Appendix 4.3C

REGIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – PHASE II PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT – WATER REGIME – APPENDIX 4.3C

APPENDIX 4.3C: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE HYDRAULIC IMPACTS OF THE CHURCHILL RIVER DIVERSION ON THE RAT AND BURNTWOOD RIVERS

____

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE HYDRAULIC IMPA CTS Of THE CHURCHILL RIVER DIVERSION ON THE RA TAND BURNTWOOD RIVERS Water Resources EngineerIng Power Planning DivisIon

PREPARED BY J. CRAwFORD, RENG. \Ak(Rk---’

CHECKEDBY

J. MALENCHAK,PH.D. P.ENG.

J. WEsTMAc0TT, M.Sc. P. CHANEL,M.Sc. PENG. / P. RASMUSSEN, PH.D. P.ENG. ? CONSULTANT

APPRovED BY

E,TEKLEMARIAM,M.Sc. RENG.

NOTED BY T.MILES, M.Sc. RENG. — i)iC

DATE: NOVEMBER6,2015 REPORT: PPD-1 5/10

1kManitoba Hydro

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The following is a report on simulated water levels and river flows for the Rat and Burntwood Rivers without the Churchill River Diversion. Simulated water levels and river flows are required to estimate the hydraulic impacts of the Churchill River Diversion for Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment and for other purposes including for operations and resource planning.

2. A hydraulic model was developed to simulate hydraulic conditions on the Rat and Burntwood River systems without the Churchill River Diversion. Model results were then compared against actual measured values to quantify the impacts of the Churchill River Diversion and verify the model was working correctly. Overall model performance results were good which confirmed the model is representative of conditions without the Churchill River Diversion.

The following conclusion can be made from the model results:

 The Churchill River Diversion has impacted the Rat and Burntwood River systems. The average flow on the Rat River at the site of the Notigi Control Structure has increased from 23 cms without the Churchill River Diversion to 790 cms with the Churchill River Diversion for the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2014. Prior to the Churchill River Diversion river flows followed a typical seasonal pattern with generally higher flows in the summer and lower in the winter. The Churchill River Diversion has changed the water regime of the Rat River by changing the quantity of flow, the seasonal timing of flow and the magnitude of flow fluctuations as outflows from Notigi are now set to meet the power requirements of the Manitoba Hydro system.

 The first impacts of the Churchill River Diversion on the Rat and Burntwood River Systems occurred on May 8, 1974 when the Rat River at Notigi was closed by cofferdam to allow for the construction of Notigi Control Structure. All river flows upstream of the cofferdam were closed off for a period of approximately 19 months which resulted in near zero flow and extremely low water levels downstream.

 The first diversion water began flowing from the Churchill River basin to the Rat River basin on June 2, 1976 when the rock plug at South Bay Channel was removed.

 Operation of Notigi Control Structure first began on September 1, 1976 when the flow was increased from near 0 cms to 200 cms over a 3 day period. The initial operation of Notigi was limited during the first winter of 1976/77 to 311 cms so as to not exceed maximum state of nature water levels downstream. Notigi outflows were subsequently increased to the Licence maximum of 850 cms in a series of steps beginning on May 13, 1977 and ending on August 20, 1977.

 The Churchill River Diversion has had an impact on water levels along the Burntwood River. The average water levels of Wapisu, Threepoint/Footprint, Wuskwatim, Opegano and Birchtree Lakes for the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2014 have risen by 5.7 metres, 4.8 metres, 3.1 metres, 2.3 metres and 5.6 metres respectively due to the diversion of water from the Churchill River Basin. The Churchill River Diversion has also changed the seasonal timing of water levels and increased the magnitude of water level fluctuations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………… 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………... 5 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………...... …………………. 7 HYDROLOGY ………………………………………………………………….. 8 STUDY METHOD …………………………………………………….……….. 9 MODEL VERIFICATION ………………………...... ……………….……….. 13 RESULTS………………………...... ……………….………...... 15 CONCLUSIONS………………………...... ……………...... ….……….. 24 REFERENCES………………...... ………...... ……………….……….. 27

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A –MAPS ……………………………………………………...... 29 APPENDIX B – RESULTS ………………………….....……………..…….…… 31 APPENDIX C – RATING CURVES………...... 37 APPENDIX D – MODEL VERIFICATION ...... ……………………...... 50

INTRODUCTION

The following is a report on simulated water levels and river flows for the Rat and Burntwood River systems without the Churchill River Diversion. Simulated water levels and river flows are required to estimate the hydraulic impacts of the Churchill River Diversion for Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment and for other purposes including for operations and resource planning.

The Churchill River Diversion has changed the river flow and water level regimes for Rat and Burntwood Rivers. Construction of the Churchill River Diversion began in 1972 and was completed in 1976. The project included the construction of control structures at Missi and Notigi and the excavation of a diversion channel from the South Bay of Southern Indian Lake to Isset Lake and the diversion of water into the Nelson River system via the Rat and Burntwood Rivers.

The operation of the Churchill River Diversion influences the water regime of Southern Indian Lake, the Lower Churchill River, the Rat and Burntwood Rivers and the Nelson River. However for the purposes of this report, only the Rat and Burntwood Rivers has been analyzed. Similar analysis for the Churchill and Nelson Rivers is available in separate reports entitled “An Assessment of the Hydraulic Impacts of the Churchill River Diversion on the Upper and Lower Churchill Rivers” 1, and “An Assessment of the Hydraulic Impacts of the Lake Winnipeg Regulation and the Churchill River Diversion on the Nelson River” 2.

In this study, a lake routing and water balance spreadsheet model was developed to simulate conditions without the Churchill River Diversion. The simulated results from this model were then compared against historic observations for select periods to assess the hydraulic impacts of the Churchill River Diversion on the Rat and Burntwood Rivers.

A study period from 1956 to 2014 was selected because of data availability and the relatively long time period permits maximum flexibility of data usage for Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment and other purposes. Prior to 1956, there is virtually no hydrometric data available for the Rat and Burntwood Rivers.

Model results can be used to assess trends and patterns and overall hydraulic characteristics but caution should be exercised when comparing precise day to day results because the model does not explicitly capture localized events such as heavy rain or wind nor does it simulate day to day variations in winter ice conditions that occur.

HYDROLOGY

The Churchill River originates in northern Alberta and ends at the Hudson Bay near the town of Churchill. The Churchill River has a drainage area of approximately 300,000 square kilometers. The largest lake in the basin, Reindeer Lake, is regulated by Saskpower for power production at Island Falls Generating Station.

Prior to the Churchill River Diversion, river flows exited Southern Indian Lake at Missi Falls through two natural outlets at the east end of the lake and flowed down the Lower Churchill River into the Hudson Bay.

With the Churchill River Diversion in place approximately 83% of the potential outflow at Missi Falls is diverted down the Rat and Burntwood Rivers for power production purposes on the Lower Nelson River. See map Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A. Typically, diversion outflows at Notigi Control Structure are set to maximize hydro electric power production from the Kettle, Long Spruce and Limestone Generating Stations. Missi outflows are minimized except when the Churchill and/or Nelson River are in flood and there is water surplus to the needs of the power system.

STUDY METHOD

In this study, a lake routing and water balance spreadsheet model was developed to simulate hydraulic conditions on the Burntwood River without the Churchill River Diversion. Key features of the model are: it is Excel spreadsheet based; it uses a daily time step and it covers a timeframe from June 25, 1956 to December 31, 2014. This start date was chosen because it coincides with the in service date of the Water Survey of Canada streamflow station on the Burntwood River at Thompson (06TG001) which is the major flow measurement location on the Burntwood River.

A hydraulic schematic of the model is shown in Figure 1 below. The model simulates the hydraulic conditions on the Rat and Burntwood Rivers between the site of the Notigi Control Structure and Split Lake. Natural river flows without the Churchill River Diversion are routed past the site of the Notigi Control Structure through Wapisu, Threepoint, Wuskwatim, Opegano, and Birchtree Lakes then past the City of Thompson and to the confluence where the Burntwood River meets Split Lake. Local tributary flow was added along the way to preserve the water balance and maintain hydraulic integrity. Note that this model uses a lake level routing procedure which does not consider channel routing effects or the hydraulic routing of flood waves. A further improvement to the model would be to add a channel routing algorithm but this was outside the scope of this work given time constraints and the reasonable model results using lake routing.

Work in this study consisted of the development of a Rat and Burntwood Rivers water balance model, model calibration and validation, and the comparison of historic measurements with simulated results.

As part of this analysis, consideration was also given to developing a physically based distributed hydrologic watershed model such as WATFLOOD or HEC-HMS however this option was not chosen due to the lack of measured precipitation in the basin (which is a necessary input into a hydrologic model) and the excellent model results achieved using

9 a lake routing spreadsheet model approach. In addition, Microsoft Excel is a development environment that affords good flexibility, usability and transparency.

Notigi

Burntwood River * 1.22 Threepoint

Burntwood River * 1.31 Footprint River * 1.00 Threepoint LEGEND

Lake Wuskwatim Burntwood River * 0.16 Outlet

Opegano Burntwood River * 0.06 Report Location

Lake Inflow Birchtree Burntwood River * 0.08 Manasan Groin Taylor River * 1.49 Thompson Pumphouse Odei River * 0.10 First Rapids

Split Lake Figure 1: Hydraulic Simulation Model Schematic

The model systematically routes river flows from upstream to downstream. Tributary stream flows are added along the way in order to maintain hydraulic integrity. The historical tributary flows used in this study were obtained from the Manitoba Hydro HYTIME database which uses the Water Survey of Canada Hydat Database3 as its primary source of data.

Table 1 shows the Water Survey of Canada stream flow stations that were used in the simulation. Backfilling of the Burntwood River above Leaf Rapids, Taylor River, Footprint River and Odei River stations was required because the model starts on June 25, 1956 and these stations didn’t exist then. Backfilling and estimation of unmeasured inflow was done using Manitoba Hydro’s Long Term Flow Database4 inflow estimation parameters. The Long Term Flow Database is Manitoba Hydro’s official database for system inflows and is used in both operations and resource planning. The resulting estimate of total local inflow (gauged and ungauged) into each location is summarized in Table 2.

Table 1: Water Survey of Canada Streamflow Stations WSC ID Hydrometric Station Name Drainage Area Start Date [km2] 05TE002 Burntwood River above Leaf Rapids 5 812 1/1/1977 05TG002 Taylor River near Thompson 833 6/8/1971 05TF001 Footprint River above Footprint Lake 598 5/3/1977 06TG001 Burntwood River near Thompson 3 850 6/25/1956 05TG003 Odei River near Thompson 6131 1/1/1979

Table 2: Local Inflow Estimation

Lake or Location Local Inflow Estimation Wapisu Lake Burntwood River above Leaf Rapids * 1.22 Burntwood River above Leaf Rapids * 1.31+ Threepoint Lake Footprint River above Footprint Lake * 1.00 Wuskwatim Lake Burntwood River above Leaf Rapids * 0.16 Opegano Lake Burntwood River above Leaf Rapids * 0.06 Birchtree Lake Burntwood River above Leaf Rapids * 0.08 Thompson Pumphouse Taylor River near Thompson * 1.49 First Rapids Odei River near Thompson * 0.10

Stage-storage curves were required in the model for Wapisu, Threepoint, Wuskwatim, Opegano and Birchtree Lakes (See Appendix C). The stage-storage curves were obtained from Manitoba Hydro’s HERMES5 database and were validated using shape files

obtained from the Water Survey of Canada GIS database6.

Open water stage-discharge curves were required for Wapisu, Threepoint, Wuskwatim, Opegano and Birchtree lake outlets as well as Thompson Pumphouse and First Rapids (See Appendix C). The stage-discharge curves were obtained by curve fitting measured water level with simulated outflows which were then verified using metered stream flows when they were available.

The simulation uses the inflow, lake storage and outlet rating data described above combined with water balance analysis to simulate water levels and outflows. The water balance equation for the lakes is as follows:

S(t+1) = S (t ) + I ( t) – O (t) Where: S (t+1) = Lake Storage on Day t+1 S (t) = Lake Storage on Day t I (t) = Total Lake Inflow on Day t O (t) = Total Lake Outflow on Day t

An example calculation is as follows: At the start of the simulation the Wapisu Lake

Inflow (I1) and Storage (S1) are all known. Then by assuming that the Total Outflow

(O1) is a function of the Storage (S1) the storage for the next day Storage (S2) can be calculated. This logic can then be applied recursively over and over again for the entire simulation period to simulate water levels and flows.

The model also has the ability to simulate conditions with the Churchill River Diversion in place. This is done by substituting the simulated flow at Notigi without the Churchill River Diversion with the actual measured outflow at Notigi Control Structure and routing the flow downstream. This is a useful feature because it permits the calibration of the Burntwood River with available measured water level data for Wapisu Lake, Threepoint Lake, Wuskwatim Lake, Opegano Lake and Birchtree Lake and also assisted in the development of the stage discharge curves that were described earlier.

MODEL VERIFICATION

Model results were compared against actual measured data to verify that the model was working correctly. The verification results for Threepoint/Footprint Lake and the Burntwood River at Thompson are available in Appendix D of this report. The Calibration periods for Threepoint Lake and Burntwood River at Thompson were from 1960 to 1972 and from 1958 to 1972 respectively because they have measured pre- Churchill River Diversion data. These periods are reasonable from a model verification perspective because they contain a wide range in river flows from high to low.

The model was calibrated by adjusting the winter ice performance rating curves to obtain the best fit results as determined using the standardized model test described below. The same ice performance was used for each winter. All other model parameters were fixed and were determined based on the relative physical geometry of the sub-basin such as drainage area size or lake storage. During the calibration process simulated values were compared against actual measured data and evaluated in terms of performance based on the Coefficient of Determination (r2), Volume Deviation, Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Coefficient, Mean Error and Mean Absolute Error as well as visual inspection.

Figure 2 below shows, for example, simulated and measured water levels for Threepoint Lake for the verification period from January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1972 which is prior to the Churchill River Diversion. Overall model performance results were good

which confirmed the model is representative of conditions without the Churchill River Diversion. Additional model verification results are summarized in Appendix D.

Figure 2: Threepoint/Footprint Lake Water Levels from 1960 to 1972

The R-Squared is a statistical measure of how close the measured data points are fitted to the model. An R-squared score of 1.0 typically indicates a very good fit while a score of zero indicates a very poor fit. The mean error measures the average magnitude of the errors in the model. The mean error is a zero-oriented score which means the closer the value is to zero the better. A positive mean error means the model is over predicting results while a negative error means it is under predicting. The mean absolute error measures the average magnitude of the errors in the model, without considering their direction. The mean absolute error is also zero oriented score which means lower values are better.

RESULTS The simulated and measured results for the Rat and Burntwood Rivers downstream of Notigi are summarized below and in Appendix B. This data is also available in tabular form on the Manitoba Hydro Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment SharePoint site.

Rat River Figure 3 shows simulated and measured Rat River flows at the Notigi Control Structure site for the period from 1956 to 2014. The average Rat River flow at the Notigi Control Structure site for the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2014 has increased from 23 cms without the diversion to 790 cms with the diversion.

Prior to the Churchill River Diversion river flows followed a typical seasonal pattern with generally higher flows in the summer and lower in the winter. The Churchill River Diversion has changed the quantity of flow, the seasonal timing of flow and the magnitude of flow fluctuations as outflows from Notigi are now set to meet the power requirements of the Manitoba Hydro system

Rat River Simulated and Measured Flows at Notigi Control Structure 1200

1000

800

600 Flow (cms)

400

200

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 3: Average daily Rat River flows from 1956 to 2014

Wapisu Lake Figure 4 below shows Wapisu Lake levels from 1956 to 2014. Wapisu Lake water levels are a function of prevailing inflows from the Rat River and backwater effects from Threepoint Lake. The Churchill River Diversion has increased the average water level of Wapisu Lake by approximately 5.7 metres (1978 to 2014) and it has changed the seasonal timing of water levels. The first impacts of the Churchill River Diversion occurred on May 8, 1974 when the Rat River was closed off by cofferdam to allow for construction of the Notigi Control Structure. The restriction caused low water levels on Wapisu Lake during the winter of 1974/75. Water levels increased after September 1, 1976 when Notigi control structure was first opened and outflows were increased to 200 cms. Notigi flows were increased to 850 cms the full license limit for the first time on August 20, 1977.

Wapisu Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at MH 05TF701 246

245

244

243

242

241

Water Level Water (m) 240

239

238

237

236

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 4: Daily Average Wapisu Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

Threepoint/Footprint Lake

Figure 5 below shows simulated and measured Threepoint/Footprint Lake water levels from 1956 to 2014. The Churchill River Diversion increased the average water level of Threepoint/Footprint Lake by approximately 4.8 metres (1978 to 2014) and it has changed the seasonal timing of water levels.

Threepoint/Footprint Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TF001 245.0

244.0

243.0

242.0

241.0

240.0

Water Level (m) LevelWater 239.0

238.0

237.0

236.0

235.0

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 5: Daily Average Threepoint/Footprint Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

Figure 6 shows Threepoint/Footprint Lake for a more detailed period from January 1, 1969 to December 31, 1981. The figure shows that following the closure of the Rat River at Notigi on May 8, 1974 water levels dropped and then rose sharply when Notigi outflows were increased on September 1, 1976. The figure also shows that the simulation is able to closely match measured water levels for the period from 1969 to 1973 which is prior to the construction of the Churchill River Diversion which verifies the model is able to simulate pre Churchill River Diversion hydraulic conditions.

Threepoint/Footprint Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TF001

245.00

244.00

243.00

242.00 Rat River at Notigi was closed by Cofferdam May 8, 1974 241.00 Notigi Outflows increased in Stages beginning September 1, 1976 240.00 Water Level 239.00

238.00

237.00

236.00

235.00 1/1/1969 1/1/1970 1/1/1971 1/1/1972 1/1/1973 1/1/1974 1/1/1975 1/1/1976 1/1/1977 1/1/1978 1/1/1979 1/1/1980 1/1/1981 1/1/198 Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 6: Daily Average Threepoint/Footprint Lake Water Levels from 1969 to 1981

Wuskwatim Lake Figure 7 shows simulated and measured Wuskwatim Lake water levels from 1956 to 2014. Wuskwatim Lake has been affected by the Churchill River Diversion since 1974 and the combined effects of the Churchill River Diversion and Wuskwatim Generating Station since 2012. The average water level of Wuskwatim Lake has increased by approximately 3.1 metres for the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2014. The Wuskwatim Generating Station has stabilized water levels and reduced the annual range from over 1.0 metres to approximately 0.2 metres.

Wuskwatim Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TF006 235.0

234.0

233.0

232.0 Water Level Water (m) 231.0

230.0

229.0

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 7: Daily Average Wuskwatim Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

Opegano Lake Figure 8 shows Opegano Lake water levels from 1956 to 2014. The available record of Opegano Lake water levels measurements begins in 1997 which is much shorter than the other data records. The Churchill River Diversion has increased the average water level of Opegano Lake for the period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2014 by approximately 2.3 metres and it has changed the seasonal timing of water levels and increased the magnitude of the water level fluctuations.

Opegano Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at MH 05TF707

210.0

209.5

209.0

208.5

208.0

207.5

207.0 Water Level Water (m)

206.5

206.0

205.5

205.0

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 8: Daily average Opegano Lake water levels from 1956 to 2014

Birchtree Lake Birchtree Lake water levels have been affected by both the Churchill River Diversion and the Manasan Groin Structure. The Manasan Groin Structure was constructed in 1976 to mitigate some of the effects of the Churchill River Diversion and to reduce ice induced flooding downstream. The available data presented in Figure 9 below shows the affects of both projects combined. The average water level on Birchtree Lake for the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2014 has increased by approximately 5.6 metres due to both projects combined. The projects have also altered the seasonal timing of water levels and the increased the magnitude of the water level fluctuations.

Bichtree Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TG005 199.0

198.0

197.0

196.0

195.0

194.0 Water Level (m) 193.0

192.0

191.0

190.0

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 9: Daily average Birchtree Lake water levels from 1956 to 2014

Thompson Pumphouse Burntwood River flows at Thompson Pumphouse are affected by both the operation of the Churchill River Diversion and the local tributary inflows. Figure 10 below shows that the Churchill River Diversion has increased the average Burntwood River flow for the period from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2014 from 77 cms to 873 cms. Prior to the Churchill River Diversion the Burntwood River followed a typical seasonal pattern of generally higher water flows in the summer months and lower levels during the winter. The Churchill River Diversion has increased the quantity of flows, the seasonal timing of flows and increased the magnitude of the flow fluctuations.

Burntwood River Simulated and Measured Flows at Thompson WSC 05TG001 1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Flow (cms)

600

400

200

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure 10: Daily average Burntwood River at Thompson Pumphouse from 1956 to 2014

CONCLUSIONS

A simulation model was developed to simulate water levels and river flows on the Rat and Burntwood Rivers without the Churchill River Diversion project. Model results were then compared against actual measured data prior to the Churchill River Diversion to verify that the model was working correctly. Overall model performance results were good which confirmed the model is able to simulate conditions without the Churchill River Diversion.

The following conclusion can be made from the model results:

 The first diversion water began flowing from the Churchill River basin to the Rat River basin on June 2, 1976 when the rock plug at South Bay Channel was removed.

REFERENCES

1. An Assessment of the Impacts of the Churchill River Diversion on the Upper and Lower Churchill Rivers, Manitoba Hydro. Power Planning Division, PPD 15-11, October 2015.

2. An Assessment of the Impacts of the Lake Winnipeg Regulation on the Nelson River, Manitoba Hydro. Power Planning Division, PPD 15-12, October 2015.

3. Environment Canada HYDAT Database. Retrieved from the National Water Data Archive website: http://ec.gc.ca/rhc-wsc/default.asp?lang=En&n=9018B5EC-1

4. Generation Planning Division (GPD 1990). Long Term Streamflow Data, Phase II, Stage I: Streamflow Data Extension 1968 to 1988 Period, Manitoba Hydro TM No 90/4- 1, June 29, 1990, B. Girling, Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg, Manitoba

5. Manitoba Hydro HERMES Database. Retrieved stage storage files from Energy Operations Planning.

6. Water Survey of Canada Database. Atlas of Canada 1,000,000 National Frameworks Data, Hydrology - Drainage Areas (WSC sub-sub drainage areas). Retrieved from Natural Resources Canada Database website http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan- rncan/ess-sst/30b33615-6dda-51a5-a9dd-308802714a28.html

APPENDIX A: MAPS

Missi Falls Churchill River Southern Indian Lake

Southbay Channel Churchill River

Kelsey GS Burntwood River

Notigi Thompson Nelson River

Figure A1 – Churchill, Burntwood and Nelson River Location Map

Split Lake Rat River First Rapids Burntwood River

Notigi

Thompson Footprint Lake Wapisu Lake Birchtree Lake Threepoint Lake Nelson River Opegano Lake

Wuskwatim Lake

Figure A2 –Rat and Burntwood River Location Map

APPENDIX B: RESULTS

Rat River Simulated and Measured Flows at Notigi Control Structure 1200

1000

800

600 Flow (cms)

400

200

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure B1 Rat River at Notigi river flows from 1956 to 2014

Wapisu Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at MH 05TF701 246

245

244

243

242

241

240 Water Level (m)

239

238

237

236

Simulated without CRD Measured Figure B2 Wapisu Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

32 Threepoint/Footprint Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TF001 245.0

244.0

243.0

242.0

241.0

240.0

Water Level (m) LevelWater 239.0

238.0

237.0

236.0

235.0

Simulated without CRD Measured Figure B3 – Threepoint/Footprint Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

Wuskwatim Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TF006 235.0

234.0

233.0

232.0 Water Level (m) 231.0

230.0

229.0

Simulated without CRD Measured Figure B4– Wuskwatim Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

Opegano Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at MH 05TF707

210.0

209.5

209.0

208.5

208.0

207.5

207.0 Water Level Water (m)

206.5

206.0

205.5

205.0

Simulated without CRD Measured Figure B5– Opegano Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

Birchtree Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TG005 199.0

198.0

197.0

196.0

195.0

194.0 Water Level Water (m) 193.0

192.0

191.0

190.0

Simulated without CRD and without Manasan Control Structure Measured Figure B6– Birchtree Lake Water Levels from 1956 to 2014

Burntwood River Simulated and Measured Flows at Thompson WSC 05TG001 1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Flow (cms) Flow

600

400

200

Simulated without the CRD Measured Figure B7– Burntwood River at Thompson Flows from 1956 to 2014

Burntwood River Simulated and Measured Flows at First Rapids

1200

1000

800

600 Flow (cms) Flow

400

200

0 1/1/1956 1/1/1957 1/1/1958 1/1/1959 1/1/1960 1/1/1961 1/1/1962 1/1/1963 1/1/1964 1/1/1965 1/1/1966 1/1/1967 1/1/1968 1/1/1969 1/1/1970 1/1/1971 1/1/1972 1/1/1973 1/1/1974 1/1/1975 1/1/1976 1/1/1977 1/1/1978 1/1/1979 1/1/1980 1/1/1981 1/1/1982 1/1/1983 1/1/1984 1/1/1985 1/1/1986 1/1/1987 1/1/1988 1/1/1989 1/1/1990 1/1/1991 1/1/1992 1/1/1993 1/1/1994 1/1/1995 1/1/1996 1/1/1997 1/1/1998 1/1/1999 1/1/2000 1/1/2001 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 1/1/2007 1/1/2008 1/1/2009 1/1/2010 1/1/2011 1/1/2012 1/1/2013 1/1/2014 Simulated without CRD Measured Figure B8 - Burntwood River at First Rapids from 1956 to 2014

APPENDIX C: RATING CURVES

Wapisu Lake Stage Storage Curve 247

246

245

244

243

242

241 ST = 296.5 * ( EL - 237.4 ) ^ 1.370

240 Water Level Level Water at MH 05TF701 (m) 239

238

237 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Storage Volume [cms-days]

HERMES Equation WSC Sha pe File

Figure D1 Wapisu Lake Stage Storage Curve

Wapisu Lake Open Water Stage Discharge Curve

246

245

244

243

242

241

240

239 Water Level Level MH at 05TF701(m) Water

238

237

236 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Outflow (cms)

Backwater Curves Measurements

Figure D2: Wapisu Lake Stage Discharge Curve

Threepoint/Footprint Lake Stage Storage Curve 250

248

246

244

242

ST = 572.4 * (WL - 237.13) ^ 1.3

240 Water Level Level at Water WSC 05TF001 (m)

238

236 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Storage Volume [cms-days]

HERMES Equation WSC Shape Files

Figure D3: Threepoint Lake Stage Storage Curve

40 Threepoint/Footprint Lake Open Water Stage Discharge Curve 246

245

244

243

242

241

240

Q = 35.92 * ( WL - 236.8 ) ^ 1.771 239 Water Level 05TF001 (m) WSCLevel at Water

238

237

236 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Outflow (cms)

Fitted Curve Routed Flows Measurements

Figure D4: Threepoint Lake Stage Discharge Curve

Wuskwatim Lake Stage Storage Curve 238

237

236

235

234

233 ST = 427.1065 * (EL - 229.82 ) ^ 1.4 + 9.375

232

231 Water Level Level Water at WSC 05TF006 (m)

230

229 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Storage Volume [cms-days]

2012 HERMES Wuskwatim Stage IV WSC Shape Files

Figure D5: Wuskwatim Lake Stage Storage Curve

Wuskwatim Lake Pre Wuskwatim GS Open water Stage Discharge Curve

235

234

233

232

Q = 51.54 * ( WL - 229.6 ) ^ 2

231

230 Water Level Level Water at WSC 05TF006 GSC 1969 (m)

229 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Outflow (cms)

Fitted Curve Routed Flows Measurements

Figure D6: Wuskwatim Lake Stage-Discharge Curve

Opegano Lake Stage Storage Curve 212

211

210

209

ST = 98.10 * ( EL - 207.2 ) ^ 1

208 Water Level at MH05TF707 (m) MH05TF707 at Level Water

207

206 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Storage Volume [cms-days]

HERMES Fitted Curve WSC Shape Files

Figure D7: Opegano Lake Stage Storage Curve

Opegano Lake Open Water Stage Discharge Curve

210

209

208

207 Q = 199.59 *(WL - 205.663) ^ 1.5 Water Level at MH 05TF707 (m) 05TF707MH at Level Water

206

Note: There were no water level measurements taken prior to the CRD

205 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Outflow (cms)

Fitted Curve Routed Flows Measurements

Figure D8: Opegano Lake Stage-Discharge Curve

Birchtree Lake Stage Storage Curve 202

200 )

198

196

Water Level Level Water at WSC 05TG001 (metres 194

ST = 191.7 * ( EL - 190.8 ) ^ 1

192

190 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Storage Volume [cms-days]

HERMES Fitted Curve WSC Shape Files

Figure D9: Birchtree Lake Stage-Discharge Curve

Birchtree Lake Open Water Stage Discharge Curve Prior to ManasanControl 194

193

192 Q = 181.7 * ( WL ‐ 190.8 ) ^ 1.55

191 Water Level Level Water at WSC 05TG001 (m etres)

Note: The Manasan Groin Structure Became Operational in the Fall of 1976

190 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Outflow (cms)

Measurements Fitted Curve

Figure D10: Birchtree Lake Stage Discharge Curve

Thompson Pumphouse Open Water Stage Discharge Curve

190

189

188

187

186

185

184

Water Level at 05TG001 (m Level (m 05TG001GSC at 1969 ) Water Q = 149.1 * ( WL ‐ 183.23 ) ^ 1.25

183

182 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Outflow (cms)

Fitted Curve Routed Flows Measurements

Figure D11: Thompson Pumphouse Stage Discharge Curve

Burntwood River at First Rapids Open Water Stage Discharge Curve 175

174

173

172

Q = 51.02 * ( WL - 169.5 ) ^ 2

171 Water Level Level Water at MH 05TG720 (m)

170

Note: There were no water level measurement taken prior to the CRD

169 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Outflow (cms)

Routed Flows Fitted Curve Measurements

Figure D12: Burntwood River at First Rapids Stage Discharge Curve

APPENDIX D: MODEL VERIFICATION:

50 Threepoint/Footprint Lake Simulated and Measured Water Levels at WSC 05TF001 245.00

244.00 Statistics: 243.00 R‐squared = 0.87 Mean Error = ‐0.07 Meters Mean Abs Error = 0.22 Meters 242.00

241.00

240.00

239.00 Water Level at 05TF001 (m) 05TF001 at Level Water

238.00

237.00

236.00

235.00 1/1/1960 1/1/1961 1/1/1962 1/1/1963 1/1/1964 1/1/1965 1/1/1966 1/1/1967 1/1/1968 1/1/1969 1/1/1970 1/1/1971 1/1/1972 Simulated FTPRNT_L.HG.DCP_BE.D1.R 05TF001 Figure D1: Threepoint/Footprint Lake Water Levels from 1960 to 1972

Burntwood River at Thompson Flows Simulated versus Measured Flows at WSC 05TG001 700 Statistics: Volume Deviation = ‐1.6% 600 R‐squared = 0.83 Mean Error = ‐2 cms Mean Abs Error = 27 cms

500

400

Flow (cms) Flow 300

200

100

Simulated BURNT_THMP.QO.CAL_BE.D1.R (05TG001) Metering Figure D2: Burntwood River flows at Thompson Pumphouse from 1958 to 1972