vol 2 section 8 surface water quality - alberta · (figure 8.2-1) and the aquatic regional study...

Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis In Situ Project Volume 2 – Environmental Impact Assessment February 2018

Table of Contents – Page i

SECTION 8.0 – SURFACE WATER QUALITY TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

8.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2.1 Spatial Boundaries .............................................................................. 8-1 8.2.2 Temporal Boundaries .......................................................................... 8-1

8.3 Assessment Approach ....................................................................................... 8-5 8.3.1 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................ 8-5 8.3.2 Issues .................................................................................................. 8-5 8.3.3 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................ 8-6 8.3.4 Constraints Planning ........................................................................... 8-7

8.4 Methods .............................................................................................................. 8-7 8.4.1 Review of Historical Information .......................................................... 8-7 8.4.2 Parameter Selection ............................................................................ 8-7 8.4.3 Field Surveys ..................................................................................... 8-11 8.4.4 Acid Sensitivity of Waterbodies ......................................................... 8-14 8.4.5 Acid Deposition to Waterbodies ........................................................ 8-17

8.5 Baseline Case .................................................................................................. 8-18 8.5.1 Upper Steepbank River Catchment ................................................... 8-19 8.5.2 Lower Steepbank River Catchment ................................................... 8-22 8.5.3 Jackpine Creek Catchment ............................................................... 8-24 8.5.4 North Steepbank River Catchment .................................................... 8-26 8.5.5 Aquatic Regional Study Area ............................................................. 8-34 8.5.6 Acid Sensitivity of Lakes .................................................................... 8-49 8.5.7 Acid Deposition in Lakes ................................................................... 8-50

8.6 Application Case .............................................................................................. 8-51 8.6.1 Mitigation ........................................................................................... 8-51 8.6.2 Project Specific Effects to Surface Water Quality .............................. 8-51

8.7 Planned Development Case ............................................................................. 8-59 8.7.1 Acidification ....................................................................................... 8-59

8.8 Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 8-61 8.9 Summary .......................................................................................................... 8-61 8.10 References ....................................................................................................... 8-63


Table of Contents – Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

PAGE LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.3-1: Potential Project-Related Effects on Surface Water Quality ............................... 8-6 Table 8.4-1: Description of Historical Baseline Water Quality Sites ....................................... 8-8 Table 8.4-2: Water Quality Parameters Analyzed in the Baseline Assessment ................... 8-10 Table 8.4-3: Sediment Quality Parameters Analyzed in the Baseline Assessment .............. 8-11 Table 8.4-4: Description of Baseline Water Quality Sites Sampled during the Field

Survey .............................................................................................................. 8-12 Table 8.4-5: Summary of the Field Monitoring Program ....................................................... 8-13 Table 8.4-6: Waterbodies Assessed for Acid Sensitivity and Acid Depositions .................... 8-16 Table 8.4-7: Acid Sensitivity Ratings Based on Saffran and Trew (1996) ............................ 8-16 Table 8.5-1: Acid Sensitivity Rating Results Based on Saffran and Trew (1996) ................. 8-49 Table 8.5-2: Percent Acid Sensitivity Ratings for the Lakes in the Air Quality Regional

Study Area ........................................................................................................ 8-50 Table 8.6-1: Potential Project-Specific Effects and Mitigation .............................................. 8-52 Table 8.6-2: Acid Deposition Results for the Baseline and Application Cases ..................... 8-58 Table 8.7-1: Acid Deposition Results for the Baseline, Application and Planned

Development Cases ......................................................................................... 8-60 Table 8.9-1: Application Case Effects Summary .................................................................. 8-62 Table 8.9-2: Planned Development Case Effects Summary ................................................ 8-63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8.2-1: Aquatic Local Study Area ................................................................................... 8-2 Figure 8.2-2: Aquatic Regional Study Area ............................................................................. 8-3 Figure 8.4-1: Regional Waterbody Acid Sensitivity Study...................................................... 8-15


Page 8-1

8.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY

8.1 Introduction

The proposed Lewis In Situ Project (Lewis Project) includes activities that could affect surface water quality in the local and regional study areas. This section describes existing surface water quality of watercourses and waterbodies in and around the Lewis Project Area based on historical data and data obtained specifically for the Lewis Project. These data form the foundation for the following evaluation of potential effects on surface water quality from the construction, operation and reclamation of the Lewis Project.

8.2 Study Area

8.2.1 Spatial Boundaries

The Lewis Project is located approximately 25 km northeast of Fort McMurray, north of the Steepbank River and south of the East Athabasca Highway. The Lewis Project Area is located in Townships 91 and 92 and Ranges 6, 7 and 8 West of the 4th Meridian.

The Lewis Project Area is primarily in the Steepbank River Watershed; however, the northwest corner extends into the Muskeg River Watershed. Both of these watersheds are subsections of the Athabasca River Watershed. The delineation of the Aquatic Local Study Area (ALSA) (Figure 8.2-1) and the Aquatic Regional Study Area (ARSA) (Figure 8.2-2) were based on these watershed boundaries and their relation to the Lewis Project Area.

The Air Quality Regional Study Area (AQRSA) was used to evaluate the effects of emissions from activities related to the Lewis Project on lake acidification (Volume 2, Figure 4.2-1).

The ALSA encompasses the entire Steepbank River Watershed, which includes the Steepbank River and the North Steepbank River. These two rivers form a confluence just south of the Lewis Project Area and then flow northwest to the Athabasca River (Figure 8.2-1).

The northwest corner of the Project Area and the ALSA includes the headwaters of Jackpine Creek, which is part of the headwaters for the Muskeg River Watershed.

The ARSA includes the ALSA and the entire Muskeg River Watershed. The Muskeg River Watershed includes numerous creeks (e.g., Jackpine, East Jackpine, Green Stockings, Iyinimin and Wapasu creeks), Kearl Lake and other small unnamed lakes (Figure 8.2-2).

8.2.2 Temporal Boundaries

The Lewis Project will have overlapping construction, operation and reclamation activities. Lewis Project effects are examined using a maximum disturbance approach that assumes all development will occur at the same time over the entire footprint, representing a full development assessment (Volume 2, Section 3.4).

Ea st Atha b a sc a Highwa y

Athab

asca

Rive

rFort

Mckay 174C

Jackpine Creek

East Creek

Jackpine

North

Stee

pban

k Rive

r

Steepbank River

Fort McMurray

Clearwater

Muskeg

River

Kearl Lake

Clarke Creek

River

Donald Creek

Iynimin Creek

STR-3

STR-2

NSR-1

ST WSC

NST-03 NST-02Lake 2

Lake 1

NSB-01

HAC-01

Husky 6

Lake270

Lake 268

NSRiv-01

STBRIFF 7

STBRIFF 10

JAC-2 &JAC-D2

480000 500000 520000

6300000

6320000

6340000

R4R5R6R7R8R9

T89

T90

T91

T92

T93

T94

T95

T96

3 0 3 6

Kilo m etres1:300,000

S:\Gis\Projects\CE\Suncor_Lewis\CE04536_EIA\ArcGIS\_Report Figures\Vol 2 Sec 08 - Water Quality\Fig 08.02-01 ALSA Sites.mxd ANALYST: jackie.hoglund 18-01-22 10:37:24 AM

Figure 8.2-1

Fina l Ma pping: Co m pleted b y Am ec Fo ster WheelerP ro jec tio n: UTM Zo ne 12 NAD83QA/QC: KW AR MJSo urc es: AB TP R, Centre fo r Ca d a stra l Ma na gem ent, Geo m a tics Ca na d a .- Co nta ins info rm a tio n lic ensed und er the Open Go vernm ent lic enc e – Alb erta ,Ca na d a .

Aqua tic LSALewis P ro jec t AreaOpera ting a nd Appro vedOil Sa nd s Develo pm entBa seline Disturb a nc eCo m m unityInd ia n ReserveHo rse River Wild fireWa terb o d yWa terc o urse - Defined Cha nnelWa terc o urse - Und efined Cha nnelDitc hRo a d

CatchmentJa c kpine CreekLo wer Steepb a nk RiverNo rth Steepb a nk RiverUpper Steepb a nk River

Surface Water QualitySa m ple Lo c a tio n

January2018

Aquatic LocalStudy Area

W4

LewisProject

McClelland Lake


63

Athab

asca

Rive

r

Fort Mckay 174C

Fort Mckay 174D

Fort Mckay

174

Fort MacKay

Firebag River

Jackpine Creek

East CreekJackpine

North

Stee

pban

k Rive

r

Steepbank River

Fort McMurray

Clearwater

Muskeg R

iver

La Saline Natural Area

Kearl Lake

Clarke Creek

CreekMiller

River

MU6

MU4

MU1

WA-1

WAC-1

KEL-1

TR3.1

TR3.2

HAC-02

MU5

MUR-1& MU0

STR-1 & ST1

BlackflyCreek

WesukeminaCreek

East Jackpine Creek

GreenStockings

Creek

JAC-1, JAC-D1, & JA1

MUR-D3

MUR-D2

MUR-1B

460000 480000 500000 520000

6300000

6320000

6340000

6360000

R4R5R6R7R8R9R10R11

T89

T90

T91

T92

T93

T94

T95

T96

T97

T98

4 0 4 8


S:\Gis\Projects\CE\Suncor_Lewis\CE04536_EIA\ArcGIS\_Report Figures\Vol 2 Sec 08 - Water Quality\Fig 08.02-02 ARSA Sites.mxd ANALYST: jackie.hoglund 18-01-22 10:38:35 AM

Figure 8.2-2

Fina l Ma pping: Co m pleted b y Am ec Fo ster WheelerP ro jec tio n: UTM Zo ne 12 NAD83QA/QC: KW AR MJSo urc es: AB TP R, Centre fo r Ca d a stra l Ma na gem ent, Geo m a tics Ca na d a .- Co nta ins info rm a tio n lic ensed und er the Open Go vernm ent lic enc e – Alb erta ,Ca na d a .

Aqua tic LSAAqua tic RSALewis P ro jec t AreaOpera ting a nd Appro vedOil Sa nd s Develo pm entCo m m unityInd ia n ReserveP ro vinc ia l P a rk - Designa ted SitesWa terb o d yReservo irWa terc o urse - Defined Cha nnelWa terc o urse - Und efined Cha nnelDitc hHighwa yRo a d

CatchmentMuskeg RiverSteepb a nk River

Surface Water QualitySa m ple Lo c a tio n

January2018

Aquatic RegionalStudy Area

W4

LewisProject


Page 8-4

Baseline conditions for the Lewis Project are set at September 2016 (Volume 2, Section 3.6), however, no regional data is available for the period after the May 2016 Horse River Fire. As no data is currently available to summarize the baseline surface water quality of a post-fire ALSA; the baseline conditions presented in this section describe the pre-fire ALSA.

Fire is expected to have a negative impact to all surface water quality indicators. These effects may include an increase in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) within the catchment (Environment Canada 2010), a potential shifting in the alkalinity of waterbodies (Schindler 1998), and an increase in nutrient concentrations within the waterbodies (Carignan et al. 2000).

The effects of the Horse River Fire on the Application and Planned Development cases are not included in the assessment for the following reasons:

no post-fire baseline data is currently available

multiple years of post-fire baseline data would be required to accurately represent fire-affected surface water quality in the ALSA

the negative surface water quality effects of the fire would diminish the relative magnitude of Lewis Project effects.

Excluding the effects of the Horse River Fire increases the certainty of the assessment of Lewis Project effects and conservatively assesses the magnitude of the associated effects in the Application and Planned Development cases.

Other temporal considerations for surface water quality include:

Surface water quality typically has distinct seasonal variations because of factors such as precipitation and air temperature. These factors influence changes in hydrology, such as stream flow, runoff and groundwater baseflow.

The watercourses and waterbodies within the ALSA and ARSA are typically frozen between November and April. During this period, groundwater baseflow is the predominant contributor to surface water flow. Groundwater chemistry generally has higher concentrations of major ions and constituents of surficial deposits within the area.

The spring freshet occurs between May and June and is accompanied with increased surface runoff. Runoff typically contains lower concentrations of dissolved parameters and higher suspended solids. During this period, groundwater contributions are proportionally lower than surface water contributions.

During the summer, runoff from precipitation remains the major contributor to surface water. However, higher air temperatures increase evaporation, which can cause concentrations of certain water quality parameters to increase.

Stream flows are reduced in the fall period because of decreased contributions from runoff. As a result, groundwater baseflows typically increase proportionally and the concentrations of major ions, dissolved solids, suspended solids, and total metals are generally higher than in the spring or summer.


Page 8-5

8.3 Assessment Approach

8.3.1 Regulatory Framework

The Muskeg River within the ARSA is subject to the Muskeg River Interim Management Framework (framework) (AENV 2008). Targets and limits were established for both chronic (mean) and acute (peak) conditions. Each water quality parameter can have as many as four thresholds: a chronic and acute threshold for both yellow and red conditions. The yellow targets instigate an investigative action and are meant to guide management actions for evaluation and possible improvement. Red limits are considered to represent potential effects levels and management actions are stringent and mandatory. Appropriate mitigation is required if water quality limits are exceeded.

Water quality targets and limits for the Muskeg River have been established in the framework for 20 general chemistry and nutrients, 19 metals as well as 12 organics parameters. All of the parameters outlined in the framework were assessed in this section with the exception of chlorophyll α, true colour, turbidity, chemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, nitrate + nitrite, tin, lithium and strontium.

The ALSA and ARSA are wholly contained within the Lower Athabasca Region and, as such, are subject to the Lower Athabasca Region Surface Water Quality Management Framework for the Lower Athabasca River (Alberta Government 2015). The objective of this management framework is to provide a proactive and dynamic management approach to identify and assess negative trends, to ensure that regional limits are not exceeded, and to protect existing and future water uses for industrial, agricultural, recreational, drinking water and ecosystems.

The framework includes ambient surface water quality values, surface water quality triggers, limits, and management responses to exceedances of the triggers or limits. Water quality triggers were defined in the framework using historical data for the Muskeg River. Water quality limits were established from existing provincially accepted water quality guidelines including the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, CCME guidelines for agricultural water uses, Canadian drinking water quality guidelines and United States Environmental Protection Agency aquatic life criteria.

To date, triggers and limits have been established for the lower Athabasca River. The Athabasca River was not included in the regional assessment of water quality; thus these triggers and limits will not be referenced as part of this assessment.

8.3.2 Issues

Potential effects of the Lewis Project on surface water quality were identified in the Terms of Reference, the Guide to Content for Energy Project Applications (AER 2014), the Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (ESRD 2013a) and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Draft Directive 023: Oil Sands Project Applications (AER 2013). It is acknowledged that there are First Nations concerns about the potential for decreased surface water quality via spills (Volume 3, Appendix K1). Potential effects from the Lewis Project on surface water quality are listed in Table 8.3-1.


-6

Table 8.3-1: Potential Project-Related Effects on Surface Water Quality

Project Activity Potential Effect to Surface Water Quality Construction of surface facilities including right-of-way Potential loading of sediments and other contaminants,

such as nutrients, into waterbodies and watercourses from surface runoff or construction activities. Nutrient loading, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, may cause eutrophication of surface waters

Runoff from well pads, roads and facilities Road and pipeline watercourse crossing construction

Water withdrawals from surficial aquifers

Potential changes to the regional and/or local groundwater hydraulic regimes causing changes in water inputs to waterbodies and watercourses, and effect overall natural water quality. Potential effects to winter low flows due to alteration of groundwater levels

Subsurface operations, such as drilling and steam injection

Potential formation of a thermal plume from operations, resulting in the thermal mobilization of naturally occurring trace constituents

Changes to land use within the ALSA Altered catchment land use leading to changes in runoff and surface water flows, potentially leading to changes in surface water quality

Direct withdrawal of water from surface waterbodies

Potential changes to surface water chemistry due to changes in water levels in waterbodies

Release of wastewater or spills Potential point source loading of contaminants into waterbodies and watercourses

Release of acidifying emissions from Lewis Project activities

Acidification of waterbodies in the local and regional study areas

Potential effects on surface water quality may affect other ecological components within the region, including aquatic organisms, vegetation, and wildlife. Surface water quality effects identified in this section are evaluated in each of these component sections where relevant.

8.3.3 Assessment Criteria

This effects assessment addresses three development scenarios: Baseline Case, Application Case and Planned Development Case (Volume 2, Section 3.6). Each of the issues in Table 8.3-1 are assessed qualitatively for the potential to affect surface water quality after considering the effectiveness of proposed design and mitigation strategies. Any residual impacts are characterized using the assessment criteria outlined in Volume 2, Section 3.7 considering the effectiveness of proposed design and mitigation strategies at both the local (Lewis Project-specific effects) and regional (cumulative effects) scales.

Residual impacts on the regional scale are considered neutral if the extent of the effect is limited to a local scale, the effect occurs over a short period of time, and the magnitude is such that the effect is not distinguishable from natural fluctuations in the system.


Page 8-7

8.3.4 Constraints Planning

Constraints planning involves identifying environmental sensitivities early in the design process, assessing and mapping these, and then locating Lewis Project facilities away from areas of higher sensitivity and preferentially into areas of lower sensitivity, where possible. Appropriate setbacks from waterbodies are included as part of constraints planning to minimize the potential for adverse surface water quality effects (Volume 2, Section 3.5).

8.4 Methods

8.4.1 Review of Historical Information

Historical surface water and sediment quality data was compiled and reviewed from the following sources:

Imperial Oil Aspen SAGD EIA (2013)

Albian Sands Energy Inc Muskeg River Mine Expansion EIA (2005)

EnCana Corporation Borealis EIA (2007)

TrueNorth Energy L.P Fort Hills Oil Sands Project EIA (2002)

Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP)/Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Plan (JOSMP) (RAMP 2015)

Sensitivity of Alberta Lakes to Acidifying Deposition Study (Saffran and Trew 1996)

Calculation of Critical Loads of Acidity to Lakes in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (WRS 2004).

Historical sites chosen for inclusion in the baseline study are shown on Figures 8.2-1 and 8.2-2. Data compiled from historical sources was used in establishing the baseline chemistry for the sites listed in Table 8.4-1.

8.4.2 Parameter Selection

Surface water quality and sediment quality parameters were selected based on the Terms of Reference (Volume 3, Appendix A), Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (ESRD 2013a) and previous environmental impact assessments (EIAs). Water and sediment were samples collected during the field surveys were analyzed for the suite of parameters listed in Table 8.4-2 and Table 8.4-3, respectively.


Page 8-8

Table 8.4-1: Description of Historical Baseline Water Quality Sites

Watershed Site Name Site Description Easting Northing Reference ALSA

Jackpine Creek JAC-2/JAC-D2 Located on Jackpine Creek downstream of the Lewis Project Area, but upstream of the East Athabasca Highway crossing 480033 6324995 RAMP (2015)

Lower Steepbank River ST WSC Located on the Steepbank River close to the ALSA border 475301 6317398 RAMP (2015)

Lower Steepbank River STB RIFF 7 Located on the Steepbank River upstream of ST WSC, but downstream of the Lewis Project Area 481848 6315147 RAMP (2015)

Lower Steepbank River STR-2 Located on the Steepbank River upstream of STB RIFF 7 and adjacent to the Lewis Project Area 485838 6309341 RAMP (2015)

Lower Steepbank River STB RIFF 10 Located on the Steepbank River upstream of STR-2, and adjacent to the southern border of the Lewis Project Area 491258 6302820 RAMP (2015)

Upper Steepbank River Lake 268 Located to the southeast of the Lewis Project Area 506092 6305335 WRS (2004) RAMP (2015)

Upper Steepbank River Lake 270 Located in the southern area of the Upper Steepbank River watershed 506113 6291421 WRS (2004) RAMP (2015)

Upper Steepbank River STR-3 Located on the Steepbank River upstream of the confluence with the North Steepbank River 499874 6297592 RAMP (2015)

North Steepbank River NSR-1 Located on the North Steepbank River upstream of the Lewis Project Area 497388 6324553 RAMP (2015)

North Steepbank River Husky 6 Located on the North Steepbank River upstream of NSR-1 499239 6330543 Imperial (2013)

North Steepbank River NSB-01 Located in the headwaters on the North Steepbank River at the East Athabasca River Highway crossing 502058 6341380 Imperial (2013)

ARSA Steepbank River STR-1/ST1 Located at the mouth of the Steepbank River 471119 6320067 RAMP (2015)

Muskeg River East Jackpine Creek Located on East Jackpine Creek at the East Athabasca Highway crossing 480366 6330574 Imperial (2013)

Muskeg River Green Stockings Creek

Located on Green Stockings Creek at the East Athabasca Highway crossing 489867 6333037 Imperial (2013)

Muskeg River Blackfly Creek Located on Blackfly Creek at the East Athabasca Highway crossing 491021 6334226 Imperial (2013) Muskeg River Wesukemina Creek Located on Wesukemina Creek at the East Athabasca Highway crossing 493541 6336792 Imperial (2013)

Muskeg River TR 3.2 Located on Jackpine Creek downstream of the confluence with the East Jackpine Creek 476416 6340374 RAMP (2015)


Page 8-9

Watershed Site Name Site Description Easting Northing Reference Muskeg River TR 3.1 Located on Jackpine Creek downstream of the TR 3.2 site 474982 6344048 RAMP (2015) Muskeg River JAC-1/JAC-D1/JA1 Located on Jackpine Creek near the confluence with the Muskeg River 472720 6346388 RAMP (2015) Muskeg River KEL-1 Located on Kearl Lake 484933 6348857 RAMP (2015) Muskeg River WAC-1 Located on Wapasu Creek at the road crossing 490287 6355908 RAMP (2015) Muskeg River WA-1 Located on Wapasu Creek near the confluence with the Muskeg River 483183 6359685 RAMP (2015) Muskeg River MUR-1/MU0/MUR-1B Located on the Muskeg River at the mouth 463643 6332490 RAMP (2015) Muskeg River MUR-1/MUR-D2 Located on the Muskeg River upstream of the mouth 465553 6338876 RAMP (2015)

Muskeg River MU4 Located on the Muskeg River immediately upstream of the confluence with Jackpine Creek 471500 6346860 RAMP (2015)

Muskeg River MU5 Located on the Muskeg River immediately downstream of the Fort McKay community 476270 6351654 RAMP (2015)

Muskeg River MUR-D3/MU6 Located on the Muskeg River upstream of the Fort McKay community 479793 6356738 RAMP (2015)


Page 8-10

Table 8.4-2: Water Quality Parameters Analyzed in the Baseline Assessment

Parameter

In situ – physical parameters pH Specific conductance Dissolved oxygen

Temperature

Conventional parameters and major ions

pH Specific conductance Total dissolved solids (TDS) Hardness Alkalinity Total suspended solids (TSS) Bicarbonate

Calcium Carbonate Chloride Magnesium Potassium Sodium Sulphate

Nutrients and organics

Ammonia as N Nitrate as N Nitrite as N Phenols (Total) Naphthenic acids

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total phosphorus Total organic carbon Dissolved organic carbon Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

Hydrocarbons

Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylene

F1 (C6-C10) F2 (C10-C16) F3 (C16-C34) F4 (C34-C50)

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acridine Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene Chrysene

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Quinoline

Total and dissolved metals

Aluminium Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron

Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Uranium Vanadium Zinc


Page 8-11

Table 8.4-3: Sediment Quality Parameters Analyzed in the Baseline Assessment

Parameter Physical parameters Texture (% Sand, % Silt, % Clay)

Hydrocarbons

Benzene Ethylbenzene Xylene (total) Toluene F1 - BTEX

F1 (C06-C10) F2 (C10-C16) F3 (C16-C34) F4 (C34-C50)

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

2-Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Chrysene

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene

Total metals

Aluminium Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium

Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Phosphorus Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Uranium Vanadium Zinc

Results from water and sediment quality samples were compared to the following guidelines:

Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2014)

Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters (ESRD 2014)

The Muskeg River Interim Management Framework (AENV 2008)

Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2006).

Numerical values for the guidelines are provided in Volume 3, Tables E1-1 and E1-2.

8.4.3 Field Surveys

Fieldwork was undertaken to collect recent and representative baseline data upstream, downstream and within the Lewis Project Area between May 2015 and March 2016. This data, in addition to historical sources, was used to establish baseline concentrations and seasonal variation for the measured parameters. Establishing baseline conditions is essential as it provides a reference point for potential future changes in the surface water or sediment due to the Lewis Project.


Page 8-12

To account for the natural variation in surface water quality between seasons, samples were collected in spring, summer, fall and winter. Spring samples were collected in May to quantify the effects of runoff and higher flows that are associated with spring snow melt. Summer and fall samples were collected in August and October, respectively. These sampling events typically characterize lower water levels and increased baseflow contributions. Winter samples were collected in March to quantify the under ice conditions of the watercourses and waterbodies. During this period, groundwater contributions form the majority of the surface water.

8.4.3.1 Site Selection

The criteria for selecting sampling sites was based on including the major watercourses and waterbodies upstream, downstream and within the Lewis Project Area (Figure 8.2-1). Water quality sites selected to establish baseline conditions are presented in Table 8.4-4.

Table 8.4-4: Description of Baseline Water Quality Sites Sampled during the Field Survey

Watershed Site Name Site Description Easting Northing

ALSA

Muskeg River HAC-01 Located just within the Lewis Project Area on Jackpine Creek. 485297 6318837

Muskeg River HAC-02

Located downstream of the Lewis Project Area on Jackpine Creek where it is crossed by the East Athabasca Highway. Site is upstream of the confluence with East Jackpine Creek

475683 6330691

Steepbank River Lake 1 Unnamed lake in the Lewis Project Area that is connected

to tributaries of the North Steepbank River 502097 6317858

Steepbank River Lake 2 Unnamed lake downstream of the Lewis Project Area that

is connected to a tributary of the North Steepbank River 498313 6314312

Steepbank River NSRiv-01

North Steepbank River upstream of the confluence with the Steepbank River. Is located at the southern edge of the Lewis Project Area

496475 6302210

Steepbank River NST-02 Unnamed tributary to the North Steepbank River to the

south of the Lewis Project Area 502560 6312413

Steepbank River NST-03 North Steepbank River in the southern portion of the Lewis

Project Area 496375 6311451

Steepbank River STR-3 Steepbank River upstream of the Lewis Project Area and

upstream of the confluence with the North Steepbank River 497588 6297954

ARSA Steepbank River STR-1 Steepbank River downstream of the Lewis Project Area

just before the confluence with the Athabasca River 471266 6320118

8.4.3.2 Water and Sediment Quality Sampling Frequency

Table 8.4-5 details the field programs conducted for the collection of surface water and sediment quality data.


Page 8-13

Table 8.4-5: Summary of the Field Monitoring Program

Sample Site Water Quality Sampling Sediment Quality

Sampling May 2015 July 2015 October 2015 March 2016 October 2015

HAC-01 X X X X X HAC-02 X X X X X Lake 1 X X X X X Lake 2 X X X X X

NSRiv-01 X X X X X NST-02 X X X X X NST-03 X X X X X STR-1 X X X X X STR-3 X X X X X

8.4.3.3 Water and Sediment Quality Sample Collection Methods

In situ Measurements

A YSI Professional Plus multi-probe was used to collect in situ water quality data, including temperature, pH, specific conductance and dissolved oxygen. The instrument was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s specifications prior to the start of each seasonal monitoring program.

Watercourse Sampling

Watercourses were sampled via wading into the stream to collect samples from the thalweg if safe to do so, or from an area where the watercourse was flowing. The CCME Protocols Manual for Water Quality Sampling in Canada was followed to limit the potential contamination of samples (CCME 2011). Laboratory analyses and reporting of results followed the protocols of the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA 2013). Naphthenic acids were analyzed using the Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) method developed by Syncrude Canada Inc. (Jivraj et al. 1995). During the winter field program, in situ measurements and water quality samples were collected through ice holes that were drilled in the middle of the stream using a power auger.

Waterbody Sampling

Waterbodies were sampled during the open water seasons using an inflatable boat. Lakes sampled were less than 2 m deep, so a single sample was collected from approximately the middle of the water column in the middle of the lake. In the winter program, the lakes were accessed via helicopter and sampled through an ice hole drilled with a power auger.


Page 8-14

Sediment Quality Sampling

The sediment quality sampling was conducted in October 2015. Sediment samples were collected from two waterbody sites using a Ponar grab sampler. The sediment samples were collected from the watercourse sites using an Ekman pole-mounted grab sampler. In both cases, the sample collection was done in accordance with CCME standard methods (CCME 2011). Sediment was packed into glass jars for texture analysis, organics and inorganics analysis. After sampling, the samples were kept in coolers with ice as recommended by APHA (2013).

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The following quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) methods were utilized to ensure sampling and laboratory accuracy during the sampling survey.

Field blanks – used to detect contamination during sampling, shipping, and laboratory analysis

Trip blanks – used to detect contamination that occurs during transport to and from the area where samples are collected

Duplicate field samples – used to assess field sampling and intra-lab precision

Standard laboratory QA/QC methods – methods used by the laboratory as internal checks on the accuracy of their methodology and to prove there is an absence of contamination in their methodology and instruments.

For each field survey, a field blank, trip blank and a duplicate set of samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis.

8.4.4 Acid Sensitivity of Waterbodies

In order to analyze the acid sensitivity of waterbodies within the AQRSA, a database of water quality was compiled and waterbodies were plotted on a map to determine their locations with respect to the ALSA (Figure 8.4-1; Table 8.4-6). The database developed by Saffran and Trew (1996), and presented in Western Resource Solutions (WRS) (2004), was supplemented with data from previous applications and from RAMP/JOSMP. A total of 20 waterbodies were analyzed within the AQRSA.

McClelland Lake


63

Athab

asca

Rive

rFort

McKay 174C

Fort McKay

174D

Fort McKay

174

Fort MacKay

Firebag River

Jackpine Creek

East CreekJackpine

North

Stee

pban

k Rive

r

Steepbank River

Fort McMurray

Clearwate

r

Muskeg R

iver

La Saline Natural Area

Kearl Lake

Clarke Creek

CreekMiller

River

Ells River

Dover River

River

MacK

ay

High Hill R

iver

Horse River

Saline Creek

Clearwater 175

Gipsy LakeWildland

Provincial Park

CampbellLake

Grand RapidsWildland

ProvincialPark

63

Clearwater175

A122

A031

Lake 1Lake 2

A023

A013

A014

A016

A019

A022

A037

A042

A043

A053

A125

A319 A327

A331

A343

A354

A391

A505

460000 480000 500000 520000

6280000

6300000

6320000

6340000

6360000

R3R4R5R6R7R8R9R10R11R12

T86

T87

T88

T89

T90

T91

T92

T93

T94

T95

T96

T97

T98

5 0 5 10


S:\Gis\Projects\CE\Suncor_Lewis\CE04536_EIA\ArcGIS\_Report Figures\Vol 2 Sec 08 - Water Quality\Fig 08.04-01 WQRSA ACID.mxd ANALYST: jackie.hoglund 18-01-22 10:36:36 AM

Figure 8.4-1

Fina l Ma pping: Co m pleted b y Am ec Fo ster WheelerP ro jec tio n: UTM Zo ne 12 NAD83QA/QC: KW AR MJSo urc es: Go vernm ent o f Alb erta- Co nta ins info rm a tio n lic ensed und er the Open Go vernm ent lic enc e – Alb erta ,Ca na d a .

Air Qua lity RSAAqua tic LSAAqua tic RSALewis P ro jec t AreaOpera ting a nd Appro vedOil Sa nd s Develo pm entBa seline Disturb a nc eCo m m unity

Ind ia n ReserveP ro vinc ia l P a rk - Designa ted SiteHo rse River Wild fireWa terb o d yReservo ir

Wa terc o urse - Defined Cha nnelWa terc o urse - Und efined Cha nnelDitc hHighwa yRo a d

Overall Lake Acid SensitivityHighMo d era teLo wLea st

January2018

Regional Waterbody AcidSensitivity Study

W4

LewisProject


Page 8-16

Table 8.4-6: Waterbodies Assessed for Acid Sensitivity and Acid Depositions

Site Number Site Name Easting Northing Reference – Lake 1 502094 6317636 Lewis Field Program – Lake 2 498337 6314136 Lewis Field Program

A013 Lake 182 (P23) 509000 6346712 RAMP (2015) A014 Lake 185 (P27) 508300 6333712 RAMP (2015) A016 Lake 209 (P7) 515399 6343212 RAMP (2015) A019 Lake 226 (P97) 456002 6296463 RAMP (2015) A022 Lake 268 (E15) 506092 6305335 WRS (2004), RAMP (2015) A023 Lake 270 (4) 506113 6291421 WRS (2004), RAMP (2015)

A031 Lake 418 (L35/Kearl) 485939 6349881 Saffran and Trew (1996), WRS (2004), RAMP (2015)

A037 Lake 452 (L4) 508990 6334305 Saffran and Trew (1996), WRS (2004), RAMP (2015)

A042 Lake 470 (L7) 515029 6327465 WRS (2004), RAMP (2015) A043 Lake 471 (L8) 524390 6322556 WRS (2004), RAMP (2015) A053 Unnamed Lake (L3) 521045 6334999 EnCana (2007) A122 McClelland Lake 480014 6371239 WRS (2004), True North (2001) A125 Mildred Lake 464280 6323724 WRS (2004) A319 Unnamed (L1A) 504588 6349145 WRS (2004) A327 Unnamed (L2A) 505830 6347137 WRS (2004) A331 Unnamed (L3A) 503318 6346083 WRS (2004) A343 Unnamed (L5A) 507163 6322123 WRS (2004) A354 Unnamed (L6) 510357 6325686 WRS (2004) A391 Unnamed (E3) 492066 6324567 Saffran and Trew (1996) A505 Isadore's Lake 463509 6343225 Albian Sands (2005)

The acid sensitivity for representative waterbodies within the ALSA, ARSA, and AQRSA were determined using the classification system outlined by Saffran and Trew (1996) (Table 8.4-7).

Table 8.4-7: Acid Sensitivity Ratings Based on Saffran and Trew (1996)

Parameter Sensitivity Rating

High Moderate Low Least Alkalinity (as CaCO3) (mg/L) 0-10 11-20 21-40 >40 Calcium (mg/L) 0-4 5-8 9-25 >25 pH (pH units) 0-6.5 6.6-7.0 7.1-7.5 >7.5

Each waterbody was assessed an overall acid sensitivity rating based on alkalinity (calcium carbonate concentration), pH and calcium concentration. The measured values for these parameters were compared to the ranges presented in Table 8.4-7. Each waterbody was assigned an individual rating for each parameter. In cases where two or more ratings were the


Page 8-17

same, the waterbody was given that overall acid sensitivity rating. For waterbodies with different ratings for each parameter, professional judgement was used to determine the overall acid sensitivity.

8.4.5 Acid Deposition to Waterbodies

8.4.5.1 Critical Load Calculation

Emissions released to the atmosphere by the Lewis Project and related activities could potentially lead to an increase in surface water acidity due to the deposition of certain compounds. The potential for lake acidification was evaluated by calculating the critical load for the level of acidity using the Henriksen steady-state water chemistry ratio (Henriksen et al. 1992):

CL = ([BC]*0 – [ANClim]) * Q

1 x 109

where: CL = critical loading level of acidity [keq-H+ ha-1 y-1] [BC]*0 = pre-industrial base cation concentration in the lake [µeq/L] [ANClim] = critical value for the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) in the water for an indicator organism [µeq/L] 1 x 109 = conversion of µeq/L to keq/L Q = mean annual runoff [L ha-1 y-1].

Base cation concentrations, [BC]*0, were calculated using calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium concentrations from water quality data for lakes within the AQRSA. Concentrations for these cations were measured in milligram per litre, which was converted to microequivalents per litre.

The Henriksen steady-state water chemistry ratio assumes that there is a dose-response relationship between a water quality variable and an aquatic indicator organism. For this assessment, the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) was the water quality variable and a healthy fish population was the aquatic indicator. In accordance with the Cumulative Effects Management Association (CEMA) framework, a critical value for ANC of 75 µeq/L was applied in the assessment (CEMA 2009).

The value for annual runoff, ‘Q’, was taken from “Annual Unit Runoff in Canada”, published by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2013). This report presents map sets that provide the probabilities that in any given year, the actual runoff will exceed the mapped isopleths. A value of 100 mm (1x106 L/ha) was used for the annual runoff in the AQRSA, based on the 50% probability of the exceedance map, which represents the median value from the range of measured historical annual runoff data for the AQRSA.


Page 8-18

8.4.5.2 Acid Deposition

The rates of deposition, expressed as potential acid input (PAI) (keq H+/ha/y), defined as the total deposition of nitrogen (kg N ha-1 y-1) and sulphur (kg S ha-1 y-1) in both wet and dry forms minus base cations, were obtained from CALPUFF modelling (Volume 2, Section 4.6) and determined for each lake. Background depositions and PAI were taken from Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen, Sulfur and Base Cations in Jack Pine Stands in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta, Canada (Fenn et al. 2015). The depositions from this study were added to the results from the CALPUFF modelling in order to quantify the emissions from sources other than oil sands operations within the AQRSA. If the PAI value was greater than the calculated critical load, then there exists the potential for lake acidification. If the critical load was not exceeded by the PAI value, the natural buffering capacity of the lake was deemed to be sufficient to protect the lake from acidification.

A seasonal deposition pattern was applied to the calculated PAIs because of the difference in the deposition during open and hard water seasons. During the winter hard water season, depositions of acidic substances are accumulated on snow and ice. In the transition to the open water season, the melting of this snow and ice releases the accumulated acidic substances into the environment. It was assumed that there was no uptake of nitrate (NO3-) by plants during the winter because the ground is frozen during this period. Therefore, it was assumed that all accumulated acidic depositions entered receiving waterbodies during the spring snow and ice melt.

During open water conditions, it was assumed that all sulphur (SO2- and SO42-) that is deposited will ultimately accumulate in receiving waterbodies. However, nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plants and a portion of the total deposition would not reach receiving waterbodies; therefore, the overall acidification effects would be reduced. Several ranges of values quantifying the amount of nitrogen taken up by vegetation in the Athabasca oil sands region and similar ecosystems have been presented in the literature such as 8 to 24 kg N ha-1 y-1 for 100 years (CEMA 2009), 9 kg N ha-1 y-1 (Sullivan 2000) and 10 to 20 kg N ha-1 y-1 (Laxton et al. 2010). A value of 8 kg N ha-1 y-1 was selected as the most conservative estimate for the AQRSA. The uptake of 8 kg N ha-1 y-1 was subtracted from background modelled values of nitrogen deposition for all sites and, in cases where deposition exceeded uptake, the remaining value was included in the total deposition calculation for open water conditions. This excess of nitrogen was considered to leach into waterbodies during the summer and thus contribute to the acidification, so it was included in the assessment. When the uptake by vegetation of 8 kg N ha-1 y-1 exceeded or equalled the deposition of nitrogen into the environment, then nitrogen deposition was only considered as a factor contributing to acidification in the winter.

8.5 Baseline Case

The following analysis describes the baseline conditions for the ALSA and ARSA in terms of surface water quality and sediment quality. The analysis is specifically defined based on the catchments (ALSA)/watersheds (ARSA) within the applicable study areas. The surface water quality and sediment quality data at each site within the catchment/watershed are compared and contrasted by season. The historical surface water and sediment data is analyzed on a


Page 8-19

temporal scale to characterize the natural variation within the watersheds. These thresholds provide a framework for the potential effects analysis and a reference point for future monitoring activities.

Water quality data is compared to the guidelines described in Volume 3, Tables E1-1 and E1-2. Water and sediment quality parameter summaries and guideline exceedances are presented in Volume 3, Tables E2-1 to E2-11.

8.5.1 Upper Steepbank River Catchment

8.5.1.1 Upper Steepbank River

Water Quality

The upper reaches of the Steepbank River and its tributaries are located east of the Lewis Project Area. This catchment was sampled at Site STR-3 during the 2015 to 2016 field surveys and has historical data from 2004 to 2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-1).

In situ parameters are measured in all four seasons. The pH in the upper reaches of the Steepbank River are alkaline and vary slightly with values ranging from 7.4 to 8.9. The upper Steepbank River is well oxygenated in all four seasons with only one measurement below the Alberta Surface Water Quality Guidelines (ASWQG) and Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG) of 6.5 mg/L. Specific conductance in the spring and summer range from 90 to 230 µS/cm, whereas in the fall and winter, the conductivity ranges from 199 to 500 µS/cm. This indicates a distinct seasonal pattern that suggests groundwater contributions occur within the upper Steepbank River.

Winter laboratory pH ranges were measured at 7.6 and 8.1; spring; summer and fall medians are 8.0, 8.1 and 8.2, respectively. The laboratory measured specific conductance confirms the trend from in situ measurements with fall and winter having higher values compared to spring and summer. Median specific conductance is 109 µS/cm in the spring, 169 µS/cm in the summer and 273 µS/cm in the fall. Two samples taken in winter have a specific conductance of 552 and 625 µS/cm. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations show the same seasonal pattern, with concentrations in the winter and fall being higher than the spring and summer. Major cation species in the watercourse are calcium and sodium, while the most abundant anion is bicarbonate. These anions and cations have a seasonal pattern in concentration; increasing from spring to winter similarly to specific conductance and TDS.

Ammonia-N concentrations range from below the detection limits to 0.13 mg/L and concentrations are similar in spring, summer and fall; but higher in winter. Nitrate-N and nitrite-N concentrations during the spring, summer and fall are generally below or near the detection limits of 0.02 mg/L. An exception was one winter nitrate measurement of 0.3 mg/L. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations are consistent across all four seasons with median concentrations for spring, summer and fall ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 mg/L. The total phosphorus


Page 8-20

concentrations are also consistent across the four seasons with values ranging from 0.02 to 0.09 mg/L. There does not appear to be seasonal changes in total phosphorus within the upper Steepbank River.

The concentrations of phenols exceed the ASWQG and CWQG guideline of 0.004 mg/L in the spring, summer and fall. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations are consistent in all seasons with values at or below the detection limit of 2 mg/L. Similarly, naphthenic acid concentrations are near or below detection limits in all four seasons.

Hydrocarbon parameters were sampled once during the spring, summer and winter and then five times during the fall. All samples in the spring, summer and winter are below detection limits for all parameters. During the fall, most samples are below or near detection limits; however, F1 hydrocarbons had a maximum value of 0.1 mg/L and each of the F2-F4 fractions had maximum concentrations of 0.25 mg/L.

Most total metals concentrations are below the applicable guidelines except for the following:

maximum aluminium concentrations exceed the CWQG and Canadian drinking water quality (CDWQ) of 100 μg/L during the spring (203 μg/L), summer (283 μg/L) and fall (240 μg/L)

copper exceeds the variable CWQG during the spring program with a maximum concentration of 3.5 μg/L

iron exceeds the CWQG and CDWQ of 300 μg/L in all samples with concentrations ranging from 323 to 1,430 μg/L.

The maximum manganese concentration exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the winter with a value of 113 μg/L. All summer manganese concentrations (54 to 201 μg/L) exceed the CDWQ, as well as the median fall concentration (117 μg/L). The concentrations of all dissolved metal parameters are lower than the corresponding total metals. The maximum dissolved iron concentration exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L in the spring (454 μg/L). Median (413 μg/L) dissolved iron concentrations exceed the ASWQG in the summer. All fall dissolved iron concentrations exceed the ASWQG with a range of 336 μg/L to 975 μg/L.

Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected from the upper reach of the Steepbank River (Site STR-3) in the fall of 2005 and 2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-2). This reach has a streambed primarily composed of sand (sand comprised >75% of samples).

Hydrocarbons were near or below detection limits with the exception of F3 hydrocarbons, which had concentrations of 23 mg/kg and 91 mg/kg in 2005 and 2015, respectively, and F4 hydrocarbons with concentrations of 6 mg/kg and 14 mg/kg in 2005. Similarly, PAHs were low or below detection limits with no guideline exceedances. Metals concentrations were similar between the two sampling years and no guideline exceedances were recorded in either sample.


Page 8-21

8.5.1.2 Lake 268

Lake 268 is a small waterbody located approximately 8 km east of the southern end of the Lewis Project Area. This lake drains into a tributary of the Upper Steepbank River. It has been monitored intermittently in the summer and fall seasons as part of the RAMP/JOSMP program. A total of 16 samples were collected between 2000 and 2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-3). In situ parameters were not collected during these sampling events.

Lake 268 has a median pH of 7.1 in both summer and fall. The specific conductance in Lake 268 ranged from 27 to 73 μS/cm and medians are similar for the summer and fall at 45 and 49 μS/cm, respectively. TDS has similar summer and fall concentrations with medians of 108 and 131 mg/L, respectively. The dominant ions in Lake 268 are bicarbonate, calcium and sodium.

Nutrient parameters analyzed from Lake 268 are also generally consistent between the summer and fall. However, ammonia-N concentrations are higher in the fall compared to summer with a median concentration of 0.02 mg/L compared to 0.009 mg/L. The maximum concentration was 1.5 mg/L in fall. The median total phosphorus concentrations were 0.05 mg/L and 0.06 mg/L for summer and fall, respectively.

Total phenols, BOD, naphthenic acids, and hydrocarbon data is not available for Lake 268.

Total metals are similar between sampling seasons and generally below the water quality guidelines except for:

copper exceeds the variable CWQG during the summer with a maximum concentration of 2.5 μg/L

maximum iron concentrations exceed the CWQG and CDWQ of 300 μg/L in the summer (317 μg/L) and fall (372 μg/L)

manganese exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L in the summer and fall with median concentrations of 51 and 72 μg/L; respectively

mercury exceeds the ASWQG and CWQG guidelines with a maximum concentration of 0.7 µg/L.

Dissolved metal concentrations were lower than corresponding total metal concentrations. There are no exceedances of the dissolved metal guidelines.

8.5.1.3 Lake 270

Lake 270 is a similarly sized waterbody compared to Lake 268 and is located approximately 12 km southeast of the Lewis Project Area. It was also monitored in the summer and fall as part of the RAMP/JOSMP program, with 14 sampling events conducted between 2002 and 2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-3). In situ parameters were not collected during these sampling events.


Page 8-22

Lake 270 has a median pH of 8.0 in both summer and fall. Specific conductance is similar for both seasons and ranged from 97 to 164 μS/cm. TDS also has similar medians for the summer and fall at 121 and 118 mg/L, respectively. The dominant ions in Lake 270 are bicarbonate, calcium and magnesium. There are no apparent differences in water quality between the summer and fall.

Ammonia-N, TKN, total phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon is available for Lake 270. Concentrations for these parameters are consistent between the summer and fall. Ammonia-N concentrations ranged from below the detection limit of 0.002 to 0.1 mg/L. Median concentrations for TKN are 1.6 mg/L in the summer and 1.5 mg/L in the fall. Total phosphorus concentrations range from 0.02 to 0.09 mg/L.

Total phenols, BOD, naphthenic acids and hydrocarbon data is not available for Lake 270.

Total metals are similar between sampling seasons and generally below the water quality guidelines except for:

maximum iron concentrations exceed the CWQG and CDWQ of 300 μg/L in the summer (514 μg/L)

manganese exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L in the summer and fall with maximum concentrations of 100 and 117 μg/L, respectively

mercury exceeds the ASWQG and CWQG guidelines during the summer with a maximum concentration of 0.5 µg/L.

The dissolved metal concentrations are lower than corresponding total metal concentrations. No guideline exceedances for dissolved metals are noted for the site.

8.5.2 Lower Steepbank River Catchment

8.5.2.1 Lower Steepbank River

Water Quality

There was historical data available for the Lower Steepbank River from 2002 to 2015 for the RAMP site STR-2, and from 2014 to 2016 for RAMP sites STB RIFF 10, STR-2, STB RIFF 7 and ST WSC (Volume 3, Table E2-4).

In situ parameter data is available for the fall and winter. The pH in the Steepbank River ranges between 7.5 and 9.8. The maximum fall measurement is 9.8, which is above the ASWQG of 6.5 to 9.0 and the CWQG of 6.5 to 9.0. The river is well oxygenated during the fall with a median dissolved oxygen concentrations of 10.6 mg/L. However, the minimum winter dissolved oxygen is below the ASWQG chronic guideline (6.5 mg/L) and the CWQG (6.5 mg/L) with a value of 1.2 mg/L.


Page 8-23

The laboratory measured pH shows no seasonal pattern as median values for all four seasons range between 7.9 and 8.1. Specific conductance ranges from 85 to 713 μS/cm, with values that are distinctly higher during the fall and winter seasons. TDS concentrations range from 60 to 420 mg/L, with seasonal patterns similar to specific conductance. The most abundant cations are calcium and sodium, and the dominant anion is bicarbonate. The concentrations of TDS, cations, anions and specific conductance indicate that the Steepbank River receives consistent groundwater contributions, particularly during the fall and winter.

Ammonia-N concentrations range from below the detection limit (0.05 mg/L) to 0.1 mg/L and concentrations are similar among all four seasons. Nitrate concentrations during the spring, summer and fall are generally below or near the detection limits (0.003 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L), with the exception of the spring and fall maximum concentrations of 0.3 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L, respectively. Winter median nitrate concentration is 0.3 mg/L and the minimum concentration is 0.2 mg/L. The higher winter concentration is likely attributable to a reduction in nitrate absorption by aquatic plants. TKN concentrations are consistent across all four seasons with median concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 0.8 mg/L. The median total phosphorus concentrations are 0.03, 0.05, 0.05 and 0.04 mg/L for spring, summer, fall and winter, respectively. The similarity between these median concentrations suggests that there is not seasonal variation for total phosphorus within the Steepbank River.

The concentrations of total phenols exceed the ASWQG and CWQG of 0.004 mg/L in almost half of the 58 samples collected over the four seasons. There appears to be seasonal variation in the concentrations of phenols as summer (0.009 mg/L) and fall (0.006 mg/L) concentrations are three and two times higher than those measured in the spring and winter (both 0.003 mg/L), respectively. BOD samples are either below or at the detection limit of 2 mg/L in all samples across the four seasons. Naphthenic acid concentrations are consistent with median concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 mg/L in the four seasons.

Concentrations of hydrocarbons are generally near or below detection limits for the Lower Steepbank River and there is no apparent seasonal variation for any hydrocarbon parameter. Overall, PAHs are near or below detection limits as well; however, there are exceedances for benz[a]anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene. Benz[a]anthracene exceeds the ASWQG and CWQG guidelines of 0.018 µg/L in fall (median of 0.05 µg/L). Benzo(a)pyrene exceeds the Health Canada Drinking Water Guidelines of 0.04 µg/L and the ASWQG and CWQG of 0.015 µg/L in the fall with a measured value of 0.3 µg/L.

Most total metals concentrations are below the ASWQG and CWQG guidelines except for:

aluminium exceeds the CWQG and the CDWQ of 100 μg/L in the spring, summer and winter with median values ranging from 115 to 254 μg/L. The maximum fall aluminium concentration exceeds the CWQG and the CDWQ at 536 μg/L

chromium exceeds the CWQG and ASWQG of 1 μg/L during the spring with a maximum concentration of 2.7 μg/L

iron exceeds the CWQG and CDWQ of 300 μg/L in all samples with values ranging from 340 to 2,510 μg/L


Page 8-24

manganese exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the spring, fall and winter with maximum values ranging from 59 to 117 μg/L. The median summer manganese concentration (59 μg/L) also exceeds the CDWQ.

The concentrations of all dissolved metal parameters are lower than the corresponding total metals. Dissolved iron exceedances of the 300 µg/L ASWQG guideline were recorded in the spring, summer and fall with median concentrations of 328, 499 and 539 µg/L, respectively.

Sediment Quality

The Steepbank River was sampled in the fall of 2002 and 2005 at site STR-2 (Volume 3, Table E2-2). The substrate is composed primarily of sand (sand comprised >87% of samples).

Hydrocarbon and PAH results for all parameters were below or near detection limits. Sediments analyzed for metals had similar concentrations between the 2002 and 2005 samples.

No exceedances are recorded for total metals.

8.5.3 Jackpine Creek Catchment

The Jackpine Creek Catchment occupies the northwest corner of the ALSA. The headwaters for Jackpine Creek covers approximately a third of the Lewis Project Area and flows northwest towards the Muskeg River (Figure 8.2-1).

Water Quality

Jackpine Creek was sampled once in the spring, summer and winter of 2015 and then several times in the fall from 2008 to 2015. Data is comprised of field survey samples collected from Site HAC-01 and historical RAMP data from JAC-2 (Volume 3, Table E2-5).

In situ pH ranges from 7.3 in the summer to a maximum of 8.5 in the winter. Specific conductance is similar during the spring, summer and fall, ranging from 162 to 210 μS/cm. The measurement taken during the winter is notably higher at 893 μS/cm. Jackpine Creek is well oxygenated during all four seasons with dissolved oxygen concentrations ranging from 7.1 to 10.8 mg/L.

Laboratory analyzed samples have similar pH levels for all four seasons with values between 7.6 and 8.3. As with the in situ measurements for specific conductance, laboratory analyzed samples have notably higher conductivity in the winter compared to the spring, summer and fall. Similarly, spring, summer and fall TDS concentrations range from 77 to 264 mg/L, compared to 487 mg/L in winter. The dominant ions in Jackpine Creek are bicarbonate, calcium and sodium, which are similar to the other watercourses within the ALSA. The concentrations of major ions are higher in the winter compared to the spring, summer and fall. This indicates that groundwater is an important contributor to surface water flow in this watercourse, especially during the winter.


Page 8-25

Spring, summer and fall nitrate concentrations are similar in Jackpine Creek. The concentration of nitrate-N is notably higher during the winter with a measured value of 0.2 mg/L. Ammonia-N concentrations are below or near the detection limit of 0.018 mg/L in the spring, summer and fall, whereas the winter maximum is 0.8 mg/L. TKN has a maximum concentration of 2.56 mg/L measured in the fall. Total phosphorus ranges from 0.02 to 0.2 mg/L; however, concentrations are generally similar across all four seasons.

Total phenols are below or near the detection limit of 0.002 mg/L in all four seasons. BOD and naphthenic acid concentrations also are near or below the detection limits for all samples.

Concentrations of hydrocarbons are generally near or below detection limits for Jackpine Creek. Overall, PAHs are near or below detection limits as well and there are no guideline exceedances for any parameter.

Total metals are generally below the guidelines with the exception of aluminium, chromium, iron, manganese, and mercury, which is common for watercourses in the area.

aluminium exceed the CWQG and the CDWQ of 100 μg/L in spring and summer with values of 181 and 109 μg/L; respectively. Fall median concentrations exceed the CWQG at 383 μg/L

chromium exceeds the CWQG and ASWQG of 1 μg/L during the fall program with a maximum concentration of 3.9 μg/L

iron exceeds the CWQG and CDWQ of 300 μg/L in all samples with values ranging from 538 to 4,360 μg/L

manganese exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the fall with a maximum concentration of 172 μg/L, and in the winter (248 μg/L)

mercury exceeds the ASWQG guideline in the fall with a maximum value of 0.009 µg/L.

Overall, these exceedances are common for watercourses within this region.

The dissolved metal concentrations are lower than corresponding total metal concentrations. Dissolved iron concentrations exceed the ASWQG of 300 µg/L during the summer (416 µg/L) and fall (median of 486 µg/L and a maximum of 719 µg/L).

Sediment Quality

Sediment quality data was collected from site HAC-01 during the fall field survey in 2015 and the RAMP site JAC-D2 from 2006-2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-6). The creek bed is comprised mostly of sand, comprising a median value of 89% of the samples.

Total hydrocarbons are below detection limits except for the F2, F3 and F4 fractions. The median concentrations for F3 and F4 are 54 and 38 mg/kg, respectively. Most PAHs are detected; however, the concentrations are lower than guideline values.

No exceedances for total metals are noted. All parameters analyzed have concentrations near or below detection limits.


Page 8-26

8.5.4 North Steepbank River Catchment

The North Steepbank River Catchment is located in the north-central part of the ALSA. The East Athabasca Highway crosses the North Steepbank River near its headwaters and the river flows south through the Lewis Project Area. Numerous tributary streams and small waterbodies drain into the river, mostly from the east. The North Steepbank River continues flowing south through the Lewis Project Area until it reaches the confluence with the Steepbank River just to the south of Project Area (Figure 8.2-1).

8.5.4.1 North Steepbank River – Northern Headwater Reach

Water Quality

To characterize the surface water chemistry of the headwaters of the North Steepbank River, samples were collected in all four seasons at the crossing with the East Athabasca Highway (Site NSB-01) between May 2012 and March 2013 (Imperial 2013) (Volume 3, Table E2-7).

The field pH varies between seasons, with values ranging from 6.1 to 9.6. All pH values are within the range presented in the CDWQ, CWQG and ASWQG; with the exception of the summer minimum value (6.1) and the fall maximum value (9.6). The dissolved oxygen is above the minimum CWQG and ASWQG in the spring and fall, but below the minimum guidelines in the summer (2.5 mg/L) and winter (0.8 mg/L).

The lowest specific conductance in the North Steepbank River is recorded for the spring (124 μS/cm); however, the conductivities measured in the summer and fall are similar. The highest specific conductance is measured during the winter with a value of 311 μS/cm. A similar seasonal pattern is observed for the TDS concentrations. The winter TDS concentration (158 mg/L) is higher than the spring (60 mg/L), summer (96 mg/L) or fall (64 mg/L). Calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate are the dominant ions in the watercourse. The specific conductance, TDS and ion concentration results indicate that the stream receives some water inputs from groundwater, particularly in the winter.

Inorganic forms of nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia as nitrogen) are undetected for all measurements except for the winter nitrite-N sample, which has a concentration of 1.2 mg/L. TKN concentrations are similar in the spring and fall (0.3 mg/L); whereas the summer (0.7 mg/L) and winter (1.2 mg/L) concentrations are higher. The total phosphorus concentrations are similar for the spring (0.03 mg/L) and fall (0.04 mg/L); summer and winter concentrations are notably higher (0.4 and 0.3 mg/L; respectively).

BOD samples are below or near detection limits for all seasons (method detection limit [MDL] = 2 mg/L). Naphthenic acids are below the 1 mg/L detection limit for all seasons. Phenols concentrations are below CWQG and ASWQG guidelines for the spring, summer and fall. All PAH and hydrocarbon concentrations are below detection limits for each season.

The majority of total metal concentrations are below the guidelines with the following exceptions:


Page 8-27

copper exceeds the variable CWQG and the ASWQG of 7 μg/L during the fall with a concentration of 11 μg/L

iron exceeds the CWQG and CDWQ of 300 μg/L during all four seasons with values of 365, 8,150, 990, and 6,530 μg/L in the spring, summer, fall and winter, respectively

manganese exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the summer (486 μg/L) and winter (779 μg/L).

Dissolved metals are below the corresponding total metal concentrations. Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L with values of 2,160, 706 and 2,550 μg/L in the summer, fall and winter; respectively.

Sediment Quality

The North Steepbank River northern reach was sampled in October 2012 (Imperial 2013) (Volume 3, Table E2-8). The texture analysis results show that the substrate is primarily sand.

Total hydrocarbons are undetected with the exception of the F3 hydrocarbon fraction (323 mg/kg) and the F4 fraction (91 mg/kg). PAHs are all below the corresponding detection limits and no exceedances are recorded for total metals.

8.5.4.2 North Steepbank River – Upstream of Project Area

Water Quality

A RAMP site was located on the North Steepbank River (NSR-1) approximately 4 km north of the Lewis Project Area and sampled from 2002 to 2014 (Volume 3, Table E2-7). A monitoring site approximately 8 km north of the Lewis Project Area (Husky 6) was sampled (Imperial 2013).

The pH in the North Steepbank River fluctuates between 6.1 and 9.6. The pH minimum is below the CDWQ of 6.5 to 8.5, the ASWQG and the CWQG of 6.5 to 9.0 during the summer; while the maximum is above the guideline ranges in the fall. The North Steepbank River in this reach is generally well oxygenated; although minimum dissolved oxygen values are below the ASWQG and the CWQG (6.5 mg/L); one recorded during the spring (2.2 mg/L) and summer (5.6 mg/L).

Laboratory specific conductance ranges from 113 to 311 μS/cm, with no apparent seasonal pattern. TDS concentrations range from 58 to 219 mg/L and also has no distinct seasonal pattern. The dominant cations are calcium and magnesium, while the dominant anion is bicarbonate.

Inorganic nitrogen concentrations are either at or below detection limits in this reach of the North Steepbank River with the exception of three values: the winter maximum for ammonia-N (0.2 mg/L), the fall maximum for nitrate-N (0.4 mg/L), and the winter maximum for nitrite-N (0.2 mg/L). The TKN concentrations were fairly consistent, measuring between 0.2 and 1.2 mg/L for all sites during all seasons. Total phosphorus concentrations were also consistent with median values for spring, summer and fall being 0.02, 0.05 and 0.04 mg/L, respectively.


Page 8-28

Total phenols exceed the CWQG of 0.004 mg/L in the spring, summer and fall. BOD (MDL = 2 mg/L) is typically at or below detection limits except for the spring, where the maximum concentration is 11 mg/L. Naphthenic acid concentrations are typically below 1 mg/L; a maximum spring concentration is 3 mg/L.

Hydrocarbons and PAHs are generally undetected or near the detection limits for the North Steepbank River. No guideline exceedances are recorded for any samples during all four seasons.

The majority of total metals concentrations are below the CWQG; exceptions are:

maximum aluminium concentrations exceedance the CWQG and CDWQ of 100 μg/L during the spring (280 μg/L), summer (274 μg/L) and fall (274 μg/L)

iron exceedances of the CWQG and the CDWQ of 300 μg/L were recorded for all samples during all seasons

manganese exceedances of the CDWQ of 50 μg/L were recorded for all seasons with a maximum concentration recorded during the winter of 10,900 μg/L.

Total and dissolved metals concentrations are similar. Dissolved iron concentrations exceed the ASWQG of 300 μg/L in all four seasons. The summer maximum dissolved iron concentration is 1,420 μg/L. Dissolved zinc has a maximum concentration of 173 μg/L during the spring. Given this concentration is higher than the corresponding total zinc concentration, and no other dissolved parameters are higher than the total concentrations, it is likely an outlier.

Sediment Quality

Samples analyzed for substrate texture show that the sediments in the stream bottom are primarily sand (sand comprised >81% of samples) (Volume 3, Table E2-8).

Total hydrocarbons are detected for the F1 hydrocarbon fraction (6 mg/kg), the F3 hydrocarbon fraction (150 mg/kg) and the F4 hydrocarbon fraction (94 mg/kg). There were no guideline exceedances for PAHs and concentrations are near or below detection limits.

Metals are below the sediment quality guidelines with the exception of manganese, where a maximum concentration of 491 mg/kg exceeds the Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) lowest effects level (LEL) of 460 mg/kg.

8.5.4.3 North Steepbank River – Lewis Project Area Boundary

Water Quality

The furthest downstream reach of the North Steepbank River is located in the Lewis Project Area. Samples were collected during field programs between May 2015 and February 2016. Samples were collected at Site NSRiv-01 (Volume 3, Table E2-7).


Page 8-29

The field pH in this reach of the North Steepbank River is 8.0 in spring, 7.5 in summer and 8.2 in fall. The watercourse is well oxygenated in all four seasons with dissolved oxygen concentrations ranging from 9.4 to 12.1 mg/L.

Laboratory specific conductance is higher in the winter (559 μS/cm) in comparison with the spring (119 μS/cm), summer (116 μS/cm), and fall (163 μS/cm). TDS is also highest during the winter with a measured value of 336 mg/L. The dominant major ions measured in the North Steepbank River are calcium, magnesium, sodium and bicarbonate. Major ion concentrations are highest in the winter and lowest during the spring. Conductivity, TDS and major ions are all higher in concentration during the winter, suggesting that groundwater contributions to the system influence winter water chemistry.

Ammonia-N and nitrate concentrations are near or below the detection limits. The winter concentrations for ammonia-N and nitrate-N are both notably higher than the open water season, measuring at 0.06 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively. The TKN concentrations range from 0.3 to 0.8 mg/L, with the highest value in summer. Total phosphorus is similar between the four seasons with concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 0.08 mg/L.

Total phenols concentrations are near or below the detection limit (0.002 mg/L) and no sample exceeds the ASWQG and CWQG of 0.004 mg/L. BOD concentrations are below detection limits for all seasons. Naphthenic acid concentrations are below detection limits (MDL = 0.4 mg/L and 1 mg/L) in the spring, fall and winter. The summer naphthenic acid maximum concentration is also close to the detection limit (1.1 mg/L).

Most hydrocarbons and PAHs are not detected during any season. F3 hydrocarbons are detected in the spring, fall and winter with concentrations of 0.06, 0.05 and 0.03 mg/L, respectively.

Most total metals concentrations are below surface water guidelines, except the following:

iron exceedances of the CWQG and the CDWQ of 300 μg/L are recorded for all samples during all seasons

manganese exceedances of the CDWQ of 50 μg/L are recorded in the summer (97 μg/L) and winter (61 μg/L).

Dissolved metal concentrations are generally lower than the corresponding total metal concentrations. Exceedances of the ASWQG for dissolved iron occur in summer (426 μg/L) and fall (551 μg/L).

Sediment Quality

The southern reach of the North Steepbank River is sampled in the fall at NSRiv-01 during the Lewis Project’s baseline data field program (Volume 3, Table E2-8). Texture analysis shows that 88% of the substrate is sand.

Total hydrocarbons are below detection limits with the exception of the F3 hydrocarbon fraction, which has a concentration of 87 mg/kg. All PAHs are below the detection limits.


Page 8-30

Total metal concentrations are also low with no guideline exceedances, and all values are near or below detection limits.

8.5.4.4 North Steepbank River Tributaries

Water Quality

The unnamed tributary to the North Steepbank River has headwaters in the centre of the ALSA to the east of the Lewis Project Area. The watercourse flows west and reaches the North Steepbank River on the northeastern edge of the Lewis Project Area. Samples were collected from two sites, one approximately 6 km to the east of the Lewis Project Area in the headwaters (Site NST-02). The second sample site was just upstream of the confluence with the river (Site NST-03). Samples were collected in all four seasons between May 2015 and February 2016 (Volume 3, Table E2-9).

The pH in the watercourse is consistent between the headwaters and the downstream site across all four seasons. Values range from 7.1 to 8.3. Dissolved oxygen in this tributary is generally well oxygenated; however, there are three samples with concentrations below the ASWQG and CWQG guideline minimum value of 6.5 mg/L. The summer and winter samples from the headwater site and the spring sample from the tributary mouth had dissolved oxygen concentrations of 4.6, 1.3 and 5.4 mg/L, respectively.

Laboratory specific conductance ranged from 91 μS/cm in headwaters during spring to 403 μS/cm at the mouth of the tributary during winter. Specific conductance was consistent between the headwater site and the downstream site during the open water season, and then markedly higher at both sites during the winter. TDS concentrations follow a similar seasonal pattern with maximum concentrations being 152 mg/L in the headwaters and 230 mg/L at the mouth of the tributary during winter. The dominant ions in the tributary are calcium, magnesium, sodium and bicarbonate. For each of these ions, peak concentrations occur during the winter.

Most inorganic nitrogen samples are below detection limits. Ammonia-N concentrations are only above detection limits in winter in the headwaters (0.6 mg/L). Nitrate-N concentrations are below or near the detection limit of 0.02 mg/L except for the winter sample collected at the tributary mouth (0.4 mg/L). Nitrite-N is undetected during all seasons (MDL = 0.02 and 0.04 mg/L). TKN concentrations are generally higher at the headwater site (0.6 to 1.3 mg/L) in comparison to the tributary mouth (0.3 to 0.6 mg/L). Total phosphorus is consistent during open water season and between sites, with concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 mg/L. The winter concentration of total phosphorus at the headwater site is notably higher than others with a value of 0.3 mg/L.

BOD is below the detection limit (2 mg/L) except for one winter concentration, which is 2.2 mg/L. Naphthenic acids are low for both sites during all four seasons with a maximum concentration of 2.2 mg/L.

All PAHs and most hydrocarbon concentrations are below detection limits for each season. F3 hydrocarbons are detectable at the headwater site during the spring (0.05 mg/L) and winter (0.2 mg/L) and at the tributary mouth site during all four seasons.


Page 8-31

The majority of total metal concentrations are below the guidelines for both sites with the following exceptions:

aluminium spring concentrations at the headwaters (210 μg/L) and at the tributary mouth (122 μg/L) exceed the CDWQ and CWQG of 100 μg/L

chromium at the tributary mouth at a concentration of 1.7 μg/L exceed the ASWQG and CWQG of 1.0 μg/L

cobalt concentrations in the headwaters during winter are above the ASWQG guideline of 2.5 µg/L

iron measurements are consistently above the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L, with concentrations ranging from 192 to 9,270 μg/L

manganese concentrations measure above the CDWQ of 50 μg/L at the headwaters site in the spring (61 μg/L) and winter (2,160 μg/L) and at the tributary mouth site in spring (66 μg/L), summer (81 μg/L) and winter (59 μg/L).

Dissolved metals concentrations are generally lower than total metals. Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L at both sites during all seasons, except spring and fall at the headwater site.

Sediment Quality

The two North Steepbank River tributary sites were sampled and analyzed in late September 2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-10). Both sites primarily have sandy substrates (sand comprised >65% of the samples).

Hydrocarbon parameters are similar between sites with concentrations below detection limits for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX), F1 and F2 hydrocarbons. F3 hydrocarbons (864 and 920 mg/kg) and F4 hydrocarbons (351 and 355 mg/kg) are also similar between both sites. PAHs are all below detection limits for both sites.

Metal parameter concentrations are higher for the headwaters in comparison to the mouth. Only the manganese concentration (589 mg/kg), however, exceeds the AEP LEL guideline (460 mg/kg).

8.5.4.5 Lake 1

Lake 1 (designated L2 in Volume 2, Section 9.0) is a small unnamed waterbody located in the headwaters of a tributary to the North Steepbank River Area on the western edge of the Lewis Project Area. It is connected to a tributary of the North Steepbank River via an outlet channel. The lake is shallow, with a maximum total depth of 1.6 m. The immediate lake shore is swamp dominated by cattails (Typha latifolia), sedges (Carex sp.) and bog birch (Betula pumila) and the surrounding forest is dominated by grasses and black spruce (Picea mariana). Baseline data was collected during all seasons in 2015 and 2016 (Volume 3, Table E2-11).


Page 8-32

Water Quality

The pH of Lake 1 is generally basic with values in the spring, summer and fall being 7.8, 7.7 and 7.5, respectively. The winter sample is slightly acidic with a pH of 6.7. The waterbody is well oxygenated during the open water seasons with dissolved oxygen concentrations ranging from 8.0 to 10.1 mg/L. During the winter, the dissolved oxygen concentration (0.8 mg/L) is below the ASWQG and CWQG minimum guideline of 6.5 mg/L.

TDS concentrations are higher during the winter (146 mg/L) compared to spring (55 mg/L), summer (65 mg/L) and fall (81 mg/L). Alkalinity is high, with a minimum concentration of 56 mg/L and a maximum measured at 149 mg/L. This indicates a strong buffering capacity within the lake to potential acidifying conditions. Major ions in Lake 1 are bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium and sodium, which is typical for the region (RAMP 2016). All ion concentrations, TDS, specific conductance, alkalinity and hardness were highest during the winter. This suggests that groundwater influxes, particularly during the winter, strongly influence the surface water chemistry.

Nutrient concentrations for the lake are low with most values for ammonia, nitrate and nitrite below detection limits. The one exception was the ammonia-N concentration in the winter, which was 0.6 mg/L. Total phosphorus had a concentration of 0.02 mg/L during the open water season and 0.07 mg/L during the winter.

Phenol concentrations were above the ASWQG and CWQG in the spring (0.005 mg/L), summer (0.005 mg/L) and winter (0.02 mg/L). BOD ranged from <2 to 4.7 mg/L. Naphthenic acid concentrations were low with all samples below 2.1 mg/L.

All PAHs and most hydrocarbon concentrations were below detection limits for each season. F3 hydrocarbons were detected in the summer (0.04 mg/L), fall (0.09 mg/L) and winter (0.07 mg/L).

Total metals were generally below the water quality guidelines with the following exceptions:

iron concentration from the winter sampling was 4,240 μg/L, which exceeds the 300 μg/L CCME guideline for the protection of aquatic life

manganese was in excess of the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the winter with a concentration of 819 μg/L.

All other total metals are either present in low concentrations or not detected.

Dissolved metals were generally lower than the total metal concentrations. An exceedance of the ASWQG for dissolved iron was recorded from the winter sampling program with a value of 3,990 μg/L.

Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected from Lake 1 in September 2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-10). The lake bottom is primarily composed of sand (sand comprised >65% of the sample).


Page 8-33

Lake 1 had undetectable concentrations for BTEX, F1, F2 and F4 hydrocarbons. F3 hydrocarbon fraction was 753 mg/kg. All PAH parameters were below detection limits.

Metal concentrations were below guidelines with the exception of an exceedance of the CCME and AEP interim zinc guideline (123 mg/kg), which was 139 mg/kg.

8.5.4.6 Lake 2

Lake 2 (designated L1 in Volume 2, Section 9.0) is another small unnamed waterbody located in the headwaters of a tributary to the North Steepbank River. It is located along the Lewis Project Area boundary on the east side of the River. It is connected to the North Steepbank River via an unnamed tributary with an undefined channel (Figure 8.2-1). The waterbody is shallow with a maximum depth of 1.6 m, and a lake shore and substrate very similar to Lake 1. Baseline data was collected during all seasons in 2015 and 2016 (Volume 3, Table E2-11).

Water Quality

The pH of Lake 2 is consistent between seasons, ranging from 7.2 to 7.7. Dissolved oxygen concentrations during the open water season ranged from 7.9 to 11.9 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are anoxic in winter and below the guidelines for the protection of aquatic life with a value of 0.2 mg/L.

Specific conductance, TDS, and alkalinity showed consistent increases during the winter. Bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium and sodium are the major ions present in the waterbody. Major ion concentrations under ice are higher than during the open water season.

Nutrient concentrations are below detection limits with the exception of the winter ammonia-N sample, which has a value of 0.4 mg/L. Total phosphorus is consistent across all four seasons with concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 mg/L.

Phenol concentrations are low or non-detected, and all BOD samples are undetected. Naphthenic acids are low with all samples below 1.5 mg/L.

All PAH and most hydrocarbon concentrations are below detection limits for each season. F3 hydrocarbons are present during all four seasons, with concentrations ranging from 0.06 to 0.1 mg/L.

Total metals are generally below the detection limits for most parameters, with the following exceptions:

iron in the winter (724 μg/L) exceeds the total iron CWQG and CDWG guidelines of 300 μg/L

manganese in the winter (8,420 μg/L) exceeds the CDWG of 50 μg/L.

Dissolved metals are generally lower than the total metal concentrations. One winter dissolved iron concentration (596 μg/L) is above the ASWQG of 300 μg/L.


Page 8-34

Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected from Lake 2 in September 2015 (Volume 3, Table E2-10). The lake bottom texture is 93% sand.

Only the F3 hydrocarbon fraction, at 396 mg/kg, is present in detectable concentrations within the lake. All PAH parameters are below detection limits.

Metal concentrations are all below guidelines.

8.5.5 Aquatic Regional Study Area

The Steepbank River and the Muskeg River watersheds comprise the ARSA. Water quality sampling sites used to describe the ARSA baseline are shown on Figure 8.2-2. Baseline information is sourced from historical data in previous EIAs (Imperial 2013), RAMP/JOSMP, and from data obtained specifically for the Lewis Project in 2015 and 2016. A summary of the compiled data is presented in Volume 3, Table E3-1 to E3-11.

8.5.5.1 Steepbank River

The Steepbank River flows through the southern portion of the ARSA and discharges into the Athabasca River approximately 15 km south of Fort MacKay.

Water Quality

Water quality data was compiled for all four seasons from field survey data (Site STR-1) and RAMP data at Site ST1 (Volume 3, Table E3-1). Field measured pH is within guidelines for all sampling events with values ranging from 7.6 to 8.7. The Steepbank River is generally well oxygenated with one dissolved oxygen measurement (3.3 mg/L) below the ASWQG and CWQG value of 6.5 mg/L.

Specific conductance ranges from 107 to 743 μS/cm, with the highest values occurring during the winter when groundwater is the main contributor to the surface flow. TDS concentrations range from 70 to 430 mg/L with changes in concentration following the same seasonal pattern as specific conductance. Dominant cations at the mouth of the Steepbank River are calcium, sodium, and magnesium, while the dominant anion is bicarbonate. The ion concentrations also follow a seasonal pattern, peaking during winter.

Ammonia-N is below or near detection limits (0.018 and 0.05 mg/L) in the spring, summer and fall. A maximum concentration for ammonia-N occurs during the winter with a value of 0.1 mg/L. Similarly, nitrate-N is near or below detection limits during the open water season and has a maximum concentration (0.4 mg/L) in the winter. TKN values range from 0.3 to 1.1 mg/L. Total phosphorus range from 0.01 to 0.2 mg/L with no distinct seasonal variation.

Exceedances of the CWQG of 0.04 mg/L occur for total phenols during all four seasons. A maximum total phenol concentration occurs during the summer (0.02 mg/L). BOD ranges from below the detection limit (MDL= 2 mg/L) to 5.0 mg/L. Naphthenic acids are consistently low with all concentrations below 2.3 mg/L.


Page 8-35

All light and heavy phase hydrocarbons are detected during at least one sampling event. All PAHs are detected across the four seasons except for acridine and quinoline. Although most hydrocarbon parameters are detected, none measured above the CWQG.

The majority of total metals are below guidelines with the following exceptions:

aluminium ranges from 26 to 1,790 μg/L, with most concentrations above the CWQG and CDWG of 100 μg/L

maximum chromium concentrations measured above the CWQG of 1.0 μg/L in the spring (1.6 μg/L), summer (1.6 μg/L), fall (2.1 μg/L) and winter (3.2 μg/L)

copper has one maximum value exceeding the calculated CWQG in the spring (2.6 μg/L) iron ranges from 170 to 2,480 μg/L, with most concentrations above the CWQG and

CDWQ of 300 μg/L maximum manganese concentrations exceed the CDWQ in the spring (66 μg/L),

summer (267 μg/L) and fall (167 μg/L) the maximum zinc concentration exceeds the CWQG and ASWQG of 30 μg/L in the

spring with a value of 61 μg/L.

Dissolved metal concentrations are below the guidelines with the exception of aluminium and iron. The maximum dissolved aluminium concentration exceeds the ASWQG of 50 μg/L in the spring with a value of 160 μg/L. Median dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG (300 μg/L) in the spring, summer and fall with values ranging from 315 to 520 μg/L. Dissolved metal concentrations are generally lower than the total phase.

Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected from field survey and RAMP Site STR-1 in the fall of 1998, 2002, 2005 and 2015 (Volume 3, Table E3-2). The site has a predominantly sandy substrate.

Hydrocarbons were analyzed in 2002 and 2015 and values were similar when comparing the results from the two years. BTEX and F1 hydrocarbons are undetected and F2, F3 and F4 hydrocarbons have maximum values of 426, 4,220 and 2,120 mg/kg, respectively. PAHs are generally low with values near or below detection limits except for the following:

chrysene concentrations exceed the CCME and AEP Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) of 0.057 mg/kg, ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg

phenanthrene concentrations in 1998 (0.2 mg/kg) and 2005 (0.06 mg/kg) exceed the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.042 mg/kg

pyrene concentrations are higher than the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.053 mg/kg, ranging from 0.06 to 0.2 mg/kg.

There are no exceedances for any metal parameters in any samples.


Page 8-36

8.5.5.2 Muskeg River

The Muskeg River has headwaters around the Fort McKay 174C reserve. The river flows southwest and into the Athabasca River just south of Fort McKay. Water and sediment quality of the lower two reaches of the Muskeg River are described below. These reaches receive inputs from all upstream watershed developments.

Reach 1 Water Quality

Reach 1 of the Muskeg River comprises the area downstream of the confluence with Jackpine Creek to its confluence with the Athabasca River. Sampling was done as part of the RAMP/ JOSMP program at three locations in Reach 1 (MU1, MUR-1, and MU0) between 1997 and 2015 (Volume 3, Table E3-3). The water in this reach of the river is slightly alkaline with little variation between seasons. No exceedances for pH occur in any samples. There is data for dissolved oxygen only during the open water season, and concentrations are generally high in the spring (10.1 mg/L), summer (9.6 mg/L) and fall (median = 10.3 mg/L). The minimum fall reading is below both the ASWQG and CWQG guidelines and the Muskeg River Framework (MRF) peak limit.

Specific conductance and TDS are at typical levels for freshwater, and are lowest during the spring freshet. Alkalinity concentrations show that the watercourse is well-buffered with concentrations ranging from 85 to 313 mg/L. The major ions in the watercourse are calcium, magnesium, sodium and bicarbonate, which is typical for the region. Fall alkalinity concentrations are typically above the MRF target mean values. Chloride concentrations are also typically higher than MRF target means, but are lower than the limit values.

Ammonia-N values range from below the detection limit of 0.05 to 0.6 mg/L. Nitrate-N and nitrite-N have maximum concentrations of 0.2 and 0.5 mg/L, respectively. Maximum concentrations for inorganic nitrogen parameters occur during winter. TKN values are low with a range from 0.3 to 1.6 mg/L. Total Phosphorus concentrations are also low with a maximum concentration of 0.07 mg/L measured in the fall.

BOD samples are near or below detection limit for all samples except for a fall measurement of 8 mg/L. Naphthenic acid concentrations are low with values below 1 mg/L.

PAHs is detected in all four seasons; however, there are no guideline exceedances and concentrations are generally near or below detection limits.

The majority of total metal concentrations were below the guidelines with the following exceptions:

maximum aluminium concentrations exceed the CDWQ and CWQG of 100 μg/L in all four seasons with a range of 397 to 5,480 μg/L. Median aluminium exceeds the CDWQ and CWQG in the spring (135 μg/L). Maximum aluminium values typically exceed the MRF mean limit

maximum arsenic concentrations exceed the MRF peak targets in the spring, summer and fall, but are within the peak limit values


Page 8-37

the maximum barium concentration exceeds the MRF target peak value in the spring

maximum boron exceeds the MRF target mean values in the summer and winter, as well as the target peak value in the fall

cadmium maximum spring concentration was 0.6 μg/L, which exceeds the CWQG and the MRF target peak value, but not the MRF peak limit

maximum chromium spring (4.3 μg/L), fall (3.2 μg/L) and winter (1.7 μg/L) concentrations exceed the CWQG of 1.0 μg/L. The spring concentration also exceeds the MRF target peak value

copper has a maximum summer concentration of 7.7 μg/L, which exceeds the ASWQG and CWQG guidelines. Copper also exceeds the MRF target peak value for all seasons, but is within the limit values

all iron samples are above the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L with a maximum value of 3,990 μg/L in the winter. Iron typically exceeds the MRF target mean value in the spring and both the MRF target peak and mean values in the winter

maximum lead exceeds the MRF peak limit values in all seasons, as well as the target mean value in the spring

maximum manganese spring (167 μg/L), summer (160 μg/L), fall (534 μg/L), and winter (948 μg/L) concentrations are above the CDWQ of 50 μg/L. The winter median value (93 μg/L) is also above the CDWQ

mercury has a maximum spring concentration of 0.006 μg/L, which exceeds the ASWQG guideline of 0.005 μg/L

molybdenum typically exceeds the MRF target mean value in the fall and winter, but is within limit values

nickel exceeds the MRF target peak values in the spring and summer, but is within limit values. The fall sample exceeds both MRF target and limit peak values

silver has a spring concentration of 0.4 μg/L, which exceeds the ASWQG guideline of 0.1 μg/L and CWQG of 0.25 μg/L

zinc has a fall concentration of 159 μg/L, which exceeds the ASWQG and CWQG of 30 μg/L, as well as the MRF target peak value. There are exceedances of both the MRF target means and peaks in each season.

In general, the dissolved metal concentrations are similar to total metals. There is an exceedance of the ASWQG for dissolved aluminium in the spring with a value of 58 μg/L. Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L in all seasons with a maximum concentration recorded in the summer (1,290 μg/L).


Page 8-38

Reach 1 Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected from Sites MUR-1, MUR-1B and MUR-D2 from 1997 to 2015 (Volume 3, Table E3-4). The Muskeg River near the mouth to the Athabasca River has a substrate composed primarily of sand (median composition of 88%).

Concentrations of BTEX and F1 hydrocarbons are below detection limits for all samples. The F2, F3 and F4 hydrocarbons have detectable concentrations with median values of 43,815 and 671 mg/kg, respectively. PAHs are higher than other watercourses in the region with exceedances recorded for the following:

acenaphthene exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.0067 mg/kg with a value of 0.008 mg/kg

benz[a]anthracene has a maximum concentration of 0.04 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.032 mg/kg

chrysene has a maximum concentration of 0.2 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.057 mg/kg

fluorine has a maximum concentration of 0.03 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.021 mg/kg

phenanthrene has a maximum concentration of 0.06 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.042 mg/kg

pyrene has a maximum concentration of 0.1 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.053 mg/kg.

There are total metals exceedances for manganese and nickel, which are common exceedances for the region (RAMP 2016). Manganese has a maximum concentration of 874 mg/kg, which exceeds the AEP LEL guideline of 460 mg/kg. Nickel has a maximum concentration of 27 mg/kg, which exceeds the AEP LEL guideline of 16 mg/kg.

Reach 2 Water Quality

Reach 2 of the Muskeg River encompasses the areas downstream of the confluence with Wapasu Creek to just upstream of the confluence with Jackpine Creek. Samples were collected at Sites MU6, MU5 and MU4 in 2015 (Volume 3, Table E3-5). This reach of the Muskeg River is slightly alkaline and pH is consistent across the four seasons. All pH values are within the range of the CDWQ, CWQG and ASWQG guidelines.

The lowest specific conductance in this reach of the Muskeg River occurs during the spring (290 μS/cm), while the highest occurs during the winter (560 μS/cm). This seasonal pattern is also evident with TDS concentrations: winter TDS is 350 mg/L and spring is 180 mg/L. Calcium, magnesium, sodium and bicarbonate are the dominant ions measured in this reach of river. The specific conductance and TDS results indicate that the stream receives some water inputs from groundwater. Alkalinity concentrations exceed the MRF target mean in the winter.


Page 8-39

Ammonia-N concentrations range from below the detection limit to 0.9 mg/L. Summer and fall concentrations exceed the MRF target mean, while the winter values exceed the MRF limit mean and target peak. Nitrate-N concentrations are highest in the summer with a maximum value of 0.09 mg/L and a median value of 0.04 mg/L. Nitrite-N values are near or below detection limits. TKN concentrations vary little, ranging from 0.7 to 1.5 mg/L. The total phosphorus concentrations are fairly consistent across all four seasons, but exceed the MRF target mean in the fall.

BOD values range from 1.7 to 8.1 mg/L with the maximum value occurring during a winter.

Most hydrocarbon concentrations are below detection limits for each season with the exception of the winter F3 hydrocarbon fraction concentrations. PAHs has detections in all four seasons; however, there are no guideline exceedances, and overall concentrations are near or below detection limits.


aluminium – an exceedance of the CDWQ and CWQG of 100 μg/L occurs in the spring with a maximum value of 294 μg/L. This concentration also exceeds the MRF target peak value

iron – all samples are above the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L and a maximum value of 6,840 μg/L occurs in the winter. Concentrations in all seasons exceed the MRF target mean and peak values

manganese – the majority of samples are above the CDWQ of 50 μg/L with concentrations ranging from 29 to 1,130 μg/L. Winter concentrations typically exceed the MRF limit mean value

nickel – winter maximum concentration exceeds the MRF target peak value

zinc – concentrations in all seasons exceed the MRF target mean and peak values.

In all four seasons, dissolved iron concentrations exceed the ASWQG of 300 μg/L with values ranging from 74 to 1,820 μg/L. Overall, dissolved metal concentrations are similar to the corresponding total metal concentrations.

Reach 2 Sediment Quality

Reach 2 of the Muskeg River was sampled at MUR-4, MUR-5 and MUR-D3 in fall between 1997 and 2015 (Volume 3, Table E3-4). Sediment in Reach 2 has a median texture composition of 70% sand, 21% silt and 6.3% clay.

BTEX and F1 hydrocarbons are below detection limits for all samples. F3 and F4 hydrocarbons are detected in all samples with median concentrations of 626 and 256 mg/kg, respectively. PAHs has detections for all parameters and values are generally low; however, chrysene exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 0.057 mg/kg with a concentration of 0.06 mg/kg.


Page 8-40

Metals are generally below guidelines except for manganese and zinc. Manganese has a maximum concentration of 572 mg/kg, which exceeds the AEP LEL guideline of 460 mg/kg. Zinc has a maximum concentration of 222 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 123 mg/kg. The median zinc concentration, however, is notably lower than the guideline at 30 mg/kg.

8.5.5.3 Muskeg River Watershed – Jackpine Creek

The headwaters for Jackpine Creek originate in the northwest corner of the ALSA. The creek flows northwest through the ARSA to the Muskeg River. The watercourse was sampled upstream of the confluence with East Jackpine Creek (Site HAC-02) during the 2015 to 2016 Lewis Project field surveys and downstream of the confluence at three locations as part of RAMP/JOSMP (sites JA1 [formerly JAC-1], TR3.1 and TR3.2) from 1999 to 2015 (Volume 3, Table E3-6).

Water Quality

The concentration of dissolved oxygen was measured downstream of the ALSA in all four seasons and downstream of the confluence with the East Jackpine Creek in the fall. Both reaches are well oxygenated during the open water seasons with values from 7.2 to 12.8 mg/L. In the winter, the dissolved oxygen concentrations downstream of the ALSA are below the ASWQG and CWQG of 6.5 mg/L with a value of 2.3 mg/L.

Laboratory measured pH is similar between the two reaches with values ranging from 7.4 to 7.9 downstream of the ALSA and 7.5 to 8.3 downstream of the confluence. Specific conductance, TDS and alkalinity concentrations are typical for the region at both reaches, i.e., increases in concentrations during the winter.

Inorganic nitrogen parameters downstream of the ALSA are below detection limits with the exception of the winter ammonia-N sample; which has a concentration of 0.6 mg/L. Downstream of the confluence, ammonia-N and nitrate-N are highest during the winter with concentrations of 0.5 and 0.2 mg/L, respectively. Total phosphorus values are similar for both reaches during the open water season with concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 0.09 mg/L. Maximum concentrations for total phosphorus occur during the winter for both reaches with concentrations of 0.2 and 0.09 mg/L downstream of the ALSA and downstream of the confluence; respectively.

Total phenols analysis results are not available downstream of the confluence. Exceedances of the ASWQG and CWQG total phenol guidelines (0.004 mg/L) occur in the summer (0.006 mg/L) and winter (0.01 mg/L) downstream of the ALSA. BOD samples collected from downstream of the ALSA have a maximum concentration of 7.9 mg/L, which is higher than the maximum at the RAMP sites (3.0 mg/L). Naphthenic acid concentrations are low for both sites with all values below 1.0 mg/L.


Page 8-41

The majority of hydrocarbons and all PAHs at HAC-02 are below detection limits. Hydrocarbons further downstream are below detection limits in spring and summer, but are detected in fall and winter. The fall maximum concentration for F2 hydrocarbons exceeds the ASWQG of 0.11 mg/L downstream of the confluence. Overall, PAH concentrations downstream of the confluence are near or below detection limits and there are no guideline exceedances for any parameter.

Most total metal concentrations are similar between the sample sites and below surface water guidelines, except the following:

aluminium maximum concentrations exceed the CWQG and the CDWQ of 100 μg/L downstream of the confluence in the spring (151 μg/L), fall (658 μg/L) and winter (234 μg/L)

the maximum cobalt concentration exceeds the ASWQG of 2.5 μg/L downstream of the ALSA in the winter (3.1 μg/L)

the maximum copper concentration exceeds the CWQG downstream of the confluence during the spring with a value of 3.6 mg/L

maximum manganese concentrations exceed the CDWQ of 50 μg/L in the summer and winter at both reaches

iron exceeds the CWQG and the CDWQ of 300 μg/L in all samples except for the spring sample collected downstream of the ALSA

manganese exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L downstream of the confluence in the summer (103 μg/L), winter (3,220 μg/L), and downstream of the ALSA in the winter (3,780 μg/L).

Dissolved metal concentrations are generally lower than the corresponding total parameters. Dissolved metal concentrations exceed the guidelines of aluminium and iron. The maximum dissolved aluminium concentration exceeds the ASWQG of 50 μg/L downstream of the confluence in the fall (170 μg/L). Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG (300 μg/L) during all seasons downstream of the confluence; and in the summer (538 μg/L) and winter (3,730 μg/L) downstream of the ALSA.

Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected during 2015 at HAC-02 and at the RAMP sites JAC-1 and JAC-D1 in the fall between 1997 and 2015 (Volume 3, Table E3-7). Jackpine Creek is similar to other watercourses in the region with median texture results at 93% sand.

BTEX and F1 hydrocarbons are below detection limits for all samples. F2, F3 and F4 hydrocarbon fractions have maximum concentrations of 143, 2,470 and 1,310 mg/kg, respectively. PAHs and metals are low with no exceedances for any samples.

8.5.5.4 Muskeg River Watershed – East Jackpine Creek

East Jackpine Creek is in the southern section of the ARSA. The creek flows northwest where it joins with Jackpine Creek, which continues to the Muskeg River.


Page 8-42

Water Quality

The watercourse was sampled between May 2012 and March 2013 (Imperial 2013) (Volume 3, Table E3-8). No samples were collected during the winter field survey due to dry/frozen conditions.

The field surveyed pH in East Jackpine Creek is consistent over the open water season with values ranging from 7.4 to 8.0. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen for the spring, summer and fall are 7.6, 8.2 and 4.4 mg/L, respectively. The fall measurement is below the guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (ASWQG and CWQG; minimum value = 6.5 mg/L).

Conductivity, TDS, alkalinity and hardness are all higher in the summer in comparison with the spring and the fall. Calcium, magnesium, sodium and bicarbonate are the major ions in the watercourse. The same increase in concentration during the summer is observed for calcium and bicarbonate.

Inorganic nitrogen in the form of ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite are below or near the detection limits for all samples. The TKN concentrations range from 0.4 mg/L in the spring to 0.9 mg/L during summer and fall. Total phosphorus has a maximum concentration of 0.07 mg/L in summer.

No exceedances are recorded for total phenols where the maximum concentration is 0.003 mg/L. BOD (MDL = 2 mg/L) and naphthenic acids (MDL = 1 mg/L) concentrations are below detection limits for the open water season.

Hydrocarbon samples are below detection limits with the exceptions of F3 and F4 hydrocarbons. F3 hydrocarbon concentrations in the spring and fall are 0.07 and 0.05 mg/L, respectively. The spring F4 sample has a concentration of 0.04 mg/L. No PAHs measure above detectable limits.

Most total metals concentrations are below the applicable guidelines, except the following:

iron concentrations measure above the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L during the summer and fall (1,850 and 533 μg/L; respectively)

manganese concentrations measure above the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the summer (327 μg/L).

In general, the dissolved metals concentrations are similar to the total metals. An exceedance of the ASWQG for dissolved iron occurs during the summer with a concentration of 1,340 μg/L.

Sediment Quality

East Jackpine Creek was sampled in October 2012 (Imperial 2013) (Volume 3, Table E3-9). The predominant substrate material in East Jackpine Creek is clay and silt (clay and silt comprised >36% and 50%; respectively).


Page 8-43

BTEX and F1 hydrocarbon fractions are below detection limits; however, the F2, F3 and F4 fractions have concentrations of 32, 332 and 57 mg/kg; respectively. All PAH parameters are below detection limits.

The arsenic concentration is 10 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 5.9 mg/kg. Nickel also exceeds the AEP LEL guideline of 16 mg/kg with a concentration of 20 mg/kg. All other total metals are below the sediment quality guidelines.

8.5.5.5 Muskeg River Watershed – Green Stockings Creek

Green Stockings Creek is located to the north of the headwaters for East Jackpine Creek. The creek flows northwest joining with Black Fly Creek and Pemmican Creek to form Khahago Creek.

Water Quality

Green Stockings Creek was sampled between May 2012 and March 2013 (Volume 3, Table E3-8). No water flow was observed in Green Stockings Creek during the winter season.

During the open water season, pH is consistent in the watercourse with values ranging from 7.7 to 8.0. Green Stockings Creek is well oxygenated with concentrations well above the minimum requirement for aquatic life, ranging from 9.3 to 14.1 mg/L.

Laboratory specific conductance ranges between 92 μS/cm in the spring time and 148 μS/cm in the summer. Relative to other watercourses in the region, the TDS is low, ranging from 46 to 81 mg/L. This indicates low groundwater input into the watercourse. The major ions in Green Stockings Creek chemistry are calcium and bicarbonate. Both of these parameters are at the highest concentrations during the summer.

Nitrate, nitrite and ammonia are undetected during all seasons. TKN range between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/L. Total phosphorus concentrations are similar across the open water seasons with the highest concentration occurring during the spring (0.06 mg/L).

Total phenols concentrations in the spring (<0.002 mg/L), summer (0.002 mg/L) and fall (0.003 mg/L) are below the ASWQG and CWQG of 0.004 mg/L. BOD and naphthenic acid concentrations are below detection limits during all seasons (MDL = 2 mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively).

PAH and hydrocarbons concentrations are below detection limits with the exception of the F3 hydrocarbon fraction during the spring (0.07 mg/L) and the fall (0.03 mg/L).

Total metals are generally below the CWQGs with the following exceptions:

aluminium exceeds the CWQG of 100 μg/L in the spring (921 μg/L) and in the fall (263 μg/L)

chromium exceeds the CWQG of 1.0 μg/L in the spring with a concentration of 1.1 μg/L


Page 8-44

iron exceeds CWQG and CDWQ of 300 μg/L in all seasons with concentrations of 1,980, 1,590 and 1,230 μg/L in spring, summer and fall; respectively

manganese exceeds the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the spring and fall, with concentrations of 88 and 74 μg/L; respectively.

Dissolved metals concentrations are generally similar to total metals concentrations. Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L in the summer (1,420 μg/L) and fall (634 μg/L).

Sediment Quality

The texture analysis performed on the samples collected in October 2012 (Imperial 2013) show that the sediment is composed of 86% sand.

BTEX and F1 to F4 hydrocarbons, and PAHs are all below detection limits (Volume 3, Table E3-9).

There are no guideline exceedances of total metals in sediment samples from Green Stockings Creek. Most parameters yielded results that were close to, or below detection limits.

8.5.5.6 Muskeg River Watershed – Black Fly Creek

Black Fly Creek is located northeast of the Green Stockings Creek. Like the Green Stockings Creek, Blackfly Creek joins with Pemmican Creek forming Khahago Creek.

Water Quality

Black Fly creek was sampled between May 2012 and March 2013; however, no flow was observed during the winter (Volume 3, Table E3-8).

The pH in Blackfly Creek is consistent between seasons, ranging from 7.8 in the fall to 8.3 in the summer. Black Fly Creek is consistently above the guidelines for dissolved oxygen in all open water seasons with values ranging from 9.3 to 13.4 mg/L.

Laboratory measured specific conductance, TDS and alkalinity concentrations are highest in the summer with values of 613 μS/cm, 377 mg/L and 359 mg/L; respectively. Sodium and bicarbonate are the most common ions measured in Black Fly Creek. The Grand Rapids aquifer hydrochemical type is Na+K+CO3+HCO3 (Matrix 2013), which is similar to Black Fly Creek. Thus, Black Fly Creek likely receives baseflow from the Grand Rapids aquifer.

Ammonia-N and nitrite concentrations are below or near the detection limits. Nitrate-N concentrations are 0.3 mg/L in the spring, 0.1 mg/L in the fall, and are below the detection limits (MDL = 0.05 mg/L) in the summer. TKN concentrations range from 0.5 to 1.1 mg/L. Total phosphorus is higher in the spring (0.2 mg/L) and summer (0.3 mg/L) in comparison with the fall (0.08 mg/L).

In fall, the total phenol concentration in Black Fly Creek is 0.006 mg/L, which is above the ASWQG and CWQG of 0.004 mg/L. BOD and naphthenic acid concentrations are at or below detection limits.


Page 8-45

All PAH and hydrocarbon concentrations are below detection limits in each season.


aluminium – spring and fall concentrations are above the CDWQ and CWQG of 100 μg/L with values of 1,440 and 107 μg/L; respectively

chromium – the spring concentration of 1.9 μg/L exceeds the CWQG of 1.0 μg/L

iron – all concentrations are above the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L with concentrations ranging from 578 to 2,420 μg/L

manganese – the spring (150 μg/L) and summer (82 μg/L) concentrations are above the CDWQ of 50 μg/L.

Dissolved aluminium concentrations range from 26 μg/L (spring) to 92 μg/L (fall) which is higher than the ASWQG of 50 μg/L. Dissolved iron concentrations in the summer (494 μg/L) and fall (461 μg/L) exceed the 300 μg/L ASWQG.

Sediment Quality

The sediment quality sample was taken in the fall of 2012 (Volume 3, Table E3-9). The creek bed is comprised of 68% sand, 18% silt and 14% clay.

Concentrations of total hydrocarbons are low with most below detection limits. The F3 hydrocarbon fractions have a concentration of 51 mg/kg. PAHs are all less than the detection limits.

There are no guideline exceedances for total metals. All parameters analyzed have concentrations near or below detection limits.

8.5.5.7 Muskeg River Watershed – Wesukemina Creek

Wesukemina Creek is located northeast of Black Fly Creek. Wesukemina Creek joins with Iyinimin Creek, which empties into Kearl Lake.

Water Quality

The watercourse was sampled between May 2012 and March 2013 (Imperial 2013) (Volume 3, Table E3-8). Unlike Green Stockings and Black Fly creeks, Wesukemina Creek has surface water flow during the winter.

The field surveyed pH in Wesukemina Creek ranges from 6.6 to 8.5. The watercourse is well oxygenated in spring and summer; however, the dissolved oxygen concentrations decrease to 5.9 and 2.0 mg/L in fall and winter, respectively. These are below the guideline of 6.5 mg/L for the protection of aquatic life.


Page 8-46

Conductivity is higher in summer (170 μS/cm) and winter (171 μS/cm) in comparison to spring (90 μS/cm) and fall (81 μS/cm). TDS is highest during the summer (92 mg/L) and lowest during the spring (35 mg/L). The dominant major ions are calcium and bicarbonate. Major ion concentrations are similar for the summer and winter samples and lowest during the spring.

Ammonia-N, nitrate-N and nitrite-N are undetected during all seasons (MDL = 0.02, 0.05 and 0.03 mg/L; respectively). The TKN concentrations range from 0.5 to 0.8 mg/L. Total phosphorus concentrations range from below the detection limit of 0.01 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L.

Total phenols are near or below the detection limit of 0.002 mg/L with no samples above the 0.004 mg/L guideline. BOD (MDL = 2 mg/L) and naphthenic acids (MDL = 1 mg/L) concentrations are below detection limits for all samples.

Hydrocarbons are below detection limits except for F3 hydrocarbons, which are detected in the spring with a concentration of 0.06 mg/L. PAHs are not detected during any season.

Most total metals concentrations are below CDWQ and CWQG, except the following:

iron concentrations are above the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L during the summer (758 μg/L), fall (313 μg/L), and winter (574 μg/L)

manganese concentrations are above the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the summer (98 μg/L) and winter (122 μg/L).

In general, the dissolved metals concentrations are similar to the total metals. Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L in the summer (804 μg/L) and winter (399 μg/L).

Sediment Quality

Sediment quality samples were collected from Wesukemina Creek in October 2012 (Imperial 2013) (Volume 3, Table E3-9). Texture analysis shows that that substrate is comprised mainly of sand and silt.

BTEX, F1 and F2 hydrocarbons are all below their respective detection limits. The F3 and F4 hydrocarbons have concentrations of 298 and 144 mg/kg; respectively. PAHs are all below the detection limits and all metal parameters analyzed were below the sediment quality guidelines.

8.5.5.8 Muskeg River Watershed – Wapasu Creek

Wapasu Creek is located north and east of Kearl Lake and flows northwest joining with the Muskeg River. Kearl and Aurora South mines will permanently alter Wapasu Creek.

Water Quality

The watercourse was sampled as part of the RAMP/JOSMP program upstream of the Canterra Road Crossing from 1998 to 1999 and 2004 to 2014 (Site WAC-1) (Volume 3, Table E3-8). A second site downstream, just before the confluence with the Muskeg River, was sampled in 2015 and 2016 (Site WA1). Portions of the watercourse appeared to be completely dry/frozen during the winter field survey.


Page 8-47

The field surveyed pH data is available for Wapasu Creek in the fall and winter, with values ranging from 7.1 to 8.2. During fall, the watercourse is well oxygenated with a dissolved oxygen median value of 8.6 mg/L. However, the winter dissolved oxygen concentration was 4.2 mg/L, which is below the CWQG and ASWQG of 6.5 mg/L.

Specific conductance is higher in the winter (maximum of 600 μS/cm) in comparison to the spring (240 μS/cm), summer (340 μS/cm) and fall (469 μS/cm). TDS is also highest during the winter (350 mg/L) and lowest during the fall (160 mg/L). The dominant major ions in Wapasu Creek are calcium, magnesium, sodium and bicarbonate. Major ion concentrations are also generally highest in the winter.

Ammonia-N is similar between spring, summer and fall with concentrations ranging from below the detection limit of 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L. In the winter, ammonia-N concentrations range from 0.2 to 1.0 mg/L. Nitrate-N concentrations range from below the detection limit (MDL = 0.02 mg/L) to 0.05 mg/L. Nitrite-N concentrations range from below the detection limit of 0.002 to 0.05 mg/L. The maximum TKN concentration is 2.3 mg/L in winter. Total phosphorus ranges from 0.002 to 0.2 mg/L with concentrations in the winter being slightly higher than open water season.

Total phenols analytical results are not available for Wapasu Creek. BOD (MDL = 2 mg/L) has a maximum value of 8 mg/L from the winter. Naphthenic acids are analyzed only from the fall samples with a maximum concentration of 0.2 mg/L.

Most hydrocarbons are either near or below detection limits with the exception of the F1 to F4 hydrocarbon fractions in the fall and F3 hydrocarbons in the winter. In the fall, the F1 hydrocarbon concentration is 0.1 mg/L and the other fractions have a concentration of 0.25 mg/L each. The F2 hydrocarbon fraction exceeds the ASWQG of 0.11 mg/L with a value of 0.25 mg/L. A value of 0.2 mg/L for F3 hydrocarbons occurs during the winter. Overall, PAHs for Wapasu Creek are near or below detection limits and there are no guideline exceedances for any parameter.

Most total metals concentrations are below CDWQ and CWQG, except the following:

the maximum aluminium concentration exceeds the CDWQ and CWQG of 100 μg/L in the winter (120 μg/L)

the maximum chromium concentration exceeds the ASWQG and CWQG of 1 μg/L in the winter (2.4 μg/L)

the maximum cobalt concentration exceeds the ASWQG of 2.4 μg/L in the winter (2.7 μg/L)

iron concentrations consistently measure above the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L during all seasons with concentrations ranging from 177 to 17,800 μg/L

manganese concentrations are above the CDWQ of 50 μg/L during the summer, fall and winter with concentrations ranging from 12 to 870 μg/L

silver exceeds the ASWQG of 0.1 μg/L in the winter (0.2 μg/L).


Page 8-48

In general, the dissolved metals concentrations are similar to the total metals. Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L in the majority of samples in all seasons with concentrations ranging from 109 to 3,930 μg/L.

8.5.5.9 Muskeg River Watershed – Kearl Lake

Kearl Lake is a small lake located in the centre of the Muskeg River Watershed, and is within the Kearl project area and Aurora South lease area.

Water Quality

Kearl Lake was sampled between August 1998 and March 2016 as part of the RAMP/JOSMP program (Site KEL-1) (Volume 3, Table E3-10). The laboratory pH is slightly alkaline across all seasons, ranging from 7.5 to 8.6. Specific conductance is consistent in the open water seasons but notably higher during the winter. Major ion concentrations are low, with calcium, magnesium and sodium being the dominant cations, and bicarbonate being the dominant anion. These parameters are all higher in concentration during the winter, suggesting that groundwater influxes affect the surface water chemistry in Kearl Lake.

Nutrient concentrations are generally low and consistent among all seasons with the exception of ammonia-N, which is higher during winter. The winter BOD concentration is 8.3 mg/L.

All hydrocarbon concentrations are below detection limits for the spring and summer. Fall maximum values were above detection limits, with an exceedance of the ASWQG guideline for F2 hydrocarbons measured. Hydrocarbons were undetected in the winter with the exception of the F3 hydrocarbon fraction, which is 0.3 mg/L. There are no guideline exceedances for any PAH parameter in any season.

Most total metals concentrations are below aquatic life guideline levels, with the exceptions of:

the maximum aluminium exceeds the CDWQ and CWQG of 100 μg/L in the fall with a value of 130 μg/L

copper exceeds the calculated CWQG and the ASWQG guidelines for one sample in the winter (7.7 μg/L)

total iron exceeds the CDWQ and CWQG of 300 μg/L in the winter with values of 671 and 1,510 μg/L

maximum total manganese concentrations exceed the CDWQ of 50 μg/L in the summer (52 μg/L) and fall (52 μg/L). Both winter samples exceed the guideline with values of 260 and 151 μg/L.

Dissolved metals are generally lower than total metals. Dissolved iron exceeds the ASWQG of 300 μg/L in the winter with concentrations of 525 and 1,260 μg/L.


Page 8-49

Sediment Quality Kearl Lake sediment samples were collected in the fall, from 2001 to 2015, and analyzed for texture, hydrocarbons, PAHs and metals (Volume 3, Table E3-11). Unlike most watercourses and waterbodies in the region that have primarily sandy substrates, Kearl Lake sediment is mostly comprised of silt (median = 75%).

BTEX and F1 hydrocarbons are low with values near or below detection limits. F2, F3 and F4 hydrocarbon fractions have maximum recorded concentrations of 530, 3,600 and 2,500 mg/kg, respectively. Acenaphthene and naphthalene both exceed the CCME and AEP ISQG. The maximum acenaphthene recorded in Kearl Lake was 0.008 mg/kg, which is higher than the guideline of 0.0067 mg/kg. Naphthalene has a maximum concentration of 0.04 mg/kg, which exceeds the 0.035 mg/kg guideline.

Metals results from Kearl Lake are generally below guidelines except for copper and nickel. The maximum copper concentration is 71 mg/kg, which exceeds the CCME and AEP ISQG of 35.7 mg/kg. However, the median copper concentration is notably lower than the guideline (7.7 mg/kg). The maximum nickel concentration is 27 mg/kg and this exceeds the AEP LEL guideline of 16 mg/kg.

8.5.6 Acid Sensitivity of Lakes

Seven lakes in the ALSA, three in the ARSA, and 12 lakes in the AQRSA were assessed for acid sensitivity using the Saffran and Trew index (Table 8.5-1, Figure 8.4-1).

Table 8.5-1: Acid Sensitivity Rating Results Based on Saffran and Trew (1996)

Site Area Sensitivity Rating

Alkalinity pH Calcium Total Rating Lake 1 ALSA 65 7.6 20 Least Lake 2 ALSA 48 7.7 13 Least A013 (182 (P23)) AQRSA 46 7.7 15 Least A014 (185 (P27)) AQRSA 4 5.4 3.5 High A016 (209 (P7)) AQRSA 9 6.4 4.3 High A019 (226 (P97)) AQRSA 15 6.9 6.1 Moderate A022 (268 (E15)) ALSA 18 7.2 6.5 Moderate A023 (270 (4)) ALSA 64 8.0 17 Least A031 (418 (L35/Kearl)) ARSA 85 8.1 20 Least A037 (452 (L4)) AQRSA 6 6.1 3.4 High A042 (470 (L7)) AQRSA 9 6.5 4.5 High A043 (471 (L8)) AQRSA 17 7.2 5.8 Moderate A053 (Unnamed Lake (L3)) AQRSA 111 7.7 26 Least A122 (McClelland Lake) AQRSA 133 8.4 23 Least A125 (Mildred) AQRSA 179 8.2 54 Least A319 (Unnamed (L1A)) ARSA 4 6.4 3.0 High A327 (Unnamed (L2A)) AQRSA 51 7.8 18 Least


Page 8-50

Site Area Sensitivity Rating

Alkalinity pH Calcium Total Rating A331 (Unnamed (L3A)) ALSA 40 7.8 14 Least A343 (Unnamed (L5A)) ALSA 31 7.0 8.5 Moderate A354 (Unnamed (L6)) ALSA 52 7.7 15 Least A391 (Unnamed (E3)) ARSA 68 7.4 10 Low A505 (Isadore's Lake) AQRSA 182 8.4 63 Least

Notes: Black cells with white writing denote high sensitivity, dark grey cells with white writing denote moderate sensitivity, light grey cells with black writing denote low sensitivity, and white cells with black writing denote least sensitivity.

According to the Saffran and Trew index, the acid sensitivity rating for five lakes within the ALSA were least sensitive, and two were moderately sensitive. Of the lakes that were rated as moderately sensitive, one (A022) had moderate ratings for both alkalinity and calcium indicating a reduced buffering capacity. The other moderate rated lake (A343) had moderate ratings for pH and calcium.

The three lakes in the ARSA had least sensitive, low sensitive and high sensitivity ratings. Kearl Lake (A031) had least sensitive ratings for alkalinity and pH and a low sensitivity rating for calcium. Lake A391 was rated as low sensitivity for pH and calcium, but least sensitive for alkalinity. Lake A319 was highly sensitive for all parameters.

A total of 12 lakes were assessed in the AQRSA. Six lakes were rated as least sensitive, two moderate and four highly sensitive to acidifying depositions. The percent ratings for the water quality parameters used to assess the lakes within the ALSA, ARSA, and AQRSA are presented in Table 8.5-2.

Table 8.5-2: Percent Acid Sensitivity Ratings for the Lakes in the Air Quality Regional Study Area

Parameter Units High Moderate Low Least Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 23% 14% 9% 55% Calcium mg/L 23% 18% 45% 14% pH pH Units 23% 9% 14% 55%

8.5.7 Acid Deposition in Lakes

Of the 22 lakes analyzed, 14 had acid depositions exceeding critical loads in the Baseline Case. Lakes in the ALSA predicted to be acidifying in the baseline case include A331 and A343. Lakes A031 and A319 in the ARSA are predicted to be acidifying in the baseline case.


Page 8-51

8.6 Application Case

The following section presents Lewis Project effects on the surface water quality. The effects of Lewis Project activities in Table 8.3-1 are examined using a maximum disturbance approach that assumes all development will occur at the same time over the entire footprint, representing a full development assessment (Volume 2, Section 3.6). Residual impacts consider the effectiveness of proposed design and mitigation strategies.

8.6.1 Mitigation

Lewis Project activities that could potentially affect surface water quality are listed in Table 8.6-1 with corresponding mitigations.

8.6.2 Project Specific Effects to Surface Water Quality

8.6.2.1 Sedimentation of Watercourses and Waterbodies

Increased sedimentation can affect waterbodies and watercourses by increasing the turbidity of the waters, increasing contaminant loading through physical deposition (Johnston 1991), and increasing nutrient loading through the deposition of organic particles (CCME 2002). The increase in turbidity and suspended sediments can have physical effects on the aquatic environment, such as decreasing light penetration, the degradation of aquatic habitat by the reduction of streambed permeability and stability (CCME 2002), and direct effects to fish such as the abrasion of gills (Anderson et al. 1996). The loading of organic sediments into waterbodies and watercourses can increase nutrient concentrations, leading to the possibility of eutrophication of the watercourse or waterbody. The loading of contaminants can cause degradation of the overall sediment quality of the watercourse or waterbody. Sediment load can be increased in watercourses and waterbodies through the following means:

construction of surface facilities, such as the central processing facility (CPF) or roads increased runoff from surface facilities during operations the construction of watercourse crossings.

Construction of Surface Facilities Construction of surface facilities will include the following:

CPFs with associated buildings

ancillary CPF facilities, such as construction laydown areas and soil stockpiles

well pads

runoff ponds

linear developments, such as roads, underground or above ground pipelines (natural gas, water pipelines, steam and production piping), overhead electrical lines, and communication lines (associated with land clearing)

water treatment facility

potential borrow sources.


Page 8-52

Table 8.6-1: Potential Project-Specific Effects and Mitigation

Project Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Construction of surface facilities including right-of-way

Potential loading of sediments and other contaminants, such as nutrients, into waterbodies and watercourses from surface runoff or construction activities. Nutrient loading, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, may cause eutrophication of surface waters. Contaminant loading may cause degradation of the overall sediment quality

To the extent practical, all interconnecting infrastructure, including pipelines, power lines and access roads, will be reviewed to determine if routing can be accomplished along a common corridor to minimize land disturbance and habitat clearing

Use existing disturbed/cleared sites for the Lewis Project facilities to minimize site disturbance where practical

Ground-truth waterbody and watercourse maps Suncor will endeavour to observe waterbody setback guidelines and provide

no-disturbance buffers and management/mitigation options during Lewis Project design for watershed protection according to AER Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules, the Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions (Government of Alberta 2017a) and Pre-Application Requirements for Formal Dispositions (Government of Alberta 2017b). If during field-scouting, done prior to finalizing pad planning, it is determined that setbacks are impractical, then Suncor will seek Director’s approval for appropriate mitigation methods. No specific setbacks are identified for fens and bogs, however, mitigative measures as listed in Volume 2, Sections 7.6.1, 8.6.1 and 11.6.1 will be applied as appropriate.

Clearing vegetation, stripping and stockpiling soil materials will preferentially be undertaken in winter, whenever practical, to avoid wet periods and spring break-up where the risk of soil compaction and rutting is greatest. If winter work is not possible, stripping and stockpiling soil material will be done in dry ground conditions. Civil construction of well pads and roads may occur year round.

Design and install pipeline and road crossings in accordance with the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunications Line Crossing a Water Body (ESRD 2013b) and the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (ESRD 2013c), under the Water Act

Install appropriate erosion control techniques during construction of roads, drainage ditches and pipelines to manage erosion, where practical

Do not permit the use of fertilizers by Suncor staff or contractors within waterbody and watercourse setbacks areas

Place stockpiles on stable surfaces protected from surface runoff and erosion from surrounding areas

Dispose drilling waste in accordance with AER Directive 050: Drilling Waste Management (AER 2016)

Implement the Emergency Response Plan (Volume 1, Section 4.5), including procedures for spill containment and cleanup

Construct a runoff pond at the CPFs that will be designed to collect surface runoff water from a system of drainage ditches

Runoff from well pads, roads and facilities Road and pipeline watercourse crossing construction


Page 8-53

Project Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Construct perimeter berms at each well pad to allow surface water runoff from well

pads to flow to collection areas on the edge of the pad Use runoff water collection areas at each steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) well

pad to settle particles and reduce total suspended solids Test stormwater and surface water runoff to confirm it meets release criteria per

Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) conditions or AER Directive 055: Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry (AER 2001) and Directive 055: Addendum: Interim Requirements for Aboveground Synthetically- Lined Wall Storage Systems, Updates to Liner Requirements, and Optional Diking Requirements for Single-Walled Aboveground Storage Tanks (AEP 2011)

Use stormwater collected at the CPFs for reuse if it does not meet release criteria Water withdrawals from surficial aquifers

Potential changes to the regional and/or local groundwater hydraulic regimes causing changes in water inputs to waterbodies and watercourses, and effect overall natural water quality. Potential effects to winter low flows due to alteration of groundwater levels

The Lewis Project will monitor for thermally mobilized constituents near each production well and, if detected, the plume will be monitored. Mitigation of the thermally mobilized constituents would be implemented, if necessary, to prevent unacceptable impacts to potential receptors. This approach is in accordance with the Assessment of the Draft Directive titled Assessment of Thermally-Mobilized Constituents in Groundwater for Thermal In Situ Operations (AER 2016b). Culverts will be installed in roads to facilitate surface and subsurface water drainage where necessary Subsurface operations such as

drilling and steam injection Potential formation of a thermal plume from operations, resulting in the thermal mobilization of naturally occurring trace constituents

Changes to land use in the ALSA Altered catchment land use leading to changes in runoff and surface water flows, potentially leading to changes in surface water quality

Monitor surface water quality and flows to detect potential effects Use storm water ponds to mitigate increases in peak discharge

Direct withdrawal of water from surface waterbodies

Potential changes to surface water chemistry due to changes in water levels in waterbodies

Withdrawal limits for pumping from surface waterbodies will be set by AEP under the Water Act

Release of wastewater or spills Potential point source loading of contaminants into waterbodies and watercourses

Process water will be recycled to the extent possible Wastewater will be disposed of in a hydraulically isolated formation Injection and production wells will be designed in accordance with best management

practices Industry best practices will be used in casing and cementing programs Sewage will be treated offsite An emergency response plan for spills will be developed (Volume 1, Section 4.5)

Release of acidifying emissions from Project activities

Acidification of waterbodies in the local and regional study areas

Acid sensitive waterbodies in the ALSA, or waterbodies in the ALSA predicted to be acidifying in the Application Case, will be monitored a regional initiative/program to ensure there are no detectable trends in pH


Page 8-54

The construction of these facilities could introduce sediment and contaminants to watercourses and waterbodies through runoff or accidental releases. Considering the proposed mitigations, the potential residual impact to sediment quality from construction of surface facilities is low.

Increase Runoff from Surface Facilities during Operations

Sediments, contaminants and excess nutrients may be introduced into waterbodies and watercourses by runoff from the CPF, well pads and roads.

Nutrient loading, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, may cause eutrophication of surface waters. Eutrophication is the enrichment of an aquatic system with chemical nutrients particularly phosphorus and nitrogen. Eutrophication occurs when an excess of essential nutrients leads to overgrowth of algae and aquatic plants. When these plants die they are decomposed by microorganisms, which reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen that can in turn kill fish and other aquatic life. Considering the proposed mitigations, the potential residual impact to aquatic ecosystems and sediment quality due to eutrophication from the Lewis Project is rated as low.

Watercourse Crossings

The construction of roads and utility corridors will necessitate the construction of watercourse crossings. The Lewis Project will include approximately 27 (number may vary) watercourse crossings (Volume 2, Figure 9.6-1). Crossing construction may introduce sediments to the watercourses, which potentially affects the water quality and may subsequently affect aquatic organisms and habitat.

With mitigations in place for the Lewis Project as outlined in Table 8.6-1, the magnitude of the effects on surface water quality from the construction of surface facilities, subsequent runoff from these facilities during operations, and from construction of watercourse crossings is low; within the range of normal variability. Geographic extent of potential effects is local, anticipated to only occur within the boundaries of the ALSA. Direction is negative, but short-term with potential effects being infrequent. Potential sedimentation effects are well understood and mitigations based on industry standard best management practices are proven to be reliable; therefore, these ratings have a high level of confidence. The residual impact of the construction and maintenance of surface facilities and watercourse crossings on surface water quality is predicted to be low.

Mitigation measures outlined in Table 8.6-1 will reduce sediment loading into waterbodies and therefore reduce nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into waterbodies. Mitigating phosphorus loading into waterbodies will reduce the potential for eutrophication. The potential residual impact to aquatic ecosystems due to eutrophication from the Lewis Project is also rated as low.

8.6.2.2 Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions

Changes to groundwater levels and chemistry can affect surface water flows and quality due to the drawdown of groundwater sources and the mobilization of groundwater contaminants to surface waters.


Page 8-55

Water Withdrawal from Surficial Aquifers

Water management for the Lewis Project is described in Volume 1, Section 4.2. Process water for steam generation will likely be imported from Suncor’s Base Plant Operations. Water for utility purposes including dust control, and utility steam will be sourced from treated process-effected water. Water for domestic purposes will be trucked in.

Withdrawals from surficial aquifers are not anticipated to occur at this time. Thus, this indicator has not been assessed.

Subsurface Operations Steaming and oil recovery will be isolated from surface water and shallow groundwater by the caprock. Process water for steam generation will be imported from Suncor’s Base Plant Operations, so no groundwater is anticipated for this purpose. If groundwater is required at a later date, Suncor will obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals and conduct the suitable level of stakeholder consultation. As it is anticipated that process water will provide sufficient make-up water for the Lewis Project, it is expected that the Lewis Project will have minimal effect on groundwater-surface water interaction in terms of water movement.

The upper hydrogeological unit in the Lewis Project Area is undifferentiated Quaternary deposits. Water in the Quaternary deposits generally flows downward, but also laterally towards river systems, including the Athabasca, Steepbank and North Steepbank rivers (Volume 2, Section 6.5). Groundwater is also expected to discharge from the Middle and Lower Grand Rapids aquifers where they subcrop to the west, southwest, and south (Volume 2, Section 6.5).

The heating of shallow groundwater may result in the mobilization of metals including arsenic (i.e., thermal plumes). Surface spills and leaks also have the potential to degrade groundwater quality. Where this groundwater discharges to the surface, there is the potential that surface water quality will be degraded.

Monitoring will be employed to detect effects from thermal plumes on surface waterbodies, and mitigation measures will be implemented if potential negative effects are detected (Volume 2, Section 6.8).

The limited groundwater and surface water interactions will not have a widespread effect on quality or quantity of surface water. The magnitude is rated low, extent local, and negative in direction with continuous frequency over the operational life of the Lewis Project (i.e., mid-term in duration). These ratings are stated with moderate confidence based on the known hydrogeology of the Lewis Project Area; however, there is limited information on the mobilization of groundwater contaminants to surface waters. The overall residual impact of subsurface operations on surface water quality is predicted to be low.


Page 8-56

8.6.2.3 Catchment Land Use Changes to surface water quality can occur through the alteration of surface water flows. Flows can be altered by changing groundwater levels (Section 8.6.2) or through changes to the surface patterns of flow. Alteration of surface patterns of flow include removal or rerouting of small watercourses, and the alteration of both mean runoff levels and peak discharge through construction of the Lewis Project footprint.

The expected disturbance areas within the ALSA catchments are summarized in Volume 2, Section 7.6. Disturbances will not occur in the Upper Steepbank River Catchment as a result of the Lewis Project footprint. As the Upper Steepbank River Catchment is upstream of the Lewis Project footprint, effects from watershed land use changes will not occur in this catchment.

In the Lower Steepbank River Catchment, the upper extent of two small upland watercourses will be altered by one of the CPF footprints (Volume 2, Section 7.6). The watercourses are ephemeral in nature, and as such do not contribute continuous water flow to the Steepbank River.

Disturbances will increase the mean annual runoff in the Jackpine Creek, North Steepbank and Lower Steepbank River catchments (Volume 2, Section 7.6). Effects from the increase in mean annual runoff are predicted to be low in the North Steepbank and Lower Steepbank catchments, and moderate in the Jackpine Creek Catchment (Volume 2, Section 7.6). Increases to peak flows due to the Lewis Project were only above a measurable threshold for Jackpine Creek.

Surface water runoff will be collected in a runoff pond and tested prior to release. Runoff ponds are well established methods to mitigate sedimentation effects from increased runoff. Dissolved constituents, such as major ions, are typically lower in concentration in runoff when compared to groundwater. The release of increased surface runoff into natural watercourses will not result in the increase of dissolved water quality constituents.

Increases to peak flows due to the Lewis Project were only above a measurable threshold for Jackpine Creek. Stormwater ponds will be employed to mitigate peak flow discharge and mitigate effects from sedimentation. Residual Lewis Projects effects on surface water quality from peak flows will be short-term, infrequent, and local in extent.

Effects due to Lewis Project operations on hydrology will last the duration of the Lewis Project life; however, changes from soil compaction may remain after operations have ceased. If this occurs, then the increase in mean runoff is considered to be continuous in frequency and long-term in duration.

The effects of watershed land use changes on surface water quality are low to moderate in magnitude, local in extent, negative in direction, short-term to long-term, infrequent to continuous in duration. The residual impact of watershed land use changes on water quality is low to moderate. These effects are well understood (Volume 2, Section 7.6) and reliable methods will be used to mitigate residual impacts, therefore, confidence in these ratings is high.


Page 8-57

8.6.2.4 Surface Water Withdrawals

Water for construction, hydrostatic testing and drilling will be obtained under temporary diversion licences applied for separately. Suncor will obtain temporary diversion licences for construction and drilling and diversion licences to manage runoff water at the CPF and field facilities. When obtaining water for construction and drilling, Suncor will preferentially use water from borrow sources or industrial runoff ponds before applying on diversion licences from natural waterbodies. Additionally, Suncor will follow the Water Act Code of Practice for the Temporary Diversion of Water for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines.

Withdrawals are anticipated to be infrequent and will be monitored and, therefore, will not have a widespread effect on quantity or quality of surface water. Magnitude is rated low, direction is negative, extent is local, duration is short-term. Withdrawal limits will be set by AEP under the Water Act; therefore, confidence is high for these ratings. The overall residual impact on surface water is predicted to be low.

8.6.2.5 Wastewater Disposal and Accidental Release

Wastewater Disposal

Wastewater can affect surface water quality through poor disposal practices. Poor disposal practices include the release of domestic wastewater that does not meet Approval release conditions, or the improper disposal of industrial wastewater.

Wastewater volumes (domestic and industrial wastewater streams) predicted to be produced by the Lewis Project are presented in Volume 1, Section 4.2.3. Domestic wastewater will be directed to a septic tank with subsequent disposal to a third-party domestic wastewater treatment facility holding a valid approval under the EPEA.

The effects of wastewater disposal on surface water quality are low in magnitude, local in extent, negative in direction, infrequent and short-term. Ratings are stated with high confidence and the overall residual impact is low.

Accidental Releases

Accidental releases generally occur due to production or disposal well casing failures, or by spills. Wells for both disposal and production will be designed using current best management practices. An emergency response plan (Volume 1, Section 4.5) will be implemented in the event of an accidental release due to casing failure, or any other type of spill. A disposal well will be placed in a Devonian formation that is hydraulically isolated from other formations, thus effects to surface water will be negligible.

The effects of accidental release on surface water quality are low in magnitude, local in extent, negative in direction, infrequent and short-term. Ratings are stated with high confidence and the overall residual impact is low.


Page 8-58

8.6.2.6 Acidification

In the Baseline Case, 12 of the 22 lakes assessed had acid depositions exceeding critical loads (Table 8.6-2). This trend continued in the Application Case. Internal buffering capacity of waterbodies through weak organic acids, sulphate reduction and metals are not accounted for with this model (Schindler et al. 1980; Brezonik et al. 1993); thus, the model used in this assessment is conservative.

Changes in the “critical load – PAI” between the Baseline Case and the Application Case range from 0.00 keq H+/ha/y to 0.02 keq H+/ha/y.

Table 8.6-2: Acid Deposition Results for the Baseline and Application Cases

Site

Critical Load – PAI (keq H+/ha/y)

Baseline Case

Application Case

Difference between Baseline and

Application Case Lake 1 0.24 0.22 0.02 Lake 2 0.08 0.06 0.02 A013 (182 (P23)) -0.14 -0.14 0.00 A014 (185 (P27)) -0.10 -0.11 0.01 A016 (209 (P7)) -0.09 -0.10 0.01 A019 (226 (P97)) -0.10 -0.10 0.00 A022 (268 (E15)) 0.04 0.03 0.01 A023 (270 (4)) 0.17 0.17 0.00 A031 (418 (L35/Kearl)) -0.82 -0.83 0.01 A037 (452 (L4)) -0.10 -0.10 0.00 A042 (470 (L7)) -0.04 -0.05 0.01 A043 (471 (L8)) 0.06 0.05 0.01 A053 (Unnamed Lake (L3)) 0.23 0.22 0.01 A122 (McClelland Lake) 0.31 0.31 0.00 A125 (Mildred) 0.14 0.14 0.00 A319 (Unnamed (L1A)) -0.16 -0.16 0.00 A327 (Unnamed (L2A)) -0.09 -0.09 0.00 A331 (Unnamed (L3A)) -0.07 -0.07 0.00 A343 (Unnamed (L5A)) -0.05 -0.06 0.01 A354 (Unnamed (L6)) 0.02 0.01 0.01 A391 (Unnamed (E3)) 0.03 0.01 0.02 A505 (Isadore's Lake) -0.88 -0.88 0.00

Note: Bolded and highlighted cells denote lakes that are predicted to be acidifying.


Page 8-59

Acidifying effects on surface water quality in the Application Case is similar to the Baseline Case; therefore, the magnitude of the effect is low. Geographic extent of these effects is regional, direction is negative, duration is mid-term and predicted to be infrequent. The residual impact of acidification is low, which has a high level of confidence based on the conservative nature of the lake acidification model.

8.7 Planned Development Case

The Planned Development Case assesses the cumulative effects of the Lewis Project in combination with the effects of all existing, approved and proposed projects in the ALSA and ARSA (Volume 2, Table 3.6-2). There are two projects planned within the ARSA that are not included in the baseline or application cases: the Value Creation TriStar SAGD project, and the Aspen SA-SAGD project. Additional 3D seismic programs for the Lewis Project are also included in the Planned Development Case.

Cumulative effects on surface water quality from construction of surface facilities; runoff during operations; installation of watercourse crossings; water withdrawals from surficial aquifers and surface waterbodies; changes to land use within watersheds; subsurface operations; wastewater disposal, and accidental releases are expected to be the same as for the Application Case due to the following:

since the planned 3D seismic Lewis Project does not include infrastructure development, it will not alter the Application Case effect ratings

cumulative effects are not expected on groundwater and hydrology from the combination of the Lewis Project with the Planned Development Case projects (Volume 2, Section 6.7 and Section 7.7, respectively)

these categories are rated as having either a neutral or local – low residual impact on surface water quality in the Application Case, with the exception of changes in catchment land use that had a local – low to moderate rating.

8.7.1 Acidification

The assessment of acidifying emissions on regional lakes in the ARSA and AQRSA involves the comparison of the critical load of acidity for studied lakes to the modelled PAI for the Planned Development Case. The PAI for each lake is calculated from CALPUFF model predictions as described in Volume 2, Section 4.0. The critical load of deposition for each lake is compared with the PAI in the Planned Development Case (Table 8.7-1).


Page 8-60

Table 8.7-1: Acid Deposition Results for the Baseline, Application and Planned Development Cases

Site Critical Load – PAI (keq H+/ha/y)

Baseline Case

Application Case

Planned Development Case

Lake 1 0.24 0.22 0.18 Lake 2 0.08 0.06 0.03 A013 (182 (P23)) -0.14 -0.14 -0.20 A014 (185 (P27)) -0.10 -0.11 -0.17 A016 (209 (P7)) -0.09 -0.10 -0.14 A019 (226 (P97)) -0.10 -0.10 -0.15 A022 (268 (E15)) 0.04 0.03 0.00 A023 (270 (4)) 0.17 0.17 0.13 A031 (418 (L35/Kearl)) -0.82 -0.83 -0.87 A037 (452 (L4)) -0.10 -0.10 -0.16 A042 (470 (L7)) -0.04 -0.05 -0.09 A043 (471 (L8)) 0.06 0.05 0.02 A053 (Unnamed Lake (L3)) 0.23 0.22 0.19 A122 (McClelland Lake) 0.31 0.31 0.27 A125 (Mildred) 0.14 0.14 0.09 A319 (Unnamed (L1A)) -0.16 -0.16 -0.23 A327 (Unnamed (L2A)) -0.09 -0.09 -0.16 A331 (Unnamed (L3A)) -0.07 -0.07 -0.16 A343 (Unnamed (L5A)) -0.05 -0.06 -0.10 A354 (Unnamed (L6)) 0.02 0.01 -0.03 A391 (Unnamed (E3)) 0.03 0.01 -0.03 A505 (Isadore's Lake) -0.88 -0.88 -0.96

Notes Bolded and highlighted cells denote lakes that are predicted to be acidifying.

The “critical load – PAI” for lakes in the AQRSA ranged from -0.96 keq H+/ha/y (Lake A505) to 0.27 keq H+/ha/y (Lake A122). Total depositions exceeded critical loads for 12 of the 22 lakes assessed in the Baseline and Application cases. Two additional lakes, Lake A354 and Lake A391, are predicted to be acidifying in the Planned Development Case. For Lake A354, there will be a difference of 0.05 keq H+/ha/y, and for Lake A391 the difference will be 0.06 keq H+/ha/y between the Planned Development and the Baseline cases.

Given that the difference between the Baseline Case and Planned Development Case for acidifying emissions is low for the two lakes predicted to acidify in the Planned Development Case, the overall impact is low.


Page 8-61

8.8 Monitoring

Monitoring activities are controlled measurement programs designed to identify and report on changes to surface water quality over time, from pre-construction to post-reclamation stages. Monitoring is required to confirm compliance with planned mitigation activities and to provide information needed to develop new mitigations should additional Lewis Project-related effects be identified.

Monitoring stations installed under RAMP and JOSMP are currently being operated by the Alberta Government’s Environmental Monitoring and Science Division. Sites are included on the Steepbank River, North Steepbank River, Jackpine Creek, Muskeg River, Muskeg Creek, Wapasu Creek, Kearl Lake, Lake A354, and Lake A391.

After the Lewis Project is approved, Suncor will initiate a surface water monitoring program that includes:

wetland monitoring in accordance with EPEA approval conditions

watercourse monitoring to assess the success of sediment control measures in accordance with the Water Act Code of Practices (ESRD 2013b, 2013c)

surface water runoff monitoring from process areas in the CPF and SAGD well pads before and during release to the environment to confirm that water quality meets regulatory requirements

Site-specific groundwater and surface water monitoring program in accordance with EPEA approval conditions.

Adaptive management will be used throughout the life of the Lewis Project to incorporate research and development findings, input from affected stakeholders including Aboriginal communities, outcomes of Lewis monitoring programs and recommendations from the operation of Suncor’s other facilities towards planning and operational decisions for the Lewis Project.

8.9 Summary

The surface water quality of the waterbodies and watercourses in the ALSA and ARSA are generally within the guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, and supports healthy aquatic ecosystems. The mitigation measures applied during construction and operation will minimize potential Lewis Project effects, resulting in low residual effects in the Application Case, with the exception of changes in catchment land use that had a low to moderate rating (Table 8.9-1).


Page 8-62

Table 8.9-1: Application Case Effects Summary

Potential Effect

Project Activity Direction Geographic

Extent Magnitude Duration Frequency Confidence Residual Impact

Sedimentation of waterbodies and watercourses

Construction of surface facilities

Negative Local Low Short-term Infrequent High Low

Runoff from CPFs, roads and well pads

Negative Local Low Short-term Infrequent High Low

Watercourse crossings Negative Local Low Short-term Infrequent High Low

Groundwater and surface water interactions

Water withdrawal from surficial aquifer

n/r n/r Neutral n/r n/r n/r n/r

Subsurface operations Negative Local Low Mid-term Continuous Moderate Low

Catchment land use

Changes to land use Negative Local Low to

Moderate Short- to long-term

Infrequent to

Continuous High Low to

Moderate

Surface water withdrawals


Negative Local Low Mid-term Infrequent High Low

Wastewater disposal and accidental release

Wastewater disposal Negative Local Low Short-term Infrequent High Low

Accidental releases Negative Local Low Short-term Infrequent High Low

Waterbody acidification

Acidifying emissions Negative Regional Low Mid-term Infrequent High Low

Note: n/r = Not rated; where direction is neutral additional criteria are not assessed (see Volume 2, Section 3.5).

Cumulative effects on surface water quality from construction of surface facilities; runoff during operations; installation of watercourse crossings; water withdrawals from surficial aquifers and surface waterbodies; changes to land use within watersheds; subsurface operations; and release of wastewater releases in the Planned Development case are expected to be the same as for the Application Case.

Acidifying emissions from the Lewis Project will not result in lake acidification in the Application (Table 8.9-1) and Planned Development Cases (Table 8.9-2).


Page 8-63

Table 8.9-2: Planned Development Case Effects Summary

Potential Effect Project Activity Direction Geographic Extent Magnitude Duration Frequency Confidence Residual

Effect Sedimentation of waterbodies and watercourses

Construction of surface facilities Negative Local Low Short-

Term Infrequent High Low

Runoff from CPF, roads and well pads

Negative Local Low Short-Term Infrequent High Low

Watercourse crossings Negative Local Low Short-


Groundwater and surface water interactions

Water withdrawal from surficial aquifer

n/r n/r Neutral n/r n/r n/r n/r

Subsurface operations Negative Local Low Mid-Term Continuous Moderate Low

Catchment land use

Changes to land use Negative Local Low to

Moderate Short- to

Long-Term

Infrequent to

Continuous High Low to

Moderate


Surface water withdrawals Negative Local Low Mid-term Infrequent High Low

Wastewater disposal and accidental release

Wastewater disposal Negative Local Low Short-


Accidental Releases Negative Local Low Short-


Waterbody acidification

Acidifying emissions Negative Regional Low Mid-Term Infrequent High Low

Note: n/r = Not rated; where direction is neutral additional criteria are not assessed (see Volume 2, Section 3.5).

8.10 References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2013. Annual Unit Runoff in Canada. January 2013. Available at: agr.gc.ca.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2001. Directive 055: Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2011. Directive 055 Addendum: Interim Requirements for Aboveground Synthetically- Lined Wall Storage Systems, Updates to Liner Requirements, and Optional Diking Requirements for Single-Walled Aboveground Storage Tanks. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2013. Draft Directive 023: Oil Sands Project Applications. Calgary, AB.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2014. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act: Guide to Content for Energy Project Applications. March 29, 2014.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2016. Directive 050: Drilling Waste Management. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.


Page 8-64

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2008. Muskeg River Interim Management Framework for Water Quantity and Quality. June 2008. Available at: aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/river-management-frameworks/documents/MuskegRiverInterimWaterReport-Jun2008.pdf.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2013a. Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2013b. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2013c. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2014. Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters. Water Policy Branch, Policy Division. Edmonton, AB. 48 pp.

Alberta Government. 2015. Lower Athabasca Region Surface Water Quality Management Framework for the Lower Athabasca River. Available at: extranet.gov.ab.ca/env/ infocentre/info/library/8675.pdf.

Albian Sands Energy Inc. (Albian Sands) 2005. Aquatic Environmental Setting Report for Albian Sands Energy Inc. Muskeg River Mine Expansion Project. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.

American Public Health Association (APHA). 2013. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Washington DC.

Anderson, P.G., B.R. Taylor and G.C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the Effects of Sediment Release on Fish and their Habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2346, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, BC and Winnipeg, MB.

Brezonik, P.L., J.G. Eaton, T.M. Frost, P.J. Garrison, T.K. Mratz, C.E. Mach, J-H. McCormick, J.A. Perry, W.A. Rose, C.J. Samipson, B.C.L. Shelley, W.A. Swensesn, and K.E. Webster. 1993. Experimental Acidification of Little Rock Bake, Wisconsin: Chemical and Biological Changes over the pH Range 6.7 to 4.7. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 1 101-7 121.

Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME). 2002. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Total Particulate Matter. Winnipeg, MB.

Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME). 2006. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG): Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Winnipeg, MB.


Page 8-65

Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME). 2011. Protocols Manual for Water Quality Sampling in Canada. Winnipeg, MB.

Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME). 2014. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life – Water Quality. Winnipeg, MB.

Carignan, R., P. D’Arcy and S. Lamontagne. 2000. Comparative Impacts of Fire and Forest Harvesting on Water Quality in Boreal Shield Lakes. Sustainable Forest Network, University of Alberta.

Cumulative Effects Management Association (CEMA). 2009. Spatial and Temporal Impacts of Acid Deposition in the Oil Sands Region. Prepared for Cumulative Environmental Management Association – Wood Buffalo Region by S. Watmough, J. Aherne, and P. Dillon of Trent University. Peterborough, ON.

EnCana Corporation (EnCana). 2007. EnCana Borealis In-Situ Project. Volume 2 – Section 8 Surface Water Quality Environmental Impact Assessment. Prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental.

Environment Canada. 2010. Management of Toxic Substances: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Ottawa, Canada.

Fenn, M.E., A. Bytnerowicz, S.L. Schilling, and C.S. Ross. 2015. Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen, Sulfur and Base Cations in Jack Pine Stands in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta, Canada. Environmental Pollution 196, 497-510.

Government of Alberta. 2017a. Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions. June 2017. 88 pp. Available at: aep.alberta.ca.

Government of Alberta. 2017b. Pre-Application Requirements for Formal Dispositions. October 2017. 70 pp. Available at: aep.alberta.ca.

Henriksen, A., J. Kamari, M. Posch, and A. Welander. 1992. Critical Loads of Acidity: Nordic Surface Waters. Ambio 21:356-363.

Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited (Imperial). 2013. Aspen Oil Sands Project. Volume 2 – Section 8 Surface Water Quality Environmental Impact Assessment. Prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental.

Jivraj, M.N., M. MacKinnon and B. Fung, 1995. Naphthenic Acids Extraction and Quantitative Analyses with FT-IR Spectroscopy. Syncrude Analytical Methods Manual. 4th ed. Syncrude Canada Ltd., Research Department, Edmonton, AB.

Johnston, C.A. 1991. Sediment and Nutrient Retention by Freshwater Wetlands: Effects on Surface Water Quality. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, 21(5-6), 491-565.

Laxton, D.L., S.A. Wathough, J. Aherne, and J. Straker. 2010. An Assessment of Nitrogen Saturation in Pinkus Banksiana Plots in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta. Journal of Limnology 69: 171-180.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10643389109388425

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10643389109388425


Page 8-66

Matrix Solutions Inc. 2013. Lower Grand Rapids Test Well Drilling and Evaluation Report, Aspen Project. Submitted to Imperial Oil Resources Limited. Calgary, Alberta. July 2013. 321 pp.

Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN). 2014. Statement of Concern, Imperial Oil Resource Ventures Ltd. Aspen Project. Submitted to the Alberta Energy Regulator for application No. 1782988.

Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP). 2015. Surface Water Quality Data for the Jackpine Creek, Muskeg River, Steepbank River and North Steepbank River. Unpublished Database. Hatfield Consultants. West Vancouver, BC.

Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP). 2016. Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program in support of the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Plan – Final 2015 Program Report. Prepared for Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) Edmonton, Alberta by Hatfield Consultants, Kilgour and Associates Ltd. and Western Resource Solutions. April 2016.

Saffran, K. and D. Trew. 1996. Sensitivity of Alberta Lakes to Acidifying Deposition: An Update of Sensitivity Maps with Emphasis on 109 Northern Lakes. Special report prepared by Water Sciences Branch, Water Management Division, Alberta Environment Protection. Edmonton, AB.

Schindler, D.W. 1998. Sustaining Aquatic Ecosystems in Boreal Regions. Conservation Ecology 2(2): 18. Available at: consecol.org/vol2/iss2/art18/, thinktrees.org/my_folders/ Envirothon_Aquatics_Resources_2010. Accessed 5 May 2017.

Schindler, D.W., R. Wagemann, R.B. Cook, T. Ruszczynski, and J. Prokopowich. 1980. Experimental Acidification of Lake 223, Experimental Lake Area: Background Data and the First Three Years of Acidification. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 342-354.

Sullivan, T.J. 2000. Aquatic Effects of Acidic Deposition. CRC Press LCC. Boca Raton, Florida. 373 pp.

TrueNorth Energy L.P (TrueNorth). 2001. Application for Approval of the Fort Hills Oil Sands Project. Volume 2 – Section 6 Water Quality Environmental Baseline Study.

Western Resource Solutions (WRS). 2004. Calculation of Critical Loads of Acidity to Lakes in the Oil Sands Region. Report to the NOX-SOX Committee. Fort McMurray, AB.

vol 2 section 8 surface water quality - alberta · (figure 8.2-1) and the aquatic regional study...

Documents