See Key Theme – Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Section 2.1).

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.12 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS


3.12 Socio-economic Impacts

SOC 169


FMM [169], Section 12.2 Scoping and Framing

Inadequate Scoping Effort

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck submits a socio-economic assessment that addresses the

concerns raised in this review in relation to the McMurray Métis community.

Teck Response:


SOC 170


FMM [170], Section 12.2 Scoping and Framing

Inadequate Scoping Effort

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding the scoping of a

socio-economic assessment that addresses the concerns and interests of the McMurray Métis

community and ensures that potential socio-economic impacts to the McMurray Métis are properly

considered and characterized.

Teck Response:




SOC 171


FMM [171], Section 12.3 McMurray Métis-specific Socio-economic Information

Lack of McMurray Métis-Specific Socio-economic Assessment

McMurray Métis recommends that the Joint Review Panel considers the SEIA inadequate and

incomplete with respect to the assessment of cumulative socio-economic effects on McMurray Métis

and requests that Teck addresses this issue prior to any hearing.

Teck Response:


SOC 172


FMM [172], Section 12.3 McMurray Métis-specific Socio-economic Information

Lack of McMurray Métis-Specific Socio-economic Assessment

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides financial support to McMurray Metis to conduct

a community-led socio-economic community baseline and impact assessment. This report should

provide an adequate pre-development socio-economic baseline, assess potential incremental and

cumulative socio-economic effects, propose appropriate mitigation measures, provide a proper

effects characterization and determination of significance, and recommend mitigation,

compensation, monitoring and follow-up strategies. A community-led socio-economic study would

be complementary to and could build on the community-led Métis Land Use and Occupancy Study

(MLUO, Willow Springs Strategic Solutions, 2014) and Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA; Clark,

2015) studies.

Teck Response:




SOC 173


FMM [173], Section 12.4 Baseline Information

Inadequate Socio-Economic Baseline

McMurray Métis recommends that the Joint Review Panel requires Teck to address the issue of an

inadequate and incomplete socio-economic impacts assessment prior to convening a hearing.

Teck Response:


SOC 174


FMM [174], Section 12.4 Baseline Information

Inadequate Socio-Economic Baseline

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding the gathering of

pre-development and pre-current-conditions baseline socio-economic information for the

community. This could be done as part of the community-led socio-economic baseline and

assessment requested in [173].

Teck Response:




SOC 175


FMM [175], Section 12.5 Residual Effects Characterization

Lack of Residual Effects Characterization

McMurray Métis recommends that the Joint Review Panel considers the SEIA submitted by Teck

as inadequate and incomplete with respect to the lack of residual effects characterization of effects

on McMurray Métis and requests that Teck addresses this issue prior to any hearing.

Teck Response:


SOC 176


FMM [176], Section 12.5 Residual Effects Characterization

Lack of Residual Effects Characterization

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding the

determination of criteria for the classification of residual project effects on the McMurray Métis

community.

Teck Response:




SOC 177


FMM [177], Section 12.6 Impact Significance or Consequence

Lack of Significance or Consequence Determination


incomplete with respect to the lack of significance or consequence determination of the effects on

McMurray Métis and requests that Teck addresses this issue prior to any hearing.

Teck Response:


SOC 178


FMM [178], Section 12.6 Impact Significance or Consequence

Lack of Significance or Consequence Determination

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding the

determination of criteria for the classification of residual project socio-economic effects on the

McMurray Métis community. McMurray Metis has developed criteria, informed by guidance from

CEAA, for assessing residual impacts on Métis Environmental and Cultural Components (MECCs)

(page 25 to 33, Clark, 2015) that may be applicable or adaptable to assessing socio-economic effects.

Teck Response:




SOC 179


FMM [179], Section 12.7 Cumulative Effects

Inadequate Cumulative Effects Assessment


incomplete with respect to the assessment of cumulative socio-economic effects on McMurray Métis

and requests that Teck addresses this issue prior to any hearing.

Teck Response:


SOC 180


FMM [180], Section 12.7 Cumulative Effects

Inadequate Cumulative Effects Assessment

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding designing and

executing a proper cumulative effects assessment of the project’s potential socio-economic effects on

the McMurray Métis community and provides capacity funding to McMurray Métis to undertake a

socio-economic cumulative effects assessment.

Teck Response:




SOC 181


FMM [181], Section 12.8 Economics and Employment

Non-Binding Commitments on Economic Benefits

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding establishing

project employment targets and fly-in/fly-out schedules. Employment targets should be set across

various employment categories and should emphasize long-term permanent positions, so that global

targets are not simply met by hiring community members into the lowest-paying or temporary

positions. Targets should prioritize young people and women and should be enforceable with

penalties for non-compliance.

Teck Response:


SOC 182




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding negotiating

targets for Direct-Negotiated Contracts with McMurray Métis-owned businesses. Targets should be

enforceable with penalties for non-compliance.

Teck Response:




SOC 183




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding establishing a

project recruitment and employment training program that specifically targets McMurray Métis

youth and women.

Teck Response:


SOC 184




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding gathering

information on labour-market-readiness gaps for community members.

Teck Response:




SOC 185


FMM [185], Section 12.9 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Follow-Up

Insufficient Mitigation, Monitoring, and Follow-Up Programs

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis to establish McMurray

Métis mitigation measures. This can only be done, however, once the potential and cumulative

socio-economic impacts to the community have been properly assessed. The development of

mitigation measures should also take into account the Cultural Impact Assessment and its

recommendations (Clark, 2015).

Teck Response:


SOC 186




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides capacity funding to McMurray Métis to develop

a socio-economic monitoring program to ensure the mitigation and compensatory measures agreed

to by Teck are implemented in full and a timely fashion and are effective. This could be done in

conjunction with monitoring and follow-up related to the Cultural Impact Assessment.

Teck Response:




SOC 187




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck consults with McMurray Métis regarding developing a

socio-economic follow-up and adaptive management program, as per CEAA guidance, to determine

the effectiveness of mitigation measures and to adapt as necessary.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.13 MÉTIS CONSULTATION


3.13 Métis Consultation

SOC 188


FMM [188], Section 13.2 Additional Métis-focused Studies

Lack of Full Consultation for Socio-economic Impact Assessment


a socio-economic baseline study and project-specific and cumulative effects socio-economic

assessment.

Teck Response:


SOC 189


FMM [189], Section 13.3 Additional Consultation on Mitigation, Management and Monitoring

Lack of Full Consultation for Mitigation, Management and Monitoring

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck includes McMurray Métis in the AMP and WMMP

before project approval. This should include ongoing consultation with land users or harvesters

regarding project development.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 3 SOC RESPONSES 3.14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT


3.14 Cumulative Effects Analysis and Access Management

SOC 190


FMM [190], Section 14.1 Introduction

Cumulative Effects on McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory

Cumulative Effects Analysis

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides financial support for the Community to

complete an in-depth cumulative effects analysis of the Frontier Project. This cumulative

assessment would expand the Métis Environmental and Cultural Components (MECCs) identified

in the Cultural Impact Assessment and would include defining clear indicators for each MECC and

describing the pre-development, existing and future conditions for each MECC. The results of the

cumulative effects analysis would assist McMurray Métis and Teck in defining environmentally

and culturally based thresholds and establishing an Adaptive Management Framework to ensure

the sustainability of MECCs as the Frontier Mine is developed.

Teck Response:


SOC 191


FMM [191], Section 14.3 Access Key Concerns and Recommendations

Land and Access Loss

McMurray Métis recommends that the governments of Alberta and Canada develop and

implement, in cooperation with McMurray Métis, a Cumulative Effects Management Strategy

based on Métis Environmental and Cultural Components and embodying the principles of socio-

cultural impact assessment including Indigenous participation and knowledge, interdependence

and cumulativeness, sustainability, uncertainty and precaution, and equity. This system would

include an Adaptive Management Framework that defines research, monitoring and modelling to



evaluate the assumptions applied by the Government of Alberta to manage cumulative effects in

McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory. Active Adaptive Management would be applied as part of

the Adaptive Management Framework by project proponents to assist in validating the

assumptions for mitigation success in the project applications approved by the regulators.

Teck Response:


SOC 192




McMurray Métis recommends that the Government of Alberta conducts (or provides sufficient

funding for McMurray Métis to conduct) a cumulative effects assessment of all existing, approved

and likely development in McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory and an assessment of

cumulative impacts to McMurray Métis’ rights.

Teck Response:


SOC 193




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides support (financial and informational) to projects

initiated by McMurray Métis to conduct independent assessments of the cumulative effects of

industrial development on McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory and land uses in comparison to

regional pre-disturbance reference conditions (i.e., pre-1960).

Teck Response:




SOC 194



Increased Access to McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck completes a quantitative assessment (e.g., using landscape

modelling similar to SEWG and LARP) of the effects of increased access on wildlife, including

bison, and fish populations and that the application is not deemed complete by AER until this

assessment is complete.

Teck Response:


SOC 195




McMurray Métis recommends that:

i. the governments of Alberta and Canada negotiate consultation and accommodation agreements

with McMurray Métis to address and limit cumulative impacts in McMurray Métis’

Traditional Territory, and to accommodate McMurray Métis’ rights and interests;

ii. the Government of Alberta collaborates with McMurray Métis in developing a regional access

management plan; and

iii. McMurray Métis is meaningfully consulted on the implementation of the Comprehensive

Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan (CRISP) or any other regional road planning.

Teck Response:






SOC 196




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck continues to consult with McMurray Métis on its project-

specific access management plan, including providing input by McMurray Métis members and

developing mitigative measures to minimize impacts from increased access created by the project.

Teck Response:

See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4) and Teck’s response to AER Round 5

SIR 102 and CEAA Round 5 SIR 162.

SOC 197




McMurray Métis recommends that Teck develops an access management plan for roads and other

linear access features within McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory. Until an access management

plan is in place that McMurray Métis supports, McMurray Métis requests that continued road

access is not permitted in this part of McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory.

Teck Response:

See Key Themes – Management, Mitigation and Monitoring (Section 2.2) and Agreement and Regulator

Requests (Section 2.4).



SOC 198



Participating in Regional Multi-stakeholder Groups

Mandatory Industry Funding of CEMA

McMurray Métis recommends that the Minister of Alberta Environment and Parks re-instates

mandatory industry funding of CEMA in 2016 and until the knowledge gaps have been addressed.

Teck Response:


SOC 199




Mandatory Industry Participation in CEMA

McMurray Métis recommends that AER includes conditions in any EPEA approval issued for the

Frontier Oil Sands Mine requiring Teck to participate in CEMA.

Teck Response:




SOC 200




Capacity Funding to Support McMurray Métis’ Participation in Cumulative Environmental Management Association

McMurray Métis recommends that Teck provides financial support to McMurray Métis to have a

technical representative participate in CEMA or any other regional initiatives established to

replace CEMA.

Teck Response:


FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT 4 CLOSING


4 Closing

FMM input into Teck’s submissions for the Project has enabled Teck to better understand

FMM concerns and perspectives regarding development of the Project and industrial

development in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. The FMM technical review, traditional

use study, community-led cultural impact assessment and consultation efforts with Teck

have positively contributed to Project planning and the environmental impact assessment,

including development of mitigation measures.

Teck is committed to continuing to work through concerns with FMM to achieve a full

resolution. Teck looks forward to continuing to work with FMM as the Project continues

to move through the regulatory review process and future stages of project planning.

FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT APPENDIX 136.1: REQUESTED REFERENCE –CONRAD AND DFO (2008)

RESPONSES TO FMM SOCS – APRIL 2016

Appendix 136.1 Requested Reference – CONRAD and DFO (2008)

REPORT ON

GEOMORPHIC CHARACTERIZATION AND DESIGN OF ALLUVIAL CHANNELS IN

THE ATHABASCA OIL SANDS REGION

Submitted to:

Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development

and Department of Fisheries and Oceans

December 2008 05-1326-031

102, 2535 - 3rd Avenue S.E., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2A 7W5 Tel: +1 (403) 299 5600 Fax: +1 (403) 299 5606 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America

Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development December 2008 Department of Fisheries and Oceans - i - 05-1326-031

Golder Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report and the associated alluvial channel design manual (Golder, 2008) present the results of a study intended to characterize natural alluvial channels in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (OSR) so that they can be replicated for closure drainage plans based on geomorphic approach.

This study commenced in fall 2005 upon receipt of a research fellowship award from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). Further funding was provided by the Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development (CONRAD) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

The collection of geomorphic data in the OSR took place during two field seasons in fall 2005 and fall 2006. Data collection involved detailed geomorphic surveys to obtain channel bankfull dimensions, bed material composition, channel slope and instantaneous discharge. Maps were used to determine the valley slope, representative surficial geology, sinuosity, drainage basin area and meander wavelength. Hydraulic models were used to determine the two-year peak discharge (assumed equal to bankfull discharge), mean annual discharge and channel roughness.

Geomorphic data were collected using standardized methods and augmented with available data collected during various Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of oil sands developments. This process resulted in geomorphic database for the OSR. Future Geomorphic data collection in the OSR may be collected using the same methods to augment the database.

The geomorphic database was used to develop regime relationships for mean and maximum bankfull depths, bankfull width and sinuosity. The regime relationships are expressed as power equations with the independent parameter represented by the channel parameter and the dependent parameter represented by the bankfull discharge. The coefficients and exponents of the OSR regime relationships are comparable to those in the literature; however, channels in the OSR are observed to be wider and deeper than those elsewhere for which regime relationships have been developed. Region-specific regime relationships were developed for channel slope, meander wavelength and meander belt width.

Roughness caused by large woody debris and other obstructions such as active and inactive beaver dams was determined to have a significant effect on OSR channel hydraulics and results in unique natural channel morphology. An effective way of mimicking the channel flow conditions is to place roughness elements (obstructions made of naturally-occurring debris) in the constructed channel at intervals determined using a design tool developed for this purpose. The primary function of

Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development December 2008 Department of Fisheries and Oceans - ii - 05-1326-031

Golder Associates

the design tool is to provide roughness element size and spacing based on bankfull discharge, channel dimensions, channel slope and grain roughness on the channel bed.

An alluvial channel design manual accompanies this report to provide a procedure for designing channels in OSR mine closure landscapes and recommendations for its use (Golder, 2008). The design procedure is presented as a flow chart to guide a channel designer. The flow chart is divided into sections for ease of use and is accompanied by detailed descriptions of each section and step. The design manual includes design examples to illustrate the process. The examples are intended to show the designer the step-by-step alluvial channel design procedure including the calculations required for four possible channel design scenarios.

The regime relationships and channel design recommendations in the accompanying design manual should only be used by qualified river engineers and fluvial geomorphologists who have an understanding of and experience with the fluvial geomorphology, hydrology and field conditions in the OSR.

Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development December 2008 Department of Fisheries and Oceans - iii - 05-1326-031

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 OIL SANDS MINE CLOSURE DRAINAGE PLANNING NEEDS .................................... 1 1.2 SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE FACILITIES ........................................................................ 3 1.3 GEOMORPHIC APPROACH .......................................................................................... 5 1.4 STUDY OF BASELINE FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY ................................................. 9 1.5 REPLICATION OF NATURAL CHANNELS IN A CONSTRUCTED LANDSCAPE ...... 10 1.6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 11 1.7 PROJECT OWNERS ..................................................................................................... 11 1.8 REPORT CONTENTS ................................................................................................... 12

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 13 2.1 GEOMORPHIC APPROACH ........................................................................................ 13 2.2 CHANNEL REGIME RELATIONSHIPS ........................................................................ 14 2.3 GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL DESIGN METHODS ......................................................... 15 2.4 AVAILABLE GEOMORPHIC DATA ............................................................................... 17 2.5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 18

3 PHYSICAL SETTING OF THE ATHABASCA OIL SANDS REGION ........................ 19 3.1 CLIMATE ....................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.3 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HISTORY .............................................................................. 20 3.4 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................ 20 3.5 VEGETATION ................................................................................................................ 22 3.6 ALLUVIAL CHANNELS ................................................................................................. 22

4 ADOPTED METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 28 4.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 28 4.2 SITE SELECTION ......................................................................................................... 29 4.3 FIELD PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................... 30

4.3.1 Fall 2005 Field Program ................................................................................. 30 4.3.2 Fall 2006 Field Program ................................................................................. 30

4.4 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................. 32 4.4.1 Drainage Basin Area (km2) ............................................................................ 32 4.4.2 Drainage Basin Slope (m/m) .......................................................................... 32 4.4.3 Lowland or Upland Drainage Basin ............................................................... 32 4.4.4 Total Stream Length (m) ................................................................................ 33 4.4.5 Drainage Density (m-1) ................................................................................... 33 4.4.6 Drainage Basin Bedrock Geology .................................................................. 33 4.4.7 Drainage Basin Surficial Geology .................................................................. 33

4.5 STREAM CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................. 34 4.5.1 Bankfull Width (m) .......................................................................................... 34 4.5.2 Mean Bankfull Depth (m) ............................................................................... 36 4.5.3 Maximum Bankfull Depth (m) ......................................................................... 36 4.5.4 Bankfull Width-Depth Ratio ............................................................................ 36 4.5.5 Channel Slope (m/m) ..................................................................................... 36 4.5.6 Sinuosity/Irregularity (m/m) ............................................................................ 37 4.5.7 Meander Belt Width (m) ................................................................................. 39 4.5.8 Fine Particle Composition of Bed Material ..................................................... 39 4.5.9 Median Bed-Material Size (mm) .................................................................... 39

Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development December 2008 Department of Fisheries and Oceans - iv - 05-1326-031

Golder Associates

4.5.10 Flow Resistance ............................................................................................. 40 4.5.11 Channel Surficial Geology ............................................................................. 41 4.5.12 Deviations from Reach-Averaged Channel Parameter Values ..................... 42

4.6 FLOW CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 43 4.6.1 Mean Annual Discharge (m3/s) ...................................................................... 43 4.6.2 Bankfull Discharge (m3/s) ............................................................................... 43

5 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 45 5.1 DATABASE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................ 45 5.2 EXISTING REGIME RELATIONSHIPS ......................................................................... 45 5.3 OSR REGIME EQUATIONS ......................................................................................... 48

5.3.1 Bankfull Width ................................................................................................ 49 5.3.2 Maximum Bankfull Depth ............................................................................... 59 5.3.3 Mean Bankfull Depth ...................................................................................... 66 5.3.4 Channel Slope................................................................................................ 73 5.3.5 Sinuosity/Irregularity ...................................................................................... 76 5.3.6 Meander Wavelength ..................................................................................... 80 5.3.7 Meander Belt Width ....................................................................................... 82

5.4 FLOW RESISTANCE .................................................................................................... 82

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 86

7 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 89

8 THIRD PARTY DISCLAIMER ................................................................................... 90

9 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 91

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Flood Peak Discharges of Large Gauged Basins in the OSR ............................... 21 Table 5.1 Regime Equations Present in the Literature .......................................................... 47 Table 5.2 Ranges of Coefficient and Exponent Values for Existing Regime

Relationships. ........................................................................................................ 48 Table 5.3 OSR-Specific Regime Equations for Bankfull Width and Depth ............................ 73 Table 5.4 HEC-RAS Model Simulation Results for Reaches Surveyed in 2005 ................... 84 Table 5.5 HEC-RAS Model Simulation Results for Reaches Surveyed in 2006 ................... 85

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Alberta Oil Sands Distribution .................................................................................. 2 Figure 1.2 Structurally-Designed Channel Lined with Rip Rap for Erosion Protection. ............ 4 Figure 1.3 Terraced Slope on a waste dump. ........................................................................... 5 Figure 1.4 Geomorphic Landform Design of a Vegetated Waterway ....................................... 8 Figure 3.1 Upland channel with cobble-sized bed material in the riffle section and large

woody debris in the channel .................................................................................. 23 Figure 3.2 A lowland channel with low sediment load, a beaver dam and grassy

vegetation on the floodplain ................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.3 Aerial view of lowland channel flowing through muskeg ....................................... 25 Figure 3.4 Lowland channel flowing through muskeg ............................................................. 25 Figure 3.5 Large woody debris in a forested, lowland channel ............................................... 26 Figure 3.6 Forest abutting channel banks in a lowland channel ............................................. 27

Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development December 2008 Department of Fisheries and Oceans - v - 05-1326-031

Golder Associates

Figure 4.1 Study Reach Selection .......................................................................................... 30 Figure 4.2 2005 and 2006 Survey and Sinuosity Sites ........................................................... 31 Figure 4.3 Channel Parameters .............................................................................................. 35 Figure 4.4 Schematic Examples of Sinuosity .......................................................................... 38 Figure 5.1 Reach-Averaged Bankfull Width versus Bankfull Discharge ................................. 50 Figure 5.2 Cross-Sectional Bankfull Width Versus Bankfull Discharge .................................. 52 Figure 5.3 Relationship Between Coefficient of Variation and Bankfull Discharge ................ 54 Figure 5.4 Exceedance Curve for Deviations From Reach-Averaged Bankfull Width............ 56 Figure 5.5 The Effect of Channel Slope on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged

Bankfull Width and Bankfull Discharge .................................................................. 57 Figure 5.6 The Effect of Drainage Basin Surficial Geology on the Relationship Between

Reach-Averaged Bankfull Width and Bankfull Discharge ..................................... 58 Figure 5.7 Reach-Averaged Maximum Bankfull Depth Versus Bankfull Discharge ............... 60 Figure 5.8 Cross-Sectional Maximum Bankfull Depth Versus Bankfull Discharge ................. 61 Figure 5.9 Exceedance Curve for Deviations From Reach-Averaged Maximum Bankfull

Depth ..................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 5.10 The Effect of Channel Slope on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged

Maximum Bankfull Depth and Bankfull Discharge ................................................. 64 Figure 5.11 The Effect of Drainage Basin Surficial Geology on the Relationship between

Reach-Averaged Maximum Bankfull Depth and Bankfull Discharge .................... 65 Figure 5.12 Reach-Averaged Mean Bankfull Depth Versus Bankfull Discharge ...................... 67 Figure 5.13 Cross-Sectional Mean Bankfull Depth Versus Bankfull Discharge ....................... 68 Figure 5.14 Exceedance Curve for Deviations from Reach-Averaged Mean Bankfull Depth .. 70 Figure 5.15 The Effect of Channel Slope on the Relationship between Reach-Averaged

Mean Bankfull Depth and Bankfull Discharge ....................................................... 71 Figure 5.16 The Effect of Drainage Basin Surficial Geology on the Relationship between

Reach-Averaged Mean Bankfull Depth and Bankfull Discharge ........................... 72 Figure 5.17 Threshold Relationship between Channel Slope and Bankfull Discharge

Showing Bed Material Size. ................................................................................... 75 Figure 5.18 Regime Relationship between Sinuosity and Bankfull Discharge Based on

Data Collection Date. ............................................................................................. 78 Figure 5.19 Regime Relationship between Sinuosity and Bankfull Discharge Based on

Drainage Basin Area. ............................................................................................. 79 Figure 5.20 Exceedance Curve for Deviations from Reach-Averaged Sinuosity ..................... 81

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX I Glossary Of Terms APPENDIX II Technical Procedures For Geomorphic Survey APPENDIX III OSR Fluvial Geomorphic Database APPENDIX IV Fluvial Geomorphic Data Summary Sheets APPENDIX V Fluvial Geomorphic Field Survey Data APPENDIX VI Results of HEC-RAS Analysis for Channel Roughness R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\Final Report\Main Report\Final Report_Alluvial Channels_Dec 08_05-1326-031.doc

CONRAD December 2008 DFO - 1 - 05-1326-031

Golder Associates

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OIL SANDS MINE CLOSURE DRAINAGE PLANNING NEEDS

Alberta’s Athabasca Oil Sands Region (OSR) is the largest of three oil sands regions in the province and is the focus of this project. The three regions together - Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake - contain an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of bitumen, which represents approximately one third of the world’s known oil reserves (Figure 1.1). Accessing the resource requires regulatory agreements between First Nations, federal and provincial government and industry members. Some of the bitumen reserves are close to the surface and are extracted from open pit oil sands mine operations that involve large land disturbances typically exceeding 50 km2. The large extent of excavations and fill placement often requires diversion of major watercourses and disturbance to the landscape and surficial geology of large tracts of land. This results in new topography and drainage patterns. Consequently, oil sands mine closure facilities will include suitable landscape, stream diversions, new drainage networks, erosion control systems, infrastructure protection and stable landforms.

Provincial government regulations require oil sands mine operators to prepare mine closure diversion and drainage plans that are able to accommodate a wide range of hydroclimatic events and provide suitable aquatic and riparian habitat (AENV, 1999). Failure of the diversion and drainage systems following closure certification is not acceptable because of associated erosion, increased sediment yield, ecosystem damage and alteration or destruction of fish habitat. Diversion and drainage systems must maintain their functionality in the long term after mine operators and government agencies have ceased maintenance and monitoring.


Golder Associates

Figure 1.1: Alberta Oil Sands Distribution

Source: (Oil States International 2008)


Golder Associates

Natural drainage systems have performed effectively for hundreds or thousands of years but new channels that have been designed and constructed to replace natural systems have not had the opportunity to develop an equilibrium condition with the landscape in a similar manner. In contrast to natural systems, some man-made drainage works have resulted in significant and expensive failures (e.g., Bradley and McNearny 2000). This study illustrates that there is significant uncertainty regarding the long-term performance of man-made channels. Mine developers are concerned about long-term liability and legal obligations related to traditional mine closure drainage plans. Stakeholders and regulators are concerned with future deterioration of the reclaimed landscape that may require ongoing maintenance and result in inferior ecological productivity. The uncertainty surrounding the longevity of mine closure facilities coupled with increasing environmental concern has led to increased scrutiny of oil sands mine closure drainage plans by regulators, stakeholders and mining companies.

As part of the application requirements through Alberta Environment (AENV) and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB, formerly the Energy and Utilities Board), mine closure diversion and drainage systems are conceptually planned and designed well before commencement of mining activities, with updates required every five or ten years. Mine closure designs have, in the past, been prepared based on the best estimates and predictions of mine planners and drainage designers. With increasing scrutiny of their closure plans, oil sands firms are investing increased effort into future performance of the reclaimed mine areas. The current study on natural analogues for geomorphic design of permanent drainage systems reflects the oil sands industry’s commitment to improving the design basis for closure of oil sands mines.

1.2 SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE FACILITIES

Until recently, mine closure designers have applied structural methods of managing surface drainage and erosion control. Traditional structural methods are typically designed based on probabilistic criteria that are referenced to a specific flood recurrence interval. Accordingly, partial or complete failure would be deemed inevitable during extreme events that exceed the design criteria. Conventional design of closure drainage facilities often include unsustainable features such as uniform slopes, minimal vegetation cover, dams, benches or terraces on earthfill structures, straight channels that are inconsistent with fluvial geomorphic characteristics of natural channels and uniform bed and banks of channels that result in inferior aquatic habitat.

In contrast to natural landscape and drainage systems, traditional designs of these facilities may resemble immature landscape and drainage networks that may be subject to accelerated erosion and catastrophic events. Such facilities require perpetual maintenance since the structures are designed to suit a specific set of calculated flow criteria conditions (e.g. 100-year design flood). Failure may be caused by design flood exceedance or unanticipated physical process that reflect the


Golder Associates

channel designers incomplete understanding regional climate and fluvial processes. Figure 1.2 illustrates a traditional channel design equipped with rock armour that is shallow and vulnerable to spillage and relocation. Figure 1.3 illustrates a constructed landform outfitted with terraces that may collect surface flow and cause serious gully erosion in the event of over topping. The vulnerability of constructed drainage systems designed using the traditional structural approach is well-established in the literature (Sawatsky and Beckstead, 1995; Sawatsky et al. 2000; Beersing et al. 2004).

Figure 1.2: Structurally-Designed Channel Lined with Rip Rap for Erosion Protection.


Golder Associates

Figure 1.3: Terraced Slope on a waste dump.

The alternative to rigid systems designed for specific extreme events is a dynamic system capable of accommodating evolutionary changes without accelerated erosion or unacceptable environmental impacts. Natural systems have matured over millennia and have developed an equilibrium state that accommodates a wide range of typical and extreme hydrologic conditions. Natural systems have adapted to variable conditions and are able to adjust to varied hydrologic events without significant changes to the morphology of the system. In contrast to drainage systems designed using the traditional structural approach, mature natural watercourses do not require ongoing maintenance. Constructed drainage systems that are built to replicate natural drainage are expected to involve minimal maintenance during the reclamation period and no maintenance following a conditioning period of several decades. The inherent problems of the structural approach have become recognized in Canada, the United States and Europe (e.g., Li and Eddleman 2002), and have lead regulators and stakeholders to endorse the geomorphic approach (e.g., Sheilds et al, 2003).

1.3 GEOMORPHIC APPROACH

Reconstructing a landscape using the geomorphic approach minimizes adjustments by erosion and deposition and creates a system with a steady-state configuration (Toy and Chuse 2005). Geomorphic processes shape the landscape into a network of drainage basins, hillslopes and stream channels where the resulting open systems efficiently transport surface water and sediment and are capable of responding to


Golder Associates

changes in water and sediment inputs through morphological adjustments to maintain the efficiency of the system (Toy and Chuse 2005; CEMA 2006).

Streams possess a natural tendency to develop an equilibrium with the landscape that is dependent on the hydrological system that fuels their flow. This equilibrium is expressed as a characteristic morphology (e.g., channel width, depth, sinuosity) that is governed by parameters such as drainage area, discharge, channel substrate and gradient. A river or stream that reaches this equilibrium state, it is said to be ‘in regime’ and its morphology will change gradually in response to changes in the hydrological system. The overall objective of the geomorphic approach is to construct new drainage networks that mimic as closely as possible the dynamics of the original channels.

A key objective of reclaiming mine-disturbed land based on the geomorphic approach is to produce geomorphically-sound channels with the capability to accommodate regional hydroclimatic variability and the drainage requirements of mine closure while minimizing long-term maintenance and risk of negative environmental impacts and catastrophic flow events. A constructed channel designed by the geomorphic approach will initially require some maintenance during a transition or conditioning period; however, successful design of a channel to suit the local geomorphic conditions is expected to produce a self-sustaining system with sediment equilibrium and healthy ecology that would require little or no maintenance in the long term.

The geomorphic approach is suitable for designing mine closure drainage plans in the OSR because it accounts for the unique combinations of climate, geology, ecology and hydrology necessary for ecosystem function. The regional surficial geology and vegetation characteristics, often result in unique hydrologic conditions involving small peak flood flows and high minimum flows in areas where muskeg ground cover is present. The OSR is heavily forested and is subject to woody debris inputs to streams from various sources (e.g., chronic tree mortality, windthrow, beaver activity) that can significantly influence channel morphology.

An alluvial channel is a river or stream channel formed in alluvium and free to adjust its shape in response to flow changes. Geomorphic design of alluvial channels is the focus of this report; however, vegetated waterways are an important part of establishing a sustainable drainage network upstream of alluvial channels, in the headwaters where drainage areas are relatively small. Recent work on recreating sustainable vegetated watercourses that replicate natural systems is reported by Golder (2004). Relative to alluvial channels, vegetated watercourses occur where there is shallow, low-velocity flow and/or intermittent flow from small drainage areas. Vegetated watercourses can be used to drain larger drainage areas where the channel slope is low. The channel dimensions of an individual vegetated waterway depend on the channel slope and drainage area. They can be designed


Golder Associates

based on regional drainage area-slope relationships (Golder 2004). The shallow, low-velocity flow of typical vegetated waterways allows vegetation to establish on the bed and banks and protect the soil from erosion. Together, vegetated waterways and alluvial channels make up a complete and sustainable drainage basin that can be replicated using the geomorphic approach. To date, the application of alluvial channel design in the OSR is limited, but a number of vegetated waterways have been constructed successfully in OSR mine closure environments. Figure 1.4 shows a natural vegetated watercourse with dense vegetation in the flow path area.


Golder Associates

Figure 1.4: Geomorphic Landform Design of a Vegetated Waterway

Alluvial channels in the natural, undisturbed environment are often subject to sustained flow that limits the establishment of dense vegetation within the channel. Instead of erosion protection by vegetation, alluvial channels develop an equilibrium state between the channel substrate and the hydrologic regime, which acts to minimize erosion. The following features are common in natural alluvial channels:

• Channel slope is reduced by up to 200 or sometimes 300% by development of meander patterns;

• Energy in the channel is dissipated by riffle and pool sequences;

• Larger channel width-to-depth ratios form in highly erodible, non-cohesive bed material;

• A broad range of natural channel armour material is present on the channel bed (e.g., coarse sand, gravel or cobbles in riffle sections);

• Ample flood flow attenuation by storage in lakes, wetlands and on the floodplain; and,

• Partial flow in floodplains during extreme events.

Alluvial channel designs are typically based on the bankfull discharge (section 4.6.2), which broadly coincides with the 2-year flood. The bankfull discharge is often recognized as a channel-forming flow and any flow greater than that amount may be partially conveyed by the floodplain. Geomorphic channels are


Golder Associates

designed to adjust to increased flows without catastrophic failure or erosion that could be harmful to the channel morphology or flora and fauna in the ecosystem.

To apply the geomorphic approach, detailed baseline data are collected and analyzed to produce region-specific regime relationships. These relationships typically relate dependent channel parameters for width, depth and channel slope to controlling discharge and channel roughness parameters. Once derived, the regime equations are used as guidelines in the design of channel systems with variations in width and depth, sinuosity and other natural characteristics.

1.4 STUDY OF BASELINE FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY

Physical stream data has been collected in the OSR for several decades and includes over 50 reports and databases spanning 40 years of research (Mountain Station Consultants and North/South Consultants 2005). This report, submitted to the OSR’s Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA), reviews all physical stream data available in the OSR and concludes that much of the physical data was collected without knowledge of specific requirements for stream design. These data are useful for describing the natural variability of physical stream characteristics in the OSR, but data gaps and the lack of standardized data have limited their usefulness. The deficiency of the available data lead to the establishment of this study and intensive data collection during the 2005 and 2006 field programs to obtain data suitable for developing regime equations for stream design.

Alluvial channel design should account for the unique physical characteristics of the OSR. Existing regime relationships available in the literature are based on different climatic, geologic, physiographic and hydrologic conditions and are not applicable to the OSR. A distinguishing feature of the OSR is the predominance of muskeg terrain that has a significant effect on hydrological conditions. Rainfall that infiltrates into muskeg material can be stored temporarily and subsequently released to receiving streams at a slower rate than mineral soils. This can result in a prolonged and muted hydrologic response that exceeds response times for equivalent events in areas without muskeg accumulations (i.e. response times may be up to an order of magnitude greater) (Golder 2003b). Consequently, when stream flows are influenced by muskeg they can be characterized by relatively smaller flood peaks than other comparably-sized watersheds in other areas that are subject to equivalent hydrologic inputs (i.e., rainfall, snowmelt).

Significant research on regime relationships has been conducted in North America on sand- and gravel-bed channels (e.g., Lacey 1929, 1933; Blench 1941; Kellerhals 1967). A regime analysis of Alberta rivers was completed by Bray (1972), although the majority of the streams are outside of the OSR. While valuable for comparative purposes, such equations are not applicable to OSR streams due to the unique


Golder Associates

surficial geology and vegetation of alluvial and muskeg-influenced streams of the OSR.

An intensive data collection and analysis effort was required to develop a comprehensive fluvial geomorphic dataset to provide appropriate data for the development of the regime relationships that account for the unique climate and hydrology of the OSR.

Golder Associates (Golder) advocated a research program to support the geomorphic design of alluvial channels in the OSR. Investigation of existing alluvial streams is believed to provide a sound basis on which streams can be designed for mine closure.

1.5 REPLICATION OF NATURAL CHANNELS IN A MINE-DISTURBED LANDSCAPE

OSR hydrology is strongly influenced by upland and lowland areas that have distinctive effects on channel form and response to hydrological events. The small relief, dense vegetation, muskeg terrain, large quantity of woody debris in the streams and beaver activity contribute to the unique hydrologic conditions.

Mine development results in loss of natural muskeg cover and mature vegetation, reduced organic soil cover and elimination of wetlands, lakes, channels and other natural watershed features. The elimination of natural watersheds and replacement with constructed watersheds requires the closure drainage designer to apply the results of this study judiciously. Guidance on the application of study findings are provided in the Design Manual (Golder 2008). Replication of natural channels in the OSR is be applicable to the majority of the constructed alluvial channels in the mine closure landscapes of the OSR. These include the majority of diversion channels routed around mine-disturbed areas through natural terrain as well as many constructed channels in mine-disturbed lowland areas that are expected to develop mature vegetation cover and be subject to the progressive development of muskeg conditions. Replication of natural channels in the OSR may not be applicable to some well-drained upland areas and to high gradient streams that are not well represented in the natural environment of the OSR.

Replication of natural channels is expected to provide the aforementioned benefits of the geomorphic approach if mine-disturbed areas are reclaimed in such a way that they can promote a mature, self-perpetuating vegetation cover within several decades of construction (i.e. 20 to 30 years). Details of reclamation requirements are discussed in the Design Manual (Golder 2008).


Golder Associates

1.6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Golder was commissioned in 2005 to derive regime relationships for constructed alluvial channels based on local conditions in the OSR for the emulation of natural streams. The goal was to develop a procedure for geomorphic design of alluvial stream channels in the OSR that would result in constructed channels exhibiting the following characteristics:

• Long-term, self-sustaining conveyance of surface water with little or no maintenance;

• Preservation of the built landforms of the mine closure landscape;

• Low rates of chronic erosion similar to the natural environment;

• Suitable aquatic habitat to achieve targeted ecological productivity; and,

• Suitable aesthetics to replicate the appearance of a natural channel.

Four primary objectives were established for the investigation:

• Development of rigorous fluvial geomorphic data collection procedures;

• Development of a database of baseline fluvial geomorphic;

• Development of regime channel relationships for the OSR; and,

• Development of a comprehensive design manual and its subsequent application.

The first objective comprised an extensive review of methods and techniques for fluvial geomorphic data collection and the application of appropriate methods during the 2005 and 2006 field programs. The second objective included an exhaustive search of all existing fluvial geomorphic data from existing OSR baseline reports and verification of the quality and accuracy of the data. Data from existing sources was compiled with data from the project-specific field programs to form the database. The third objective involved a comprehensive data analysis for the determination of regime channel relationships specific to the OSR, but comparable in form and utility to other relationships in the literature. The fourth objective was achieved by compiling the above-mentioned findings into a manual detailing the steps required to design dynamic, sustainable geomorphic channels based on recommendations and guidelines specific to the OSR.

1.7 PROJECT OWNERS

The logistical and financial requirements of this study required significant contributions from numerous stakeholders including Golder. Research funding was provided by the Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development


Golder Associates

(CONRAD), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Golder Innovation Award. CONRAD members that provided financial support or support in-kind include Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., Albian Sands, Suncor Energy Inc., Syncrude Canada Ltd., Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil Ltd. and Total E&P Canada Ltd.

1.8 REPORT CONTENTS

This report presents the results of data collection and analysis. It follows the outline of a typical research thesis with descriptions of the study area and methods, discussions of results and their application to channel design, and concluding remarks and recommendations for further research. Six appendices are included:

• Appendix I: Glossary of Terms;

• Appendix II: Technical Procedures for Geomorphic Survey;

• Appendix III: OSR Fluvial Geomorphic Database;

• Appendix IV: Fluvial Geomorphic Data Summary Sheets;

• Appendix V: Fluvial Geomorphic Field Survey Data; and,

• Appendix VI: Results of HEC-RAS Analysis for Channel Roughness.

The observations, data and conclusions compiled in this report have been used to develop a comprehensive alluvial channel design manual for the OSR (Golder, 2008). The manual is a stand-alone document that is intended to provide direction for alluvial channel design for reclamation and mine closure in the OSR. Included in the design manual are descriptions of landscape and channel design considerations specific to mine environments in the OSR, design recommendations and a detailed design procedure applicable across a number of channel environments characteristic to the OSR. Additionally, the design manual includes a comprehensive design example illustrating several scenarios that may arise during channel design.


Golder Associates

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GEOMORPHIC APPROACH

Dating back to the early 20th century, researchers have investigated the characteristics of natural channels for the purpose of replicating them in constructed channels (e.g., Lacey 1929; Leopold and Maddock 1953; Bray 1972; Schumm 1979; Nunnally 1985; Rosgen 1994; Leopold et al 1998; Carlson 2005; USDA 2007; Golder 2008) The oldest investigations of fluvial geomorphology were conducted to assist in the design of irrigation channels in India and Pakistan (Knighton, 1998)).

The planning, design and construction of a new drainage network based on the geomorphic approach requires an understanding of the regional geomorphology (e.g., Sawatsky and Beckstead 1995), and the processes that create and modify natural watercourses and water bodies. Although fluvial geomorphology is a mature topic of investigation (Lacey 1929, 1933; Leopold and Maddock 1953; Leopold et al 1964; Blench 1969), many processes and aspects of natural variability have yet to be explained. There are a large number of geomorphic, ecologic and hydrologic factors associated with stream channel function resulting in complexity that is often related to local phenomena (Knighton 1998, p.177).

Through research and experience with failed systems that were designed based on the traditional structural approach, it has become clear that rigid, structural channel systems often used in engineered drainage networks are inferior to naturally-functioning geomorphically designed channels that have the capability to adapt to hydrological change. A study of 57 reclaimed mines in North America illustrates that deficient drainage design is a common reason for failure of mine reclamation landscapes (McKenna and Dawson 1997)

The geomorphic approach to natural stream design is becoming increasingly valued by researchers, engineers and regulators as they become more familiar with the method and its benefits (e.g., AENV 2004; Hey 2006). A combination of geomorphology, hydrology and engineering is required for the application of the geomorphic approach to channel design. The designer must also be cognisant of the fisheries and vegetation aspects of the ecosystem to develop a naturally functioning reclamation landscape and drainage network (Rosgen 2006). Rosgen (2006) has recommended the geomorphic approach for stream design and indicated that one of its merits is the application of a combination of analog, empirical and analytical methods for assessment of existing channels and design of restoration channels. Application of the geomorphic approach uses regionally-specific data to characterize the natural morphology of channels that will be mimicked in channel design.


Golder Associates

The geomorphic approach involves detailed examination of existing stream morphology including hydrological inputs, channel dimensions and drainage basin characteristics (USDA 2007). Application of the geomorphic approach and replication of reference reaches (e.g., Rosgen 2001), rather than the traditional regime approach, is appropriate in the OSR because the hydrology of this area is unique and channel design of reclaimed drainage systems will require a sound understanding of the local natural fluvial geomorphic processes.

2.2 CHANNEL REGIME RELATIONSHIPS

Regime equations are used to relate channel parameters such as bankfull width, bankfull depth, sinuosity, meander wavelength and channel slope (e.g., Shields et al., 2003) to independent variables such as bankfull discharge, sediment transport, bed and bank material and valley slope. Developing regime relationships for geomorphic alluvial channel design requires data from channels that have reached a mature state and do not exhibit chronic erosion.

The regime theory for alluvial channels was developed by Lindley in 1919 and furthered by Lacey in 1930. The original regime theory by Lindley and Lacey was used mainly for design of irrigation canals (e.g., Knighton 1998) and other structurally rigid channels that are intended to function under a particular set of discharge and sediment transport conditions.

A significant number of regime relationships describing the stable width, depth and slope at a given median bed material size have been compiled by Yalin (1992). The majority of these equations present the dependent variable as a direct function of discharge or a multi-variate function of discharge and median bed material size. In the literature, relationships for width, depth and slope are expressed as power equations (e.g., Yalin 1992; Section 5.2). Relationships for meander wavelength (Williams 1986; Section 4.4.7) and meander belt width (Williams 1986; Section 4.4.8) are expressed as linear functions of bankfull width. A number of these equations have been developed using flume data, field data or a combination of the two and should be considered specific to the conditions for which they were derived.

Regime theory as applied to natural channels assumes that channel geometry is defined in terms of variables such as width, depth, slope and meander wavelength that adjust in response to changes in external controls (e.g., flood discharges, precipitation).

Basic concepts regarding regime channels and applicable regime equations, are still studied and are leading to a more detailed understanding of regional regime relationships (e.g., Leopold and Maddock 1953; Gill 1968; Mao and Flook 1971; Mahmood and Shen 1971; Tarar and Choudri 1979; Bray 1982; Blench 1986; Hey


Golder Associates

and Thorne 1986; Hey and Heritage 1988; Nouh 1988; da Silva 2003). The strength of the regime approach lies in its continued use and extensive study that improves and adds detail to the method. One recent study examines how a river reach restoration project could be improved, and notes the importance of considering the hydraulic and geomorphic processes at the watershed and reach scales relative to simple classification or analytical approaches for channel design (Kondolf et al. 2001). Site- and region-specific hydraulic and geomorphic assessments of stream restoration sites can ensure that the governing hydraulics and geomorphology in a watershed are considered in channel design and prevent oversights that can lead to channel failure (Smith and Prestegaard 2005).

Some of the most significant research on regime equations for Canadian rivers was conducted by Lacey (e.g., 1929) and Blench (1951), both supporters of the regime method. In 1957, Blench further modified Lacey’s theory and remedied objections raised against it, asserting that regime equations are expressions of the actual form and function of stream channels. Regime relationships have been developed for specific conditions of slope and bed and bank material. For example, relationships developed by Schumm (1977) are intended to be used in the design of channels with shallow slopes and sandy soil in Canada, including Alberta. In contrast, Kellerhals’ regime equations were developed for relatively steep slopes in gravel-bed rivers (Bray 1972). Despite early research on Canadian rivers, there is a significant lack of geomorphic data in the OSR, where hydrological patterns of alluvial channels are significantly influenced by muskeg and dense vegetation.

2.3 GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL DESIGN METHODS

Natural stream characteristics are a reflection of the geology, topography, soils, vegetation and precipitation in a watershed (Nunnally 1985). Mine operations can significantly alter the original landscape, changing surface material composition, hydrological responses, channel pathways and patterns, and sediment load. For mine sites where these watershed characteristics have changed, it is important to consider the original channel morphology for predictions of channel form and dimensions that will be suitable for the altered conditions (Kondolf et al. 2001).

It is commonly understood that the measured bankfull discharge represents the channel-forming flow, that flows below bankfull are ineffective at significantly altering the channel form and that flows greater than bankfull are too infrequent to dominate channel form (Smith and Prestegaard 2005). Bankfull channel elevations are also subject to uncertainty and should be determined during field-based geomorphic surveys by assessing the elevation of depositional features, vegetation changes, topographic breaks, bank material transitions, erosive features and water stains (Harrelson et al. 1994) and used to determine the bankfull conditions for a particular reach. Bankfull discharge can be used as an independent variable for channel design, but the recurrence interval should be carefully considered so that


Golder Associates

the floodplain can accommodate infrequent large flows without causing significant morphological changes or failure (Kondolf et al. 2001; Smith and Prestegaard 2005).

During development of regime channel design methodologies, some designers have moved from simple empirical equations to complex mathematical, analytical and numerical methods. These methods can be questionable due to various assumptions and boundary conditions and do not necessarily result in improved designs. Design engineers and field researchers have generally found empirical methods, like the geomorphic approach, more practical than predictive methods that are based on advanced fluid mechanics and laboratory data (e.g., Ettema and Mutel 2004).

Sheilds et al. (2003) describes a method for stream rehabilitation involving a combination of hydraulic engineering, one-dimensional flow and sediment transport computations for the assessment of watershed geomorphology and channel-forming discharge. Sheilds et al. (2003) presents a summary of other available simple and complex models that may be used for channel design and construction including a method that involves characterizing channel hydraulic geometry and establishing planform predictors that can be applied to disturbed channels with extensive associated data sets (e.g., van den Berg 1995; Allen et al. 1994). Also included is a channel classification method that can be applied to channels exhibiting incision or aggradation (e.g. Simon and Downs 1995; Kondolf et al. 2001).

Shields et al. (2003) suggested that many reconstruction projects are prone to failure due to erosion and sedimentation problems. This highlights the importance of erosion and sedimentation control and the weakness of existing structural methods, which, without maintenance, are susceptible to significant channel migration and eventual failure. The OSR has muskeg-dominated areas that contribute to its unique hydrology, which has not been studied extensively like some other systems, so the methods developed and applied in areas with dissimilar topography and vegetation may not be entirely comparable with methods that should be applied in the OSR.

Reclamation of streams after mine closure is required to re-establish the natural equilibrium of an ecosystem (Palmer et al. 2005). Various types of mine water management facilities designed to function solely during mine operation include dams, diversion channels and drainage ditches. Such features are typically designed to meet operational requirements and are not designed for closure. Features such as vegetated waterways (Golder 2004), permanent alluvial channels and compensation lakes should be designed based on the geomorphic approach (e.g., Golder 1999, 2005a). The methods used to design these features in other environments have varied from geomorphic relationships to empirical and theoretical one-, two- or three-dimensional models (e.g., Shields et al. 2003). The OSR represents a unique climate and hydrology compared to other areas that have been used to develop regime relationships (e.g., Ackers 1964; Bray 1972; Hey and Thorne 1986), namely


Golder Associates

as a result of muskeg soil accumulations and their influence on stream flow and morphology.

Researchers continue to find variability in regime equation form (e.g., exponent and coefficient values), even within similar bed material and climate conditions. This further supports continued study in regions already examined and particularly other areas that are less well understood and will be the focus of reclamation activities, like the OSR.

The application of the geomorphic approach to landscape and channel design is included in mine and reclamation plans that have been accepted by regulators, stakeholders and a number of mine operators. Understanding of the geomorphic approach is further developed by this project. By considering the existing regime and other morphological features of channels in the OSR it is possible to develop design guidelines and recommendations for design of geomorphic closure channels that will be self-sustaining in the long-term.

2.4 AVAILABLE GEOMORPHIC DATA

Understanding of hydrology and fluvial geomorphology in the OSR region was initially enabled by permit applications that required baseline hydrology studies in support of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for planned projects in the OSR. These studies have resulted in a compilation of geomorphic data for a number of streams and rivers in the region.

The development of robust regime relationships requires detailed regional geomorphic data. Geomorphic data includes watershed, stream flow and sediment data and may be defined by variables such as basin area, basin slope, drainage density, lowland area to upland area ratio, bankfull depth and width, sinuosity, channel slope, meander wavelength, sediment particle size and sediment material size distribution.

The most recently collected baseline geomorphic data in the OSR, not including the data collected for this study, pertain to isolated sections of selected streams and therefore do not allow for a complete analysis of stream reach or drainage basin morphology and hydrology (Mountain Station Consultants and North/South Consultants 2005).

The limited geomorphic data available in the OSR provide a good indication of general stream morphology in the region, but lacks the consistency necessary for the derivation of region-specific regime relationships (Mountain Station Consultants and North/South Consultants 2005). Additionally, it was recommended that to develop a comprehensive understanding of stream morphology in the OSR, it would


Golder Associates

be necessary to undertake a project-specific, detailed data collection program (Mountain Station Consultants and North/South Consultants 2005). Another concern reported is that the primary source of data for the OSR comes from industry reports and environmental impact studies undertaken during the 1990s. Among the main data sources cited in industry reports are reports prepared by Golder (Golder 2002, 2003a, b). From these reports it is evident that published geomorphic data are adequate for their intended purpose, but not sufficient for developing reliable design equations.

2.5 CONCLUSIONS

The geomorphic approach to channel design requires an understanding of the natural function of hydrological systems such that the channel form, substrate and ecology can be replicated to recreate hydraulic conditions that resemble those found in undisturbed environments. Regime equations from the literature can be used to design channel width, depth, slope and other variables for regions with similar geomorphological and hydrological characteristics; the resulting equations are not necessarily transferable to other conditions. Detailed geomorphic data for a particular region are required to characterize the channel morphology and recreate hydraulic conditions representative of a mature natural channel.


Golder Associates

3 PHYSICAL SETTING OF THE ATHABASCA OIL SANDS REGION

The Athabasca Oil Sands Region is the largest of Alberta’s four oil sands regions and encompasses approximately 90,000 km2 on Alberta’s eastern border, south of Wood Buffalo National Park. The Athabasca River flows through the centre of the OSR and through the city of Fort McMurray, which is the major hub within the region (Figure 1.1). The region is characterized by dense boreal forest, muskeg, wetlands and an abundance of lakes and rivers. Approximately two thirds of the Athabasca oil sands have been leased for eventual development and extraction of bitumen. Only about 4,000 km2 of the Athabasca OSR, located in the northeast portion of the region and abutted by the Birch Mountains on the west, can be surface mined and represent a large portion of mining development in the area to date (Figure 1.1).

3.1 CLIMATE

The regional climate of the OSR varies between humid continental and sub-arctic with long, very cold winters and short, warm summers. Environment Canada climate data dating to 1950 indicates that average temperatures at Fort McMurray range from -18.8º C in January to +16.8º C in July although winter minimums have reached as low as -50.6º C and summer maximums have reached as high as +37.0º C. Total annual precipitation is approximately 456 mm, of which 342 mm falls as rain in the summer and 156 cm falls as snow (snow water equivalent reported in the total annual precipitation) in winter (Environment Canada National Climate Archive 2008).

3.2 GEOLOGY

The underlying bedrock geology is predominantly sedimentary and metamorphosed-sedimentary rock including shale, sandstone, and siltstone from the Cretaceous and Devonian Periods. The far northwest quadrant of the OSR is primarily underlain by plutonic granite and some sandstone from the Precambrian Eon (ARC 1974a, b).

The OSR’s surficial geology was altered during the most recent glaciation, which ended approximately 10,000 years ago. Geomorphic and fluvial activity during the subsequent Holocene Epoch (approximately 10,000 years ago to present) significantly modified the glacial deposits left behind. Deposits include glacial till plains and moraines, glaciofluvial sands and gravels and glaciolacustrine clay and silt. Holocene deposits include aeolian sand and loess, alluvial fans and stream deposits, erosional slumps and gullies and, lacustrine silts and clays. An abundance of organic material has formed in lake, wetlands and stream environments, in addition the accumulation of organic material into bogs and fens.


Golder Associates

3.3 GEOMORPHOLOGICAL HISTORY

Glaciofluvial activity during the transition between glaciation and the Holocene had a significant influence on the hydrology of the OSR. Morphological and sedimentological analyses suggest that a catastrophic flood discharged down the lower Athabasca and Clearwater River valleys approximately 9,900 years before present (Smith and Fisher 1993; Fisher and Smith 1994). This paleoflood event occurred following the avulsion of glacial Lake Agassiz through the Beaver River Moraine along the Alberta-Saskatchewan border and provided a northwest outlet for Lake Agassiz, which produced the 233 km long Clearwater-lower Athabasca spillway extending from northwest Saskatchewan into northeast Alberta through which the present-day lower Athabasca and Clearwater rivers flow. Consequently, significant glacial, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits and geomorphic features are present throughout the OSR (Smith and Fisher 1993; Fisher and Smith 1994). Glacial deposits ranging in size from fine sand to coarse cobble gravel represent ice-contact deltas the formed as the ice sheet retreated and are generally about 5 m thick in the OSR (Catto 1995). Glaciolacustrine deposits are composed of silt and clay material and are generally less than 4 m in the OSR (Catto 1995).

3.4 HYDROLOGY

The Athabasca River flows northeast across the northern half of Alberta from its origins in the Columbia Icefield. The Athabasca is joined by the Clearwater River just north of Fort McMurray where it bends to flow predominantly northward through the centre of the OSR. The Athabasca is joined by the Peace River before joining the Slave River at the far western end of Lake Athabasca at the Alberta-Saskatchewan border (Figure 1.1).

There are a significant number of large alluvial tributaries of the Athabasca River within the OSR. Major rivers include the McKay, Ells, Steepbank, Muskeg and Firebag rivers as well as a number of smaller alluvial rivers and watercourses flowing through muskeg terrain (Figure 1.1). Streams are present in the highlands (e.g., the Birch Mountains) and the lowlands and have features characteristic to their respective locations. There are a number of relatively large lakes within the OSR, including McClelland and Kearl lakes that are located within the area of the OSR that is currently leased for mining activity. There are a number of other lakes of various sizes outside of the OSR area that significantly influence regional and local hydrology.

Well-drained (i.e. upland) areas generally have a basin and/or channel slope greater than 0.5 %. Poorly-drained (i.e. lowland) areas have a basin and/or channel slope of less than 0.5 %. Poor drainage is a result of shallow slopes that are associated with a low sub-surface hydraulic gradient and the presence of an underlying layer of relatively impermeable material such as compact organic material or glacial and


Golder Associates

glaciolacustrine clay. In combination with poor drainage conditions, a positive water balance and the accumulation of vegetation in saturated conditions, highly organic muskeg soils and associated plant life have developed in the OSR (Muskeg Subcommittee 1973). The cohesive nature of muskeg plays an important role in influencing the morphology of many stream channels in the OSR. Additionally, the poor drainage through muskeg terrain attenuates hydroclimatic events (e.g., snowmelt and rainfall) and subdues regional hydrological responses.

Two major hydrological events control hydrograph responses in the OSR, snowmelt and rainfall. Snowmelt may cause a more rapid and intense surface runoff response than rainfall due to the large quantity of melting snow in combination with conditions that reduce infiltration in the spring season, although the total amount of stream discharge attributed to snowmelt may be less than that attributed to rainfall. Rainfall events during the spring, summer and early fall seasons may have a muted hydrographic response due to high infiltration rates and low gradients in muskeg terrain and the additional attenuating effects of wetlands and lakes. Typical annual runoff values for the basins in the OSR vary from about 50 to 135 mm (e.g., Golder 2005a). Table 3.1 provides a summary of flood peak flows attributed to snowmelt and rainfall in large, gauged basins in the OSR.

Table 3.1 Flood Peak Discharges of Large Gauged Basins in the OSR

Gauged River Basin Name

Drainage Area (km2)

Flood Peak Discharge for Various Return Periods (m3/s) Snowmelt Flood Flow Rainfall Flood Flow(a)

2 Years

10 Years

100 Years

2 Years

10 Years

100 Years

Poplar Creek 151 4.26 14.1 29.3 5.75 15.9 28.6 Beaver River 165 3.13 7.45 13.9 10.1 28.3 51.0 Joslyn Creek 257 7.97 16.1 28.5 6.13 18.2 77.5 Unnamed Creek 274 3.07 6.49 10.8 3.74 12.3 33.3

Jackpine Creek 358 3.49 10.6 21.1 5.43 13.9 24.5 Steepbank River 1,320 25.7 71.0 128 21.7 56.6 120

Muskeg River 1,460 17.7 53.8 91.5 16.6 34.2 56.2 Ells River 2,450 29.7 68.8 118 32.2 150 324 MacKay River 5,570 72.7 292 638 74.5 203 427 Firebag River 5,990 86.8 158 264 66.1 127 370

Source: Golder 2003b

(a) Note: Adds 0.015 m3/s/km2 to rainfall flood peak discharge to account for rain-on-snow conditions.


Golder Associates

Beaver activity is widespread in the OSR and can influence channel morphology by damming flow and increasing flow widths and depths. Small streams rarely possess the stream power needed to overcome the damming, particularly in lowland areas where dams are most common. Beaver dams are typically 1 to 3 metres high in Alberta but have been measured as high at 3.5 m (Golder 2005b). Channel designs must take into consideration the eventual occupation by beavers and construction of beaver dams following the re-establishment and maturation of the deciduous vegetation, which is the primary food source for beavers.

3.5 VEGETATION

The OSR is heavily vegetated by boreal forest tree, shrub, and grass species except areas currently subjected to mine operations. Native tree species include aspen, balsam poplar, white birch, white and black spruce and pine ( Smith and D’Eon, 2006). Vegetation can play an important part in determining channel morphology through three processes: the roots of riparian vegetation situated along channel banks contribute to soil strength, which reduces bank failure and sediment input; introduction of riparian vegetation (e.g., logs and branches) through various inputs (e.g., dying trees, beaver activity, windthrow, snowloading, etc.) that may alter local hydraulics and consequently channel morphology; and the accumulation of organic material in bogs, fens and muskeg areas which can provide a cohesive material that is often saturated and leads to ill-defined channel morphology.

3.6 ALLUVIAL CHANNELS

Alluvial channels are defined by flow moving through a channel with bed and banks composed of material that has been transported by the river under the present flow conditions and are free to adjust their dimensions, shape, pattern and slope in response to hydrologic changes (Schumm, 1977). Alluvial channels in the OSR can be characterized as upland or lowland channels and by the boreal forest or muskeg vegetation surrounding them. In addition, alluvial channels can be described by their characteristic sediment load, amount of beaver activity and sinuosity.

Upland and lowland streams

Upland streams have a channel slope that is typically greater than 0.5 %. In generally, upland terrain in the OSR has slopes between 0.5% and 5%. Beaver activity is less common in upland streams due to reduced potential for developing a pond adequate for habitat and the increased risk of dam failure. Flow in upland streams is often faster and the bed material may be composed of permeable gravels, cobbles and material as large as boulders. Upland areas are usually forested and fallen trees are common in stream channels as shown in Figure 3.1.


Golder Associates

Figure 3.1 Upland channel with cobble-sized bed material in the riffle section and large woody debris in the channel

Lowland streams, typically have channel slopes less than 0.5 %. Beaver activity is very common and flow is impeded by beaver dams, fallen trees, debris accumulations, form resistance features resulting from irregular channel bed and banks associated with muskeg accumulations and shallow hydraulic gradients. Figure 3.2 illustrates a typical lowland stream. Flow in lowland streams that drain muskeg terrain is extremely slow and pooled areas in the channel and on the floodplain are common. The channel beds of lowland streams are typically composed of silt-rich alluvium and organics and the upper portion of the banks is commonly composed of muskeg or dense vegetation. The sediment load is very low due to the slow moving flow and negligible sediment inputs from the watershed that is vegetated with low grasses and shrubs (Figures 3.3 and 3.4).


Golder Associates

Figure 3.2 A lowland channel with low sediment load, a beaver dam and grassy vegetation on the floodplain

Flow in a stream can be significantly influenced by the proportions of upland and lowland areas in the upstream drainage basin. Flows from upland areas generally have a more rapid response to rainfall, resulting in higher peak flows and possibly more erosion. Flows from lowland areas can be attenuated by muskeg accumulations and beaver activity. The combination of these two types of flow in a watershed can result in a hydrological response that is unique to the local watershed area.

Muskeg and boreal forest vegetation

In lowland areas with sustained high water tables that saturate surface soil and prevent decomposition of plant material organic material accumulations result and peat (muskeg) develops. In general, peat accumulations occur in areas where the hydraulic gradient is small and relatively impervious mineral soils are present beneath the organic accumulations. Flood flows are attenuated by these pervious surficial organic deposits that store water during hydrological events and release it gradually.


Golder Associates

Figure 3.3 Aerial view of lowland channel flowing through muskeg

Figure 3.4 Lowland channel flowing through muskeg


Golder Associates

Boreal forest vegetation occurs in upland and lowland areas but does not occur on muskeg accumulations. The surficial geology in boreal forest areas may be composed of clay-rich glaciolacustrine material, sand-rich glaciofluvial material or glacial deposits with a mixture of grain sizes. In these areas, alluvial or colluvial bed and bank material is clearly visible in channels. Large woody debris is common as dead trees fall into the stream (Figure 3.5). Forested areas may abut the channel (most commonly in upland areas; Figure 3.6) or maybe set back in lowland areas where the floodplain is highly developed. In lowland forested areas, beaver activity can significantly alter the channel hydrology by creating large pooled areas and shallow narrow riffles immediately adjacent to one another (e.g., Figure 3.2)

Figure 3.5 Large woody debris in a forested, lowland channel


Golder Associates

Figure 3.6 Forest abutting channel banks in a lowland channel

Riffles and Pools

Riffle and pool sequences occur in straight, meandering and braided channels (Leopold and Wolman 1957). Riffles are generally observed to be shallower with larger bed material and exhibit higher flow velocities than pools that tend to have greater flow depths and smaller bed material (Leopold and Wolman 1957). During periods of high flow, riffles and pools are less distinct from one another and observed flow velocities become less differentiated (e.g., Richards 1978). The majority of the channels on which this study was focussed are low-gradient with fine bed material. Channel boundaries on similar low-gradient channels are observed to be less resistant than high-gradient channels with large bed and bank material and may therefore be subject to deep pools as a result of scour during flood periods (e.g., Wohl et al. 1993).

In the OSR, the influence of beaver activity and substantial accumulations of woody debris in channels has an impact on channel morphology. Riffle-pool sequences are apparent, although they are often influenced by backwater and flooding effects of downstream blockages. In the OSR, pools that form behind beaver dams or debris accumulations are often significantly wider than adjacent riffles or other pools.


Golder Associates

4 ADOPTED METHODOLOGY

4.1 OVERVIEW

Alluvial stream channels that replicate natural systems can be designed based on regional regime relationships derived from baseline fluvial geomorphic data (e.g., Rosgen 2001; Hey 2006; Golder 2008). Therefore, a standardized data collection, management and analysis programme was developed to enable accurate interpretation of natural stream parameter relationships in the OSR.

The field data collection methods were based upon experience and knowledge acquired by Golder during previous fluvial geomorphic baseline studies as well as techniques described in refereed research literature and reference manuals (e.g., Harrelson et al. 1994; Leopold et al. 1998). Twenty-one parameters of geomorphic importance were selected to characterize the variable stream reaches in the OSR. Field technicians also provided sketches, photographs and notes describing the stream reaches and other relevant site conditions. Project information and site coordinate details were noted at all sites for spatial and temporal analyses as well as archival purposes. This information was particularly important for verification of pre-2005 data taken from previous OSR baseline hydrology reports.

An initial task of this research project involved the development of comprehensive fluvial geomorphic data collection procedures. These procedures were then applied to collection of new data for this project. The pre-2005 dataset was collected for a variety of clients, by several consultants, at various temporal and spatial scales. The data were typically collected for specific and localized purposes; therefore, it lacks the temporal coherence, spatial distribution and standardization of methods required for development of robust regional regime equations.

All geomorphic measurements and calculations conducted prior to 2005 were performed at single cross sections. Given the high level of local variability among the geomorphic parameters of OSR alluvial streams, and natural channels in any region, this approach cannot accurately represent the variation of the selected channel reaches. Use of the historic data without qualification may result in development of unrepresentative regime relationships and consequently, ill-functioning mine closure drainage channel designs. To remedy this, Golder developed a ‘reach approach’ for data collection in 2005 and 2006 that involved collecting data at three to five cross-sections along reaches 80 to 120 m in length, or 20 times the bankfull width, a distance that generally encompasses one to two meander bends (Leopold 1994).


Golder Associates

4.2 SITE SELECTION

Selection of candidate streams for incorporation into the study was based on various considerations:

1. What information is required to replicate a given stream and its drainage basin?

2. What watershed characteristics (e.g., geology, drainage basin area, basin slope, elevation, etc.) should be represented in the study?

3. How can the most useful comparisons be made with the fewest sites?

4. What types of streams need to be replicated in mine closure plans?

5. How much can be accomplished with available project resources?

A variety of study reaches were chosen to encompass the entire spectrum of alluvial streams present in the OSR. Three important considerations in terms of drainage basin characteristics were:

1. The channel slope of study reaches including upland (high-gradient) and lowland (low-gradient) streams. The majority of stream reaches are in lowland streams, but a broad selection including upland streams was required to provide a basis for replicating both types of streams in the mine closure plans;

2. Drainage area of the potential study reaches. A spatially uniform sampling of sites was taken throughout the OSR in 2005 that accounted for typical variations surficial geology, channel slope and drainage basin size. The 2005 field season allowed a thorough characterization of the baseline conditions and geomorphology of natural streams in the OSR. Additional sites were selected in 2006, to further characterize the spatial variability while targeting smaller watersheds to provide more data that would be analogous to similarly-sized closure drainage basin designs; and

3. Surficial geology of study reaches. The complex surficial geology of the OSR was simplified by broadly classifying the surficial geology of the potential study reaches into three categories; (a) glacial (till, sand, clay); (b) glaciofluvial (sand); and (c) glaciolacustrine (clay, silt). Study reaches were selected to represent all three terrain types.

A broad and relatively even spatial distribution of study reaches were selected across the OSR to account for intra-regional variations in climate and hydrology as well as variations in basin slope, drainage basin size and changes in surficial geology as illustrated in Figure 4.1. This process was used to select study sites prior to the field programs, but field personnel were occasionally required to alter the precise location of study reaches to accommodate access to the site and to selection of representative study reaches.


Golder Associates

Figure 4.1: Study Reach Selection

4.3 FIELD PROGRAMS

4.3.1 Fall 2005 Field Program

The 2005 field program took place from August 23 to October 4, 2005. Data collection were performed in the fall, when flow had receded, to assist in discerning geomorphic characteristics of alluvial channels that could not be measured during higher water levels typical in the spring. Twenty-nine reaches, shown in Figure 4.2, were studied in 2005, many with drainage basin areas greater than 50 km2. Initially, five cross-sectional measurements were planned for each study reach but, in the interest of time and costs associated with the increased number of sites, the minimum number of cross-sections was reduced to three and sufficient data for reach characterization and analysis were still obtained.

4.3.2 Fall 2006 Field Program

Information obtained during the 2005 field program and subsequent data analysis was used to plan the fall 2006 field program and fill in data gaps. Twenty-five study reaches, shown in Figure 4.2, were surveyed in the second field season from October 4 to 28, 2006. Preliminary analyses of the 2005 data revealed a lack of study reaches with drainage basin area less than 50 km2, so the 2006 field program included a larger sampling of study reaches with watershed areas below this size. A review of the spatial distribution of the 2005 study reaches indicated some gaps that were corrected in 2006 to provide a more representative distribution of survey sites throughout the OSR.

Site Selection

Upland (slope >0.5%)

Lowland (slope <0.5%)

Small (< 50 km2)

Medium (50 – 200 km2)

Small (< 50 km2)

Medium (50 – 200 km2)

Large (> 200 km2)

Glacial

Glaciofluvial

Glacial

Glaciofluvial

Glaciolacustrine Glaciolacustrine

Glacial

Glaciofluvial

Glaciolacustrine

Glacial

Glaciofluvial

Glaciolacustrine

Glacial

Glaciofluvial

Glaciolacustrine

Drainage Basin Slope

Drainage Basin Area

Drainage Basin Surficial Geology


Golder Associates

4.4 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Watershed characteristics of selected study reaches are important because the watershed upstream of a study reach governs the flow variability and character within the study reach. Watershed parameters are used to analyze the flow regime of study reaches and were obtained from geological and topographic maps.

4.4.1 Drainage Basin Area (km2)

Drainage basin area is the geographic area drained by a stream upstream of the study reach. Drainage basin area is an independent basin control that affects independent channel controls such as valley slope and stream discharge (Knighton 1998). Drainage basin area was determined by planimeter from the AltaLIS Stream Layer with National Topographic Data Base (NTDB) 20 m contour map or Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) survey (0.5 to 2.0 m contour interval) maps.

4.4.2 Drainage Basin Slope (m/m)

Drainage basin slope is the change in elevation divided by the distance from the top of the drainage basin to the study reach (Knighton 1998). Drainage basin slope was determined via manual measurement using a digital plan measure tool and 20 m contour lines from NTDB or National Topographic Series (NTS) maps.

4.4.3 Lowland or Upland Drainage Basin

Drainage basins in the OSR are often described as lowland or upland basins. In some cases, drainage basins include a combination of lowland and upland areas. Classification of a drainage basin as lowland or upland was based upon drainage basin slope. In the literature, threshold values for dividing lowland from upland areas range from 0.002 m/m (Wohl 2000) to 0.01 m/m (Grant 1997). Based on marked differences between channel morphology and hydrologic characteristics the threshold channel slope value of 0.005 m/m (0.5%) was chosen for the OSR. For the purposes of this study, watersheds with typical slopes less than 0.005 m/m were classified as lowland and those with typical slopes greater than 0.005 m/m were classified as upland.

Basin slopes greater than 0.005 m/m are not conducive to the development of muskeg-type wetlands because the relatively steep gradient promotes drainage that prevents a sufficiently high water table to keep organic material saturated. Basin slopes less than 0.005 m/m are often characterized by muskeg accumulations. Consequently, slope and classification as lowland or upland, may serve as a useful indicator of muskeg conditions that influence fluvial geomorphologic forms and processes.


Golder Associates

4.4.4 Total Stream Length (m)

Total stream length is defined as the summation of stream lengths from the headwaters to the study reach. Total stream length is an important parameter in determining drainage density. Total stream length was determined using Geographic Information System (GIS) and/or manual measurement techniques using a digital plan measure tool on NTDB or NTS maps.

4.4.5 Drainage Density (m-1)

Drainage density is the ratio of total stream length within a basin to basin area and is defined as:

AreaDrainageLengthChannelTotal

DensityDrainage =

This parameter is useful for establishing the hydrological character of a watershed and determining the spacing and layout of a mine closure drainage system.

4.4.6 Drainage Basin Bedrock Geology

Drainage basin bedrock geology is the predominant parent material of a watershed. The bedrock geology of a drainage basin can play an important role as the source of material composing the watershed’s surficial geology (Knighton 1998). The bedrock geology of each study reach was determined by examining the bedrock geology inset maps on the surficial geology maps (ARC 1974a, b) and noting the bedrock type.

4.4.7 Drainage Basin Surficial Geology

Drainage basin surficial geology is the near-surface material that has been developed through weathering of the parent material or eroded and deposited during glaciation. This material may be present along stream banks, but may be subject to significant erosion through incision. Drainage basin surficial geology controls local vegetation and soils which in turn influence stream discharge, sediment yield, and bank material composition and strength (Knighton, 1998). Surficial geology maps were used to identify the surficial geology of each study reach (ARC 1974a, b).


Golder Associates

4.5 STREAM CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS

Stream channel characteristics are the features of a natural stream that are essential to replicate in constructed channels that are subject to equivalent flow conditions. Channel parameters were obtained from maps and geomorphic surveys of stream cross-sections and reaches as illustrated in Figure 4.3. These characteristics include bankfull width, bankfull depth, channel slope, sinuosity/irregularity, bed and bank material and channel roughness.

4.5.1 Bankfull Width (m)

Bankfull width is defined as the width at which a stream first begins to overflow its natural banks. This generally occurs during the bankfull discharge flow event, a discharge level largely responsible for the form of alluvial channels.

Bankfull width is a dependent parameter that is primarily governed by stream discharge, channel depth, bed material size and is related to meander wavelength and is inversely related to bank material composition and strength (Knighton 1998). It is, therefore, a critical component of natural channel design and one of the most important parameters studied in this project. It is easily replicated in the design and construction of new drainage systems.

Bankfull channel elevations on each side of the channel were determined based upon geomorphic and ecological indicators including: (1) elevation of depositional features (e.g., point bars); (2) vegetation changes (e.g., lower limit of perennial species); (3) topographic breaks along the channel banks (i.e., break of slope); (4) bank material transitions (e.g. boundary between coarse cobble or gravel and fine-grained sand or silt); (5) erosive features (e.g., undercut banks); and (6) water stains (Harrelson et al. 1994). In a number of instances, bankfull channel elevations on each bank were equivalent with the top of the channel banks.

Co-ordinates of the right and left bankfull channel elevations on each bank were noted during total station surveys of channel cross sections. During data processing, the horizontal distance between right and left bankfull channel elevations on each bank was calculated to determine bankfull width.


Golder Associates

4.5.2 Mean Bankfull Depth (m)

Bankfull depth is the depth at which a stream first begins to overflow it banks as shown in Figure 4.3c. Like channel width, channel depth is primarily governed by stream discharge, channel slope and bed material. It is related to channel width and has an inverse relationship with frictional resistance. Depth is also related to sediment transport rates, bedform geometry, and stream velocity (Knighton 1998). Bankfull channel elevations on each bank were determined by the methods described in Section 4.5.1. Elevations of the channel bed, recorded during total station surveys of the channel cross sections, were subtracted from the bankfull elevation and averaged to determine the mean bankfull depth.

4.5.3 Maximum Bankfull Depth (m)

Maximum bankfull depth at a cross-section was determined by subtracting the minimum elevation of the channel bed recorded during total station surveys from the bankfull elevation.

4.5.4 Bankfull Width-Depth Ratio

Bankfull width-depth ratio is determined by dividing bankfull width by mean bankfull depth. It is a non-dimensional characterization of a channel’s shape and relative incision and is inversely controlled by bank material composition and strength (Knighton 1998).

4.5.5 Channel Slope (m/m)

Channel slope is the change in water surface or average stream bed elevation per unit channel length within a river reach. Channel slope is significantly related to valley slope and bed material size and inversely related to stream discharge and sinuosity. In turn, channel slope has a direct influence on stream power and velocity (Knighton 1998). Channel slope was determined by conducting a total station survey of the longitudinal profile of each stream reach. The long profile of the channel bed surface was surveyed at several reaches. For the remaining reaches, the slope of the water surface profile was used to estimate to the channel bed slope. The slope of water surface was more consistent and provided a more accurate estimation of the representative bed slope. Significant variations in elevation of the channel bed profile due to clasts, vegetation and other debris were observed.

Channel reaches were classified as upland or lowland based on channel slope. Upland reaches have channel slopes greater than 0.5% and lowland channel reaches have channel slopes less than 0.5%.


Golder Associates

4.5.6 Sinuosity/Irregularity (m/m)

Channel sinuosity/irregularity is the ratio of channel length to valley length, for a stream reach as shown in Figure 4.3a. Sinuosity is affected by a combination of factors including stream discharge, bed material size, bank material composition and strength, valley slope and channel slope. Sinuosity introduces significant form roughness to streams thus controlling flow resistance values such as Manning’s n (Knighton 1998). In the OSR, stream power plays an integral role in determining the sinuosity of a stream. For example, small streams with drainage area less than about 50 km2 that often flow in muskeg material do not possess enough stream power to overcome the cohesiveness of alluvium, muskeg and other debris in the channel, resulting in irregular meander patterns. In contrast, larger streams with drainage area greater than about 50 km2 often possess the stream power to overcome the cohesiveness of the material through which they flow and develop recognizable patterns of sinuosity. Sinuosity and/or irregularity may be determined in a variety of ways including measurement of thalweg and valley lengths from maps and aerial photographs using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), photogrammetry, and/or cartographic techniques. Typical patterns of sinuosity and their corresponding values are shown in Figure 4.4. Sinuosity measurements used for analysis were obtained from sites shown in Figure 4.2.


Golder Associates

Source: Schumm, 1963

Figure 4.4: Schematic Examples of Sinuosity

Meander Wavelength (m)

Meander wavelength is the valley length of one full channel meander as shown in Figure 4.3. In the OSR, small streams flowing in cohesive vegetative material often have irregular flow patterns and no significant sinuosity or meander pattern. Meander wavelength was determined from maps and for streams deemed able to develop a significant sinuosity based on their size and present channel pattern. Meander wavelength is controlled by stream flow and bank material composition and strength (Knighton 1998). Meander wavelength was measured from the AltaLIS stream layer with NTDB or LiDAR maps.


Golder Associates

4.5.7 Meander Belt Width (m)

Average meander belt width as illustrated in Figure 4.3 was determined by measuring the belt width at six locations along representative river reaches and averaging the distance.

4.5.8 Fine Particle Composition of Bed Material

The composition of fines in the channel bed material provides information regarding bed or bank material size composition and strength which influence channel width, depth, slope, meander wavelength, sinuosity, and width-depth ratio (Knighton 1998).

The percentage by weight of particles less than 0.075 mm represent the percentage of clay and silt present in a given channel bed material sample. The percentage of fine particles less than 0.075 mm was determined by quantitative sieve analysis of bed materials following the methods described in ASTM D422-63.

4.5.9 Median Bed-Material Size (mm)

Median particle size (D50) of the bed material is the median characteristic diameter of the deposited sediment forming a stream bed (i.e., 50% of the bed material is finer than this diameter, and 50% is coarser). Bed material size has a strong influence on channel width, depth, slope, sinuosity and frictional resistance and is related to bedform geometry (Knighton 1998).

Time and budget constraints prevented bed material sampling from being undertaken following the methods outlined in Appendix II-C and led to modification of sample collection methods. At 43 of the 53 sites, a sample of approximately 2 kg was obtained near the discharge measurement location in an area that represented the overall bed material composition in the reach. Sieve analysis was conducted on this sample and a median bed material size was determined using the equation discussed below.

Sediment size distributions were determined using the techniques described in Section 4.5.9. The following log-linear equation was then applied to determine D50 (Parker 2004):

( ) ( ) ( )[ ]( )⎪⎭

⎪⎬⎫

⎪⎩

⎪⎨⎧

−−−+= 1

12

12150 50exp FFFD DDD nnn ll

l


Golder Associates

where F1 is the percentage content with the highest value below 50%, F2 is the percentage content with the lowest value above 50%, D1 is the grain size corresponding to the percentage content with the highest value below 50%, and D2 is the grain size corresponding to the percentage content with the lowest value below 50%.

4.5.10 Flow Resistance

Flow resistance quantifies the frictional resistance of a channel to flow. It depends on several factors including bed material, channel irregularity, channel alignment, sinuosity, vegetation, obstructions, size and shape of a channel, suspended material and bed load, stage and discharge. Knighton (1998) divides flow resistance into three components: boundary resistance resulting from the frictional effect of the bed material and bedforms; channel resistance resulting from bank irregularities (e.g., variability in width and depth) and changes in channel alignment (e.g., sinuosity); and free surface resistance resulting from the distortion of the water surface through waves, etc. Free surface resistance is considered negligible in this study due to substantially larger contributions from other components of flow resistance. A component of flow resistance that is not mentioned by Knighton (1998) but plays a significant role in the OSR is the effects of obstructions (e.g., active and inactive beaver dams and woody debris). Observations and data suggest that this component of flow resistance contributes significantly to flow resistance in alluvial channels in the OSR and it is therefore considered in the channel design methodology.

Flow resistance parameters such as Darcy-Weisbach’s f, Chézy’s C and Manning’s n, take account of, but do not distinguish between, all components of flow resistance. The Darcy-Weisbach equation is dimensionally correct with a sound theoretical basis but is typically applied to pipeflow rather than open-channel flow situations (Knighton 1998). Manning’s equation was developed in 1889 over 120 years after the development of Chézy’s equation and is commonly used to characterize open channel flow resistance in North American studies. It was therefore chosen as the flow resistance parameter for this study. Manning’s resistance equation is as follows,

nSRKV h

2/13/2

=

where n is the resistance co-efficient (Manning’s n); v is the cross-sectional mean flow velocity (m/s); Rh is the hydraulic radius (m); s is the slope of the energy gradient, which is assumed to be equal to the average bed channel slope (m/m); and k is 1 (in SI units and 1.486 in Imperial units). The hydraulic radius (Rh) is determined using the following equation,


Golder Associates

PARh =

where A is the cross sectional area of flow (m2) and P is the wetted perimeter (m).

Cross-sectional mean velocity (v) and Manning’s ‘n’ were determined by modelling the measured flow conditions using the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model.

Determination of Manning’s Roughness Coefficient

The HEC-RAS model is a one-dimensional river hydraulic model that has been applied extensively in North America. The software has a graphical user interface (GUI), hydraulic analysis modules, data storage and management capabilities, and graphics and reporting facilities. The model is capable of performing steady and unsteady flow analysis. In this study, the steady state mode was used to perform the hydraulic simulation. The HEC-RAS model outputs include water surface profile, flow velocities, flow area and other hydraulic parameters within the study reach.

The input data required for the HEC-RAS model include geometry data, flow data and roughness coefficient. The geometry data include cross-section data, the bank locations and reach length between cross-sections. The flow data include upstream and downstream boundary conditions, which, in this study, are the inflow discharge and the average measured water surface slope respectively.

The HEC-RAS model was calibrated by adjusting the value of the Manning’s roughness coefficient until the average simulated water surface slope matched the average measured water surface slope. The Manning’s roughness coefficient was determined for the reaches surveyed in 2005 and 2006. Details of the calibration results are presented in Appendix VI.

4.5.11 Channel Surficial Geology

Channel surficial geology refers to the surficial material within the channel banks. Material present in the channel bed is generally material from within the drainage basin that has been replaced by the flow. Channel surficial geology may also coincide with the bedrock geology if the channel is incised to the depth of the parent material. Surficial geology maps of the area were used to determine the channel material (ARC 1974a, b).


Golder Associates

4.5.12 Deviations from Reach-Averaged Channel Parameter Values

Natural channels exhibit substantial variability. Reach-averaged parameters were often found to differ considerably from measurements at specific cross-sections. The process of replicating natural channels involves reproduction of the irregularity of natural systems as indicated by deviations of channel parameters at specific cross-sections from reach-averaged values of channel parameters. It is for this reason that reach-averaged values were used for analysis.

The deviations from reach-averaged channel parameters at each cross-section were determined for bankfull width, mean bankfull depth and maximum bankfull depth for all 2005 and 2006 sites. A total of 174 deviations were determined, for each channel parameter.

The deviations for each channel parameter were analyzed to generate an exceedance curve that relates the deviation to the reach-averaged value (on the y-axis) to the percentage of time a give deviation is exceeded (on the x-axis). Exceedance curves for the channel parameter deviations were prepared for the bankfull width, mean bankfull depth and maximum bankfull depth. The exceedance curves were generated using the following steps:

a. Calculate the average of the desired channel parameter (e.g. bankfull width) for each reach

b. Calculate the percent deviation of each cross-section from the reach-averaged value using the following equation:

100(%) ×−=

mean

meanii W

WWofDeviation W

where Wi is the bankfull width at a given cross-section and Wmean is the reach-averaged bankfull width.

c. Sort the deviations for the channel parameter in descending order

d. Determine the rank (e.g., R= 1, 2, 3,…, n) for each channel parameter deviation from the largest to the smallest deviation. The total number of channel parameter deviations is n.

e. Calculate the exceedance probability, P (percent of time a given channel parameter deviation is exceeded), using the following equation:

100(%)1×+= n

RP


Golder Associates

f. Plot the percent channel parameter deviations against the exceedance probabilities to generate an exceedance curve.

Exceedance curves can be used to determine the variability from the reach-averaged channel parameter value at a desired confidence limit as shown in section 5.3.

4.6 FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

Flow characteristics were used to describe stream flow and were derived by simulating flows using the United States Geological Survey’s Hydrological Simulation Program – Fortran (HSPF). The HSPF model was last calibrated and validated in 2003 using updated climatic and hydrologic data and surficial geology and surface cover information from the OSR (Golder 2003).

4.6.1 Mean Annual Discharge (m3/s)

Annual discharge is the average of recorded or simulated daily flow rates that pass through a location on a river channel over a one year period. The mean annual discharge is determined by averaging the annual discharges over a period typically greater than 10 years. Stream discharge is governed by drainage basin area, physiography, vegetation, soils, land use and regional climate and geology. Stream discharge, as well as channel width and depth, is a component of stream power and meander wavelength (Knighton 1998). The lack of long-term flow measurements for the variety of streams in the OSR precluded the use of measured flows and required simulation of stream flows using the HSPF model.

4.6.2 Bankfull Discharge (m3/s)

Bankfull discharge is the flow rate corresponding to bankfull conditions that occur when river stage exceeds the stream’s natural banks and overflows onto the active floodplain. The active floodplain is the flat area adjacent to the channel developed by the stream and utilized by flood flows at a recurrence interval of two years or less (Wolman and Leopold 1957). Bankfull discharge is often characterized by a 1.5-year recurrence interval (Leopold 1964; Rosgen 1994); however, this value may not be constant, even within a single basin (Pickup and Warner 1976; Andrews 1980). In a study of 36 stations, Williams (1978) found an average recurrence interval of 1.5 years, although actual values ranged from 1.01 to 32 years and only 62 % of the recurrence intervals lay between one and two years. The bankfull discharge may have a constant recurrence interval in an individual stream, but the literature suggests that the variability can be high even within a drainage basin. Therefore, hydrological analyses should be conducted before assigning a recurrence interval to a bankfull discharge for a stream.


Golder Associates

Bankfull discharge is a particularly important geomorphic flow parameter as it corresponds quite closely with the effective discharge. Effective discharge is the flow that transports the greatest volume of sediment over long temporal scales under current climatic conditions. Effective discharge is the flow parameter responsible for determining and maintaining the physical form of alluvial channels (Harrelson et al. 1994). For this study, it is assumed that the bankfull discharge corresponds to the two-year flood.


Golder Associates

5 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

5.1 DATABASE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS

The database for development and analysis of natural channel regime relationships includes the data collected during the 2005 and 2006 field seasons as well as other geomorphic and hydrologic data from available reports and baseline studies dating back to 1994. The database also includes data from selected hydrometric sites maintained by Environment Canada. The majority of the data were collected in the field and in the office from maps and mean annual and bankfull discharge were determined using the HSPF model.

5.2 EXISTING REGIME RELATIONSHIPS

Regime equations are mathematical models of the causal relationships that exist between fluvial geomorphic variables. They are typically derived by performing a simple regression analysis examining the relationship between a dependent response variable and an independent variable. This is achieved by generating a scatter plot with values for the independent variable along the horizontal (x) axis and values for the corresponding dependent variable along the vertical (y) axis. A line of best fit is determined by regression analysis and the equation of that line represents a mathematical relationship between the variables of interest. The resulting equations characterize regime channels.

Table 5.1 was prepared by Yalin (1992) and summarizes existing regime equations for bankfull width, bankfull depth and channel slope. Existing regime relationships are robust in that they have been developed using field and laboratory data; however, studies are often undertaken in regions with unique hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics. This narrows the range of fluvial systems to which the equations can be accurately applied and points to the importance of developing regime equations specific to the OSR due to the many ways in which the OSR is hydrologically unique. .

Regime equations published in the literature and presented by Yalin (1992), as well as those developed for the OSR, are typically in the form of the following equation:

QY ba

αα=

where Y represents any of the discussed dependent variables (e.g., bankfull width, bankfull depth, channel slope), Q represents discharge (e.g., bankfull discharge, mean annual discharge) and αa and αb represent the coefficient and exponent for


Golder Associates

discharge, respectively. In the literature, multi-variate regime equations exist in the form of the following equation:

DQY cba

ααα 50=

where αc represents the exponent for median stream bed particle size (D50). The coefficient and exponents are determined by regression analysis.


Golder Associates

Table 5.1: Regime Equations Present in the Literature

Source D50 (mm) Bankfull Width Bbf

Maximum Bankfull depth maxbfh Channel Slope, S

Leopold et al. 1953 56.045.0~ to

maQ 45.037.0~ tomaQ )50.0()19.0(~ −− to

maQ

Leopold et al. 1956 0.7 to 5. 50.00.5 ufQ 28.010.0 ufQ 0667.0~ ufQ

Nixon 1959 0.1 to 0.6 50.067.1 bfQ 33.055.0 bfQ 1.0~ −bfQ

Nash 1959 clay 54.032.1 bfQ 27.093.0 bfQ 12.0~ bfQ

Lacey 1929 0.1 to 0.4 50.067.2 dQ 33.047.0 dQ 11.05.100039.0 −

dQf

Lapturev 1969 50.058.2 dQ 33.052.0 dQ 10.0~ −dQ

Ackers 1964 0.16 & .34 42.0exp6.3 tQ 43.0

exp28.0 tQ no good correlation

Blench 1957 (a) dunes, sandbed

0.1 to 0.6 0.3 to 7.

5.050.0

bfs

b QFF

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡ 33.0

33.0

2 bfb

s QFF

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡

167.0−bfsQβ

Blench 1957, no dunes, gravel bed >7. 50.0

50.0

bfs

b QFF⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡ 40.0

20.0

bfb

s QDF

F⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡ 40.05

6~ −

bfQD

Simons & Albertson 1960 0.03 o 0.8 51.05.2 bfQ 36.043.0 bfQR = 40.000675.0 −

bfQ

Bose 1936 50.08.2 dQ 33.047.0 dQ 21.086.0209.0 −dQD

Inglis 1957, 1949 2.0≈ 50.0~ Q 33.0~ Q 167.0~ −Q

Hey 1982 21. to 190.

54.005.02.2 QQs− 41.015.0161.0 QD −

.097.013.068.0 −− QDQs

Bray 1982 regression

19. to 145.

528.02

07.008.2 QD − 331.02

025.0256.0 QD − 334.0

2586.00965.0 −QD

Bray 1982 threshold method

19. to 145.

50.0267.2 Q 428.0

229.00585.0 QD −

428.02

285.1968.0 −QD

Bray 1982 Kellerhals meth.

19. to 145.

50.0280.1 Q 40.0

212.0166.0 QD − 40.0

292.012.0 −QD

Bray 1982 dimensional appr.

19. to 145.

496.02

24.00.2 QD − 397.02

008.0157.0 QD 375.0

2937.0259.0 −QD

Glover & Florey 1951 46.015.093.0 QD − 46.015.012.0 QD − 46.015.144.0 −QD

Ghosh 1983 >6. 46.015.087.0 QD − 46.015.011.0 QD − 46.015.168.0 −QD

Hey & Thorne 1983

14. to 176.

50.0)3.43.2( bfQto 39.014.003.0

)20.016.0(

bfs QDQto

−−

×

57.083.017.042.0 −bfs QDQ

Source: Yalin 1992


Golder Associates

The ranges of coefficient and exponent values reported in the literature are summarized in Table 5.2. The exponents for discharge (αb) lie within a narrower range and the coefficients lie within a wider range. This indicates a wide range of predictions from existing regime relationships.

Table 5.2: Ranges of Coefficient and Exponent Values for Existing Regime Relationships

Channel Variables Coefficients

αa

Exponents

αb αc

Bankfull Width 1.32 to 5.0 0.42 to 0.54 0.46 to 0.54a

Bankfull Depthb 0.10 to 0.93 0.27 to 0.43 0.008 to 0.29a

Channel Slope 0.09 to 0.97 -0.21 to -0.46 0.58 to 1.15 a D50 and its exponent were not included in most equations for bankfull width and bankfull depth bBankfull depth as reported in most literature refers to the maximum bankfull depth. Equations for mean bankfull depth are generally not reported. c Source: Yalin 1992

In published equations, the average values of αb are approximately 0.5 and 0.33 for bankfull width and bankfull depth, respectively. The ratio of the published maximum coefficient to the minimum coefficient is approximately four for the bankfull width regime equation, and approximately 10 for the bankfull depth equation. These high ratios indicate that the bankfull depth and width predictions from these regime equations vary widely, supporting the need to develop region-specific regime equations for the OSR.

5.3 OSR REGIME EQUATIONS

Region-specific regime equations are lacking in the OSR due to a shortage of applied research into the fluvial geomorphology of the region. Regime relationships are used to determine the width, depth and slope of a desired channel. This project scope includes region-specific relationships for sinuosity, meander wavelength and meander belt width that are based on the relationships reported in the literature. Various aspects of the results such as variability, uncertainty, reach-averaged/cross-sectional differentiations, the effects of upland/lowland channel slopes and surficial geology, were also investigated in this study.

Reach-averaged and cross-sectional relationships

Regime equations for the OSR were developed for bankfull width, mean bankfull depth and maximum bankfull depth based on reach-averaged data and cross-sectional data. Cross-sectional relationships illustrate individual measurements from each cross-section within the reaches versus bankfull discharge. Reach-averaged relationships define the average width or depth value for the entire reach in terms of the bankfull discharge. They allow comparison of average widths


Golder Associates

or depths between reaches and aid in design at the basin-scale. In combination with exceedance curves the reach-averaged plots, can be used for assessment of width and depth as well as width and depth variability within individual reaches.

5.3.1 Bankfull Width

Figure 5.1 shows the relationship between the reach-averaged bankfull width bfB and bankfull discharge, bfQ for 2005 and 2006 data that were collected during the course of this study. The resulting equation is shown below:

QB bfbf43.0

2.4=

The 75% confidence limit curves are plotted on the figure to show the degree of uncertainty for the derived relationship. The 75% upper confidence limit curve coincides with predictions about 100% greater than the best fit line predictions and the 75% lower confidence limit curve coincides with predictions about 50% less than the best fit line predictions.

10

100

full

Wid

th (m

)Figure 5.1

Reach-Averaged Bankfull Width Versus Bankfull Discharge

QB bfbf

43.02.4=

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\Final Report\Main Report\Figures\Figures.xls Golder Associates

0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Ban

kf

Bankfull Discharge (m3/s)

2005 Data2006 Data75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line



Golder Associates

Figure 5.2 shows the relationship between the cross-sectional bankfull width and bankfull discharge for all available data including pre-2005, 2005 and 2006 data. The resulting equation is shown below:

QB bfbf40.0

4.4=

The derived equations for the cross-sectional and reach-averaged bankfull width data are essentially the same. However, the confidence limit curves for cross-sectional bankfull width data (Figure 5.2) are farther apart, which reflects the greater variability of the cross-sectional data compared to the reach-averaged data.

Coefficient and Exponent Values

The OSR-specific equations for bankfull width show that the exponent values are on the lower end of the published range (0.42 to 0.54) and the coefficient values are on the upper end of the published range (1.32 to 5.0). Coefficients influence the equation more than exponents because of the narrow exponent range, therefore the derived regime equations suggest that streams in the OSR are up to 30% wider in comparison to the majority of streams for which regime equations have been developed.

10

100

kful

l Wid

th (m

)Figure 5.2

Cross-Sectional Bankfull Width Versus Bankfull Discharge

QB bfbf

40.04.4=


0.1

1

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Ban

k


Pre-2005 Data2005 Data2006 Data75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line



Golder Associates

Variability in Regime Plot

The scatter in the OSR regime plots was expected and can be attributed to the following several factors:

1. The presence of variability in bankfull width between reaches and between cross-sections within the same reach (e.g., Figures 5.7, 5.8). Streams with similar drainage basin area exhibit a range of widths due to variable physiographic conditions in the natural environment that include variations in ground cover, muskeg presence, bank vegetation, surficial geology, beaver activity, local channel gradient, debris obstructions and channel alignment. This range is likely to be larger than the ranges for other regions that are influenced differently;

2. The prevalence of beaver activity in the OSR leads to considerable changes to stream morphology. Active and inactive beaver dams divert and back up stream flow increasing the natural variability in bankfull width; and,

3. Many lowland areas of the OSR have drainage divides that are submerged during high flow events. This results in inter-basin flow transfer, which obscures the drainage basin boundaries and the two-year flood flow value.

The coefficient of variation for bankfull width for each stream reach was calculated and plotted against bankfull discharge to quantify the variation of the bankfull width along a stream reach and determine its dependency on bankfull discharge. The coefficient of variation is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation of a data set to the mean of the same data set. Figure 5.3 presents the extent to which the channel variables vary with bankfull discharge.

The coefficient of variation for bankfull width appears to decrease slightly with increasing bankfull discharge. This is consistent with physical observations during field data collection and accepted stream morphology relationships which indicate that variability in channel width decreases with increasing discharge. Therefore, streams with discharges greater than about 2 m3/s have been assigned a different relationship than streams with discharges less than about 2 m3/s as shown in Figure 5.3a.

Figure 5.3Relationship Between Coefficient of Variation and Bankfull Discharge

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Coe

ffic

ient

of V

aria

tion

for B

ankf

ull W

idth

Bankfull Discharge (m³/s)

Less than 2m³/s

Greater than 2m³/s

Linear (Less than 2m³/s)

Linear (Greater than 2m³/s)

0.5

0.6

on fo

rD

epth


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Coe

ffic

ient

of V

aria

tioM

axim

um B

ankf

ull D


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Coe

ffic

ient

of V

aria

tion

for

Mea

n B

ankf

ull D

epth




Golder Associates

Figure 5.4 illustrates the deviations from the reach-averaged bankfull width based on cross-sectional data from 2005 and 2006 reaches. The figure shows three curves that represent all of the data, data for streams with bankfull discharge greater than about 2 m3/s and streams with bankfull discharge greater than about 5 m3/s. The curves show that the deviation from the reach averaged bankfull width are smallest at about +20% ninety percent of the time (at 5 and 95 percentiles) for streams with discharges greater than 5 m3/s. These deviations are within +40% and -30% when all the data are used.

Uncertainty in Regime Plots

The best-fit line in Figure 5.2 illustrates the best approximation of the relationship between bankfull width and bankfull discharge based on the 2005 and 2006 data. The 75% confidence limit lines show the uncertainty around the best fit line predictions. For example, at a bankfull discharge equal to 1 m3/s the best approximation of the bankfull width is 4 m. However, at 75% confidence, the bankfull width lies between 2 and 9 m.

Effect of Channel Slope and Drainage Basin Surficial Geology

The influence of channel slope and drainage basin surficial geology conditions on bankfull width was analyzed because channel slope and bed material are two of the controlling factors of channel morphology. Since channel slope and bed material are two of the controlling factors of channel morphology, an attempt was made to assess the influence of upland/lowland channel slope and drainage basin surficial geology conditions on bankfull width. Results are shown in Figure 5.5 and 5.6 and illustrate that the distinction between upland and lowland channel slopes is not strong enough to warrant developing equations specific to channel slope. The distinctions between glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine surface material are apparent, and indicate that the glaciolacustrine, clay-rich material has a more steeply sloping best fit line than the glaciofluvial, sand-rich material; however, there is insufficient data to warrant developing equations specific to surficial geology. Further investigations aimed at characterizing these channel variables based on these distinctions should be considered in future studies.

40

60

80

100

120

d B

ankf

ull W

idth

(%)

Figure 5.4Exceedance Curve for Deviations From Reach-Averaged Bankfull Width

All DataGreater than 2m³/sGreater than 5m³/s


-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dev

iatio

n fr

om R

each

-Ave

rage

d

Percent of Time Deviation is Exceeded (%)


10

100

kful

l Wid

th (m

)Figure 5.5

The Effect of Channel Slope on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged Bankfull Width and Bankfull Discharge


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Ban

k


Upland ChannelLowland Channel75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line


10

100

full

Wid

th (m

)Figure 5.6

The Effect of Drainage Basin Surficial Geology on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged Bankfull Width and Bankfull Discharge


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Ban

kf


GlacialGlaciofluvialGlaciolacustrine75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line



Golder Associates

5.3.2 Maximum Bankfull Depth

Figure 5.7 shows the relationship between the reach-averaged maximum bankfull depth, bfh and bankfull discharge for 2005 and 2006 data collected during this study. The resulting equation is shown below:

Qbfbfh 38.06.0max

=

Figure 5.8 shows the relationship between the cross-sectional maximum bankfull depth and bankfull discharge for the entire database including pre-2005, 2005 and 2006 data. The resulting equation is shown below:

Qbfbfh 32.079.0max

=

As indicated by these two equations, the derived equations for the cross-sectional and reach-averaged maximum bankfull depth are similar, but the graph of maximum depths at specific cross-sections presents more scatter.

10

Ban

kful

l Dep

th (m

)Figure 5.7

Reach-Averaged Maximum Bankfull Depth Versus Bankfull Discharge

Qh bfbf

38.060.0

max=


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Max

imum


2005 Data2006 Data75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line


10

Ban

kful

l Dep

th (m

)Figure 5.8

Cross-Sectional Maximum Bankfull Depth Versus Bankfull Discharge

Qh bfbfmkax

32.079.0=


0.1

1

0.01 0.1 1 10

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Max

imum





Golder Associates


The OSR-specific equations for maximum bankfull depth show that the coefficients are on the upper end of the published range (0.1 to 0.93) and the exponents are on the lower end of the published range (0.27 to 0.43). This suggests that OSR streams are up to 50% deeper in comparison to the majority of streams for which regime equations have been developed.

Variability and Uncertainty

The 75% confidence limit curves are plotted on Figures 5.7 and 5.8. The confidence limit curves on Figure 5.8 are more widely spread indicating that the confidence interval for determining the cross-sectional maximum bankfull depth for a given bankfull discharge is larger than the confidence interval for determining the reach-averaged maximum bankfull depth. The 75% confidence limit curves shown in Figures 5.7 correspond approximately to + 80% and -60% deviations from the best-fit line.

The discussion of scatter in the regime plots in Section 5.3.1 can be applied to maximum bankfull depth. The coefficient of variation for maximum bankfull depth appears to be independent of bankfull discharge as shown on Figure 5.3. This indicates that the variation of maximum bankfull depth along a stream reach is similar for all 2005 and 2006 discharges. Figure 5.9 shows the exceedance curve for deviations from the reach-averaged maximum bankfull depth based on 2005 and 2006 data. The curve shows that the deviations are within ±30% ninety percent of the time (at 5th and 95th percentiles).

The degree of uncertainty in predicting the reach-averaged maximum bankfull depth is shown by the 75% confidence limit curves in Figure 5.7. For a bankfull discharge of 1 m3/s, one can be 75% confident that the maximum bankfull depth will be between 0.5 and 1.3 m.

Effect Channel Slope and Drainage Basin Surficial Geology

Figures 5.10 and 5.11 show the effects of channel slope and drainage basin surficial geology on the relationship between reach-averaged maximum bankfull depth and bankfull discharge. Similar to the discussion for channel bankfull width in section 5.3.1, the effects of channel slope are weak for this relationship and, while the results suggest some differences in the effects of surficial material, the data is not sufficient to develop regime relationships specific to surficial geology.

0

20

40

60

mum

Ban

kful

l Dep

th (%

)Figure 5.9

Exceedance Curve for Deviations From Reach-Averaged Maximum Bankfull Depth


-80

-60

-40

-20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dev

iatio

n fr

om R

each

-Ave

rage

d M

axi



10

Ban

kful

l Dep

th (m

)Figure 5.10

The Effect of Channel Slope on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged Maximum Bankfull Depth and Bankfull Discharge


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Max

imum


Upland ChannelLowland Channel75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line


10

Ban

kful

l Dep

th (m

)Figure 5.11

The Effect of Drainage Basin Surficial Geology on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged Maximum Bankfull Depth and Bankfull Discharge


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Max

imum


GlacialGlaciofluvialGlaciolacustrine75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line



Golder Associates

5.3.3 Mean Bankfull Depth

Figure 5.12 shows the relationship between the reach-averaged mean bankfull depth, bfh and bankfull discharge for the entire database including 2005 and 2006 data collected during this study. The resulting equation is shown below:

Qh bfbf

40.043.0=

The relationship between the cross-sectional mean bankfull depth and bankfull discharge for pre-2005, 2005 and 2006 data is shown in Figure 5.13. The resulting equation is shown below:

Qbfbfh32.0

49.0=

The 75% confidence limit curves are plotted in Figure 5.12 and 5.13. The curves on Figure 5.13 are farther apart indicating that the confidence interval in determining the cross-sectional mean bankfull depth for a given discharge is wider than the confidence interval in determining the reach-averaged mean bankfull depth. The 75% confidence limit curves shown in Figure 5.12 approximately correspond to +80% and -60% deviations from the best fit line.


OSR-specific equations derived for mean bankfull depth show that the exponent values are similar for the maximum bankfull depth, but the coefficient values are smaller, as expected. Coefficient and exponent values for mean bankfull depth are compared only to those for maximum bankfull depth since values are not available in the literature for mean bankfull depth.

10

ankf

ull D

epth

(m)

Figure 5.12Reach-Averaged Mean Bankfull Depth and Bankfull Discharge

2005 Data2006 Data75% Lower Confidence Limit75% Upper Confidence LimitBest Fit Line

Qh bfbf

40.043.0=


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Mea

n B

a



1

10

ankf

ull D

epth

(m)

Figure 5.13Cross-Sectional Mean Bankfull Depth Versus Bankfull Discharge

Qh bfbf

32.049.0=


0.01

0.1

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Mea

n B





Golder Associates


The discussion of scatter in the regime plots in Section 5.3.1 can be applied to maximum bankfull depth. The coefficient of variation for mean bankfull depth appears to be independent of bankfull discharge as indicated on Figure 5.3. This suggests that the variation of mean bankfull depth along a stream reach is similar for all of the surveyed 2005 and 2006 stream reaches. Figure 5.14 shows the exceedance curve for deviations from the reach-averaged mean bankfull depth based on 2005 and 2006 data. The curve shows that the deviations are within ±30%, ninety percent of the time (at 5 and 95 percentiles).


Figures 5.15 and 5.16 show the effects of channel slope and drainage basin surficial geology on the relationship between reach-averaged mean bankfull depth and bankfull discharge. Similar to the discussion on channel bankfull width in section 5.3.1, the effects of channel slope are weak for this relationship. While the results suggest some differences in the effects of surficial material, the data is not sufficient to develop regime relationships specific to surficial geology.

Summary of Regime Relationships for Bankfull Width and Depth

Regime relationships for bankfull width, maximum bankfull depth and mean bankfull depth were generated based on 2005 and 2006 reach-averaged data and pre-2005, 2005 and 2006 cross-sectional data. The derived relationships are shown in Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.7, 5.8, 5.12 and 5.13. Table 5.3 summarizes the resulting regime equations.

0

20

40

60

80

Mea

n B

ankf

ull D

epth

(%)

Figure 5.14Exceedance Curve for Deviations From Reach-Averaged Mean Bankfull Depth


-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dev

iatio

n fr

om R

each

-Ave

rage

d M



10

ankf

ull D

epth

(m)

Figure 5.15The Effect of Channel Slope on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged Mean Bankfull Depth and Bankfull

Discharge

Upland ChannelLowland Channel75% Lower Confidence Limit75% Upper Confidence LimitBest Fit Line


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Mea

n B

a



10

nkfu

ll D

epth

(m)

Figure 5.16The Effect of Drainage Basin Surficial Geology on the Relationship Between Reach-Averaged Mean Bankfull

Depth and Bankfull Discharge

GlacialGlaciofluvialGlaciolacustrine75% Lower Confidence Limit75% Upper Confidence LimitBest Fit Line


0.1

1

0.1 1 10 100

Rea

ch-A

vera

ged

Mea

n B

a




Golder Associates

Table 5.3: OSR-Specific Regime Equations for Bankfull Width and Depth

Channel Variable Reach-Averaged Regime Equations

Cross-Sectional Regime Equations

Bankfull Width, Bbf Qbf

43.02.4 Qbf40.04.4

Maximum Bankfull Depth,

maxhbf Qbf38.060.0 Qbf

32.079.0

Mean Bankfull Depth, hbf Qbf

40.043.0 Qbf32.049.0

5.3.4 Channel Slope

Figure 5.17 illustrates the relationship between channel slope and bankfull discharge in the OSR. The plot is based on data from the OSR as well as from the literature. Most of the data from the OSR study sites represent sand bed material conditions (Figure 5.17). This reflects the absence of gravels, cobbles and boulders in most of the near-surface material, the study’s focus on smaller streams (typically less than 150 km2 in area) and the focus on representative streams at common mine site areas located above the escarpment of the Athabasca River valley.

As expected, some data from the literature appear to be inconsistent with the OSR data and with one another. This inconsistency is due to unique geomorphic and hydrologic conditions at the study sites and possibly due to different sampling methods. One of the principal causes of inconsistent bed material conditions is variability in bed material supply. A stream with abundant gravel bed material supply will likely have a highly mobile gravel bed. Another stream with equal gradient and no gravel bed material supply may be armoured with larger remnant cobbles or boulders from local deposits left in place as the channel bed was degraded and smaller material was transported downstream.

The threshold boundary on Figure 5.17 also approximates the calculated initiation of motion of sand particles on the channel bed at bankfull discharge. On this basis, the bankfull discharge would typically cause minimal bed material motion, which is desirable for stable alluvial channels. The threshold for bed material size in Figure 5.17 illustrates the apparent stable upper limit of sand-sized material for which data was collected in the OSR. A designer may choose to use gravel-sized and larger material to afford a higher channel slope while maintaining a stable morphology without detrimental erosion. However, such a measure should take account of bed material supply of gravel or cobbles, since such armour material could be removed without natural replacement. Channels lined with sand-sized and smaller material must have flat slopes, such as those below the threshold line on Figure 5.17, to maintain their morphology.


Golder Associates

Flow in streams with steeper slopes will have relatively high velocity that will remove fine material from the bed. Fine material is eroded from the bed in these streams, leaving larger bed material behind as channel armour. In lowland streams, slope and flow velocity are relatively low such that fine material eroded from upland, headwater streams is deposited during low flows. This remnant or deposited material represents a large proportion of the bed material that was observed at study sites.

OSR data was used to develop the threshold slope condition for sand-sized material. Larger material was not present at most of the study sites. Although it may be necessary for geomorphic design of permanent channels in the OSR, a relationship between bankfull discharge and channel slope for material larger than sand is not evident on Figure 5.17 for ISR conditions. In the absence of study site data on steep channels with large material in the OSR, Figure 5.17 was supplemented with data published in the literature (Griffiths 1981; Hey and Thorne 1986; Page and Carden 1998; Emmett and Wolman 2001; Wohl and Merritt 2001). The data from the literature demonstrates in part the inconsistency of channel armour conditions that are strongly governed by bed material supply conditions rather than channel slope. This data from the literature should not be used to design alluvial channels in the OSR.

Figure 5.17 does not provide guidance for channel design above illustrated the threshold for sand-sized material. The data above this threshold is from the literature and is included in the plot to demonstrate the inconsistency of channel armour occurrence in the natural environment that reflects highly variable bed material supply conditions.

0.02

0.025

0.03

(m/m

)Figure 5.17

Threshold relationship between channel slope and bankfull discharge showing bed material size

Literature Organic

OSR Sand - 0.062 to 2.0 mmLiterature Sand - 0.062 to 2.0 mmLiterature Gravel - 2.0 to 64.0 mmLiterature Cobbles - 64.0 to 250 mmSlope Threshold for Sand/Gravel

This graph is based on insufficient field data from the OSR for characterizing armoured channels.


0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.1 1 10 100

Cha

nnel

Slo

pe (

Bankfull Discharge (m³/s)

Sand/Gravel

Sand

Gravel2mm



Golder Associates

5.3.5 Sinuosity/Irregularity

A channel develops a sinuous pattern when the stream power is large enough to overcome the cohesiveness of the material making up its bed and banks and when the flow depth and velocity are conducive to development of secondary currents in the flow. A recognizable and relatively regular pattern of sinuosity is often absent in small streams in muskeg terrain because of the cohesive natural of the peat material. Additionally, recognizable and regular patterns of sinuosity are often absent in channels on steep slopes where high flow velocities can create a braided pattern or sustained armoured condition (e.g., cobbles or boulders) (Schumm 1977).

Meander patterns often occur on small upland channels and on large lowland channels. Common flow velocities for bankfull conditions in meandering channels of the OSR range from about 0.3 m/s where there is insufficient stream power to overcome dense bank vegetation or the cohesiveness of muskeg soils (lowland) to about 2 m/s when flow depths are shallow such that secondary currents cannot develop (upland).

Local conditions along a river reach lead to variability in the orientation, length and development of individual meanders such that a series of meanders can vary in irregularity, sinuosity and wavelength (Ferguson 1975).

Sinuosity has been examined with respect to stream power and percent slope in laboratory environments (e.g., Khan 1971; Schumm and Khan 1972) resulting in linkages between stream pattern (e.g., straight, meandering, braided) and sinuosity. Sinuosity in the OSR may include examples of streams classified as straight and meandering but appear to be no examples of braided rivers. The relationships developed by Khan (1971) and Schumm and Khan (1972) are not directly applicable to small, meandering alluvial channels, like the ones examined for the in study. The relationships from the literature do not appear to fit the data collected in this study.

The OSR data suggests that factors including channel slope, muskeg and surficial geology can dictate the extent to which a particular stream meanders and the degree of irregularity that it will exhibit. Bank vegetation and obstacles in the channel (e.g., active and inactive beaver dams) substantially influence the sinuosity of small streams in muskeg terrain. The sinuosity of large streams is more strongly influenced by the interaction between stream flow and bed and bank material. Sinuosity is generally more developed in streams with drainage basin areas greater than about 50 km2. These streams possess enough stream power to overcome the cohesiveness of muskeg and surface vegetation and establish their channel planform in alluvial material. A stream with a drainage basin area less than 50 km2 often does not possess enough stream power to overcome surface material and will often exhibit an irregular channel pattern.


Golder Associates

About half of the data collected in 2005 and 2006 are from streams with drainage basin area less than 50 km2. Many of the streams exhibit irregular sinuosity. These sites are assigned an apparent sinuosity value in the same way as streams with regular patterns. They are included in the assessment of sinuosity even though their planform pattern is irregular instead of sinuous. In addition to these data, selected sites from the pre-2005 data and several Environment Canada sites located on large rivers with well-developed sinuosity were included in the assessment of sinuosity in the OSR and the development of the regime relationship. These selected sites were included in the assessment of sinuosity because they have recognizable patterns of sinuosity that are associated with significant stream power.

Sinuosity values were determined by manual measurements from maps. Sinuosity measurements range from 1.00 to 2.91 in the OSR. These data were plotted against bankfull discharge on two charts showing data divided by collection date and by drainage basin area as shown in Figures 5.18 and 5.19. The plots include all of the 2005 and 2006 data and the resulting equation is shown below:

QP bf

11.02.1=

10

m/m

)Figure 5.18

Regime Relationship Between Sinuosity and Bankfull Discharge Based on Data Collection Date

Pre-2005 Data2005 Data2006 DataOther Data75% Upper Confidence Limit75% Lower Confidence LimitBest Fit Line

QP bf

11.02.1=


10.1 1 10 100

Sinu

osity

(m



10

/m)Figure 5.19

Regime Relationship Between Sinuosity and Bankfull Discharge Based on Drainage Basin Area

Drainage Area Less than 50km2 (Irregular)

Drainage Area Greater than 50km2 (Sinuous)

75% Upper Confidence Limit

75% Lower Confidence Limit

Best Fit Line

QP bf

11.02.1=


10.1 1 10 100

Sinu

osity

(m/




Golder Associates


Similar to the discussion in Section 5.3.1, coefficients of variation were calculated for sinuosity for selected representative reaches and the resulting plot illustrated that sinuosity did not vary significantly with bankfull discharge suggesting that the variability of sinuosity along a stream reach is relatively constant in surveyed OSR streams.

Figure 5.20 illustrates the deviations from the reach-averaged sinuosity based on measurements taken for individual meanders. The figure shows that the deviations are within ±30% ninety percent of the time (at 5th and 95th percentiles).


The effects of channel slope and drainage basin surficial geology on the relationship between sinuosity and bankfull discharge were examined and found to be too weak to warrant developing equations to capture these effects. Future studies may be considered to investigate this further.

5.3.6 Meander Wavelength

Average meander wavelength was determined for a sub-set of fourteen sites from the 2005 and 2006 data. A plot of average meander wavelength versus reach-averaged bankfull width was generated but did not provide a reliable relationship from which a regime equation could be determined. This is likely due to the prevalence of irregular meanders and highly variable width observed in most OSR streams.

Williams (1986) developed a regime equation relating meander wavelength, λm to bankfull width as shown below.

Bbfm

12.15.6=λ

This equation was used to predict the meander wavelength for the fourteen measured bankfull widths.

The ratio of measured average meander wavelength to bankfull width from the OSR data show that the meander wavelength ranges from 5.3 to 23 times the bankfull width in OSR streams. The measured ratio suggests that there is a substantial amount of variability among streams in the OSR. In contrast, the ratio of calculated meander wavelength (based on the OSR regime relationships for bankfull width, Bbf, in Williams’ equation) to bankfull width ranged from 9.5 to 10.3. For design, a ratio of about 8 to 11 times the bankfull width determined from OSR regime relationships should be used. A user should seek professional opinion for any multiplier larger than 11. Detailed procedures for estimating the channel wavelength are in the design manual (Golder, 2008).

40

60

80

100

rage

d Si

nuos

ity (%

)Figure 5.20

Exceedance Curve for Deviations From Reach-Averaged Sinuosity


-60

-40

-20

0

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dev

iatio

n fr

om R

each

-Ave

r




Golder Associates

The above discussion of meander wavelength indicates that wavelength is related to channel width. Schumm (1967) indicates that meander wavelength is also related to bank composition in a study examining medium sand-sized and smaller. The study shows that meander wavelength decreases as channel boundary (bank) material becomes more cohesive. This examination of boundary material is beyond the scope of this study, but further investigations could lead to reliable predictions for OSR channels.

5.3.7 Meander Belt Width

Meander belt width (MB) defines the width in which the channel is expected to migrate and therefore the areas that will be directly affected by channel processes. The meander belt width must be contained by the floodplain, which makes this an important parameter for channel design.

Fourteen sites used to obtain average meander belt width. The ratio of average meander belt width and bankfull width in OSR streams indicates that meander belt width can range from 2.8 to 11 times the bankfull width. There is a considerable amount of variability in the ratio of measured meander belt width to bankfull depth. This variability is attributed to variability in surficial geology, bank material and meander development throughout the OSR. Williams (1986) proposed the following equation for meander belt width:

BMB bf12.17.3=

This equation was used to predict the meander belt width for the fourteen measured bankfull widths. In contrast, the ratio of calculated meander belt width to bankfull width (based on OSR regime channel width) ranged from 5.4 to 5.9. The meander belt width of a channel is a parameter that becomes fixed with the determination of sinuosity and meander wavelength. For design, the recommendation will be use a ratio of about 6 to 8 times the bankfull width to check the meander belt width of the design channel and to seek professional opinion for any multiplier larger than 8. Detailed procedures for estimating meander belt width are presented in the design manual (Golder, 2008).

5.4 FLOW RESISTANCE

Manning’s ‘n’ roughness coefficients that resulted from the modeling described in section 4.5.11. The resulting roughness coefficients are significantly higher than values that are generally reported in the literature. The high values reflect the roughness of the channel bed and bank material, channel bed and bank irregularity and obstructions in the channel such as inactive beaver dams and other organic debris. These roughness elements are lumped and represented by a single Manning’s coefficient in the hydraulic simulation using the HEC-RAS model.


Golder Associates

Typical Manning’s coefficients in other regions range from about 0.025 for clean straight channels to 0.15 for channels that are vegetated, overgrown or have highly irregular flow paths (Henderson 1966). However, the derived Manning’s coefficients for the 2005 and 2006 reaches ranged from 0.04 to values greater than 1 as shown in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. A summary of the simulation results is presented in Appendix VI. Stream reaches such as Reach G96 MacKay River Tributary (n = 1), Reach G105 North Steepbank River Tributary (n = 0.5) and Reach G89 Horse River Tributary (n = 0.4) are examples of stream reaches with exceptionally large Manning’s coefficients and are typically characterized by large amounts of large woody debris and well defined riffle zones downstream of obstructions.

Without intervention, newly constructed alluvial channels will not have the same roughness elements that occur in existing alluvial channels. It may take several decades before equivalent roughness elements are introduced by natural processes and beaver activity. During the transition period, roughness can be introduced by placing naturally-functioning roughness elements in the channel during construction. These roughness elements will need to be designed and spaced to mimic natural roughness in existing alluvial channels and reproduce equivalent hydraulic conditions. A simple tool was prepared to assist in the design based on the following:

• Average channel width and depth are determined from regime equations;

• The roughness elements are barriers in the channel allowing flow over a middle rectangular section at the top;

• The width of the rectangular section is assumed to be about 70 to 80% of the channel width;

• The roughness elements are equally spaced;

• Critical flow conditions occur over the roughness elements;

• The head loss between two adjacent roughness elements is equal to the head loss in the channel (ponded reach of the stream) which can be estimated from Manning’s equation and the head loss due to the contraction and expansion losses over a roughness element;

• Manning’s coefficient is estimated from data from similar streams in OSR, experience and/or published data;

• Contraction and expansion losses are assumed to be 0.3 and 0.7 respectively; and

• The height of the rectangular middle section invert above the channel bed is determined from the total head loss equation.

The inputs and outputs of the tool as well as the derivation of the equations to determine the spacing of the roughness elements and the height of the rectangular middle section invert above the channel bed are provided in the design manual (Golder, 2008).


Golder Associates

Table 5.4: HEC-RAS Model Simulation Results for Reaches Surveyed in 2005

Reach Stream Name Surveyed Date Measured Discharge

(m³/s)

Water Surface Slope Manning's Coefficient

n

Note Surveyed Water Surface Slope

(m/m)

Simulated Water Surface Slope (m/m)

Difference

3 Wapasu Creek 30-Aug-05 1.007 0.0012 0.0012 -3.2% 0.08 - 4 Wapasu Creek 30-Aug-05 0.152 0.0056 0.0055 -0.9% 0.215 -

10 Asphalt Creek 23-Sep-05 0.335 0.0020 0.0018 -8.6% 0.067 - 11 Big Creek 25 to 26-Sept-05 0.251 0.0055 0.0050 -9.7% 0.11 Three upstream profile data were excluded. 12 Jackpine Creek 12-Sep-05 1.392 0.0010 0.0010 0.0% 0.075 - 13 Khahago Creek 10-Sep-05 1.256 0.00018 0.00018 -0.6% 0.21 - 14 Wesukemina Creek 12-Sep-05 0.195 0.0003 0.0003 4.9% 0.32 - 15 West Iyinimin Creek 14-Sep-05 0.238 0.0001 0.0001 -9.1% 0.15 - 16 West Jackpine Creek 26-Aug-05 0.868 0.0003 0.0005 51.5% 0.04 -

17 McClelland Lake Outlet Creek 28-Sep-05 0.923 0.0009 0.0009 0.0% 0.0415 -

22A Pierre River 27-Sep-05 0.076 0.0001 0.0001 -2.5% 0.27 - 22B Pierre River Tributary 27-Sep-05 0.08 0.000002 0.000006 0.035 Water level slope is too small. 25A First Creek 24-Sep-05 0.309 0.0023 0.0024 4.3% 0.1 - 25B Big Creek 24-Sep-05 0.347 0.0019 0.0019 1.1% 0.125 -

26 Beaver River 24-Aug-05 0.269 0.0063 0.0057 -9.3% 0.18 Water level was measured only at five cross-sections.

27 Cache Creek 9-Sep-05 0.107 0.0009 0.0011 26.4% 0.28 - 31 West Jackpine Creek 13-Sep-05 1.862 0.0010 0.0011 7.8% 0.072 - 32 Poplar Creek 8-Sep-05 0.741 0.0004 0.0004 5.3% 0.21 - 33 Eymundson Creek 26-Sep-05 0.004 0.0044 0.0037 -15.7% 0.30 - 37 Asphalt Creek Tributary 23-Sep-05 0.271 0.0022 0.0021 -6.3% 0.05 - 38 Muskeg River 29-Sep-05 1.039 0.00082 0.00080 -2.4% 0.22 - 39 Muskeg River 30-Sep-05 1.946 0.0020 0.0019 -6.9% 0.213 -

H1 Creek 5, Beaver River Tributary 4-Oct-05 0.076 0.0027 0.0022 -17.7% 0.16 Significant channel obstructions.

H3 Poplar Creek 4-Oct-05 0.286 0.0040 0.0037 -7.0% 0.1 Exposed rocks, gravel bars.

H5 Beaver Creek 3-Oct-05 Adverse water surface slope. No HEC - RAS simulation.

M77 Athabasca River Tributary 23-Aug-05 0.053 0.0231 0.0242 4.9% 0.1 -

N2 Saline Creek 25-Aug-05 0.189 0.0089 0.0098 10.1% 0.06 Bed profile surveyed, water level was measured only at three cross-sections.

N4 Hangingstone River Tributary 25-Aug-05 0.480 0.0037 0.0035 -5.4% 0.092 -


Golder Associates

Table 5.5: HEC-RAS Model Simulation Results for Reaches Surveyed in 2006

Reach Stream Name Surveyed Date

Measured Discharge

(m³/s)

Water Surface Slope Manning's Coefficient

n

Note Surveyed Water Surface Slope (m/m)

Simulated Water Surface Slope (m/m)

Difference

G01 Creek A 17-Oct-06 0.067 0.0027 0.0034 24.6% 0.22 Wood debris was at two locations.

G03-L Stanley Creek 16-Oct-06 0.031 0.0018 0.0018 0.1% 0.2 -

G03-R Stanley Creek 16-Oct-06 0.013 0.0014 0.0013 -9.7% 0.19 -

G04 Fort Creek 15-Oct-06 0.022 0.0164 0.0159 -3.1% 0.4 -

G05 Fort Creek 15-Oct-06 0.014 0.00112 0.00106 -5.9% 0.5 -

G08 Athabasca River Tributary 15-Oct-06 0.07 0.0034 0.0037 7.5% 0.24 -

G29 Muskeg Creek 21-Oct-06 0.056 0.0002 0.00003 0.1 D/S steep riffle excluded in simulation.

G40 MacKay River Tributary 26-Oct-06 0.003 Steep drop followed by a flat pool. Unsatisfactory simulation results.

G50 Big Creek Tributary 18-Oct-06 0.002 0.0003 0.0002 -30.6% 0.8 Discharge was too small.

G54 Athabasca River Tributary 18-Oct-06 0.182 0.0020 0.0022 12.1% 0.3 -

G59 Unnamed Stream -1, Highway 63 26-Oct-06 0.053 0.0010 0.0007 -28.9% 0.35 Significant woody debris.

G62 Unnamed Creek 2, Highway 63 28-Oct-06 0.041 0.0095 0.0091 -3.7% 0.09 -

G68 Hangingstone River Tributary 24-Oct-06 0.007 0.5 Wood debris.

G72 Hangingstone River Tributary 26-Oct-06 0.003 0.0070 0.0061 -13.3% 6 Two rock riffles in reach.

G73 Cameron Creek 23-Oct-06 0.013 0.0001 0.0001 5.6% 0.12 -

G74 Saline Creek Tributary 25-Oct-06 0.01 0.0003 0.0003 5.8% 0.3 -

G75 Saline Creek Tributary 25-Oct-06 0.002 0.0014 0.0011 -23.2% 2.2 -

G79 Clark Creek 22-Oct-06 0.036 0.0010 0.0010 -1.5% 0.07 -

G85 MacKay River Tributary 20-Oct-06 0.027 0.0004 0.0005 15.2% 0.12 Two active beaver dams in reach.

G89 Horse River Tributary 23-Oct-06 0.01 0.0034 0.0023 -31.5% 0.4 Beaver dam was present. Most upstream profile data were excluded.

G94 Dover River Tributary 20-Oct-06 0.002 Poor quality water level data.

G96 MacKay River Tributary 19-Oct-06 0.011 0.0012 0.0011 -3.8% 1 -

G97 MacKay River Tributary 19-Oct-06 0.009 0.0002 0.0001 -24.5% 0.65 -

G100 Athabasca River Tributary 22-Oct-06 0.019 0.0030 0.0027 -11.6% 0.15 Reach between cross sections 1 and 3 was simulated.

G105 North Steepbank River Tributary 21-Oct-06 0.181 0.0009 0.0007 -23.2% 0.5 Reach upstream of rocky riffle was

simulated.


Golder Associates

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Mine operations in the OSR require diversion of small and large streams and disturb large areas of the landscape. This results in significant alteration to the natural hydrology of the OSR. Upon mine closure, new drainage systems will be created on the mine closure landscape and may include the diversion of streams around or through the reclaimed landscape. The design of closure drainage systems should be based on the geomorphic approach that requires collecting and analyzing detailed geomorphic baseline data to obtain region-specific regime relationships.

The regime relationships and geomorphic assessment developed as part of this project are intended to aid in the re-establishment of geomorphic stream channels that will be sustainable in the long term, require minimal maintenance and have a natural function and appearance.

Geomorphic Data Collection

An extensive geomorphic survey of 53 stream reaches in the OSR was conducted in the fall of 2005 and 2006. A representative reach of about 60 to 120 m was selected at each of the stream reaches, and the reach profile was surveyed. The bankfull width, mean and maximum bankfull depths were surveyed at three to five cross-sections within each reach. Detailed stream mapping and photography, bed sediment sampling and discharge measurements were obtained at each site. Following field data collection, additional information regarding sinuosity, meander wavelength, meander belt width and basin slope were obtained from NTS maps and Altalis. Mean annual and bankfull discharge values were determined using an OSR-calibrated HSPF model.

Geomorphic Relationships

The primary goal of geomorphic data collection and analysis was the development of region specific regime relationships. Regime relationships for bankfull width and bankfull depth were developed and compared to those in the literature. Results indicate that exponents for bankfull discharge are within the range of those reported in the literature. However, the coefficients for bankfull discharge are on the upper end of those reported in equations for bankfull width and bankfull depth. This indicates that channels in the OSR are generally wider and deeper than channels in other regions for which regime relationships have been developed. Variability in the channel parameters was quantified based on the variation of bankfull width, maximum bankfull depth, mean bankfull depth and sinuosity with respect to discharge. With the exception of bankfull width, which varies less with increasing discharge, the deviations from reach-averaged conditions of the channel parameters do not increase or decrease significantly with changes in discharge. Uncertainty in the results of analysis was quantified by applying 75% confidence limits to the regime data. .


Golder Associates

A relationship between channel slope and bankfull discharge, augmented by data from the literature, indicates that there is a channel slope threshold based on the bed material from the OSR.

An examination of OSR data and comparison with equations established in the literature indicates that the meander wavelength and meander belt width of a given stream varies depending on the bankfull width of that stream.

Design Manual

The design manual is a critical deliverable of this research (Golder, 2008). The manual was prepared to provide recommendations and guidelines for alluvial channel design in the OSR including permanent diversion channels built for operating conditions, and closure drainage channels on reclaimed mine-altered land. The regime equations and relationships presented in this research report, as well as other applicable relationships from the literature, provided the basis for developing the design manual.

Channel characteristics for design closure systems should, in general, be selected based upon geomorphic relationships developed for OSR streams. Several aspects of stream design are obtained from published relationships (e.g., meander wavelength and meander belt width) to augment the data collected in the OSR. Use of relationships from the literature for these purposes is justifiable since the OSR data, though limited, are consistent with predictions in the literature for these parameters. The morphology of existing streams should be replicated where possible. Natural irregularities and obstructions should also be replicated such that additional natural obstructions will form as the existing vegetation cover and hydrologic conditions are re-established.

The design of alluvial channels based on the geomorphic approach should involve a multidisciplinary team that includes river engineers, fluvial geomorphologists, fish habitat specialists, mine planners and constructors. Users of the study findings should understand the basis and limitations of the findings and the results of analysis.

Recommendations for further study 1. A sub-set of representative channel reaches from the 2005 and 2006 database,

should continue to be monitored about every two to three years to document any geomorphological or hydrological evolution that may be occurring in the OSR;

2. Data collection in support of future EIAs should be collected based on the technical procedures developed in this study such that the database and can be augmented and regime relationships can be improved;


Golder Associates

3. The geomorphic and hydrologic conditions and changes of constructed alluvial channels designed by the geomorphic approach outlined in the Design Manual (Golder 2008) should be monitored at least annually to confirm the self-sustaining character of the new channels. This is necessary to assess the need for maintenance and to provide a sound basis for improving the design guidelines given in the Design Manual (Golder 2008);

4. Sediment yield from constructed landforms should be monitored and compared to sediment yield from natural watersheds in the OSR. This will provide an improved basis for design channels based on the geomorphic approach because net sediment yield from a given watershed or stream reach has a significant effect on channel morphology;

5. The study findings pertaining to naturally armoured channels (i.e. channels with material larger than sand) should be improved based on an enlarged dataset of representative channels. There are relatively few naturally armoured channels in the OSR and the selected study sites for the 2005 and 2006 field programs necessarily included few naturally armoured channels. Accordingly, the results of analysis of naturally armoured channels presented in 5.17 provide a weak basis for design of armoured channels in the OSR. A concentrated study, focused on augmenting the existing bed material data is needed; and

6. The ability of constructed streams to pass fish and provide adequate fish habitat should be assessed prior to construction to make certain that federal regulatory requirements can be met. After construction, the fish passage and habitat in the streams should be assessed and any necessary changes made to the channel morphology to meet fish passage and habitat requirements.

Regime relationships and channel design recommendations should be used by an experienced river engineer or fluvial geomorphologist who has strong background knowledge of the geomorphology in the OSR, knowledge of general fluvial geomorphology and an understanding of the potential consequences of using them for channel design. Relationships that were derived as a part of this study should not be used for channel design in other regions.


Golder Associates

7 CLOSURE

We trust the above meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or require additional details, please contact the undersigned.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

APEGGA PERMIT TO PRACTICE 05122

Report prepared by: Report reviewed by: ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED Dana McDonald, M.Sc. John R. Gulley, M.Sc., P.Biol. Geomorphology Specialist Senior Oil Sands Market Director ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED Femi Ade, Ph.D., P.Eng. Ian MacKenzie, M.Sc. Senior Water Resources Engineer Senior Oil Sands Project Director ORIGINAL SIGNED Les Sawatsky, M.Sc., P.Eng. Principal, Water Resources FA/LS/DM/JG/IM/gm


Golder Associates

8 THIRD PARTY DISCLAIMER

This report has been prepared by Golder for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent Golder's best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to Golder at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein area to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. Golder denies any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of Golder and the client.


Golder Associates

9 REFERENCES

Ackers, P. 1962. Experiments on small streams in alluvium. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. 90(HY4), July.

AENV. (Alberta Environment). 1999. Technical support document for the regional sustainable development strategy for the Athabasca oil sands region. Alberta Environment. 144p.

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2004. Oil and gas remediation and reclamation advisory committee: Recommendations to the Minister. Alberta Environment. 29p.

Allen, P.M., J.G. Arnold and B.W. Byars. 1994. Downstream channel geometry for use in planning-level models. Water Resources Bulletin. 30(4): 663-671.

Andrews, E.D. 1980. Effective and bankfull discharges of streams in the Yampa river basin, Colorado and Wyoming. Water Resources Research. 18: 1184-92.

ARC. Alberta Research Council, 1974a. Surficial Geology – Waterways NTS sheet 74D. Published by Alberta Research Council.

ARC. Alberta Research Council. 1974b. Surficial Geology – Bitumount NTS sheet 74E. Published by Alberta Research Council.

Beersing, A.K., L.F. Sawatsky, F.Ade. 2004. A geomorphic approach for the design of drainage systems on reclaimed mine areas.

Blench, T. 1941. Effect of dynamic shape on Lacey relations. Technical Report, Central Board of Irrigation, India.

Blench, T. 1951. “Regime theory for self-formed sediment bearing channels.” American Society of Civil Engineers. Proceedings, 77: Separate no. 70:1-18. May.

Blench, T. 1969. “Mobile-bed Fluviology” University of Alberta press. Edmonton, Canada.

Blench, T. 1986. “Mechanics of Plains Rivers.” University of Alberta press, Edmonton Canada.


Golder Associates

Bradley, M. and R.L. McNearny. 2000. An alternative ‘soft’ method for armouring diversion channels for mine reclamation sites. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment. 14: 43-51.

Bray, D.I. 1972. “Generalized regime type analysis of Alberta rivers.” University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Unpublished PhD. Thesis

Bray, D.I. 1982. “Regime equations for gravel-bed rivers.” In Hey, R.D. , Bathurst, J.C. and C.R. Thorne (eds). Gravel-bed Rivers, Chichester: John Wiley, 517-542

Catto, N.R. 1995. Fluvial Geomorphology and Sedimentology of the Athabasca River reaches, Fort McMurray – Tar Island, and the long-term geomorphic stability of the Tar Island Dyke, Alberta. Prepared for AGRA Earth & Environmental, Ltd. 86p.

Carlson (Carlson Software, Inc.). 2005. SurvCADD: Natural Regrade Module - Geofluv™. Produced by Carlson Software, Inc.

CEMA (Cumulative Environmental Management Association). 2006. Identify, Characterize & Quantify the Types of Landforms and Landscape Patterns Present in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Prepared by: Sustainability Ecosystems Working Group. 141p.

da Silva, A.M.F. 2003. “A computation method for determination of regime channel characteristics.” Proceedings of Sixteenth Hydrotechnical Conference: Bridging the Gap between Knowledge and Practice, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE), Canada Centre for Inland Waters, 22-24 October, Burlington Ontario (Canada).

Emmett, W.W. and W.G. Wolman. 2001. Effective discharge and gravel-bed rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: 1369-1380.

Environment Canada National Climate Archive. 2008. Precipitation and Temperature data for Fort McMurray, Alberta 1950-2008. Available: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

Ettema, E. and C. Mutel. 2004. “Hans Albert Einstein: innovation and compromise in formulating sediment transport by rivers.” J. Hydr. Engrg. ASCE, 130(6), 477-487.

Ferguson, R.I. 1975. Meander irregularity and wavelength estimation. Journal of Hydrology. 26: 315-333.


Golder Associates

Fisher, T.G. and D.G. Smith. 1994. Glacial Lake Agassiz: Its northwest maximum extent and outlet in Saskatchewan (Emerson Phase). Quaternary Science Reviews. 13: 845-858.

Gill, M.A. 1968. “Rationalization of Lacey’s regime equations.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.94, No.4, 983-995.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 1999. Drainage design guidelines for mine disturbed areas. Submitted to Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2001. Operational water management plan for the Fort Hills Oils Sands Project. Submitted to True North Energy, Ltd.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2002. Surface Water Hydrology Environmental Setting for Jackpine Mine – Phase 1. Submitted to: Shell Canada Limited.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2003a. Oil Sands Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP), Five Year Report. Submitted to RAMP Steering Committee.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2003b. Regional surface water hydrology study for re-calibration of HSPF model. Submitted to: Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Shell Canada Limited, Suncor Energy Inc., Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2004. Vegetated Waterways Design Guidelines. Submitted to Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2005a. Kearl Oil Sands Project: Baseline Hydrology Report.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2005b. Closure Drainage Parameters v 3.2. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Ltd. Compiled by Golder Associates Ltd.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2008. Alluvial Channel Design Manual Procedures for the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Prepared for the Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Grant, G.E. 1997. Critical flow constrain flow hydraulics in mobile-bed streams: a new hypothesis, Water Resources Research, 33, 2, 349-358.


Golder Associates

Griffiths, G.A. 1981. Stable-channel design in gravel-bed rivers. Journal of Hydrology. 52(3/4): 291-305.

Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique, General Technical Report RM-245, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 61 p.

Henderson, F.M. Open Channel Flow. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc, New York, 1966.

Hey, R.D. and G.L. Heritage. 1986. “Dimensional and dimensionless regime equations for gravel bed rivers.” Proceedings of International Conference on River Regime. Published by John Wiley and Sons. Ltd. (UK).

Hey, R.D. and C.R. Thorne. 1986. “Stable channels with mobile gravel bed.” Journal of Hydrology. Engrg., ASCE, 112(6), 671-689.

Kellerhals, R. 1967. “Stable channels with gravel-paved beds. Journal of the Waterways and Harbours Divisions, American Society of Civil Engineers, 63-84.

Khan, H.R. 1971. Laboratory study of river morphology: unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University, 189pp.

Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial forms and processes: a new perspective, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, p. 383.

Kondolf, G.M., M.W. Smeltzer and S.F. Railsback. 2001. Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Environmental Management. 28(6): 761-776

Lacey, G. 1929. Stable channels in alluvium. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol.: 229.

Lacey, G. 1933. Uniform flow in alluvial rivers and canals. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol.: 237.

Leopold, L.B. 1994, A view of the river, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 298.


Golder Associates

Leopold,L.B. and T. Maddock Jr. 1953. “The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physographic implications.” USGS Professional Paper 252.

Leopold, L.B. and M.G. Wolman. 1957. River Channel Patterns: Braided, Meandering and Straight. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B.

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 522 pp.

Leopold, L.B., H.L. Silvey and D.L. Rosgen. 1998. The reference reach field book, DLR Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, Colorado, p. 211.

Li, M-H. and K.E. Eddleman. 2002. Biotechnical engineering as an alternative to traditional engineering methods: A biotechnical streambank stabilization approach. Landscape and Urban Planning. 60: 225-242.

Mahmood, K. and H.W. Shen. 1971. “The regime concept of sediment-transporting canals and rivers.” River Mech., Ch. 30, H.W. Shen, ed.,2, H. W. Shen, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Mao, S. W. and L.R. Flook. 1971. “ Link canal design practices in West Pakistan.” River Mech., Appendix A, H.W. Shen, ed., 2, H.W. Shen, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

McKenna, G. and R. Dawson. 1997. Closure planning practice and landscape performance at 57 Canadian and US mines.

Mountain Station Consultants Inc. and North/South Consultants Inc. 2005. Natural range of variability of physical, biological and water and sediment quality characteristics of streams in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Prepared for Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Surface water working group – Watershed Integrity, Contract 2004-0012. 151p. plus appendices.

Muskeg Subcommittee (Muskeg Subcommittee of the NRC Associate Committee on Geotechnical Research. 1973. Muskeg and the Northern Environment in Canada. Edited by N.W. Radforth and C.O. Brawner.

Nouh, M.(1988). “Regime channels of extremely air zone.” Proceedings of International Conference on Regime Rivers. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd. (UK).


Golder Associates

Nunnally, N.R. 1985. Application of fluvial relationships to planning and design of channel modifications. Environmental Management. 9(5): 417-426.

Oil States International. 2008. Canadian National Energy Board: Alberta Oil Sands. Available: http://www.oilstatesintl.com/fw/main/Canadian_Accommodations-143.html

Page, K.J. and Y.R. Carden. 1998. Channel adjustment following the crossing of a threshold: Tarcutta Creek, Southeastern Australia. Australian Geographical Studies. 36(3): 289-311.

Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D.L. Galat, S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D.D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano and E. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology. 42: 208-217.

Parker, G., P.C. Klingeman, and D.G. McLean. 1982. Bedload and Size Distribution in Paved Gravel-Bed Streams. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE. 18(HY4): 544-571

Parker, G. 2004. One-dimensional sediment transport morphodynamics with applications to rivers and turbidity currents – Chapter 2: Characterization of sediment and grain size distributions. Available: http://www.cee.uiuc.edu/people/parkerg/_private/e-bookPowerPoint/RTe-bookCh2SedimentGSD.ppt

Pickup. G. and R.F. Warner. 1976. Effects of hydrologic regime on magnitude and frequency of dominant discharge. Journal of Hydrology. 29: 51-75.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena. 22: 169-199.

Rosgen, D.L. 2006. River Restoration using a geomorphic approach for natural channel design. Proceedings: Eighth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (8thFISC), April2-6, 2006, Reno, NV, USA.

Sawatsky, L. 2004. Reclamation strategies that address mine closure drainage. The Canadian Institute Mine Reclamation Conference, November 8-9, 2004.

Sawatsky, L., G. McKenna, M-J Keys and D. Long. 2000. Towards minimizing the long-term liability of reclaimed mine sites. Land Reconstruction and Management. 1: 21-36.


Golder Associates

Sawatsky, L and G. Beckstead. 1995. Geomorphic approach for design of sustainable drainage systems for mineland reclamation. Paper prepared for the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering. June 1-3, 1995, Ottawa, Ontario.

Schumm, S.A. 1963. Sinuosity of Alluvial Rivers on the Great Plains. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 74: 1089-1100.

Schumm, S.A. 1967. Meander wavelength of alluvial rivers. Science. 157: 1549-1550.

Schumm, S.A. 1977. “The Fluvial System” John Wiley & Sons. New York.

Schumm, S.A. 1979. Geomorphic Thresholds: The concept and its applications. Transactions of the institute of British Geographers. 4(4): 485-515.

Schumm, S.A and H.R. Khan. 1972. Experimental study of channel patterns. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 83: 1755-1770.

Shields, D.F. Jr., R.R. Copeland, P.C. Klingeman, M.W. Doyle. and A. Simon. 2003. Design for Stream Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 129(8): 575-584.

Simon, A. and P.W. Downs. 1995. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluation of potential instability in alluvial channels. Geomorphology. 12: 215-232.

Smith, D.G. and T.G. Fisher. 1993. Glacial Lake Agassiz: the northwestern outlet and paleoflood. Geology. 21: 9-12.

Smith, S.M. and K.L. Prestegaard. 2005. Hydraulic performance of a morphology-based stream channel design. Water Resources Research. 41: W11413.

Smith, M.L. and R.G. D’Eon. 2006. Pre-Industrial Forest Condition Report for The Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. Forest management Agreement Area Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc, Boyle, AB.

Tarar, R.N. and A.M. Choudri. 1979. “Behavioural evaluation of some Pakistani canals, part 1.” Presentation at the Int. Symp. on Mech. of Alluvial Channels, held at Lahore, Pakistan, June 26-29, 1979.


Golder Associates

Toy, T.J. and W.R Chuse. 2005. Topographic reconstruction: a geomorphic approach. Ecological Engineering. 24: 29-35.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2007. Stream Restoration Design. National Engineering Handbook.

van den Berg, J.H. 1995. Prediction of alluvial channel pattern of perennial rivers. Geomorphology. 12: 259-279.

Williams, G.P. 1978. Bankfull discharge of rivers. Water Resources Research. 14: 1141-58.

Williams, G.P. 1986. River meanders and channel size. Journal of Hydrology. 88: 147-164.

Wohl, E. 2000 Mountain rivers, American Geophysical Union, Water Resources Monograph 14, 320 pp.

Wohl, E. E. and D.M. Merritt. 2001. Bedrock channel morphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 113(9): 1205-1212.

Wohl, E.E., K.R. Vincent and D.J. Merritts. 1993. Pool and Riffle characteristics in relation to channel gradient. Geomorphology. 6: 99-110.

Wolman M.G. and L.B. Leopold. 1957. River flood plains: some observations on their formation. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-C: Washington, D.C., 86–109.

Yalin, M.S. 1992. River Mechanics. Permagon Press, Oxford, England. 220p.

APPENDIX I

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Appendix I I - 1 December 2008 Glossary of Terms

Golder Associates

A

Alluvial Channel: A river or stream channel formed in alluvium and free to adjust its shape in response to flow changes.

Aerial Photo: A photo of the earth’s surface taken from a plane. Overlapping photos are taken in succession such that they can be used to view the surface in three dimensions (stereo-viewing).

B

Basin Area: A geographic area drained by a single major stream and its lower-order tributaries and defined by drainage divides.

Bankfull Depth: Channel depth at which a stream first begins to overflow its natural banks.

Bankfull Discharge: Flow rate corresponding to the bankfull conditions (assumed equal to 2-yr peak flow), which occur when the river stage begins to overflow in natural banks onto the floodplain.

Bankfull Width: Channel width at which a stream first begins to overflow its natural banks.

Basin Slope: Change in basin elevation with distance along the length of the basin.

C

Channel: A natural or artificial waterway that conveys water from one location to another.

Channel Bed Material Size: Characteristic size of the sediment that forms a stream bed.

Channel Bed Slope: Change in stream bed elevation per unit channel length within a river reach.

Channel Length: The total distance along the path of the channel between two points on the channel. This distance can be applied to an entire stream or to a reach


Golder Associates

Channel Parameters: Characteristics of a stream course that include bankfull width, bankfull depth, mean bankfull depth, sinuosity, channel bed slope, channel bed material size, roughness factor, channel wavelength, percentage of bed material fines (clay and silt).

Clay: Sediment characterized by particles ranging in size from 0.24 to 4 μm.

Coefficient of Variation: A ratio describing the relative variability of two frequency distributions having different means.

Cross-sectional flow area: Stream width times stream depth. This measurement can be taken at the level of flow to determine the cross-sectional area of flow or at the bankfull level to determine the bankfull cross-sectional area.

D

Discharge: The volume of water that flows in a river cross-section per unit time.

Discharge Parameters: Characteristics of water flow rate in a stream including mean annual discharge and bankfull discharge.

Drainage Density: Ratio of total stream length within a basin to basin area (m-1).

Drainage Divide: The boundary along a topographic ridge separating two watersheds.

E

Entrenchment Ratio: Width of the flood-prone area at an elevation twice the maximum bankfull depth divided by the bankfull width.

F

Floodplain: The portion of the river valley that is immediately adjacent to the river that is subject to recurring inundation when river stage surpasses the bankfull elevation.

G

Geomorphology: A branch of science that deals with the origin, evolution, and processes of landforms.


Golder Associates

GIS: Geographic Information System. A system for storing, analysing and managing spatial data. GIS was used to compute sinuosity in this study.

Glacial: Geological surficial material that is comprised of silt, clay and sand.

Glaciofluvial: Geological surficial material that is comprised primarily of sandy material.

Glaciolacustrine: Geological surficial material comprised primarily of silt and clay material.

Gravel: Sediment characterized by particles ranging in size from 2 to 64 mm.

H

HSPF Model: Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) is a comprehensive model used for simulation of watershed hydrology.

HEC-RAS Model: A model developed by Hydrological Engineering Services of the US Corps of Engineers. It is a one-dimensional hydraulic model used for channel flow analysis and floodplain determination.

Hydraulic Radius, The ratio of the cross-sectional flow area to the wetted perimeter.

I

Irregularity: A description of the sinuosity of a stream that does not possess enough stream power to overcome bank material and develop a regular pattern of sinuosity.

L

Lowland Area: An area in the Oil Sands Region defined by a basin slope of less than 0.5%

Lowland channel: A stream reach with a maximum channel slope of 0.5%.


Golder Associates

M

Maximum Overland Flow Path Length: Longest distance that surface runoff may travel before it becomes channelized.

Maximum Overland Flow Path Length Slope: Slope corresponding to the maximum overland flow path length at the channelized point.

Mean Annual Discharge: Average of recorded or simulated daily flow rates that flow past a river cross-section over a number of years.

Mean Bankfull Depth: Average channel depth at which a stream first begins to overflow its natural banks.

Mean Flow Depth: An average of water depths recorded at points at constant intervals across the channel width.

Meander Belt Width: The maximum width of meanders within a river valley. Complex meander systems may have a meander belt width wider than the maximum width of meanders and meander belt width may increase throughout the lifespan of a river.

Meander Wavelength: The straight line distance between two similar points on two successive bends in a river.

Mine Closure: The act of reclaiming mined areas and replacing, restoring or compensating for the original topography, drainage, surface material and water quality.

Morphology: The physical form and structure of a landscape or landscape feature (e.g., river valley, alluvial deposit).

Muskeg: A type of soil that consists of dead organic matter in various stages of decomposition and includes woody debris, such as roots, buried tree branches, or whole trees that can make up 5 to 15 percent of the soil.

N

NAD83: North American Datum of 1983. A geodetic reference system that superseded NAD 27 because of its accuracy.


Golder Associates

Northing and Easting: UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) coordinates that specify the location of a point within a grid-based system covering the earth’s surface.

O

Oil Sands: Deposits of bitumen that are mixed with sand.

Oil Sands Region: Areas in north eastern Alberta containing oil sands deposits.

P

Percentage of Bed Material Fines (clay and silt): It is the percentage by weight of clay and silt present in the channel bed material.

Pool: Pooled areas are typically deeper, have lower flow velocity and generally have finer bed material than adjacent riffles. Pooled areas typically occur on river bends.

Pool-Riffle Sequence: The alternation between shallower, faster-moving areas and deeper slower-moving areas along the length of a stream.

R

Reach-averaged bankfull width, mean bankfull depth and maximum bankfull depth: Reach averaged bankfull width is the mean of bankfull width measurements taken at three or more cross-sections. Reach-averaged maximum bankfull depth is the mean of maximum bankfull depth measurements taken at each of three of more cross-sections. Reach-averaged mean bankfull depth is the mean of mean bankfull depth measurements taken at each of three or more cross-sections.

Riffle: Riffles are sections of a stream that are typically shallower, have higher flow velocity and tend to have coarser bed material than adjacent pools. Riffles generally occur on straight sections of streams at the inflection point between to bends or pools.

River: A high-order water body that conveys water from a drainage basin.

River Bed: Lowest part of a channel along which water moves during interflows.


Golder Associates

River Confluence: The location where one river or stream joins another river or stream.

River Mouth: A place where a river discharges into another water body (e.g., river, lake, sea, ocean).

Roughness Factor: A parameter that quantifies a channel resistance to flow.

S

Sand: Sediment characterized by particles ranging in size from 62 to 2,000 μm.

Sediment: Soils (clastic and organic) transported by water in suspension or as a bed load from the place of origin.

Sediment Discharge: The volume of sediment travelling in a channel at a given cross-section per unit time.

Sediment Yield: The total sediment outflow from a drainage basin at a given location per year.

Silt: Sediment characterized by particles ranging in size from 4 to 62 μm.

Sinuosity: The ratio of the thalweg length (i.e., the line connecting the deepest points along a stream) to valley length, for a specific reach of a river.

Stream: A waterbody or conduit that conveys water from one location to another.

Stream Morphology: The physical form and structure of a stream channel including all of its contributing elements.

Stream Mapping: Sketching a stream reach, illustrating the details of significant features in and around the channel (e.g., beaver dams, woody debris, overhanging vegetation, bed vegetation).

Stream Power: The rate at which a stream can do work (e.g., sediment transport). Stream power is largely a function of slope and discharge.


Golder Associates

Stream Reach: A portion of the total length of a stream that is of interest for a particular study or exhibits a particular phenomenon of interest.

T

Thalweg: The line of maximum depth and velocity along the length of a stream.

Tributary: A channel that flows directly into another channel but not directly into a large body of water or sea.

U

Upland Area: An area in the Oil Sands Region defined by a basin slope of greater than 0.5%.

Upland Channel: A stream reach with a bed slope greater than 0.5%.

V

Vegetated Waterway: A watercourse or conveyance channel that is lined with permanent vegetation. The relationship between contributing drainage area and slope is such that maximum velocity does not remove in-channel vegetation, which acts to minimize erosion.

Valley Length: The distance between two points in a stream valley. This distance may be straight or convoluted and is dictated by the morphology of the stream valley. This length is different from channel length.

Valley Slope: The change in elevation along from one point to another along a river valley.

W

Watershed: The contributing area to a water body or watercourse.

Watershed Parameters: Characteristics of a watershed that include basin area, basin slope, drainage density, maximum overland flow path length, maximum overland flow path length slope.

Wetted Perimeter: The portion of a stream channel cross-section that is in direct contact with the water

APPENDIX II

TECHNICAL PROCEDURES FOR GEOMORPHIC SURVEY

Appendix II - 1 December 2008 Technical Procedures For Geomorphic Survey

Golder Associates

This appendix presents a set of technical procedures outlining the methodologies for completing a thorough geomorphic survey of a river or stream reach. This set of technical procedures was prepared specifically for the 2005 and 2006 field programs and include procedures for:

II-A Open-water stream discharge measurement

II-B Vertical survey for stream cross-sectional and reach profile

II-C Bed sediment sampling

II-D Stream mapping

APPENDIX II-A

OPEN-WATER STREAM DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT

Appendix IIA - 1 December 2008 Open-Water Stream Discharge Measurement

Golder Associates

A-1 PURPOSE

This document describes the method for measuring stream velocities to obtain an estimate of discharge through a channel cross-section under open water condition.

A-2 APPLICABILITY

Two variations of the procedure include measurements made in shallow and deep open-water streams. These procedures are applicable to most streams and rivers.

A-3 DEFINITIONS

The terms ‘flow’ and ‘discharge’ are used interchangeably throughout the text and refer to the volume of water passing by a fixed point per unit time. The units of measurement are typically cubic meters per second (cms or m3/s).

A-4 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING

Mosley, M.P. and A.I. McKerchar; Maidment, D.R. (editor-in-chief) 1993. Chapter 8: Handbook of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill. 39 Pages.

Water Survey of Canada. 1978-1993. Chapters 2 and 4. Hydrometric Field and Related Manuals. Golder Calgary Hydrology Library. Three-ring binder.

Meller, B.D. 1997. “Hydrometric Survey Techniques.” Distance Delivery Course, Institute for Renewable Resource Management, Lethbridge Community College, AB, Canada.

Water Survey of Canada. 1992. “Hydrometric Technician Career Development Program.” Compact Disc, Environment Canada.

USBR (United States Bureau of Reclamation). 2001. “Water Measurement Manual.” Water Resources Technical Publications, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.

A-5 DISCUSSION General Safety

• Beware of stream and flow conditions that are unsafe for wading. A rough guideline for determining if a stream can be waded safely is to avoid entering a stream where the product of the stream velocity (m/s) and the depth (m) is greater than one. This is only a guideline and other considerations should be made;


Golder Associates

• Consider using safety rope if conditions are marginal, but not threatening (e.g., waterfalls, algae-covered rocks etc. upstream or downstream from the site); and

• For more information refer to the Golder Associates Ltd. Health and Safety Manual for details of safety procedures, and the Water Survey of Canada References in Golder’s Information Centre.

Site Selection

The site (transect) for a stream discharge measurement should be selected based on the following criteria:

• Reach should be fairly straight; site should preferably be in the centre of the reach

• Reach should have relatively uniform shape, bed profile and flow characteristics

• Reach should be free from any debris, large boulders, and other obstructions

• Site is preferable on the upstream of a bridge (if available)

• Reach has no undercut banks or backwater effects

• Preferable to have a depth of greater than 0.2 m and velocity of less than 2 m/s

• Reach should represent mainly channelized flow with little opportunity for flow on a floodplain, even during extreme events

Shallow Water Discharge Measurement (suitable for wading)

The recommended procedure for measuring flow using a Marsh-McBirney flow meter in a shallow, small-to-medium sized stream that can be waded was employed for all 2005 and 2006 stream reach visits and is as follows:

• Select a site in accordance with the guidelines listed in Section 5.2.

• Fix a tape measure or tagline to either the left or right bank so that the zero mark is at the shoreline.

o If it is not possible to zero the tagline at the waters edge, record the point on the tagline which corresponds with the water’s edge.

o Fix the tagline to natural objects or use short sections of small-diameter re-bar driven into the stream bank.

• Affix the tape or tagline to the opposite bank. Ensure the tape is perpendicular to the direction of flow.

• Record the locations of the shorelines on the discharge sheet (see Figure A-1).


Golder Associates

• The points on the tagline at which depth and velocity measurements are taken are called stations or verticals. A minimum of 20 “wet” stations, not including the water’s edge, are preferred for medium sized streams and 30 stations for large rivers. To determine the measurement stations, divide the channel width from waters edge to waters edge by 20 to 30, as appropriate. If the flow rate across the channel is not uniform, the section with the higher flow volume should have a greater number of stations. The flow through any single cell (area between two verticals) should not be greater than 10% of the total discharge. Locate the first and last verticals as close to the banks as possible to reduce the errors introduced in the area calculations.

• At each station measure and record the total water depth.

• Use the following rules to determine if a one- or two-point measurement is required::

o If the water is less than 0.75 m deep, measure the velocity at 60% of the total depth (this is 0.6 × depth, as measured from the water surface).

o If the water is greater than or equal to 0.75 m deep, then measure the velocity at both 20 and 80% of the total depth, measured from the surface.

• The current velocity is measured by maintaining the velocity meter at the correct depth in the water column with the wading rod set so that the base rests on the substrate. The top-setting wading rod can be used to automatically set the meter at 60, 20 or 80% of depth, as required, by using the scale on the handle. Once the total depth is known the moveable rod can be adjusted to position the meter at the required depth. The handle scale is read by lining up the stamped numbers on the sliding rod with those on the handle.

• Hold the wading rod so that the meter is parallel to the direction of flow and is pointing upstream. If the direction of flow is unclear, rotate the rod slightly to find the angle at which the maximum velocity is observed. If an angular difference between the direction of flow and a perpendicular to the cross-section is perceived, note the angle in degrees (∅) beside the measured velocity on the discharge sheet.

• Record the distance from the waters edge, the total depth and the digital velocity reading measured by the Marsh-McBirney flow meter for each vertical (i.e., the velocity at either 60% depth or 20 and 80% depth) on the same line of the discharge record sheet for each vertical.

Maintenance

The Marsh-McBirney flow meter and other similar flow meters are expensive, high precision instruments. It is therefore important that they are carefully handled and maintained and calibrated annually.


Golder Associates

A-6 EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS Velocity Measuring Equipment

• Marsh-McBirney flow meter

• Spare Batteries

• Automatic depth calculating (top-setting) wading rod (Figure A-2)

Record-keeping and Site Locating/Marking • Tape measure or tagline long enough to cross channel

• 2 re-bar posts hammered into the shore for positioning the tagline

• Hammer to install re-bar

• Holder to attach tape measure to re-bar (not required for tagline)

• Field Book

• Pencil/pen

• Discharge sheet

• Calculator

Health and Safety Equipment • Personal Flotation Device (PFD)

• Weather-appropriate clothing

• Safety Rope

Personal Gear • Hip Waders/Chest Waders

• Insect Repellent


Golder Associates

Figure A-1: Discharge Sheet

DISCHARGE DATA STREAM: PROJECT #:

TRANSECT: LOCATION:DATE:

Station VELOCITY Angle ofDescription Distance Depth (m/s) Flow Discharge

(m) (m) 0.2 depth 0.8 depth 0.6 depth (degrees) (m3/s)Left edge 1.7 0 0.000

1.8 0.1 0.350 0.0 0.0052 0.5 0.450 0.0 0.056

2.3 0.8 0.600 0.230 0.0 0.1162.7 0.82 0.670 0.300 0.0 0.139

3 0.65 0.500 0.0 0.0813.2 0.4 0.200 0.0 0.0163.4 0.1 0.200 0.0 0.003

Right edge 3.5 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.000

TOTAL STREAM DISCHARGE 0.417


Golder Associates

Figure A-2: Top Setting Wading Rod - Diagram

DEPTH GAUGE

ROD

APPENDIX II-B

VERTICAL SURVEY FOR STREAM CROSS-SECTIONAL AND REACH PROFILE

Appendix IIB - 1 August 2008 Vertical Survey for Stream Cross-Section and Reach Profile

Golder Associates

B-1 PURPOSE

This technical procedure outlines the methodology to be used for differential vertical survey using simple survey level equipment. This can be applied for the survey of stream cross-sections and profile. The technical procedure for vertical survey using total station equipment is different.

B-2 APPLICABILITY

This procedure is applicable to any personnel performing a vertical differential survey.

B-3 DEFINITIONS

Levelling Survey: To obtain the difference in elevation of terrain by tying it to a known datum or an assumed elevation.

Instrument Person: The person operating the differential level.

Rodman: The person holding the levelling rod.

Bench Mark (BM): A point where the elevation is known and it becomes permanent. An arbitrary datum for the first BM may be set to 100.00 m.

Temporary Bench Mark (TBM): A point where the elevation is assumed (temporary known elevation)

Turning Point (TP): A turning point is an intermediate point between benchmarks. The turning point allows the surveyor to move the instrument (level) and continue the survey without the need of a benchmark or temporary benchmark reading. In order to complete a turning point a backsight and foresight (as defined below) reading are needed.

Backsight (BS): The reading on a rod where the elevation of the point is either known (through a series of readings before a TP) or assumed (TBM, BM).

Foresight (FS): The reading on a rod where the elevation is unknown and it needs to be determined.

Height of Instrument (HI): The elevation of the line of sight from the instrument.

Figure B-1 illustrates these definitions.


Golder Associates

Figure B-1: Levelling Diagram

B-4 EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

a. Automatic differential level (self-levelling) (25 to 30 power magnification and resolving power of approximately one minute, see Figure B-2. Also include a tripod to hold the automatic differential level.

b. Levelling rod(s) (graduations in hundredths of a meter), see Figure B-3.

c. Field notebooks or field report forms and pens (indelible).

d. Flagging tape.

e. Nails.

f. Target for rod (pencil).

g. Topographic maps.

h. Rod level (not always available).

i. Tape measure.

j. Inclinometer (to measure slopes).

BM or TBM

TP

BSBS

Hi

Line of sight

FS


Golder Associates

Figure B-2: Automatic differential level


Golder Associates

Figure B-3: Survey Rod

The survey rod is divided by increments of 1 cm. Most rods have alternate colors (black and red, generally) in order to help the surveyor to identify the change of every 10 centimetres.

B-5 SETTING UP THE INSTRUMENT a. Unbuckle the band around the tripod legs and loosen the extension clamp

screws.


Golder Associates

Figure B-4: Tripod

b. With the tripod closed, extend the tripod legs until the tripod head is roughly at eye level then re-tighten the clamp screws.

c. Fix the tripod shoes firmly into the ground.

d. Pre-level the tripod by adjusting the legs until the top becomes approximately level. The adjustment of the legs can be done by loosing up the clamp screws on two of the legs and adjust them with respect to the stationary one. Always make sure that the tripod is pre-levelled to a comfortable height.

e. Hold the instrument on the tripod head and tighten the centering screw.

f. Place the telescope piece between two to of the legs, and turn the levelling foot screws until the bubble is exactly centered in the center marked circle (see Figure B5-b).

Figure B-5: Instrument levelling

a) Not Levelled

b) Levelled

g. Turn the telescope 120 degrees until it is parallel to the other 2 legs and simply confirm that the bubble remains in the center. If the bubble is out of the circle. Continue adjusting the levelling screws until the instrument is level.


Golder Associates

B-6 FOCUSSING AND SIGHTING WITH THE INSTRUMENT a. Sight a bright, featureless background in order to fine-tune the crosshairs.

b. Turn and align the instrument to the point of interest (use the peep sight (3)) and turn the horizontal fine motion screw (8) to center the rod in the field of view. Focus the reticle by gradually turning the eyepiece (14) counter clockwise while looking trough the telescope. Stop just before the image through the telescope becomes blurred. Turn the 2-speed focussing knob (10) to eliminate parallax between the rod and the reticle.

B-7 PROCEDURE FOR VERTICAL DIFFERENCE SURVEY a. Set up the level approximately halfway between a point of known or

assumed elevation and a point where the elevation is to be determined. See section 5 (Setting up the Instrument) and section 6 (Focussing and Sighting) prior to continue with the survey.

b. The instrument person then should take a backsight (BS) reading on the rod which is being held at a point of known or assumed elevation (BM, TBM or TP). The accuracy of the reading should be to the nearest millimetre, and it should be recorded by the instrument person.

c. The rod man then moves to the point of interest and holds the rod in a vertical position.

d. The instrument person then takes a foresight (FS) reading on the rod at the point where the elevation is needed. The accuracy of the reading should be to the nearest millimetre, and it has to be recorded by the instrument person.

e. The height of instrument (HI) and the new elevation point is determined by the following equations:

Obtain the height of instrument from a known elevation (BM, TBM or TP).

HI = Elevation (of known point) + BS

Elevation for desired point = HI - FS

The following steps deal with the procedures for a turning point (TP).

a. After obtaining a foresight the person holding the rod should not move from his/her location until the instrument person has taken a BS reading from a new instrument location.

b. The instrument person should set up the instrument at a new location. Then the instrument person should take a backsight (BS) reading of the rod at the turning point position. The new height of instrument can be determined by the following formula:

New height of instrument observed from a turning point


Golder Associates

HI = HI* - FS + BS

Where HI* represents the height of the instrument prior to moving it to the new location

c. At the end of each levelling section, the survey shall close on the same point at which it was started. The difference in the original reading at that point and the final reading at that point is the closure error. Adjustment of intermediate allocation points shall be based on the lengths of line methods.

d. All measurements must be recorded in field notebooks or field report forms. Errors should not be erased but crossed out by a single slash and initialled and dated.

e. Field books or field forms should be submitted to the group leader or the project manager for review and approval.

B-8 HEIGHT DIFFERENCE AND ROD READING EXAMPLES a. Position the rod at point A (BM, TPB or TP) and take reading “a” (BS) on

the rod.

b. Position and sight the rod at point B and obtain the reading “b” (FS) on the rod. The difference a-b is the height difference h of B from A.

See Figures B-6 and B-7 for an illustration of the height difference and rod reading.

Figure B-6: Levelling Survey Example

Point A

“a” reading “b” reading

Point B

h


Golder Associates

Figure B-7: Rod Reading Examples

Example 1: The practice reading is 0.0 from the box and 7cm and 8 mm giving by the intersection of the crosshair from the instrument on the rod. The final reading is approximately 0.078m.

Example 2: The “a” reading is 0.342 m from the rod and the “b” reading is 0.250; the difference in height between these two points is h, where h = a – b.

For this particular example the value of h is h = 0.342 - 0.250 = 0.092. This means that the ground level increased by 0.092 m from point A to point B.

02

04

01

00

03

10 cm intervals

1 RE

Reading (b) 0.250 m

Practice Reading 0.079m


Golder Associates

Figure B-8: Sample field note with calculations completed.

B-9 Establishing Benchmarks

Benchmarks are established on a location where large floods or ice jam condition will not wash them away. A nail in the root or side of a tree is a common location to place a benchmark. The nail should be hammered into the side of the tree near the base and bent 900 so that the nail head is horizontal. A root protruding above ground is another ideal place to set a benchmark. The rod is placed on the nail head while taking benchmark readings. In the absence of appropriate trees, a large rock that is not likely to move can be used. A marker (indelible) should be used to mark a spot on the rock where the rod is to be held.

APPENDIX II-C

BED SEDIMENT SAMPLING

Appendix IIC - 1 August 2008 Bed Sediment Sampling

Golder Associates

C-1 PURPOSE

This document describes the procedures for collecting bed-material samples in streams in open-water conditions.

C-2 APPLICABILITY

Two main variations of procedure include the cases of gravel bed material and sand bed material. The procedures described are selectively applicable for these variations by any technical person involved with sampling.

RC-3 DEFINITIONS

Bed load: the material moving in almost continuous contact with the streambed, being rolled or pushed along the bottom by the force of the water.

Bed-load discharge: the weight of bed load passing a cross section of a stream per unit of time.

Bed material: the sediment mixture of which the streambed is composed.

Bed-material sampler: a device for sampling bed material under water.

Bulk sampling: a sampling method where a predetermined volume (mass) of subsurface material is collected.

Grab sample: a sample taken manually from the surface of the stream, usually without using a sampler. Suspended-sediment concentration determined from a grab sample is usually not representative of the true concentration in the cross section.

Gravel: material of particle size between 2 and 64 mm.

Particle size: linear dimension used to quantify the size of a particle, usually expressed as a diameter in millimetres.

Particle-size distribution: cumulative frequency distribution of the relative amounts of particles coarser or finer than specified sizes.

River reach: section of river having similar morphology. The length is usually restricted on the basis of being a specified number of channel widths.

Sand: material of particle size between 0.062 and 2 mm.


Golder Associates

Surface: single-grain layer of the bed top.

C-4 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING

Ashmore, P.E., T.R. Yuzyk and R. Herrington. 1988. Bed-Material Sampling in Sand-Bed Streams. Sediment Survey Section, Water Resources Branch, Inland Waters Directorate, Report #IWD-HQ-WRB-SS-88-4. 47p.

Boning, C.W. 1990. Programs and Plans - Policy and Guidelines for the Collection and Publication of Bedload Data, United States Geological Survey, Office of Surface Water Technical Memorandum No. 90.08, July 24, 1990 [URL http://water.usgs.gov/public/admin/memo/SW/sw90.08 and sw90.08att].

Church, M.A., D.G. McLean, and J.F. Wolcott. 1987. River Bed Gravels: Sampling and Analysis, in: Sediment Transport in Gravel-Bed Rivers, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., p. 43-88.

Jansen, P. 1979. Principles of River Engineering. Pitman, London, 509 p.

Kellerhals, R. and D.J. Bray. 1971. Sampling Procedures for Coarse Fluvial Sediments. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., J. Hydraul. Div., 97, p. 1165-1180.

Klingeman, P.C. and W.W. Emmett. 1982. Gravel Bedload Transport Processes, in Gravel-Bed Rivers, Edited by R.D. Hey, J.C. Bathurst and C.R. Thorne, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Long Yuqian. 1989. Manual on Operational Methods for the Measurement of Sediment Transport. World Meteorological Organization Operational Hydrology Report No. 29, WMO-No. 686. 169p.

Meller, B.D. 1997. “Hydrometric Survey Techniques.” Distance Delivery Course, Institute for Renewable Resource Management, Lethbridge Community College, AB, Canada.


C-5 DISCUSSION General Safety

• Beware of stream and flow conditions that are unsafe for wading. A rough guideline for determining if a stream can be waded safely is to avoid entering a stream where the product of the stream velocity (m/s) and the depth (m) is


Golder Associates

greater than one. This is only a guideline and other considerations should be made.

• Consider using safety rope if conditions are marginal, but not threatening (e.g., waterfalls, algae-covered rocks etc. upstream or downstream from the site).

• For more information refer to the Golder Associates Ltd. Health and Safety Manual for details of safety procedures, and the Water Survey of Canada References in Golder’s Information Centre.

Site Selection

Desirable characteristics include that the site be located at or near a hydrometric/sediment station where possible, cover a uniform reach, be morphologically stable, away from the confluence of two streams, and have limited aquatic growth.

Site Selection for Gravel-bed Streams • Sampling for gravel-bed streams is usually done on exposed bars; however,

submerged beds may also be sampled using certain techniques.

• To overcome the problem of high spatial variability exhibited in fluvial gravels, the head of a major bar is chosen as indicative of the local bed conditions.

• Since there are many different types of sedimentary bars, a hierarchy has been established to aid in the site selection process:

o Mid-channel and diagonal bars are considered to be the most ideal sites, because they are directly exposed to higher velocities in the stream and therefore to bedload transport.

o Point bars are next in preference because velocities are slightly reduced due to redirection of flow.

o Channel side bars, or lateral bars are the least suitable because velocities are reduced severely due to boundary or bank effects.

o The riffle, although not belonging to this general class, is identified for use in small streams where exposed bars are scarce.

• To provide meaningful data for gravel beds, several sites will need to be sampled within a river reach. Where possible, select three sites: one nearby, one upstream, and one downstream of the flow measurement site. The availability of suitable sites determines the number of sites that can be sampled.

• When selecting sites, take care to select a bar that has not been disturbed. Cattle or tractor crossings are unsuitable. Avoid a bar that may be made up of material from a recent, local bank slump. When a number of sites are sampled, be consistent in bar type.

Site Selection for Sand-bed Streams • Sampling for sand-bed streams is usually done in-stream.


Golder Associates

• A reach approach to sampling has been adopted to account for spatial variability.

• Five cross sections (comprising 3 to 5 verticals) are recommended. The centre cross section should correspond to the flow measurement site, with two sections spaced equally up and downstream of the site.

Other relevant measurements

In order to properly apply the results of the bed load measurement, it may be necessary to measure other stream parameters at the same time as the bed load. Some of these are essential and others may be required for specific applications, so the goal of the study must be considered when deciding which parameters to measure. Potential information requirements include:

• Stream discharge;

• Stream geometry (cross-section and/or profile);

• Suspended sediment discharge; and

• Bed material gradation.

General Considerations for Sampling Gravel-bed Streams

• The accuracy of the field scale readings over a range of known weights should be verified and the scale calibrated at this time if necessary.

• Once in the field a suitable sampling site is chosen, the site information documented. (Plan view of sampling site, site description, GPS location, and support photos)

o The area is sketched to identify exactly where the samples were collected in the reach.

• If possible, to maximize the number of possible sites, conduct gravel-bed sampling when water levels are relatively low. This means that most sampling will be conducted during the summer and fall periods.

• Avoid rainy days because the added moisture will increase weighing errors.

• Windy days are also unsuitable because the wind creates the difficulty in reading the scale.

• In most cases one set of samples is sufficient to document a given reach of a river. There will be the need to repeat survey such as in the case where the flow regime and the bed conditions have been altered.

Sand-bed Material Streams • For sand-bed sampling it maybe necessary to sample over various discharges.

• The size composition of the bed material should be known for various stages of flow since at higher stages layers in the bed may be uncovered which are


Golder Associates

not exposed to flow at low stages. At lower flows some deposition will occur.

• At least five replicate samples should be collected at a vertical in order to approach an acceptable error in mean size of a given fraction of 10% with a probability of error of 0.1.

• The sampled layer is the upper few centimetres of the bed and sample size should be at least 0.2 kg.

• When the width of the main channel is less than 500 m a minimum of three sampling verticals are recommended; between 500 and 1,000 m, three to five are recommended; and greater than 1,000 m, five to seven could be used.

• Several cross-sections will be required to obtain representative results.

Procedure for Grab Sampling (Ekman, Ponar and Peterson samplers) • Label sample container with indelible ink marker.

• Grab sampler should be rinsed twice with ambient water prior to sampling to ensure no sediment or other material are attached. This should be done with the jaws open. Be sure to check that sediments have not dried on to the sampler. If so, remove dry material to prevent contamination and rinse sampler again.

• Using a graduated line attached to the top of the sampler, lower it slowly until it touches the bottom. If using the Ekman grab, be sure to retain the messenger (small weight used to trigger sampler) at the surface. Be careful not to touch the bottom too abruptly as surface sediments could be disturbed by the mouth of the sampler which would result in an inaccurate sample.

• Making sure the graduated line is as vertical as possible, release the messenger. Maintain some tension of the line to ensure that the messenger falls freely (Note: when using the Ponar or Peterson grabs, which do not have a messenger, use the appropriate method to trigger the sampler).

• Once you feel the messenger trigger the sampler, begin to slowly raise it off the bottom. It is important to raise the grab slowly otherwise fine sediments may be lost.

• Once the grab reaches the surface, the spring loaded jaws should be pried open and the sample put into a flat bottomed pan or similar container. The entire sample or the top layer of the sample can then be scooped into containers. Sample containers (bottles or bags) should be stored appropriately, as instructed by the analytical laboratory.

Procedure for Volumetric Bed-load Sampling (suitable for Helley-Smith bed load sampler)

See Appendix I-C-A for equipment description.


Golder Associates

• Measurements of bed load using the Helley-Smith sampler involves performing a number of point measurements across the stream and combining these to determine an estimate of total bed load.

• To perform a point measurement of bed load, the sampler is lowered to the stream bed and held in place for a prescribed period of time before being retrieved. It is important that the sampler point directly into the flow, and that it is seated firmly against the streambed without “scooping” or disturbing bed material and introducing it into the nozzle.

• When using cable-suspended samplers, it is recommended that a tether line be connected to an upstream support. This will assist in placement and retrieval of the sampler and reduce the potential for downstream drift, cross-stream “swimming” and scooping of bed material.

• Samples should be taken for the same length of time at each station. The specific amount of time will depend on the amount of material being transported as bed load, but will generally be between 30 and 60 seconds. If it takes longer than this to collect a measurable amount of sediment, the rate of transport is likely insignificant. It is recommended that before sampling begins, a test sample be taken at a high-velocity section to determine whether there is significant bed load and to select a sampling duration that will ensure that the sampling bag does not fill to more than 40% of capacity at any station.

• One sample shall be taken at each station, starting from one bank and working across to the opposite bank. Each sample shall be packed in a separate plastic bag and labelled with the stream name, transect, station number, date and time. The procedure shall then be repeated, sampling the same stations in the same sequence, to provide a replicate sample.

• Natural stream bed load sample replicates (minimum of 2 sets of samples) should be collected. If a large difference between sample sets is detected, additional replicates should be made. Studies intended to characterize bed load impacts due to in-stream work should resample intensively during the work program.

Data Analysis

The analysis of bed load samples involves determining the discharge of sediment and its particle size distribution. Composite samples may be used to simplify the analysis, though this provides less detailed information.

Composite Samples

The collected bed load samples may be combined in a number of ways to create a composite sample. Only samples with equal sampling times and width increments should be combined, and until the sampling variability of a site is determined, all samples should be analyzed individually. The lower analysis effort produced by a composite sample is balanced by the reduction in information concerning the variability of the bed load in space and time, so it is


Golder Associates

important to consider the goals of the study in choosing a composite sample method. Options include:

• Each sample individually (40 analyses);

• Composite samples from each station (20 analyses);

• Composite samples from each traverse of the transect (2 analyses); or

• Composite of all samples taken from the transect (1 analysis).

Bed Load Discharge Calculation

Where samples from different stations have not been combined, it is possible to determine the distribution of bed load across the stream. Samples should be dried and weighed after organic material has been removed (either by physical removal or ashing). The bed load discharge rate can then be determined by dividing the mass by sampling time and the width of the channel represented by the sample. The rates for individual stations should be plotted against the transect sampling position, and the resulting curve will show the distribution of bed load across the stream. The area under this curve will be equal to the total bed load discharge rate of the stream, with units of mass per unit time.

When samples from different stations have been combined, the mass of the entire sample should be divided by the stream width and sampling time to provide a value of total bed load discharge rate, again with units of mass per unit time.

When measuring natural bed load discharges, it is important to recognize that this may vary significantly with stream discharge, season of the year and sediment availability. Bed load may not vary linearly with flow velocity, as sediment of a given size is generally stable below a threshold value of shear stress, above which movement begins. Thus it may not be accurate to interpolate between two measured values on a rating curve which relates bed load and stream flow. The goals of the study should be carefully considered when choosing sampling times and interpreting the resulting data.

Particle Size Analysis

A particle size (sieve) analysis should be conducted on each individual or composite bed load sample. This will provide information about the particle size distribution, which may vary with the flow conditions or season. It may not be necessary to conduct a particle size analysis on every sample, though enough samples should be analyzed to adequately define the distribution. Particle size analysis should also consider the particle distribution of suspended sediments which may be captured by the sampler. The mesh bag size should be selected based on expected suspended and bed load characteristics, but quality control includes verifying and adjusting for particle size distribution. Other particle size


Golder Associates

analyses should be conducted on bed material and suspended sediment samples obtained from the site.

C-6 EQUIPMENT Sampling Equipment

The following is a list of the equipment recommended for sediment sampling:

• Pre-cleaned sample containers from analytical laboratory;

• Sampling equipment;

• Metal tray; and,

• Coolers and ice.

The following is a list of equipments required during winter condition:

• Ice auger;

• Snow shovel (n = 2);

• Propane heaters (n = 2);

• Propane cartridges (n = 4);

• Methanol (n = 4);

• Tripod and pulley assembly;

• Tube brush;

• Strainer; and,

• Ice fishing shack.

Field Location Equipment and Logs

The following is recommended for the complete documentation of sediment samples:

• Field record sheets;

• Maps of area for site locations;

• Indelible ink pens and felt tip markers and pencils;

• 50 metre long tape measure;

• Survey flagging tape; and,

• GPS unit.


Golder Associates

Health and Safety Equipment • Waders and waterproof gloves;

• Suitable clothing for prolonged water work: heavy socks, warm pants, rain gear, etc.;

• First aid kit; and,

• Approved personal floatation device.


Golder Associates

APPENDIX I-C-A: Helley-Smith Bed Load Sampler

This device has been in use since its development by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in the late 1960’s and (with modifications) was approved as a tentative standard by the USGS in 1985 (Boning, 1990). It is constructed of stainless steel and is available in a range of weights and sizes for a variety of applications. Lighter models are mounted on rods and may be held against the streambed by hand. These are intended for use in shallow and/or relatively quiescent streams. Deeper or higher-energy channels may require the use of a cable-suspended model. The greater weight of these samplers allows them to be held against the streambed by gravity, even in rapid, turbulent flows.

The sampler has an open nozzle, either 76 mm or 152 mm square, which faces upstream to collect bed load. No firm guidelines exist for the nozzle size, though it is recommended that it be between two and five times the size of the largest particle likely to be collected (Boning, 1990). The cross-sectional area of the stainless steel collection tube expands downstream to reduce the influence of the sampler on stream velocity. All of the Helley-Smith samplers have an expansion ratio (Adownstream/Aupstream) of 3.22. A modification of the Helley-Smith design, called the FIASP sampler, has an expansion ratio of 1.40. This design was affirmed as the USGS standard in 1988, though acceptance of data acquired using the larger expansion ratio was also recommended as only small differences relative to other potential errors were anticipated.

The downstream end of the sampler is fitted with a sediment collection bag. This is made of permeable fabric, with the choice of mesh size depending on the nature of the stream being sampled. Commonly used sizes include 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 mm, with the 0.25 mm mesh being most popular. Increasing the mesh size reduces the risk of clogging with fines or organics, but the potential loss of fine bed load must be considered. The standard bag for a 76 mm sampler has a volume of 2,190 cm3, though oversize bags of up to 6,000 cm3 have been used in applications where clogging due to fines or organic material was a concern.

A cable-suspended Helley-Smith sampler is shown in Figure C-1, and details of available models are summarized in Table C-1.


Golder Associates

Figure C-1 Helley-Smith Bed Load Sampler (Klingeman and Emmett, 1982)

Table C-1 Helley-Smith Bed Load Samplers

Model Usage Weight Orifice Expansion Ratio

8015 Hand held 1.8 kg (4 lb) 76 mm (3 inch) 3.22

8025 Hand held 11.4 kg (25 lb) 152 mm (6 inch) 3.22

8035 Cable suspended 29.5 kg (65 lb) 76 mm (3 inch) 3.22



Use of the Helley-Smith Sampler Sampling Procedure

Measurements of bed load using the Helley-Smith sampler should be made using the USGS method (Boning 1990). This method involves performing a number of point measurements across the stream and combining these to determine an estimate of total bed load. The technique, spatial distribution, duration and sequence of sampling are all specified by the USGS method.


Golder Associates

Limitations of the Helley-Smith Sampler

The characteristics of some streambeds or their bedforms may render them unsuitable for the use of the Helley-Smith bed load sampler. These include the following physical conditions:

• Bed material to soft to support the sampler and prevent it from sinking into the streambed;

• Stream velocity is too high to allow the sampler to sit on the streambed;

• Irregular bed material composition interferes with good fit of sampler to the streambed;

• Bed form or composition enhances potential for scooping of bed material during retrieval (in general, if dunes with length/height < 20 or if D50 < 1.5 mm and significant portions of coarse material are not present);

• Median diameter of bed material, D50 < 1.0 mm (unless D10 > 0.25 mm);

• D50 of bed material subject to movement > 8 mm (unless D90 < 32 mm) (76 mm sampler only); or

• Organic debris transport is significant enough to clog the sampling bag.

APPENDIX II-D

STREAM MAPPING

Appendix IID - 1 August 2008 Stream Mapping

Golder Associates

D-1 PURPOSE

This technical procedure details the stream mapping system for a watercourse. It is recommended that these steps be included in a detailed geomorphic stream survey.

D-2 APPLICABILITY

This technical procedure is for stream-mapping of small to medium sized streams.

D-3 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions and/or descriptions are directly or indirectly related to stream mapping:

Backwater: A backwater section in a stream is a localized area of variable size exhibiting reverse flow direction. This is generally produced by bank irregularities, and the velocities are variable but generally lower than main flow. Substrate in a backwater is similar to adjacent stream reach with higher percentage of fines.

Bankfull Channel Width: The horizontal distance along a transect line from stream bank to stream bank (e.g., where rooted vegetation is present on one bank to where rooted vegetation is present on the opposite bank) at the normal high water marks measured at right angles to the direction of flow.

Bank Stability: The stability of banks is the capability of a watercourse to maintain stable banks with minimal erosion and shedding of bank material or vegetation into the watercourse. Stability is dependent on factors such as bank slope, bank material, evidence of seepages, undercutting, erosion and slumping.

Bank(s): Banks are components of a watercourse. They comprise the borders of the stream channel and form the typical boundaries of a channel. Banks are only in contact with the water during high flow or flood events. They typically have rooted vegetation to distinguish them from the normally active channel.

Beaver Dam: A beaver dam is a barrier of wooden and other organic debris constructed by beavers across a slow moving stream to form a pond behind the dam for habitat.

Cascade: A cascade is a series of stream sections with high gradient and velocity. A cascade may have short vertical sections, with armoured substrate. Flow in a cascade is extremely turbulent with entire water surface broken.


Golder Associates

Channel Form: Channel form refers to the cross-sectional shape of the channel as defined by the width-to-depth ratio of the channel. Channel form will range from deeply incised (low width-to-depth ratio) to broad (high width-to-depth ratio).

Channel Unit: Channel units are the hydraulic and morphological features of a stream channel. A channel unit is a section of channel which is homogeneous with respect to water depth and velocity, and is separated from other channel units by gradients in these parameters. The most common channel units are pool, riffle and run.

Channel: A channel is the main component of a watercourse, with the area that typically has flowing water, on at least a seasonal basis, and is usually defined by the area of the stream substrate. A channel is distinguishable from banks since it has contact with flowing water for at least a portion of each season which usually prevents establishment of permanent vegetation.

Chute: A chute is an area of stream constriction, usually due to bedrock intrusions. A chute section is associated with channel deepening and increased velocity.

Fall: A fall is a stream section with high water velocity falling over a vertical drop.

Flat: A flat is a stream section characterized by very low gradient, low velocity and near-laminar flow. A flat is differentiated from pool by high channel uniformity and lack of scour.

Impoundment Pool: An impoundment pool is an area that is formed behind dams. Such pools tend to accumulate sediment/organic debris more than scour pools.

Ledge: A ledge is an area of bedrock intrusion into the stream, often associated with chute or plunge pool.

Pool: A pool is a stretch of a stream in which the water depth is above average and the stream velocity is quite low. A stream pool may be bedded in sediment or armored with gravels; in some cases the pool formations may have been formed as basins in bedrock materials.

Rapids: Rapids are sections with extremely high velocity. Rapids are deeper than riffle, and carry extremely coarse (large cobble/boulder) substrate.

Riffle: A riffle (also known as a swift) is a shallow stretch of a stream, where the current is above the average stream velocity and where the water forms small


Golder Associates

rippled waves as a result. Riffles are formed with broken surface due to submerged/exposed bed material, and they often consist of coarse substrate.

Run: A run in a stream is a section deeper than riffles and shallower than pools. Stream velocity and bed material type varies within this channel unit.

Shoal: A shoal is a landform within or extending into a stream, composed of sand, silt or small pebbles. Alternatively termed sandbar or sandbank, a bar is characteristically long and narrow (linear) and develops where a stream promotes deposition of granular material.

Slough: A slough is a non-flowing waterbody isolated from flowing waters except during flood events.

Snye: A snye is a discrete section of non-flowing water connected to a flowing channel only at its downstream end, generally formed in a side channel or behind a peninsula.

Stream Confinement: Stream confinement refers to the confinement of the watercourse within the boundaries of the floodplain. It is the degree to which the lateral movement of the stream channel is limited by terraces or valley walls.

Stream Gradient: The slope of the streambed over which the stream runs. Some stream characteristics are directly related to the gradient. Examples include average velocity, substrate coarseness, and presence and extent of various channel units.

Stream Map: A stream map is a sketch or map showing the alignment of a watercourse or watercourses, boundaries of water bodies and the extent of associated hydrologic and terrestrial features (e.g., floodplain vegetation and configuration)

Stream Pattern: Stream pattern describes the sinuosity of the stream or the degree to which the stream deviates from straightness. Sinuosity is the stream meander pattern which can range from straight to tortuously meandering.

Substrate: Stream substrate is the material found on the bottom of the channel portion of the watercourse. It refers to the surficial deposits that can be seen when viewing the streambed. The substrate is evaluated with respect to particle size composition, which can range from fine sediments through gravels, cobbles, boulders and bedrock. A substrate evaluation, during stream mapping, is conducted by visual observation or by collected a substrate sample based on a


Golder Associates

technical procedure (e.g., Appendix I-C). The observer estimates the percentage of the substrate particles, by surface area, in each of the size categories.

Top of Bank: Where the stream channel meets the floodplain on a river bank.

Undercut Bank: An undercut bank is an eroded section of the bank at the base by flowing water, allowing water to be present underneath a portion of the bank.

Watercourse: A natural or artificial waterway which periodically or continuously contains moving water. It has a definite channel and banks, which normally confine water and displays evidence of fluvial processes.

Wetted Width: The width of the water surface measured at right angles to the direction of flow.

D-4 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING

Golder Associates Ltd. 2005. Technical Procedure TP-8.5-1: Watercourse Habitat mapping System. Aquatics Division, Golder Associates Ltd. Calgary.

For bed sediment sampling:


Schmidt, N and M. Bender. 1998. Golder Bed Load Sampling. Water Resources Engineering Group. Golder Associates Ltd., Calgary. r:\active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 nserc\final reporting\final report\main report\final report_alluvial channels_dec 08_05-1326-031.doc

D-5 DISCUSSION

A Stream Map can be prepared on a base map showing the survey stream reach using an aerial photo, a NTS map, or other previous survey information. It is preferable to develop this base map prior to the survey (i.e. at the office), however, in the absence of adequate information, previous surveys or air photos, it can be developed during the stream mapping task itself.

A Stream Map may include, but is not limited to, the following features relevant to the morphology of stream:

• Channel plan-form along the length of the reach should be drawn;


Golder Associates

• Width of floodplain, or offsets to the boundaries of the floodplain from the stream should be noted;

• Bank slopes and approach slopes should be recorded;

• Tributary confluences, including the tributary flow and wetted widths should be recorded;

• Type, density and location of vegetation on floodplain, banks and stream bed should be recorded:

o Overhanging vegetation should be classified into trees, shrubs and grass;

o Inundated vegetation should be classified into inundated terrestrial vegetation, emergent vegetation and submergent vegetation; and,

o Species or genus of vegetation should be recorded where possible. • Location and approximate size of riffles, runs, shoals, pools, backwater,

rapids, snye and sloughs should be recorded;

o Bed and bank substrates, at the locations of these features, should be classified into gravel, sand, silt and clay; and,

o Stream discharge/velocity, at the locations of these features, should be classified into low, medium or high; where possible approximate field methods (example: using a float and a stop watch to determine the time taken for the float to travel over a specified distance) should be used to determine flow velocity and discharge.

• Qualitative assessment of bed and bank material, and any changes along the length of the stream reach should be noted;

• Location, length, and the present condition (intact or breached) of beaver dams should be noted ;

• Locations of significant debris, collapsed banks, eroded banks and undercutting banks in the stream should be noted;

• Locations of surveyed cross-sections should be recorded; and

• Locations where discharge measurement are taken should be recorded.

Features shown on a stream map should also be documented in a field note book, and supported by appropriate site photographs (e.g., Appendix V).

The Stream Map should be drawn by using appropriate symbols to show specific features, and a legend should be provided in the map to explain these symbols.

Other pertinent information that is to be provided in a stream map includes the following:

• Date;

• Personnel;


Golder Associates

• Project/Phase/Task numbers;

• Stream name or watershed (i.e., unnamed tributary to);

• Site Identifier: name/number;

• Site Location - general description;

• UTM coordinates of upstream and downstream boundaries of mapped section;

• (with NAD and Zone);

• 1:50,000 NTS map reference (e.g., 74 E/6);

• Length of watercourse mapped (m);

o Use hip-chain for small watercourses or measure off of map for larger streams ; and,

o Record length of each channel unit. • Discharge – watercourse discharge at the time of the mapping or general

rating of stage/flow as low, moderate, high;

• North arrow; and,

• Map scale or label as “schematic only – not to scale”.

APPENDIX III

OSR FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC DATABASE

(OSR Fluvial Geomorphic Database is available on request from Golder Associates.)

APPENDIX IV

FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC DATA SUMMARY SHEETS

(One summary sheet is provided as an example. Summary sheets for the other surveyed stream reaches are available on request from Golder Associates.)

-1-

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix IV - Reach 3, 2005.doc

SITE LOCATION

Stream Reach 3, Wapasu Creek UTM (NAD 83) 6355962 m North 490263 m East

Date and Time of Visit 30 August 2005 11:30 (Discharge Measurement)

STREAM CHARACTERISTICS Basin Area 81.7 km2 Channel Slope 0.00124 m/m Channel Mean Bankfull Depth1 0.71 m Channel Maximum Bankfull Depth1 1.09 m Channel Bankfull Width1 5.58 m Sinuosity 1.30 Measured Discharge 1.01 m3/s Estimated Mean Annual Discharge 0.266 m3/s Estimated Bankfull Discharge (2-year peak flow) 3.04 m3/s

1 Calculated using the average of measured values at all cross-sections.

BED MATERIAL2

PARTICLE SIZE (mm) D16 0.19 D35 0.29 D50 0.40 D65 0.56 D84 16.0 D90 21.0

2 Percentage of finer particles (clay and silt) is 1.10.

Reach 3, Wapasu Creek Reach 3 is approximately 51 m long and it is located roughly 10 km upstream from its confluence with the Muskeg River. The channel reach is in a lowland area characterized by glaciolfluvial surficial geology. The floodplain is relatively broad and has a channel slope of 0.12 %. The floodplain is vegetated with dense mixed forest and tall grasses. The shrubs and tall grasses grow adjacent to the banks and within the channel itself in some instances. The tree line is some distance away from the channel top of bank. The channel has a low sinuosity of 1.30 which shows that it is almost a straight channel. The reach has a mean bankfull depth of 0.71 m and an average bankfull width of 5.58 m. The channel bed material is mostly fine sand with some silt and fine gravel; there is also a small amount of aquatic vegetation within the reach. The reach channel bank material was observed to be sand with dense vegetation, mostly tall grasses and shrubs showing very little erosion. The reach has a bankfull width-to-bankfull depth ratio of 7.86. At the time of the survey, the reach had an average maximum water depth of 0.92 m, an average wetted width of 5.0 m and a measured discharge of 1.01 m3/s.

Flow Direction

Cross Section 2 - Ground View Looking Upstream Cross Section 2 - Ground View Looking Downstream


Figure 1 – Reach 3, Wapasu Creek

Cross Section 2

323

324

325

326

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Station (m)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Cross Section

Water Level

BankfullTop of Bank

Cross Section 1 (Upstream)

323

324

325

326

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Station (m)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Cross Section

Water Level

BankfullTop of Bank

Cross Section 3 (Downstream)

323

324

325

326

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Station (m)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Cross Section

Water Level

Bankfull

Top of bank


APPENDIX V

FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC FIELD SURVEY DATA

(One set of the field survey data is provided as an example. Field survey data for the other surveyed stream reaches are available on request from Golder Associates.)

Date: 30-Aug-05Crew: Darin Meyers (DM), Alana Smiarowski (AS)Weather: Sunny, Partly cloudy, Chance of rain, 9°CPurpose: Geomorphic Survey of Reach 3, Wapasu CreekNotes:1 Location Reach 3, Wapasu Creek, E490329 N63559242 Access Road, Canterra Road3 Discharge Both a basic and detailed were preformed at the same location, E490263 N63559624 Bed Sample Soil grab taken at E490263 N6355962, which was the same location as the discharge5 Mapping Done showing sinuosity, vegetation, and debris in water6 # C/S 3 cross sections were measured7 Additional Notes Survey was done DS of bridge crossing Canterra Rd.

Lots of vegetation adjacent to creekMaterial is mostly large rocks with sand on edges

8 PhotosCross Section 3 P11, P12 looking US

P13, P14 looking DSP15 LDBP16 RDB

Cross Section 2 P17, P18 looking USP19, P20 looking DSP21 LDBP22 RDB

Cross Section 1 P23, P24 looking USP25, P26 looking DSP27 LDBP28 RDBOther

Other P29, P30 Small outletP31, P32 US from bridgeP33, P34 DS from bridge

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsNotes Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

Water Surface Profile Data Reach 3, Wapasu Creek WL Water Surface Slope (m/m): 0.0012

Point Northing Easting Elevation Code Point Northing Easting ElevationDistance from u/s

(m) (m) (masl) (m) (m) (masl) (m)Cross Section 1 (CS1) 6,355,924 490,330 325.032 WL CS3 6,355,954 490,313 325.121 0.00

900 6,355,957 490,315 325.098 2.98Cross Section 2 (CS2) 6,355,938 490,320 325.086 WL 901 6,355,957 490,318 325.106 5.91

902 6,355,957 490,321 325.088 9.29Cross Section 3 (CS3) 6,355,954 490,313 325.121 WL 903 6,355,955 490,324 325.093 12.88

904 6,355,949 490,326 325.104 19.05900 6,355,957 490,315 325.098 next to u/s 905 6,355,946 490,324 325.082 21.93901 6,355,957 490,318 325.106 0 906 6,355,942 490,319 325.071 29.08902 6,355,957 490,321 325.088 0 907 6,355,940 490,320 325.077 31.41903 6,355,955 490,324 325.093 0 CS2 6,355,938 490,320 325.086 33.41904 6,355,949 490,326 325.104 0 930 6,355,936 490,321 325.066 35.42905 6,355,946 490,324 325.082 0 931 6,355,933 490,323 325.074 38.80906 6,355,942 490,319 325.071 0 932 6,355,932 490,324 325.071 40.21907 6,355,940 490,320 325.077 0 933 6,355,931 490,326 325.054 42.54930 6,355,936 490,321 325.066 0 934 6,355,930 490,326 325.086 43.51931 6,355,933 490,323 325.074 0 935 6,355,926 490,327 325.032 47.19932 6,355,932 490,324 325.071 0 CS1 6,355,924 490,330 325.032 50.78933 6,355,931 490,326 325.054 0934 6,355,930 490,326 325.086 0935 6,355,926 490,327 325.032 next to d/s

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsPlanData Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

Left side water edge

Reach 3, Wapasu Creek - Plan View

6,355,910

6,355,915

6,355,920

6,355,925

6,355,930

6,355,935

6,355,940

6,355,945

6,355,950

6,355,955

6,355,960

6,355,965

490,307 490,312 490,317 490,322 490,327 490,332

Easting (m)

Nor

thin

g (m

)

Cross section 1

Cross section 2

Cross section 3

Left side water edge

Flow

* Discharge recorded at cross section 1

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsPlanPlot Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

Reach 3, Wapasu Creek - Water Surface Profile

y = -0.0012x + 325.1127R2 = 0.7171

325.02

325.03

325.04

325.05

325.06

325.07

325.08

325.09

325.10

325.11

325.12

325.13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Distance from Upstream Cross Section (m)

Wat

er S

urfa

ce E

leva

tion

(mas

l)

Surveyed Water LevelSurveyed Water Surface Profile

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsPlanPlot Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

Cross Section 1 Survey Data Reach 3, Wapasu Creek Typical Elevations

Point Northing Easting Elevation Code StationWater depth

Bankfull depth Station Elevation

(m) (m) (masl) (m) (m) (m) (m) (masl)100 6,355,926 490,331 325.20 0.00 Top of bank101 6,355,925 490,330 325.09 0.85 TL 1.68 325.11102 6,355,924 490,330 325.11 TL 1.68 TR 8.21 325.45103 6,355,924 490,329 325.14 BL 2.33 0.03 Bankfull104 6,355,924 490,330 325.05 WL 2.56 0.00 0.12 BL 2.33 325.14105 6,355,923 490,329 324.61 2.85 0.44 0.56 BR 7.80 325.21106 6,355,923 490,329 324.68 3.30 0.37 0.50 Mean bankfull elevation 325.18107 6,355,923 490,329 324.58 3.72 0.47 0.60 Water surface 325.03 325.03108 6,355,922 490,329 324.45 4.25 0.60 0.73 WL 2.56 325.05109 6,355,922 490,329 324.44 4.78 0.61 0.73 WR 7.68 325.01110 6,355,921 490,328 324.38 5.17 0.67 0.80 WL-WR 0.038111 6,355,921 490,328 324.47 5.67 0.59 0.71112 6,355,921 490,328 324.29 6.01 0.76 0.88 Mean bankfull depth (m): 0.526113 6,355,920 490,328 324.29 6.32 0.76 0.89 Maximum bankfull depth (m): 0.886114 6,355,920 490,328 324.30 6.89 0.75 0.87 Bankfull width (m): 5.473115 6,355,919 490,327 324.85 7.58 0.21 0.33116 6,355,919 490,327 325.01 WR 7.68 0.04 0.16117 6,355,919 490,327 325.21 BR 7.80 -0.04118 6,355,919 490,327 325.45 TR 8.21119 6,355,918 490,327 325.44 9.21120 6,355,917 490,327 325.50 10.21

Notes:TL - Top of left bank facing downstreamTR - Top of right bank facing downstreamBL - Channel bankfull left bank locationBR - Channel bankfull right bank locationWL - Water level at left bankWR - Water level at right bank

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsXsec1 Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

Reach 3, Wapasu Creek Cross Section 1

Reach 3, Wapasu Creek - Cross Section 1

323.0

324.0

325.0

326.0

327.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Station (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

asl)

Cross sectionWater surfaceBankfullTop of bank





(m) (m) (masl) (m) (m) (m) (m) (masl)200 6,355,940 490,323 325.51 0.00 Top of bank201 6,355,939 490,322 325.33 1.08 TL 3.05 325.23202 6,355,938 490,321 325.23 TL 3.05 TR 9.99 325.49203 6,355,938 490,320 325.22 BL 3.78 0.03 Bankfull204 6,355,938 490,320 325.09 WL 4.16 0.00 0.16 BL 3.78 325.22

Water depth measurement: 324.90 4.46 0.19 0.36 BR 9.36 325.29Station increment (m): 0.3 324.51 4.76 0.58 0.75 Mean bankfull elevation 325.25

324.37 5.06 0.73 0.89 Water surface 325.09 325.09324.21 5.36 0.88 1.05 WL 4.16 325.09324.15 5.66 0.94 1.11 WR 9.14 325.08324.09 5.96 1.01 1.17 WL-WR 0.011324.11 6.26 0.99 1.15324.09 6.56 1.01 1.17 Mean bankfull depth (m): 0.887324.07 6.86 1.02 1.19 Maximum bankfull depth (m): 1.366324.03 7.16 1.07 1.23 Bankfull width (m): 5.576323.89 7.46 1.20 1.37324.00 7.76 1.09 1.26324.03 8.06 1.07 1.23324.71 8.36 0.38 0.55324.77 8.66 0.32 0.49

205 6,355,936 490,315 325.08 WR 9.14 0.01 0.17206 6,355,936 490,315 325.29 BR 9.36 -0.04207 6,355,936 490,315 325.49 TR 9.99208 6,355,936 490,314 325.45 10.59209 6,355,936 490,312 325.47 12.10210 6,355,936 490,311 325.54 13.54




323.0

324.0

325.0

326.0

327.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Station (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

asl)






(m) (m) (masl) (m) (m) (m) (m) (masl)300 6,355,960 490,314 325.42 0.00 Top of bank301 6,355,959 490,314 325.42 1.20 TL 3.07 325.55302 6,355,958 490,314 325.41 2.21 TR 12.02 325.50303 6,355,957 490,313 325.55 TL 3.07 Bankfull304 6,355,956 490,313 325.51 4.24 BL 5.64 325.38305 6,355,955 490,313 325.53 5.25 BR 11.33 325.26306 6,355,954 490,313 325.38 BL 5.64 -0.06 Mean bankfull elevation 325.32307 6,355,954 490,313 325.10 WL 5.88 0.00 0.22 Water surface 325.12 325.12308 6,355,954 490,313 324.70 6.03 0.40 0.62 WL 5.88 325.10309 6,355,954 490,313 324.45 6.47 0.65 0.87 WR 10.76 325.14310 6,355,953 490,313 324.38 6.83 0.73 0.94 WL-WR -0.037311 6,355,953 490,314 324.34 7.20 0.76 0.98312 6,355,953 490,314 324.31 7.54 0.79 1.01 Mean bankfull depth (m): 0.717313 6,355,952 490,314 324.37 7.92 0.73 0.95 Maximum bankfull depth (m): 1.021314 6,355,952 490,314 324.35 8.26 0.75 0.97 Bankfull width (m): 5.688315 6,355,952 490,314 324.30 8.82 0.80 1.02316 6,355,951 490,314 324.30 9.24 0.80 1.02317 6,355,951 490,314 324.31 9.50 0.79 1.01318 6,355,951 490,314 324.33 9.88 0.77 0.99319 6,355,950 490,315 324.37 10.11 0.73 0.95320 6,355,950 490,315 324.86 10.20 0.24 0.46321 6,355,950 490,315 325.14 WR 10.76 -0.04 0.18322 6,355,949 490,315 325.26 BR 11.33 0.06323 6,355,949 490,315 325.50 TR 12.02324 6,355,948 490,315 325.61 12.67325 6,355,947 490,315 325.60 13.33




323.0

324.0

325.0

326.0

327.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Station (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

asl)



Discharge Measurement

STREAM NAME: Reach 3, Wapasu Creek MEASUREMENT DATE: 30 August 2005SITE NO: 3 METER NUMBER: Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate 2000COORDINATES: N6355924 E490329 MEASUREMENT START TIME: 0930 hr. MEASUREMENT BY: DM & AS MEASUREMENT END TIME: 1035 hr.COMPUTATIONS BY: DM

Basic Discharge Measurement Data and Results Detailed Measurement Results

Station Distance from Left BankIce

Thickness Depth Velocity Width Discharge Average Velocity Discharge0.2 Depth 0.8 Depth 0.6 Depth

(m) (m) (m) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m) (m³/s) (m/s) (m³/s)Left Bank 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.000 0.000

1 1.80 0.19 0.03 0.30 0.002 0.0022 2.10 0.58 0.00 0.30 0.000 0.0003 2.40 0.72 0.07 0.07 0.30 0.015 0.097 0.0214 2.70 0.88 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.045 0.178 0.0475 3.00 0.94 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.066 0.226 0.0646 3.30 1.00 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.093 0.289 0.0877 3.60 0.98 0.31 0.32 0.30 0.093 0.322 0.0958 3.90 1.00 0.31 0.32 0.30 0.095 0.306 0.0929 4.20 1.02 0.28 0.39 0.30 0.103 0.339 0.10410 4.50 1.06 0.31 0.36 0.30 0.107 0.381 0.12111 4.80 1.20 0.45 0.42 0.30 0.157 0.466 0.16812 5.10 1.09 0.24 0.22 0.30 0.075 0.248 0.08113 5.40 1.06 0.35 0.27 0.30 0.099 0.179 0.05714 5.70 0.38 0.40 0.30 0.046 0.04615 6.00 0.32 0.25 0.30 0.024 0.024

Right Bank 6.30 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.000 0.000Sum 1.017 1.007

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsDischarge Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

Discharge Measurement

STREAM NAME: Reach 3, Wapasu Creek MEASUREMENT DATE: 30 August 2005SITE NO: 3 METER NUMBER: Marsh-McBirney Flo-Mate 2000COORDINATES: N6355924 E490329 MEASUREMENT START TIME: 0930 hr. MEASUREMENT BY: DM & AS MEASUREMENT END TIME: 1035 hr.COMPUTATIONS BY: DM

2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.7Velocity at Different Depth from Water Surface (m/s)

0.1 0.05 0.1 0.12 0.2 0.17 0.25 0.29 0.31 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.390.2 0.08 0.25 0.17 0.3 0.39 0.34 0.38 0.41 0.36 0.17 0.15 0.420.3 0.11 0.28 0.25 0.33 0.39 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.44 0.2 0.08 0.420.4 0.11 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.41 0.32 0.42 0.51 0.51 0.19 0.020.5 0.15 0.19 0.28 0.3 0.4 0.41 0.33 0.48 0.58 0.25 0.080.6 0.11 0.16 0.2 0.35 0.4 0.36 0.39 0.34 0.54 0.3 0.320.7 0.07 0.1 0.3 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.44 0.280.8 0.12 0.25 0.37 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.51 0.360.9 0.2 0.28 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.55 0.24 0.211 0.13 0.21 0.29 0.31 0.47 0.11 0.21

1.1 0.521.2 0.52

Water Depth (m) 0.72 0.88 0.94 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.20 1.09 1.06 0.38Average velocity (m/s) 0.10 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.38 0.47 0.25 0.18 0.41

Station (m)Point Depth (m)

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsDetailed Discharge Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

Project No.: 05-1326-031 Lab No.: 619506Project Title:Location:Depth: - Sample No.: -Date Tested: 03-Oct-05 By: VK

Diameter of Percent Sieve Passing(mm) (%)

150.000 100.075.000 100.037.500 100.020.000 89.410.000 79.85.000 78.42.000 77.80.850 76.80.425 53.50.150 3.60.075 1.1

Comments/Limits:

Reach 3, Wapasu CreekCONRAD Geomorphic Study

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOIL (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grain Size (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

Tha

n

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

Boulder Size

Cobble Size Gravel Sand Silt and Clay

3" 1-1/2" 3/4" 4 1012" 20 100 20040

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine

US Sieve Size

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsSed Sample Graph Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

GOLDER ASSOCIATES Ltd.CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SIEVE ANALYSISProject No. 05-1326-031 Title CONRAD Geomorphic Study Location Reach 3, Wapasu CreekDate 03-Oct-05 Ft. McMurray Sample -Lab No. 619506 Tech: VK Depth -

1st SIEVING 2nd SIEVING -5 mm Wash Sieving 1/4 Pass 5 mmWeight before sieving Weight before sieving Weight before wash 725.09Total weight 725.09 1/4 Pass 5mm 725.09 Weight after wash 718.52

Minus 80 mm 7.60 Residual Minus 80 mm 1.03

Metric Weight % Retained Weight % Retained % Retained Diameter % PassingSieve Retained Retained of Total (mm)

150.00 mm 0.00 0.00 0.0 150.00 100.080.00 mm 0.00 0.00 0.0 75.00 100.040.00 mm 0.00 0.00 0.0 37.50 100.020.00 mm 76.59 10.56 10.56 20.00 89.410.00 mm 69.64 9.60 9.60 10.00 79.84.75 mm 10.23 1.41 1.41 5.00 78.42.00 mm 4.67 0.64 0.64 2.00 77.8850 mm 7.39 1.02 1.02 0.85 76.8425 mm 168.50 23.24 23.24 0.425 53.5150 mm 361.79 49.90 49.90 0.150 3.675 mm 18.65 2.57 2.57 0.075 1.1

REMARKS :

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix V - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xlsSed Sample Worksheet Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:40 PM

APPENDIX VI

RESULTS OF HEC-RAS ANALYSIS FOR CHANNEL ROUGHNESS

(One set of the field survey data is provided as an example. Field survey data for the other surveyed stream reaches are available on request from Golder Associates.)

Reach 3, Wapasu Creek

y = -0.00124x + 325.11268R2 = 0.71709

325.02

325.03

325.04

325.05

325.06

325.07

325.08

325.09

325.10

325.11

325.12

325.13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance from Upstream Cross-Section (m)

Wat

er S

urfa

ce E

leva

tion

(mas

l)

Surveyed Water LevelSimulated Water Surface ProfileSurveyed Water Surface Slope

R:\Active\_2005\1326\05-1326-031 NSERC\Final Reporting\For Printing\Appendix VI - Reach 3, Wapasu Creek.xls2005 Golder Associates 22/08/2008/2:45 PM

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project - alberta.ca · CFOP conceptual fisheries offsetting plan CIA...

Documents

Transcript of Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project - alberta.ca · CFOP conceptual fisheries offsetting plan CIA...