2015-003Eisannexiii

March 2015

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Yancoal Southey Project

Submitted to: Jiqiu Han, President Yancoal Canada Resources Co., Ltd. Unit 300, 211 - 4th Avenue Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 1N1

Report Number: 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C REPORT ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Term ADP Acoustic Doppler Profiler AET actual evapotranspiration ALS ALS Canada Ltd.

CaCO3 calcium carbonate CAD Computer-aided Design CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CPUE catch-per-unit-effort CWQG Canadian Water Quality Guidelines DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EDA Effective drainage area EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELC East Loon Creek GIS geographical information system Golder Golder Associates Ltd. GPS Global Positioning System ID identification ISQG Interim Sediment Quality Guideline KCl potassium chloride LSA local study area MOE Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment NA not applicable NaCl sodium chloride NTS National Topographic System PEL Probable Effects Level PET potential evapotranspiration Project Yancoal Southey Project QA/QC quality assurance/quality control R.M. Rural Municipality RH relative humidity RSA regional study area RMS root mean square SEAA The Environmental Assessment Act (Saskatchewan) SSWQO Saskatchewan surface water quality objectives SWE snow water equivalent TDS total dissolved solids TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C i ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

List of Abbreviations (continued)

Abbreviation Term TMA tailings management area TOR Terms of Reference TP Technical Procedure TSS total suspended solids UTM Universal Transverse Mercator W2M West of the Second Meridian WLC West Loon Creek WSA Water Security Agency WQ water quality WQG Water Quality Guidelines Yancoal Yancoal Canada Resources Company Limited Yanzhou Coal Yanzhou Coal Mining Company Limited

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C ii

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

List of Units

Abbreviation Term

% percent # number < less than > greater than °C degrees Celsius cm centimetre fish/100 sec fish per 100 seconds fish/hour fish per hour g gram ha hectares km kilometres km/h kilometres per hour km² square kilometres m metre m2 square metre m³/s cubic metres per second masl metres above sea level mg milligram mg/kg dw milligrams per kilogram dry weight mg/L milligrams per litre mg N/L milligrams nitrogen per litre mg P/L milligrams phosphorous per litre mm millimetre sec second

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C iii

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Project Overview ...... 1

1.2 Objective of the Surface Water Environment Baseline Report...... 3

2.0 STUDY AREAS ...... 4

2.1 Regional Study Area ...... 4

2.2 Local Study Area ...... 4

3.0 HYDROLOGY ...... 6

3.1 Introduction ...... 6

3.2 Hydrological Processes and Water Balance ...... 6

3.3 Baseline Field Program ...... 7

3.3.1 Digital Elevation Models ...... 7

3.3.2 Water Level Surveys and Monitoring ...... 7

3.3.3 Stream Discharge ...... 8

3.3.4 Stage and Discharge Rating Curve Development ...... 8

3.3.5 Ground Checking of Flow Paths and Cross-Drainage...... 9

3.3.6 Weather Station Installation at West Loon Creek ...... 9

3.4 Historical Climate Overview ...... 10

3.4.1 Climate Classification ...... 11

3.4.2 Air Temperature ...... 13

3.4.3 Relative Humidity ...... 14

3.4.4 Wind ...... 15

3.4.5 Precipitation ...... 16

3.4.6 Precipitation Extremes ...... 19

3.4.7 Evaporation ...... 20

3.5 Topography...... 21

3.6 Hydrography ...... 24

3.7 Regional Hydrology ...... 26

3.7.1 Regional Streamflow Stations ...... 26

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C iv

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table of Contents (continued)

3.7.2 Monthly Flows ...... 26

3.7.3 Flow Duration Curves ...... 27

3.7.4 Flood Flows ...... 29

3.8 Local Hydrology ...... 32

3.8.1 Streamflow Stations ...... 32

3.8.2 Water Level and Discharge Results ...... 33

3.8.2.1 Snowmelt and Rainfall Conditions in 2013 ...... 35

3.8.2.2 Loon Creek ...... 36

3.8.2.3 East Loon Creek ...... 37

3.8.2.4 West Loon Creek ...... 38

3.8.3 Monthly Mean Flows ...... 39

3.9 Summary ...... 40

4.0 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY ...... 42

4.1 Introduction ...... 42

4.2 Methods ...... 42

4.2.1 Study Design and Sampling Methods ...... 42

4.2.1.1 Sampling Dates and Locations ...... 42

4.2.1.2 Sample Collection ...... 44

4.2.1.3 Sample Analysis ...... 44

4.2.1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ...... 45

4.2.2 Historical Data ...... 45

4.2.3 Data Analysis ...... 45

4.3 Results ...... 49

4.3.1 Loon Creek ...... 49

4.3.2 East Loon Creek ...... 50

4.3.3 West Loon Creek ...... 50

4.3.4 Other Waterbodies ...... 51

4.3.4.1 Waterbody 005 ...... 51

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C v

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table of Contents (continued)

4.3.4.2 Waterbody 011 ...... 52

5.0 FISH AND FISH HABITAT ...... 54

5.1 Introduction ...... 54

5.2 Methods ...... 54

5.2.1 Fish Inventory ...... 54

5.2.1.1 Data Entry and Analysis ...... 56

5.2.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ...... 56

5.2.2 Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 56

5.2.2.1 Data Entry and Analysis ...... 57

5.2.2.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ...... 57

5.3 Results ...... 57

5.3.1 Fish Inventory ...... 57

5.3.1.1 Loon Creek ...... 57

5.3.1.2 East Loon Creek ...... 57

5.3.1.3 West Loon Creek ...... 57

5.3.1.4 Other Waterbodies ...... 60

5.3.2 Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 61

5.3.2.1 Loon Creek ...... 61

5.3.2.2 East Loon Creek ...... 63

5.3.2.3 West Loon Creek ...... 63

5.3.2.4 Other Waterbodies ...... 69

5.4 Summary ...... 69

6.0 GLOSSARY ...... 70

7.0 REFERENCES ...... 73

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C vi

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table of Contents (continued)

TABLES Table 3.4-1: Weather Stations Used in Hydrology Baseline and Distance from the Proposed Project ...... 11 Table 3.4-2: Extreme Maximum Daily Precipitation for Weather Stations near the Project ...... 19 Table 3.4-3: Return Period Rainfall Amounts for Regina International Airport, 1941 to 1995 ...... 20 Table 3.7-1: Water Survey of Canada Streamflow Stations near the Study Area ...... 26 Table 3.7-2: Maximum Daily Mean Flows for Loon Creek near Markinch ...... 30 Table 3.7-3: Daily Mean Flood Magnitude and Frequency for Regional Streamflow Stations within 100 Kilometres ...... 30 Table 3.7-4: Daily Mean Flood Magnitude and Frequency for Selected Stream Locations in the Study Area ...... 32 Table 3.8-1: Streamflow Monitoring Locations with Continuous Water Level Records in 2013 ...... 33 Table 3.8-2: Local Streamflow Monitoring Measurements in 2013...... 33 Table 4.2-1: Water and Sediment Quality Sampling Locations and Schedule ...... 42 Table 4.2-2: Water Quality Parameters Analyzed ...... 44 Table 4.2-3: Sediment Quality Parameters Analyzed ...... 44 Table 4.2-4: Definition of Waterbody Characteristics ...... 45 Table 4.2-5: Water Quality Objectives and Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Wildlife Health, Human Health, and Recreational Uses ...... 47 Table 4.2-6: Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life ...... 49 Table 5.3-1: Minnow Trap Catch-Per-Unit-Effort by Species and Station, 2013 ...... 58 Table 5.3-2: Backpack Electrofishing Catch-Per-Unit-Effort by Species and Station, 2013 ...... 59

FIGURES Figure 1.1-1: Core Facilities and Mine Well Field Areas ...... 2 Figure 2.1-1: Regional and Local Study Areas for the Surface Water Environment ...... 5 Figure 3.3-1: Weather Station installed at West Loon Creek Station WLF2 on May 4, 2013 ...... 9 Figure 3.3-2: Weather Station at West Loon Creek Station WLF2 on August 8, 2013 ...... 10 Figure 3.4-1: Regional Drainage Boundaries and Locations of Regional Climate and Streamflow Stations ...... 12 Figure 3.4-2: Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Daily Air Temperature Normals and Extremes for Regina and Duval Weather Stations, 1981 to 2010 ...... 13 Figure 3.4-3: Comparison of Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Air Temperatures for each month in 2013 for Regina, Duval, and West Loon Creek Weather Stations ...... 14 Figure 3.4-4: Summary of Relative Humidity for Regina Airport for 1981 to 2010 Compared with 2013 ...... 15 Figure 3.4-5: Historical Wind Direction and Speed for Regina Airport, 1953 to 2013 ...... 16

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C vii

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table of Contents (continued)

Figure 3.4-6: Average Monthly Total Snowfall and Rainfall Normals for Duval and Regina Airport, 1981 to 2010 ...... 17 Figure 3.4-7: Annual Total Observed and Adjusted Precipitations values from Environment Canada for the Regina International Airport Station (ID 4016560) ...... 18 Figure 3.4-8: Cumulative Monthly Rainfall Observed at West Loon Creek, Cupar, Duval, and Regina Gilmore Weather Stations during the Hydrology Baseline Study, 2013 ...... 19 Figure 3.4-9: Monthly Meyer Evaporation Estimates for Regina Airport for the Years 1911 to 2008, compared with 2013 Monthly Evaporation using Local Weather Stations...... 21 Figure 3.5-1: Regional Topography ...... 22 Figure 3.5-2: Local Topography near the Project based on the LiDAR DEM ...... 23 Figure 3.6-1: Hydrology Monitoring Stations ...... 25 Figure 3.7-1: Mean Monthly Streamflows for Jumping Deer Creek between 1941 and 2013 ...... 27 Figure 3.7-2: Daily Mean Flow Duration Curves for Jumping Deer Creek, March to October ...... 28 Figure 3.7-3: Daily Mean Flow Duration Curves for Jumping Deer Creek and Loon Creek, January to December ...... 29 Figure 3.7-4: Flood Magnitude to Mean Annual Flood Ratios for Regional Streamflow Stations ...... 31 Figure 3.8-1: Snow Water Equivalent Map Results for the Regional Study Area in Winter, 2012 to 2013 ...... 35 Figure 3.8-2: Discharge Results for Loon Creek (LCF1) and Jumping Deer Creek (05JK004), in 2013 ...... 36 Figure 3.8-3: Discharge Results for East Loon Creek (Station ELF1), 2013 ...... 37 Figure 3.8-4: Discharge Results for West Loon Creek (Station WLF1), 2013 ...... 38 Figure 3.8-5: Discharge Results for West Loon Creek (WLF2), 2013 ...... 39 Figure 3.8-6: Monthly Mean Flows for Selected Local Streamflow Stations, 2013 ...... 40 Figure 4.2-1: Water and Sediment Quality Sampling Stations, 2013...... 43 Figure 5.2-1: Fish and Fish Habitat Sampling Stations, 2013 ...... 55 Figure 5.3-1: LNC 01 Fish Habitat Map (Loon Creek) ...... 62 Figure 5.3-2: WLC 03 Fish Habitat Map (West Loon Creek) ...... 64 Figure 5.3-3: WLC 04 Fish Habitat Map (West Loon Creek) ...... 65 Figure 5.3-4: WLC 05 Fish Habitat Map (West Loon Creek) ...... 66 Figure 5.3-5: WLC 07 Fish Habitat Map (West Loon Creek) ...... 67 Figure 5.3-6: WLC 09 Fish Habitat Map (West Loon Creek) ...... 68

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C viii

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table of Contents (continued)

APPENDICES APPENDIX III.1 Long-term Climate Normals and Local Weather Conditions in 2013

APPENDIX III.2 Daily Mean Discharge for Selected Streamflow Stations

APPENDIX III.3 Streamflow Station Photos and Stage-Discharge Rating Data

APPENDIX III.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results for Surface Water Quality Baseline Study

APPENDIX III.5 Surface Water Quality Baseline Study Database Tables

APPENDIX III.6 Fish Inventory Database Tables

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C ix

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION Yancoal Canada Resources Company Limited (Yancoal) is engaged in the evaluation and development of the Yancoal Southey Project (the Project). Yancoal is a wholly owned subsidiary of Yanzhou Coal Mining Company Limited (Yanzhou Coal). Yanzhou Coal is an international, diversified mining corporation listed on the stock exchanges of New York, Shanghai, Sydney, and Hong Kong. Yanzhou Coal’s main business is coal mining, coal chemical and fertilizer production, power generation, and equipment manufacturing. Yancoal has defined a world-class potash deposit and intends to develop the resource in an ecologically sustainable, economically efficient, and socially responsible manner. 1.1 Project Overview The Project is a Greenfield potash mine within the Saskatchewan Prairie Evaporite Formation. The Project will be a solution mine within Subsurface Mineral Permits KP377 and KP392. The Project is located in central Saskatchewan, approximately 60 kilometres (km) north of Regina. The Project (including the core facilities and the mining area) encompasses approximately 143 square kilometres (km2) (14,320 hectares [ha]) and is located in Townships 24 and 25, and Ranges 17, 18, 19, and 20 West of the Second Meridian (W2M) in the Rural Municipality (R.M.) of Longlaketon and the R.M. of Cupar (Figure 1.1-1). Within the region, an existing network of municipal grid roads, provincial highways, and rail lines provides access to the Project.

The Project is located east of Last Mountain Lake and north of the Qu’Appelle Valley in a transitional area between the Moist Mixed Grassland and Aspen Parkland ecoregions of the Prairie Ecozone in Saskatchewan (Acton et al. 1998). The Project is located in a region with a semi-arid continental climate, with warm summers and cold, dry winters, and is prone to extreme weather conditions at all times of the year. Approximately 79 percent (%) of the mean annual precipitation in the region falls as rain with the remaining 21% occurring as snowfall (Environment Canada 2014a, b).

Development of the Project is planned in several phases. The construction phase is anticipated to start in May of 2016 or as soon as the relevant Project regulatory permits and approvals are in place. The operations phase will begin in 2019 and is anticipated to continue for up to 100 years. Activities following operations will include those necessary to complete reclamation following decommissioning.

Construction of the mine will take approximately 39 months. During the construction phase, the core facilities and supporting infrastructure will be built. The plant site will include the processing plant, administration buildings, maintenance building, equipment and parts storage, tank farm, raw water pond, process upset pond, tailings management area (TMA), product storage, rail loadout, security, and parking.

Support infrastructure for the Project will include water, power, natural gas, communications, road access, and rail access. SaskWater, SaskPower, TransGas, and SaskTel will be the utility providers for the water, power, natural gas, and communication services for the Project. Access to the plant site will be from Highway 6 via an upgraded road to be constructed. Two options are being considered for rail access: a rail spur line to the Canadian Pacific (CP) rail line located approximately 20 km west of the plant site or a spur line to the Canadian National (CN) rail line located approximately 32 km to the north.

During the operations phase, solution mining begins and potash from the Project is processed. Operations will commence following construction; the mine is anticipated to be in operation for up to 100 years.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 1

520000 525000 530000 535000 540000 545000 LEGEND 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 COMMUNITY HIGHWAY

ROAD 24 19 20 21 RAILWAY 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 TOWNSHIP AND RANGE BOUNDARY SECTION BOUNDARY 0 0 0

5 URBAN MUNICIPALITY 6 6 5

14 13 18 17 16 5 18 17 16 15 2 PERMIT BOUNDARY 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 P

W CORE FACILITIES AREA T 65 YEAR MINE FIELD

INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY

M 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 P 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11

0 1 : 5 4 : 1

5 6 1 KP 377 (! KP 392 0 2 / 01 06 05 04 8 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 1 03 02 / 3

: e t a D

0 d 0 x 0 6 m 6 .

5 31 32 33 a 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 e 34 35 36 31 r A d l e i F l l e W

e 30 29 28 n 27 26 25 i 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 M d n a s e i t i l i c a F 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 e 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 r 22 23 o 4 C 2

- P

7 W 9 T 1 0 - 0 0 2 0 6 k 5 3 5 18 e 17 16

1 14 13 e 6 18 17 16 15 r - 16 15 14 13 5 15 14 13 18 17 C 2 on 1

\ o x L

e s

n a n E A r e t a

W 07 08 09 08 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 11 12 e 10 11 12 07 c a f r u S \ e c n e d i s 03 02 01 06 05 04 b 03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 01 06 05 04 u S

- y g o l o r d y 0 0 H 0

- 0 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 5 33 34 35 36 31 32 REFERENCE 0 34 35 36 31 32 6 9 5 INFRASTRUCTURE DERIVED FROM AMEC DRAWING NO. 0 W 1

100110-2000-DD10-GAD-0002 REV. B k s e BASE DATA: CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA a st T \ Lo NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 n o o i n t a C r 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 a 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 r p e e e r k P

S I 2 0 2 E

5 3 2

2 SCALE 1:100,000

0 KILOMETRES

P P 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 22 23 24 19 W W \ T 7

9 L PROJECT 1 oo

0 n - Cr YANCOAL 2 ee 6 k 3 SOUTHEY PROJECT 1 - 2 0 0 1 18 17 16

\ 13 0 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

s 15 5 15 14 13 18 17 16 TITLE 4 e r 6 5 u g i F \

L CORE FACILITIES AND MINE FIELD AREAS A O

C Southey N 07 08 09 A 11 12 09 10 11 12 07 08 09 10 PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. Y 10 11 12 07 08 \

S Earl Markinch DESIGN MT 12/02/15 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 T

N Grey GIS LMS 12/02/15 E

I 22

L (! CHECK JH 18/03/15 FIGURE: C \

: RGE 20 W2M RGE 19 W2M RGE 18 W2M RGE 17 W2M Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW G BT 18/03/15 1.1-1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

The Project will employ both primary and secondary solution mining techniques. Primary mining involves the injection of hot water to the sylvinite beds to dissolve potassium chloride (KCl) and sodium chloride (NaCl); then the brine solution is extracted and transported by pipeline to the process plant. Secondary mining involves the injection of NaCl rich brine into the cavern created during primary mining, to selectively dissolve additional potash from the material left in the cavern. This brine solution is extracted and returned to the process plant via pipeline.

The processing plant will be designed for a production capacity of 2.8 million tonnes of potash per year (Mtpa). Potash processing will include:  injection and solution recovery;  evaporation and crystallization;  product drying and screening;  product compaction; and  product storage and shipping. Progressive reclamation for the Project will be completed during the operation phase, where possible. Final decommissioning and reclamation activities will be completed when mining operations have ceased. 1.2 Objective of the Surface Water Environment Baseline Report The Project is subject to review under The Environmental Assessment Act (SEAA 2013), as outlined in the Terms of Reference (TOR). This baseline report forms Annex III of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared to meet the requirements of the SEAA. The Surface Water Environment baseline report is part of a comprehensive baseline program to document the natural and socio-economic environments near the Project.

The objective of the Surface Water Environment baseline report is to provide information on the current environmental conditions for the surface water environment. The baseline report integrates local and regional data from sources such as previous studies, literature, and Project-specific baseline investigations. This information will be used to support assessment of the Project’s effects on the surface water environment and will help to identify mitigation and protective actions that could be implemented to avoid or reduce potential adverse effects to the existing environment. This baseline also provides supporting information for other components of the environmental assessment, such as socio-economics, and traditional and non-traditional land use.

The baseline data and information presented in this document is intended to provide a detailed description of existing conditions for addressing the issues and concerns identified during the public engagement process and from provincial and federal government agencies. Potential issues of concern that were identified included surface water hydrology, water and sediment quality, fish habitat, and fish populations. To capture the baseline characteristics associated with these topics, specific studies was completed in each of the spring, summer, and fall seasons of 2013, including water and sediment quality sampling, fish inventory sampling, and fish habitat surveys. Hydrology studies involved monitoring streamflow during the open water season, verifying flow pathways, and collecting remote sensing data for the Project. Baseline studies focussed on waterbodies and watercourses that might be affected indirectly or directly by the Project, particularly Loon Creek, East Loon Creek, and West Loon Creek.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 3

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

2.0 STUDY AREAS 2.1 Regional Study Area The regional study area (RSA) for surface water environment is defined by the maximum expected spatial extent of direct and indirect effects from the Project. The RSA includes the local study area (LSA) the KP392 and KP377 permit areas, Loon Creek drainage area to the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) station 05JK006, and Loon Creek from the WSC station downstream to the Qu’Appelle River (Figure 2.1-1). 2.2 Local Study Area The LSA for the surface water environment is defined by the maximum expected spatial extent of the Project’s direct effects. The Project has potential to cause long-term subsidence of the land surface from the Project. The LSA for the surface water environment includes the land surface area directly affected by the Project construction, operation, and decommissioning. The LSA includes the Project footprint, a 1-km buffer around the Project footprint, and the areas potentially affected by subsidence in the future up to the confluence of West and East Loon creeks (Figure -2.1 1). The Project footprint includes the core facilities area, new access roads and rail lines, and the solution mining well field.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 4

500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000 570000 580000 LEGEND 9 2

P COMMUNITY W T HIGHWAY (!6 TOWNSHIP AND RANGE BOUNDARY 0

0 URBAN MUNICIPALITY

0 Tate 0 0 7

8 PROPOSED RAIL SPUR TO CN 5 2

Hatfield P ALTERNATE RAIL SPUR TO CP W T PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD Raymore Semans PERMIT BOUNDARY 65 YEAR MINE FIELD M

P CORE FACILITIES AREA

3 2

: Quinton INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY 1

5 15 : Punnichy

0 (! 1 0

REGIONAL STUDY AREA 0 5 0 9 1 7 6 0 2

5 LOCAL STUDY AREA

2 / P 8 W 1 / T 3

: e t a D

k Lestock d e x e

m Govan r . t C n A e n

Leross 7 m 2

o n

o P o L r i

t W v

s T 0 n e 0 E 0 r 0 W 8 e t 6 5 a W e c a f r Grassy Lake u 6 2 S

P e h W t

T r o f

A S

L 35 (! d n a

A 0 S 0 Serath 0 R 0

- 7

6 7 5 9 1 0 -

2 Duval 6 3 5 1 2

- P 2 1 W \ x T e n n A r e t a 20

W (! KP 392 e KP 377 c 0 a 0 f 0 r 0 u 6 S 6 \ 5 e c n e d i Strasbourg 4 s 2 b Jum u

ping D P

S ee k r W

- C

e y re g e o e

l k r o r C REFERENCE d y n PROJECT MINE FIELD PROVIDED BY AGAPITO ASSOCIATES INC., 2014 H o o -

0 t

9 s MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES SASKATCHEWAN 0 0 a 0 1

CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA 0 E k 0 s 5 NTS MAPSHEET: 62L/M, 72I/J/O/P 6 a 5 T NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 \ Bulyea n o i t a 3 r 220 2 a (! p P e W r T P

S I 5 0 5 E

22 - (! Cupar Dysart 5 Southey Markinch 2

0 SCALE 1:300,000 KM P W

\ Earl 7 0

9 PROJECT 0

1 Grey 0 0 0 - 4

2 YANCOAL 6 6 5 Gibbs 3 Lipton

1 SOUTHEY PROJECT - 2 2 1 \ 2

322 s TITLE P e (! r W u T

g Mohr's i k F REGIONAL AND LOCAL STUDY AREAS FOR \ Beach e L re A C O SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT

C n

N o Sorenson's o A L PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. Y \ Beach 1 S

2 DESIGN JH 11/04/14 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0

T 0 P N 0 GIS

W LMR 18/03/15 0 E I T 0 L 3 CHECK JH 18/03/15 FIGURE: 6 C 5 \

: RGE 23 W2M RGE 22 W2M RGE 21 W2M RGE 20 W2M RGE 19 W2M RGE 18 W2M RGE 17 W2M RGE 16 W2M RGE 15 W2PMasqua RGE 14 W2M Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW

G BT 18/03/15 Lake 2.1-1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

3.0 HYDROLOGY 3.1 Introduction The objectives of the hydrology baseline program were to collect sufficient baseline information to assist with Project water management planning and to document the existing conditions in the surface water RSA and LSA, which will support the assessment of the Project’s potential environmental effects. This hydrological information may be used as a design basis for various engineered conveyance and cross-drainage structures related to Project development. This section describes the 2013 baseline field program and the hydrology of the study area, which is based on historical local and regional climate and hydrometric data that assist in characterizing components of the water balance and common hydrological processes. 3.2 Hydrological Processes and Water Balance The dominant components of the water balance in the semi-arid prairie region include:  precipitation (i.e., snowfall and rainfall);  evapotranspiration (i.e., from transpiration from vegetation and land, and from evaporation from water surfaces); and  water storage in soils and on the land surface. Due to the cold winters, snowfall usually remains on the ground surface for 4 to 5 months, with some losses to the soil by infiltration into frozen ground and losses to the atmosphere by sublimation from blowing snow. The snow that remains in storage is melted over a relatively short period of 1 to 3 weeks in the spring. During the open-water season, (from late-March to early November) evapotranspiration often exceeds precipitation, which results in net losses from soil, waterbodies, and streams over the summer.

Water storage in soils and on the land is a major component of the water balance. The study area is located in the prairie pothole region of southern Saskatchewan, where numerous surface depressions result in high potential storage of runoff. Additional storage is imposed on the land by numerous grid roads and highways that may have culverts perched above the ditch or stream channel elevation. Occasionally a culvert may be blocked with debris, reducing or completely preventing cross drainage. Beaver activity creates local ponds that can cause backwatering and altered flows. Several beaver dams were observed in the study area. These mechanisms of water storage can attenuate flows downstream and can increase the lag-time after precipitation events.

Runoff is a small component of the water balance that is usually important only for temporary periods during snowmelt, after extreme rainfall events, or during prolonged wet periods. Runoff response to precipitation depends on a number of conditions including the topography (e.g., number of lakes and wetlands, length of flow paths, slope, and soil permeability), the character of the input (e.g., rainfall intensity), and soil moisture and depression storage (i.e., water levels) prior to the precipitation. Runoff to low-lying depressions and streams occurs via sub-surface flow paths due to rainfall and snowmelt infiltration, and directly over the land surface during snowmelt or during extreme rainfall events. Deeper groundwater flow occasionally contributes to streamflow in discharge areas along stream valleys or in low-lying sloughs. These factors result in variable contributing areas for surface water flows and, therefore, the runoff response to snowmelt and rainfall events is not uniform.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 6

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

3.3 Baseline Field Program The hydrology baseline field program, undertaken during the 2013 open water season, involved the following data collection tasks:  establishing streamflow monitoring stations on the main streams in the permit areas;  monitoring changes in water levels and flows at the stations during the 2013 open water season; and  collecting local rainfall and air temperature data to assist in interpreting local streamflow data. Ground-truthing during the field program verified the flow pathways determined from high-resolution digital elevation model data, which was generated from Light Detections and Ranging (LiDAR) topographic data collected for the permit areas. This verification included the documentation of the location and orientation of culverts that facilitate surface runoff.

Multiple hydrology field visits were completed during the spring freshet from late April to mid-May; additional field visits were completed in the summer and fall, specifically in mid-July, mid-August, and early November.

Local streamflow stations were installed in the permit areas between April 26 and April 29, 2013. Field visits involved coincident discharge measurement and water elevation surveys, as well as downloading data from water level sensors and at the weather station at West Loon Creek. Streamflow and water level data were used to develop stage-discharge relationships over a range of flow conditions. Flow pathways and locations of cross- drainage structures were confirmed by ground-truthing during field visits. 3.3.1 Digital Elevation Models A detailed topographic surface image was obtained for the permit areas KP377 and KP392 and for an additional 2- to 4-km area beyond the edge of the permit areas, based on a LiDAR survey undertaken on September 20, 2013. Using the LiDAR data, a digital elevation model (DEM) was created based on a 2-square metre (m2) grid, which was resampled from the original 1 m2 x,y,z, point file to allow for faster data processing. Accuracy of the LiDAR DEM based on 138 ground survey check points was 0.021 metres (m) on average (standard deviation of 0.019 m) with a root mean square (RMS) value of 0.037 m (LSI 2013).

Cross-drainage structures (i.e., bridges and culverts) through roads were digitally embedded in the DEM to provide continuity along the drainage pathways. In addition to the LiDAR data, a DEM for the surrounding areas outside the LiDAR coverage area was obtained from GEOBASE so the entire drainage area for Loon Creek watershed and the adjacent drainages were covered. Drainage areas and flow pathways within the DEMs were delineated using Environment Canada software (i.e., Green Kenue or ENSIM) (NRC 2012). 3.3.2 Water Level Surveys and Monitoring To characterize the hydrology of streams in the study area, streamflow stations were installed at five locations on West Loon, East Loon, and Loon creeks during the 2013 baseline program. At each streamflow station, water level changes over time were monitored continuously; this data was converted to discharge values using stage- discharge rating equations developed for the station.

Pressure transducers (Solinst Leveloggers) were installed under the water surface at each station and measured water and atmospheric (barometric) pressure above the sensor. Water levels were calculated by subtracting barometric pressure data from total pressure measured with the pressure transducer. A Solinst Barologger was installed in the East Loon Creek drainage area north of station ELF1 to measure barometric pressure changes

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 7

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

over time allowing the pressure transducer data to be corrected. Continuous water level records for the streams were obtained from the corrected pressure transducer readings.

During each field visit, water level surveys were completed relative to local benchmarks at each streamflow measuring station. Pressure transducers (Solinst Leveloggers) were installed at several locations in local streams and programmed to record data every 30 minutes. On-site water level surveys provided verification of the continuous water level data that was collected using pressure transducers at each station. Water level benchmarks consisted of well-marked stationary points that were surveyed multiple times over the season (e.g., tops of culverts were used as the primary benchmarks at some of the streamflow stations). 3.3.3 Stream Discharge Discharge is defined as the volume of water moving through a cross sectional area of a stream (perpendicular to the flow direction) during a specific period. Discharge was measured using a Sontek M9 Riversurveyor Acoustic Doppler Profiler (ADP) for the peak spring flows and using a Sontek FlowTracker ADP or a Price AA current meter for moderate and lower flow conditions. A volume-discharge method was used for very low flows. Discharge values were calculated using the mid-section method when the Price AA and FlowTracker were used (Terzi 1981). With the Riversurveyor, velocities were measured over the entire cross-sectional area at the discharge measurement location. Standard procedures and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols were followed with each of the flow measurement devices. 3.3.4 Stage and Discharge Rating Curve Development Stage-discharge rating relationships are used to estimate discharge from continuous readings of water levels (i.e., stage) in a stream. Discharge can be calculated from the water level after the relationship between stage and discharge is established for a particular stream channel cross-section. The stage-discharge relationship is expressed by using a rating curve, a table, or an equation. This relationship must be developed by simultaneous measurement of stage and discharge over a large range of discharges. During the 2013 hydrology baseline program, a relatively large range of discharges was measured starting with high flows during spring freshet followed by subsequent visits to the streamflow stations in spring and summer until flows tapered off to zero.

The stage-discharge rating formulas were established using the AquariusTM software rating curve function, which generates a line of best fit through multiple stage and instantaneous discharge measurements. For some measurement stations, shifts were applied to the stage data during backwater conditions (e.g., due to ice in the channel or along the banks, or beaver dam activity downstream) to obtain a better fit to the discharge data. Discharge estimates could be verified only for the range of instantaneous discharge measurements made in 2013. Therefore, discharge estimates for peak water levels at two of the streamflow stations were not verified with an actual measurement, but were extrapolated from the existing stage-discharge rating curve.

The rating curve that describes the relationship between water level and discharge is a function of several hydraulic properties at a stream cross section. To be considered valid, it assumes that flow is uniform at the cross section, not converging or diverging, and that the flow is steady over short periods. Choosing a stream gauging site in a relatively uniform, straight reach of a stream (i.e., uniform slope, channel width, and bed material) usually will provide a constant relationship of stage and discharge over a range of discharges. To avoid backwatering, stream gauging sites should not be close to the confluence of streams, or upstream of beaver dams or heavily vegetated sections. Frequent measurement of discharge can be used to correct changes in the stage-discharge relationship at a stream gauging site to obtain better discharge estimates over time. This approach was used during the 2013 hydrology baseline program.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 8

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

3.3.5 Ground Checking of Flow Paths and Cross-Drainage Field observations were used to verify flow paths and drainage divides after LiDAR imagery was used to generate a bare-earth DEM. Flow path definition in the study area provides a baseline for the assessment of changes in runoff flow pathways, drainage area boundaries, and runoff volumes that might occur due to Project activities. Reconnaissance of cross-drainage structures and verification of flow direction or slope was focused on the flow pathways in the KP377 and KP392 permit areas, but numerous other locations were documented. Culvert locations and pipe sizes were documented in some areas east of Highway 6 during field visits. 3.3.6 Weather Station Installation at West Loon Creek A small weather station was installed beside West Loon Creek near a streamflow station to obtain rainfall data for the hydrology baseline field program in 2013. Site-specific rainfall data allows better interpretation of streamflow patterns and responses for nearby streams in the study area. Convective rainfall events often occur over small areas and high-intensity storms can be very limited in their spatial extent. Rainfall observations at West Loon Creek weather station were used to interpret stream hydrographs for nearby streamflow monitoring stations. Local rainfall data from Environment Canada weather stations near the towns of Duval and Cupar were used to interpret stream hydrographs for the 2013 hydrology baseline program (Section 3.7).

The site weather monitoring station was installed by Golder on May 4, 2013 and removed on November 5, 2013. It consisted of the following Onset-brand equipment: tipping bucket rain gauge, temperature and relative humidity (RH) sensor, and datalogger. The station is shown on the day of installation on Figure 3.3-1 and later in the summer on Figure 3.3-2. The station became inundated with water over the course of the summer and fall of 2013 due to beaver activity (Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2). Damage was done to the temperature and RH sensor cable on August 15, 2013, and no data from these sensors were available after that date.

Figure 3.3-1: Weather Station installed at West Loon Creek Station WLF2 on May 4, 2013

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 9

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Figure 3.3-2: Weather Station at West Loon Creek Station WLF2 on August 8, 2013 3.4 Historical Climate Overview The study area is located in a region with a semi-arid continental climate, having warm summers and cold, dry winters. Long-term historical climate averages and extreme weather events provide information that can be used, along with other hydrological data, for Project-related water management planning including water balance estimates, and to provide the design-basis for freshwater diversion channel routing. Climate in this region will be described by long-term observations of air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and evaporation. Weather conditions in the open-water season of 2013 and the preceding winter will be compared to long-term climate to provide context for the hydrology baseline results.

Weather stations referenced in the hydrology baseline assessment are provided in Table 3.4-1 and their locations are shown on Figure 3.4 -1. Data from the different stations were used for different purposes. Data for the Regina Airport were used to show long-term weather and were used to classify the local climate, however, changes to how precipitation data were measured at this station in 2007 necessitated using other stations (i.e., Regina, Gilmour, and Duval) to show recent precipitation data. In 2013, rainfall data from Cupar was used along with Golder’s West Loon Creek weather station to interpret stream hydrographs from Loon Creek. These data were compared with rainfall data for Duval, which is relatively close to the proposed Project location.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 10

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 3.4-1: Weather Stations Used in Hydrology Baseline and Distance from the Proposed Project Distance from Plant Parameters Included Station Identifier Station Name (a) Period of Record Site (direction) in Assessment ID 4012300 Duval 26 km (west) R, P, T 1957-2013 ID 4011980 Cupar 35 km (southeast) R 1981-2013 Regina International ID 4016560 Airport (Regina 73 km (south) R, P, AP, T, RH, W, E 1883-2013(b) Airport) ID 4016651 Regina Gilmour 61 km (south) R, P, T, RH, W, E 2008-2013 (a) R = rainfall, P = total precipitation, AP = adjusted total precipitation, T = air temperature, RH = relative humidity, W = wind speed and direction, E = evaporation. (b) Total precipitation and adjusted monthly precipitation data are only used for this station to 2007 and 2006, respectively. km = kilometres

3.4.1 Climate Classification The climate in the Project region has been classified as semi-arid according to the Thornthwaite (1948) temperature and precipitation method of climate classification for the years from 1961 to 1990 (Fung 1999). The annual water deficit for Regina was calculated to be 188 millimetres (mm), based on the difference of potential evapotranspiration (PET) and annual evapotranspiration (AET), and the infiltration and runoff was estimated to be only 3 mm per year (Fung 1999).

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 11

460000 480000 500000 520000 540000 560000 580000 600000 620000 640000 LEGEND M

P Little COMMUNITY 9 5

: Quill Lake

7 HIGHWAY

4 Lanigan : Big 1

URBAN MUNICIPALITY 0 5 Quill 05MA021 5 0 Magnusson Creek Fishing 1

0 (! 0 0 !. 2 4 Lake PERMIT BOUNDARY

/ Lake 7 8 5 1 / 65 YEAR MINE FIELD 3

: 670 Little 05MA011 e 365 t (! (! Wynyard CORE FACILITIES AREA a Manitou !. D

INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY d Lake x m

. WATER SURVEY OF CANADA s Watrous n !. STREAMFLOW STATION o

i Foam t

a 16 t (! Lake *# 2013 GOLDER WEATHER STATION S 0

0 w 0 o 0 ENVIRONMENT CANADA CLIMATE STATION l Kutawagan *# 2 f k 7 e m 5 e a Lake r FLOW DIRECTION e L C r 617 t e h !

S ( w WATER SURVEY OF CANADA c r d i i s n STATION WATERSHED B a C 310 e 2 t (! r ASSINIBOINE RIVER BASIN

a (! e

e m i

l Nokomis k QU'APPELLE RIVER BASIN C l a

n QUILL LAKES BASIN o i 0 g 0 e

0 SOURIS RIVER BASIN 0 R

0 f

7 k o 5 05JJ009 e s e n r Raymore o i !. C t

a e c in o S al L d

n Imperial a

35 s (! e i

r 6 a 05JH005 Govan (! d n u !. 0 o 0 0 B

0 e 8 6 g 5 a n i Grassy Lake a Last r 15

D (! 52 l Mountain (! a n Duval o Lake

i Ituna J

# u e * R m

p 7 P

i KP 377 n

1 KP 392 h *# e 0 g

- a 0 2 Golder s 0

6 D a 0 3

0 n 1 6

- e t 6

2 Strasbourg C 5 e

1 r

\ C r e x Craik re e

e e

n k k n A r

e 20 t (! a W

e 220 c (! a f r A Cupar u rm S Southey Melville \

0 22

e R 0 (! c 0 iv !. n 0 e 4 e r 6 d i 05JK004 5 s b !. u 322 05JK006

S (! k - e Cupar y e *# g r o l C o Echo Balcarres r Regina n REFERENCE d o y Pasqua 354 o e River Lake 10 AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA H ! Beach L pell (! ( 'Ap - Qu Lake POTASH DISPOSITION © 2012, GEOLOGICAL ATLAS OF SASKATCHEWAN,

0 210 9 (! Mission MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES SASKATCHEWAN 0 1 0 99 Lemberg CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA

0 Lake k (! 05JL005 0 !. s IHS ENERGY INC. 0 54 a 2 11 (! Katepwa T 6 ! NAD83 UTM ZONE 13

\ ( 5 n

o Lake i t a r a p Buffalo e 56 r Lumsden (! P

Pound S I 364 15 0 15

E Lake

(! - 42

5 (! Regina 2

0 SCALE 1:700,000 KILOMETRES

P Gilmour 0

W 202 Indian 0 \

0 (! # 7 * Qu'Appelle 0

9 47 PROJECT

0 Head 1 6 (! 5 0 - YANCOAL 2 6

3 Pilot SOUTHEY PROJECT

1 Balgonie

- Sintaluta

2 301 Butte

1 46 \ (! (! s Regina TITLE

e White r u Intl. REGIONAL DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES AND g City i Wolseley Grenfell F \ *# L Regina LOCATIONS OF REGIONAL CLIMATE AND A

O Moose 48 C 0 1 STREAMFLOW STATIONS 0 ! (! N ( 33 0 Jaw A 0 (! PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. 8 Y 363 \ 5 (! 5 S DESIGN SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0

T 39

N (! GIS LMR 18/03/15 E I

L CHECK JH 18/03/15 FIGURE: C \ : Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW G BT 18/03/15 3.4-1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

3.4.2 Air Temperature For continental climates such as the Canadian prairies, air temperature has strong seasonal and diurnal patterns. In this region, the coldest month is usually January and the warmest month is July. Strong diurnal patterns of air temperature are common, with the highest daily temperatures occurring in late afternoon and lowest occurring in the early morning, after several hours of darkness. Air temperature normals recorded for two long-term weather stations at Duval and Regina Airport are provided on Figure 3.4-2 for 1981 to 2010 (Environment Canada 2013). Results show the seasonal variation in air temperature experienced each year (Appendix III.1, Tables 1 and 2). Results for Duval and Regina Airport are similar, indicating that the average temperature conditions are similar. The Regina Airport station has extreme high and low temperatures recorded in most months.

Regina Maximum Regina Mean Regina Minimum Duval Mean Duval Maximum Duval Minimum Duval Extreme Daily Maximum Regina Extreme Daily Maximum Duval Extreme Daily Minimum Regina Extreme Daily Minimum 60

40 C)

° 20

-20 Temperature ( Temperature

-40

-60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month

Figure 3.4-2: Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Daily Air Temperature Normals and Extremes for Regina and Duval Weather Stations, 1981 to 2010

Mean, maximum, and minimum air temperature data for the West Loon Creek, Duval, and Regina Airport and Regina Gilmore climate stations are compared for each month of 2013 on Figure 3.4-3. Air temperatures recorded at West Loon Creek are close to the values at the Environment Canada stations for May to July (Appendix III.1, Table 3). Air temperature data were not recorded after mid-August due to equipment damage at West Loon Creek. However, air temperatures among all three weather stations are similar and data from Duval or Regina Airport Station would be sufficiently representative of the study area. April and May had mean monthly temperatures that were noticeably below average when compared with the normal values shown in the previous figure. This was apparent in the late snowmelt observed in the region.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 13

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Regina 2013 Mean Duval 2013 Mean West Loon Creek 2013 Mean Regina 2013 Maximum Duval 2013 Maximum West Loon Creek 2013 Maximum Regina 2013 Minimum Duval 2013 Minimum West Loon Creek 2013 Minimum 40

20 C)

° 10

-10 Temperature ( Temperature

-20

-30

-40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month

Figure 3.4-3: Comparison of Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Air Temperatures for each month in 2013 for Regina, Duval, and West Loon Creek Weather Stations

3.4.3 Relative Humidity Generally, the humidity of the prairie region is dry compared to maritime climates in all seasons. In general, relative humidity is higher (i.e., more humid) in the morning and lower (i.e., drier) in the afternoon. The nearest weather station that measures relative humidity is the Regina Airport. Relative humidity also was monitored at Golder’s West Loon Creek weather station from May to August 2013 (Appendix III.1, Table 3). Relative humidity data for Regina Airport are provided on Figure 3.4 -4 for the most recent climate normals period of 1981 to 2010 and are compared with data for the hydrology baseline study in 2013.

Relative humidity was observed twice daily at the Regina Airport and the long-term normals shows that diurnal variation is greater during the spring to fall seasons than in the winter. Relative humidity data for 2013 are based on hourly, not twice-daily measurements. Average humidity conditions in 2013 were usually within the long-term normal values, with the exception of higher humidity in February 2013.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 14

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Regina Mean at 0600 Regina Mean at 1500 Regina 2013 Mean

Regina 2013 Maximum Regina 2013 Minimum

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Relative Humidity (%) Humidity Relative 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Figure 3.4-4: Summary of Relative Humidity for Regina Airport for 1981 to 2010 Compared with 2013

3.4.4 Wind Historical wind speed data are incorporated into calculations of evaporation and evapotranspiration; wind affects the distribution of snow on the ground and is a control of blowing snow sublimation losses from the snow pack. Wind speed and direction information are used in the design of containment ponds for brine or runoff, to estimate wave run-up and the necessary freeboard required to contain it.

The nearest Environment Canada station with wind speed and direction data is the Regina Airport. Wind data are provided at hourly intervals in the historical record. For the years 1981 to 2010 normals period at Regina, average hourly wind speeds were 18.4 kilometres per hour (km/h) and winds were most frequently from the southeast. Mean monthly wind speeds range from 16.0 kilometres per hour (km/h) in July to 20.4 km/h in May. The maximum-recorded wind speed of 97 km/h occurred in the months of January and June.

A wind rose summarizing wind data at the Regina Airport for 1953 to 2010 is shown on Figure 3.4-5. The most frequent wind direction was from the southeast, followed by west and northwest. For the highest wind speed class above 7 metres per second (m/s) (25 km/h), southeast winds are most frequent.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 15

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Figure 3.4-5: Historical Wind Direction and Speed for Regina Airport, 1953 to 2013

3.4.5 Precipitation Precipitation occurs as rain and snowfall; rainfall makes up about 80% of mean annual precipitation. Mean monthly rainfall is typically highest in June, as most rainfall events occurring in late spring and summer are convective storms. Because of the type of precipitation event, rainfall is much more spatially variable than snowfall. However, when snow is on the ground, it is transported and is redistributed by wind and blowing snow processes over the landscape. During the spring, precipitation commonly occurs in both phases and rain falling on melting snow can increase the rate of snowmelt and runoff generation (Shook and Pomeroy 2012).

Total snowfall and rainfall for Duval and Regina Airport for 1981 to 2010 climate normal periods is shown on Figure 3.4. -6 The long-term average annual total precipitation for Duval and Regina Airport is 423 mm and 390 mm, respectively.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 16

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Duval Total Rainfall Regina Airport Total Rainfall Duval Total Snowfall Regina Airport Total Snowfall 90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30 Total Rainfall (mm) Total Snowfall (cm)

20 20

10 10

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Figure 3.4-6: Average Monthly Total Snowfall and Rainfall Normals for Duval and Regina Airport, 1981 to 2010

Precipitation measurement is subject to a number of errors. Depending on the type of snow gauge, snow measurements made during windy conditions can reduce or increase the “catch efficiency”, which is defined as the ratio of observed snowfall to actual snowfall. The variable density of snow complicates measurements that attempt to use depth as a measurement tool. Snow density is quite variable within a snowpack and changes over the winter due to changes in temperature and melts (Hedstrom and Pomeroy 1998). However, snow density of fresh snow is often assumed to be uniform (Mekis and Vincent 2011).

Environment Canada publishes adjusted precipitation data for a number of long-term weather stations across Canada. Rainfall and snowfall data are adjusted to account for losses from the gauges due to retention of precipitation on the gauge, losses due to evaporation off the gauge, and losses due to wind effects on the gauge and wind shield setup. Depending on the type of gauge and shield, and the wind speed, under-catch is a common measurement error that leads to underestimation of precipitation amounts, although over-catch can occur for some configurations at certain wind speeds. The adjusted data series provides more consistent and accurate data. Methods for adjustment are described in Mekis and Vincent (2011). Adjusted precipitation data are currently available for the Regina Airport Station from 1898 to 2006, although five years of data are missing from the earliest records. The adjusted data series may be preferred for use in water balance calculations.

Annual total observed precipitation and adjusted precipitation for Regina Airport are shown on Figure 3.4-7. The adjusted values are always greater than the observed values. At Regina, the long-term average precipitation was 384 mm before corrections and 451 mm after adjustment were made. The amount of data adjustment is not constant and depends on a variety of factors, including the type of gauge installed, which may change throughout the period of record. For the Regina Airport station, the adjustments applied to the observed data generally are highest in the years between 1960 and 1980.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 17

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Figure 3.4-7: Annual Total Observed and Adjusted Precipitations values from Environment Canada for the Regina International Airport Station (ID 4016560)

In 2013, rainfall measured at West Loon Creek, Duval, Cupar, and Regina Gilmour weather stations were 146 mm, 285 mm, 275 mm, and 236 mm respectively (Figure 3.4-8). The Duval, Cupar, and Regina Gilmour stations are approximately 23 km west, 37 km southeast, and 67 km southeast of the West Loon Creek station, respectively. The difference of between rainfall amounts in local weather stations demonstrates the value of having rain gauges within the drainage areas being studied. The largest rainfall in a single day at the West Loon Creek station was 26.4 mm on July 6, 2013. Rainfall data measured at West Loon Creek in 2013 are provided in Appendix III.1, Table 4.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 18

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

West Loon Creek Cupar Duval Regina Gilmour 300

250

200

150

100

50 Cumulative Monthly Rainfall (mm) Rainfall Monthly Cumulative

0 MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

Figure 3.4-8: Cumulative Monthly Rainfall Observed at West Loon Creek, Cupar, Duval, and Regina Gilmore Weather Stations during the Hydrology Baseline Study, 2013

3.4.6 Precipitation Extremes Large precipitation events are generally rare for a single location in this region but when they occur, they can account for a significant portion of annual rainfall. Extreme high rainfall events are incorporated into the design of surface water management infrastructure. Extreme precipitation records for weather stations near the Project are provided in Table 3.4 -2.

Table 3.4-2: Extreme Maximum Daily Precipitation for Weather Stations near the Project Station Regina Airport(a) Regina Gilmour(b) Duval(a) Cupar Extreme Maximum Daily Rainfall 160.3 mm 78 mm 105 mm 67.8 mm (Month/Year) (June 1887) (September 2010) (August 2005) (September 1992) Extreme Maximum Daily Snowfall 26.4 cm 24 cm 22.9 cm 25.4 cm (Month/Year) (October 1984) (November 2012) (November 1966) (January 1976) Years of Record 1883-2007 2008-2013 1957-2013 1955-2013 (a) Data taken from most recent (1981 to 2010) published Environment Canada Climate Normals. (b) Data taken from daily climate data accessed on the Environment Canada website; this data is flagged with the description: “Data for this day has undergone only preliminary quality checking.” mm = millimetres; cm = centimetres

Rainfall intensity, duration, and frequency data are provided in Table 3.4-3 for Regina Airport based on 52 years of data collected between 1941 and 1995. Statistical methods are used to assign rainfall amounts and intensities for various durations at a range of average return periods. For example, the 1 in 100 year, 24-hour rainfall event for Regina is estimated to be 119.2 mm; during this event, up to 119.2 mm could be expected in a 24-hour period and this event has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 19

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 3.4-3: Return Period Rainfall Amounts for Regina International Airport, 1941 to 1995 Rainfall Average Return Period Amounts (mm) 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years 25 Year 50 Years 100 Years 5 min 6.7 10.8 13.5 16.9 19.4 21.9 10 min 10.2 15.8 19.4 24.1 27.5 30.9 15 min 12.5 19.3 23.9 29.7 34.0 38.2

30 min 16.8 26.2 32.5 40.5 46.3 52.2 60 min 20.4 31.6 39.1 48.5 55.5 62.4

Duration 2 hour 24.4 37.5 46.1 57.0 65.2 73.2 6 hour 32.5 51.1 63.4 78.9 90.5 101.9 12 hour 38.0 58.0 71.3 88.0 100.5 112.8 24 hour 41.8 62.5 76.2 93.6 106.4 119.2 mm = millimetres; min = minutes

A 24-hour design storm event of close to 300 mm has been used for the design of surface water infrastructure at other potash developments. This value is much higher than any 24-hour rainfall event recorded at a weather station in the region. However, storms of this magnitude have occurred on the prairies in localized areas. In 2000, a storm event in southwestern Saskatchewan centred around Vanguard, Saskatchewan occurred with 8-hour rain depths of up to 375 mm and an estimated surrounding area of 1,717 km2 receiving greater than 100 mm of rain in 8 hours (Hunter et al. 2002). Another extreme rainfall event of 380 mm occurred over 24 hours near Parkman, Saskatchewan (southwest Saskatchewan) in 1985 (Hopkinson 1986; Hunter et al. 2002, Newark et al. 1987). 3.4.7 Evaporation Evaporation is the change in phase from liquid water to vapour; evapotranspiration is the same process, but is usually used to describe evaporation from vegetated land surfaces with transpiration being the loss of water from plants to water vapor. In this region, evaporation and evapotranspiration are often large components of a water balance and may be higher than precipitation on an annual basis. Direct measurement of evaporation and evapotranspiration can be done using evaporation pans or eddy covariance methods, which require high maintenance and are costly, respectively. Therefore, estimates usually are calculated using weather data. Evaporation is part of water balance calculations used for water management planning.

A common method of estimating monthly evaporation losses from the surface of small- to medium-sized water bodies is the Meyer method (PFRA 2002; Bell 2009, Pers. Comm.), which uses easily obtained climate data. Results using this method have been published for numerous climate stations located in the Canadian Prairies. For the study site, evaporation was calculated using the Regina Airport data for the years 1911 to 2008 (Bell 2009, pers. comm.). This same method was used to calculate evaporation for 2013, using site data, when available, and infilling with data from the Duval and Regina Airport Station. A summary of these values is shown on Figure 3.4 -9 and summary data are provided in Appendix III.1, Table 5. The largest amount of evaporation occurred between May and August, which is typical of the area and shows the same pattern as the long-term mean estimates. In 2013, annual evaporation was 815 mm, which is less than the long-term mean of 939 mm (maximum and minimum annual gross evaporation was 1,311 mm and 721 mm, respectively). Higher salinity is known to decrease evaporation from a water surface, due to a reduction in vapor pressure. This would be accounted for in a water balance for ponds with elevated salinity levels.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 20

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Regina Airport Mean Regina Airport Maximum Regina Airport Minimum 2013 350

300

250

200

150 Evaporation (mm) Evaporation 100

0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Figure 3.4-9: Monthly Meyer Evaporation Estimates for Regina Airport for the Years 1911 to 2008, compared with 2013 Monthly Evaporation using Local Weather Stations 3.5 Topography The topography of the region is generally flat, with local higher elevation areas northeast of the study area near the Little Touchwood Hills and at Last Mountain to the west (Figure 3.5 -1). The maximum elevation in the study area is at the base of the Little Touchwood Hills about 670 metres above sea level (masl), while the lowest elevation is about 532 masl in the low-lying areas along local stream valleys. The landscape in the RSA is primarily undulating and ridged glacial moraine (Simpson 1997), with numerous depressions, wetlands and gently rolling hills that characterize the prairie pothole region.

Figure 3.5-2 is based on the 1 m grid size bare earth LiDAR data captured in September 2013 when conditions were dry. This higher resolution data highlights the hummocky landscape with numerous surface depressions in the higher elevation areas near the Little Touchwood Hills that are part of the East Loon Creek drainage area. Near the proposed core facilities and mine well field areas, the landscape is relatively flatter, less undulating and the intermittent flow paths in these areas are poorly connected without well-defined channels. West Loon Creek valley is the main surficial feature crossing the proposed mine field area. The general slope direction in the LSA is from north to south.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 21

500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000 570000 580000 LEGEND 9 2

P COMMUNITY W T HIGHWAY TOWNSHIP AND RANGE BOUNDARY 0 0

0 Tate PROPOSED RAIL SPUR TO CN 0 0 7 8 5

2 ALTERNATE RAIL SPUR TO CP

Hatfield P W

T PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD PERMIT BOUNDARY Semans Raymore 65 YEAR MINE FIELD CORE FACILITIES AREA

Quinton INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY Punnichy 15 EFFECTIVE DRAINAGE CHANNEL

0 (! 0

0 INTERMITTENT CHANNEL 0 9 7 6 2 5 FLOW DIRECTION (!6 P W T EAST LOON CREEK SUB-BASIN WEST LOON CREEK SUB-BASIN

M k Lestock

P UNNAMED LAKE NEAR DUVAL LAKE

8 e SUB-BASIN

3 r : Govan

9 C

4 LOON CREEK (AT LCF1) A : n 7

1 Leross

2 SUB-BASIN

o 5 Lo P 1

t W

0 ELEVATION (mASL)

s T 2 0

/ e 0 HIGH : 751 8 0 1

0 W / 8 3 6

: 5 e t a D

d x 6 2 m

Grassy Lake . P y h W p T a r LOW : 471 g o p o T l 35 a

n (! o i 0 g

0 Serath e 0 0 R

7 -

6 5 7 9 1 0 - Duval 2 6 5 3 2 1

- P 2 W 1 \ T x e n n A r e t a W 20 KP 377 KP 392 e (! 0 c 0 a 0 f r 0 u 6 6 S 5 \ e c n e d i Strasbourg 4 s 2 b Jum pi P

u ng Dee S k

r W

C T -

e re y e REFERENCE g e k o l r WATERSHEDS AND CHANNELS WERE DERIVED FROM A COMBINATION OF 2M LIDAR o r C

d AND CDED DATA

y n o PROJECT MINE FIELD PROVIDED BY AGAPITO ASSOCIATES INC., 2014 H o

E CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA 0 k 5 s NTS MAPSHEET: 62L/M, 72I/J/O/P 6 a 5

T NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 \ Bulyea n o i t 3 a 220 r 2

a (! P p e W r T P

S I 5 0 5 E 22 Dysart Earl - Southey (! Markinch Cupar 5

2 Grey

0 SCALE 1:300,000 KM P W \ 7 0

9 PROJECT 0 1 0 0 0 Lipton - 4 YANCOAL 2 6 5 6 Gibbs 3 SOUTHEY PROJECT 1

- Mohr's 2 2 1 2 \ Beach s

P TITLE e r W u T g i k

F e \

L re REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY A C O n C o N Sorenson's o A L PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. Y

\ Beach 1

S 322 2 DESIGN SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0

T (! 0 P 0 N 0 W GIS LMR 18/03/15 E 0 I T 3 L 6 CHECK JH 18/03/15 FIGURE: 5 C

\ Pasqua : RGE 23 W2M RGE 22 W2M RGE 21 W2M RGE 20 W2M RGE 19 W2M RGE 18 W2M RGE 17 W2M RGE 16 W2M RGE 15 W2M RGE 14 W2M Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW G Lake BT 18/03/15 3.5-1 515000 520000 525000 530000 535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 LEGEND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY

ROAD

RAILWAY Grassy TOWNSHIP AND RANGE BOUNDARY Lake URBAN MUNICIPALITY 6 0 2 0

0 PROPOSED RAIL SPUR TO CN P 5 7 W 6 T 5 ALTERNATE RAIL SPUR TO CP PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD k e e r Willow PERMIT BOUNDARY C Lake n 65 YEAR MINE FIELD o

L CORE FACILITIES AREA

t s

M INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY P

e 8

3 W ELEVATION (masl) : Oak Lake 6 0 4 0 HIGH : 688.32

: Serath 0 1 0

7 6 5 5 1 0 2 /

8 1 / 3

: e t a D

LOW : 530.33 d

x Brice m . t Lake c e j 5 o 2 r

P P

0 e W 0 h T 0 t

5 r 6 a 6 e 5 N y h p a r g o p o T l a c o L KP 377 -

7 KP 392

9 6

1 (! 0 - 2 0 0 6 0 3 0 1 6 - 6 2 5 1 \ x e n n A r e t a W e c a f r u S 4 \ 2 e c P n W W e

e T d 0 i

0 s s

0 t b 5 L u 5 o 6 S

5 o -

n y C g REFERENCE

o r l e ELEVATION SURFACE DERIVED FROM LIDAR PROVIDED BY LSI o e r k d ek PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE DERIVED FROM AMEC DRAWING NO. y re

H C 100110-2000-DD10-GAD-0001 REV B.

0 a 1

E MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES SASKATCHEWAN k s CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA a T

\ NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 n o i t 0 a r 0 0 a 0 p 5 e 6 r 5 P

S I 3 0 3 E

2 SCALE 1:150,000

0 KILOMETRES P W \ 7

9 PROJECT 1 0 - YANCOAL 2 6

3 SOUTHEY PROJECT 1 - Lo 2 o 1

0 n \ 0 s TITLE 0 C e 5 r 4 u

6 r g 5 e i

F Cupar LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY NEAR THE PROJECT

\ e

L k

A Southey

O BASED ON THE LIDAR DEM

C Earl Markinch N

A Grey PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. Y

\ 22

S (! DESIGN JH 11/04/14 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 T

N GIS LMR 18/03/15 E I

L CHECK JH 18/03/15 FIGURE: C \

: RGE 21 W2M RGE 20 W2M RGE 19 W2M RGE 18 W2M RGE 17 W2M RGE 16 W2M Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW G BT 18/03/15 3.5-2 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

3.6 Hydrography The surface water RSA is within the Qu’Appelle River drainage in southern Saskatchewan (Figure 3.4-1). Last Mountain Lake is located approximately 40 km west of the proposed plant site and the Qu’Appelle River is located about 30 km south. The Qu’Appelle River flows from the Qu’Appelle Dam at Lake Diefenbaker eastward into the province of Manitoba. In Manitoba, the Qu’Appelle flows into the Assiniboine River, this, in turn, flows into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. All of these rivers are part of the Hudson Bay Drainage System.

Most of the RSA (including KP377 and KP392 permit areas) is located within the Loon Creek drainage area, although small areas are part of the Last Mountain Lake drainage area and the Jumping Deer Creek drainage area (Figure 3.6-1). Loon Creek and Jumping Deer Creek flow south to the Qu’Appelle River. The northwest portion of KP377 extends into the Grassy Lakes drainage, where drainage is west towards Last Mountain Lake, although in most years, runoff may be stored within an unnamed waterbody near Duval. Last Mountain Lake is part of the Qu’Appelle River drainage.

Within the Loon Creek drainage, there are two main streams: West Loon Creek and East Loon Creek (Figure 3.6 -1). Both East and West Loon creeks are located along the bottom of well-developed valleys, generally incised between 5 and 15 m below the surrounding landscape. Ponds and wetlands are common along the bottom of both stream valleys; the density of wetlands is very high in the headwaters of East Loon Creek near the Little Touchwood Hills with its rolling, hilly terrain made up of hummocky moraine. An additional small tributary to Loon Creek passes near the Town of Cupar and receives periodic releases of treated effluent and stormwater from the town.

Based on combined LiDAR and GEOBASE digital elevation models, the gross drainage area of Loon Creek was estimated to be 1,744 km2 near the site of an inactive WSC hydrometric station 05JK006 near Markinch, Saskatchewan. At the confluence of West and East Loon creeks, the gross drainage area of West Loon Creek is 998 km2 and the gross drainage area of East Loon Creek is 518 km2.

A substantial portion (with a drainage area of 453 km2) of the Loon Creek drainage area west of West Loon Creek is considered to be a non-contributing area, which theoretically, does not contribute runoff or flow into local streams except during years that the annual maximum flood exceeds the median annual flood (AAFC 2005). This area is relatively flat compared to the West and East Loon Creek drainages, which both have headwaters near the Little Touchwood Hills. Intermittent flow pathways exist in this drainage and these pathways may have localized runoff during snowmelt freshet. In some years, surface runoff from this non- contributing area may contribute to streamflow in West Loon Creek during peak flows for a few days. Stream channels have not formed along most of the intermittent flow pathways in this area, except near culverts or along tributaries in steeper areas at the base of Last Mountain.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 24

500000 510000 520000 530000 540000 550000 560000 570000 580000 LEGEND 9 2

P COMMUNITY W T HIGHWAY (!6 TOWNSHIP AND RANGE BOUNDARY 0 0

0 Tate

0 URBAN MUNICIPALITY 0 7 5 Hatfield PROPOSED RAIL SPUR TO CN ALTERNATE RAIL SPUR TO CP PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD !. Semans PERMIT BOUNDARY Raymore 65 YEAR MINE FIELD Quinton CORE FACILITIES AREA Punnichy 15 INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY

0 (! 0 0

0 CONTINUOUS STREAMFLOW 9 7 6 .!

2 STATION LOCATION 5

P M P W ! DISCHARGE STATION T 7 5 :

2 *# 2013 GOLDER WEATHER STATION 5 : 1

k # ENVIRONMENT CANADA CLIMATE STATION 5 Lestock *

1 Govan e

0 e r WATER SURVEY OF CANADA 2 / C 8 !. STREAMFLOW STATION 1 A

/ n

Leross 7 3 2

o : EFFECTIVE DRAINAGE CHANNEL

o P e t L

t W a

s T

D INTERMITTENT CHANNEL 0

e 0

0 WLF4 d

0 W

x ! 8 .! FLOW DIRECTION 6 m 5 . s EAST LOON CREEK SUB-BASIN d e h s

r WEST LOON CREEK SUB-BASIN e Grassy Lake t 6 a 2 UNNAMED LAKE NEAR DUVAL SUB-BASIN P W

W n T o i LOON CREEK (AT LCF1) SUB-BASIN t a t

S STREAMFLOW STATION SUB-BASIN !

w 35 o !

l (

f EAST LOON CREEK (AT ELF1) m a

e EAST LOON CREEK (AT CONFLUENCE) 0 r 0 t Serath 0 S

0 !

- 7 *# LOON CREEK (AT LCF1)

6 7 5 9

1 WEST LOON CREEK (AT CONFLUENCE) 0 -

2 Duval

6 WEST LOON CREEK (AT WLF1A) 3 ! 5 1 2

- P 2 WEST LOON CREEK (AT WLF2) 1 W

\ WLF2 x T e *#.! n n A r e t a 20

W (!

e KP 377 KP 392 c 0 a 0 f 0 r 0 u 6 S 6 \ 5 e c n e Strasbourg WLF1 ELF1 d i s .! .! b Jum u WLF1A ping D

S ee .! k r - C

e y re REFERENCE g e o e

l k r WATERSHEDS AND CHANNELS WERE DERIVED FROM A COMBINATION OF 2M LIDAR o r C

d AND CDED DATA. y n PROJECT MINE FIELD PROVIDED BY AGAPITO ASSOCIATES INC., 2014 H o o -

0 t

9 s MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES SASKATCHEWAN 0 0 a 0 1

CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA 0 E k 0 s 5 NTS MAPSHEET: 62L/M, 72I/J/O/P 6 a 5 T NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 \ Bulyea n o i t a 3 r 220 2 a (! p P e W r T P

S I Cupar 5 0 5 E

22 Dysart - Earl Southey (!

5 Markinch

2 Grey 0 SCALE 1:300,000 KM P 05JK004 W \

7 !. 0

9 PROJECT 0 1 0 0 0 - Lipton

4 YANCOAL 2 6 6 5 Gibbs 3 SOUTHEY PROJECT 1 LCF1 - 2

.! 2 1 \ 2

322 s TITLE P e (! 05JK006

r !. W u T g

i Mohr's k F

\ e

L Beach re HYDROLOGY MONITORING STATIONS A C O

C n

N o # Sorenson's o * A L PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. Y \ Beach S DESIGN SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 T 0 N 0 GIS LMR 18/03/15 0 E I 0 L 3 CHECK JH 18/03/15 FIGURE: 6 C 5 \

: RGE 23 W2M RGE 22 W2M RGE 21 W2M RGE 20 W2M RGE 19 W2M RGE 18 W2M RGE 17 W2M RGE 16 W2M RGE 15 W2PMasqua RGE 14 W2M Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW

G BT 18/03/15 Lake 3.6-1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

3.7 Regional Hydrology 3.7.1 Regional Streamflow Stations No long-term streamflow monitoring stations are currently in operation within the study area, thus streamflow stations in the surrounding region must be used to characterize the hydrology within the study area. Several WSC streamflow stations occur within 100 km of the study area; basic attributes of these watersheds are provided in Table 3.7-1. Locations of the regional streamflow stations are provided on Figure 3.4-1, along with locations of weather stations used in preparing the hydrology baseline assessment.

The nearest WSC streamflow station to the study area is Loon Creek near Markinch (05JK006), although it was active only from 1944 to 1954. Flows at Loon Creek were regulated at one time by a small dam downstream of the confluence of West Loon and East Loon creeks and a few small dams on a tributary in the area of Cupar. Jumping Deer Creek is the most comparable regional stream with an active hydrometric station that has similar flow characteristics to the Loon Creek drainage area. Jumping Deer Creek is an adjacent drainage, has similar surficial geology (i.e., undulating and ridged moraine), and has one of the longest streamflow records in the region. Table 3.7-1: Water Survey of Canada Streamflow Stations near the Study Area Record Gross Effective WSC Stream Name (Flow EDA/GDA Distance from length Drainage Area Drainage Area (a) Station No. Condition) 2 (a) 2 (a) Ratio Plant Site (km) (years) (km ) (km )

Loon Creek near 05JK006 1944-1954 2,040 135 0.07 34 Markinch (regulated) Jumping Deer Creek 05JK004 near Lipton 1941-2013 1,680 155 0.10 57 (regulated) Saline Creek near 05JJ009 1972-2013 950 74.1 0.08 46 Nokomis (natural) Lewis Creek near 05JH005 1972-1992 572 130 0.23 55 Imperial (natural) Magnusson Creek 05MA021 near Wynyard 1964-2013 121 86 0.71 84 (natural) Birch Creek near 05MA011 1963-2013 692 305 0.44 89 Elfros (regulated) Pheasant Creek near 05JL005 Abernethy 1946-2013 1,150 345 0.30 100 (regulated) (a) The effective drainage area (EDA) and gross drainage area (GDA) used in this assessment were published on the WSC (2014) website, with the exception that the EDA for Jumping Deer Creek is sourced from Cole (2013) and Ehsanzadeh et al. (2012). km = kilometres; km2 = square kilometres 3.7.2 Monthly Flows The semi-arid prairie region is subject to great variation in flows between years and within individual years. Mean monthly flows for Jumping Deer Creek are provided on Figure 3.7-1. This drainage is east of Loon Creek drainage and shares a drainage area boundary. Streamflow is ephemeral in Jumping Deer Creek and occurs mainly during the snowmelt freshet, tapering off to lower flows during the summer and fall. This station is not monitored in the winter months (November to February), however, streamflow is usually near zero (cubic metres per second [m3/s]) at freeze-up. It is assumed that there is no flow in the winter months.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 26 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

0.6

0.5 /s)

3 1941 to 2013 0.4

0.3

0.2

Mean Monthly Discharge (m Discharge Monthly Mean 0.1

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

Figure 3.7-1: Mean Monthly Streamflows for Jumping Deer Creek between 1941 and 2013

3.7.3 Flow Duration Curves Flow duration curves are used to show the relationship between streamflow and the percentage of time it is exceeded. The range of daily mean streamflow values at Jumping Deer Creek over its historical record is shown on Figure 3.7-2. Due to the temporary nature of flows in streams in the southern prairie region, flows are only monitored between the months of March and October. Daily flow duration curves created for each month from March to October show the relative magnitude of flows in each month. Flow duration curves consist of all daily mean flow data in the historical record (including zero flows). The magnitude of flow is plotted on the y-axis and the probability of exceedence is plotted on the x-axis. For example, in April there is a 50% chance that flows will equal or exceed 0.1 m3/s. April flows are usually the highest, as snowmelt runoff occurs most often during April, although occasionally peak flows have occurred in late March or early May. Flows in summer and fall are usually much lower, dropping off to zero in most years.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 27

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

1 /s) 3 Mar Apr May 0.1 Jun Jul Aug

Daily mean discharge (m discharge mean Daily 0.01 Sep Oct

0.001 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Exceedence

Figure 3.7-2: Daily Mean Flow Duration Curves for Jumping Deer Creek, March to October

Daily mean flow duration results for Jumping Deer Creek and Loon Creek for their coincident period of record (1945 to 1954 and 2013) are provided on Figure 3.7-3. Results are compared with the 73-year flow duration curve for Jumping Deer Creek. Loon Creek usually had lower flows than Jumping Deer Creek for the same period of record, with the exception of a few days of higher flood flows measured at Loon Creek in 1947 and 1953. Flow duration results were based on the months of January to December using the actual records for March to October and all missing winter flow records at both stations were assumed to be zero flows. For the years 1945 to 1954 and 2013, Loon Creek was flowing about 10% of the time and Jumping Deer Creek was flowing less than 45% of the time.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 28

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

100

10 /s)

3 Jumping Deer Creek (1941 to 2013) Jumping Deer Creek (1945-54, 2013) 1 Loon Creek (1945-54, 2013)

0.1

Daily Mean Discharge (m 0.01

0.001 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Exceedence %

Figure 3.7-3: Daily Mean Flow Duration Curves for Jumping Deer Creek and Loon Creek, January to December

3.7.4 Flood Flows Historical floods provide useful information on the magnitude and frequency for floods that may occur in the future. This information is often used as a design basis for hydraulic structures such as cross-drainage structures and diversion channels. Flood frequency analysis most often focuses on the maximum annual floods recorded in each year of a historical streamflow record. The maximum annual flood usually occurs during the spring freshet on the prairies, although sometimes the maximum annual flood can be caused by rainfall events or rainfall in combination with snowmelt runoff. Results for flood frequency analysis are more reliable for stations with longer historical records due to the great variability in flows and peak flows each year.

Loon Creek station (05JK004), which is downstream of the study area near Markinch, has a short historical record from 1945 to 1954. Golder conducted streamflow monitoring at the Loon Creek station in 2013 (i.e., Station LCF1), which was slightly upstream of the WSC station location. Measured peak flows and the day of occurrence for Loon Creek are provided in Table .3.7 A-2 nnual peak flows were quite variable over short period of record. However, the nine-year flow record was insufficient to reliably assess the flow magnitude and frequency for Loon Creek over the long-term. According to these historical records, peak flows always occurred during spring freshet and ranged from zero flow to 10.4 m3/s.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 29

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 3.7-2: Maximum Daily Mean Flows for Loon Creek near Markinch Date of Peak Flow Peak Daily Mean Flow (m3/s) 1945 0(a) March 27, 1946 0.082 April 14, 1947 8.55 April 19, 1948 3.4 April 4, 1949 0.15 April 7, 1950 3.11 April 30, 1951 2.21 (second spring peak) March 29, 1952 2.44 April 4, 1953 10.4 April 12, 1954 3.45 April 29, 2013 1.89(b) (a) Loon Creek did not flow in 1945 (b) Peak instantaneous flow was estimated to be 3.5 m3/s, which was extrapolated from the highest measured flow in 2013 of 1.5 m3/s. m3/s = cubic metres per second

Flood frequency analysis was completed for several long-term streamflow monitoring stations identified in Table 3.7-1 to assist in identifying the station that would most adequately represent peak flows conditions in Loon Creek and its tributaries. Flood magnitude and frequency results for the regional streams are provided in Table 3.7-3. The method involves plotting the historical records for individual stations using four common probability distributions then choosing the distribution with the best statistical and visual fit to the data. The Weibull distribution provided the best fit for all stations except Saline Creek, for which Log-Pearson 3 distribution was best and Birch Creek for which Extreme Value Type 2 method was the best fit. The plotting position used for all samples was T = (n + 0.2)/(rank-0.4), where T is the average return period and n is the number of years of record. Table 3.7-3: Daily Mean Flood Magnitude and Frequency for Regional Streamflow Stations within 100 Kilometres Loon Jumping Deer Saline Lewis Magnusson Birch Pheasant Average Return Period Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek (years) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (m /s) (m /s) (m /s) (m /s) (m /s) (m /s) (m /s) 2 2.6 2.2 0.8 1.3 4.5 9.0 7.1 5 6.0 4.6 2.7 4.0 9.1 18.3 16.9 10 8.2 6.3 4.6 6.2 12.1 25.2 23.7 25 10.8 8.4 7.9 9.0 15.6 35.1 32.3 50 12.6 9.9 10.9 11.3 18.1 43.3 38.5 100 14.4 11.4 14.3 13.5 20.4 52.2 44.6 Mean 3.8 2.8 1.8 2.3 5.5 11.6 9.8 Skewness 1.2 1.5 2.6 2.3 1.2 1.2 1.6 Years of Record 9 72 41 21 49 50 67 2013 peak discharge(a) 1.9 2.7 1.0 - 13 30 27 (a) Peak flows in 2013 at Loon Creek exceeded the highest measured discharge in spring 2013, and are an extrapolation of the stage- discharge rating curve and the peak water level measured at the station. km = kilometres; m3/s = cubic metres per second; “– “no data

To determine the best streamflow station to use as an index stream for estimating flood magnitude and frequency in Loon Creek, the flood values at various return periods were divided by the mean annual flood and the results are plotted on Figure 3.- 7 4. In comparison with flood return period ratios using Loon Creek’s nine-

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 30

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

year record, results are most similar (with the 100-year flood about 4 times higher than the 2-year flood), while Saline Creek is least similar to Jumping Deer Creek (with the 100-year flood about 8 times higher than the 2- year flood). Jumping Deer Creek is an adjacent, similarly sized watershed with similar topography, land use, and surficial geology, and, therefore, was the most suitable station to use for characterizing the flood regime for the small drainages within Loon Creek drainage.

6 Saline Ck 5 Lewis Ck 4 Magnusson Ck

3 Birch Ck Pheasant Ck Flood/Mean annual flood flood annual Flood/Mean 2 Jumping Deer Ck 1 Loon Ck (9 year) 0 1 10 100 Average Recurrence Interval (years)

Figure 3.7-4: Flood Magnitude to Mean Annual Flood Ratios for Regional Streamflow Stations

In 2013, the peak daily mean flow at Jumping Deer Creek was about 2.7 m3/s on May 5, 2013, which is close to the mean annual flood of 2.8 m3/s and median annual flood of 2.3 m3/s for this station for the years 1941 to 2013 and exceeded the 2-year flood of 2.2 m3/s. However, an annual discharge volume of 4.7 Mm3 was measured at Jumping Deer Creek in 2013, which exceeded the 75th percentile over the long-term record. In comparison, an annual discharge volume of 1.6 Mm3 was measured at Loon Creek at Station LCF1 in 2013. The higher baseflows at Jumping Deer Creek are expected based on flow duration curve data shown previously on Figure 3.7-3.

The SaskWater (1993) method of estimating flood magnitudes and frequencies for ungauged stations was used to estimate the flood regime for streamflow station locations and at the confluence of East and West Loon creeks. Flood magnitude and frequency results are provided in Table 3.7-4 and streamflow monitoring locations are provided on Figure 3.6-1.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 31

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 3.7-4: Daily Mean Flood Magnitude and Frequency for Selected Stream Locations in the Study Area Average Return Period (years) Gross Effective Stream Drainage Drainage 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Location 2 2 Area (km ) Area (km ) flood flood flood flood flood flood (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) LCF1 Loon 1,877 130 2.0 4.2 5.7 7.6 9.0 10.3 Creek ELF1 East 342 5.25 0.20 0.43 0.59 0.78 0.92 1.8 Loon Creek WLF4 West Loon 261 9.8 0.31 0.66 0.9 1.2 1.4 2.0 Creek WLF2 West Loon 320 23.8 0.58 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 Creek WLF1 West Loon 467 39.2 0.83 1.8 2.4 3.2 3.8 4.4 Creek West Loon Creek at 998 55.5 1.1 2.2 3.0 4.1 4.8 6.2 confluence East Loon Creek at 518 20.1 0.52 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.4 confluence km2 = square kilometres; m3/s = cubic metres per sec

The SaskWater (1993) method of estimating floods involves calculating the GDA and EDA for local streams. The EDA is a theoretical drainage area that is defined as the portion of the GDA that contributes runoff to a main stream during a flood with a return period of two years and excluding depressions that would prevent runoff from reaching the main stream (Godwin and Martin 1975). Drainage areas calculated for local streamflow stations are provided in Table 3.7-4.

The EDA for the local stream locations for a median flood year were estimated using the AAFC (2005) EDA map for Loon Creek as the starting point. This initial EDA was modified using the LiDAR DEM and using field observations at stream crossings that included culvert dimensions, orientation, and condition. Additionally, the DEM data were used to assess whether uplands, tributaries, and the headwater sections of the main stem of East and West Loon creeks would contribute to flows based on local slopes, size of depressions and height of depression spill elevations, and slopes near culverts at the road crossings. Following this, the EDA ratios and flood results for Jumping Deer Creek were used to estimate flood magnitudes for the 2-year to 50-year average return period. The 100-year flood was estimated by plotting a straight line between the EDA and GDA ratios for each stream at the 0.02 and 0.001 exceedence probability on normal probability paper (SaskWater 1993). 3.8 Local Hydrology 3.8.1 Streamflow Stations To characterize the hydrology of streams in the study area, streamflow stations were installed at five locations on West Loon, East Loon, and Loon creeks during the baseline period in 2013. Details of the streamflow stations are provided in Table 3.8-1 and streamflow monitoring station locations shown on Figure 3.3-1.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 32

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 3.8-1: Streamflow Monitoring Locations with Continuous Water Level Records in 2013 Number of Streamflow Monitoring Location UTM GDA EDA Watershed Pressure Record Length 2 (a) 2 (a) Station Identifier NAD83 (km ) (km ) Transducers 13 U 548898 LCF1 Loon Creek 1 April 29 – Nov 5 1,877 130 5638030 East Loon 13 U 544352 ELF1 1 April 28 – Nov 5 342 5.25 Creek 5657411 West Loon 13 U 535335 WLF1A 1 April 26 – Nov 5 469 41.4 Creek 5655999 West Loon 13 U 534694 WLF1 1 May 3 – Nov 5 467 39.2 Creek 5657354 West Loon 13 U 532008 WLF2 2 April 28 – Nov 5 320 23.8 Creek 5665332 (a) GDA = gross drainage area, EDA = effective drainage area; these are described in Section 3.6. UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator; km2 = square kilometres

Water levels were measured continuously at five streamflow stations over the 2013 open water season. Discharge monitoring was discontinued at Station WLF1A on West Loon Creek after the peak flows had passed, because flows were no longer measureable at the Highway 6 crossing location. 3.8.2 Water Level and Discharge Results Streamflow monitoring was conducted at five streamflow stations in the Loon Creek drainage area over the 2013 open water season, as described in Section 3.3. Discharge was measured at least once in the early spring at a few small tributaries and in the headwaters of West Loon Creek locations to provide an indication of the magnitude of flow from small tributaries compared to the gauging stations, as detailed in Table 3.8-2. Table 3.8-2: Local Streamflow Monitoring Measurements in 2013 Streamflow Location UTM Water Levels Discharge Measured Stream Date 3 Station Identifier NAD83 (m) (m /s) April 29, 2013 98.396 1.597 May 3, 2013 98.018 0.641 May 4, 2013 97.957 n/a

Loon Creek 13 U E548898 May 7, 2013 97.814 0.334 LCF1 near Markinch N5638030 May 17, 2013 97.723 0.108 July 11, 2013 97.447 0.0029 August 8, 2013 n/a 0.0076 November 5, 2013 97.083 0 April 28, 2013 99.076 0.0165 April 29, 2013 99.020 0.0058

East Loon 13 U E544352 May 3, 2013 98.941 0.0004 ELF1 Creek N5657411 May 15, 2013 98.900 0 July 12, 2013 98.868 0 November 5, 2013 n/a 0

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 33

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 3.8-2: Local Streamflow Monitoring Measurements in 2013 (continued) Streamflow Location UTM Water Levels Discharge Measured Stream Date 3 Station Identifier NAD83 (m) (m /s) April 26, 2013 97.738 n/a (partial ice cover) April 29, 2013 97.775 0.0323 May 3, 2013 97.836 0.0687 West Loon (a) 13 U E535335 WLF1A Creek at May 15, 2013 97.717 Not measurable N5655999 Highway 6 July 12, 2013 97.545 Not measurable August 8, 2013 n/a Not measurable November 5, 2013 97.402 dry May 3, 2013 99.462 0.267 West Loon 13 U E534694 May 15, 2013 99.260 0.0242 WLF1 Creek at Grid N5657354 731 July 12, 2013 99.142 0.00015 November 5, 2013 98.950 0 April 28, 2013 99.538 0.1281 April 29, 2013 99.476 0.027 May 4, 2013 99.630 0.1755 West Loon 13 U E532008 WLF2 May 15, 2013 99.518 0.0116 Creek N5665332 July 11, 2013 99.467 0.0027 August 8, 2013 99.475 n/a November 5, 2013 99.409 0 May 4, 2013 0.745 0.0454 Headwaters of 13 U E535607 WLF4 West Loon May 17, 2013 0.930 0 N5680025 Creek July 11, 2013 1.200 dry Tributary of large valley 13 U E531016 WPT 46 wetland in West May 4, 2013 n/a 0.0017 N5667031 Loon Creek drainage area Tributary of large valley 13 U E530358 WPT 74 wetland in West May 4, 2013 n/a 0.0054 N5670269 Loon Creek drainage area Perched culvert in West Loon 13 U E535764 WPT 114 Creek, July 11, 2013 n/a 0.0002 N5673544 upstream of WLF2 (a) Station WLF1A was established at Highway 6 crossing on April 26, 2013 but discharge was not measureable at this station at lower flows, therefore this station was discontinued in favor of Station WLF1 (located 1 km upstream). m =metres; m3/s = cubic metres per second; UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator; n/a = no data

Water level survey and discharge results at local streamflow stations for the 2013 open-water season are provided in Table 3.8-2. Hydrographs are based on stage-discharge rating curves that relate water levels to a

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 34

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

particular discharge. Water levels were recorded at 30-minute intervals at stations LCF1, WLF1, and WLF2 at ELF1. Stage-discharge rating relationships were established using the Aquarius™ hydrology software for calculating stage-discharge at streamflow stations. Rating curve shifts were applied for some of the stations to correct for backwatering from ice and beaver dams; shift details and water level correction details were documented. Daily mean discharge results for each station are provided in Appendix III.2, Tables 1 to 4. Stage and discharge rating data provided in Appendix III.3 are representative of flow conditions that occurred in 2013 when flows were contained within the channel banks; overbank flood conditions were not observed. 3.8.2.1 Snowmelt and Rainfall Conditions in 2013 Comparisons of spring 2013 flow data for Jumping Deer Creek with historical flows indicate that spring runoff was near normal. Runoff from a higher than average snow accumulation the previous winter was reduced due to dry soil conditions the previous fall (WSA 2014).

The snow water equivalent (SWE) over the winter of 2012 to 2013 was estimated for the surface water RSA from remote sensing data obtained using microwave-band satellites (Environment Canada 2014). The accumulation and depletion of snow over the winter is shown on Figure 3.8-1. The SWE prior to the spring melt was about 105 mm ±15 mm and the total precipitation recorded over the preceding winter was 159 mm at Duval. The spring melt began in the last week of April 2013 and spring runoff hydrographs indicate the freshet lasted for 1 to 2 weeks. In 2013, peak daily mean flows for Jumping Deer Creek and Loon Creek slightly exceeded the 2-year flood predictions.

Figure 3.8-1: Snow Water Equivalent Map Results for the Regional Study Area in Winter, 2012 to 2013

Stream hydrographs can be interpreted using rainfall data from a weather station if it is located nearby. For this purpose, the West Loon Creek weather station was used for interpreting hydrographs for West Loon and East Loon creek stations; the latter station was 15 km away. The Environment Canada weather station at Cupar was used to interpret stream hydrographs for Loon Creek at Station LCF1, and for Jumping Deer Creek at Station 05JK004; these streamflow stations were 5.4 km and 27 km from the Cupar weather station, respectively.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 35

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Convective rainfall events often occur over small areas compared to frontal system rain events, and the highest intensity within a convective rain storm can be further limited in its spatial extent.

All streamflow stations had some runoff response corresponding to rainfall events at the West Loon Creek weather station (i.e., all rainfalls recorded at this station were less than 30 mm), but the responses were reduced when conditions were drier. Only one large rainfall event in summer 2013 produced a significant streamflow response and this was at Loon Creek Station LCF1; results are provided in the following section. 3.8.2.2 Loon Creek The Loon Creek drainage area includes West Loon Creek, East Loon Creek, an intermittently-flowing drainage west of West Loon Creek that is not well-connected, and another tributary near the Town of Cupar. The discharge results and hydrograph for Loon Creek at Station LCF1 are provided on Figure 3.7-1. This hydrometric station was located approximately 0.5 km upstream of WSC Station 05JK004 Loon Creek near the Town of Markinch. Peak daily mean discharge of 1.89 m3/s on April 30, 2013 was close to the predicted 2-year flood value of 2 m3/s provided in Section 3.7. The instantaneous peak flood discharge of 3.5 m3/s occurred overnight on May 1; the ratio of instantaneous to daily mean is called the “peak factor” and this was 1.85 for Loon Creek during the snowmelt peak. Peak flows during the freshet receded to low flow conditions by mid-May (Figure 3.8-2).

Rainfall at Cupar Station Measured discharge Loon Creek hourly Loon Creek daily mean Jumping Deer Creek daily mean 4 0

3.5 5 3 /s) 3 2.5 10 2 15 Discharge (m 1.5

1 (mm) Rainfall Total Daily 20 0.5

0 25

Figure 3.8-2: Discharge Results for Loon Creek (LCF1) and Jumping Deer Creek (05JK004), in 2013

An intense rainstorm of between 50 and 100 mm was observed at Cupar on July 15, 2013 (Town of Cupar 2013). This was captured as a large flow event in the stream hydrograph at Station LCF1, with an initial rise in the stream hydrograph at 5:00 p.m. on July 15, 2013. The peak instantaneous discharge of 2.6 m3/s occurred at 4:00 a.m. on July 16, 2013, therefore it was about 12 hours to peak flow. Prior to this event, Loon Creek flows had been near zero. The total volume of flow in response to this event was 592,777 m3 over a period of about two weeks. The stream hydrograph for Jumping Deer Creek also responded to one or more rainfall events during this same period starting July 15, 2013 (Figure 3.8 -2). The peak factor (i.e., the ratio of instantaneous to daily mean discharge) for this event was 1.2.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 36

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

In contrast to the high rainfall observed at Cupar, the rain gauge 10 km south of the town at the Cupar Climate Station recorded 11 mm on the same day, and less than 1 mm was recorded at the rain gauge at West Loon Creek, which was located 30 km to the northwest. This indicates the highest intensity rain event may have been limited to a relatively small part of the Loon Creek drainage. The higher flows receded over a period of about two weeks until flows were near zero (Figure 3.8-2). In Loon Creek at Station LCF1, there was almost no runoff response to rainfall events of up to 20 mm at Cupar, although Jumping Deer Creek flows responded to rainfall observed at this weather station (Figure 3.8-2).

The total volume of runoff at Loon Creek in 2013 was 1.56 million cubic metres (Mm3), and the spring snowmelt runoff alone was 0.73 Mm3 over a period of 2 weeks. In comparison, total runoff volume at Jumping Deer Creek in 2013 was 4.7 Mm3, which exceeded the 75th percentile in the historical record, although the annual peak flow was near normal. 3.8.2.3 East Loon Creek Discharge results and the hydrograph for East Loon Creek at Station ELF1 are provided on Figure 3.8 -3. This station was located approximately 15 km north of the confluence of East and West Loon creeks. The station was within the AAFC (2005) estimated EDA for Loon Creek and the EDA for this station was estimated to be about 5.25 km2. Peak flows of 0.016 m3/s were measured on the afternoon of April 28 and flows receded to barely measureable volumes within five days. These flows were an order of magnitude lower than the predicted 2-year flood for this station provided in Section 3.7 , based on comparisons with regional streamflow on a unit area basis. However, the rising limb of the snowmelt runoff hydrograph was not captured by the time this station was installed. The peak factor (i.e., the ratio of instantaneous to daily mean discharge) for East Loon Creek during the snowmelt runoff was 1.2. None of the rainfall events that occurred after the snowmelt runoff period caused flows to increase above 0.002 m3/s.

Rainfall West Loon Creek Discharge Measured discharge 0.018 0

0.016 5 0.014 /s)

3 0.012 10

0.01 15 0.008

Discharge (m 0.006 20

0.004 (mm) Rainfall Daily Total 25 0.002

0 30

Figure 3.8-3: Discharge Results for East Loon Creek (Station ELF1), 2013

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 37

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

3.8.2.4 West Loon Creek Discharge results for West Loon Creek Station WLF1 are provided on Figure 3.8-4. This station is located approximately 14 km upstream of the confluence of East and West Loon creeks. Peak flows occurred during the evening of May 3, 2013. The peak factor (i.e., the ratio of instantaneous to daily mean discharge) for West Loon Creek Station 1 during the snowmelt runoff was 1.15. The daily mean peak flow was about 35% of the predicted 2-year flood for this station provided in Section 3.7 and receded to very low flows within two weeks. Rainfall events that occurred later in the summer had relatively small impacts on flows in West Loon Creek.

Rainfall at West Loon Creek Discharge Measured discharge 0.4 0

0.35 5 0.3 /s)

3 10 0.25

0.2 15

0.15 Discharge (m 20 0.1

25 Daily TotalRainfall (mm) 0.05

0 30

Figure 3.8-4: Discharge Results for West Loon Creek (Station WLF1), 2013

Discharge results for West Loon Creek at Station WLF2 are provided on Figure 3.8-5. This station was located approximately 23 km northwest of the confluence of East and West Loon creeks. The estimated EDA for Loon Creek at this location is estimated to be 24 km2. Spring freshet peak flows of 0.275 m3/s occurred May 1 and flows steadily receded to near zero within two weeks. The 2013 peak flow was about 43% of the predicted 2- year flood for this station. Daily mean peak discharge for this station in 2013 was 0.252 m3/s; therefore, the peak factor for the snowmelt-runoff peak in 2013 was estimated to be 1.09.

A second, lesser peak of about 0.13 m3/s occurred around June 26, 2013. This event followed a series of rainfall events. The maximum recorded rainfall at West Loon Creek rain gauge was 26 mm rainfall measured on July 6, 2013 but the peak flow that followed this even at Station WLF2 was only about 0.03 m3/s.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 38

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Rainfall at West Loon Creek Discharge Measured discharge 0.3 0

0.25 5

0.2 10 /s) 3

0.15 15

Discharge (m 0.1 20 Daily Total Rainfall (mm) Rainfall Total Daily

0.05 25

0 30

Figure 3.8-5: Discharge Results for West Loon Creek (WLF2), 2013

The snowmelt runoff period in 2013 lasted only a few days in the headwaters and small tributaries in the Loon Creek drainage, but lasted up to two weeks in Loon Creek, and up to a month in Jumping Deer Creek. Later in the summer, the response of the hydrographs to rainfall events observed at West Loon Creek and Cupar weather stations was diminished as discharge decreased in the streams. Only Loon Creek had a substantial runoff response to a rainstorm near Cupar in mid-July. This likely was related to the high magnitude of rainfall over a small part of the basin located close to the streamflow station LCF1. Only a small amount of rainfall was observed in the nearest weather stations. Although shallow groundwater flow contributes to streamflow, there was not enough to sustain a baseflow during the summer and most sections of the streams were dry by June. Standing water persisted in the numerous ponds and wetlands along the bottom of the stream valleys. 3.8.3 Monthly Mean Flows Monthly mean flows for local streamflow stations in 2013 are provided on Figure 3.8 -6 on a log-discharge scale. Flows at the downstream location of Loon Creek (LCF1) are ten times higher than for East and West Loon creeks combined (i.e., at the streamflow locations). One reason for this is that Loon Creek has additional tributaries contributing to its flows in the area of Cupar. Loon Creek receives effluent and storm water when it is released from the town in the spring. Additionally, the streamflow stations on East and West Loon creeks are located between 13 and 28 km upstream of the confluence of the streams. Flows at East Loon Creek in 2013 were ten times lower than for West Loon Creek, in part because of its smaller drainage area, but also due to the location of this smaller drainage closer to the Little Touchwood Hills with its relatively higher numbers of wetlands.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 39

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

1 /s) 3 0.1

Jumping Deer Creek

0.01 Loon Creek (LCF1) West Loon Creek (WLF1) East Loon Creek (ELF1) 0.001 Monthly Mean Discharge (m Discharge Mean Monthly

0.0001 April May June July August

Figure 3.8-6: Monthly Mean Flows for Selected Local Streamflow Stations, 2013 3.9 Summary The hydrology investigations in 2013 collected site-specific topography, weather, and hydrology data for the purposes of providing a baseline with which to assess potential environmental effects from the Project. The hydrology of streams and waterbodies in southern Saskatchewan is controlled by the seasonal climate (affecting the timing of snowmelt and freeze-up) and water balance parameters (particularly precipitation amounts), as well as the local topography (number of depressions and wetlands that store and release water), soils, and surficial geology (controlling shallow groundwater flow contributing to streams and waterbodies).

The open-water season usually occurs from April to October due to the semi-arid continental climate in this region with air temperatures below zero for the months of November to March. Snow accumulates through the winter and snowmelt increases soil moisture and generates runoff into local wetlands and streams. Runoff to streams occurs from both direct snowmelt-runoff over the surface and infiltration and shallow groundwater flow. Historically, annual peak flows in Loon Creek and Jumping Deer Creek usually occur during the snowmelt freshet period, not due to large rainfall events.

Precipitation including snowfall and rainfall is quite variable from year to year in this region. Over the past 100 years, adjusted precipitation values at Regina Airport have ranged from about 250 to 680 mm (average 451 mm and standard deviation of about 100 mm). Historically, gross evaporation has ranged from about 720 mm to over 1,300 mm at Regina (average of about 940 mm and standard deviation of 110 mm). Runoff is normally a very small component of the annual water balance and it usually occurs during a short period during the snowmelt freshet. The relatively high density of wetlands in portions of the drainage areas included in the baseline study (e.g., East Loon Creek) means that runoff is further reduced as more water is stored in wetlands and contributions to streams would be very small.

There were dry soil conditions in this region in fall 2012 and above-average snow pack accumulated over the winter (WSA 2014), thus an average runoff was expected in spring 2013. An additional factor affecting spring

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 40

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

runoff was the delay of snowmelt until the last week of April. Spring runoff conditions in 2013 in this region were generally near normal at Jumping Deer Creek streamflow station 05JK004 (WSC 2014) and Loon Creek peak flows were close to the predicted 2-year flood. However, the tributaries further upstream had peak flows that were less than the predicted 2-year flood values, based on the flood frequency results for Jumping Deer Creek provided in Section 3.7. In particular, the peak flow at East Loon Creek at Station ELF1 was only 10% of the predicted 2-year flood, while the peak flow for the WLF2 and WLF1 stations along West Loon Creek had about 40% of the predicted 2-year flood.

The estimated flood values for ungauged streams relies on the flood magnitude estimated at the index station (i.e., Jumping Deer Creek) and the EDA ratio raised to an exponent of 0.7 to account for relatively higher flood peaks in smaller streams on a unit drainage area basis. Based on the near-average snowmelt runoff conditions in Loon and Jumping Deer creeks in 2013, the peak flows in the smaller tributaries, particularly East Loon Creek, should have been much higher than the flows measured during spring freshet in 2013. The lower runoff response for West and East Loon creeks might be due to the number or poor connections between wetlands upstream of the monitoring stations. East Loon Creek’s drainage area is positioned at a higher elevation near the Touchwood Hills and has a higher density of wetlands and more poorly connected flow paths than West Loon Creek. It is possible that flood frequency results for the smaller streams would be improved at higher flood magnitudes (e.g., 5-year flood) once the flood storage capacity of more wetlands in the drainages is exceeded. Flood hydrology predictions for small drainages would improve with longer-term monitoring of discharge to verify predictions.

Rainfall varies greatly from year to year at one location and spatial variation in accumulated rainfall is unpredictable, particularly if it is due to convective storms, as compared to frontal system storms. Convective storms produce more intense and short duration rainfall events that may affect one part of a drainage and not another. This was documented with a rainfall flood peak at Loon Creek streamflow station in July 2013, when a large rainstorm of 50 to 100 mm was observed at the Cupar, but the storm was not documented at the weather stations. Total rainfall ranged from 146 mm measured at West Loon Creek weather station to 275 mm at Cupar near Loon Creek station and 285 mm at Duval weather station west of the RSA. These rainfall amounts in 2013 are all lower than regional average annual rainfall amounts (e.g., 335 mm at Duval). Most of the streamflow stations in Loon Creek drainage had a small response to smaller rain events due to relatively dry conditions.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 41

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

4.0 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY 4.1 Introduction Surface water quality is influenced by factors such as natural conditions in groundwater quality and quantity, hydrology, and sediment and soil chemistry. Land use activities (e.g., agriculture) influence surface water quality through air emissions, changes in drainage patterns, and soil chemistry. In turn, changes to surface water quality can affect aquatic and terrestrial organisms, human health, and traditional and non-traditional land use activities (e.g., fishing, trapping, and hunting).

The purpose of this section is to present the current information available on surface water and sediment quality within the RSA and LSA. Baseline surface water and sediment quality information will be used in conjunction with the existing information on hydrogeology, hydrology, and air quality to determine whether aquatic resources are likely directly or indirectly influenced by the Project. The specific objectives of the surface water quality baseline study are:  to describe and discuss the baseline water and sediment conditions in watercourses and waterbodies in the local and regional study areas;  to compare baseline water and sediment quality data with regulatory guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, wildlife, and human health; and  to provide information used to predict direct and indirect effects from the Project on surface water quality, and the aquatic and terrestrial environments. 4.2 Methods 4.2.1 Study Design and Sampling Methods 4.2.1.1 Sampling Dates and Locations Water chemistry samples were collected from one location in Loon Creek, two locations in East Loon Creek, three locations in West Loon Creek, and two land-locked waterbodies in the study area (Figure 4.2-1). Water samples were collected during the spring, summer, and fall of 2013 (Table 4.2-1). Sediment chemistry samples were collected from five water sampling locations in the RSA during the fall sampling session (Table 4.2-1). Table 4.2-1: Water and Sediment Quality Sampling Locations and Schedule Watercourse or (a) (b) Sample Type Station ID Spring 2013 Summer 2013 Fall 2013 Waterbody Loon Creek water/sediment LNC WQ01 May 8 July 25 October 18 water ELC WQ01 May 8 ns ns East Loon Creek water ELC WQ04B ns July 25 ns water/sediment WLC WQ03 May 8 July 25 October 18 West Loon Creek water WLC WQ04 ns July 25 ns water/sediment WLC WQ07 May 8 July 25 October 18 Waterbody 005 water/sediment 005 WQ01 May 8 July 25 October 18 Waterbody 011 water/sediment 005 WQ01 May 8 July 25 October 18 (a) The spring water sampling occurred earlier in the spring than the spring fish and fish habitat survey to coincide with the spring freshet. (b) Sediment samples were only collected during the fall, 2013. LNC = Loon Creek; ELC = East Loon Creek; WLC = West Loon Creek; WQ = water quality; ns = not sampled.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 42

520000 530000 540000 550000 LEGEND COMMUNITY

HIGHWAY ROADS TOWNSHIP AND RANGE BOUNDARY Grassy URBAN MUNICIPALITY Lake PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD 6 2 PROPOSED RAIL SPUR TO CN P W

T ALTERNATE RAIL SPUR TO CP

PERMIT BOUNDARY k e e r Willow 65 YEAR MINE FIELD

C Lake n CORE FACILITIES AREA o

L INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY t

s "¾ 2013 SEDIMENT QUALITY e ")Ó"¾ SAMPLING STATION W Oak Lake

0 Serath 0

0 "¾ 2013 WATER QUALITY 0

7 "¾ SAMPLING STATION 6 ")Ó 5

A A 1 005 "¾ Brice ")Ó"¾ Lake 5 2

WLC 07 P W

"¾ T ")Ó"¾ 011 "¾ ")Ó"¾ M P

1 4 :

4 KP 377 2 : 3

KP 392 6 5 (! 1 0 2 0 / 0 6 0 1 0 / 6 3 6

: 5 e

t ELC 04 a D

"¾

"¾ d )Ó

x " m . 3 1 0 2

n W o i

t e

a s 4 t

t 2

S L

P o g W

n o i T l n p C m r a e

S e k

d WLC 04 e

S "

d "¾ n ")Ó k

a e

r r

e C t on

a o

t L REFERENCE W s

7 E

9 MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES SASKATCHEWAN 1

0 CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA

- WLC 03

2 ELC 01 NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 6 "¾ "¾ 3

1 "¾ "¾ -

0 ")Ó ")Ó 2 0 1 0 \ 0 s 5 c 6 i t 5 a u

q 3 0 3 A

0 SCALE 1:150,000

0 KILOMETRES P W \ 7

9 PROJECT 1 0 3 - 2

YANCOAL 2 LNC 01 P 6

3 W SOUTHEY PROJECT

1 "¾ T - 2 "¾

1 ")Ó \ L

s o TITLE o e r n u g i C WATER AND SEDIMENT

F Cupar \ L re A Southey ek SAMPLING STATIONS, 2013 O

C Earl

N Markinch A Grey PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. Y

\ 22

S (! DESIGN SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 T

N GIS LMR 16/03/15 E I

L CHECK BDH 16/03/15 FIGURE: C \

: RGE 21 W2M RGE 20 W2M RGE 19 W2M RGE 18 W2M RGE 17 W2M RGE 16 W2M Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW BLC 16/03/15 G 4.2-1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

4.2.1.2 Sample Collection Water and sediment samples were collected according to Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) standardized technical procedures. A calibrated YSI 600QS-O-M water quality meter was used to measure field parameters, which included temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Surface water quality samples were collected at approximately 30 cm depth below the water surface. Sediment quality samples consisted of single samples collected using an Ekman grab sampler from the top 10 to 15 cm of stream or pond bottom (sampling area of 0.0232 m²). 4.2.1.3 Sample Analysis Water quality samples were submitted to ALS Environmental Ltd. (ALS) laboratory for analysis of conventional parameters, major ions, nutrients, total metals, and dissolved metals (Table 4.2 -2). Sediment samples were submitted to ALS for analysis of moisture content, particle size, nutrients, and total metals (Table 4.2-3). Table 4.2-2: Water Quality Parameters Analyzed Group Name Parameters Field-measured parameters Water temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH Conventional parameters (laboratory measured) Conductivity, pH, total suspended solids Alkalinity, ammonia, bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride, fluoride, hardness, hydroxide, nitrate + nitrite, nitrate, nitrite, total Kjeldahl Ions and Nutrients nitrogen, orthophosphate, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, cation – anion balance, dissolved organic carbon, total organic carbon Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, bismuth, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, lithium, Total metals magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, silicon, silver, sodium, strontium, thallium, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, zinc Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, bismuth, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, lithium, Dissolved metals magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, silicon, silver, sodium, strontium, thallium, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, zinc Organic Parameters Chlorophyll a

Table 4.2-3: Sediment Quality Parameters Analyzed Group Name Parameters Physical parameters % moisture % gravel (>2 mm), % coarse sand (2.0 to 0.2 mm), % fine sand (0.2 to Particle size 0.063 mm), % silt (0.063 to 0.004 mm), % clay (<0.004 mm) Total inorganic carbon, total organic carbon, total nitrogen, total Nutrients phosphorus Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, bismuth, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, lithium, magnesium, Total Metals manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, strontium, thallium, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, zinc mm = millimetres; > = greater than; < = less than; % = percent.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 44

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

4.2.1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality assurance (QA) protocols followed during this baseline study were designed to produce data of known and defensible quality. Quality control (QC) refers to the internal techniques used to measure and assess data quality. The water and sediment quality QA/QC programs are described in Appendix III.4. 4.2.2 Historical Data No relevant historical water or sediment quality data were available for the watercourses and waterbodies in the RSA for this baseline report (Minifie 2013 pers. comm.) 4.2.3 Data Analysis Water quality in each watercourse and waterbody was described using the parameters defined in Table 4.2-4. Where possible, water samples were collected during the three open-water seasons (i.e., spring, summer, and fall) from several stations to understand trends in spatial and seasonal variability of baseline water quality in the RSA. Table 4.2-4: Definition of Waterbody Characteristics Parameter Definition and Notes Guidelines/objectives for the lowest acceptable dissolved oxygen concentrations in Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) warm water is 6.0 mg/L for early life stages and 5.5 mg/L for other life stages (CCME 2013). Acidic – pH <5.5; Circumneutral – pH 5.5 to 7.4; Alkaline – pH >7.4 (Cowardin et pH (pH units) al. 1979). Low ionic strength - <100 mg/L TDS; Moderate ionic strength – 100 to 500 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) TDS; High ionic strength - > 500 mg/L TDS. Alkalinity is the capacity of water for neutralizing an acid solution and as such can be used as a measure of a lake’s sensitivity to acid inputs such as acid rain. Waters with Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) <10 mg/L total alkalinity have high sensitivity to acid deposition; moderate sensitivity (11 to 20 mg/L); low sensitivity (21 to 40 mg/L); and least or minimal sensitivity (>40 mg/L) (Saffran and Trew 1996). Very Soft – 0 to 30 mg/L; Soft – 31 to 60 mg/L; Moderately Soft – 61 to 120 mg/L; Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) Hard – 121 to 180 mg/L; Very Hard > 180 mg/L (Thomas [1953] as cited in McNeely et al. [1979]). Nutrients include phosphorus and nitrogen compounds that are required in small quantities for plant growth. Total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations can be used to classify the trophic status of lakes (Wetzel 1983). Oligotrophic – 0.003 to Nutrients and Trophic Status 0.018 mg P/L (mean 0.008 mg P/L) and 0.307 to 1.63 mg N/L (mean 0.661 mg N/L); Mesotrophic – 0.011 to 0.096 mg P/L (mean 0.027 mg P/L) and 0.361 to 0.139 mg N/L (mean 0.753 mg N/L). Eutrophic – 0.016 to 0.386 mg P/L (mean 0.084 mg P/L) and 0.393 to 6.10 mg N/L (mean 1.875 mg N/L) (modified from Wetzel 1983). mg/L = milligrams per litre; TDS = total dissolved solids; CaCO3 = calcium carbonate; mg P/L = milligrams phosphorus per litre; mg N/L = milligrams nitrogen per litre ;< = less than; > = greater than.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 45

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (MOE) uses objectives for the protection of aquatic life, wildlife, and human health (i.e., Saskatchewan Environment 2002; 2006). The most recent version of Saskatchewan’s surface water quality objectives directly adopted the generic Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines (i.e., CCME 1998; 2005; 2013) unless the generic guideline was lower than the upper limit of background data in Saskatchewan waterbodies or the guideline was derived using a receptor or environmental factor not typically found in Saskatchewan (MOE 2006). Saskatchewan’s drinking water quality standards and objectives are similar to those of Health Canada (MOE 2002; Health Canada 2012a). Water quality data were evaluated by comparing concentrations of individual parameters with the following objectives and guidelines:  water quality objectives and guidelines for the protection of freshwater aquatic life (Saskatchewan Environment 2006; CCME 2013);  water quality objectives and guidelines for the protection of wildlife health–livestock watering (Saskatchewan Environment 2006; CCME 2005);  water quality standards, objectives and guidelines for the protection of human health (Saskatchewan Environment 2002, Health Canada 2012a); and  water quality objectives and guidelines for the protection of recreational use and aesthetics (Health Canada 2012b, Saskatchewan Environment 2006).

The most conservative objective or guideline for each protection type was used in the screening. The objectives and guidelines used in this assessment are listed in Table 4.2-5.

Sediment chemistry was compared to the Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (Table 4.2-6; CCME 2002). The sediment quality guidelines consist of an Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) and a Probable Effects Level (PEL). The ISQG represents the level below which adverse effects rarely occur. The PEL represents the concentration above which adverse biological effects frequently occur.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 46

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 4.2-5: Water Quality Objectives and Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Wildlife Health, Human Health, and Recreational Uses Parameter Units Aquatic Life(a) Wildlife Health(b) Human Health(c) Recreational Use(d) Conventional Parameters (Field-Measured) Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 5.5-6.0(e) - - - pH pH Unit 6.5-9.0 - 6.5-8.5(f) 5.0-9.0(g) Water Temperature °C - - 15(f) - Conventional Parameters (Laboratory-Measured) pH pH Unit 6.5-9.0 - 6.5-8.5(f) 5.0-9.0(g)

Total Dissolved (f) mg/L - 3,000 500 - Solids (f) Total Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 - - 500 - (f) Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 - - 800 - Ions and Nutrients

Ammonia as (i) mg/L - - - Nitrogen Chloride mg/L 120 - 250(f) - Fluoride mg/L 0.12 1.0 to 2.0 1.5 - Nitrate mg/L 13 - 45 (k, j) - Nitrite mg/L 0.06 10.0 1.0 - Sodium mg/L - - 200(f) - Sulphate mg/L - 1,000 500(f, h) - Total Metals Aluminum mg/L 0.005-0.1(l) 5.0 0.1-0.2(m) - Antimony mg/L - - 0.006 - Arsenic mg/L 0.005 0.025 0.010 - Barium mg/L - - 1.0 - Beryllium mg/L - 0.1 - - Boron mg/L 1.5 5.0 5.0 - Cadmium mg/L 0.00010(n) 0.08 0.005 - Calcium mg/L - 1,000 - - Chromium mg/L 0.001(o) 0.05(p) 0.05 - Cobalt mg/L - 1.0 - - Copper mg/L 0.004(q) 0.5-5(r) 1.0(f) - Iron mg/L 0.3 - 0.3(f) - Lead mg/L 0.007(s) 0.1 0.01 -

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 47

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 4.2-5: Water Quality Objectives and Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Wildlife Health, Human Health, and Recreational Uses (continued) Parameter Units Aquatic Life(a) Wildlife Health(b) Human Health(c) Recreational Use(d) Total Metals Magnesium mg/L - - 200(f) - Manganese mg/L - - 0.05(f) - Mercury mg/L 0.000026 0.003 0.001 - Molybdenum mg/L 0.073 0.5 - - Nickel mg/L 0.150(t) 1.0 - - Selenium mg/L 0.001 0.05 0.01 - Silver mg/L 0.0001 - - - Thallium mg/L 0.0008 - - - Uranium mg/L 0.015 0.200 0.020 - Vanadium mg/L - 0.1 - - Zinc mg/L 0.03 50 5.0(f) - Only parameters with guidelines or objectives are presented. (a) The most conservative of either Canadian water quality guidelines (CWQG) for the protection of aquatic life - freshwater (CCME 2013) or Saskatchewan surface water quality objectives (SSWQO) for the protection of aquatic life (Saskatchewan Environment 2006) were used. (b) The most conservative of either CWQG for protection of agricultural water uses - livestock watering (CCME 2005) or SSWQO for agricultural uses - livestock watering (Saskatchewan Environment 2006). (c) The most conservative of either Canadian drinking water quality guidelines (Health Canada 2012a) or Saskatchewan's drinking water quality standards and objectives (summarized) (Saskatchewan Environment 2002). (d) The most conservative of either Canadian recreational water quality guidelines (Health Canada 2012b) or SSWQO for recreation and aesthetics (Saskatchewan Environment 2006). (e) Guideline/objective is for warm water biota: 6 mg/L for early life stages and 5.5 mg/L for other life stages. (f) Aesthetic objective. (g) When the buffering capacity is very low, the guideline is pH 6.5 to 8.5; otherwise, a range of 5.0 to 9.0 is acceptable. (h) There may be a laxative effect in some individuals when sulphate concentrations exceed 500 mg/L. (i) Toxicity of ammonia relates primarily to concentration of the unionized form, which increases with increasing temperature and pH. Sample-specific total ammonia guidelines/objectives are calculated as per CCME 2009. (j) Guideline/objective value is equivalent to 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen. (k) Nitrate concentrations in excess of 45 mg/L (10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen) may cause adverse health effects in infants less than six months old. (l) Aluminum guideline/objective is pH dependent. At pH <6.5, guideline is 0.005 mg/L. At pH ≥6.5, guideline is 0.100 mg/L. (m) The drinking water quality guideline for aluminum is an operational guidance value designed to apply only to drinking water treatments using aluminum-based coagulants. The operational guidance value of 0.1 mg/L applies to conventional treatment plants and 0.2 mg/L applies to other types of treatment systems. (n) SSWQO for cadmium used (0.00010 mg/L where hardness is >194 mg/L). Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) cadmium guideline is hardness dependent and is calculated according to the following equation: WQG (cadmium) =10^{0.86[log(hardness)]-3.2}. The guideline reported is based on a hardness of 439 mg/L as CaCO3, which was the lowest hardness measured in water samples collected from the study area. (o) The guideline/objective is for hexavalent chromium. (p) Guideline is the same for trivalent and hexavalent chromium. (q) Copper guideline is hardness dependent and is calculated according to the following equation: WQG (copper) = e^{0.8545[ln(hardness)]-1.465}*0.2/1000. The guideline reported is based on a hardness of 439 mg/L as CaCO3, which was the lowest hardness measured in water samples collected from the study area. (r) Copper guideline/objective is 0.5 mg/L for sheep, 1 mg/L for cattle, and 5 mg/L for swine and poultry. (s) Lead guideline is hardness dependent and is calculated according to the following equation: WQG (lead) = e^{1.273[ln(hardness)]- 4.705}/1000. The guideline reported is based on a hardness of 439 mg/L as CaCO3, which was the lowest hardness measured in water samples collected from the study area. (t) Nickel guideline is hardness dependent and is calculated according to the following equation: WQG (nickel) = e^{0.76[ln(hardness)]+1.06}/1000. The guideline reported is based on a hardness of 439 mg/L as CaCO3, which was the lowest hardness measured in water samples collected from the study area. mg/L = milligrams per litre; - = no guideline or objective available; °C = degrees Celsius; CaCO3 = calcium carbonate.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 48

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 4.2-6: Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Interim Sediment Quality Total Metals Units Probable Effect Level Guideline Arsenic mg/kg dw 5.9 17.0 Cadmium mg/kg dw 0.6 3.5 Chromium mg/kg dw 37.3 90.0 Copper mg/kg dw 35.7 197 Lead mg/kg dw 35.0 91.3 Zinc mg/kg dw 123 315 Source: CCME (2002). Only parameters with guidelines are presented. mg/kg dw = milligrams per kilogram dry weight. 4.3 Results Water and sediment chemistry data for all waterbodies and watercourses sampled during the baseline program are presented in Appendix III.4 Tables III.5-1 and III.5-2. 4.3.1 Loon Creek Water quality in Loon Creek was measured in the spring, summer, and fall of 2013 at Station LNC 01 in an impoundment formed by a beaver dam. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 6.11 to 11.51 milligrams per litre (mg/L) and were lower in the summer and fall than in the spring. The field-measured pH ranged from 8.46 to 9.30, indicating that the water was alkaline. Total dissolved solids (TDS) ranged from 511 to 741 mg/L, indicating that the water was of high ionic strength. Total alkalinity ranged from 274 to 397 mg/L, indicating the water was not sensitive to acidic inputs. Total hardness ranged from 439 to 627 mg/L, indicating the water was very hard. Conductivity, TDS, total alkalinity, and total hardness were lower in the summer than in the spring and fall, likely due to higher water levels during the summer sampling period. Higher water levels were observed at Station LNC 01, but not at any of the other sampling stations during the summer sampling period. These higher levels are attributed to an intense rainstorm observed at Cupar, SK on July 15, 2013. The rainstorm was captured as a large flow event at a streamflow station (Station LCF1; Section 3.8.2.1) downstream of LNC 01. The intense rain event was not captured by the rain gauge at West Loon Creek, which suggests that the rain event was limited to one portion of the Loon Creek watershed (Section 3.8.2.1). Total phosphorus concentrations ranged from below detection limits (0.20 mg/L) to 0.25 mg/L and total nitrogen ranged from 1.63 to 2.01 mg/L, indicating that Loon Creek was well supplied with nutrients and would likely be considered eutrophic in status.

Concentrations of a few parameters exceeded applicable guidelines or objectives during the baseline program. The field measured pH from the summer and fall sampling sessions exceeded guidelines and objectives for the protection of aquatic life (upper limit = 9.0), recreational use (upper limit = 9.0), and the aesthetic objective for human health (upper limit = 8.5), with values of 9.28 and 9.30, respectively. All samples collected from Loon Creek had TDS concentrations that exceeded the aesthetic objective value for human health of 500 mg/L, with values ranging from 511 to 741 mg/L. Fluoride concentrations in the spring and summer samples (0.15 mg/L in both samples) exceeded the guideline for the protection of aquatic life (0.12 mg/L).

Total metal concentrations were either below detection limits or below applicable guidelines and objectives, with the exception of manganese. During the spring of 2013, total manganese concentrations exceeded the

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 49

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

aesthetic objective value of 0.05 mg/L for human health. Total manganese concentrations in the summer and fall were below applicable guidelines and objectives.

Sediment in Loon Creek was primarily composed of silt (57.3%) and clay (21.0%) with smaller portions of fine (10.7%) and coarse sand (9.26%). Total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations were 936 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 0.709 %, respectively. Sediment quality parameters did not exceed the ISQG or PEL. 4.3.2 East Loon Creek Water quality was measured in East Loon Creek in the spring, 2013 at Station ELC 01 and in the summer at Station ELC 04. It was not possible to collect water quality samples in all seasons due to the dry conditions. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 7.03 to 15.30 mg/L. Field measured pH ranged from 8.08 to 8.93, indicating the water was alkaline. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations ranged from 610 to 1,690 mg/L, indicating the water was of high ionic strength. Total alkalinity ranged from 174 to 359 mg/L, indicating East Loon Creek was not sensitive to acidic inputs. Total hardness ranged from 444 to 1,230 mg/L, indicating the water was very hard. Total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.22 to 0.61 mg/L and total nitrogen ranged from 1.67 to 4.98 mg/L, which would classify East Loon Creek as being highly productive or eutrophic throughout most of the year.

The field measured pH from the summer sampling session (pH 8.93) exceeded the aesthetic guidelines and objectives for the protection of human health. Total ammonia (as nitrogen) values from samples collected at Stations ELC 01 (0.060 mg/L) and ELC 04 (0.101 mg/L) exceeded the temperature and pH dependent guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life. The total ammonia (as nitrogen) guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life was 0.024 mg/L and 0.055 mg/L for Stations ELC 01 and ELC 04, respectively. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in the samples from Stations ELC 01 (610 mg/L) and ELC 04 (1,690 mg/L) exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 500 mg/L for human health. Total hardness concentrations at Station ELC 04 (1,230 mg/L) exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 800 mg/L for human health.

Values for six total metal parameters in samples from East Loon Creek exceeded guidelines or objectives. The total aluminum (0.248 mg/L) and total iron (0.338 mg/L) concentrations at ELC 04 exceeded the pH dependent guidelines for the protection of aquatic life of 0.1 mg/L and 0.3 mg/L, respectively. The total aluminum concentration also exceeded the aesthetic guideline/objective for the protection of human health (0.1-0.2 mg/L). The total magnesium concentration (Station ELC 04, 250 mg/L) in summer exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 200 mg/L for human health, while total manganese concentrations (Station ELC 01, 0.216 mg/L; Station ELC 04, 0.0696 mg/L) exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 0.05 mg/L for human health. The total selenium and zinc concentrations at Station ELC 01 (0.00154 and 0.0562 mg/L, respectively) exceeded the guidelines and objectives for the protection of aquatic life (selenium, 0.001 mg/L; zinc, 0.03 mg/L).

Sediment samples were not collected from East Loon Creek, as the stream was dry during the fall sampling session when sediment samples were to be collected. 4.3.3 West Loon Creek Water quality was measured in West Loon Creek at Stations WLC 03 and WLC 07 during the spring, summer, and fall of 2013. Water quality was measured at WLC 04 during the summer of 2013. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 5.33 to 12.72 mg/L. Field measured pH ranged from 8.02 to 9.51, indicating the water was alkaline. Total dissolved solids (TDS) ranged from 645 to 1,240 mg/L, indicating the water was of high ionic strength. Total alkalinity ranged from 232 to 543 mg/L, indicating West Loon Creek is not sensitive to acidic inputs. West Loon Creek had very hard water, with total hardness ranging from 486 to 935 mg/L. In

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 50

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

general, concentrations of ions and conventional parameters, including conductivity, TDS, total alkalinity, and total hardness, were higher in the fall, likely due to those parameters becoming concentrated as the stream became drier.

Total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations ranged from below the analytical detection limit to 0.38 mg/L and from 1.37 to 3.72 mg/L, respectively, indicating that West Loon Creek would likely be classified as a eutrophic waterbody throughout the year.

Concentrations of a few parameters exceeded applicable guidelines and objectives during the baseline program. The field measured pH value at Station WLC 03 (summer; pH 9.51) exceeded the guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life and recreational use (pH 9.0), and the aesthetic guideline/objective for the protection of human health (pH 8.5). The field measured pH at stations WLC 03 (fall; pH 8.91) and WLC 07 (summer and fall, pH 8.60 and 8.62, respectively) exceeded the guideline/objective for the protection of human health. The dissolved oxygen concentration measured during the summer at Station WLC 04 (5.33 mg/L) was below the lower limit of the guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life (5.5 mg/L). Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in each sample collected from West Loon Creek (range 645 to 1,240 mg/L) exceeded the aesthetic objective of 500 mg/L for human health. The total alkalinity concentration in the sample collected from Station WLC 07 (543 mg/L) during the fall exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 500 mg/L for human health. Total hardness concentrations in samples collected during the fall (896 mg/L) from Station WLC 03 and during the spring, summer, and fall from Station WLC 07 (range 837 to 935 mg/L) exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 800 mg/L for human health.

Total metal concentrations were either below detection limits or below applicable guidelines and objectives with the exception of aluminum, iron, and manganese. Total aluminum concentrations measured in the summer and fall at Station WLC 07 (0.141 and 0.412 mg/L, respectively) exceeded the guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life (0.1 mg/L). Total iron concentrations exceeded the guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life (0.3 mg/L) and the aesthetic objective value of 0.3 mg/L for human health in the sample collected from Station WLC 07 in the fall. The aesthetic objective value of 0.05 mg/L for human health was exceeded by manganese concentrations in samples collected from Stations WLC 03 (spring, 0.0621 mg/L), WLC04 (summer, 0.0798 mg/L), and WLC 07(spring, 0.0515 mg/L; fall, 0.258 mg/L).

Sediment samples were collected from Stations WLC 03 and WLC 07 in the fall of 2013. The substrate was dominated by silt (range 40.7% to 64.4%) followed by coarse sand (range 13.7% to 26.5%). Total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations ranged from 608 to 936 mg/kg and from 0.303% to 1.07%, respectively. Sediment quality parameters did not exceed the ISQG or PEL. 4.3.4 Other Waterbodies Water quality was measured in Waterbodies 005 and 011 during the spring, summer, and fall of 2013. Sediment samples were collected from Waterbodies 005 and 011 in the fall of 2013. Waterbodies 005 and 011 were sampled for under-ice water depth in winter of 2014. 4.3.4.1 Waterbody 005 Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 9.22 to 14.72 mg/L, indicating that the water was well oxygenated. Field measured pH ranged from 8.64 to 9.37, indicating that the water was alkaline. Total dissolved solids (TDS) ranged from 1,120 to 1,630 mg/L, indicating the water was of high ionic strength. Total alkalinity ranged from 519 to 681 mg/L, indicating the water was not sensitive to acidic inputs. Waterbody 005 had very hard water, with total hardness ranging from 765 to 1,000 mg/L. Conductivity, total hardness, total alkalinity, and TDS were

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 51

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

higher during the drier summer and fall sampling sessions than during the spring. Waterbody 005 is classified as eutrophic, with total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations ranging from 0.78 to 1.08 mg/L and 2.62 to 11.6 mg/L, respectively.

Several parameters exceeded applicable guidelines and objectives during the baseline program. The field measured pH values during the summer (9.37) and fall (9.33) sampling events exceeded the upper limit of the guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life and recreational use (pH 9). The aesthetic guidelines/objective for the protection of human health was exceeded during all three sampling sessions. Total alkalinity (range 519 to 681 mg/L) and TDS (range 1,120 to 1,630 mg/L) concentrations in spring, summer, and fall exceeded the applicable aesthetic objective value for human health (total alkalinity, 500 mg/L; TDS, 500 mg/L). Total hardness concentrations during the summer (1,000 mg/L) and fall (998 mg/L) exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 800 mg/L for human health. Ammonia (as nitrogen) concentrations ranged from 0.086 to 0.448 mg/L and exceeded the temperature-dependent guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life in each sample collected from Waterbody 005.

Total metal concentrations in water samples were either below detection limits or below applicable guidelines/objectives with the exception of aluminum, arsenic, iron, magnesium, and manganese. Total aluminum, arsenic, and iron concentrations during the summer (aluminum, 0.208 mg/L; arsenic 0.00721 mg/L; iron, 0.365 mg/L) and fall (aluminum, 0.130 mg/L; arsenic, 0.00877 mg/L; iron, 0.386 mg/L) exceeded the guidelines/objectives for the protection of aquatic life (aluminum, 0.1 mg/L; arsenic, 0.005 mg/L; iron, 0.03 mg/L). Total magnesium concentrations during the spring and summer (202 and 233 mg/L, respectively) exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 200 mg/L for human health. Total manganese concentrations in spring, summer, and fall (range 0.228 to 0.373 mg/L) exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 0.05 mg/L for human health.

The substrate sample was composed mainly of silt (33.9%) and coarse sand (32.5%). Total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations were 526 mg/kg and 0.201%, respectively. Sediment quality parameters did not exceed the ISQG or PEL.

Water depth measurements were completed in the winter of 2014 at two locations in Waterbody 005, with total depths from ice surface of 1.00 m and 1.04 m. Under ice water depths were 0.30 m and 0.26 m. A strong hydrogen sulfide smell was present at both sample locations indicating anoxic conditions under the ice. 4.3.4.2 Waterbody 011 Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 2.33 to 11.52 mg/L and were below the guidelines/objectives for the protection of aquatic life during the spring and summer. The field measured pH ranged from 8.02 to 9.36, indicating the water was alkaline. The water had high ionic strength, with TDS concentrations ranging from 753 to 1,390 mg/L. Total alkalinity ranged from 305 to 415 mg/L, indicating that water was not sensitive to acidic inputs. Total hardness ranged from 544 to 948 mg/L, indicating the water was very hard. Conductivity, total alkalinity, TDS, and total hardness were higher during the fall when waterbodies and watercourses, with the exception of LNC 01 (Section 4.3.1 ), had less water due to the dry conditions. The waterbody is considered eutrophic, with total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations ranging from less than 0.20 to 0.29 mg/L and from 2.22 to 4.03 mg/L, respectively.

Values for several parameters exceeded guidelines or objectives during the baseline program. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were below the lower limit for the protection of aquatic life (5.5 mg/L) in the spring (2.33 mg/L) and summer (3.01 mg/L). During the summer, the field measured pH value exceeded the guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life and recreation use (upper limit for both, pH 9) and the

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 52

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

aesthetic objective value of 8.5 for human health. During the fall, the field measured pH value exceeded the aesthetic objective value of 8.5 for human health. Total hardness in the fall (948 mg/L) and TDS concentrations for spring, summer, and fall (range 753 to 1,390 mg/L) exceeded applicable aesthetic guidelines and objectives for human health (total hardness, 800 mg/L; TDS, 500 mg/L).

Total metal concentrations in water samples were either below detection limits or below applicable guidelines and objectives during the baseline program, with the exception of arsenic, magnesium, and manganese. The total arsenic value measured during the spring was 0.00536 mg/L, which exceeded the guideline/objective for the protection of aquatic life (0.005 mg/L). Total magnesium (fall, 209 mg/L) and manganese (spring, 0.207 mg/L) concentrations exceeded their respective aesthetic objective values of 200 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L for human health.

The substrate sample was composed mainly of silt (65.4%) followed by clay (14.2%). Total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations were 675 mg/kg and 0.714%, respectively. Sediment quality parameters did not exceed the ISQG or PEL.

Water depth measurements were completed in the winter of 2014 at one location in Waterbody 011. The sample site was located at the approximate center of the waterbody. The waterbody was 0.55 m deep and frozen to the bottom. A strong hydrogen sulfide smell was detected in the sediment indicating oxygen-deficient conditions.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 53

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

5.0 FISH AND FISH HABITAT 5.1 Introduction The purpose of the fish and fish habitat section is to describe the fish species and fish habitat present in the RSA and to document the type of data collected to describe existing conditions in the region. Baseline information for fish and fish habitat collected during the spring, summer, and fall of 2013, and the winter of 2014 was used in conjunction with the existing baseline information on surface water quality, hydrogeology, hydrology, and air quality to determine if aquatic resources could be influenced directly or indirectly by the Project.

Determining the fish species present within the RSA is an important step in assessing the potential effects of the Project. Understanding the species present and their associated life history requirements allows the integration of spawning periods and species-specific habitat use into the assessment of Project-related effects. The objectives of the fish and fish habitat baseline studies were:  to assess data on fish species composition and relative abundance from the waterbodies and watercourses within the RSA;  to characterize fish habitat conditions in and near the RSA; and  to use the information to predict direct and indirect effects from the Project on fish and fish habitat. 5.2 Methods 5.2.1 Fish Inventory Fish inventory surveys were completed in the RSA, which included Loon Creek, East Loon Creek, West Loon Creek, and three unconnected land-locked waterbodies in the region (Figure 5.2-1). Fish Sampling was completed in accordance with Golder’s Technical Procedures 8.1-3 Fish Inventory Methods (unpublished file information). Non-lethal sampling methods of capture included minnow traps and backpack electrofishing. The following information was recorded for each fishing effort:  sampling date and time (start and end times);  Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates;  number of fish captured and observed; and  a general habitat description for the site.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 54

520000 530000 540000 550000 LEGEND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY

ROADS

TOWNSHIP AND RANGE BOUNDARY Grassy URBAN MUNICIPALITY Lake PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD 6 2

PROPOSED RAIL SPUR TO CN P W

T ALTERNATE RAIL SPUR TO CP PERMIT BOUNDARY k e e 65 YEAR MINE FIELD r Willow

C Lake n CORE FACILITIES AREA o

o INDICATED RESOURCE BOUNDARY L t

s "¾ 2013 FISH HABITAT e ")Ó"¾ SAMPLING STATION W WLC 09 Oak Lake 0 Serath "¾ 0 2013 FISH INVENTORY 0 ¾ "¾ 0 )Ó 7 " "¾ SAMPLING LOCATION

6 F ")Ó

F SMALL-BODIED FISH CAPTURE

A A 1 005 "¾ Brice ")Ó"¾ Lake 5 2

WLC 07 P W

"¾ T ")Ó¾ F 011 "¾

M "¾

P ")Ó

5 0 : 2 2 : 3

5 KP 377 1 0 2

/ KP 392

6 6

1 (! / 3

: 0 e 0 t 0 a 0 6 D

d W ELC 04 x e m

. s "¾

3 t 1 L )Ó"¾ 0 " o

2 o

s n

n C o i t re a

t e

S k

g n

i WLC 05 l

4 2 p

"¾ P m a

¾ W S ")Ó T

t F a t i b a H

WLC 04 h s

i "¾ F ¾ d ")Ó ek n F re a

C h oon

s i t L REFERENCE F s

7 E

9 MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES SASKATCHEWAN 1

0 CANVEC © NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA

- WLC 03 008

2 NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 6 "¾ "¾ 3

1 ¾ "¾ -

0 ")Ó ")Ó 2 0 F 1 0 \ 0 s 5 c 6 i t 5 a u

q 3 0 3 A

0 SCALE 1:150,000

0 KILOMETRES P W \ 7

9 PROJECT 1 0 3 - 2

2 LNC 01 YANCOAL P 6

3 W

1 "¾ SOUTHEY PROJECT T - 2 ¾

1 ")Ó \ L

s F o TITLE o e r n u g i C FISH AND FISH HABITAT

F Cupar \ L re A Southey ek SAMPLING STATIONS, 2013 O

C Earl

N Markinch A Grey PROJECT 12-1362-0197 FILE No. Y

\ 22

S (! DESIGN SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 T

N GIS LMR 16/03/15 E I

L CHECK BDH 16/03/15 FIGURE: C \

: RGE 21 W2M RGE 20 W2M RGE 19 W2M RGE 18 W2M RGE 17 W2M RGE 16 W2M Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW BLC 16/03/15 G 5.2-1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Captured fish were temporarily held in holding containers filled with water from the waterbody from which they were captured. Up to 10 fish of each species captured at each sampling location had their length measured to the nearest mm and their weight measured (plus/minus 0.01 grams [g]). Each measured fish was assigned a unique database identification code and had a cursory external health examination conducted before release back into the capture waterbody. Remaining fish were identified to the species level, enumerated, and released. 5.2.1.1 Data Entry and Analysis Fishing effort and fish capture data were entered into the Yancoal Project’s specific emLine™ database. The catch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated for all fish captured during the fish survey and summarized by sampling area. The CPUE calculation provides an estimate of relative abundance among sampling areas by standardizing the catch data according to the fishing effort. 5.2.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Specific work instructions, based on Golder’s Technical Procedures (unpublished file information), outlining each field task were provided to field personnel prior to starting the field program as part of the QA process for surveys. Detailed field notes were recorded in waterproof field notebooks and on pre-printed waterproof field data sheets. Field data sheets were checked at the end of each day for completeness and accuracy by a field crew member who did not initially record the data.

Data entered into the emLine™ database underwent a 100% transcription check by Golder staff who did not initially enter the data. Additionally, the datasets and summary tables generated by the database underwent additional checks for accuracy and completeness. 5.2.2 Fish Habitat Assessment The assessment of fish habitat was completed in accordance with habitat mapping protocols outlined in Golder’s Technical Procedures (unpublished file information).

Detailed habitat assessments were undertaken at the six sampling stations where fish were captured or observed during the 2013 field season (Figure 5.2-1). Habitat assessments were completed during the season in which fish were first captured and extra information and photographs of the waterbodies was collected during subsequent sampling events. For ease of access, habitat assessments were completed at existing road crossings up to 200 m upstream or downstream of existing road crossings, when landowner permission for access was granted. Habitat assessments collected site data relating to the following:  stream channel width and depth;  flow status;  channel blockages and potential fish passage constraints;  riparian and aquatic vegetation;  substrate and sediment characteristics;  land use adjacent to streams; and  fish presence/absence.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 56

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

5.2.2.1 Data Entry and Analysis Fish habitat information was entered into a computer-aided design (CAD) system to enable production of fish habitat maps. 5.2.2.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Specific work instructions, based on Golder’s Technical Procedures (unpublished file information), outlining each field task were provided to field personnel prior to starting the field program as part of the QA process for surveys. Detailed field notes were recorded in waterproof field notebooks and on pre-printed waterproof field data sheets. Field data sheets were checked at the end of each day for completeness and accuracy by a staff member who did not initially record the data. 5.3 Results This section presents the results of fish inventory and fish habitat surveys completed in 2013. No historical records of fish captured in the study area were available.

A general description of habitat was recorded at each station where fishing efforts were completed. Detailed fish habitat assessments were carried out at sampling stations where fish were captured and a habitat map was made (Section 5.3.2) on lands where access permission was granted by the landowner. 5.3.1 Fish Inventory Detailed fishing station and fishing effort data are presented in Appendix III.6. 5.3.1.1 Loon Creek Loon Creek, upstream and downstream of a grid road crossing (Station LNC 01), was sampled for fish using minnow traps and backpack electrofishing in the spring, summer, and fall of 2013 (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). Minnow trapping yielded 37 Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and 857 Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas) in 226.68 hours of sampling effort, with respective CPUE of 0.16 and 3.78 fish per hour (fish/hour). Backpack electrofishing yielded 14 Brook Stickleback and 16 Fathead Minnows in 1,206 seconds of effort, with respective CPUE of 1.16 and 1.33 fish per 100 seconds (fish/100 seconds). 5.3.1.2 East Loon Creek Only one location on East Loon Creek (i.e., ELC 04), where pooled water was present during the spring and summer, was sampled for fish using minnow traps and backpack electrofishing (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). The ELC 04 location was dry in the fall and was not sampled. Other locations observed along East Loon Creek were dry with no defined channel or consisted of dry depressions within cultivated fields. No fish were captured in East Loon Creek during 181.67 hours of minnow trapping effort and 537 seconds of backpack electrofishing effort. 5.3.1.3 West Loon Creek Five stations along West Loon Creek were sampled for fish (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). Stations WLC 03, WLC 07, and WLC 09 were sampled for fish in spring, summer, and fall, while WLC 04 and WLC 05 were dry in the fall and sampled only in the spring and summer. Station WLC 07 was a mostly empty beaver pond during the spring sampling season; however, the dam had been rebuilt and the pond refilled for the summer and fall sampling sessions.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 57

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 5.3-1: Minnow Trap Catch-Per-Unit-Effort by Species and Station, 2013

Brook Stickleback Fathead Minnow Waterbody or Effort Station Watercourse (hours) CPUE CPUE Total Number of Fish Total Number of Fish (Number fish/hour) (Number fish/hour) Waterbody 005 005 253.50 0 - 0 - Waterbody 008 008 175.17 0 - 0 - Waterbody 011 011 259.40 0 - 0 - Loon Creek LNC 01 226.68 37 0.16 857 3.78 East Loon Creek ELC 04 181.67 0 - 0 - WLC 03 225.20 16 0.07 402 1.79 WLC 04 118.90 3 0.03 1 0.01 West Loon Creek WLC 05 183.70 0(a) - 0(a) - WLC 07 232.48 0 - 421 1.81 WLC 09 285.27 31 0.11 111 0.39 (a) Brook Stickleback and Fathead Minnows were observed, but not captured at station WLC 05. CPUE = catch-per-unit-effort (number of fish captured per hour); LNC = Loon Creek; ELC = East Loon Creek; WLC = West Loon Creek; “ – “ =no data

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 58

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Table 5.3-2: Backpack Electrofishing Catch-Per-Unit-Effort by Species and Station, 2013 Brook Stickleback Fathead Minnow Waterbody or Effort Station CPUE CPUE Watercourse (sec) Total Number of Total Number of (Number fish/100 (Number fish/100 Fish Fish sec) sec) Waterbody 005 005 695 0 - 0 - Waterbody 008 008 588 0 - 0 - Waterbody 011 011 308 0 - 0 - Loon Creek LNC 01 1,206 14 1.16 16 1.33 East Loon ELC 04 537 0 - 0 - Creek WLC 03 926 2 0.22 70 7.56

West Loon WLC 04 405 18 4.44 0 - Creek WLC 05 416 0(a) - 0(a) - WLC 07 694 0 - 1 0.14 (a) Brook Stickleback and Fathead Minnows were observed, but not captured at station WLC 05. sec = seconds; CPUE = catch-per-unit-effort (number of fish captured per 100 seconds); LNC = Loon Creek; ELC = East Loon Creek; WLC = West Loon Creek; ; “ – “ =no data.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 59

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Station WLC 03 was sampled for fish upstream and downstream of a grid road crossing. Fish were captured on the upstream and downstream sides of the grid road. Minnow trapping yielded 16 Brook Stickleback and 402 Fathead Minnows in 225.20 hours of sampling effort, with a CPUE of 0.07 and 1.79 fish/hour, respectively. Backpack electrofishing yielded two Brook Stickleback and 70 Fathead Minnows in 926 seconds of effort, with respective CPUE of 0.22 and 7.56 fish/100 seconds (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2).

Station WLC 04 was sampled for fish upstream and downstream of a grid road crossing, with fish captured only during the summer sampling session. Minnow trapping yielded three Brook Stickleback and one Fathead Minnow in 118.80 hours, with respective CPUE of 0.03 and 0.01 fish/hour. Backpack electrofishing yielded 18 Brook Stickleback, but no Fathead Minnows, in 405 seconds of effort for a CPUE of 4.44 fish/100 seconds (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2).

Station WLC 05 was sampled for fish on the upstream side of the Highway 6 crossing, as the downstream side was mostly dry. No fish were captured during 183.70 hours of minnow trapping or 416 seconds of backpack electrofishing. However, Brook Stickleback and Fathead Minnows were observed, trapped in pooled water in the culvert during the fall sampling session, when West Loon Creek was dry upstream and downstream of the culvert (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2).

Station WLC 07 was sampled for fish upstream of a grid road crossing in an impoundment created by a beaver dam. Minnow trapping yielded 421 Fathead Minnows in 232.48 hours of sampling effort for a CPUE of 1.81 fish/hour. Backpack electrofishing yielded one Fathead Minnow in 694 second of sampling effort for a CPUE of 0.14 fish/100 seconds (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2).

Minnow trapping was the only fishing method used at station WLC 09, due to the large volume of heavy truck traffic on the grid road that crosses the watercourse and the prolonged time that would be required for backpack electrofishing near the road. Minnow trapping yielded 31 Brook Stickleback and 111 Fathead Minnows in 285.27 hours of sampling effort for respective CPUE, of 0.11 and 0.39 fish/hour (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). 5.3.1.4 Other Waterbodies Three large permanent wetlands (i.e., waterbodies 005, 008, and 011) in the RSA were sampled for fish, using minnow trapping and backpack electrofishing (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). Representative waterbodies were selected based on their accessibility and large size relative to other waterbodies in the area. The larger size of these waterbodies made them the most likely to support fish of land-locked waterbodies in the area. Minnow traps were used during each season in each of the three wetlands. Backpack electrofishing was not used in Waterbody 005 during the fall or in Waterbody 011 during the summer and fall due to the heavy algae growth and the specific conductivity of the water that was above the maximum effective range for the LR-24 Backpack Electrofisher.

No fish were caught in waterbodies 005, 008, or 011 (Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). A total of 253.50, 175.17, and 259.40 hours of minnow trapping were expended in waterbodies 005, 008, and 011, respectively. A total of 695, 588, and 308 seconds of backpack electrofishing effort were expended in waterbodies 005, 008, and 011, respectively.

During the winter of 2014, total and under-ice water depths in waterbodies 005, 008, and 011 were measured to determine if water depth was sufficient to support over-wintering fish populations. Winter sample sites were chosen near the waterbody center where the water was most likely to be deepest. Waterbodies 008 and 011 were frozen to the bottom. Two sites were sampled on Waterbody 008 where the ice was 0.45 m and 0.37 m thick. One site was sampled on Waterbody 011 where the ice was 0.55 m thick. A strong hydrogen sulfide

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 60

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

smell was detected in the sediment at waterbodies 008 and 011. Waterbody 005 was sampled at two locations with total depths measured of 1.00 m and 1.04 m, and under-ice water depths of 0.30 m and 0.26 m. A strong hydrogen sulfide smell was detected at both sample locations. The presence of hydrogen sulfide gas indicates anoxic conditions under the ice; fish are unable to survive in these conditions. 5.3.2 Fish Habitat Assessment Fish habitat assessments focussed on watercourses and waterbodies in the RSA where fish were captured or observed. Fish habitat maps were produced for the six locations where fish were captured or observed (Figures o5.3-1 t 5.3-6), including the following:  Loon Creek . LNC 01.  West Loon Creek . WLC 03;

. WLC 04;

. WLC 05;

. WLC 07; and

. WLC09. 5.3.2.1 Loon Creek Loon Creek flows into the Qu’Appelle River approximately 20 km south of the confluence of East Loon Creek and West Loon Creek. Fish habitat in Loon Creek was assessed at one location approximately 0.5 km downstream of the confluence of East Loon Creek and West Loon Creek (Figure 5.3-1).

Small-bodied fish were captured in the areas of impounded water upstream and downstream of the grid road crossing. The impoundment on the upstream side of the grid road is caused by a beaver damn near the culvert, while the downstream impoundment resulted from pugging, which constrained downstream flow (Figure 5.3-1). Pugging occurs where livestock intensively trample wet soil, causing deep hoof impressions in the soil (Photograph 5.3-1). The beaver dam and the pugging were barriers to small-bodied fish passage at the time of baseline sampling in 2013. The stream-bottom substrate was composed mainly of silt, with lesser amounts of clay and sand (Section 4.3).

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 61

Legend - Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds

Substrate Types Bank/Upland Vegetation Types

Cl Clay BA Bare Ground

Si Silt OT Open Tundra

Sa Sand MU Muskeg/Bog

Gr Gravel DF Deciduous Forest

Co Cobble CF Coniferous Forest

Bo Boulder MW Mixedwood Forest

Bd Bedrock GS Grassland

Or Organic GF Grass/Forbs

GF/SH Grass/Forbs/Shrubs Habitat Features SE Sedge SH Shrubs XXXX BD Beaver Dam EM Emergent Vegetation MD Man-Made Dam MO Moss BL Beaver Lodge OR Organic BG Boulder Garden Bridge

Culvert Bank Slope

DP Debris Pile Shallow Slope (0-5%)

EM Emergent Vegetation Intermediate Slope (6-30%)

Flow Direction Steep Slope (31-70%)

ISC Instream Cover Very Steep Slope (>70%)

IV Instream Vegetation INV Inundated Vegetation Bank Instability Ratings LWD Large Woody Debris A Aggrading LE Ledge E Eroding LJ Log Jam S Slumping LS Landslide G Gullying MIL Multiple Island OHV Overhanging Vegetation OHC Overhead Cover Capture Methods

RW Root Wad BP Electrofishing - Backpack Sand Bar EF Electrofishing - Boat SIL Singular Island GN Gill Net SWD Small Woody Debris SN Seine SM Submergent Vegetation FF Fish Fence UCB Undercut Bank MT Minnow Trap USB Unstable Bank AN Angling HN/TN Hoop Net/Trap Net

Sample Type Symbols General Water

Sediment Photo Location/Direction Benthic C Fish Habitat Type Divider

Fish Bearing/Potential Bearing Watercourse

Width Depth

S/cm) P

Site Summary Lake (L), WetlandSurface Area(W)Main or (ha) PondShorelineMax (P) Depth PerimeterSecchi (m) (m) DepthDissolved (m) ConductivityOxygen (mg/L)pH ( Symbol Fish Species

Notes: ha = hectares m = metres mg/L = milligrams per litre PS/cm = microseimens per centimetre Max depth was the depth recorded at sampling locations. ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Photograph 5.3-1: Pugging at Station LNC 01 (Loon Creek) 5.3.2.2 East Loon Creek East Loon Creek was almost entirely dry at each of the potential sampling locations visited, with the exception of two locations where pooled water was present during the spring season. No fish were captured or observed in East Loon Creek during the 2013 fish inventory surveys. During the summer and fall sampling sessions, all areas of East Loon Creek observed were dry with no defined channel or consisted of dry depressions within cultivated fields. East Loon Creek is unlikely to provide fish habitat as it is dry during most periods of the year, and any pooled water was shallow and would freeze to the substrate during the winter. It was not possible to obtain sediment samples from East Loon Creek, as the streambed was dry during the field sampling period. 5.3.2.3 West Loon Creek West Loon Creek flows through the middle of the RSA meeting with East Loon Creek to form Loon Creek, northwest of Markinch, Saskatchewan. Fish habitat maps were produced for five locations visited along West Loon Creek (Figures 5.3o 5.3-2- t 6).

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 63

Legend - Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds

Substrate Types Bank/Upland Vegetation Types

Cl Clay BA Bare Ground

Si Silt OT Open Tundra

Sa Sand MU Muskeg/Bog

Gr Gravel DF Deciduous Forest

Co Cobble CF Coniferous Forest

Bo Boulder MW Mixedwood Forest

Bd Bedrock GS Grassland

Or Organic GF Grass/Forbs

GF/SH Grass/Forbs/Shrubs Habitat Features SE Sedge SH Shrubs XXXX BD Beaver Dam EM Emergent Vegetation MD Man-Made Dam MO Moss BL Beaver Lodge OR Organic BG Boulder Garden Bridge

Culvert Bank Slope

DP Debris Pile Shallow Slope (0-5%)

EM Emergent Vegetation Intermediate Slope (6-30%)

Flow Direction Steep Slope (31-70%)

ISC Instream Cover Very Steep Slope (>70%)

Sample Type Symbols General Water

Sediment Photo Location/Direction Benthic C Fish Habitat Type Divider

Fish Bearing/Potential Bearing Watercourse

Width Depth

S/cm) P

Site Summary Lake (L), WetlandSurface Area(W)Main or (ha) PondShorelineMax (P) Depth PerimeterSecchi (m) (m) DepthDissolved (m) ConductivityOxygen (mg/L)pH ( Symbol Fish Species

Notes: ha = hectares m = metres mg/L = milligrams per litre PS/cm = microseimens per centimetre Max depth was the depth recorded at sampling locations.

Legend - Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds

Substrate Types Bank/Upland Vegetation Types

Cl Clay BA Bare Ground

Si Silt OT Open Tundra

Sa Sand MU Muskeg/Bog

Gr Gravel DF Deciduous Forest

Co Cobble CF Coniferous Forest

Bo Boulder MW Mixedwood Forest

Bd Bedrock GS Grassland

Or Organic GF Grass/Forbs

GF/SH Grass/Forbs/Shrubs Habitat Features SE Sedge SH Shrubs XXXX BD Beaver Dam EM Emergent Vegetation MD Man-Made Dam MO Moss BL Beaver Lodge OR Organic BG Boulder Garden Bridge

Culvert Bank Slope

DP Debris Pile Shallow Slope (0-5%)

EM Emergent Vegetation Intermediate Slope (6-30%)

Flow Direction Steep Slope (31-70%)

ISC Instream Cover Very Steep Slope (>70%)

Sample Type Symbols General Water

Sediment Photo Location/Direction Benthic C Fish Habitat Type Divider

Fish Bearing/Potential Bearing Watercourse

Width Depth

S/cm) P

Site Summary Lake (L), WetlandSurface Area(W)Main or (ha) PondShorelineMax (P) Depth PerimeterSecchi (m) (m) DepthDissolved (m) ConductivityOxygen (mg/L)pH ( Symbol Fish Species

Notes: ha = hectares m = metres mg/L = milligrams per litre PS/cm = microseimens per centimetre Max depth was the depth recorded at sampling locations.

Legend - Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds

Substrate Types Bank/Upland Vegetation Types

Cl Clay BA Bare Ground

Si Silt OT Open Tundra

Sa Sand MU Muskeg/Bog

Gr Gravel DF Deciduous Forest

Co Cobble CF Coniferous Forest

Bo Boulder MW Mixedwood Forest

Bd Bedrock GS Grassland

Or Organic GF Grass/Forbs

GF/SH Grass/Forbs/Shrubs Habitat Features SE Sedge SH Shrubs XXXX BD Beaver Dam EM Emergent Vegetation MD Man-Made Dam MO Moss BL Beaver Lodge OR Organic BG Boulder Garden Bridge

Culvert Bank Slope

DP Debris Pile Shallow Slope (0-5%)

EM Emergent Vegetation Intermediate Slope (6-30%)

Flow Direction Steep Slope (31-70%)

ISC Instream Cover Very Steep Slope (>70%)

Sample Type Symbols General Water

Sediment Photo Location/Direction Benthic C Fish Habitat Type Divider

Fish Bearing/Potential Bearing Watercourse

Width Depth

S/cm) P

Site Summary Lake (L), WetlandSurface Area(W)Main or (ha) PondShorelineMax (P) Depth PerimeterSecchi (m) (m) DepthDissolved (m) ConductivityOxygen (mg/L)pH ( Symbol Fish Species

Notes: ha = hectares m = metres mg/L = milligrams per litre PS/cm = microseimens per centimetre Max depth was the depth recorded at sampling locations.

Legend - Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds

Substrate Types Bank/Upland Vegetation Types

Cl Clay BA Bare Ground

Si Silt OT Open Tundra

Sa Sand MU Muskeg/Bog

Gr Gravel DF Deciduous Forest

Co Cobble CF Coniferous Forest

Bo Boulder MW Mixedwood Forest

Bd Bedrock GS Grassland

Or Organic GF Grass/Forbs

GF/SH Grass/Forbs/Shrubs Habitat Features SE Sedge SH Shrubs XXXX BD Beaver Dam EM Emergent Vegetation MD Man-Made Dam MO Moss BL Beaver Lodge OR Organic BG Boulder Garden Bridge

Culvert Bank Slope

DP Debris Pile Shallow Slope (0-5%)

EM Emergent Vegetation Intermediate Slope (6-30%)

Flow Direction Steep Slope (31-70%)

ISC Instream Cover Very Steep Slope (>70%)

Sample Type Symbols General Water

Sediment Photo Location/Direction Benthic C Fish Habitat Type Divider

Fish Bearing/Potential Bearing Watercourse

Width Depth

S/cm) P

Site Summary Lake (L), WetlandSurface Area(W)Main or (ha) PondShorelineMax (P) Depth PerimeterSecchi (m) (m) DepthDissolved (m) ConductivityOxygen (mg/L)pH ( Symbol Fish Species

Notes: ha = hectares m = metres mg/L = milligrams per litre PS/cm = microseimens per centimetre Max depth was the depth recorded at sampling locations.

Legend - Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds

Substrate Types Bank/Upland Vegetation Types

Cl Clay BA Bare Ground

Si Silt OT Open Tundra

Sa Sand MU Muskeg/Bog

Gr Gravel DF Deciduous Forest

Co Cobble CF Coniferous Forest

Bo Boulder MW Mixedwood Forest

Bd Bedrock GS Grassland

Or Organic GF Grass/Forbs

GF/SH Grass/Forbs/Shrubs Habitat Features SE Sedge SH Shrubs XXXX BD Beaver Dam EM Emergent Vegetation MD Man-Made Dam MO Moss BL Beaver Lodge OR Organic BG Boulder Garden Bridge

Culvert Bank Slope

DP Debris Pile Shallow Slope (0-5%)

EM Emergent Vegetation Intermediate Slope (6-30%)

Flow Direction Steep Slope (31-70%)

ISC Instream Cover Very Steep Slope (>70%)

Sample Type Symbols General Water

Sediment Photo Location/Direction Benthic C Fish Habitat Type Divider

Fish Bearing/Potential Bearing Watercourse

Width Depth

S/cm) P

Site Summary Lake (L), WetlandSurface Area(W)Main or (ha) PondShorelineMax (P) Depth PerimeterSecchi (m) (m) DepthDissolved (m) ConductivityOxygen (mg/L)pH ( Symbol Fish Species

Water was present at all locations during the spring of 2013, however flow was often difficult to detect. Several areas of West Loon Creek were dry during the summer and fall sampling periods, acting as barriers to fish passage (e.g., WLC 04 and WLC 05). Further barriers to fish included beaver dams located upstream of an impoundment at WLC 07 and pugging caused by cattle upstream of a grid road crossing at station WLC 07 (Figure 5.3-5). Perched culverts were observed at WLC 03 and WLC 09 during the summer and fall sampling periods when water levels were lower. Small-bodied fish were present at several locations where impoundments from beaver dams or dugouts were present providing deeper water and potential overwintering habitat. The substrate was composed mainly of silt, followed by sand and clay. 5.3.2.4 Other Waterbodies Three large permanent wetlands (i.e., waterbodies 005, 008, and 011), which were roadside sloughs unconnected to other waterbodies or watercourses, were sampled for fish. No fish were caught or observed. During the winter of 2014, waterbodies 005, 008, and 011 were sampled to determine if the under-ice water depths were sufficient for supporting overwintering fish populations. Waterbodies 008 and 011 were found to be frozen to the bottom. Waterbody 005 was sampled at two locations and had total depths of 1.00 m and 1.04 m with under-ice water depths of 0.30 m and 0.26 m. A strong hydrogen sulfide smell was detected at both sample locations. The presence of hydrogen sulfide gas indicates anoxic conditions under the ice. Fish would be unable to survive these conditions. Sediment samples were collected from Waterbodies 005 and 011, with substrate in both wetlands dominated by silt followed by sand and clay (Appendix III.5 Table III.5-2). 5.4 Summary It appears that Loon Creek and West Loon Creek are the only waterbodies within the RSA capable of supporting fish, at least on a seasonal basis. Small-bodied fish populations are supported, but their distribution within the RSA streams appears to be contingent on annual flow volumes and duration, the presence and location of deeper impoundments and dugouts for potential overwintering habitats, as well as the location of numerous barriers to fish movement such as dry stream sections during summer and fall, beaver dams, and perched/hanging culverts. No large-bodied fish species were captured or observed during the 2013 field programs.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 69

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

6.0 GLOSSARY

Term Description A measure of water’s capacity to neutralize an acid. It indicates the presence of carbonates, bicarbonates and hydroxides, and less significantly, borates, silicates, phosphates, and organic substances. Alkalinity is expressed as an equivalent of Alkalinity calcium carbonate. Its composition is affected by pH, mineral composition, temperature, and ionic strength. However, alkalinity is normally interpreted as a function of carbonates, bicarbonates, and hydroxides. The sum of these three components is called total alkalinity. The decrease of acid neutralizing capacity in water, caused by natural or anthropogenic Acidification processes. Acidification is exhibited as the lowering of pH. Average depth of pools, riffles, and runs, based on measurements taken across one to Average Depth three transects within the surveyed stream section. Average width of the water surface based on measurements taken across three to six Average Wetted Width transects. An active fish sampling technique used for small wadable streams. It consists of a portable electrofishing unit and a power source attached to a pack frame, with a hand Backpack Electrofishing held and operated anode pole and a cathode plate that trails in the water. The operator activates the anode pole in the water to temporarily stun the fish, while a second assistant dip nets the stunned fish. Boulder Refers to the particle class size of substrate that is >256 mm in size. Brine A concentrated solution of inorganic salts. A measure, which relates to the catch of fish, with a particular type of gear, to the sampling effort expended; it is expressed as number of fish captured/unit of effort. It Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) may be used to define relative fish species abundance and to compare abundances of fish between sites and seasons. A landform formed by fluvial processes and consisting of a channel bed and banks within which the flow of a stream is usually confined. Outside the stream channel is its Channel flood plain which is flooded when water levels are backwatered by ice or beaver dams or during high discharge flood conditions. Station that meets World Meteorological Organization standards for measuring and Class A Meteorological Station recording temperature and precipitation. A measure of the capacity of water to conduct an electrical current. It is the reciprocal of Conductivity resistance. This measurement provides an estimate of the total concentration of dissolved ions in the water. Clay Refers to the particle class size of substrate that is less than 0.004 mm in size. Cobble Refers to the particle class size of substrate that is 64 to 256 mm in size. Creek A branch or small tributary of a river.

3 The standard measure of water flow in rivers (i.e., the volume of water in cubic metres Cubic metres per second (m /s) that passes a given point in one second). Responsible for policies and programs in support of Canada’s economic, ecological and scientific interests in oceans and inland waters; for the conservation and sustainable Department of Fisheries and utilization of Canada’s fisheries resources in marine and inland waters; for leading and Oceans (DFO) (now Fisheries facilitating federal policies and program on oceans; and for safe effective and and Oceans Canada) environmentally sound marine services responsive to the needs of Canadians in a global economy. Discharge The rate of flow (volume per unit of time) in a stream at a single point The region of land that could contribute water to a stream or waterbody via overland or Drainage Area subsurface flow.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 70

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Term Description The boundary of a drainage area for a single point on a stream or for a waterbody which Drainage area boundary is calculated using topographic data such as elevation contours or a digital elevation model; also known as a watershed boundary. The nutrient-rich status (amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) of an Eutrophic ecosystem. Fish as defined in the Fisheries Act (1985), includes parts of fish, shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals and the eggs, Fish sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and marine animals. A fluvial landform that occurs adjacent to stream channels. When stream water levels Floodplain exceed the height of the channel bank(s), water spreads out onto the surrounding floodplain areas. Gravel Refers to the particle class size of substrate that is 2.0 to 64 mm in size. ISQG (Interim Sediment Quality Recommended maximum concentration of a chemical in sediment, intended to be Guideline) protective of aquatic organisms. Trophic state classification for lakes characterized by moderate productivity and nutrient Mesotrophic inputs (particularly total phosphorus). A passive sampling technique used to sample for the presence of minnow species and small life history stages of fish (i.e. fry) of larger fish species. It consists of two pieces of Minnow trap a trap that are clipped together to form a small cylinder. Each end of the trap is slightly tapered with a funnel opening that allows fish to enter, but prevents them from exiting. The degree of acidity (or alkalinity) of soil or solution. The pH scale is generally pH presented from 1 (most acidic) to 14 (most alkaline). A difference of one pH unit represents a ten-fold change in hydrogen ion concentration. Concentration of a chemical in sediment above which adverse effects on aquatic Probable Effects Level organisms are likely. Sand Refers to the particle class size of substrate that is 0.063 to 2.0 mm in size. Solid material that is transported by, suspended in, or deposited from water. It originates mostly from disintegrated rocks; it also includes chemical and biochemical precipitates and decomposed organic material, such as humus. The quantity, characteristics and Sediment cause of the occurrence of sediment in streams is influenced by environmental factors. Some major factors are degree of slope, length of slope soil characteristics, land usage and quantity, and intensity of precipitation. Silt Refers to the particle class size of substrate that is between 0.004 and 0.063 mm in size. Refers to the material that comprises the bottom of the observed watercourse within the Substrate study reach (including all wetted and unwetted areas). Total Dissolved Solids The total concentration of all dissolved compound found in a water sample. The amount of suspended substances in a water sample. Solids, found in wastewater or Total Suspended Solids in a stream, which can be removed by filtration. The origin of suspended matter may be artificial or anthropogenic wastes or natural sources such as silt. An indirect measure of suspended particles, such as silt, clay, organic matter, plankton, Turbidity and microscopic organisms, in water. Waterbody A general term that refers to ponds, bays, lakes, estuaries, and marine areas. A general term that refers to riverine systems such as creeks, brooks, streams and Watercourse rivers.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 71

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Report Prepared by:

Jaime Hogan, M.Sc., P.Geo. Hydrologist

Alison Lackie, B.Sc. Engineer-in-Training

Blair Hersikorn, M.Sc. Environmental Scientist

Report Reviewed by:

Brian Christensen, M.Sc., Brent Topp, B.Sc., P.Geo. Associate, Senior Environmental Scientist Associate, Senior Hydrologist

Golder, Golder Associates, and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

c:\users\jboehr\documents\sharepoint drafts\yancoal annex aiii surface water environment_combined versions.docx

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 72

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

7.0 REFERENCES AAFC (Agriculture and Agri-food Canada). 2005. Effective Drainage Area of the PFRA Watershed Project. PFRA Watershed Project Version 5. February 8, 2005.

Bell, Gordon. 2009. Pers. Comm. (Email). Updated Gross Evaporation, Precipitation and Net Evaporation Data Bases. Agri-Environment Services Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Buckler, S.J., Mowcheko, M. 1974. Hydrometerorloglocial Analysis of the Thunderstorms of June 30 and July 1, 1973, in Southern Saskatchewan.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1998. Recreational Water Quality Guidelines and Aesthetics. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1998, CCME. Winnipeg, MB.

CCME. 2002. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Summary Table. Update 2002. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, CCME. Winnipeg, MB.

CCME. 2005. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Agricultural Uses. Summary Table. Update October 2005. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, CCME. Winnipeg, MB.

CCME. 2009. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Ammonia. 2009 Update. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 2000, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, MB.

CCME. 2013. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Summary Table. Available at http://st-ts.ccme.ca/. Accessed 25 November 2013. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, CCME. Winnipeg, MB.

Cole, Anna. 2013. Annual Unit Runoff in Canada. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. January 2013.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Ehsanzadeh, E., C. Spence, G. van der Kamp, B. McConkey. 2012. On the Behaviour of Dynamic Contributing Areas and Flood Frequency Curves in North American Prairie Watersheds. J. Hydrology 364-373.

Environment Canada. 2012. Short Duration Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Data.

Environment Canada. 2013. Canadian Climate Normals: 1981-2010 Climate Normals & Averages. Available from: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. Accessed December, 2013.

Environment Canada. 2014. Snow Water Equivalent Canadian Prairies Maps 2012-2013. Climate Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada. Available at: http://www.polardata.ca/home/ccw/snow/current/swe. Accessed January 11, 2013.

Fisheries Act. 1985. RSC, c F-14. Available at: http://canlii.ca/t/524r4, c F-14

Fung, K (Ed.). 1999. Atlas of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Saskatchewan.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 73

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Godwin, R.B., Martin, R.J. 1975. Calculation of Gross and Effective Drainage Areas for the Prairie Provinces. In: Canadian Hydrology Symposium – 1975 Proceedings, 11-14 August 1975, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Associate Committee on Hydrology. National Research Council of Canada, pp. 219-223.

Health Canada. 2012a. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Summary Table. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment. April 2012.

Health Canada. 2012b. Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality, Third Edition. Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. April 2012.

Hedstrom, N.R., Pomeroy, J.W. 1998. Measurements and Modelling of Snow Interception in the Boreal Forest. Hydrological Processes. Vol. 12, pp. 1611-1625.

Hopkinson, E.F. 1985. The Parkman Storm, August 3-4, August 3-4, 1985 (Preliminary Report). Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada, Regina, Saskatchewan.

Hunter, F.G et al. 2002 The Vanguard Torrential Storm (Meteorology and Hydrology). Canadian Water Resources Journal. Vol. 27, No. 2.

L. Kallichuk. Mayor, Town of Cupar. 2014. Personal Communication, telephone call. January 23, 2014.

Li, L, Pomeroy, J.W. 1997. Estimates of Threshold Wind Speeds for Snow Transport Using Meteorological Data. Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 36

LiDAR Services International Inc. (LSI). 2013. Golder Associates Ltd. Yancoal Potash Site LiDAR Survey September 2013. Report Submitted October 25, 2013.

MacDonald, J.P., Pomeroy, J.W. 2007. Gauge Undercatch of Two Common Snowfall Gauges in the Prairie Environment. R. Hellstrom, S Frankenstein (Eds.), Proceedings of the 64th Eastern Snow Conference (pp 119-126). Retrieved from: http://www.easternsnow.org/proceedings/2007/proceedings_2007.pdf

Mekis, É and L.A. Vincent, 2011: An overview of the second generation adjusted daily precipitation dataset for trend analysis in Canada. Atmosphere-Ocean 49(2), 163-177.

Minifie, P. Business Systems Manager. Personal Communication Water Security Agency. Environmental and Municipal Management Services Division. Regina, SK. E-mail. November 7, 2013.

Morgan, B. 2013. Personal Communication. Account Manager, ALS Life Sciences Division. Saskatoon, SK. E- mail. September 25, 2013.

National Research Council of Canada (NRC/CHC) 2012. Green Kenue Visualization and Analysis for Hydrologic Applications, Copyright 1998-2012. National Research Council Canada – Canadian Hydraulics Centre, Ottawa. Green Kenue Version 3.3.10. EnSimCore Version 3.3.25, Jul 19 2012.

Newark, M.J. et al. 1987. Summary and Highlights of the 1985 Severe Local Storm Season. Climatological Bulletin Vol 21 No. 3.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 74

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA). 2002. Gross Evaporation for the 30 Year Period 1971-2000 in the Canadian Prairies. Hydrology Report #143. Regina, Saskatchewan.

Saffran, K.A. and D.O. Trew. 1996. Sensitivity of Alberta Lakes to Acidifying Deposition: An Update of Maps with Emphasis on 109 Northern Lakes. Water Management Division, Alberta Environmental Protection. Edmonton, AB.

Saskatchewan Environment (MOE). 2002. Saskatchewan's Drinking Water Quality Standards and Objectives (summarized). Available at: http://www.saskwater.com/WhatWeDo/pdfs/Drinking%20Water%20Standards.pdf.

Saskatchewan Environment (MOE). 2006. Surface Water Quality Objectives, Interim Edition. EPB 356. Regina, SK.

SaskWater 1993. Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Flows and Flow Volumes in Saskatchewan. Hydrology Report HYD 19-25. Water Management Division, Hydrology Branch. April 1993.

Shook, K. and Pomeroy, J. 2012. Changes in the Hydrological Character of Rainfall on the Canadian Prairies. Hydrological Processes, 26(12), 1752-1766.

Simpson, M.A. (compiler) (1997). Surficial geology map of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Energy and Mines/Saskatchewan Research Council, 1:1 000 000 scale.

Terzi, R.A. 1981. Hydrometric Field Manual—Measurement of Streamflow. Environment Canada Inland Waters Directorate Water Resources Branch. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

The Environmental Assessment Act. 2013. Available at: http://canlii.ca/t/52361

Thomas, J.F.J. 1953. Scope, Procedures and Interpretation of Survey Studies. Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Water Survey Report No. 1. Cited in McNeely et al. (1979).

Thornwaite, C.W. 1948. An Approach toward a Rational Classification of Climate. Geographical Review 38(2), 55-94.

Town of Cupar. 2013. Town of Cupar Newsletter July 2013. Available at: http://www.townofcupar.com/pages/newsletters.html. Accessed January 16, 2014.

Vale Potash Canada Limited (Vale). 2013. Vale Kronau Project Environmental Impact Statement.

Water Security Agency (WSA). 2014. Fall 2013 Saskatchewan Hydrological Conditions at Freeze-Up. Available at: https://www.wsask.ca/Lakes-and-Rivers/Provincial-Forecast/. Accessed January 21, 2014.

Water Survey of Canada (WSC). 2014. Archived Hydrometric Data. Available at: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm. Accessed May 1, 2014.

Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology. Second Edition. Saunders College Publishing, USA.

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C 75

ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

APPENDIX III.1 Long-term Climate Normals and Local Weather Conditions in 2013

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.I-1: Climate Normals for Regina Airport Weather Station for the Years 1981 to 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual Start Year End Year

Mean daily temperature (°C) -14.68 -11.72 -4.76 4.77 11.3 16.18 18.91 18.12 11.83 4.34 -5.23 -12.42 3.05 1981 2007

Mean daily max temperature (°C) -9.26 -6.43 0.43 11.55 18.49 22.83 25.84 25.45 19.06 11.02 0.09 -7.1 9.33 1981 2007 Extreme maximum daily max 10.4 15.6 24.4 32.8 37.2 40.6 43.3 40.6 37.2 32 23.6 15 43.3 1883 2007 temperature (°C) Mean daily min temperature (°C) -20.05 -16.97 -9.94 -2.04 4.06 9.49 11.92 10.74 4.56 -2.38 -10.53 -17.69 -3.24 1981 2007 Extreme minimum daily min -50 -47.8 -40.6 -28.9 -13.3 -5.6 -2.2 -5 -16.1 -26.1 -37.2 -48.3 -50 1883 2007 temperature (°C) Total rainfall (mm) 0.62 0.77 5.09 18.09 47.64 70.91 66.9 44.84 32.13 18.27 3.1 0.49 308.85 1981 2007

Total snowfall (cm) 19.37 11.39 18.76 6.91 3.62 0.03 0 0 0.65 6.89 12.99 19.54 100.15 1981 2007

Total precipitation (mm) 15.28 9.41 19.7 24.1 51.35 70.93 66.9 44.84 32.78 24.5 14.15 15.73 389.67 1981 2007

Extreme daily rainfall (mm) 4.4 7.1 17.8 39 57.2 160.3 76.5 78.7 79.8 36 24 9.7 160.3 1883 2007

Extreme daily snowfall (cm) 12.7 19.1 25.4 23.2 19.8 7.6 0 0 21.6 26.4 23.9 22 26.4 1883 2007

Extreme daily precipitation (mm) 12.7 20.3 25.4 39 60.4 160.3 76.5 78.7 79.8 36 24 20 160.3 1883 2007

Mean of hourly wind speed (km/h) 19.09 18.68 19.63 20.17 20.39 18.31 15.97 16.3 17.83 18.62 17.63 18.44 18.42 1981 2010 Most frequently occurring wind 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 1981 2010 direction (degree) Extreme of hourly wind speed 97 89 85 84 84 97 80 74 78 89 85 89 97 1953 2010 (km/h) Mean of 0600 LST relative humidity 78.96 80.97 83.75 79.33 77.33 81.41 86.24 84.97 83.02 82.85 83.88 80.82 81.96 1981 2010 (%) Mean of 1500 LST relative humidity 76.07 76.39 69.5 44.51 42.86 48.28 48.78 45.35 45.45 52.39 68.16 75.69 57.79 1981 2010 (%) Notes: Source: Environment Canada 2013. Regina International Airport Station ID 4016560 °C = degrees Celsius; mm = millimetres; cm = centimetres; km/h = kilometres per hour; % = percent

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.I- 2: Climate Normals for Duval Weather Station for the Years 1981 to 2007

Start Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual End Year Year

Mean daily temperature (°C) -13.95 -11.16 -4.5 4.95 11.61 16.23 18.9 18.17 12.16 4.85 -4.8 -11.66 3.4 1981 2007

Mean daily max temperature -9.31 -6.78 -0.16 10.66 17.75 21.91 24.84 24.56 18.03 10.03 -0.78 -7.27 8.62 1981 2007 (°C) Extreme maximum daily max 10.5 9 20 31.5 37.5 39 38 37.8 36.1 29 21.7 12 39 1963 2007 temperature (°C) Mean daily min temperature -18.52 -15.51 -8.83 -0.8 5.42 10.49 12.91 11.72 6.25 -0.33 -8.79 -15.99 -1.83 1981 2007 (°C) Extreme minimum daily min -41.7 -42 -35.6 -23.3 -9.4 -1.7 3.5 -0.6 -8.3 -20.6 -32 -41.5 -42 1963 2007 temperature (°C)

Total rainfall (mm) 0.46 0.65 3.86 19.21 46.15 77.88 71.34 59.25 35.82 18.25 2.17 0.55 335.59 1981 2007

Total snowfall (cm) 16.04 10.45 14.44 7.46 2.94 0 0 0 1.11 5.09 12.83 17.69 88.05 1981 2007

Total precipitation (mm) 16.5 11.1 18.31 26.67 49.1 77.88 71.34 59.25 36.93 23.34 15 18.23 423.65 1981 2007

Extreme daily rainfall (mm) 3.6 6 15.8 37.2 47 64.5 61.6 105 49.4 47.2 23 6.2 105 1957 2007

Extreme daily snowfall (cm) 19 15.2 17.8 19.8 12.7 0 0 0 8.4 17.8 22.9 13 22.9 1957 2007

Extreme daily precipitation 19 15.2 17.8 37.2 47 64.5 61.6 105 49.4 47.2 23 13 105 1957 2007 (mm) Notes: Source: Environment Canada 2013. Duval Station ID 4012300 °C = degrees Celsius; mm = millimetres; cm = centimetres

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.1-3: Daily Temperature and Relative Humidity Data Recorded at West Loon Creek Weather Station in 2013

Date Mean Daily Maximum Minimum Average RH Maximum RH Minimum RH Temperature (°C) Temperature Temperature (%) (%) (%) (°C) (°C) 4-May-13 12 20 3 54 91 27 5-May-13 12 23 0 55 97 22 6-May-13 14 25 0 50 94 19 7-May-13 14 26 3 50 94 22 8-May-13 7 14 -3 48 87 20 9-May-13 9 17 -1 44 77 17 10-May-13 9 14 -4 45 85 27 11-May-13 4 15 -9 50 94 19 12-May-13 15 27 2 37 63 19 13-May-13 20 29 9 43 75 19 14-May-13 16 24 8 55 95 20 15-May-13 14 23 1 52 96 21 16-May-13 17 24 6 44 81 21 17-May-13 15 20 8 67 94 52 18-May-13 15 22 4 67 100 38 19-May-13 16 22 7 56 98 31 20-May-13 14 24 2 42 83 19 21-May-13 14 22 2 45 80 23 22-May-13 15 23 4 46 81 22 23-May-13 14 21 5 49 78 28 24-May-13 13 17 10 66 98 47 25-May-13 14 21 9 79 98 48 26-May-13 15 19 12 88 98 72 27-May-13 13 18 11 90 98 76 28-May-13 16 22 8 78 99 49 29-May-13 15 22 5 75 100 48 30-May-13 13 19 7 73 98 54 31-May-13 15 22 5 52 92 32 1-Jun-13 13 21 1 62 99 32 2-Jun-13 13 20 6 51 77 31 3-Jun-13 12 20 1 50 92 23 4-Jun-13 12 22 0 53 98 20 5-Jun-13 15 24 1 51 95 22 6-Jun-13 16 24 5 54 91 23 7-Jun-13 16 25 3 60 99 25 8-Jun-13 15 17 12 84 98 60 9-Jun-13 15 22 6 77 100 38 10-Jun-13 14 21 4 69 100 35 11-Jun-13 12 21 1 72 100 43 12-Jun-13 15 24 2 65 100 35 13-Jun-13 19 24 15 63 94 46 14-Jun-13 16 19 13 84 98 65 15-Jun-13 14 19 10 85 94 69 16-Jun-13 14 19 12 93 99 74 17-Jun-13 15 22 7 79 100 50 18-Jun-13 19 27 11 70 96 39 19-Jun-13 19 23 14 76 93 56 20-Jun-13 16 19 13 83 96 70 21-Jun-13 17 23 11 77 99 41 22-Jun-13 17 21 10 82 98 61 23-Jun-13 15 21 8 84 100 57 24-Jun-13 18 26 6 73 100 44 25-Jun-13 18 22 15 88 99 77 26-Jun-13 18 26 11 82 100 56 27-Jun-13 19 26 10 75 100 44 28-Jun-13 19 27 9 73 100 41 29-Jun-13 18 24 11 76 100 49 30-Jun-13 20 26 13 74 97 50 1-Jul-13 23 30 17 69 97 45 2-Jul-13 24 31 16 73 100 38 3-Jul-13 23 32 16 73 92 48 4-Jul-13 21 29 13 69 98 34 5-Jul-13 20 26 14 76 91 49 6-Jul-13 17 21 13 93 99 82 7-Jul-13 18 24 13 82 99 52 8-Jul-13 17 22 12 77 99 51 9-Jul-13 17 23 11 77 99 50 10-Jul-13 21 28 11 75 100 43 11-Jul-13 22 29 15 82 95 61 12-Jul-13 20 25 11 73 95 39 13-Jul-13 12 15 7 96 100 87 14-Jul-13 15 22 5 80 100 50 15-Jul-13 17 23 11 89 97 78 16-Jul-13 17 23 11 77 99 48 17-Jul-13 18 25 9 75 100 44 18-Jul-13 18 23 14 87 98 63 19-Jul-13 16 23 11 84 100 54 20-Jul-13 15 21 10 84 96 71 21-Jul-13 16 23 12 92 100 70 22-Jul-13 16 22 9 81 100 51 23-Jul-13 16 23 9 83 100 55 24-Jul-13 16 23 10 85 100 58 25-Jul-13 13 18 8 85 99 63 26-Jul-13 13 20 5 78 100 49 27-Jul-13 15 21 8 72 97 45 28-Jul-13 15 22 11 82 93 61 29-Jul-13 16 21 8 83 98 60 30-Jul-13 13 20 7 84 99 52 31-Jul-13 14 23 4 77 99 47 1-Aug-13 16 24 6 77 100 44 2-Aug-13 15 22 6 75 99 46 3-Aug-13 16 23 7 73 98 46 4-Aug-13 18 24 12 77 96 50 5-Aug-13 16 23 9 88 99 68 6-Aug-13 15 21 9 83 99 50 7-Aug-13 13 19 5 85 100 63 8-Aug-13 13 19 3 74 98 50 9-Aug-13 13 19 5 84 99 61 10-Aug-13 15 23 7 83 99 49 11-Aug-13 16 24 6 76 100 43 12-Aug-13 17 26 7 74 99 41 13-Aug-13 18 25 12 74 93 46 14-Aug-13 19 25 13 72 93 48 Note: RH = relative humidity. Maximum and minimum values are the extreme values from each day based on measurements recorded every 5 minutes °C = degrees Celsius; % = percent

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.1-4: Daily Rainfall (mm) Recorded at West Loon Creek Weather Station in 2013

Month/Day May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 1 00000.21.6 2 000000.2 3 000001 4 0.4000000 5 0000.4000 6 0 0 26.4 0.4 0 0 7 000000 8 0 10.2 0 0.2 0 0 9 00.20000 10 000000 11 000000 12 000000 13 0 2.2 4.8 0 0 0 14 1 12.4 1.8 0 0 0 15 0 2.2 0.6 0 0 0 16 0 12.6 1.2 0 0 0 17 000.8000 18 0 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 19 0 1.6 0.6 0 0.6 2.6 20 0 9 0.2 0 5.6 0 21 0 0 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 22 0 4.2 0.4 0 0 0.6 23 0 0.8 0.2 0 0 0.4 24 2.800000 25 2.2 8 0.2 0 4.2 0 26 0 2.4 0 0 7.6 0 27 5.200000 28 0001.200 29 0002.200 30 000000 31 0 0 0 0.4 Total 11.6 65.8 38.2 4.6 18.6 4.4 2.8 Note: Daily rainfall amounts provided are in millimetres (mm)

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.I- 5: Monthly Evaporation Calculated using the Meyer Method

Meyer-Method Evaporation (mm)

2013 Project Regina Airport Regina Airport Regina Airport Month Area(a) Mean(b) Maximum(b) Minimum(b) Jan 0 0 0 0 Feb 0 0 0 0 Mar 0 0 0 0 Apr 46 58 94 32 May 174 152 219 106 June 145 169 288 118 July 143 188 271 126 Aug 131 184 274 133 Sept 122 126 169 88 Oct 54 61 93 37 Nov 0 0 0 0 Dec 0 0 0 0 Annual Total 815 939 1311 721 (a) Temperature and humidity data from the West Loon Creek weather station was used when available. Regina Airport data was used when West Loon Creek data was unavailable, and for windspeed data. (b) Mean, Maximum and Minimum values from records between 1911 and 2008 published by AAFC (Bell 2009 Pers. Comm.) Note: Meyer Method used in calculations is as described by PFRA (2002)

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

APPENDIX III.2 Daily Mean Discharge for Selected Streamflow Stations

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.2-1: Daily Mean Discharge for Loon Creek Station LCF1 (m3/s)

Day/Month April May June July August September October November 1 0.876 0.0597 0.0195 0.0274 0 0 0 2 0.769 0.0452 0.0159 0.0203 0 0 0 3 0.675 0.0341 0.0113 0.0166 0 0 0 4 0.620 0.0297 0.0071 0.0131 0 0 0 5 0.511 0.0271 0.0039 0.0100 0 0 0 6 0.433 0.0234 0.0071 0.0087 0 0 7 0.355 0.0217 0.0179 0.0078 0 0 8 0.264 0.0240 0.0131 0.0076 0 0 9 0.186 0.0296 0.0106 0.0052 0 0 10 0.145 0.0272 0.0079 0.0053 0 0 11 0.113 0.0260 0.0048 0.0054 0 0 12 0.0794 0.0249 0.0021 0.0052 0 0 13 0.0654 0.0254 0.0000 0.0048 0 0 14 0.0661 0.0302 0.0004 0.0038 0 0 15 0.0830 0.0330 0.0058 0.0035 0 0 16 0.0972 0.0288 1.7846 0.0022 0 0 17 0.112 0.0292 2.1366 0.0003 0 0 18 0.127 0.0264 0.9530 0 0 0 19 0.113 0.0252 0.5033 0 0 0 20 0.135 0.0287 0.3149 0 0 0 21 0.139 0.0378 0.2281 0 0 0 22 0.125 0.0374 0.1910 0 0 0 23 0.105 0.0352 0.1324 0 0 0 24 0.0896 0.0330 0.0977 0 0 0 25 0.0918 0.0397 0.0883 0 0 0 26 0.1031 0.0433 0.0692 0 0 0 27 0.0971 0.0336 0.0562 0 0 0 28 0.0784 0.0285 0.0470 0 0 0 29 1.43 0.0670 0.0237 0.0393 0 0 0 30 1.89 0.0620 0.0219 0.0360 0 0 0 31 0.0609 0.0303 0 0

Golder Associates Page 1 of 2 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.2-1: Daily Mean Discharge for Jumping Deer Creek Station05JK004 (m3/s)

Day/Month April May June July August September October November 1 1.22 E 0.29 0.133 0.07 0 0 0 2 1.33 E 0.396 0.051 0.049 0 0 0 3 2.15 0.423 0.025 0.046 0 0 0 4 2.69 0.343 0.021 0.049 0 0 0 5 2.7 0.239 0.013 0.022 0 0 0 6 2.02 0.142 0.099 0.015 0 0.001 7 1.73 0.072 0.17 0.015 0 0.001 8 1.52 0.063 0.127 0.013 0 0.001 9 1.4 0.219 0.07 0.01 0 0 10 1.21 0.3 0.029 0.01 0 0 11 1.11 0.198 0.018 0.008 0 0.001 12 1.08 0.111 0.015 0.007 0 0.001 13 0.994 0.049 0.013 0.005 0 0.001 14 0.945 0.052 0.03 0.003 0 0.001 15 0.868 0.063 0.25 0.001 0 0.001 16 0.738 0.279 0.367 0 0 0.002 17 0.592 0.228 0.483 0 0 0.002 18 0.555 0.115 0.638 0 0 0.002 19 0.362 0.043 1.12 0 0.002 0.002 20 0.351 0.329 1.16 0 0.004 0.004 21 0.318 0.454 0.989 0 0.002 0.003 22 0.271 0.536 1.02 0 0.001 0.005 23 0.207 0.479 0.927 0 0 0.014 24 0.003 B 0.1 0.403 0.746 0 0 0.015 25 0.020 B 0.132 0.446 0.662 0 0.001 0.016 26 0.107 B 0.193 0.596 0.583 0 0.002 0.018 27 0.471 B 0.317 0.614 0.45 0 0.003 0.021 28 1.62 B 0.301 0.476 0.369 0 0.002 0.017 29 2.06 E 0.314 0.351 0.302 0 0.001 0.016 30 1.46 E 0.361 0.273 0.195 0 0.001 0.017 31 0.318 0.14 0 0.018 Note: Ice conditions noted until April 28th, estimated flows from April 29 to May 2, 2013 due to Partial water level data for the dates to April 26th, and April 28th to May 3, 2013 m3/s = cubic metres per second

Golder Associates Page 2 of 2 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.2-2: Daily Mean Discharge for East Loon Creek Station ELF1 (m3/s)

Month/Day April May June July August September October November 1 0.00086 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00049 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00036 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.00032 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.00028 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.00009 0 0.00001 0 0 0 7 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.00005 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.00016 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.00017 0 0 0 0 0 11 0.00019 0 0 0 0 0 12 0.00016 0 0 0 0 0 13 0.00014 0 0 0 0 0 14 0.00013 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.00009 0 0.00004 0 0 0 16 0.00013 0.00002 0.00036 0 0 0 17 0.00013 0.00001 0.00016 0 0 0 18 0.00012 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 19 0.00010 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 20 0.00007 0.00003 0.00000 0 0 0 21 0.00006 0.00005 0.00002 0 0 0 22 0.00004 0.00005 0.00003 0 0 0 23 0.00001 0.00004 0.00000 0 0 0 24 0.00001 0.00003 0 0 0 0 25 0.00007 0.00004 0 0 0 0 26 0.00011 0.00004 0 0 0 0 27 0.00011 0.00002 0 0 0 0 28 0.0137 0.00009 0.00001 0 0 0 0 29 0.0052 0.00005 0.00000 0 0 0 0 30 0.0022 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 31 0.00000 0 0 0 m3/s = cubic metres per second

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.2-3: Daily Mean Discharge for West Loon Creek at Station WLF1 (m3/s)

Day/Month May June July August September October November 1 0.020 0.017 0.0090 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 2 0.015 0.014 0.0082 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 3 0.267 0.011 0.013 0.0074 0.0006 0.0005 0.0004 4 0.297 0.0098 0.012 0.0062 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 5 0.253 0.0085 0.010 0.0054 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 6 0.218 0.0075 0.013 0.0054 0.0006 0.0006 7 0.184 0.0059 0.014 0.0044 0.0006 0.0006 8 0.146 0.0064 0.012 0.0037 0.0006 0.0006 9 0.113 0.0085 0.011 0.0025 0.0005 0.0006 10 0.095 0.0086 0.010 0.0018 0.0006 0.0006 11 0.077 0.0079 0.009 0.0013 0.0007 0.0006 12 0.063 0.0068 0.010 0.0009 0.0006 0.0007 13 0.063 0.0052 0.011 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 14 0.065 0.0067 0.013 0.0004 0.0006 0.0005 15 0.058 0.0091 0.013 0.0004 0.0006 0.0006 16 0.049 0.0093 0.020 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 17 0.043 0.0101 0.017 0.0004 0.0006 0.0006 18 0.041 0.0098 0.017 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 19 0.036 0.0090 0.016 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 20 0.034 0.0092 0.014 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 21 0.029 0.012 0.018 0.0007 0.0006 0.0004 22 0.025 0.012 0.019 0.0007 0.0005 0.0005 23 0.021 0.013 0.016 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 24 0.017 0.013 0.016 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 25 0.020 0.012 0.015 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 26 0.023 0.015 0.013 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 27 0.025 0.021 0.011 0.0007 0.0005 0.0005 28 0.027 0.021 0.011 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 29 0.025 0.019 0.011 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 30 0.022 0.017 0.011 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 31 0.019 0.010 0.0006 0.0005 m3/s = cubic metres per second

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.2-4: Daily Mean Discharge for West Loon Creek at Station WLF2 (m3/s)

Month/Day April May June July August September October November 1 0.252 0.001 0.001 0.012 0 0 0 2 0.247 0.001 0.031 0.009 0 0 0 3 0.219 0 0.013 0.006 0 0 0 4 0.179 0 0.008 0.004 0 0 0 5 0.149 0 0 0.004 0 0 0 6 0.118 0 0.013 0.008 0 0 7 0.087 0 0.022 0.005 0 0 8 0.075 0.0003 0.016 0.005 0 0 9 0.060 0.0002 0.009 0.003 0 0 10 0.047 0 0.006 0.001 0 0 11 0.035 0 0.006 0.001 0 0 12 0.019 0 0.010 0.000 0 0 13 0.010 0 0.016 0 0 0 14 0.003 0.0022 0.018 0 0 0 15 0.011 0 0.013 0 0 0 16 0.012 0.0034 0.019 0 0 0 17 0.011 0.0003 0.009 0 0 0 18 0.003 0 0.010 0 0 0 19 0.0002 0 0.014 0 0 0 20 0 0.0005 0.010 0 0 0 21 0 0.0011 0.019 0 0 0 22 0 0.0005 0.023 0 0 0 23 0 0.0001 0.017 0 0 0 24 0 0 0.018 0 0 0 25 0 0.000 0.016 0 0 0 26 0 0.089 0.015 0 0 0 27 0 0.066 0.014 0 0 0 28 0.111 0 0.035 0.013 0 0 0 29 0.057 0 0.005 0.014 0 0 0 30 0.067 0 0 0.012 0 0 0 31 0 0.015 0 0 m3/s = cubic metres per second

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

APPENDIX III.3 Streamflow Station Photos and Stage-Discharge Rating Data

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C APPENDIX III.3 Streamflow Photographs and Stage-discharge Rating Data

Loon Creek Station LCF1 In 2013, a hydrometric station was set up on Loon Creek approximately 1.3 kilometres (km) upstream of the inactive Water Survey of Canada Station 05JK006 (Figure 1 ). Based on LiDAR digital elevation data, this station has a gross drainage area of approximately 1,880 square kilometres (km2). Water levels were monitored continuously using a water level sensor from April 26, 2013 to November 5, 2013. A stage-discharge rating curve was developed for this location from data collected during eight field visits in which the water surface elevation was surveyed relative to local benchmarks, and discharge was monitored downstream of a 4.0 metre (m) corrugated steel pipe (CSP) culvert (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Loon Creek Station LCF1 Discharge Monitoring May 3, 2013

The stage-discharge rating curve for Loon Creek is provided on Figure 2. Shifts were applied to the stage values included in the rating curve (measurements 1 and 2) to correct for snow and ice in the channel that caused backwatering in the early spring at the start of the snowmelt period (Figure 2). If needed, additional shifts were applied to stage values later in the year to account for backwatering from in-channel vegetation growth and other factors. Essentially, stage-shifts create more than one stage-discharge rating equation so that hourly mean discharge values are corrected using measured discharge values.

Shift No. Shift Start Shift Date (m) 1 29-Apr-13 -0.16 2 03-May-13 -0.0715 3 07-May-13 0 4 17-May-13 -0.0839 5 11-Jul-13 -0.0347 6 08-Aug-13 -0.16

Figure 2: Stage-Discharge Rating Curve for Loon Creek at Station LCF1

March 2015 Project No. 1213620197 WP025/1090 1/4 APPENDIX III.3 Streamflow Photographs and Stage-discharge Rating Data

East Loon Creek Station ELF1 East Loon Creek is one of two main tributaries of Loon Creek in the surface water local study area (LSA) and has a drainage area of 342 km2. A temporary hydrometric station was set up for the 2013 season at the Grid Road 731 crossing (Figure 3). Water levels were monitored continuously using a water level sensor from April 28, 2013 to November 5, 2013. A stage-discharge rating curve was developed for this location from data collected during six field visits in which the water surface elevation was surveyed relative to local benchmarks, and discharge was monitored downstream of a 1.2 m CSP culvert (Figure 4). Stage-shift data for East Loon Creek are included on Figure 4.

Figure 3: East Loon Creek Discharge Monitoring at Station ELF1 on May 3, 2013

Shift No. Shift Start Date Shift (m) 1 28-Apr-13 -0.16 2 29-Apr-13 -0.0715 3 03-May-13 0 4 15-May-13 -0.0839

Figure 4: Stage-discharge Rating Curve for East Loon Creek at Station ELF1 in 2013

March 2015 Project No. 1213620197 WP025/1090 2/4 APPENDIX III.3 Streamflow Photographs and Stage-discharge Rating Data

West Loon Creek Station WLF1 West Loon Creek is one of two main tributaries of Loon Creek in the surface water LSA and has a drainage area of 467 km2. A temporary hydrometric station was set up for the 2013 season at the Grid Road 731 crossing (Figure 5 ). Water levels were monitored continuously using a water level sensor from May 3, 2013 to November 5, 2013. A stage-discharge rating curve was developed for this location from data collected during four field visits in which the water surface elevation was surveyed relative to local benchmarks, and discharge was monitored downstream of a 1.2 m CSP culvert (Figure 6). A surrogate (i.e., backup) streamflow station was installed 1.5 km downstream of this location on April 28, 2013 at the Highway 6 bridge crossing, but this station was gauged only in late April 2013 when flows were relatively high and measurable.

Figure 5: West Loon Creek Discharge Monitoring at Station WLF1 on May 3, 2013

4.1783

/s) y = 6.7331x 3 0.1 Upper Rating

upper 0.01 lower

0.001 y = 1998.2x8.4045

Measured discharge(m Lower Rating

0.0001 0.1 Stage (m) 1

Figure 6: Stage-discharge Rating Curve for West Loon Creek at Station WLF1 in 2013

March 2015 Project No. 1213620197 WP025/1090 3/4 APPENDIX III.3 Streamflow Photographs and Stage-discharge Rating Data

West Loon Creek Station WLF2 West Loon Creek is a tributary of Loon Creek in the surface water LSA, and it has a drainage area of 320 km2. A second temporary hydrometric station was set up for the 2013 season approximately 11 km upstream of station WLF1 (Figure 7). Water levels were monitored continuously using a water level sensor from April 28, 2013 to November 5, 2013. A stage-discharge rating curve was developed for this location from data collected during seven field visits in which the water surface elevation was surveyed relative to local benchmarks at the grid road crossing, and discharge was monitored at three locations depending on flow conditions (Figure 8). Stage-shift values for WLF2 are included on Figure 8.

Figure 7: West Loon Creek Discharge Monitoring at Station WLF2 on May 15, 2013

Shift No. Shift Start Date Shift (m) 1 26-Apr-13 0 2 28-Apr-13 0 3 29-Apr-13 -0.129 4 04-May-13 0 5 15-May-13 -0.21 6 11-Jul-13 -0.176

Figure 8: Stage-discharge Rating Data for West Loon Creek at Station WLF2 in 2013 c:\users\jboehr\documents\sharepoint drafts\appendix iii.3 ratings.docx

March 2015 Project No. 1213620197 WP025/1090 4/4 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

APPENDIX III.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results for Surface Water Quality Baseline Study

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C APPENDIX III.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results for Surface Water Quality Baseline Study

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were followed for surface water quality baseline data collection and are highlighted below. The QA/QC procedures make certain that all field sampling, data entry, data analysis, and report preparation produced is technically sound, is reproducible and provides scientifically defensible results.

Detailed specific work instructions were provided to Golder field personnel prior to the field program to assist program and sampling success. As part of the routine field operations, applicable equipment was frequently calibrated. Detailed field notes were recorded in pencil in waterproof notebooks and on pre-printed waterproof field datasheets. Sample bottles for water chemistry analysis were labelled with waterproof ink. Double-bagged sediment samples were labelled with waterproof ink and a waterproof label was inserted between the two bags. Samples were collected by trained personnel and were prepared, labelled, preserved, and transported according to Golder’s standardized technical procedures.

Data collected during the field work underwent several thorough QA/QC checks. Field data sheets were checked at the end of each day for completeness and accuracy. Chain-of-custody forms accompanied all samples from the field to the analytical laboratories. Upon receipt of the data from the analytical laboratory, a QA/QC check was completed comparing the hard copy and the electronic data to verify there were no transcription errors. The analytical laboratory was contacted to confirm results, or when necessary, to have the samples re-analyzed, where potential errors or unusual results were identified.

The electronic chemistry data underwent a visual QA/QC check for obvious errors. Data that were entered into the Project’s custom emLine™ database were double checked by a second person not involved in the initial data entry process. All data sets generated by the database and all summary tables underwent additional QA/QC screening (e.g., to confirm calculations, data entry).

The QA/QC program for the water chemistry program included the collection of field duplicates, trip blanks, and field blanks. The trip blank was a sample prepared by the analytical laboratory using distilled water and carried unopened in the field during the field program. The field blanks were samples prepared in the field using distilled water provided by the analytical laboratory. The field blanks were treated identically to the field-collected samples with respect to preservation, storage and analysis. Data Quality Assessment Data quality in the water quality sampling program was assessed using the results of the field duplicates, field blanks, and trip blanks. To assess the variability between field duplicates, the relative percent difference (RPD1) was calculated. If, RPDs were greater than 20% for a particular parameter and the average concentration was greater than five times the detection limit, then the results of that parameter were further examined to identify the potential reasons for the higher observed variability. If detected concentrations in the trip or field blanks were higher than five times the detection limit, then the results of that parameter, within that batch of samples, were further examined to identify potential cause(s) of contamination.

Data quality in the sediment sampling program was assessed using the results of field duplicates. As with water quality, variability between duplicates was assessed with RPDs. If RPDs were greater than 20% for a particular

1 Relative percent difference is the absolute difference between duplicate values divided by the average of two duplicates.

March 2015 Project No. 12-1362-0197 1/2 APPENDIX III.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results for Surface Water Quality Baseline Study

parameter and the average concentration was more than five times the detection limit, then the results of that parameter were further examined to identify the potential reasons for the higher observed variability. Water Quality Data Assessment Three sets of duplicate samples were collected during the baseline program (Appendix Table III.4-1). The RPDs for most parameters were below 20% or had average concentrations that were less than five times the detection limit. The exceptions to this were: chlorophyll a and cation-anion balance. The RPD for chlorophyll a in the spring of 2013 was 42.1%. The RPDs for cation-anion balance in the set of duplicates collected during the spring and summer sampling sessions was 150% and 37.5%, respectively. Cation-anion balance is a calculated parameter and does not have an analytical detection limit associated with it.

Three field and three trip blanks were analyzed in the baseline program (Appendix Table III.4-1). Concentrations of all parameters measured in the three trip blanks and two of the field blanks were below detection limits or detected at less than five times the detection limit. In a single field blank that was prepared during the summer field trip (July 26, 2013), concentrations of total copper, lead, and sodium, and dissolved copper and lead were detected at concentrations greater than five times the detection limit. It is anticipated that the metals concentrations were a result of the analytical laboratory providing distilled water in bottles that were not certified free of metals (Morgan 2013 pers. comm.). As the bottles provided for analysis of metals were certified free of metals, the concentrations reported in the trip blank are unlikely to affect interpretation of the data. Sediment Quality Data Assessment One set of duplicate samples was collected during the baseline program (Appendix Table III.4-2). In general, there was little variability between the set of field duplicates. The RPDs for all parameters measured was below 20%, with the exception of a single particle size parameter. The values for percent coarse sand had an RPD of 20.7%. The reason for this variation is not known.

c:\users\jboehr\documents\sharepoint drafts\appendix iii.4 quality assurance quality control results for surface water quality baseline study.docx

March 2015 Project No. 12-1362-0197 2/2 APPENDIX III.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results for Surface Water Quality Baseline Study

TABLES

March 2015 Project No. 12-1362-0197 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.4-1 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Samples for Water Quality Samples, 2013 Waterbody Loon Creek Sample Blanks Station ID LNC WQ01 LNC WQ01 LNC WQ01 LNC WQ01 WLC03 WQ01 WLC03 WQ01 YAN13FWLC03 YAN13PLNCWQ01 DUPLICATE A Sample ID Units Detection Limit YAN13ULNCWQ01 DUP A WQ01 DUPLICATE FIELD BLANK TRIP BLANK TRIP BLANK FIELD BLANK FIELD BLANK TRIP BLANK RPD RPD RPD Date Sampled 08‐MAY‐13 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 25‐JUL‐13 18-OCT-13 - 08‐MAY‐13 8‐May‐13 26‐JUL‐13 26‐JUL‐13 18‐OCT‐13 18‐Oct‐13 Time Sampled 11:00 11:00 09:09 09:09 11:30 - 12:00 ‐‐ 10:45 09:15 ‐ ALS Sample ID L1299391‐3 L1299391‐4 L1338844‐7 L1338844‐6 L1380306-8 L1380306-6 L1299391‐5 L1299391‐9 L1338844‐9 L1338844‐10 L1380306‐13 L1380306‐4 Conventional Parameters Conductivity uS/cm 10 1070 1070 0.0 753 756 0.4 1820 1820 0.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 pH pH 0.10 8.4 8.38 0.2 9.05 9.06 0.1 8.73 8.73 0.0 6.55 7.05 6.48 5.61 5.91 6.07 Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 20 369 361 2.2 274 273 0.4 402 403 0.1 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 TDS (Calculated) mg/L ‐ 741 729 1.6 511 523 2.3 1240 1250 0.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 1.0 627 612 2.4 439 438 0.2 896 912 0.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.0 <5.0 5.7 6.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Ions and Nutrients Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) mg/L 20 369 361 2.2 274 273 0.4 402 403 0.1 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Ammonia, Total (as N) mg/L 0.050 <0.050 0.06 18.2 <0.050 <0.050 0.0 <0.050 <0.050 0.0 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Bicarbonate (HCO3) mg/L 20 418 412 1.4 199 200 0.5 377 371 0.8 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Carbonate (CO3) mg/L 10 15.6 14.1 10.1 66.2 65.5 1.1 55.9 59.3 3.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Chloride (Cl) mg/L 1.0 to 2.0 9.7 9.6 1.0 8.9 9.3 4.4 30.5 31.2 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Fluoride (F) mg/L 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.0 <0.10 <0.10 0.0 0.10 0.10 0.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Hydroxide (OH) mg/L 10 <10 <10 0.0 <10 <10 0.0 <10 <10 0.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Nitrate+Nitrite‐N mg/L 0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.0 <0.50 <0.50 0.0 <0.50 <0.50 0.0 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nitrate‐N mg/L 0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.0 <0.50 <0.50 0.0 <0.50 <0.50 0.0 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nitrite‐N mg/L 0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.0 <0.050 <0.050 0.0 <0.050 <0.050 0.0 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.20 1.87 1.71 8.9 1.63 1.55 5.0 2.74 2.61 2.4 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Orthophosphate‐Dissolved (as P) mg/L 0.050 0.05 0.051 2.0 <0.050 <0.050 0.0 <0.050 <0.050 0.0 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Phosphorus (P)‐Total mg/L 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.0 <0.20 <0.20 0.0 <0.20 <0.20 0.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Cation ‐ Anion Balance % ‐ 0.7 0.1 150.0 3.8 2.6 37.5 ‐0.9 ‐0.7 12.5 Low TDS Low TDS Low TDS Low TDS Low TDS Low TDS Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L 1.0 19.6 19.2 2.1 21.0 20.8 1.0 33.6 33.7 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 1.0 20.3 19.1 6.1 22.9 22.3 2.7 33.5 33.6 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Total Metals Aluminum (Al)‐Total mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 0.0182 0.0177 2.8 0.0076 0.0160 71.2 0.017 0.026 20.9 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Antimony (Sb)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00021 0.00021 0.0 0.00019 0.00021 10.0 0.00024 0.00021 6.7 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Arsenic (As)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00289 0.00279 3.5 0.00289 0.00285 1.4 0.00361 0.00340 3.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Barium (Ba)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0759 0.074 2.5 0.0367 0.0369 0.5 0.0330 0.0304 4.1 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Beryllium (Be)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Bismuth (Bi)‐Total mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00040 <0.00040 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 Boron (B)‐Total mg/L 0.010 to 0.020 0.046 0.048 4.3 0.071 0.078 9.4 0.072 0.067 3.6 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.022 <0.010 <0.010 Cadmium (Cd)‐Total mg/L 0.000010 to 0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 0.0 <0.000010 <0.000010 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 Calcium (Ca)‐Total mg/L 0.10 to 0.20 83.9 89.8 6.8 34.4 40.1 15.3 47.0 42.1 5.5 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Chromium (Cr)‐Total mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00040 <0.00040 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 Cobalt (Co)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00031 0.0003 3.3 0.00021 0.00022 4.7 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Copper (Cu)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00091 0.0009 1.1 0.00064 0.00071 10.4 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 0.0108 <0.00050 <0.00050 Iron (Fe)‐Total mg/L 0.020 to 0.040 0.133 0.129 3.1 0.025 0.037 38.7 0.042 0.048 6.7 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Lead (Pb)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.00145 <0.00010 <0.00010 Lithium (Li)‐Total mg/L 0.0020 to 0.0040 0.0479 0.0494 3.1 0.0474 0.0465 1.9 0.143 0.129 5.1 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Magnesium (Mg)‐Total mg/L 0.050 to 0.10 93.3 89.6 4.0 73.6 74.4 1.1 190 179 3.0 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Manganese (Mn)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0717 0.0679 5.4 0.0180 0.0182 1.1 0.0095 0.0091 2.2 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Mercury (Hg)‐Total mg/L 0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Molybdenum (Mo)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00476 0.00507 6.3 0.00150 0.00168 11.3 0.00348 0.00306 6.4 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Nickel (Ni)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00144 0.00146 1.4 0.00105 0.00119 12.5 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Phosphorus (P)‐Total mg/L 0.10 to 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.0 <0.10 <0.10 0.0 <0.20 <0.20 0.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Potassium (K)‐Total mg/L 0.20 to 0.40 12.2 11.8 3.3 13.7 13.7 0.0 43.4 42.5 1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Selenium (Se)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00041 0.0004 2.5 0.00041 0.00039 5.0 0.00020 0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Silicon (Si)‐Total mg/L 0.050 to 0.10 10.8 10.6 1.9 0.457 0.523 13.5 5.04 4.96 0.8 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050

Golder Associates Page 1 of 2 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.4-1 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Samples for Water Quality Samples, 2013 Waterbody Loon Creek Sample Blanks Station ID LNC WQ01 LNC WQ01 LNC WQ01 LNC WQ01 WLC03 WQ01 WLC03 WQ01 YAN13FWLC03 YAN13PLNCWQ01 DUPLICATE A Sample ID Units Detection Limit YAN13ULNCWQ01 DUP A WQ01 DUPLICATE FIELD BLANK TRIP BLANK TRIP BLANK FIELD BLANK FIELD BLANK TRIP BLANK RPD RPD RPD Date Sampled 08‐MAY‐13 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 25‐JUL‐13 18-OCT-13 - 08‐MAY‐13 8‐May‐13 26‐JUL‐13 26‐JUL‐13 18‐OCT‐13 18‐Oct‐13 Time Sampled 11:00 11:00 09:09 09:09 11:30 - 12:00 ‐‐ 10:45 09:15 ‐ ALS Sample ID L1299391‐3 L1299391‐4 L1338844‐7 L1338844‐6 L1380306-8 L1380306-6 L1299391‐5 L1299391‐9 L1338844‐9 L1338844‐10 L1380306‐13 L1380306‐4 Silver (Ag)‐Total mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000040 <0.000040 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Sodium (Na)‐Total mg/L 0.20 to 0.40 21.6 20.7 4.3 21.2 21.6 1.9 58.2 55.2 2.6 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 1.63 <0.20 <0.20 Strontium (Sr)‐Total mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 0.274 0.284 3.6 0.174 0.190 8.8 0.165 0.145 6.5 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 Thallium (Tl)‐Total mg/L 0.000050 to 0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 0.0 <0.000050 <0.000050 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 Tin (Sn)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Titanium (Ti)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00124 0.00085 37.3 <0.00050 0.00063 0.0 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Uranium (U)‐Total mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 0.00675 0.00702 3.9 0.000820 0.000938 13.4 0.00433 0.00381 6.4 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Vanadium (V)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00243 0.00249 2.4 0.00101 0.00102 1.0 0.00118 0.00118 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Zinc (Zn)‐Total mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0 <0.010 <0.010 0.0 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0074 <0.0050 <0.0050 Dissolved Metals Aluminum (Al)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0 <0.010 <0.010 0.0 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Antimony (Sb)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00023 0.00022 4.4 0.00018 0.00019 5.4 <0.00020 0.00021 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Arsenic (As)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00288 0.00281 2.5 0.00289 0.00270 6.8 0.00367 0.00372 0.7 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Barium (Ba)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0728 0.0730 0.3 0.0366 0.0338 8.0 0.0330 0.0321 1.4 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Beryllium (Be)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Bismuth (Bi)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00040 <0.00040 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 Boron (B)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.010 to 0.020 0.047 0.050 6.2 0.067 0.070 4.4 0.068 0.070 1.4 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.021 <0.010 <0.010 Cadmium (Cd)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000010 to 0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 0.0 <0.000010 <0.000010 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 Calcium (Ca) mg/L 1.0 to 2.0 88.1 86.8 1.5 37.5 37.2 0.8 42.4 43.2 0.9 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 Chromium (Cr)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00040 <0.00040 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 Cobalt (Co)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00026 0.00027 3.8 0.00019 0.00019 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Copper (Cu)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00063 0.00064 1.6 0.00063 0.00073 14.7 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 0.0103 <0.00050 <0.00050 Iron (Fe)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.020 to 0.040 0.026 0.028 7.4 <0.020 <0.020 0.0 <0.040 <0.040 0.0 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Lead (Pb)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.00128 <0.00010 <0.00010 Lithium (Li)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.0020 to 0.0040 0.0520 0.0536 3.0 0.0493 0.0517 4.8 0.138 0.142 1.4 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 1.0 to 2.0 98.9 95.9 3.1 83.9 83.9 0.0 216 217 0.2 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 Manganese (Mn)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0106 0.0108 1.9 0.00275 0.00289 5.0 0.0053 0.0058 4.5 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Mercury (Hg)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Molybdenum (Mo)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 0.00488 0.00504 3.2 0.00136 0.00141 3.6 0.00314 0.00323 1.4 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 Nickel (Ni)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00132 0.00139 5.2 0.00106 0.00120 12.4 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Phosphorus (P)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.10 to 0.20 <0.10 <0.10 0.0 <0.10 <0.10 0.0 <0.20 <0.20 0.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Phosphorus, Total Dissolved mg/L 0.20 0.25 0.23 8.3 <0.20 <0.20 0.0 <0.20 <0.20 0.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Potassium (K) mg/L 1.0 12.1 11.8 2.5 14.8 15.3 3.3 45.9 45.7 0.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Selenium (Se)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00041 0.00040 2.5 0.00035 0.00036 2.8 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Silicon (Si)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.050 to 0.10 10.9 10.7 1.9 0.434 0.429 1.2 5.17 4.98 1.9 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Silver (Ag)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 0.0 <0.000040 <0.000040 0.0 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Sodium (Na) mg/L 2.0 to 4.0 22.6 21.8 3.6 23.2 23.9 3.0 61.5 62.4 0.7 <2.0 <2.0 <4.0 <4.0 <2.0 <2.0 Strontium (Sr)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 0.312 0.318 1.9 0.170 0.175 2.9 0.153 0.154 0.3 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 Sulfur (as SO4) mg/L 3.0 to 5.0 288 286 0.7 178 190 6.5 627 638 0.9 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 <3.0 <3.0 Thallium (Tl)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000050 to 0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 0.0 <0.000050 <0.000050 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 Tin (Sn)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Titanium (Ti)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 <0.00050 <0.00050 0.0 <0.00050 <0.00050 0.0 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 Uranium (U)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 0.00693 0.00712 2.7 0.000810 0.000825 1.8 0.00384 0.00415 3.9 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Vanadium (V)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00231 0.00226 2.2 0.00099 0.00091 8.4 0.00116 0.00116 0.0 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 Zinc (Zn)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0 <0.010 <0.010 0.0 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Organic Parameters Chlorophyll a ug/L 0.10 11.9 7.76 42.1 1.24 1.35 8.5 1.98 1.84 3.7 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Note: RPDs that exceeded 20% with values greater than 5 times the detection limit are highlighted in yellow. RPDs that exceeded 50% with values greater than 5 times the detection limit are highlighted in orange. Sample blank values that exceeded 5 times the detection limit are in bold type. RPDs with values that exceeded 20% that were lower than 20% are underlined. ID = identification; DL = detection limit; RPD =relative percent difference; "‐" = not available / not applicable; % = percent; mg/L = milligrams per litre;°C = degrees Celsius; µS/cm microSiemens per centimetre; < = less than; µg/L = micrograms per litre.

Golder Associates Page 2 of 2 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.4-2 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Samples for Sediment Quality Samples, 2013 SEDIMENT YAN13FLNCSD01 Sample ID Detection DUPLICATE Units RPD Date Sampled Limits 18-OCT-13 18-OCT-13 ALS Sample ID L1380306-9 L1380306-10 Physical Tests % Moisture % 0.10 69.7 67.9 1.3 Particle Size % Gravel (>2mm) % 0.10 1.74 2.51 18.1 % Course Sand (2.0mm - 0.2mm % 0.10 9.26 14.1 20.7 % Fine Sand (0.2mm - 0.063mm) % 0.10 10.7 12.5 7.8 % Silt (0.063mm - 4um) % 0.10 57.3 51.7 5.1 % Clay (<4um) % 0.10 21.0 19.1 4.7 Texture - - Silt loam Silt loam - Anions and Nutrients mg/kg 50 936 901 1.9 Phosphorus (P) Total Nitrogen % 0.020 0.709 0.656 3.9 Organic / Inorganic Carbon CaCO3 Equivalent %- 19.3 18.9 1.0 Inorganic Carbon % 0.10 2.32 2.27 1.1 Total Carbon by Combustion % 0.1 10.1 9.5 3.1 Total Organic Carbon % 0.10 7.75 7.27 3.2 Metals Aluminum (Al) mg/kg 50 8210 8240 0.2 Antimony (Sb) mg/kg 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.0 Arsenic (As) mg/kg 0.10 2.56 2.55 0.2 Barium (Ba) mg/kg 1.0 141 153 4.1 Beryllium (Be) mg/kg 0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.0 Bismuth (Bi) mg/kg 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.0 Cadmium (Cd) mg/kg 0.10 0.39 0.41 2.5 Calcium (Ca) mg/kg 100 72500 71900 0.4 Chromium (Cr) mg/kg 0.50 14.4 14.6 0.7 Cobalt (Co) mg/kg 1.0 4.4 4.4 0.0 Copper (Cu) mg/kg 1.0 12.6 12.6 0.0 Iron (Fe) mg/kg 50 11900 11800 0.4 Lead (Pb) mg/kg 1.0 5.6 5.7 0.9 Lithium (Li) mg/kg 2.0 10.1 9.5 3.1 Magnesium (Mg) mg/kg 100 13200 13400 0.8 Manganese (Mn) mg/kg 1.0 629 656 2.1 Mercury (Hg) mg/kg 0.0050 to 0.025 0.031 0.028 5.1 Molybdenum (Mo) mg/kg 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.0 Nickel (Ni) mg/kg 1.0 12.0 12.6 2.4 Potassium (K) mg/kg 100 2040 2030 0.2 Selenium (Se) mg/kg 0.20 1.01 0.95 3.1 Silver (Ag) mg/kg 0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.0 Sodium (Na) mg/kg 100 260 260 0.0 Strontium (Sr) mg/kg 1.0 125 129 1.6 Thallium (Tl) mg/kg 0.10 0.16 0.15 3.2 Tin (Sn) mg/kg 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 0.0 Titanium (Ti) mg/kg 5.0 126 150 8.7 Uranium (U) mg/kg 0.10 1.42 1.60 6.0 Vanadium (V) mg/kg 1.0 27.7 28.6 1.6 Zinc (Zn) mg/kg 5.0 68.7 68.8 0.1 Notes: RPDs that exceeded 20% with values greater than 5 times the detection limit are in bold text. ID = identification; DL = detection limit; RPD =relative percent difference; "‐" = not available / not applicable; % = percent; < = less than; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; mm= millimetre; µm = micrometre.

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

APPENDIX III.5 Surface Water Quality Baseline Study Database Tables

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C February 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.5-1: Water Quality in Waterbodies and Watercourses of the Surface Water Quality Baseline Study Area, 2013 Waterbody Loon Creek East Loon Creek West Loon Creek 005 011 Station ID LNC WQ01 ELC WQ01 ELC WQ04 WLC WQ03 WLC WQ04 WLC WQ07 005 WQ005 011 WQ011 Sample ID YAN13PLNCWQ01 YAN13ULNCWQ01 YAN13FLNCWQ01 YAN13PELCWQ01 YAN13UELCWQ04 YAN13PWLCWQ03 YAN13UWLCWQ03 YAN13FWLC03WQ01 YAN13UWLCWQ04 YAN13PWLCWQ07 YAN13UWLCWQ07 YAN13FWLC07WQ01 YAN13P005WQ005 YAN13U005WQ05 YAN13F005WQ01 YAN13P011WQ011 YAN13U011WQ011 YAN13F011WQ01 Units Detection Limit Date Sampled 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 18‐OCT‐13 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 18‐OCT‐13 25‐JUL‐13 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 18‐OCT‐13 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 18‐OCT‐13 08‐MAY‐13 25‐JUL‐13 18‐OCT‐13

Time Sampled 11:00 09:09 10:08 12:45 12:30 13:20 10:39 11:30 11:29 14:15 17:23 13:40 14:50 15:00 12:05 16:00 13:10 15:15 ALS Sample ID L1299391‐3 L1338844‐7 L1380306‐14 L1299391‐1 L1338844‐4 L1299391‐2 L1338844‐8 L1380306‐8 L1338844‐3 L1299391‐7 L1338844‐1 L1380306‐2 L1299391‐8 L1338844‐2 L1380306‐5 L1299391‐6 L1338844‐5 L1380306‐1 Conventional Parameters Tamperature (field) °C 0.1 11.54 19.1 4.13 10.28 18.99 9.83 19.57 5.09 18.05 16.17 21.12 6.46 10.44 21.81 8.05 11.01 19.27 6.04 pH (field) pH 0.10 8.46 9.28 9.30 8.08 8.93 8.02 9.51 8.91 8.03 8.21 8.60 8.62 8.64 9.37 9.33 8.02 9.36 8.74 Dissolved Oxygen (field) mg/l 0.01 11.51 8.98 6.11 7.03 15.30 6.26 7.89 12.49 5.33 11.70 12.72 10.59 9.22 11.72 14.72 2.33 3.01 11.52 Conductivity (field) µS/cm 1 1048 750 945 957 2015 942 1282 1749 1115 1379 1336 1673 1566 1902 2188 1102 1459 1967 Conductivity (lab) µS/cm 10 1070 753 1020 892 2090 972 1290 1820 1120 1420 1370 1740 1610 1930 2290 1130 1450 2030 pH (lab) pH 0.10 8.40 9.05 9.09 7.89 9.05 8.07 9.29 8.73 7.98 8.23 8.33 8.36 8.56 9.18 9.21 7.88 9.50 8.64 Turbidity (field) NTU 0.01 2.93 1.65 4.62 0.95 9.10 3.69 7.64 2.11 2.60 5.04 7.50 26.77 6.68 42.90 154 84.40 15.16 2.00 Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 20 369 274 397 174 359 232 271 402 383 315 355 543 519 658 681 306 305 415 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L ‐ 627 439 525 444 1230 486 708 896 613 853 837 935 765 1000 998 544 772 948 TDS (Calculated) mg/L ‐ 741 511 640 610 1690 645 958 1240 756 1060 1010 1140 1120 1470 1630 753 1120 1390 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 5.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.7 <5.0 25.0 <5.0 13.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 16.2 39.7 12.7 38.3 136.0 12.9 13.4 <5.0 Ions and Nutrients Ammonia, Total (as N) mg/L 0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.060 0.101 0.635 0.059 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.054 <0.050 0.448 0.086 0.095 3.90 0.052 0.057 Bicarbonate (HCO3) mg/L 20 418 199 237 212 240 283 137 377 468 384 424 636 528 395 379 373 104 436 Carbonate (CO3) mg/L 10 15.6 66.2 122.0 <10 97.3 <10 95.2 55.9 <10 <10 <10 13 51.7 201 222 <10 131 34.6 Chloride (Cl) mg/L 1.0 to 2.0 9.7 8.9 12.9 6.6 15.3 14.6 22.6 30.5 12.3 16.6 18.7 27.5 41.6 26.9 35.7 16.4 27.9 35.7 Fluoride (F) mg/L 0.10 0.15 <0.10 0.15 0.12 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.14 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Hydroxide (OH) mg/L 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Nitrate+Nitrite‐N mg/L 0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nitrate‐N mg/L 0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nitrite‐N mg/L 0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.20 1.87 1.63 2.01 1.67 4.98 2.53 2.35 2.74 1.77 1.47 1.37 3.72 2.62 6.67 11.6 4.03 2.22 2.67 Orthophosphate‐Dissolved (as P) mg/L 0.050 0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.404 <0.050 0.148 <0.050 <0.050 0.160 0.167 <0.050 <0.050 0.279 0.242 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Phosphorus (P)‐Total mg/L 0.20 0.25 <0.20 <0.20 0.61 0.22 0.38 <0.20 <0.20 0.28 0.36 <0.20 0.31 0.78 0.82 1.08 0.29 <0.20 <0.20 Cation ‐ Anion Balance % ‐ 0.7 3.8 ‐0.6 1.2 3.4 ‐0.2 0.7 ‐0.9 0.1 2.2 3.4 0.3 ‐2.2 0.5 ‐0.9 ‐0.6 1.0 0.3 Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L 1.0 19.6 21.0 27.3 18.9 50.3 19.1 26.4 33.6 21.5 19.3 17.5 32.5 23.8 41.0 56.3 16.5 26.0 30.4 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 1.0 20.3 22.9 27.8 19.1 51.1 20.0 28.9 33.5 23.0 19.7 18.1 38.3 24.5 42.1 96.8 18.7 26.0 30.6 Total Metals Aluminum (Al)‐Total mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 0.0182 0.0076 0.0935 0.0833 0.248 0.0162 0.0143 0.0170 0.0402 0.0193 0.141 0.412 0.015 0.208 0.130 0.0548 0.0943 0.0430 Antimony (Sb)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00021 0.00019 0.00026 0.00026 0.00029 0.00027 0.00029 0.00024 0.00022 0.00021 0.00015 0.00024 <0.00020 0.00037 0.00034 0.00026 0.00034 0.00022 Arsenic (As)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00289 0.00289 0.00351 0.00496 0.00356 0.00419 0.00364 0.00361 0.00359 0.00315 0.00230 0.00445 0.00257 0.00721 0.00877 0.00536 0.00442 0.00396 Barium (Ba)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0759 0.0367 0.0516 0.0477 0.0402 0.0379 0.0182 0.0330 0.0529 0.0602 0.0580 0.1210 0.106 0.114 0.143 0.0417 0.0172 0.0391 Beryllium (Be)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 Bismuth (Bi)‐Total mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 Boron (B)‐Total mg/L 0.010 to 0.020 0.046 0.071 0.089 0.051 0.027 0.048 0.058 0.072 0.097 0.053 0.042 <0.020 0.044 0.092 0.139 0.068 0.091 0.124 Cadmium (Cd)‐Total mg/L 0.000010 to 0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 0.000029 0.000028 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000020 <0.000010 0.000011 0.000014 0.000028 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000020 Calcium (Ca)‐Total mg/L 0.10 to 0.20 83.9 34.4 37.9 82.6 47.4 44.1 23.0 47.0 77.2 139 113 111 63.0 53.3 30.1 41.2 20.0 37.1 Chromium (Cr)‐Total mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0002 0.00030 0.00042 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.00027 0.00063 <0.00040 0.00041 <0.00040 <0.00020 0.00022 <0.00040 Cobalt (Co)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00031 0.00021 0.00025 0.00035 0.00048 0.00014 0.00010 <0.00020 0.00028 0.00028 0.00032 0.00073 <0.00020 0.00045 0.00056 0.00023 0.00023 <0.00020 Copper (Cu)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00091 0.00064 0.00054 0.00295 <0.0010 0.00061 <0.00050 <0.0010 0.00054 0.00165 0.00078 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.00050 0.00055 <0.0010 Iron (Fe)‐Total mg/L 0.020 to 0.040 0.133 0.025 0.157 0.136 0.338 0.063 0.028 0.042 0.125 0.083 0.222 0.711 0.087 0.365 0.386 0.139 0.154 0.086 Lead (Pb)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.00011 0.00025 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.00015 0.00041 <0.00020 0.00026 0.00026 <0.00010 0.00013 <0.00020 Lithium (Li)‐Total mg/L 0.0020 to 0.0040 0.0479 0.0474 0.0753 0.0523 0.241 0.0555 0.0891 0.1430 0.0633 0.0675 0.0654 0.0952 0.0638 0.125 0.162 0.0652 0.0994 0.1330 Magnesium (Mg)‐Total mg/L 0.050 to 0.10 93.3 73.6 104.0 70.1 250 91.1 145 190 97.6 124 119 160 154 202 233 118 163 209 Manganese (Mn)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0717 0.0180 0.0119 0.216 0.0696 0.0621 0.0307 0.0095 0.0798 0.0515 0.0257 0.258 0.373 0.255 0.228 0.207 0.0250 0.0257 Mercury (Hg)‐Total mg/L 0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Molybdenum (Mo)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00476 0.00150 0.00190 0.00549 0.00336 0.00460 0.00188 0.00348 0.00233 0.00637 0.00106 0.00183 0.00101 0.00111 0.00120 0.00040 0.00079 0.00081 Nickel (Ni)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00144 0.00105 0.00126 0.00265 0.0025 0.00086 0.00082 <0.0010 0.00199 0.00224 0.00188 0.00280 <0.0010 0.0021 0.0024 0.00094 0.00112 <0.0010 Phosphorus (P)‐Total mg/L 0.10 to 0.20 0.14 <0.10 <0.10 0.51 <0.20 0.29 <0.10 <0.20 0.24 0.25 0.11 0.38 0.81 0.78 1.31 0.16 <0.10 <0.20 Potassium (K)‐Total mg/L 0.20 to 0.40 12.2 13.7 19.1 19.0 71.9 21.1 33.7 43.4 16.5 21.0 11.6 19.8 75.7 110 138 24.8 41.5 53.5 Selenium (Se)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00041 0.00041 0.00032 0.00154 0.00049 0.00024 0.00026 0.00020 0.00029 0.00066 0.00029 0.00028 0.00048 0.00031 0.00039 0.00019 0.00019 <0.00020 Silicon (Si)‐Total mg/L 0.050 to 0.10 10.8 0.457 0.364 12.1 21.0 5.31 0.478 5.040 3.67 11.3 6.51 10.20 10.2 12.5 15.3 6.25 0.931 0.900 Silver (Ag)‐Total mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 <0.000040 <0.000040 <0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 Sodium (Na)‐Total mg/L 0.20 to 0.40 21.6 21.2 28.2 33.0 80.6 25.3 42.5 58.2 26.9 27.9 31.3 45.0 61.1 86.3 109 41.2 69.2 87.8 Strontium (Sr)‐Total mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 0.274 0.174 0.196 0.199 0.140 0.184 0.0754 0.1650 0.285 0.391 0.385 0.382 0.228 0.223 0.214 0.144 0.0543 0.1340 Thallium (Tl)‐Total mg/L 0.000050 to 0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 Tin (Sn)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.00024 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 Titanium (Ti)‐Total mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00124 <0.00050 0.00307 0.00273 0.0075 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.0010 0.00149 0.00188 0.00450 0.01360 <0.0010 0.0090 0.0059 0.00211 0.00331 0.00180 Uranium (U)‐Total mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 0.00675 0.000820 0.002410 0.00560 0.00787 0.00302 0.00163 0.00433 0.00169 0.0104 0.00229 0.00399 0.00128 0.00117 0.00118 0.00196 0.00315 0.00394 Vanadium (V)‐Total mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00243 0.00101 0.00214 0.00404 0.00116 0.00094 0.00037 0.00118 0.00085 0.00244 0.00186 0.00336 0.00086 0.00228 0.00388 0.00069 0.00093 0.00071 Zinc (Zn)‐Total mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0562 0.010 <0.0050 0.0134 <0.010 0.0062 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0050 0.0081 <0.010

Golder Associates Page 1 of 2 February 2015 12-1362-0197

Time Sampled 11:00 09:09 10:08 12:45 12:30 13:20 10:39 11:30 11:29 14:15 17:23 13:40 14:50 15:00 12:05 16:00 13:10 15:15 ALS Sample ID L1299391‐3 L1338844‐7 L1380306‐14 L1299391‐1 L1338844‐4 L1299391‐2 L1338844‐8 L1380306‐8 L1338844‐3 L1299391‐7 L1338844‐1 L1380306‐2 L1299391‐8 L1338844‐2 L1380306‐5 L1299391‐6 L1338844‐5 L1380306‐1 Dissolved Metals Aluminum (Al)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 Antimony (Sb)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00023 0.00018 0.00025 0.00025 0.00035 0.00026 0.00028 <0.00020 0.00020 0.00021 0.00015 0.00023 <0.00020 0.00063 0.00041 0.00025 0.00035 0.00023 Arsenic (As)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00288 0.00289 0.00365 0.00493 0.00344 0.00424 0.00363 0.00367 0.00359 0.00315 0.00221 0.00426 0.00362 0.00701 0.00737 0.00509 0.00431 0.00390 Barium (Ba)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0728 0.0366 0.0503 0.0428 0.0355 0.0351 0.0163 0.0330 0.0527 0.0586 0.0553 0.1150 0.0910 0.107 0.123 0.0386 0.0158 0.0397 Beryllium (Be)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 Bismuth (Bi)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 Boron (B)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.010 to 0.020 0.047 0.067 0.084 0.046 0.030 0.046 0.054 0.068 0.094 0.052 0.041 <0.020 0.068 0.127 0.147 0.066 0.087 0.133 Cadmium (Cd)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000010 to 0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 0.000022 <0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000020 Calcium (Ca) mg/L 2.0 88.1 37.5 34.9 70.8 46.6 40.2 21.3 42.4 77.4 124 121 109 52.2 52.5 24.8 39.7 19.0 35.8 Chromium (Cr)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00040 Cobalt (Co)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00026 0.00019 0.00020 0.00018 0.00035 0.00012 <0.00010 <0.00020 0.00024 0.00026 0.00022 0.00046 <0.00020 0.00025 0.00030 0.00015 0.00018 <0.00020 Copper (Cu)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00063 0.00063 <0.00050 0.00239 <0.0010 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.00050 0.00109 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0124 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.0010 Iron (Fe)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.020 to 0.040 0.026 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.040 0.035 <0.020 <0.040 0.055 0.028 0.021 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 0.037 <0.020 <0.040 Lead (Pb)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.00083 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 Lithium (Li)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.0020 to 0.0040 0.0520 0.0493 0.0747 0.0501 0.244 0.0539 0.0951 0.1380 0.0655 0.0688 0.0688 0.0981 0.0996 0.133 0.173 0.0636 0.0999 0.1470 Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 2.0 98.9 83.9 118.0 64.8 271 93.7 159 216 102 132 130 172 154 212 256 108 176 226 Manganese (Mn)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.0106 0.00275 0.00248 0.0394 0.0211 0.0413 0.00895 0.00530 0.0442 0.0248 0.00869 0.04740 0.187 0.0058 0.0027 0.187 0.00745 0.02030 Mercury (Hg)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 Molybdenum (Mo)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 0.00488 0.00136 0.00173 0.00490 0.00340 0.00410 0.00179 0.00314 0.00211 0.00606 0.00098 0.00178 0.00076 0.00151 0.00128 0.00031 0.00073 0.00111 Nickel (Ni)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 0.00132 0.00106 0.00117 0.00213 0.0021 0.00082 0.00062 <0.0010 0.00190 0.00210 0.00157 0.00230 <0.0010 0.0015 0.0018 0.00076 0.00090 <0.0010 Phosphorus (P)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.10 to 0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.49 <0.20 0.19 <0.10 <0.20 0.21 0.18 <0.10 <0.20 0.31 0.40 <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.20 Phosphorus, Total Dissolved mg/L 0.20 0.25 <0.20 <0.20 0.51 <0.20 0.29 <0.20 <0.20 0.32 0.40 <0.20 <0.20 0.54 0.47 <0.20 0.22 <0.20 <0.20 Potassium (K) mg/L 1.0 12.1 14.8 19.9 18.4 73.3 21.2 34.1 45.9 19.2 22.1 13.5 20.3 73.0 108 139 24.7 42.5 54.5 Selenium (Se)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00041 0.00035 0.00031 0.00124 0.00046 0.00021 0.00022 <0.00020 0.00029 0.00065 0.00027 0.00024 <0.00020 0.00028 0.00023 0.00015 0.00018 <0.00020 Silicon (Si)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.050 to 0.10 10.9 0.434 0.076 10.5 19.3 4.94 0.397 5.170 3.52 10.9 5.93 7.94 8.64 11.7 14.6 5.88 0.685 0.790 Silver (Ag)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 <0.000040 <0.000040 <0.000040 <0.000020 <0.000020 <0.000040 Sodium (Na) mg/L 4.0 22.6 23.2 31.8 27.3 83.0 26.4 44.9 61.5 28.9 29.6 34.5 45.4 58.0 85.3 112 39.7 71.6 92.8 Strontium (Sr)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00020 to 0.00040 0.312 0.170 0.185 0.184 0.148 0.189 0.0701 0.1530 0.274 0.433 0.382 0.402 0.210 0.316 0.232 0.146 0.0535 0.1350 Sulfur (as SO4) mg/L 5.0 288 178 198 318 985 310 513 627 286 544 475 451 434 593 681 341 596 715 Thallium (Tl)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000050 to 0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.000050 <0.000050 <0.00010 Tin (Sn)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00020 Titanium (Ti)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00050 to 0.0010 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.0010 Uranium (U)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.000020 to 0.000040 0.00693 0.000810 0.002130 0.00451 0.00867 0.00290 0.00156 0.00384 0.00164 0.0103 0.00211 0.00383 0.00117 0.00162 0.00128 0.00185 0.00297 0.00383 Vanadium (V)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.00010 to 0.00020 0.00231 0.00099 0.00191 0.00370 0.00062 0.00087 0.00033 0.00116 0.00076 0.00226 0.00144 0.00211 0.00133 0.00168 0.00349 0.00045 0.00069 0.00057 Zinc (Zn)‐Dissolved mg/L 0.0050 to 0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0362 <0.010 <0.0050 0.0070 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.016 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 Organic Parameters Chlorophyll a ug/L 0.10 11.9 1.24 4.47 6.15 4.32 14.3 9.09 1.98 2.53 7.64 5.37 82.5 14.2 55.5 250 10.6 3.36 1.57 Notes: A range was provided when detection limits varied between sampling events. No values exceeded the guidelines for the protection of wildlife health. The most conservative of either CWQG for protection of agricultural water uses ‐ livestock watering (CCME 2005) or SSWQO for agricultural uses ‐ livestock watering (Saskatchewan Environment 2006) were used. Values that are in bold font indicate an exceedence of guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. The most conservative of either Canadian water quality guidelines (CWQG) for the protection of aquatic life ‐ freshwater (CCME 2013) or Saskatchewan surface water quality objectives (SSWQO) for the protection of aquatic life (Saskatchewan Environment 2006) were used. Values that are underlined indicate an exceedence of guidelines for the protection of human health. The most conservative of either Canadian drinking water quality guidelines (Health Canada 2012a) or Saskatchewan's drinking water quality standards and objectives (summarized) (Saskatchewan Environment 2002) were used. Values that are italicized indicate an exceedence of guidelines for the protection of recreational uses. The most conservative of either Canadian recreational water quality guidelines (Health Canada 2012b) or SSWQO for recreation and aesthetics (Saskatchewan Environment 2006) were used. ID = identification; DL = detection limit; µS/cm = microSiemens per centimetre; mg/L = milligrams per litre; µg/L micrograms per litre; % = percent; NTU = nephelometric turbidity units.

Golder Associates Page 2 of 2 February 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.5-2: Sediment Quality in Waterbodies and Watercourses of the Surface Water Quality Baseline Study Area, 2013 Sample ID Units Detection Limits YAN13FLNCSD01 YAN13F0115D01 YAN13FWLC03SD01 YAN13FWLC075D01 YAN13F0055D01 Date Sampled 18-OCT-13 18-OCT-13 18-OCT-13 18-OCT-13 18-OCT-13 ALS Sample ID L1380306-9 L1380306-3 L1380306-7 L1380306-11 L1380306-12 Physical Tests % Moisture % 0.10 69.7 78.4 78.4 50.2 32.4 Particle Size % Gravel (>2mm) % 0.10 1.74 0.48 1.63 2.16 8.82 % Course Sand (2.0mm - 0.2mm) % 0.10 9.26 8.44 13.7 26.5 32.5 % Fine Sand (0.2mm - 0.063mm) % 0.10 10.7 11.4 11.3 19.9 14.3 % Silt (0.063mm - 4um) % 0.10 57.3 65.4 64.4 40.7 33.9 % Clay (<4um) % 0.10 21.0 14.2 8.99 10.8 10.5 Texture -- Silt loam Silt loam Silt loam Loam Sandy loam Nutrients Phosphorus (P) mg/kg 50 936 675 936 608 526 Total Nitrogen % 0.020 0.709 0.714 1.07 0.303 0.201 Organic / Inorganic Carbon CaCO3 Equivalent %- 19.3 17.2 22.7 7.16 14.8 Inorganic Carbon % 0.10 2.32 2.07 2.73 0.86 1.77 Total Carbon by Combustion % 0.1 10.1 10.6 13.7 3.8 3.8 Total Organic Carbon % 0.10 7.75 8.48 11.0 2.95 2.05 Metals Aluminum (Al) mg/kg 50 8210 7690 3850 7280 5430 Antimony (Sb) mg/kg 0.10 0.22 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.26 Arsenic (As) mg/kg 0.10 2.56 3.55 2.93 3.31 3.37 Barium (Ba) mg/kg 1.0 141 117 103 116 91.6 Beryllium (Be) mg/kg 0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Bismuth (Bi) mg/kg 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Cadmium (Cd) mg/kg 0.10 0.39 0.32 0.25 0.32 0.26 Calcium (Ca) mg/kg 100 72500 62600 79800 31100 46900 Chromium (Cr) mg/kg 0.50 14.4 13.8 7.73 13.5 16.5 Cobalt (Co) mg/kg 1.0 4.4 5.2 2.6 4.5 4.3 Copper (Cu) mg/kg 1.0 12.6 12.5 8.4 9.4 9.0 Iron (Fe) mg/kg 50 11900 12900 7080 11800 10900 Lead (Pb) mg/kg 1.0 5.6 5.5 4.0 5.4 4.2 Lithium (Li) mg/kg 2.0 10.1 8.7 5.5 7.2 8.3 Magnesium (Mg) mg/kg 100 13200 11100 11600 6360 13400 Manganese (Mn) mg/kg 1.0 629 567 357 529 469 Mercury (Hg) mg/kg 0.0050 to 0.025 0.031 0.028 0.026 0.0139 0.0149 Molybdenum (Mo) mg/kg 1.0 <1.0 2.0 2.9 <1.0 <1.0 Nickel (Ni) mg/kg 1.0 12.0 14.6 8.3 11.9 14.5 Potassium (K) mg/kg 100 2040 2550 1710 1990 1940 Selenium (Se) mg/kg 0.20 1.01 0.72 0.92 0.43 0.25 Silver (Ag) mg/kg 0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Sodium (Na) mg/kg 100 260 500 500 170 220 Strontium (Sr) mg/kg 1.0 125 132 211 47.3 50.3 Thallium (Tl) mg/kg 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.15 Tin (Sn) mg/kg 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 Titanium (Ti) mg/kg 5.0 126 142 112 170 189 Uranium (U) mg/kg 0.10 1.42 5.06 3.78 1.11 1.14 Vanadium (V) mg/kg 1.0 27.7 28.5 15.2 25.2 23.3 Zinc (Zn) mg/kg 5.0 68.7 54.4 49.4 43.7 78.2 Notes: No values exceeded the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG)or the CCME Probable Effects Level (PEL). A range was provied when detection limits varied between sampling events.

ID = identification; DL = detection limit; RPD =relative percent difference; "-" = not available / not applicable; % = percent; < = less than; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; mm= millimetre; µm = micrometre.

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 ANNEX III SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT BASELINE REPORT

APPENDIX III.6 Fish Inventory Database Tables

March 2015 Report No. 12-1362-0197/DCN-042C March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.6-1: Yancoal Southey Project - 2013 Fishing Stations Watercourse/Waterbody Station Effort Start Date Method Easting Northing P-EF-01 Monday, June 03, 2013 543573 5645931 Backpack Electrofisher P-EF-02 Monday, June 03, 2013 543550 5645923 P-LNC-01-MT01/02 Monday, June 03, 2013 543562 5645939 Minnow Trap P-LNC-01-MT03 Monday, June 03, 2013 543551 5645946 U-LNC-01-EF-01 Monday, July 22, 2013 543551 5645942 Backpack Electrofisher Loon Creek LNC 01 U-LNC-01-EF-02 Monday, July 22, 2013 543568 5645935 U-LNC-01-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 543550 5645945 Minnow Trap U-LNC-01-MT-03/04 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 543567 5645938 F-LNC-EF01 Tuesday, October 15, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 543571 5645926 F-LNC01-MT01/02 Tuesday, October 15, 2013 543547 5645941 Minnow Trap F-LNC01-MT03/04 Tuesday, October 15, 2013 543568 5645932 P-ELC-04B-EF-01 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 543442 5658899 P-ELC-04B-MT01/02 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 543444 5658902 Minnow Trap P-ELC-04B-MT03 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 543444 5658883 East Loon Creek ELC 04 U-ELC-04B-EF-01 Monday, July 22, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 543440 5658910 U-ELC-04B-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 543440 5658872 Minnow Trap U-ELC-04B-MT-03/04 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 543445 5658884 P-WLC-03-EF-01 Monday, June 03, 2013 539357 5650916 Backpack Electrofisher P-WLC-03-EF-02 Monday, June 03, 2013 539236 5650906 P-WLC-03-MT01/02 Monday, June 03, 2013 Minnow Trap 539382 5650915 U-WLC-03-EF-01 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 539198 5650913 WLC 03 U-WLC-03-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 539336 5650918 Minnow Trap U-WLC-03-MT-03/04 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 539239 5650915 F-WLC03-EF01 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 539222 5650921 F-WLC03-MT01/02 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 539244 5650922 Minnow Trap F-WLC03-MT03/04 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 539242 5650912 P-WLC-04-EF-01 Monday, June 03, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 537026 5653853 P-WLC-04-MT01/02 Monday, June 03, 2013 Minnow Trap 536979 5653912 WLC 04 U-WLC-04-EF-01 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 536966 5653926 U-WLC-04-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 536976 5653915 Minnow Trap U-WLC-04-MT-03/04 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 536964 5653917 P-WLC-05-EF-01 Wednesday, June 05, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 535298 5656031 P-WLC-05-MT01/02 Wednesday, June 05, 2013 535263 5656042 Minnow Trap P-WLC-05-MT03/04 Wednesday, June 05, 2013 535308 5656003 WLC 05 West Loon Creek U-WLC-05-EF-01 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 535308 5656027 U-WLC-05-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 535335 5656002 Minnow Trap U-WLC-05-MT-03/04 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 535311 5656002 P-WLC-07-EF-01 Wednesday, June 05, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 531677 5665100 P-WLC-07-MT01 Wednesday, June 05, 2013 531701 5665096 P-WLC-07-MT02 Wednesday, June 05, 2013 Minnow Trap 531665 5665102 P-WLC-07-MT03 Wednesday, June 05, 2013 531619 5665073 WLC 07 U-WLC-07-EF-01 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 531957 5665214 U-WLC-07-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 531707 5665101 U-WLC-07-MT-03/04 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 531620 5665074 Minnow Trap F-WLC07-MT01/02 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 531705 5665098 F-WLC07-MT03/04 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 531641 5665094 P-WLC-09-MT01/02 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 534357 5670323 P-WLC-09-MT03/04 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 534335 5670300 U-WLC-09-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 534339 5670302 WLC 09 Minnow Trap U-WLC-09-MT-03/04 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 534341 5670314 F-WLC09-MT01/02 Thursday, October 17, 2013 534323 5670316 F-WLC09-MT03/04 Thursday, October 17, 2013 534323 5670316 P-005-EF-01 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 529644 5667015 Backpack Electrofisher P-005-EF-02 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 529699 5667025 P-005-MT01/02 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 529644 5667015 Minnow Trap P-005-MT03/04 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 529702 5667014 Waterbody 005 005 U-005-EF-01 Thursday, July 25, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 529619 5667028 U-005-MT-01/02 Thursday, July 25, 2013 529644 5667015 U-005-MT-03/04 Thursday, July 25, 2013 529702 5667014 Minnow Trap F-005-MT01/02 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 529644 5667033 F-005-MT03/04 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 529703 5667027 P-008-EF-01 Monday, June 03, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 541067 5650920 P-008-MT01/02 Monday, June 03, 2013 Minnow Trap 541077 5650927 U-008-EF-01 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 541058 5650928 Waterbody 008 008 U-008-MT-01/02 Wednesday, July 24, 2013 541076 5650923 F-008-MT01/02 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 Minnow Trap 540958 5650921 F-008-MT03/04 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 540976 5650925 F-008-EF01 Wednesday, October 16, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 540953 5650916 P-011-EF-01 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 Backpack Electrofisher 542653 5663879 P-011-MT01 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 542667 5663878 P-011-MT02 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 542623 5663879 P-011-MT03 Tuesday, June 04, 2013 542571 5663878 Waterbody 011 011 U-011-MT-01/02 Thursday, July 25, 2013 Minnow Trap 542635 5663879 U-011-MT-03/04 Thursday, July 25, 2013 542574 5663877 F-011-MT01/02 Thursday, October 17, 2013 542631 5663875 F-011-MT03/04 Thursday, October 17, 2013 542610 5663878 Notes: Location coordinates are in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection NAD 83, Zone 13. ELC = East Loon Creek; LNC = Loon Creek; WLC = West Loon Creek; P = spring; U = summer; F = fall.

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.6-2: Yancoal Southey Project Backpack Electrofishing Effort, 2013 Brook Stickleback Fathead Minnow Watercourse/Waterbody Station Code EffortStart Easting Start Northing Start Date Start Time End Date End Time Duration (seconds) # of Fish CPUE # of Fish CPUE P-EF-01 543573 5645931 6/3/2013 13:10:00 6/3/2013 13:21:00 332 0 - 0 - P-EF-02 543550 5645923 6/3/2013 13:48:00 6/3/2013 13:50:00 156 0 - 0 - Loon Creek LNC 01 U-LNC-01-EF-01 543551 5645942 7/22/2013 13:10:00 7/22/2013 13:16:00 136 2 1.47 15 11.03 U-LNC-01-EF-02 543568 5645935 7/22/2013 13:20:00 7/22/2013 13:28:00 167 5 2.99 1 0.60 F-LNC-EF01 543571 5645926 10/15/2013 14:30:00 10/15/2013 14:50:00 415 7 1.69 0 - P-ELC-04B-EF-01 543442 5658899 6/4/2013 11:46:00 6/4/2013 11:56:00 366 0 - 0 - East Loon Creek ELC 04 U-ELC-04B-EF-01 543440 5658910 7/22/2013 15:57:00 7/22/2013 16:05:00 171 0 - 0 - P-WLC-03-EF-01 539357 5650916 6/3/2013 15:36:00 6/3/2013 15:47:00 306 0 - 12 3.92 P-WLC-03-EF-02 539236 5650906 6/3/2013 16:29:00 6/3/2013 16:41:00 166 0 - 1 0.60 WLC 03 U-WLC-03-EF-01 539198 5650913 7/24/2013 13:16:00 7/24/2013 13:29:00 308 2 0.65 18 5.84 F-WLC03-EF01 539222 5650921 10/16/2013 12:10:00 10/16/2013 12:15:00 146 0 - 39 26.71 P-WLC-04-EF-01 537026 5653853 6/3/2013 17:20:00 6/3/2013 17:24:00 169 0 - 0 - West Loon Creek WLC 04 U-WLC-04-EF-01 536966 5653926 7/24/2013 14:15:00 7/24/2013 14:22:00 236 18 7.63 0 - P-WLC-05-EF-01 535298 5656031 6/5/2013 09:17:00 6/5/2013 9:24:00 179 0 - 0 - WLC 05 U-WLC-05-EF-01 535308 5656027 7/24/2013 15:51:00 7/24/2013 16:01:00 237 0 - 0 - P-WLC-07-EF-01 531677 5665100 6/5/2013 12:02:00 6/5/2013 12:17:00 509 0 - 1 0.20 WLC 07 U-WLC-07-EF-01 531957 5665214 7/24/2013 17:29:00 7/24/2013 17:35:00 185 0 - 0 - P-005-EF-01 529644 5667015 6/4/2013 16:23:00 6/4/2013 16:29:00 221 0 - 0 - Waterbody 005 005 P-005-EF-02 529699 5667025 6/4/2013 16:29:00 6/4/2013 16:34:00 221 0 - 0 - U-005-EF-01 529619 5667028 7/25/2013 16:45:00 7/25/2013 16:57:00 253 0 - 0 - P-008-EF01 541067 5650920 6/3/2013 14:54:00 6/3/2013 14:59:00 293 0 - 0 - Waterbody 008 008 U-008-EF-01 541058 5650928 7/24/2013 12:51:00 7/24/2013 12:57:00 147 0 - 0 - F-008-EF01 540953 5650916 10/16/2013 11:04:00 10/16/2013 11:08:00 148 0 - 0 - Waterbody 011 011 P-011-EF-01 542653 5663879 6/4/2013 12:48:00 6/4/2013 12:55:00 308 0 - 0 - Notes: # = number; CPUE = catch-per-unit-effort (number of fish captured per 100 seconds of active electrofishing) ELC = East Loon Creek; LNC = Loon Creek; WLC = West Loon Creek; P = spring; U = summer; F = fall. Location coordinates are in Universal Transverse mercator (UTM), projection NAD 83, Zone 13.

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1 March 2015 12-1362-0197

Table III.6-3: Yancoal Southey Project Minnow Trapping Effort, 2013 Brook Stickleback Fathead Minnow Watercourse/Waterbody Station Code EffortEasting Northing Start Date Start Time End Date End Time Duration (hours) # of Fish CPUE # of Fish CPUE P-LNC-01-MT01/02 543562 5645939 6/3/2013 13:29:00 6/4/2013 8:50:00 38.70 2 0.05 17 0.44 P-LNC-01-MT03 543551 5645946 6/3/2013 13:45:00 6/4/2013 8:50:00 19.08 0 - 28 1.47 U-LNC-01-MT-01/02 543550 5645945 7/24/2013 09:33:00 7/25/2013 8:59:00 46.87 1 0.02 1 0.02 Loon Creek LNC 01 U-LNC-01-MT-03/04 543567 5645938 7/24/2013 09:33:00 7/25/2013 8:59:00 46.87 3 0.06 3 0.06 F-LNC01-MT01/02 543547 5645941 10/15/2013 14:00:00 10/16/2013 8:50:00 37.67 24 0.64 301 7.99 F-LNC01-MT03/04 543568 5645932 10/15/2013 14:05:00 10/16/2013 8:50:00 37.50 7 0.19 507 13.52 P-ELC-04B-MT01/02 543444 5658902 6/4/2013 11:19:00 6/5/2013 14:30:00 54.37 0 - 0 - P-ELC-04B-MT03 543444 5658883 6/4/2013 11:20:00 6/5/2013 14:30:00 27.17 0 - 0 - East Loon Creek ELC 04 U-ELC-04B-MT-01/02 543440 5658872 7/24/2013 11:17:00 7/25/2013 12:19:00 50.07 0 - 0 - U-ELC-04B-MT-03/04 543445 5658884 7/24/2013 11:17:00 7/25/2013 12:19:00 50.07 0 - 0 - P-WLC-03-MT01/02 539382 5650915 6/3/2013 15:31:00 6/4/2013 10:08:00 37.23 0 - 0 - U-WLC-03-MT-01/02 539336 5650918 7/24/2013 10:25:00 7/25/2013 10:38:00 48.43 0 - 0 - WLC 03 U-WLC-03-MT-03/04 539239 5650915 7/24/2013 10:31:00 7/25/2013 10:40:00 48.30 0 - 0 - F-WLC03-MT01/02 539244 5650922 10/16/2013 11:38:00 10/17/2013 10:13:00 45.17 7 0.15 400 8.86 F-WLC03-MT03/04 539242 5650912 10/16/2013 11:43:00 10/17/2013 10:45:00 46.07 9 0.20 2 0.04 P-WLC-04-MT01/02 536979 5653912 6/3/2013 17:19:00 6/4/2013 10:22:00 34.10 0 - 0 - WLC 04 U-WLC-04-MT-01/02 536976 5653915 7/24/2013 14:13:00 7/25/2013 11:25:00 42.40 0 - 0 - U-WLC-04-MT-03/04 536964 5653917 7/24/2013 14:13:00 7/25/2013 11:25:00 42.40 3 0.07 1 0.02 P-WLC-05-MT01/02 535263 5656042 6/5/2013 09:28:00 6/6/2013 8:36:00 46.27 0 - 0 - P-WLC-05-MT03/04 535308 5656003 6/5/2013 09:33:00 6/6/2013 8:36:00 46.10 0 - 0 - WLC 05 U-WLC-05-MT-01/02 535335 5656002 7/24/2013 15:40:00 7/25/2013 14:30:00 45.67 0 - 0 - U-WLC-05-MT-03/04 535311 5656002 7/24/2013 15:40:00 7/25/2013 14:30:00 45.67 0 - 0 - West Loon Creek P-WLC-07-MT01 531701 5665096 6/5/2013 11:58:00 6/6/2013 8:59:00 21.02 0 - 0 - P-WLC-07-MT02 531665 5665102 6/5/2013 17:02:00 6/6/2013 9:00:00 15.97 0 - 0 - P-WLC-07-MT03 531619 5665073 6/5/2013 17:04:00 6/6/2013 9:02:00 15.97 0 - 4 0.25 WLC 07 U-WLC-07-MT-01/02 531707 5665101 7/24/2013 16:48:00 7/25/2013 17:07:00 48.63 0 - 0 - U-WLC-07-MT-03/04 531620 5665074 7/24/2013 16:48:00 7/25/2013 17:07:00 48.63 0 - 0 - F-WLC07-MT01/02 531705 5665098 10/16/2013 15:33:00 10/17/2013 11:44:00 40.37 0 - 69 1.71 F-WLC07-MT03/04 531641 5665094 10/16/2013 15:36:00 10/17/2013 12:33:00 41.90 0 - 348 8.31 P-WLC-09-MT01/02 534357 5670323 6/4/2013 14:08:00 6/5/2013 15:35:00 50.90 0 - 0 - P-WLC-09-MT03/04 534335 5670300 6/4/2013 14:08:00 6/5/2013 15:35:00 50.90 0 - 0 - U-WLC-09-MT-01/02 534339 5670302 7/24/2013 17:10:00 7/25/2013 14:01:00 41.70 0 - 0 - WLC 09 U-WLC-09-MT-03/04 534341 5670314 7/24/2013 17:10:00 7/25/2013 14:01:00 41.70 1 0.02 0 - F-WLC09-MT01/02 534323 5670316 10/17/2013 13:35:00 10/18/2013 14:40:00 50.17 13 0.26 81 1.61 F-WLC09-MT03/04 534323 5670316 10/17/2013 13:43:00 10/18/2013 14:40:00 49.90 17 0.34 30 0.60 P-005-MT01/02 529644 5667015 6/4/2013 16:23:00 6/5/2013 15:50:00 46.90 0 - 0 - P-005-MT03/04 529702 5667014 6/4/2013 16:29:00 6/5/2013 15:50:00 46.70 0 - 0 - U-005-MT-01/02 529644 5667015 7/25/2013 15:00:00 7/26/2013 10:34:00 39.13 0 - 0 - Waterbody 005 005 U-005-MT-03/04 529702 5667014 7/25/2013 15:00:00 7/26/2013 10:34:00 39.13 0 - 0 - F-005-MT01/02 529644 5667033 10/16/2013 15:01:00 10/17/2013 11:26:00 40.83 0 - 0 - F-005-MT03/04 529703 5667027 10/16/2013 15:03:00 10/17/2013 11:27:00 40.80 0 - 0 - P-008-MT01/02 541077 5650927 6/3/2013 14:58:00 6/4/2013 10:01:00 38.10 0 - 0 - U-008-MT-01/02 541076 5650923 7/24/2013 12:41:00 7/25/2013 10:26:00 43.50 0 - 0 - Waterbody 008 008 F-008-MT01/02 540958 5650921 10/16/2013 10:33:00 10/17/2013 9:55:00 46.73 0 - 0 - F-008-MT03/04 540976 5650925 10/16/2013 10:35:00 10/17/2013 10:00:00 46.83 0 - 0 - P-011-MT01 542667 5663878 6/4/2013 12:42:00 6/5/2013 14:44:00 26.03 0 - 0 - P-011-MT02 542623 5663879 6/4/2013 12:43:00 6/5/2013 14:44:00 26.02 0 - 0 - P-011-MT03 542571 5663878 6/4/2013 12:45:00 6/5/2013 14:44:00 25.98 0 - 0 - Waterbody 011 011 U-011-MT-01/02 542635 5663879 7/25/2013 13:10:00 7/26/2013 10:09:00 41.97 0 - 0 - U-011-MT-03/04 542574 5663877 7/25/2013 13:10:00 7/26/2013 10:09:00 41.97 0 - 0 - F-011-MT01/02 542631 5663875 10/17/2013 14:45:00 10/18/2013 15:08:00 48.77 0 - 0 - F-011-MT03/04 542610 5663878 10/17/2013 14:50:00 10/18/2013 15:10:00 48.67 0 - 0 - Notes: # = number; CPUE = catch-per-unit-effort (number of fish captured per hour) ELC = East Loon Creek; LNC = Loon Creek; WLC = West Loon Creek; P = spring; U = summer; F = fall. Location coordinates are in Universal Transverse mercator (UTM), projection NAD 83, Zone 13.

Golder Associates Page 1 of 1

Golder Associates Ltd. 1721 8th Street East Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7H 0T4 Canada T: +1 (306) 665 7989