Blackrod Baseline Discipline Reports Secure

Reference EIA Baseline
Discipline Reports
for EPEA Application
Submitted as part of:

Application for Approval of the BlackPearl Resources Inc.
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project
Submitted By:
BlackPearl Resources Inc.
Calgary, Alberta
AIR QUALITY
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Air Quality
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Volume 2 - Section 3.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3.0 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Scoping the Assessment ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.3 Emission Criteria ................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.4 Ambient Air Quality Criteria................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.5 Key Issues......................................................................................................... 3-12
3.3 Approach ........................................................................................................................ 3-12
3.3.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 3-12
3.3.2 Temporal Considerations .................................................................................. 3-16
3.3.3 Substance Selection ......................................................................................... 3-17
3.3.4 Air Quality Assessment Method ........................................................................ 3-20
3.4 Project Mitigation and Regional Emissions .................................................................... 3-23
3.4.1 Project Mitigation Measures.............................................................................. 3-23
3.4.2 Project Emissions ............................................................................................. 3-24
3.4.3 Regional Emissions .......................................................................................... 3-26
3.4.4 Prediction Confidence ....................................................................................... 3-27
3.5 Overview of Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 3-30
3.5.1 Climate .............................................................................................................. 3-30
3.5.2 Meteorology ...................................................................................................... 3-31
3.5.3 Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................................... 3-34
3.6 Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 3-34
3.6.1 NO2 Concentrations .......................................................................................... 3-35
3.6.2 SO2 Concentrations .......................................................................................... 3-48
3.6.3 PM2.5 Concentrations ........................................................................................ 3-66
3.6.4 Health and Odour Related Concentrations ....................................................... 3-78
3.6.5 Acid-forming Substance Deposition .................................................................. 3-83
3.6.6 Nitrogen Substance Deposition ........................................................................ 3-91
3.6.7 Ozone Concentrations ...................................................................................... 3-97
3.6.8 Regional Visibility ............................................................................................ 3-101
3.6.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 3-105
3.7 Follow-Up and Monitoring ............................................................................................ 3-107
3.8 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 3-107
3.8.1 NO2 Concentrations ........................................................................................ 3-107
3.8.2 SO2 Concentrations ........................................................................................ 3-107
3.8.3 PM2.5 Concentrations ...................................................................................... 3-108
3.8.4 Health and Odour Related Substance Concentrations ................................... 3-108
3.8.5 Acid Forming Substance Deposition ............................................................... 3-108
3.8.6 Nitrogen Substance Deposition ...................................................................... 3-108
3.8.7 Ozone Concentrations .................................................................................... 3-108
3.8.8 Regional Visibility ............................................................................................ 3-109
3.8.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 3-109
3.8.10 Closing ............................................................................................................ 3-109
3.9 References ................................................................................................................... 3-110
Page 3-i
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 3A Source and Emission Inventory .....................................................................................3A-1
Appendix 3B Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................................................3B-1
AppendiX 3C Meteorology/CALMET ................................................................................................... 3C-1
Appendix 3D CALPUFF Dispersion Model ......................................................................................... 3D-1
Appendix 3E Project-Only Predictions ................................................................................................3E-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.2-1 Ecosystem Sensitivity to Acid Deposition ...................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3.3-1 Air Quality Model Domain, RSA and LSA ...................................................................... 3-14
Figure 3.3-2 Existing and Planned Facilities in the LSA .................................................................... 3-15
Figure 3.6-1 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ........................................................... 3-37
Figure 3.6-2 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ................................................................. 3-38
Figure 3.6-3 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (Application Case) ............................................................. 3-39
Figure 3.6-4 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................. 3-40
Figure 3.6-5 Annual NO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) .......................................................... 3-44
Figure 3.6-6 Annual NO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ................................................................ 3-45
Figure 3.6-7 Annual NO2 Concentrations (Application Case) ............................................................ 3-46
Figure 3.6-8 Annual NO2 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................ 3-47
Figure 3.6-9 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ........................................................... 3-50
Figure 3.6-10 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ................................................................. 3-51
Figure 3.6-11 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (Application Case) ............................................................. 3-52
Figure 3.6-12 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................. 3-53
Figure 3.6-13 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ......................................................... 3-56
Figure 3.6-14 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ............................................................... 3-57
Figure 3.6-15 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (Application Case) ........................................................... 3-58
Figure 3.6-16 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (PDC) ............................................................................... 3-59
Figure 3.6-17 Annual SO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ........................................................... 3-62
Figure 3.6-18 Annual SO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ................................................................ 3-63
Figure 3.6-19 Annual SO2 Concentrations (Application Case)............................................................. 3-64
Figure 3.6-20 Annual SO2 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................ 3-65
Figure 3.6-21 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ......................................................... 3-68
Figure 3.6-22 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ............................................................... 3-69
Figure 3.6-23 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Application Case) ........................................................... 3-70
Figure 3.6-24 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (PDC) ............................................................................... 3-71
Figure 3.6-25 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ....................................................... 3-74
Figure 3.6-26 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ............................................................. 3-75
Figure 3.6-27 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Application Case) ......................................................... 3-76
Figure 3.6-28 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (PDC) ............................................................................. 3-77
Figure 3.6-29 Average PAI Deposition (Existing Condition) ................................................................ 3-87
Figure 3.6-30 Average PAI Deposition (Baseline Case) ...................................................................... 3-88
Figure 3.6-31 Average PAI Deposition (Application Case) .................................................................. 3-89
Figure 3.6-32 Average PAI Deposition (PDC) ...................................................................................... 3-90
Figure 3.6-33 Average Nitrogen Deposition (Existing Condition)......................................................... 3-93
Figure 3.6-34 Average Nitrogen Deposition (Baseline Case) .............................................................. 3-94
Figure 3.6-35 Average Nitrogen Deposition (Application Case) .......................................................... 3-95
Figure 3.6-36 Average Nitrogen Deposition (PDC) .............................................................................. 3-96
Figure 3.6-37 Baseline Case and Application Case Haze Index Change .......................................... 3-104
Page 3-ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.2-1 Terms Of Reference......................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3.2-2 Provincial Air Quality Instruments .................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3.2-3 Federal Air Quality Instruments ....................................................................................... 3-7
Table 3.2-4 Regional Air Quality Instruments ..................................................................................... 3-8
Table 3.2-5 Ambient Air Quality Criteria .............................................................................................. 3-9
Table 3.2-6 AEW Critical, Target, And Monitoring PAI Deposition Load Criteria ............................. 3-10
Table 3.2-7 Key Issues – Air Quality ................................................................................................. 3-12
Table 3.3-1 Potential Substance Groups Associated With The Project ............................................ 3-17
Table 3.4-1 Project Emissions........................................................................................................... 3-26
Table 3.4-2 Existing Emissions (Model Domain) .............................................................................. 3-29
Table 3.4-3 Baseline Case Emissions (Model Domain) .................................................................... 3-29
Table 3.4-4 Application Case Emissions (Model Domain) ................................................................ 3-29
Table 3.4-5 PDC Emissions (Model Domain) ................................................................................... 3-30
Table 3.5-1 Fort Mcmurray Airport Climate Parameters (1971 To 2000) ......................................... 3-32
Table 3.5-2 Cold Lake Airport Climate Parameters (1971 To 2000)................................................. 3-33
Table 3.5-3 NO2, SO2, And PM2.5 Measurements Near Existing In-Situ Operations ........................ 3-34
Table 3.6-1 NOx Emission Rates....................................................................................................... 3-35
Table 3.6-2 Comparison Of 1-Hour (9th Highest) NO2 Concentrations ............................................. 3-36
Table 3.6-3 Comparison Of Annual No2 Concentrations .................................................................. 3-42
Table 3.6-4 SO2 Emission Rates ....................................................................................................... 3-48
Table 3.6-5 Comparison Of 1-Hour (9th Highest) SO2 Concentrations ............................................. 3-49
Table 3.6-6 Comparison Of 24-Hour (2nd Highest) SO2 Concentrations........................................... 3-55
Table 3.6-7 Comparison Of Annual SO2 Concentrations .................................................................. 3-61
Table 3.6-8 PM2.5 Emission Rates .................................................................................................... 3-66
Table 3.6-9 Comparison Of 1-Hour (9th Highest) PM2.5 Concentrations ........................................... 3-67
Table 3.6-10 Comparison Of 24-Hour (2nd Highest) PM2.5 Concentrations ........................................ 3-73
Table 3.6-11 Maximum Predicted Common Air Contaminant Concentrations For HHRA
Receptors ....................................................................................................................... 3-79
Table 3.6-12 Maximum Predicted Hydrocarbon Substance Concentrations For HHRA
Receptors ....................................................................................................................... 3-80
Table 3.6-13 Maximum Predicted Total Reduced Sulphur Substance Concentrations For
HHRA Receptors............................................................................................................ 3-82
Table 3.6-14 Maximum Predicted Trace Metals Concentrations For HHRA Receptors ..................... 3-83
Table 3.6-15 PAI Precursor NOx And SO2 Emission Rates ................................................................ 3-84
Table 3.6-16 Predicted Grid Cell Average PAI Deposition ................................................................. 3-85
Table 3.6-17 Spatial Extent Of Predicted PAI Deposition In The RSA Greater Than
Indicated Thresholds ...................................................................................................... 3-86
Table 3.6-18 Nitrogen Deposition Precursor NOx Emission Rates ..................................................... 3-91
Table 3.6-19 Spatial Extent Of Predicted Nitrogen Deposition In The RSA Greater Than
The Indicated Thresholds .............................................................................................. 3-92
Table 3.6-20 O3 Precursor NOx And VOC Emission Rates ................................................................ 3-97
Table 3.6-21 1-Hour O3 Concentration (µg/M3) Measurements ........................................................ 3-100
Table 3.6-22 Measured Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations (µg/M3) ............................................. 3-101
Table 3.6-23 Haze Precursor NOx, SO2, And PM2.5 Emission Rates ................................................ 3-102
Table 3.6-24 Estimated GHG Emissions Associated With Project Construction And
Decommissioning ......................................................................................................... 3-106
Table 3.6-25 Estimated GHG Emissions Associated With Project Operations ................................ 3-106
Table 3.6-26 GHG Emission Intensity For The Project And Other Similar Developments ............... 3-106
Table 3.6-27 National And Provincial Ghg Emissions....................................................................... 3-107
Page 3-iii
3.0 AIR QUALITY

3.1 Introduction
BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) is submitting an Integrated Application to the Alberta Energy
Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment and Water (AEW) for approval to
construct, operate and reclaim an in-situ steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) bitumen recovery
project. A comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been prepared as part of the
Integrated Application. This Section addresses Air Quality and was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd.
The proposed Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) is located on Crown land east of the
Athabasca River in Townships 76 and 77, Ranges 17 and 18, W4M, approximately 50 km northwest of
the Hamlet of Wandering River, Alberta. The Project is expected to be developed in three phases over an
estimated 30 year period with the initial phase producing 20,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) of crude bitumen
and the subsequent phases producing 30,000 bbl/d each, for a final production capacity of 80,000 bbl/d.
The proposed development will have a central processing facility (CPF) and is expected to have up to 69
well pads over the life of the Project. The Project is accessible from Highway 63 using an existing access
road.
3.2 Scoping the Assessment

3.2.1 Terms of Reference
This Air Quality Assessment is conducted according to the final Terms of Reference (TOR) issued by
AEW (2012). The complete TOR Concordance Table is provided in Volume 1. The specific requirements
for air quality are provided in Table 3.2-1. The Air Quality Assessment also considered Sections 8.0
(Mitigation Measures), 9.0 (Residual Impacts) and 10.0 (Monitoring) of the final Project TOR. Broadly
speaking, the TOR require: the identification of the control technologies to minimize emissions to the
atmosphere; the identification and quantification of emissions associated with the Project; and the
estimation of associated air quality changes expressed as ambient concentrations or depositions. This Air
Quality section responds to the TOR.
Page 3-1
TABLE 3.2-1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
2.5 Air Emissions Management
[A] Discuss the selection criteria used, options considered, and rational for selecting control technologies to minimize air emissions and for air
quality management.
[B] Provide emission profiles (type, rate and source) for the Project’s operating and construction emissions including point and non-point
sources and fugitive emissions. Consider both normal and upset conditions. Discuss:
a) odorous or visible emissions from the proposed facilities;
b) annual and total greenhouse gas emissions during all stages of the Project. Identify the primary sources and provide detailed
calculations;
c) the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of bitumen produced;
d) the Project’s contribution to total provincial and national greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis;
e) the Proponent’s overall greenhouse gas management plans;
f) the amount and nature of Criteria Air Contaminants emissions;
g) the amount and nature of acidifying emissions, probable deposition patterns and rates;
h) emergency flaring scenarios (e.g., frequency and duration) and proposed measures to ensure flaring events are minimized;
i) upset conditions scenarios (e.g., frequency and duration) and proposed measures to ensure upset conditions are minimized;
j) gas collection and conservation, and the applicability of vapour recovery technology;
k) applicability of sulphur recovery, acid gas re-injection or flue gas desulphurization to reduce sulphur emissions; and
l) fugitive emissions control technology to detect, measure and control emissions and odours from equipment leaks.
3.1.1 Baseline Information
[A] Discuss the baseline climatic and air quality conditions including:
a) the type and frequency of meteorological conditions that may results in poor air quality; and
b) appropriate ambient air quality parameters
3.1.2 Impact Assessment
[A] Identify components of the Project that will affect air quality, and:
a) describe the potential for reduced air quality (including odours and visibility) resulting from the Project and discuss any implications
of the expected air quality for environmental protection and public health;
b) estimate ground-level concentrations of appropriate air quality parameters;
c) discuss any expected changes to particulate deposition, nitrogen deposition or acidic deposition parameters;
d) identify areas that are predicted to exceed Potential Acid Input (PAI) critical loading criteria; and
e) discuss interactive effects that may occur resulting from co-exposure of a receptor to all emissions.
[D] Discuss mitigation strategies to minimize the potential impact of the Project on air quality.
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting

The Project will operate within the regulatory frameworks specified by the provincial and federal
governments. In addition, there are less formal frameworks such as the Clean Air Strategic Alliance
(CASA) on a provincial basis and the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) on a
regional basis. These can be further described as:
• Alberta Government: The Provincial Government frameworks are executed through AEW and the
ERCB. CASA is a provincial multi-stakeholder organization comprised of industry, regulator and
public representation. A list of key regulatory instruments that are applicable to air quality is provided
in Table 3.2-2.
• Federal Government: The Federal Government frameworks are executed through Environment
Canada and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). A list of key regulatory
instruments that are applicable to air quality is provided in Table 3.2-3.
Page 3-2
• Regional: A list of the regional instruments that are applicable to air quality is provided in Table 3.2-4.
AEW has proposed a draft regional management plan for the Lower Athabasca Region (LAR) that
has a regional context (AEW 2011a).
CEMA addresses the management of cumulative environmental effects of industrial developments on the
environment in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). The Wood Buffalo Environmental
Association (WBEA) addresses ambient monitoring in RMWB area. While the Project is located outside
the geographic boundary typically serviced by CEMA and WBEA, the regional instruments associated by
these two organizations have been taken into consideration.
3.2.3 Emission Criteria

Emission criteria refer to the management actions and the limits associated with the control of the
emissions from the operation of a Project. Specific to the Project, the following are viewed as being
applicable:
• Boilers, heaters, and steam generators need to meet the Emission Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines Using Gaseous Fuels Based on a Review of Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) (AEW 2007). For natural gas-fired heaters
and boilers with a capacity equal to or greater than 10.5 GJ/hr of energy input, the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) Compliance Limit is 26 g/GJ heat input (based on higher heating value) and the NOX
Performance Target is 7.9 g/GJ heat input (based on higher heating value). For natural gas-fired
turbine units, the NOX emission limit is based on the CCME (1992).
• Design requirements for flare stacks are identified in the ERCB Directive 60. A wind guard, a pilot
light, and an automatic igniter are required for each flare stack. The goal is to ensure the combustion
of all combustible gases that are released to the flare.
• All aboveground storage tanks containing liquid hydrocarbons or organic compounds need to conform
to the Guidelines for Secondary Containment for Above Ground Storage Tanks (AEW 1997) and
Environmental Guidelines for Controlling Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Aboveground Storage Tanks (CCME 1995).
3.2.4 Ambient Air Quality Criteria

Ambient air quality criteria refer to ambient concentrations and to deposition loadings. The criteria can be
expressed in terms of objectives, standards, limits, triggers, or targets depending on the source.
3.2.4.1 Ambient Concentration Criteria

Ambient air quality measurements and model predictions can be compared to ambient air quality criteria
that include the following:
• The Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) and Guidelines (AAAQG) (AEW 2011b). In
terms of model predictions, the ninth highest 1-hour average prediction is compared to the AAAQO.
Similarly, the second highest 24-hour average is compared to the 24-hour AAAQO.
• The National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQO) identify desirable and acceptable levels; with
“desirable” being the most stringent (Environment Canada 2010).
• The Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (O3; CCME 2002).
For PM2.5, the CWS refers to the 98th percentile from each year, averaged over three years. For O3,
the CWS refers to the fourth highest (99th percentile) rolling 8-hour average in each day from each
year, averaged over three years. In applying the CWS, contributions from natural events and long-
range transport can be excluded.
• The Alberta Framework Triggers for PM2.5 and O3 (AEW 2009a). These triggers are calculated in the
same manner as the CWS. Exceeding an Exceedance Trigger (E) requires a mandatory plan to
reduce levels to be less than the CWS; exceeding a Planning Trigger (P) requires planning actions to
Page 3-3
prevent future CWS exceedances; and exceeding a Surveillance Trigger (S) requires monitoring to
establish trends.
• The draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) triggers and limits for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
sulphur dioxide (SO2; AEW 2011a). AEW describes four ambient air quality levels as follows:
• Level 4, ambient NO2 or SO2 exceeds air quality limits;
• Level 3, ambient NO2 or SO2 below but approaching the air quality limits;
• Level 2, ambient NO2 or SO2 below air quality limits; and
• Level 1, ambient NO2 or SO2 well below air quality limits.
To prevent ambient concentrations from reaching the limits, the annual average ambient air quality
triggers for Level 2 and Level 3 are set as one-third and two-thirds of the respective AAAQOs. The hourly
ambient air quality triggers for Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 refer to the 99th percentile. While the need for
management action is triggered by ambient air quality monitoring, AEW proposes to refer to model
predictions for investigation and planning purposes.
The AAAQO, the AAAQG, the CWS, and the Alberta Framework triggers for PM2.5 and O3 are viewed as
being applicable anywhere in the province (outside industrial property boundaries). The LARP triggers are
applicable to the LAR as defined by AEW land use framework. The Alberta Framework triggers for PM2.5
and O3, and the LAR triggers provide an early warning component designed to preclude exceedances of
the AAAQO or CWS. As a consequence, these triggers are more applicable to measured values rather
than predicted values.
Table 3.2-5 compares the AAAQO, the AAAQG, the NAAQO, the CWS and the Alberta Framework
triggers for PM2.5 and O3, and the LARP triggers. The substances provided in the table are consistent with
the emission profile expected for the Project.
3.2.4.2 Potential Acid Input (PAI) Deposition Criteria

The deposition of acid-forming emissions on terrestrial and aquatic systems is represented by the PAI.
Predicted PAI values are compared with the AEW (2008) deposition framework loading criteria. These
criteria refer to PAI deposition averaged over a 1° longitude x 1° latitude grid cell. This grid cell
corresponds to a region that is about 64 x 112 km (i.e., about 7,168 km2). The AEW criteria are shown in
Table 3.2-6. The implications of exceeding these loads are as follows:
• Monitoring Load – If a grid cell deposition exceeds the monitoring load, then AEW requires industry
and non-industry stakeholders to discuss appropriate monitoring approaches. Monitoring loads are
set below target loads to allow sufficient time for the development of a Management Plan before
deposition levels reach target load levels.
• Target Load – If a grid cell deposition exceeds the target load, an Emission Reduction Plan has to be
developed.
• Critical Load – Critical loads identify a level of deposition that can lead to long-term harmful changes
to the environment. Should a critical load be exceeded, an Emission Reduction Plan has to be
developed and implemented on an accelerated schedule. Exceeding a critical load, however, does
not mean that environmental damage is imminent unless it is sustained over many years.
Figure 3.2-1 shows the 1° longitude x 1° latitude grid cell sensitivity in the province of Alberta (from AEW
2008). The figure also shows the grid cells that define the regional study area (RSA). Based on the
information in the figure, the Project is located in and is surrounded by grid cells that are considered
sensitive to acid inputs. These areas are classified as having a “high” sensitivity.
Although these loading criteria can be used as benchmarks on a local scale (i.e., for distance scales less
than the 1° longitude x 1° latitude grid cell), they are not intended to be applied on a local scale as
environmental objectives or for determining the acceptability of an individual project. However, values
Page 3-4
exceeding the criteria on a local scale can be used to determine the need for management options, which
could include monitoring or mitigation.
The CEMA (2004) Acid Deposition Management Framework (ADMF) is applicable to the RMWB.
Although the Project is located outside of the RMWB, the framework is considered applicable due to the
Project’s proximity to the RMWB boundary. The ADMF focuses on areas where the predicted acid
deposition is greater than the Provincial monitoring load of 0.17 keq H+/ha/a. The ADMF considers a
smaller spatial scale consisting of a floating 4 x 4 township block, which is 38.6 x 38.6 km (1,492 km2).
The ADMF criteria specify:
• a 95% level of protection for a 1° longitude x 1° latitude grid cell, allowing 5% of this area (i.e., about
360 km2) to be above critical loads; and
• a 95% level of protection for a floating 4 x 4 township block, allowing 100 km2 of the area (i.e., about
6.7%) to be above critical loads.
Critical loads vary with differing eco-system sensitivities and are specific to the geology and chemistry of
each soil series and each lake. For example, critical loads for differing soil types range from 0.4 to 1.1 keq
H+/ha/a (Golder 2010). For further discussion, see the Surface Water Quality Assessment (Volume 3,
Section 3.0) and the Terrain and Soils Assessment (Volume 4, Section 4.0).
3.2.4.3 Nitrogen Deposition Criteria

Critical loads for nitrogen deposition have been developed on an empirical basis by correlating changes
in vegetation and biodiversity with associated nitrogen deposition. Criteria for nitrogen deposition vary
with natural ecosystem types. Neither AEW nor the CEMA Nitrogen Eutrophication Plan have formulated
nitrogen deposition loadings at this time. For this assessment, nitrogen deposition is compared to 5, 8,
and 10 kg N/ha/a values.
3.2.4.4 Visibility Criteria

Particulate matter in the atmosphere can produce a regional haze. A haze index has been developed to
account for reduced visibility. The haze index is designed to correspond linearly to perceived changes in
visibility and is expressed in deciview (dv) units. The State of Arizona has related the dv scale to a
descriptive visibility index as follows:
• Excellent: The haze index is less than 14 dv.
• Good: The haze index is between 15 and 20 dv.
• Fair: The haze index is between 21 and 24 dv.
• Poor: The haze index is between 25 and 28 dv.
• Very Poor: The haze index is greater than 29 dv.
A change of 1 dv is often assumed to correspond to a “just-noticeable” visibility change. As there are no

regulatory criteria for haze in Alberta, the visibility changes due to Project emissions are compared to this
1 dv change.
Page 3-5
TABLE 3.2-2
PROVINCIAL AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTS
Agency Act, Regulation, Guideline Relevance to the Project

Air Quality Management
AEW Environmental Protection and EPEA establishes the air quality regulatory framework in Alberta. The EPEA
Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval for each project contains conditions related to specifying the manner by
which emissions can be discharged in to atmosphere, associated monitoring, and
associated reporting.
AEW Ambient Air Quality Objectives and AEW identifies AAAQO and AAAQG for 51 substances. The Project is a source of
Guidelines (AAAQO and AAAQG) many of these substances.
AEW Acid Deposition Management AEW has an acid deposition management framework that was developed through
Framework (ADMF) the CASA process and the framework is reviewed once every 5 years.
AEW Particulate Matter and Ozone The CASA Particulate Matter and Ozone Management Framework represents
Management Framework Alberta's commitment to achieve CWS levels. The framework identifies action
triggers.
AEW Air Quality Model Guideline The Guideline provides guidance on the application of air quality simulation
models to evaluate facilities with air emissions.
AEW Environmental Impact Assessment The Guide assists proponents with the preparation of EIAs and reinforces the
Program. Guide to Preparing application of best practises with respect to evaluation and presentation. A
Environmental Impact Assessment number of air quality items are identified in the Guide.
Reports in Alberta (Updated February
2011)
ERCB Directive 060: Upstream Petroleum This document provides design and operation expectations for flaring in Alberta.
Industry Flaring, Incinerating, and
Venting
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AEW Climate Change and Emissions The Act and associated regulations refer to the management of greenhouse gas
Management Act emissions from large industrial facilities in Alberta (i.e., those with direct
AEW Specified Gas Emitters Regulation greenhouse gas emissions greater than 100,000 tonnes carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2E) per year).
AEW Specified Gas Reporting Regulation
Emission Source Monitoring
AEW Continuous Emissions Monitoring This code establishes requirements for the installation, operation, maintenance,
(CEM) Systems and certification of continuous emission monitoring systems.
AEW Alberta Stack Sampling Code This code specifies how to measure emissions of air pollutants from stationary
sources in Alberta, as required for determining compliance with the EPEA.
AEW Industrial Release Limits Policy This policy document outlines the approach followed by AEW to develop industrial
release limits for approvals under the EPEA.
Ambient Monitoring
AEW Air Monitoring Directive (AMD) The AMD (AEW 1989) and its amendments (AEW 2006) identify the ambient air
quality monitoring and reporting requirements and guidelines in Alberta.
Page 3-6
TABLE 3.2-3
FEDERAL AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTS
Agency Act, Regulation, Guideline Relevance to the Project

Environment Canadian Environmental Protection CEPA is aimed at preventing pollution and protecting the environment and human
Canada Act (CEPA) health. It includes a wide range of tools to manage toxic substances, other pollution
and wastes, and regulates vehicle, engine and equipment emissions.
Environment National Pollutant Release Inventory The NPRI is comprised of information reported by facilities and published by
Canada (NPRI) Environment Canada under the authority of Sections 46 to 50 of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
Environment NAAQO While the Government of Canada specifies ambient air quality objectives, the
Canada AAAQO are the same as, or more stringent than the NAAQO. In addition, the
AAAQO include a larger suite of substances.
Environment Priority Substance List CEPA (Section 76) requires the Ministers of the Environment and of Health to
Canada / establish a Priority Substance List that identifies substances to be assessed on a
Health Canada priority basis in order to determine whether they are toxic and pose a risk to the
health of Canadians or to the environment.
Combustion Source Emission Guidelines
CCME National Emission Guidelines for This 1992 document provides NOX and CO emission guidelines specific to
Stationary Combustion Turbines combustion turbines. The more recent Alberta guidelines are the same as, or more
stringent than the older National values.
CCME National Emission Guideline for This 1998 document provides NOX and CO emission guidelines specific to large
Commercial/Industrial Boilers and heaters and boilers. The more recent Alberta guidelines are the same as, or more
Heaters stringent than the older National values.
Fugitive Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emission Guidelines
CCME Environmental Guidelines for Describes the equipment required to reduce VOC emissions from tanks storing
Controlling Emissions of VOCs from volatile organic liquids.
Above Ground Storage Tanks
CCME Environmental Code of Practice for This document was prepared as an initiative for the CCME Management Plan for
Measurement and Control of Fugitive NOX/VOC. This document provides practices for the measurement and control of
VOC Emissions from Equipment VOC emissions from equipment leaks in operating plants.
Leaks
PM2.5 and Ozone CWS
CCME Guidance Document on Achievement The CWS form the basis of the Alberta Particulate Matter and Ozone Management
Determination: Canada Wide Framework.
Standards for Particulate Matter and
Ozone
Page 3-7
TABLE 3.2-4
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTS
Agency Frameworks Relevance to the Project

Primary Instruments
AEW Interim Emission Guidelines for This guideline updates NOX emission criteria for stationary sources. Currently,
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) for New these limits are based on CCME (1992, 1998) and CASA (2003). The guideline
Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using specifies Compliance Limits and Performance Targets.
Gaseous Fuels for the Oil Sands
Region
AEW Air Quality Management Framework The draft framework is proposed to manage cumulative effects of development on
for the LARP (draft) air quality within the LAR. The framework defines ambient air quality triggers and
limits for NO2 and SO2, two substances of concern within the region. These are
based on the AAAQO.
Supplementary Instruments
CEMA Acid Deposition Management The goal of the ADMF is to manage acid deposition from industrial activity in order
Framework (ADMF) to maintain the chemical characteristics (i.e., prevent excessive acidification) of
soils and lakes and to avoid adverse effects on ecosystems, plants, or animals in
the RMWB. (CEMA 2004)
CEMA Interim Nitrogen (Eutrophication) The NEP addresses potential nitrogen eutrophication (excessive fertilization)
Management Recommendations and issues associated with multi-year emissions and the associated deposition of
Work Plan (NEP) nitrogen substances (CEMA 2008).
CEMA Ozone Management Framework The OMF addresses issues and priorities related to the formation ground level O3
(OMF) and its precursors in the RMWB (CEMA 2006). This framework has adopted the
action level criteria and management responses of the Alberta Particulate Matter
and Ozone Management Framework.
CEMA Air Contaminant’s Management The ACMF (CEMA 2009) is focused on, but not limited to, the human health effects
Framework (ACMF) of air contaminants. Other issues include ecological health risks and odours.
WBEA Wood Buffalo Environmental WBEA, a multi-stakeholder organization, monitors ambient air quality in the RMWB
Association (WBEA) using continuous and passive stations. The information that is collected is shared
with stakeholders and the public.
NOTE:
Although the Project is located outside of the RWWB, the WBEA and CEMA frameworks are considered applicable due to the Project’s
proximity to the RWMB.
Page 3-8
TABLE 3.2-5
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY CRITERIA
Concentration (µg/m3)
Averaging AEW Framework Triggers
Air Substances Period AAAQO/ AAAQG NAAQO CWS CWS LARP
Common Air Contaminants (CAC)
Carbon Monoxide 1-hour 15,000 15,000 - - -
(CO) 8-hour 6,000 6,000 - - -
Annual - - - - -
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour 300 400 - - 176 (99%, Level 4)
(NO2) 118 (99%, Level 3)
57 (99%, Level 2)
24-hour - - - - -
Annual 45 60 - - 45 (Level 4)
30 (Level 3)
15 (Level 2)
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 160 100 - - -
8-hour - - 127 (99%) 127 (99%, E) -
113 (99%, P)
Annual - - - - -
Fine Particulate 1-hour 80 (AAAQG) - - - -
Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour 30 - 30 30 (98%, E) -
(98%) 20 (98%, P)
15 (98%, S)
Annual - - - - -
Sulphur Dioxide 1-hour 450 450 - - 94 (99%, Level 4)
(SO2) 63 (99%, Level 3)
31 (99%, Level 2)
24-hour 125 150 - - -
Annual 20 30 - - 20 (Level 4)
13 (Level 3)
8 (Level 2)
Hydrocarbons (Includes VOCs and PACs)
Acetaldehyde 1-hour 90 - - - -
Benzene 1-hour 30 - - - -
Benzo(a)pyrene Annual 0.0003 - - - -
Ethylbenzene 1-hour 2,000 - - - -
Formaldehyde 1-hour 65 - - - -
n-Hexane 1-hour 21,000 - - - -
24-hour 7,000 - - - -
Isopropylbenzene 1-hour 500 - - - -
(Cumene)
Methanol 1-hour 2,600 - - - -
Styrene 1-hour 215 - - - -
Toluene 1-hour 1,880 - - - -
24-hour 400 - - - -
Xylenes 1-hour 2,300 - - - -
Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) Substances
Carbon Disulphide 1-hour 30 - - - -
Hydrogen Sulphide 1-hour 14 - - - -
24-hour 4 - - - -
Page 3-9
TABLE 3.2-5 Cont’d
Averaging AEW Framework Triggers
Air Substances Period AAAQO/ AAAQG NAAQO CWS CWS LARP
Trace Metals
Arsenic 1-hour 0.1 (100) - - - -
Annual 0.01 (10) - - - -
Chromium 1-hour 1 (1000) - - - -
Lead 1-hour 1.5 (1500) - - - -
Manganese 1-hour 2 (2000) - - - -
Annual 0.2 (200) - - - -
Nickel 1-hour 6 (6000) - - - -
Annual 0.05 (50) - - - -
NOTES:
Triggers are more applicable to measurements rather than model predictions.
The AAAQO for metals shown in parentheses are expressed in ng/m3 (1000 ng/m3 = 1 µg/m3).
Only substances with applicable criteria are shown. For a complete list of substances included in the assessment, see Section 3.3.3.
TABLE 3.2-6
AEW CRITICAL, TARGET, AND MONITORING PAI DEPOSITION LOAD CRITERIA
Receptor Sensitivity Deposition Load Potential Acid Input (keq H+/ha/a)

Low Critical 1.0
Target 0.90
Monitoring 0.70
Moderate Critical 0.50
Target 0.45
Monitoring 0.35
High Critical 0.25
Target 0.22
Monitoring 0.17
SOURCE: AEW 2008
Page 3-10
3.2.5 Key Issues

A series of key issues are defined for the Air Quality Assessment based on input gathered from regulatory
sources. The issues associated with the Project are summarized in Table 3.2-7, and these are assessed
in this section. Other disciplines and sections in this EIA also identify and assess air quality-related issues
specific to their discipline. For the details of related assessments, see:
• Human Health Assessment (multi-media exposure) – Volume 5, Section 4.0
• Terrain and Soils Assessment (acid deposition) – Volume 4, Section 4.0
• Surface Water Quality (acid and nitrogen deposition) – Volume 3, Section 3.0
TABLE 3.2-7
KEY ISSUES – AIR QUALITY
Key Issue Relevance to Project

Ambient NO2 Concentrations NOX emissions contribute to ambient NO2 concentrations.
Ambient SO2 concentrations SO2 emissions contribute to ambient SO2 concentrations.
Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations Direct PM2.5 emissions and precursor NOX and SO2 emissions contribute to regional PM2.5
concentrations.
Human Health Risk Assessment Ambient concentration changes may have adverse health outcomes or result in odours.
(HHRA) and odours
Acid Deposition Precursor NOX and SO2 emissions contribute to regional acid deposition that may lead to
the acidification aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Nitrogen Deposition Precursor NOX emissions contribute to regional nitrogen deposition that may lead to the
eutrophication of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Ground Level ozone Precursor NOX and VOC emissions contribute to regional ozone concentrations.
Visibility Direct PM2.5 emissions and precursor NOX and SO2 emissions contribute to regional PM
concentrations that can lead to regional haze.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse gas emissions are closely scrutinized due to associated impacts on global
climate change.
3.3 Approach
3.3.1 Study Area
There are seven land-use regions in the province of Alberta, and each region is required to develop an
integrated plan to manage environmental issues. The Land-use Framework concept and objectives are
also aligned with the Clean Air Strategy Project Team (CASA 2009) to ensure that “Air quality
management plans that effectively address current and emerging air quality issues are in place for each
of Alberta’s seven land-use regions.”
The Project is located in the LAR, which is one of the seven land-use regions. The LAR includes the
WBEA airshed located around and to the north of Fort McMurray, and a large portion of the Lakeland
Industry and Community Association (LICA) airshed located in the Cold Lake area. The Project is located
outside of the WBEA and LICA airshed boundaries.
Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of the three study areas that were adopted for the Project Air Quality
Assessment: the Model Domain; the local study area (LSA); and the RSA.
3.3.1.1 Model Domain

A 332 x 700 km Model Domain that encloses the LAR was selected. Emissions were defined for this
domain, and the CALPUFF transport and dispersion model and the associated CALMET meteorological
model, which were the primary tools used to assess the air quality effects of the Project, were applied to
the Model Domain. While the CALMET and CALPUFF models were applied to this larger area (referred to
Page 3-12
as the Model Domain), smaller areas (LSA, RSA) were selected to examine the effect of the Project
emissions on air quality.
3.3.1.2 Local Study Area

The concentration predictions focused on a 100 x 100 km area centered on the Project. The LSA
boundaries include the communities of Sandy Lake to the west, Pelican Portage to the north, Wandering
River to the south, Calling Lake to the southwest, and Mariana Lake to the northeast. The selected area
nominally encloses the concentration contours due to the Project that are 10% of the AAAQO in
accordance with the AEW (2009b) air quality model guideline (AQMG). In summary, the LSA was
selected to focus on the region where the Project influence is the greatest and to include nearby
receptors of interest.
The LSA allows the air quality changes due to the Project to be examined in the context of other emission
sources and nearby areas of interest. Figure 3.3-2 identifies the existing and proposed developments in
the LSA.
3.3.1.3 Regional Study Area

The deposition predictions are provided for a 2° latitude x 3° longitude (approximately 230 km x 190 km)
area surrounding the Project. This larger area was chosen to examine PAI since the AEW acid deposition
management framework is addressed on a 1° latitude x 1° longitude basis (AEW 2008). As indicated in
Figure 3.2-1, the RSA ecosystem sensitivity to acidifying deposition is rated as high.
3.3.1.4 Receptors
The Air Quality Assessment adopts nested receptor points that are used to provide an understanding of
the spatial concentration and deposition patterns due to Project emissions. The receptors are located in
the LSA and the RSA with a grid spacing that ranges from 20 m along the Project CPF fence line; to
2,000 m within the LSA; and 5,000 m for other more distant locations within the RSA. The grid density is
the greatest near the Project to allow the assessment to focus on the effects of the Project emissions.
The selected spacing is viewed as sufficient to provide an indication of the magnitude and spatial
concentrations due to Project emissions.
The nested receptor grids were complemented by additional discrete locations that were selected to meet
additional assessment needs. These discrete locations were broadly grouped as follows:
• Lake receptors (surface water quality, or SWQ). Predictions for lakes that are used to assess the
potential for lake acidification (n = 178).
• Ambient air quality monitoring sites (MS) that were used to gauge the model performance (n = 136)
• Human health locations. All receptors in the LSA were considered as key receptors in the Human
Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). The HHRA receptors were classified according to three categories:
Aboriginal (49 locations); Worker (4 locations); and Maximum Point of Impingement (MPOI). The LSA
MPOI is the highest predicted concentration based on all receptors in the LSA and is only applicable
for Common Air Contaminants (CACs). The Project MPOI is the highest concentration predicted to
occur along the project CPF fence line and is applicable for CACs and non-CACs.
Volume 2, Appendix 3D provides detailed information about the selected receptor locations.
Page 3-13
May 2012
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
2
6210000
6210000
3
36
20 27
4
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
33
34 40
31
30 37
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake 38
25
Sandy Lake
Pelican 8
Lake 22
17 35
21
6180000
6180000
15
18
32
24
19
6170000
6170000
11 29 39
12
9
6160000
6160000
16
1
23
6150000
6150000
26
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
28
6130000
6130000
10
14
Calling
Lake
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
6
13
Wandering River
5
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.3.2 Temporal Considerations

While the Project will be constructed and operated in a series of phases, the effects assessment
considers the full build-out condition. This results in a conservative evaluation ensuring that the effects
are not underestimated. Construction is scheduled to commence in 2013 and operations in 2015. The
expected life of the Project (i.e., operation phase) is 30 years. Based on this scenario, the operational
phase of the Project would extend from 2015 to 2045 with final reclamation estimated to be completed in
2050.
3.3.2.1 Model Considerations

The CALMET/CALPUFF model system that is used for the Project assessment incorporates a number of
temporal considerations:
• The model predicts ambient concentrations on an hourly basis; the application of the model to a
single year therefore results in 8,760 hourly predictions at each receptor location. As indicated in
Table 3.2-4, the ambient air quality criteria refer to 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging
periods. The model predictions are processed to produce concentrations that represent these
averaging periods.
• As meteorology can vary from year to year, five years of meteorological data were used to provide
more robust model predictions. Specifically, meteorological data for the period 2002 to 2006 were
used (see Volume 2, Appendix 3C). The period used is consistent with the AEW AQMG.
• Model predictions are provided for each simulation year to provide reviewers with an indication of the
year-to-year temporal variability associated with the meteorological conditions. The highest predicted
concentration over the five year period is used as the basis for the assessment.
• As the deposition of air substances to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems needs to represent long-
term accumulations, the five-year average is used as the basis for the assessment.
• Odour events can be associated with periods less than 1 hour in duration. A scaling factor was used
to adjust the one-hour predictions in the model to represent the higher concentrations that can occur
for these shorter periods.
3.3.2.2 Reference Conditions

To provide a reference for the assessment of air quality key issues and associated key indicators, an
existing condition is evaluated. While the existing condition refers to the current conditions (i.e., 2012), the
emissions used to define the current conditions are based on a blend of data and information that were
collected over the 2006 to 2009 period. This is because there is a time lag between when the data are
collected and when the information is processed and is available. The use of multiple years to represent
the existing condition is seen as a benefit as it provides a wider range of emission profiles than could
have occurred during a single year.
The existing condition is described through a review of the recently collected ambient air quality data, and
this is complemented by the application of the air quality simulation models using existing emission
profiles.
3.3.2.3 Assessment Cases

Air quality key issues were evaluated in the context of the following development scenarios:
• Baseline Case, which includes developments that are currently operating, and approved activities
(that may or may not be under construction) but are not yet operating.
• Application Case, which includes developments and activities in the Baseline Case with the effects of
the Project added.
Page 3-16
• Planned Development Case (PDC), which includes developments and activities included in the
Application Case with the effects of other planned developments that are reasonably foreseeable.
Each assessment case assumes that all the identified developments will proceed, and they will all be
operating simultaneously. In addition, the emissions associated with each development typically
represent full load operations. Over the full life of the Project, the simultaneous operation of all
developments at full load conditions (and hence maximum emissions) is likely a conservative assumption
as all planned developments may not proceed, and the existing and planned developments may be in
either a ramping up or a ramping down phase (i.e., not operating at full capacity). For more details on the
assessment cases and the related developments and activities included for each case, see Volume 2,
Appendix 3A.
In addition to the three main assessment cases, a Project Only Scenario will also be discussed which
includes emissions from the proposed Project alone. The Project Only results are presented and
discussed in Volume 2, Appendix 3E. Furthermore, the visible emissions and greenhouse gas emissions
assessments presented in Sections 3.6.8 and 3.6.9, focus on the Project Only Scenario.
3.3.3 Substance Selection

A wide range of substances can be emitted from a facility such as the Project. Combustion emissions
depend on the combustion device type, the fuel composition and the fuel consumption rate. Fugitive
emissions depend on the composition of feedstock, intermediate and final product streams, and the
associated methods of handling or storing these streams.
The primary emissions associated with the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels are nitrogen (N2), carbon
dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). Criteria (or common) air contaminants (CAC) associated with
combustion processes include NOX, SO2, CO, PM2.5, VOC, and semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOC). SVOC include polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC). Combustion products may also include
trace amounts of total reduced sulphur (TRS) substances and trace metals. Emissions of VOC and TRS
can also result from fugitive emission sources.
The substances that were examined are based on the expected emissions from the Project. Fuel gas flow
rates were identified for all combustion related equipment, and appropriate engineering and emission
factors were considered to determine the substance emission profile. Similarly, product streams were
identified for the different process areas, and relevant emission factor information was used to estimate
fugitive emissions from the Project.
Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of the gaseous and particulate substances that were selected for this
assessment. The AAAQO and AAAQG are applicable to many, but not all substances that are identified
in the table. Most of the substances identified in the table are examined in the Human Health Section
(Volume 5, Section 4.0).
TABLE 3.3-1
POTENTIAL SUBSTANCE GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT
Substance Criteria
Common Air Contaminants
NO2 AAAQO
SO2 AAAQO
PM2.5 AAAQO/AAAQG/CWS
CO AAAQO
Ozone AAAQO/CWS
Acid Deposition/Eutrophication
Total Sulphur Substance Deposition -
Total Nitrogen Substance Deposition -
Potential Acid Input (PAI) Deposition AEW Loadings
Greenhouse Gases
Page 3-17
TABLE 3.3-1 Cont'd
Substance Criteria
CO2 -
CH4 -
N2 O -
Hydrocarbon Substances
1,3-Butadiene a -
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro
-
(also known as Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
1,3-Dioxolane -
1-Heptanamine -
1-Methylnaphthalene b -
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) c -
2-methylnaphthalene b -
3-methylcholanthrene d -
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene -
Acenaphthene b -
Acenaphthylene b -
Acetaldehyde e AAAQO
Acrolein e -
Acrolein (2-propenal) e -
Aliphatic Alcohols -
Aliphatic Aldehydes -
Aliphatic C17-C34 -
Aliphatic C5-C8 -
Aliphatic C9-C16 -
Aliphatic Ketones -
Aniline -
Anthracene b -
Aromatic C17-C34 -
Aromatic C9-C16 (includes Acenaphthene and Anthracene) -
Aromatic Ketones -
Benz(a)anthracene (also known as Benzo(a)anthracene) -
Benzaldehyde f -
Benzaldehyde group -
Benzene AAAQO
Benzo(a)pyrene AAAQO
Benzo(b)fluoranthene -
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene -
Benzo(k)fluoranthene -
Benzofuran group -
Butane, 1-isocyanoto- (also known as Butyl isocyanate) -
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and ethane) -
Carboxylic Acids -
Chrysene -
Cyclohexane g -
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene -
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene -
Dichlorobenzene -
Ethylbenzene AAAQO
Fluoranthene -
Fluorene b -
Page 3-18
TABLE 3.3-1 Cont'd
Substance Criteria
Formaldehyde e AAAQO
Hexane g AAAQO (n-Hexane)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene -
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) b AAAQO
Methanol AAAQO
Naphthalene b -
Oxirane, phenyl- (also known as Phenyloxirane) -
Phenanthrene -
Phenothiazine group -
Piperidine h -
Piperidine group -
Pyrene -
Pyridine, 4-methyl- (assessed as pyridine) -
Styrene AAAQO
Toluene AAAQO
Xylenes AAAQO
Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) Substances
Carbon Disulphide i AAAQO
Carbon Disulphide group -
Hydrogen Sulphide AAAQO
Mercaptans -
Thiophenes -
Trace Metals
Aluminum (Al) -
Antimony (Sb) -
Arsenic (As) AAAQO
Barium (Ba) -
Cadmium(Cd) -
Chromium (Cr) AAAQO
Cobalt (Co) -
Copper (Cu) -
Lead (Pb) AAAQO
Manganese (Mn) AAAQO
Nickel (Ni) AAAQO
Silver (Ag) -
Tin (Sn) -
Strontium (Sr) -
Vanadium (V) -
Zinc (Zn) -
NOTES:
a Also included in C4 group f Also included in Benzaldehyde group
b Also included in Aromatic C9-C16 group g Also included in Aliphatic C5-C8
c Also included in Aliphatic aldehydes group h Also included in Piperdine group
d Also included in Aromatic C17-C34 i Also included in Carbon disulphide group
e Also included in Aliphatic aldehydes
Page 3-19
3.3.4 Air Quality Assessment Method

Dispersion model predictions provide a link between air emissions in a region and ambient air quality
changes due to these emissions. The CALPUFF model was used to determine air quality changes due to
the Project emissions. The approach based on the application of this model system includes the following
tasks:
• Identify and quantify atmospheric emission sources for the existing condition and for each
assessment case (i.e., Baseline, Application, and Planned Development cases). Substantive
industrial and non-industrial emission sources in the 332 x 700 km Model Domain were identified and
quantified for each case. The basis for the emissions is described in detail in Volume 2, Appendix 3A.
• Review ambient air quality measurements in the WBEA and LICA airsheds to provide an indication of
existing conditions. Specifically continuous and passive ambient air quality data collected in the
airshed were obtained and examined. The background nitrogen, sulphur and PAI deposition values
were obtained from provincial scale modelling undertaken by AEW. The detailed review of this
information is presented in Volume 2, Appendices 3B (concentrations) and 3D (deposition).
• Review regional and local meteorology to determine transport and dispersion patterns in the region.
The CALMET meteorological model was used to generate three dimensional meteorological fields for
a five-year period (2002 to 2006). The CALMET model used mesoscale data from the Weather
Research and Forecasting (WRF) model on a 4 km grid basis. This grid spacing provides finer scale
resolution of meteorological parameters than the AEW MM5 data that has a 12 km grid spacing. The
CALMET model allows meteorological parameters for any given hour to vary across the domain in
response to terrain and other surface property influences. A description of the CALMET approach and
a review of representative meteorological data for the region is provided in Volume 2, Appendix 3C.
• Review topography which influences meteorology and review land use information which influences
meteorology and deposition. The Project is located on the east side of the Athabasca River valley.
The more substantive terrain features near the Project include May Hill to the east and Pelican
Mountain to the west. Digital terrain and land surface cover data were obtained from digital data for
the Model Domain. Volume 2, Appendix 3C also provides a review of these data for the region.
• Select and evaluate a dispersion model for the assessment. The model selection and the associated
assumptions about the model application are provided in Volume 2, Appendix 3D. The CALPUFF
model was selected; this model is identified as a preferred model in the Alberta (2009b) AQMG and
has become the favoured model for air quality assessments in the oil sands region. Specifically, the
CALPUFF model accounts for SOX and NOX chemistry and deposition processes, and can therefore
be used to estimate PAI and nitrogen deposition. The emissions are treated as puffs that allow the
predicted plume trajectories to vary as the wind varies from hour to hour. Plumes can have realistic
curvilinear paths that cannot be simulated by straight-line models (e.g., AERMOD). Model predictions
are compared with regional ambient air quality measurements that are provided in Volume 2,
Appendix 3B to gauge CALPUFF model performance.
• Apply the CALPUFF dispersion model to predict ambient concentrations and deposition patterns for
the existing condition and each assessment case. The model was used to predict 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-
hour, and annual average concentration patterns; and annual deposition patterns. Model results for a
Project-only case are presented in Volume 2, Appendix 3D.
• Compare the ambient monitoring measurements and air quality predictions to the ambient air quality
and deposition criteria (see Section 3.6).
This approach has been used for other air quality assessments for similar projects in Alberta.
3.3.4.1 Model Output Analysis

The model predictions are provided in tabular and graphical formats. The tabular formats provide the
appropriate metric for each year and highlight the highest year for concentrations predictions and the
Page 3-20
5-year average for deposition predictions. To recognize that concentrations can vary with distance from
an emission source, the maximum values are provided for five different regions:
• Inside the Project CPF Fence line. This is the location where the maximum concentrations associated
with Project CPF activities typically occur.
• On Project CPF Fence line. This is typically the location where the highest offsite concentrations due
to Project CPF activities typically occur.
• Outside Project CPF Fence line and Inside Well Pad Area. This is the location where the maximum
concentrations associated with Project well pad activities typically occur.
• Outside Well Pad Area and Inside LSA. This would be the worst case location within the LSA where
the public has access.
• Outside LSA and Inside RSA. This would be the worst case location outside the LSA and within the
RSA where the public has access.
The maximum ambient concentrations associated with Project emissions will typically occur within or
along the CPF fenceline. As the public does not have access to this area, the ambient concentration
criteria are not applicable within the CPF fenceline. For this reason, the maximum ambient concentrations
outside the Project CPF are compared to the ambient criteria.
The predicted concentration patterns for the existing condition and the three assessment cases are
superimposed on the LSA base map, and the predicted deposition patterns for the existing condition and
for the three assessment cases are superimposed on the RSA base map.
3.3.4.2 Model Uncertainty

General
The ability of a model to predict ambient concentrations depends on the accuracy of the source and
emission inventory, the meteorology, and the model assumptions used to represent the atmospheric
physics and chemistry processes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 2005)
states: “models are reasonably reliable in estimating the magnitude of highest concentrations occurring
sometime, somewhere within an area. For example, errors in highest estimated concentrations of ±10 to
±40% are found to be typical, i.e., certainly well within the often quoted factor-of-two accuracy that has
long been recognized for these models.” In addition, they also state, “it is desirable to quantify the
accuracy or uncertainty associated with concentration estimates used in decision-making.
Communications between modellers and decision-makers must be fostered and further developed”. The
U.S. EPA (2005) indicates that the application of regulatory dispersion models is viewed as a “best
estimate” approach and that this approach should be viewed as acceptable to the decision maker.
The ability of a model is often gauged by comparing model predictions with ambient measurements. The
comparison needs to recognize that there may be a level of uncertainty associated with the ambient
measurements.
Emission Uncertainty
The highest level of confidence is associated with the estimation of SO2 and NOX emissions as these
substances are subject to a high level of regulatory scrutiny. The SO2 emission rates for sources located
in the region, for example, are well monitored. While the NOX emission rates from the large stack sources
are also well monitored in the region, emissions rates from the smaller sources and the mobile sources
depend on source specific emission factors.
Generally, the understanding of emissions from industrial point sources (e.g., stacks) is better than the
understanding of emissions from non-industrial sources such as traffic, communities, or biogenic sources.
While the limitations may lead to uncertainties for a specific facility at a given time, the emission factor
approach has been used with some degree of success and is recognized by regulatory agencies as an
accepted method.
Page 3-21
The emission rates for existing facilities that are adopted in the model represent typical operating
conditions. Short-term fluctuations due to upset conditions are not included in the model predictions, but
are included in the measurements. This can lead to a challenge when comparing model predictions with
measurements.
Meteorological Uncertainty
Meteorological conditions vary systematically and randomly from year-to-year, with season, and with time
of day. In addition, the meteorological conditions at any given time can vary with location due to the
presence of local tree canopy or terrain influences. For an assessment, it is important to include the wide
range of meteorological conditions that can occur into the assessment. The application of five years of
meteorological data provides the opportunity of including a wider range of conditions in the assessment
than the previous application of a single year of data. The meteorological variability presents a challenge
when comparing model predictions to measurements.
Comparison of Predictions and Measurements

The CALPUFF model predictions associated with existing emissions were compared with ambient
measurements (Volume 2, Appendix 3D). Comparisons between the maximum 1-hour, the Top-25
1-hour, and the annual average model predictions and the ambient WBEA and LICA measurements were
undertaken. Model comparisons were grouped according monitoring station types: rural background
referring to the Fort Chipewyan and Conklin stations where the lowest values are measured; in -stations
being near the in-situ (e.g., SAGD) facilities; conventional being near oil sands mining, extraction and
upgrading facilities; community referring to Fort McMurray and Cold Lake urban sites; and passive sites
that tend to represent a range of exposures. The results of these comparisons indicate:
• There are considerable year-to-year variations with the measured concentrations that are due to
emission and meteorological condition variations. This variability can be reduced by using the Top-25
average concentrations as a more robust indicator of high ambient measurements.
• There is a general tendency to underpredict the 1-hour NO2 concentrations by 49% at rural
background sites, and a tendency to overpredict by 25% at conventional and 34% at community sites
(based on comparing the Top-25 averages). The annual average NO2 concentrations tend to be
underpredicted by 31% at rural background sites and overpredicted by 24%, 50%, and 111% at
conventional, community, and passive sites, respectively.
At the in-situ sites, the model, on average, tends to underpredict 1-hour average NO2 concentrations
by 8%, and overpredict annual average NO2 concentrations by 10%. This represents good
agreement.
• There was a general tendency for the model to underpredict the 1-hour SO2 concentrations by 33% at
the rural background sites (based on comparing the Top-25 averages). On average, the model
reproduces SO2 concentrations at the conventional (to within 1%) and the community (to within 9%)
sites. The annual average SO2 concentrations, are generally overpredicted at the non in-situ
continuous sites by about 6 to 80%, and underpredicted at the passive sites by about 25%.
At the in-situ sites, the model, on average, tends to overpredict 1-hour average SO2 concentrations by
29% and overpredict annual average SO2 concentrations by 25%. The in-situ comparison excludes
the LICA Maskwa site values since the SO2 emissions near this site are overstated in the modelling.
• The model underpredicts maximum 1-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the rural
background and in-situ sites by significant amounts (77 to 89%). This is likely due to not including
wildfire and other sources in the modelling (e.g., residential wood burning, slash burning, or fugitive
dust). The underpredictions at the conventional and community sites are much less (i.e., in the 2 to
13% range). Notwithstanding these non-modelled contributions, the predicted values provide an
indication of the magnitude and the spatial patterns of PM2.5 concentrations due to industry
combustion emissions.
While the comparison focused on SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 concentrations, the SO2 and NO2 comparisons are
seen as providing a better indication of the model performance than the PM2.5 comparisons. Near the in-
Page 3-22
situ sites, the model is predicting NO2 concentrations to within ±10% and is overpredicting SO2
concentrations by about 25%.The ability of the model to predict concentrations for other substances
depends on the level-of-confidence associated with estimating the other emission rates.
3.3.4.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The application of a numerical simulation model is one of the key tools to estimate the effect of Project
emissions on ambient air quality. The Air Quality Assessment requires the examination of a large amount
of numerical data associated model input and the processing of a large amount of numerical data from
the model output. A number of QA/QC checks were undertaken for all components of the assessment.
These include:
• Emission inventory: The development of the emission inventory used for the assessment was
based on data from previous inventories. The emission data were cross checked against other
information sources (e.g., NPRI, other recent assessment in the region). The locations of the
emission sources were confirmed by using mapping tools such as latitudes and longitudes of facilities
reporting to NPRI available through Environment Canada, satellite imagery to confirm project
locations and maps presented in other applications. The emission inventory was reviewed for logical
consistency to ensure values such as stack heights, diameters, exhaust temperatures, and velocities
were within the range of typical values for each source type. The depth of the discussion provided in
Volume 2, Appendix 3A reflects the considerations that were addressed in developing the regional
emission inventory.
• Meteorology: The output of the CALMET model was compared to measurements to ensure
consistency. Wind direction, wind speed, temperature, mixing height, stability and precipitation plots
were prepared (Volume 2, Appendix 3C) for multiple locations for comparison to measured data and
to ensure reasonable model performance.
• Model application: The development of much of the CALPUFF model input files was automated to
reduce potential for manual errors in translating the source emission inventory data into model input
files to reduce the potential for human error. Concentration predictions are rationalized against the
emission inventory to ensure that model concentration predictions are logically consistent with the
source emission inventory (i.e. high concentrations occur where you expect them to occur). Model
concentration predictions are compared to measurements to understand model performance
(Volume 2, Appendix 3D). During post-processing, unexpected model results are investigated in
detail to ensure consistency with model input.
The preparation of the Air Quality Assessment was undertaken by the air quality team that was comprised
one-half dozen members working together under the direction of the air discipline lead. A critical
component of the QA/QC process was ongoing communication between team members.
3.4 Project Mitigation and Regional Emissions

3.4.1 Project Mitigation Measures
To manage air emissions, BlackPearl has incorporated a number of mitigation measures into the design
of the Project. These include:
• low-NOX burner technology for the once-through steam generators (OTSGs) and heaters to comply
with the applicable NOX emission levels specified by CCME (1998) and AEW (2007);
• combustion of produced gas in the OTSGs, as opposed to direct venting or flaring, offers the
advantage of more reliable and complete combustion, reducing the opportunity for the formation of
incomplete combustion products;
• limiting continuous flaring to a pilot in the flare at the CPF. Flaring due to upset/emergency conditions,
start-up, and commissioning will be minimized for the Project;
• a vapour recovery unit (VRU) to capture vapours from the storage tanks thereby reducing fugitive
tank emissions; and
Page 3-23
• above ground storage tanks to conform to the Environmental Guidelines for Controlling Emissions of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Above Ground Storage Tanks (CCME 1995).
More detailed information describing the Project design is provided in Volume 1, Section 6,0 of this
Application.
3.4.2 Project Emissions

The Project requires facilities with combustion sources such as steam generators that will result in the
release of emissions to the air. While most air emission sources operate on a continuous basis, there are
several that are used for start-up or maintenance operations. Upset or emergency conditions are
short-term and intermittent.
A summary of Project emissions is provided in the following sections, including:
• normal combustion emissions;
• intermittent combustion emissions;
• fugitive emissions; and
• construction and operation fleet emissions.
The assumptions and detailed parameters associated with each emission source are presented in
Volume 2, Appendix 3A.
3.4.2.1 Project Normal Combustion Emissions

The Project requires combustion units such as the once through steam generators (OTSGs) that will
result in the release of combustion products to the atmosphere. The following combustion sources are
associated with each phase of Project:
• Phase 1: one glycol heater, four OTSGs, and one flare system.
• Phase 2: one additional glycol heater, six additional OTSGs, and one additional flare system.
• Phase 3: one additional glycol heater, six additional OTSGs, and one additional flare system.
The emissions from all Project phases were included in dispersion modelling (i.e., full build out conditions
were assessed). The OTSG stacks operate on a continuous basis. Although the glycol heaters are
intermittently used, they are conservatively assumed to operate continuously for the purpose of this
assessment. Each flare system will be serviced by co-located high pressure (HP) and low pressure (LP)
stacks. Under normal operating conditions, small volumes of natural gas for purge and pilot use are
directed to the flare stacks.
The assumptions and parameters associated with each emission source are presented in Volume 2,
Appendix 3A, Section A.2.
3.4.2.2 Project Intermittent Emissions

Three Project upset flaring emission scenarios were evaluated as follows:
• Inlet Produced Gas: This scenario is expected to occur about one time per two years, with each event
expected to be less than one hour in duration.
• VRU Compressor Outage Event: This scenario is expected to occur approximately one time per two
years with duration of 6 hours per event.
• Inlet Fuel Gas Control Failure Event: This scenario is expected to be rare, approximately one time per
10 years, with each event expected to be less than one hour in duration.
Page 3-24
The project is serviced by three diesel fuelled emergency generators (one per phase) that will be used
during a power outage at the Project CPF. These units will typically be tested on a monthly basis for a
nominal one-half hour period. While power outage events are expected to occur infrequently, they could
occur up to several times a year depending on external influences.
The assumptions and parameters associated with each upset event are provided in Volume 2,
Appendix 3A, Section A.2.
3.4.2.3 Fugitive Emissions

Twenty eight hydrocarbon storage tanks are proposed for the Project; eleven with Phase 1, nine with
Phase 2, and eight with Phase 3. Most of these tanks are blanketed and are tied into a VRU to manage
potential fugitive emissions that may result from emptying and filling operations (referred to as working
losses) and from diurnal heating and cooling of the tanks (referred to as breathing losses). The
associated parameters and fugitive emissions for tanks are provided in Volume 2, Appendix 3A.
Fugitive emissions are also associated with small leaks from valves, flanges, seals, and drains. A total of
eight process areas were identified and fugitive emissions are estimated on the basis of equipment count
and content. The location and parameters associated with each of these areas are provided in Volume 2,
Appendix 3A.
Well pad fugitive emissions can occur from well head pairs, the test separator and produced vapour
package, the start-up circulation package, steam inlet, instrument air, and vent stack. Fugitive emissions
within each well pad were combined and assessed as one area source per well pad. Well pad locations
change throughout the life of the Project. For this assessment, the maximum of 40 wellpads were
assumed to be in operation at one time; five with Phase 1, ten with Phase 2, and twenty-five with
Phase 3.
The parameters and assumed locations of the well pad fugitive emission sources are provided in Volume
2, Appendix 3A, Section A.3.
3.4.2.4 Construction and Operations Fleet Emissions

Construction activities are associated with activities at the CPF and in the well pad area. The CPF
activities are of limited duration and are associated with the construction of respective facilities associated
with each phase. The construction activities in the well pad area occur over the whole life of the project
due to progressive well pad development and reclamation activities. Emissions associated with these
activities include on-road and off-road vehicle traffic, heavy equipment, heaters, and temporary power
generation.
Emissions were calculated for the life of the Project (i.e., 2015 to 2045) and the maximum construction
emissions occur during the period between the start-up of Phase 3 (associated with a full production rate
of 80,000 bbl/d) and the end of Project operations (i.e., September 2021 to December 2042). For the Air
Quality Assessment, these maximum emissions were assumed to occur. The construction and operations
fleet emissions were assessed as two area sources, one representing the CPF activities and the other
one representing the well pads. Roughly 4 percent of the total construction and operations fleet emissions
were allocated to the CPF area and the other 96 percent were allocated to the well pad area.
The associated parameters and emissions for the construction and operations fleet sources are provided
in Volume 2, Appendix 3A, Section A.7.
3.4.2.5 Project Emission Summary

Table 3.4-1 provides a summary of the Project emissions. Most of the emissions are attributable to
combustion sources associated with the CPF.
Page 3-25
TABLE 3.4-1
PROJECT EMISSIONS
Emission Rate (t/d) a

Source NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC TRS
Stacks 5.07 0.502 0.429 15.9 0.327 0.00000531
Tanks - - - - 0.450 0.000486
Process Area Fugitives - - - - 0.482 0.000482
Well Pad Fugitives - - - - 1.37 0.00329
Construction and Operations Fleet 0.253 0.0005 0.0149 0.257 0.043 0.00
Total Project Emissions 5.32 0.502 0.443 16.2 2.67 0.00426
NOTES:
a Includes emissions for all Project phases.
3.4.3 Regional Emissions

3.4.3.1 Existing Condition
For the purpose of completeness, an emission summary is presented for the existing condition. The
existing emissions are nominally based on information representing the period 2006 to 2009. The existing
condition information was used to gauge the performance of the CALPUFF model by comparing
associated model predictions with ambient air quality measurements
The existing condition emission summary is provided in Table 3.4-2. The approach and assumptions
used to estimate emissions for the existing condition is provided in Volume 2 Appendix 3A. From an
overview perspective, the following are noted:
• NOX: Industrial emissions account for 92% of the NOX emissions, with 71% from stacks and 21%
from mine fleets.
• SO2: Industrial emissions account for virtually all the SO2 emissions with 99.2% from stacks and 0.5%
from mine fleets.
• PM2.5: Industrial emissions account for 78% of the direct PM2.5 emissions with 72% from stacks, 15%
from mine fleets, and 1% from plant fugitives.
• CO: Industrial emissions account for 70% of the CO emissions with 56% from stacks and 14% from
mine fleets. Most of the non-industrial CO emissions are due to traffic.
• VOC: Industrial emissions account for 97% of the VOC emissions with 52% from tailings ponds, 24%
from mine faces, and 18% from fugitive plant sources.
• TRS: Industrial emissions account for all of the TRS emissions with 50% from tailings ponds and 35%
from fugitive plant sources.
While it is noted that most of the emissions are associated with industrial sources, the ambient air quality
in communities can be strongly influenced by local non-industrial sources (e.g., domestic/commercial
heating and local traffic).
3.4.3.2 Baseline Case

The Baseline Case includes existing and approved regional developments. The Baseline Case emission
summary is provided in Table 3.4-3, and the following compares existing condition and Baseline Case
emissions:
• NOX: NOX emissions from industrial stacks increase by 50% and NOX emissions from mine fleets
triple. Overall, NOX emissions increase by 71%.
Page 3-26
• SO2: SO2 emissions decrease by 17%. A decrease is estimated because of the Syncrude sulphur
reduction project, which offsets emissions from Baseline Case projects.
• PM2.5: PM2.5 emissions from industrial stacks roughly double and PM2.5 emissions from mine fleets
triple. Overall, PM2.5 emissions increase by 77%.
• CO: CO emissions from industrial stacks double and CO emissions from mine fleets triple. Overall,
CO emissions increase by 93%.
• VOC: Overall, VOC emissions increase by 124%.
• TRS: TRS emissions from tailings ponds double. Overall, TRS emissions increase by 75%.
The Baseline Case emission rates assume all developments operate at their respective full capacities
simultaneously.
3.4.3.3 Application Case

The Application Case includes sources from the Baseline Case in combination with the Project sources.
The Application Case emission summary is provided in Table 3.4-4. The following comments can be
made relative to the Application Case information presented in these tables:
• The main sources of the NOX emissions are from stacks (62%) and mine fleets (34%). The Project
NOX emissions account for 0.87% of the Application Case total.
• Most (98%) of the SO2 emissions are from stacks. The Project SO2 emissions accounts for 0.17% of
the Application Case total.
• The main sources of PM2.5 emissions are from stacks (69%) and mine fleets (23%). The Project PM2.5
emissions accounts for 1.3% of the Application Case total.
• The main sources of CO emissions are from stacks (59%) and mine fleets (20%).The Project CO
• The main sources of VOC emissions are from tailings areas (52%), mine faces (25%), and fugitive
plant sources (15%). The Project VOC emissions accounts for 0.47 % of the Application Case total.
• The main sources of TRS emissions are from tailings areas (about 52%) and fugitive plant sources
(32%). The Project TRS emissions accounts for 0.04% of the Application Case total.
3.4.3.4 Planned Development Case

The PDC includes sources from the Application Case in combination with emissions from additional
“publicly disclosed” or “reasonably foreseeable” future planned facilities. The PDC emission summary is
provided in Table 3.4-5. Relative to the Baseline Case, the emission of NOX, SO2, CO, and TRS increase
and the emissions of PM2.5 and VOC decrease.
3.4.4 Prediction Confidence

The estimation of emissions from the Project and other emission sources that can overlap with the Project
is one of the first tasks associated with an Air Quality Assessment. The emission inventory for the model
domain is somewhat analogous to an “open source” computer code. While there is no central official
source and emission inventory, most of the information associated with the emission inventory is in the
public domain via previous assessments and applications in the region and via joint industry
assessments. The emissions adopted for the assessment built on the previous versions and the following
are noted relative to the associated uncertainties:
• Project emissions: The estimation of emissions from the Project incorporated a number of
conservative assumptions that could overstate the emissions.
Page 3-27
• Stack emissions: The highest level of confidence is associated with the estimation of emissions of
CACs from stack emissions. This is because the locations and properties of major stack sources are
well documented as they are highly regulated. PM2.5 emissions from natural gas-fired combustion
sources are overstated since the emission factors are based on the limitations of the measurement
technology. The estimation of trace emissions from stacks has a lower level of confidence since a
greater reliance has to be made on generic emissions factors.
• Fugitive plant emissions: The basis for fugitive plant emissions are not very well documented in
many assessment applications. Generic fugitive emission profiles and factors were developed and
used for extraction/upgrading plants, extraction-only plants, and in-situ plants. The use of the
emission factors developed from older facility data may overstate the emissions from newer facilities.
• Mine fleet emissions: Mine fleet emissions are typically based on the understanding that future
operations will meet more stringent emission standards. Trace emission assumptions are not very
well documented in many assessment applications. The estimations provided in this assessment are
documented.
• Mine face emissions: Mine face emissions can vary with the quality of the ore. Mine face emission
assumptions are not very well documented in many assessment applications. The estimations
provided in this assessment are documented and may be conservative (i.e., overstated).
• Tailings pond emissions: Tailings pond emissions can vary with many factors. Most emission
estimates are based on dated measurements (circa 1998) conducted on existing integrated
extraction/upgrading operations. The extrapolation of emission factors derived from these operations
may overstate the emissions associated with extraction-only operations (specifically for TRS).
Tailings emission assumptions are not very well documented in many assessment applications. The
estimations provided in this assessment are documented. No adjustments were made for future
tailings technology improvements that could potentially reduce fugitive tailings emissions.
• Non-industry emissions: Non-industry emission assumptions are not very well documented in many
assessment applications. The estimations provided in this assessment are documented.
For some emissions, there is a high prediction confidence (e.g., NOX and SO2 emissions from stacks);
and for others the prediction confidence is rated as lower (e.g., fugitive plant, mine face and tailings
emissions). For some substances, the prediction confidence is lower (e.g., PAH [polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons] and metal emissions). WBEA is currently conducting a source apportionment study in the
region, and the measurements collected for this study should enhance our understanding of the source
and magnitude of these trace emissions. This information was not available at the time this study was
undertaken.
The larger emission sources (e.g., the upgraders and the mining operations) are somewhat distant from
the BlackPearl Project area. As a consequence, the influence of these larger sources on air quality in the
Project area is less than the existing smaller sources located adjacent to the Project area. Nonetheless all
substantive emissions from LAR sources were included for completeness.
In summary, the estimation of emissions in the region builds on the emission inventory work undertaken
for previous assessments. While there are uncertainties with the emission inventory, the emission
inventory used for the Project assessment is viewed as being representative within the bounds indicated
in this discussion.
Page 3-28
TABLE 3.4-2
EXISTING EMISSIONS (MODEL DOMAIN)
Emission Rate (t/d)

Source Type NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC TRS
Stacks 254.72 363.41 13.71 196.01 9.55 0.30
Plant fugitives - - 0.07 - 45.03 1.99
Mine fleet 75.03 1.88 2.86 48.77 6.99 0.00
Mine face - - - - 59.89 0.54
Tailings management areas - - - - 123.11 2.83
Non-industrial 29.31 0.89 2.33 105.62 7.66 -
Existing Total 359.05 366.18 18.98 350.41 252.23 5.67
TABLE 3.4-3
BASELINE CASE EMISSIONS (MODEL DOMAIN)
Emission Rate (t/d)

Stacks 380.40 299.31 23.09 391.12 15.86 0.35
Plant fugitives - - 0.07 - 82.14 3.14
Mine fleet 207.58 4.00 7.92 141.03 23.25 0.00
Mine face - - - - 142.42 1.29
Non-industrial 25.90 0.84 2.44 144.02 7.94 -
Baseline Case Total 613.88 304.16 33.53 676.17 564.82 9.91
Increase Relative to Existing (%) 71 -17 77 93 124 75
TABLE 3.4-4
APPLICATION CASE EMISSIONS (MODEL DOMAIN)
Emission Rate (t/d)

Stacks 385.47 299.82 23.52 407.02 16.19 0.35
Plant fugitives - - 0.07 - 84.44 3.14
Mine fleet 207.83 4.00 7.94 141.28 23.29 0.00
Mine face - - - - 142.42 1.29
Non-industrial 25.90 0.84 2.44 144.02 7.94 -
Application Case Total 619.21 304.66 33.97 692.33 567.49 9.92
Increase Relative to Baseline (%) 0.87 0.17 1.3 2.4 0.47 0.04
Page 3-29
TABLE 3.4-5
PDC EMISSIONS (MODEL DOMAIN)
Emission Rate (t/d)

Stacks 530.17 360.51 31.70 689.32 24.57 0.40
Plant fugitives 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 100.59 3.28
Mine fleet 249.84 3.79 9.04 196.18 28.08 0.00
Mine face 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 204.13 1.86
Tailings management areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 405.42 5.94
Non-industrial 25.90 0.84 2.44 144.02 7.94 0.00
PDC Total 805.91 365.14 43.26 1029.52 770.73 11.48
Increase Relative to Baseline (%) 31 20 29 52 36 16
3.5 Overview of Existing Conditions

From an air quality perspective, existing conditions can be defined in terms of the following parameters:
• the identification and quantification of all substantive sources of atmospheric emissions in the Model
Domain
• an overview of the climate conditions in the region
• the current air quality based on the ambient measurements conducted in the region
• the meteorological conditions that determine the transport and dispersion of emission in the region
The discussion for existing atmospheric emissions in the Model Domain is presented in Section 3.4. The
other existing condition parameters are summarized in the following sections.
3.5.1 Climate
Long-term meteorological data are available from two primary airports in the region, namely the Fort
McMurray Airport and the Cold Lake Airport. Environment Canada provides summaries of climate
parameters based on measurements for the 30 year period 1971 to 2000. Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 provide
overviews of selected climate parameters based on measurements at the Fort McMurray Airport and Cold
Lake Airport, respectively. The results indicate:
• Temperature: The coldest months of the year are in the December to February period, and the
warmest months of the year are in the June to August period. Fort McMurray is slightly cooler than
Cold Lake.
• Precipitation: The greatest precipitation occurs in the June to August period. More precipitation
occurs in Fort McMurray than in Cold Lake.
• Snow cover: The snow cover tends to disappear in April and starts to accumulate in November.
• Winds: Average winds range from 9.1 to 12.7 km/h in Cold Lake and 8.4 to 10.9 km/h in Fort
McMurray. At the Cold Lake airport, the most frequent wind direction is from the west. At the Fort
McMurray airport, the most frequent wind direction is from the east. The winds are strongly influenced
by terrain features near the respective airports.
• Relative humidity: The relative humidity tends to be higher in the morning than in the afternoon.
• Visibility: Visibility restrictions between 1 and 9 km tend to be most frequent in the November to
January period.
Page 3-30
Additional discussion with respect to some climate parameters is provided in Volume 2, Appendix 3B.
3.5.2 Meteorology
Meteorology determines the transport and dispersion of industrial emissions, and hence plays a
significant role in determining air quality downwind of emission sources. For this Air Quality Assessment,
meteorological data for the five-year period 2002 to 2006 were used to define transport and dispersion
parameters. The 5-year period is intended to capture the range of meteorological conditions that may
occur across the Model Domain and incorporate meteorological conditions that may lead to worst case
predicted ground-level concentrations through dispersion modelling. The CALMET model was applied
using upper-level meteorological data based on the WRF Model and using surface meteorological data
from stations located in the Model Domain.
The WRF/CALMET model system indicated that winds near the Project area are influenced by regional
airflow and local terrain features. Specifically, the frequently occurring northwesterly winds predicted at
the Project site are likely associated with the upper level prevailing winds measured at some of the
elevated monitoring sites in the WBEA airshed. The frequently occurring southerly winds predicted at the
Project site are likely associated with north-south orientation of the nearby Athabasca River Valley and
the elevation terrain on either side of the Athabasca River Valley near the Project area (e.g., Pelican
Mountain on the west side of the river and May Hill on the east side of the river).
Additional meteorological information is presented in Volume 2, Appendix 3B.
Page 3-31
TABLE 3.5-1
FORT MCMURRAY AIRPORT CLIMATE PARAMETERS (1971 TO 2000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Temperature
Extreme Maximum (°C) 13.1 15.0 18.9 30.2 34.8 36.1 35.6 37.0 32.4 28.6 18.9 10.7 -
Daily Maximum (°C) -13.6 -7.6 0.3 10.0 17.4 21.4 23.2 21.9 15.4 7.8 -4.2 -11.6 6.7
Daily Average (°C) -18.8 -13.7 -6.5 3.4 10.4 14.7 16.8 15.3 9.4 2.8 -8.5 -16.5 0.7
Daily Minimum (°C) -24.0 -19.8 -13.2 -3.3 3.3 7.9 10.2 8.6 3.3 -2.2 -12.8 -21.4 -5.3
Extreme Minimum (°C) -50.0 -50.6 -44.4 -34.4 -13.3 -4.4 -3.3 -2.9 -15.6 -24.5 -37.8 -47.2 -
Precipitation
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 6.4 4.8 8.4 15.4 38.4 50.0 52.5 94.5 60.5 29.4 15.2 8.4 -
Average Rainfall (mm) 0.5 0.8 1.6 9.3 34.2 74.8 81.3 72.6 45.0 18.8 2.4 1.1 342.2
Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm) 16.3 15.2 29.7 26.2 15.2 0.3 0 0.2 27.9 17.2 18.0 22.6 -
Average Snowfall (cm) 27.0 20.6 20.4 14.5 2.9 0 0 0 2.4 13.1 29.0 25.9 155.8
Average Precipitation (mm) 19.3 15.0 16.1 21.7 36.9 74.8 81.3 72.7 46.8 29.6 22.2 19.3 455.5
Snow Cover
Average Snow Depth (cm) 28.0 31.0 26.0 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 9.0 20.0 10.0
Page 3-32
Winds
Speed (km/h) 8.4 9.1 9.6 10.9 10.8 9.7 9.0 8.7 9.7 10.5 9.0 8.6 9.5
Most Frequent Direction E E E E E E SW SW E E E E E
Maximum Hourly Speed (km/h) 67.0 56.0 54.0 54.0 63.0 48.0 72.0 50.0 51.0 63.0 60.0 52.0 -
Direction of Maximum Hourly Speed SW W SW NW W W W W W W W W W
Relative Humidity
Average – 0600 LST (%) 74.4 75.2 75.7 74.1 72.9 78.5 84.1 87.9 87.3 82.7 81.0 76.1 79.2
Average – 1500 LST (%) 69.8 61.6 52.0 41.7 40.1 47.2 51.6 51.1 53.5 59.2 72.8 73.4 56.2
Hours with visibility
Less than 1 km 3.2 2.8 3.3 4.9 2.1 3.1 5.5 8.5 7.9 6.0 4.5 3.0 55.0
Between 1 to 9 km 78.4 51.7 44.9 32.2 23.2 29.1 29.8 37.5 33.3 41.8 76.0 77.1 555.1
More than 9 km 662.5 623.9 695.8 682.9 718.7 687.8 708.7 697.9 678.8 696.1 639.4 663.9 8156.4
TABLE 3.5-2
COLD LAKE AIRPORT CLIMATE PARAMETERS (1971 TO 2000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Temperature
Extreme Maximum (°C) 10.6 14.1 17.9 29.4 32.5 35.6 36.1 36.1 32.8 27.4 18.9 10.0 -
Daily Maximum (°C) -11.4 -6.7 0.5 10.1 17.2 20.9 22.9 22.0 15.9 9.2 -2.6 -9.9 7.3
Daily Average (°C) -16.6 -12.4 -5.3 4.1 10.7 14.8 16.9 15.8 10.0 4.0 -6.7 -14.6 1.7
Daily Minimum (°C) -21.7 -18 -11 -1.9 4.1 8.7 11.0 9.6 4.1 -1.3 -10.8 -19.1 -3.9
Extreme Minimum (°C) -48.3 -42.8 -41.1 -34.4 -7.8 -3.3 0 -1.5 -9.4 -23.5 -36.7 -44.4 -
Precipitation
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 10.4 2.8 7.9 29.6 44.4 93.7 52.8 50.8 46.7 39.9 5.0 6.6 -
Average Rainfall (mm) 0.6 0.4 1.2 14.2 37.6 72.1 77.4 67.6 38.4 10.6 1.5 0.9 322.4
Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm) 20.8 16.2 23.9 41.8 26.7 0 0 4.0 11.9 18.8 30.5 17.0 -
Average Snowfall (cm) 22.9 16.4 16.8 11.7 4.2 0 0 0.1 1.6 7.0 24.5 24.7 -
Average Precipitation (mm) 17.9 12.4 15.1 24.9 41.7 72.1 77.4 67.8 39.9 17.5 20.1 19.9 426.6
Snow Cover
Average Snow Depth (cm) 23.0 25.0 18.0 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 16.0 8.0
Page 3-33
Winds
Speed (km/h) 9.1 9.9 10.7 12.7 12.7 11.9 11.0 10.2 11.3 11.7 10.1 9.4 10.9
Most Frequent Direction SW SW SW E NE W W W W W SW SW W
Maximum Hourly Speed (km/h) 72.0 72.0 68.0 66.0 72.0 72.0 80.0 64.0 76.0 64.0 64.0 69.0 -
Direction of Maximum Hourly Speed W W E SE W N W SW W NW W NW -
Relative Humidity
Average – 0600 LST (%) 74.5 77.0 79.4 76.3 76.1 82.4 87.8 89.4 88.0 81.5 83.6 78.4 81.2
Average – 1500 LST (%) 68.4 63.3 55.9 44.6 42.0 48.6 53.8 52.8 53.7 53.9 70.9 73.0 56.7
Hours with visibility
Less than 1 km 11.7 9.5 6.8 5.6 3.2 2.2 4.0 4.4 4.3 5.2 9.5 15.7 82.2
Between 1 to 9 km 83.8 63.2 55.2 28.4 19.4 17.0 15.6 22.5 24.5 26.3 77.4 83.8 517.2
More than 9 km 648.5 604.6 682.0 686.0 721.4 700.7 724.3 717.1 691.2 712.5 633.1 644.5 8166
3.5.3 Ambient Air Quality

Continuous ambient monitoring has been conducted at 21 locations in the Model Domain: two are in rural
background locations; four are near in-situ operations; eleven are near conventional oil sand
extraction/upgrading locations; three are within large communities; and one is near a smaller community.
The continuous monitoring is complemented by a network of 41 passive sampling sites that are located
varyingly near existing oil sands operations, in urban centers, and in remote rural areas. Ambient air
quality data in the region are collected by the Lakeland Industry and Community Association (LICA), the
Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA), and industry.
An ambient air quality analysis is provided in Appendix 3B. While there are limited monitoring sites near
the Project, ambient monitoring data have been examined to obtain an indication of air quality relative to
the Project area. An examination of measurements near existing in-situ operations can be used to provide
an indication of maximum concentrations that could occur near the Project. These sites include:
• WBEA Anzac station;
• Encana Christina Lake compliance monitoring station;
• Devon Jackfish compliance monitoring station; and
• LICA Maskwa station.
A summary of measurements collected at these stations is provided in Table 3.5-3.
TABLE 3.5-3
NO2, SO2, AND PM2.5 MEASUREMENTS NEAR EXISTING IN-SITU OPERATIONS
Substance 1-hour 24-hour Annual
NO2 109 – 158 (300) 29.8 – 35.9 (none) 2.6 – 5.47 (45)
SO2 76 – 181 (450) 16.7 – 39.3 (125) 1.1 – 3.4 (20)
PM2.5 225 (80) 77 (30) 3.9 (none)
NOTE: AAAQO and AAAQG are shown in brackets.
A range is given as the monitoring sites are not necessarily located the same distances from the
respective nearby in-situ CPF. With the exception of PM2.5, the maximum measured values are less than
the respective AAAQO and AAAQG. The maximum PM2.5 values measured at these stations are likely
due to wildfire contributions.
Limited passive sampling near the BlackPearl area (5 months) indicates an average SO2 concentration of
0.77 µg/m3. This value is slightly lower than the values indicated in Table 3.5-3.
3.6 Impact Assessment

The Air Quality Assessment is provided for the existing condition and the three assessment cases. The
model predictions are discussed on a substance-by-substance basis as follows:
• NO2 Concentrations (Section 3.6.1);
• SO2 Concentrations (Section 3.6.2);
• PM2.5 Concentrations (Section 3.6.3);
• Health and Odour Related Concentrations (3.6.4);
• Acid Forming Substance Deposition (Section 3.6.5);
• Nitrogen Substance Deposition (Section 3.6.6);
Page 3-34
• Ozone Concentrations (Section 3.6.7);
• Regional Visibility (3.6.8) ; and
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (3.6.9).
The CALPUFF dispersion model was used to predict ambient SO2, NO2, PM2.5 concentrations, health and
odour related concentrations, and PAI and nitrogen deposition. The ozone assessment is discussed
qualitatively and the greenhouse gas and visible emissions assessments focus on the Project Only
Scenario.
3.6.1 NO2 Concentrations

3.6.1.1 NOX Emission Profile
Table 3.6-1 compares the NOX emission rates from: the Project; the existing condition; and the three
assessment cases. The cumulative emission rates shown in the table are for a 332 x 700 km region that
includes all substantive industrial and community emissions sources located in the Model Domain (mainly
the LAR). The Project is projected to increase Baseline Case NOX emission by 0.87%.
TABLE 3.6-1
NOX EMISSION RATES
Assessment Case NOX Emissions (t/d)

Project 5.32
Existing Condition 359.05
Baseline Case 613.88
Application Case 619.21
Planned Development Case 805.91
NOTE:
The cumulative emissions are for the 332 by 700 km Model Domain.
3.6.1.2 1-hour NO2 Concentrations

Existing Condition
For the existing condition 1-hour NO2 concentrations predicted using the CALPUFF model, see
Table 3.6-2 and Figure 3.6-1. The maximum predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations are relatively low within
and along the Project CPF fence line (89.6 and 98.7 µg/m3) as there are no substantive NOX emission
sources located in the immediate area. The maximum NO2 concentration in the LSA is 131.2 µg/m3. This
value occurs at the Iteration Portage 6-29 compressor station site (indicated as facility 12 in Figure 3.3-2)
which is located adjacent to the Project area.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 1-hour NO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-2 and Figure 3.6-2. The maximum predicted
1-hour NO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (89.8 and 98.7 µg/m3) increase
slightly due to other NOX emitting developments in the LSA. The maximum NO2 concentration in the LSA
is 131.3 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 300 µg/m3). The location of the maximum is
unchanged from the existing condition.
Application Case
For Application Case 1-hour NO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-2 and Figure 3.6-3. The maximum predicted
1-hour NO2 concentrations increase within and along the Project CPF fence line (i.e., 122.1 and
119.3 µg/m3, respectively) due to the Project NOX emission sources. The Project does not make any
substantive contributions (i.e., 0.0003% or less) to the high Baseline Case values in the RSA.
Page 3-35
Planned Development Case

For PDC 1-hour NO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-2, and Figure 3.6-4. There are no substantive changes to
the predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case.
TABLE 3.6-2
COMPARISON OF 1-HOUR (9TH HIGHEST) NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
1-hour (9th highest) NO2 Concentration

Existing Condition Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Location Year (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (% Change) (µg/m3) (% Change)
2002 89.6 89.8 118.4 32 118.4 32
2003 88.9 89.0 119.6 34 119.6 34
Inside Project 2004 88.0 88.1 112.3 28 112.4 28
CPF Fence line 2005 89.0 89.1 112.8 27 112.8 27
2006 86.1 86.2 122.1 42 122.1 42
Maximum 89.6 89.8 122.1 36 122.1 36
2002 97.1 97.1 116.5 20 116.5 20
2003 97.5 98.1 109.0 11 109.0 11
On Project CPF 2004 92.8 92.8 104.1 12 104.1 12
Fence line 2005 98.6 98.6 108.4 10 108.4 10
2006 98.7 98.7 119.3 21 119.3 21
Maximum 98.7 98.7 119.3 21 119.3 21
2002 120.5 120.5 120.5 0.01 120.5 0.01
Outside Project 2003 118.4 118.5 118.5 0.002 118.5 0.03
CPF Fence line 2004 110.6 110.6 112.6 1.8 112.6 1.8
and Inside Well 2005 120.4 120.4 120.4 0.006 120.5 0.03
Pad Area 2006 131.2 131.3 131.3 0.0006 131.3 0.05
Maximum 131.2 131.3 131.3 0.0006 131.3 0.05
2002 127.5 127.5 127.5 0 127.5 0.00003
2003 119.5 119.5 119.5 0 119.5 -0.0002
Outside Well 2004 116.0 116.0 116.0 0.007 116.0 0.007
Pad Area and
Inside LSA 2005 117.8 117.8 117.8 0 117.8 -0.0001
2006 128.9 128.9 129.6 0.6 129.6 0.6
Maximum 128.9 128.9 129.6 0.6 129.6 0.6
2002 365.6 365.4 365.4 0 368.2 0.8
2003 366.4 380.7 380.7 0 381.0 0.07
Outside LSA 2004 401.2 366.6 366.6 0.0003 367.8 0.3
and Inside RSA 2005 394.1 364.2 364.2 0 365.9 0.5
2006 370.5 375.2 375.2 0 376.6 0.4
Maximum 401.2 380.7 380.7 0 381.0 0.07
AAAQO 300 300 300 - 300 -
NOTES:
The % change is with respect to the Baseline Case.
AAAQO are not applicable within an industrial fence line.
Traffic and heating emissions are adjusted in the PDC to account for improvement in vehicle emission controls. Percent decreases noted in the
table are a result of these emission decreases in non-industrial emissions for the PDC.
Page 3-36
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
45
45
30
6210000
6210000
40
50
30
30
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
20
30
63
50
6190000
6190000
Sandy
30
Lake
Sandy Lake
20
Pelican
Lake 30
6180000
6180000
75
30
20 20
20
6170000
6170000
30
20
45
20
40
30
20 50
6160000
6160000
50 40
30
30
20
20
30
20
6150000
6150000
20
20
McMillan
Lake
20
40
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
20
15
15
30
15
30
20
20
6130000
6130000
30
15
20
15
Calling
15
Lake
20
40
30
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
20
Wandering River 15
15
20
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
45
45
6210000
6210000
45
75
45
45
40
45
40
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
40
40
45
40
45 63
50
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
40
45
Sandy Lake
40
Pelican
Lake
40
40
6180000
6180000
75
45
40
6170000
6170000
40
50
50
40
75
6160000
6160000
30 45
50
50
45
40
40
6150000
6150000
30
30
30
McMillan
Lake
40
30
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
30
50
30
6130000
6130000
30
30
Calling
Lake
45
Calling Lake 40
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
45
45
45
6210000
6210000
40
75
50
45
40
45
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
40
40
45
45
40
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
40
45
50
Sandy Lake
40
Pelican
Lake
40
40
6180000
6180000
75
50
40
6170000
6170000
40
45
50
40
75
6160000
6160000
30
50
50 45
40
45
40
40
6150000
6150000
30
30
30
McMillan
Lake
30
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
30
40
30
6130000
6130000
30
30
Calling
Lake 45
Calling Lake 40
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
50
50
6210000
6210000
50
45
Mariana Lake 50
6200000
6200000
45
45
63
50
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
50
45
6180000
6180000
40 50
50
75
45 45
50
50
6170000
6170000
50
45
45
50
40 75
6160000
6160000
45
45
50
40
45
6150000
6150000
40
45
40
McMillan
Lake
40
40
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
50
30
45
6130000
6130000
30
30
Calling
Lake 45
30
Calling Lake 40
6120000
6120000
30 Lyle
Lake
30
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.6.1.3 Annual Average NO2 Concentrations

Existing Condition
For the existing condition annual NO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-3 and Figure 3.6-5. The maximum
predicted annual NO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (5.28
and 6.09 µg/m3) as there are no substantive NOX emission sources located in the immediate area. The
maximum NO2 concentration in the LSA is 10.0 µg/m3. This value is predicted to occur at the Iteration
Portage 11-10 compressor station site (indicated as facility 15 in Figure 3.3-2).
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case annual NO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-3 and Figure 3.6-6. The maximum predicted
annual NO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (5.77 and 6.59 µg/m3,
respectively) increase slightly due to other NOX emitting projects in the LSA. The maximum NO2
concentration in the LSA is 10.3 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 45 µg/m3). This value is
predicted to occur at the Iteration Portage 11-10 compressor station site (indicated as facility 15 in Figure
3.3-2).
Application Case
For Application Case annual NO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-3 and Figure 3.6-7. The maximum predicted
annual NO2 concentrations increase within and along the Project CPF fence line (i.e., 15.9 and
13.3 µg/m3, respectively) due to the Project NOX emission sources. The maximum NO2 concentration in
the LSA is 14.5 µg/m3, which represents a 37% increase compared to the Baseline Case. The maximum
value is predicted to occur at the Blackrod SAGD Pilot Project (the Pilot Project) site (indicated as facility
11 in Figure 3.3-2) and is less than the AAAQO.

For PDC annual NO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-3 and Figure 3.6-8. There are no substantive changes to
the predicted annual concentrations relative to the Application Case.
Page 3-41
TABLE 3.6-3
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
Annual NO2 Concentration

2002 4.25 4.71 15.0 219 15.4 227
2003 4.96 5.42 14.4 166 14.8 172
Inside Project 2004 5.28 5.77 15.9 176 16.3 182
CPF Fence line 2005 4.67 5.06 13.3 163 13.6 169
2006 4.01 4.40 14.8 236 15.1 243
Maximum 5.28 5.77 15.9 176 16.3 182
2002 5.21 5.69 12.4 118 12.8 124
2003 5.41 5.89 12.2 107 12.5 113
On Project CPF 2004 6.09 6.59 13.3 101 13.7 107
Fence line 2005 5.56 5.96 11.6 94 11.9 99
2006 4.61 5.01 12.3 146 12.7 153
Maximum 6.09 6.59 13.3 101 13.7 107
2002 9.65 10.1 14.5 43 14.9 47
Outside Project 2003 8.73 9.24 13.9 51 14.2 54
CPF Fence line 2004 9.00 9.51 14.2 50 14.6 53
and Inside Well 2005 7.97 8.40 13.2 57 13.5 61
Pad Area 2006 8.77 9.19 14.1 54 14.4 57
Maximum 9.65 10.1 14.5 43 14.9 47
2002 9.85 10.3 14.2 37 14.6 41
2003 8.85 9.37 13.0 39 13.4 43
Outside Well 2004 9.48 10.0 13.8 38 14.2 42
Pad Area and
Inside LSA 2005 8.11 8.54 12.3 44 12.6 48
2006 10.0 10.3 13.6 31 13.9 34
Maximum 10.0 10.3 14.2 37 14.6 41
2002 87.7 66.1 66.1 0.005 68.1 3.0
2003 86.4 63.0 63.0 0.006 65.2 3.5
Outside LSA and 2004 104.7 66.6 66.6 0.007 68.5 2.9
Inside RSA 2005 115.3 65.3 65.3 0.004 66.3 1.5
2006 100.4 64.9 64.9 0.006 67.0 3.3
Maximum 115.3 66.6 66.6 0.007 68.5 2.9
AAAQO 45 45 45 - 45 -
NOTES:
3.6.1.4 Intermittent Project Emissions

Intermittent flaring and emergency power generator events are evaluated in Appendix 3E where the
Project-only scenario is evaluated. For normal conditions, the Project-only scenario, the maximum 9th
highest 1-hour NO2 concentrations are in the 111 to 119 µg/m3 range. For the emergency generator
scenario, these corresponding values are in the 122 to 125 µg/m3 range. For the three flaring events, the
corresponding values are in the 40 to 68 µg/m3 range for one of the events and in the 111 to 119 µg/m3
range for the other two events. Due to the limited duration of intermittent events, annual average NO2
concentrations changes due to these events were not examined.
Page 3-42
3.6.1.5 Background Contribution

The ambient NO2 concentrations provided in the previous tables and figures are based on the values
predicted using the CALPUFF/CALMET model system. The predictions are based on including all
substantive emission sources located in the Model Domain that includes the LAR and some other
sources to the west of the LAR. The predictions do not include contributions from more distant sources
located outside the Model Domain. Ambient NO2 concentration measurements from locations in
northeastern Alberta were examined to determine representative background values consistent the AEW
AQMG (see Appendix 3B).
On this basis, representative 1-hour and annual average background values are 7.52 and 2.44 µg/m3,
respectively. The addition of these background values to the values provided in the previous tables and
figures does not change the conclusion that the maximum predicted NO2 concentrations in the LSA are
less than the respective AAAQOs.
3.6.1.6 Prediction Confidence

A comparison between model predictions and ambient measurements near in-situ sites (Section 3.3.4.2)
indicates a general tendency for the model, on average, to underpredict 1-hour average NO2
concentrations by 8% (based on comparing the Top-25 averages), and overpredict annual average NO2
concentrations by 10%. The model therefore appears to be predicting the high concentrations that could
occur near in-situ facilities to within ±10%.
Page 3-43
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
3
2 1.5
1.25
1.5
2
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
5
1.2
1.2 63 3
5
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
1.5
2
1.25
1.2
1.25
5
1.5
1.5
Pelican
Lake
2
2
6180000
6180000
3
1.5
2
2
1.25
6170000
6170000
5
1.
1.
5
3
1.5
3
1.5
2
2
6160000
6160000
1.25
3
1.5
2
1.25
1.25
6150000
6150000
1.5
1.25
1.5
1.5
McMillan
Lake 1.5
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
1. 5
3
2 1.5
1.2
1.
25
5
2
6130000
6130000
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.
Calling 25 2
1.25
Lake
Calling Lake 1.25
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
1.5
1.2
Wandering River
5
1.5
1.
5
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
4 .5
3
2
3
2
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
2
3
1.5 63
3
3
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
1.5
Lake
2
3
2
6180000
6180000
1.5
4.5 2
2
3
1.5
1.5
2 2
6170000
6170000
3
1.5
3
2
2
6160000
6160000
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
6150000
6150000
2
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
2
2
1.5
3
1. 5
2
6130000
6130000
2
2
1.5
Calling 1.5
Lake
1.5
1.5
1.5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
1.5
Wandering River
2
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
4.5
3 2
2
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
3
2
1.5
3
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake 3
Sandy Lake
2
Pelican
Lake 1.5
2
3
1.5
6180000
6180000
1.5
2
1.5
6170000
6170000
4.5
10
1.5
3
6160000
6160000
2
1.5
3
1.5
2
6150000
6150000
1.5
1.
5
2
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
2
3
1.5
2
1.5
6130000
6130000
2
1.5 5
1.
2
1.5
Calling 1.
Lake 5 2
5
Calling Lake 1.
6120000
6120000
Lyle
1.5
Lake
1.5
1. 5
Wandering River
1.5 2
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3
6210000
6210000
3
3
4.5
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
2
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake 4.5
Sandy Lake 2
2
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
2 4. 5
3
2
2
3
6170000
6170000
3
10
3
4.5
2
6160000
6160000
3
2 3
2
3
6150000
6150000
2
McMillan
2
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
2
4.5
3
1.5
1.5
6130000
6130000
2
Calling
1.5
Lake
1.5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
2
Lyle
Lake
1.5
1.5
2
Wandering River 2
1.5
2
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.6.2 SO2 Concentrations

3.6.2.1 SO2 Emission Profile
Table 3.6-4 compares the SO2 emission rates from: the Project; the existing condition; and the three
assessment cases. The cumulative emission rates shown in the table are for a 332 x 700 km region that
includes all substantive industrial and community emissions sources located in the Model Domain (mainly
the LAR). The Project is projected to increase Baseline Case SO2 emission by 0.17%.
Short-term abnormal SO2 emission rates greater than the values represented in the table can occur under
emergency conditions. These extreme emergency cases, which involve the flaring of large volumes of
gas, are intermittent and of short duration. The SO2 emissions due to upset or emergency events from
facilities other than the Project were not evaluated.
TABLE 3.6-4
SO2 EMISSION RATES
Assessment Case SO2 Emissions (t/d)

Project 0.502
NOTE:
3.6.2.2 1-hour SO2 Predictions

Existing Case
For existing condition 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-5 and Figure 3.6-9. The maximum predicted
1-hour SO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (24.0 and
23.9 µg/m3) as there are no substantive SO2 emission sources located in the immediate area. The 1-hour
SO2 maximum in the LSA is 39.6 µg/m3; this value is predicted near the north-eastern boundary of the
LSA. Higher SO2 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the RSA; these higher values
occur near Fort McMurray in the north-east portion of the RSA.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-5 and Figure 3.6-10. The maximum predicted 1-
hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (23.6 and 23.7 µg/m3) decrease
slightly compared to the existing condition. This is due to the benefit of an SO2 emission reduction
program associated with one of the existing upgraders. The maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is
42.8 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 450 µg/m3).
Application Case
For Application Case 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-5 and Figure 3.6-11. The maximum predicted
1-hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (28.9 and 30.1 µg/m3) increase
slightly due to the Project SO2 emission sources. The maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is
42.8 µg/m3, which is unchanged compared to the Baseline Case.

For PDC 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-5 and Figure 3.6-12. There are slight increases to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case.
Page 3-48
TABLE 3.6-5
COMPARISON OF 1-HOUR (9TH HIGHEST) SO2 CONCENTRATIONS
1-hour (9th highest) SO2 Concentration

2002 23.7 23.6 28.9 22 31.6 34
2003 24.0 20.8 24.7 18 25.8 24
Inside Project CPF 2004 18.3 19.0 25.9 36 25.9 36
Fence line 2005 21.3 20.0 25.9 30 27.7 39
2006 19.7 19.4 27.8 44 33.9 75
Maximum 24.0 23.6 28.9 22 33.9 43
2002 23.2 23.7 30.1 27 31.7 34
2003 23.9 20.7 22.2 6.8 25.4 22
On Project CPF 2004 18.3 19.2 22.9 19 25.2 31
Fence line 2005 21.3 20.1 26.1 30 28.0 39
2006 19.7 19.4 27.8 43 33.8 74
Maximum 23.9 23.7 30.1 27 33.8 43
2002 23.1 24.0 29.0 21 31.8 33
Outside Project 2003 23.8 20.7 22.7 10 23.8 15
CPF Fence line 2004 18.9 19.8 23.3 17 25.5 29
and Inside Well 2005 21.4 20.3 24.0 18 27.5 36
Pad Area 2006 19.7 20.9 27.7 33 32.2 54
Maximum 23.8 24.0 29.0 21 32.2 34
2002 36.1 34.4 34.4 0.00001 38.2 11
2003 33.2 34.0 34.0 0 37.9 11
Outside Well Pad 2004 39.6 41.7 41.7 0.01 46.1 11
Area and Inside
LSA 2005 37.2 42.8 42.8 0 45.8 7.1
2006 36.2 35.6 35.6 0 38.0 6.7
Maximum 39.6 42.8 42.8 0 46.1 7.7
2002 376.2 375.3 375.3 0.0003 375.4 0.02
2003 481.2 464.7 464.7 0.002 464.9 0.04
Outside LSA and 2004 455.5 438.4 438.4 0 440.8 0.5
Inside RSA 2005 415.3 415.4 415.4 0.0009 416.5 0.3
2006 415.5 381.2 381.2 0 381.2 -0.0009
Maximum 481.2 464.7 464.7 0.002 464.9 0.04
AAAQO 450 450 450 - 450 -
NOTES:
Page 3-49
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
30
40
25
25
30
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
25
20
63
25
30
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake 30
Pelican
Lake 25
25
6180000
6180000
25
25
25
25
20
6170000
6170000
20
30
25
25
20
25
20
6160000
6160000
25
20
25
20 25
20
6150000
6150000
20
20
McMillan
Lake
20
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
25
20
20
6130000
6130000
15
15
15
Calling
Lake 15
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
15
15
Wandering River
15
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
40
25
30
30
40
30
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
30
30
25
25
63
25 30
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
25
25
Pelican
Lake
20
25
6180000
6180000
25 30
25
20 20
6170000
6170000
25
25
20
20
6160000
6160000
25
25
20
6150000
6150000
20
25
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
20
20
15
20
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake 15
15
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
15
Wandering River
15
15
15
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000 40
6210000
40
30
30
40
25
30
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
30
30
25
25
63
25 30
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
25
20 Pelican
Lake
25
25
6180000
6180000
25
30
25
20 20
6170000
6170000
20
25
25
20
20
6160000
6160000
25
25
20
6150000
6150000
20
25
McMillan
20
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
20
15
20
6130000
6130000
15
Calling
Lake 15
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
15
15 Wandering River
15
15
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
30
40
6200000
6200000
30 Mariana Lake
30
25
25 63
30
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
30
Sandy Lake
Pelican
25
30
Lake
30
6180000
6180000
25
6170000
6170000
25
25 30
25
30
6160000
6160000
25
25
25
25
6150000
6150000
25
20
20
McMillan
25
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
20
20
6130000
6130000
20
20
Calling
Lake
20
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River 20
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.6.2.3 24-hour SO2 Predictions

Existing Condition
For existing condition 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-6 and Figure 3.6-13. The maximum
predicted 24-hour SO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (7.80
and 7.79 µg/m3) as there are no substantive SO2 emission sources located in the immediate area. The
maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is 13.6 µg/m3; this value is predicted on the northern boundary of
the LSA. Higher SO2 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the north-east portion of the
RSA, near Fort McMurray.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-6 and Figure 3.6-14. The maximum predicted
24-hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (8.55 and 8.49 µg/m3) increase
slightly due to other SO2 emitting projects in the LSA. The maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is
Application Case
For Application Case 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-6 and Figure 3.6-15. The maximum
predicted 24-hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (17.9 and 10.6 µg/m3)
increase compared to the Baseline Case due to the Project SO2 emission sources. The maximum SO2
concentration in the LSA is 15.4 µg/m3, which is unchanged compared to the Baseline Case.

For PDC 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-6 and Figure 3.6-16. There are slight increases to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case. The maximum 24-hour SO2
concentration in the LSA is 16.9 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO.
Page 3-54
TABLE 3.6-6
COMPARISON OF 24-HOUR (2ND HIGHEST) SO2 CONCENTRATIONS
24-hour (2nd highest) SO2 Concentration

2002 7.19 8.55 13.0 52 13.0 52
2003 6.53 7.59 12.6 66 13.2 74
Inside Project 2004 7.06 7.07 10.9 55 11.7 66
CPF Fence line 2005 7.80 6.57 9.7 47 9.70 48
2006 7.13 6.93 17.9 158 17.9 159
Maximum 7.80 8.55 17.9 109 17.9 110
2002 7.19 8.49 10.5 23 10.5 23
2003 6.50 7.62 10.6 39 10.7 40
On Project CPF 2004 7.05 7.09 9.02 27 9.32 31
Fence line 2005 7.79 6.60 7.55 14 8.30 26
2006 7.15 6.92 10.1 46 10.5 51
Maximum 7.79 8.49 10.6 25 10.7 26
2002 7.11 8.47 9.21 8.6 10.2 20
Outside Project 2003 6.64 8.18 9.05 11 9.72 19
CPF Fence line 2004 7.06 7.68 9.64 26 10.3 34
and Inside Well 2005 7.73 6.79 7.42 9.2 8.22 21
Pad Area 2006 7.16 7.44 9.98 34 10.2 37
Maximum 7.73 8.47 9.98 18 10.3 21
2002 9.44 10.6 10.6 0.07 12.3 16
2003 13.6 12.2 12.2 0 14.9 22
Outside Well Pad 2004 11.6 15.4 15.4 0.001 16.9 10
Area and Inside
LSA 2005 10.9 11.4 11.4 0.001 12.7 12
2006 9.96 9.49 9.49 0.009 11.6 22
Maximum 13.6 15.4 15.4 0.001 16.9 10
2002 124.8 125.1 125.1 0 125.0 -0.07
2003 95.1 95.6 95.6 0 96.4 0.8
Outside LSA and 2004 83.7 85.9 85.9 0.02 86.9 1.2
Inside RSA 2005 149.2 150.8 150.8 0.0001 151.2 0.3
2006 103.2 104.3 104.3 0 106.2 1.8
Maximum 149.2 150.8 150.8 0.0001 151.2 0.3
AAAQO 125 125 125 - 125 -
NOTES:
Page 3-55
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
12.
.5 5
12
10
7.5
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
10
10
10
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
7 .5
6180000
6180000
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
6170000
6170000
7.5
7.5
6
7.5
6160000
6160000
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
6
6150000
6150000
7.5
7.
5
McMillan
Lake
6
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6
6
7.5
6
6130000
6130000
7.
Calling 5
Lake 6
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
7.5
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
15
6210000
6210000
7.5
12.5
10
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
63
10
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
7.5
6180000
6180000
6 10
10
7.5
10
7.5
7.5
6170000
6170000
7.5
7.5
7.5
6160000
6160000
6
10
10
6150000
6150000
7.5
10
6
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
7.5
6
6
6
6130000
6130000
6
Calling
Lake
6
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River 7.5
7.5
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
15
6210000
6210000
7.5
10
12.5
6200000
6200000
10 Mariana Lake
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
7.5
6180000
6180000
6 10
10
10
7.5 7.5
6170000
6170000
5
7.
7.5
7.5
6160000
6160000
10
6
6150000
6150000
10
10
7.5
6 McMillan
6 Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
7.5
6
6
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake
6
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River 7.5
7.
5
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
10
6210000
6210000
.5
12
15
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
10
12.5
63
7.5
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
10
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
.5
10
12
6180000
6180000
10
6170000
6170000
7.5
7.5
6160000
6160000
12
. 5
7.5
7.5
6150000
6150000
10
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
10
7.5
7.5
6130000
6130000
6
Calling
Lake
Calling Lake 7.5
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
6
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.6.2.4 Annual SO2 Predictions

Existing Condition
For existing condition annual SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-7 and Figure 3.6-17. The maximum
predicted annual SO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (0.59
and 0.58 µg/m3) as there are no substantive SO2 emission sources located in the immediate area. The
maximum annual SO2 concentration in the LSA is 1.24 µg/m3; this value is predicted on the north-eastern
boundary of the LSA. Higher SO2 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the RSA; these
higher values occur near Fort McMurray.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case annual SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-7 and Figure 3.6-18. The maximum predicted
annual SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (0.63 and 0.63 µg/m3) increase
slightly due to other SO2 emitting projects in the LSA. The maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is
Application Case
For Application Case annual SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-7 and Figure 3.6-19. The maximum predicted
annual SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (1.79 and 1.45 µg/m3) increase
compared to the Baseline Case due to the Project SO2 emission sources. The maximum SO2
concentration in the LSA is 1.52 µg/m3, which is slightly higher when compared to the Baseline Case.

For PDC annual SO2 predictions, see Table 3.6-7 and Figure 3.6-20. There are increases to the predicted
maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case. The maximum annual SO2 concentration in the
LSA is 1.91 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO.

highest 1-hour SO2 concentrations are in the 19.1 to 20.3 µg/m3 range. For the emergency generator
scenario, these corresponding values are in the 19.2 to 20.3 µg/m3 range. For the three flaring events, the
corresponding values are in the 0.21 to 0.22 µg/m3 range for the inlet fuel gas control failure event, in the
15.5 to 15.6 µg/m3 range for the inlet produced gas to flare event, and in the 36.6 to 78.6 µg/m3 range for
the VRU compressor outage event. Due to the limited duration of intermittent events, 24-hour and annual
average SO2 concentrations changes due to these events were not examined.

The ambient SO2 concentrations provided in the previous tables and figures are based on the values
located outside the Model Domain. Ambient SO2 concentration measurements from locations in
northeastern Alberta were examined to determine representative background values consistent with the
AEW AQMG (see Appendix 3B).
On this basis, representative 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual average background values are 2.62, 2.67 and
0.9 µg/m3, respectively. The addition of these background values to the values provided in the previous
tables and figures does not change the conclusion that the maximum predicted SO2 concentrations in the
LSA are less than the respective AAAQOs.

A comparison between model predictions and ambient measurements near insitu sites (Section 3.3.4.2)
indicates a general tendency for the model, on average, to overpredict 1-hour average SO2
concentrations by 29% (based on comparing the Top-25 averages), and overpredict annual average SO2
Page 3-60
concentrations by 25%. The model therefore appears to be overpredicting the high concentrations that
could occur near in-situ facilities to by about 25%
TABLE 3.6-7
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL SO2 CONCENTRATIONS
Annual SO2 Concentration

2002 0.47 0.57 1.77 212 1.95 244
2003 0.59 0.63 1.71 172 1.90 202
Inside Project 2004 0.55 0.63 1.79 182 1.97 210
CPF Fence line 2005 0.55 0.58 1.50 159 1.66 186
2006 0.48 0.53 1.70 220 1.86 250
Maximum 0.59 0.63 1.79 182 1.97 210
2002 0.47 0.56 1.45 156 1.62 187
2003 0.58 0.63 1.39 120 1.57 149
On Project CPF 2004 0.54 0.63 1.41 123 1.58 150
Fence line 2005 0.55 0.58 1.26 119 1.42 146
2006 0.47 0.53 1.37 158 1.52 187
Maximum 0.58 0.63 1.45 129 1.62 157
2002 0.49 0.66 1.35 106 1.52 132
Outside Project 2003 0.59 0.71 1.31 86 1.49 111
CPF Fence line 2004 0.57 0.72 1.33 86 1.50 110
and Inside Well 2005 0.55 0.64 1.19 88 1.35 112
Pad Area 2006 0.48 0.61 1.28 111 1.43 136
Maximum 0.59 0.72 1.35 88 1.52 113
2002 1.08 1.29 1.30 0.4 1.69 30
2003 1.13 1.38 1.39 0.5 1.81 31
Outside Well 2004 1.24 1.51 1.52 0.3 1.91 26
Pad Area and
Inside LSA 2005 1.06 1.28 1.29 0.4 1.68 31
2006 1.11 1.31 1.32 0.4 1.69 29
Maximum 1.24 1.51 1.52 0.3 1.91 26
2002 18.2 18.0 18.0 0.006 18.4 2.1
2003 17.5 17.3 17.3 0.009 17.7 2.7
Outside LSA 2004 18.2 18.3 18.3 0.01 18.7 2.4
and Inside RSA 2005 18.4 17.9 17.9 0.008 18.4 2.3
2006 17.7 17.7 17.7 0.008 18.2 2.7
Maximum 18.4 18.3 18.3 0.01 18.7 2.4
AAAQO 20 20 20 - 20 -
NOTES:
Page 3-61
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
0.75
6210000
6210000
1
0.75
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
0.5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
0.
Pelican 75
Lake
6180000
6180000
0.5
6170000
6170000
6160000
6160000
5
0.7
0.4
6150000
6150000
0.5
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6130000
6130000
0.
4
Calling 0.
Lake 5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
0.4 Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
1.
6210000
6210000
1
5
0.7
5
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
1
0.
5
Pelican
0.75
Lake
6180000
6180000
0.5
0.5
6170000
6170000
0 .7
5
5
0.
0.5
6160000
6160000
0. 4
6150000
6150000
0.75
0.7
5
McMillan 0.5
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6130000
6130000
0.4
Calling
Lake
0.5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
1.
5
6210000
6210000
0.7
5
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
0.7
63 1
5
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
0.
Pelican
5
Lake
6180000
6180000
5
0.7
0.5 0.7
5
6170000
6170000
0.5
0.5
0.5
5
0.7
6160000
6160000
0.7
75
5
0.
0.4
6150000
6150000
0.75
0.7
5
0.5
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake
0.5
0.4
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
1
1.5
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
0.7
5
1
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
0.75
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
1
6170000
6170000
1
6160000
6160000
1
1
6150000
6150000
1
0.
75 1
McMillan 1
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
0.
5
0.4
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake 0.7
5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
0.5 Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.6.3 PM2.5 Concentrations

Table 3.6-8 compares the primary PM2.5 emission rates from: the Project; the existing condition; and the
three assessment cases. The cumulative emission rates shown in the table are for a 332 x 700 km region
that includes all substantive industrial and community emissions sources located in the Model Domain
(mainly the LAR). The Project is projected to increase Baseline Case PM2.5 emission by 1.3%.
PM2.5 can also be formed by reactions in the atmosphere that produce sulphate and nitrate PM2.5; these
are referred to as secondary PM2.5. For the purposes of estimating the secondary PM contribution,
sulphate and nitrate were assumed to be in the form of ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate,
respectively. In addition, all primary and secondary PM were assumed to be in the fine fraction. The total
PM2.5 is the sum of the primary and secondary contributions. The summary comparisons of the precursor
NOX and SO2 emissions rates are provided in Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4, respectively.
TABLE 3.6-8
PM2.5 EMISSION RATES
Assessment Case PM2.5 Emissions (t/d)

Project 0.429
Baseline Case 33.53
NOTE:
3.6.3.1 1-hour PM2.5 Predictions

Existing Case
For existing condition 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-9 and Figure 3.6-21. The maximum
predicted 1-hour PM2.5 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (7.80
and 7.83 µg/m3) as there are no substantive PM2.5 emission sources located in the immediate area. The
1-hour PM2.5 maximum in the LSA is 9.91 µg/m3; which is less than the AAAQG (i.e., 80 µg/m3). This
value is predicted to occur in the north-eastern portion of the LSA. Higher PM2.5 concentrations are
predicted outside the LSA and within the RSA; these higher values occur near oil sands mine
developments.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-9 and Figure 3.6-22. The maximum predicted
1-hour PM2.5 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (13.6 and 13.6 µg/m3) increases
compared to the existing condition. The maximum PM2.5 concentration in the LSA is 16.4 µg/m3, which is
less than the AAAQG (i.e., 80 µg/m3).
Application Case
For Application Case 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-9 and Figure 3.6-23. The maximum
predicted 1-hour PM2.5 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (22.7 and 19.9 µg/m3)
increase due to the Project PM2.5 emission sources. The maximum PM2.5 concentration in the LSA is
16.8 µg/m3, which is a slight increase compared to the Baseline Case.

For PDC 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-9 and Figure 3.6-24. There are slight increases to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case.
Page 3-66
TABLE 3.6-9
COMPARISON OF 1-HOUR (9TH HIGHEST) PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS
1-hour (9th highest) PM2.5 Concentration

2002 5.78 9.09 22.2 145 22.3 145.2
2003 7.80 13.6 21.6 59 21.8 61.0
Inside Project 2004 7.53 12.5 22.3 79 22.5 79.8
CPF Fence line 2005 5.90 8.82 21.2 140 21.2 140.1
2006 5.16 7.24 22.7 213 22.7 213.0
Maximum 7.80 13.6 22.7 67 22.7 67.0
2002 5.78 9.06 17.0 88 17.7 95.3
2003 7.83 13.6 18.2 34 21.1 54.9
On Project CPF 2004 7.62 12.5 17.4 39 18.5 48.5
Fence line 2005 6.08 9.00 17.0 89 17.3 91.9
2006 5.17 7.24 19.9 174 19.9 174.8
Maximum 7.83 13.6 19.9 46 21.1 54.9
2002 6.49 10.2 17.8 75 18.6 82.3
Outside Project 2003 8.24 15.2 18.4 21 21.4 41.1
CPF Fence line 2004 7.96 13.1 18.8 44 19.2 46.3
and Inside Well 2005 7.10 11.9 17.5 47 17.6 48.4
Pad Area 2006 5.50 8.69 18.8 116 18.8 115.8
Maximum 8.24 15.2 18.8 24 21.4 41.1
2002 8.16 13.0 14.6 12 15.6 20.3
2003 9.48 15.4 16.8 8.8 19.7 27.5
Outside Well 2004 9.10 16.4 16.5 0.7 20.5 24.7
Pad Area and
Inside LSA 2005 8.02 10.9 14.1 29.1 15.3 39.7
2006 9.91 15.7 16.1 2.8 17.8 13.4
Maximum 9.91 16.4 16.8 2.3 20.5 24.7
2002 198.9 227.9 227.9 0 231.9 1.7
2003 200.1 213.7 213.7 0.01 216.6 1.4
Outside LSA and 2004 207.6 221.1 221.1 0 221.8 0.3
Inside RSA 2005 221.6 233.6 233.6 0.0001 237.1 1.5
2006 206.4 237.6 237.6 0.00005 242.1 1.9
Maximum 221.6 237.6 237.6 0.00005 242.1 1.9
AAAQG 80 80 80 - 80 -
NOTES:
AAAQG are not applicable within an industrial fence line.
Page 3-67
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
9
6210000 9
6210000
5
8.
9
8.
5
8.5
8
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
8.5 8
8 .5
8
63
7.5
8
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
8.5
Sandy Lake
8.5 Pelican
Lake
8
6180000
6180000
8
5
8.
7.5
7
8 8
6170000
6170000
8
7.5
7.5
7
6160000
6160000
7.5
7.5
8.5
6150000
6150000
8
7.5
7.5 7
7
7.5
McMillan
Lake
7.5
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
7.5
7.5
6130000
6130000
5
7.
Calling 7
Lake
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
7
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
15
6210000
6210000
15
14
14
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
14
14
15
15
14
15
15
14 63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake 14
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
14
14
6180000
6180000
14
14
14
14
15
6170000
6170000
14
14
6160000
6160000
14
12.5
.5
12
6150000
6150000
14
12.5
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
12.5
.5
12
.5
12
6130000
6130000
.5
12
Calling
Lake 12.5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
12.5
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
15
6210000
6210000
15
14
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
14
15
14
15
14
15
15 63
15
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
14
Sandy Lake
14
Pelican
Lake
14
6180000
6180000
14
14
14
14
15
6170000
6170000
14
14
15
6160000
6160000
14
14
12.5
12.5
6150000
6150000
14
12
.5
12.5
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
12.5
5
12.
12.5
6130000
6130000
12.5
.5
12
Calling
Lake 12.5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000 20
6210000
17
18
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
18
17
18
17
63
18
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
17
6180000
6180000
18
18
18
17
17
17
6170000
6170000
17
17
18 17
6160000
6160000
17
18
6150000
6150000
18
17
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
15
6130000
6130000
15
15
Calling
Lake 15
15
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.6.3.2 24-hour PM2.5 Predictions

Existing Condition
For existing condition 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-10 and Figure 3.6-25. The maximum
predicted 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line
(3.43 and 3.54 µg/m3) as there are no substantive PM2.5 emission sources located in the immediate area.
The maximum PM2.5 concentration in the LSA is 6.12 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e.,
30 µg/m3). Higher PM2.5 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the RSA; these higher
values occur near mine developments.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-10 and Figure 3.6-26. The maximum
increase slightly due to other PM2.5 emitting projects in the LSA. The maximum PM2.5 concentration in the
LSA is 10.8 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 30 µg/m3).
Application Case
For Application Case 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-10 and Figure 3.6-27. The maximum
increase compared to the Baseline Case due to the Project PM2.5 emission sources. The maximum PM2.5
concentration in the LSA is 10.9 µg/m3, which is 1 percent higher than the Baseline Case.

For PDC 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table 3.6-10 and Figure 3.6-28. There are slight increases to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case. The maximum 24-hour PM2.5
concentration in the LSA is 13.6 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO.

highest 1-hour PM2.5 concentrations are in the 18.5 to 19.1 µg/m3 range. For the emergency generator
scenario, these corresponding values are in the 19.0 to 19.1 µg/m3 range. For the three flaring events, the
corresponding values are in the 4.18 to 8.88 µg/m3 range for one of the events and in the 18.8 to 19.2
µg/m3 range for the other two events. Due to the limited duration of intermittent events, 24-hour and
annual average PM2.5 concentrations changes due to these events were not examined.

The ambient PM2.5 concentrations provided in the previous tables and figures are based on the values
located outside the Model Domain. Ambient PM2.5 concentration measurements from locations in
northeastern Alberta were examined to determine representative background values consistent the AEW
AQMG (see Appendix 3B).
On this basis, representative 1-hour and 24-hour average background values are 5.7 and 5.25 µg/m3,
respectively. The addition of these background values to the values provided in the previous tables and
figures does not change the conclusion that the maximum predicted PM2.5 concentrations in the LSA are
less than the respective AAAQG and AAAQO. Notwithstanding this, nearby and distant wild fire
contributions can result in PM2.5 concentrations that will exceed the ambient criteria; this would occur with
or without the Project.

A comparison between the model predictions and ambient measurements (Section 3.3.4.2) indicated that
the model underpredicts maximum 1-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the rural
Page 3-72
background and in-situ sites by significant amounts (77 to 89%). This is likely due to not including wildfire
and other sources in the modelling (e.g., residential wood burning, slash burning, or fugitive dust). The
underpredictions at the conventional and community sites are much less (i.e., 2 to 13% range).
Notwithstanding these non-modelled contributions, the predicted values provide an indication of the
magnitude and the spatial patterns of PM2.5 concentrations due to industry combustion emissions.
TABLE 3.6-10
COMPARISON OF 24-HOUR (2ND HIGHEST) PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS
24-hour (2nd highest) PM2.5 Concentration

2002 3.20 5.02 12.3 145 12.3 145
2003 3.17 5.36 11.6 116 11.6 116
Inside Project 2004 3.43 5.02 11.1 121 11.3 124
CPF Fence line 2005 2.61 4.24 8.83 108 8.83 109
2006 1.76 2.65 15.4 481 15.4 481
Maximum 3.43 5.36 15.4 188 15.4 188
2002 3.20 5.02 9.42 88 9.42 88
2003 3.17 5.35 7.37 38 7.87 47
On Project CPF 2004 3.54 5.13 9.64 88 10.4 102
Fence line 2005 2.72 4.36 7.35 69 8.05 85
2006 1.80 2.66 8.68 227 8.68 227
Maximum 3.54 5.35 9.64 80 10.4 94
2002 3.47 5.32 8.28 56 8.28 56
Outside Project 2003 3.31 6.55 6.75 3.1 7.88 20
CPF Fence line 2004 4.14 6.42 9.43 47 10.2 58
and Inside Well 2005 3.18 5.58 7.14 28 7.70 38
Pad Area 2006 1.95 3.41 7.17 110 7.31 115
Maximum 4.14 6.55 9.43 44 10.2 55
2002 4.71 7.58 7.62 0.5 9.43 24
2003 3.77 6.71 6.71 0.1 8.28 23
Outside Well Pad 2004 6.12 10.8 10.9 1.1 13.6 26
Area and Inside
LSA 2005 3.39 5.24 6.79 30 7.46 42
2006 3.50 5.10 5.26 3.1 6.55 28
Maximum 6.12 10.8 10.9 1.1 13.6 26
2002 114.3 121.0 121.0 0.001 122.6 1.4
2003 102.1 122.9 122.9 0 124.0 0.9
Outside LSA and 2004 120.5 89.6 89.6 0 90.7 1.2
Inside RSA 2005 127.3 106.6 106.6 0.001 108.5 1.8
2006 116.0 93.0 93.0 0.009 94.5 1.6
Maximum 127.3 122.9 122.9 0 124.0 0.9
AAAQO 30 30 30 - 30 -
NOTES:
Page 3-73
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.5 6
6210000
6210000
3.5
5.5
5
4
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
3.5
3.5 63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
4
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
4
3.5
5
3.
3.5
6170000
6170000
3.5
6160000
6160000
3.5
6150000
6150000
3.5
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
3.5
6130000
6130000
5 3
3.
3
Calling
Lake
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
10
5.5
6
7.
5
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
5.5
5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
7.5
Pelican
Lake 6
6180000
6180000
6
5
5.
5
5.5
6170000
6170000
5.5
5
6
6160000
6160000
5
6150000
6150000
6
5.5
5
6
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
5
5.
6130000
6130000
6
5
Calling
Lake
5.5
5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
10
6
5.5
6
7.
5
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
5.5
5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
7.5
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
6
5. 5
5.5
5
6170000
6170000
5.
6
6
5.5
6
5.5 6
6160000
6160000
5
5
6150000
6150000
6
5
6
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
5
5.
5.5
6130000
6130000
6
5
Calling
Lake
5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
7.5
6210000
6210000
7
12
10
6200000
6200000
Mariana Lake
7. 8.
5 5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
7
Lake
10
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
7
6180000
6180000
8.5
7.5
7.5
6170000
6170000
7. 6
5
7
7 .5
7
6160000
6160000
7
6150000
6150000
6
7.5
5
McMillan
Lake 7.
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6 7
6
6130000
6130000
7.5
6
Calling
7
Lake
6
6
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
3.6.4 Health and Odour Related Concentrations

To get an indication of how air quality changes could affect human health or produce odours, maximum
concentrations for over 70 different substances and substance groups were predicted at various discrete
locations to represent potentially sensitive receptor locations. The predicted concentrations were provided
for averaging periods ranging from 10 minutes to one year. For most substances, maximum 1-hour,
24-hour and annual average concentrations were predicted. The assessment considers the Existing
Condition, and the three assessment cases.
A summary is provided for the substances for which there are ambient criteria, and the maximum values
for each HHRA receptor group are compared to the respective ambient criteria. The HHRA takes a
systematic review of the predicted concentrations for these and the other substance groups relative to
potential human health responses (see Volume 5, Section 4.0).
3.6.4.1 Common Air Contaminants

For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the CAC substances that have associated
ambient air quality objectives, see Table 3.6-11. The maximum predicted concentrations of all CACs are
less than the respective AAAQO and AAAQG at all HHRA receptors. The project contribution at the most
exposed aboriginal and worker HHRA receptors to the predicted concentrations (Application Case) are
the highest for NO2.
3.6.4.2 Hydrocarbon Substances

For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the hydrocarbon substances that have
associated ambient air quality objectives, see Table 3.6-12. The maximum predicted concentrations of all
hydrocarbon substances are less than the respective AAAQO at all HHRA receptors. The project
contribution at the most exposed aboriginal and worker HHRA receptors to the predicted concentrations
(Application Case) are the highest for benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and hexane. Project emissions result in
little to no change in the predicted Application Case concentrations of ethylbenzene and cumene at the
most exposed aboriginal and worker HHRA receptors.
3.6.4.3 TRS Substances

For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the TRS substances that have associated
ambient air quality objectives, see Table 3.6-13. The maximum predicted concentrations of both TRS
substances are less than the respective AAAQO at all HHRA receptors. Project emissions result in little to
no change in the predicted Application Case concentrations of carbon disulphide and hydrogen sulphide
at the most exposed aboriginal and worker HHRA receptors.
Model predictions represent 1-hour averaging periods. As an odour event can be associated with a
shorter time period, an adjustment factor of 2.6 was used to increase the 1-hour values to represent a
shorter term “odour peak”. While there are AAAOQ for specific substances, the AAAQO may not always
reflect the odour threshold concentration. The odour thresholds are 495 µg/m3 for CS2 and 11.5 µg/m3 for
H2S (Cenovus 2010). Table 3.6-13 also provides the maximum short-term predicted peak TRS substance
concentrations and compares these peaks to associated odour thresholds. The maximum predicted
concentrations for both TRS substances are less than the respective odour thresholds at all HHRA
receptors.
3.6.4.4 Trace Metals

For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the trace metal substances that have
associated ambient air quality objectives, see Table 3.6-14. The maximum predicted concentrations of all
trace metals are less than the respective AAAQO at all HHRA receptors. The project contribution at the
most exposed aboriginal and worker HHRA receptors to the predicted concentrations (Application Case)
are the highest for arsenic and manganese. Project emissions result in little to no change in the predicted
Application Case concentrations of chromium and nickel at the most exposed aboriginal and worker
HHRA receptors.
Page 3-78

The uncertainties with respect to the NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 are explicitly addressed with the comparison
between measurements and model predictions (details are provided in Appendix 3D and summaries are
provided in Sections 3.6.1.5, 3.6.2.6 and 3.6.3.4). The uncertainties associated with the other parameters
are greater because: generic emission factors are used to estimate trace gas combustion emissions,
fugitive emissions (specifically for hydrocarbons and TRS) are more variable, and the natural source
contributions (specifically for PM2.5 and trace metals that may have a crustal component) have been
excluded.
TABLE 3.6-11
MAXIMUM PREDICTED COMMON AIR CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA

RECEPTORS
Maximum Concentration
Receptor (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (% Change) (µg/m3) (% Change)
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour (AAAQO = 300 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 114.3 54.5 86.1 58 86.1 58
Worker 128.0 67.1 96.3 44 96.3 44
Project MPOI 98.7 98.7 119.3 21 119.3 21
LSA MPOI 131.2 131.3 131.3 0.0006 131.3 0.05
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual (AAAQO = 45 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 6.64 3.60 7.34 104 7.76 115
Worker 7.98 3.90 9.58 146 9.91 154
Project MPOI 6.09 6.59 13.3 1.02 13.7 1.08
LSA MPOI 10.0 10.3 14.8 43.6 15.1 46.2
Sulphur Dioxide 1-hour (AAAQO = 450 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 35.1 39.1 39.1 0.0008 42.8 10
Worker 23.1 27.2 27.2 0.0 29.2 8
Project MPOI 23.9 23.7 30.1 0.3 33.8 0.4
LSA MPOI 39.6 42.8 42.8 0.0 46.1 8
Sulphur Dioxide 24-hour (AAAQO = 125 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 12.6 13.4 13.4 0.003 14.7 10
Worker 7.89 9.71 9.71 0.0009 11.7 20
Project MPOI 7.79 8.49 10.6 0.25 10.7 0.26
LSA MPOI 13.6 15.4 15.4 0.001 16.9 10
Sulphur Dioxide Annual (AAAQO = 20 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.973 1.18 1.19 0.5 1.52 29
Worker 0.652 0.760 0.956 26 1.13 49
Project MPOI 0.583 0.631 1.45 1.3 1.62 1.6
LSA MPOI 1.24 1.51 1.52 0.3 1.91 26
Fine Particulate Matter 1-hour (AAAQG = 80 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 8.84 15.9 16.0 1.01 20.2 27.4
Worker 8.28 13.6 16.3 19.4 19.4 42.5
Project MPOI 7.83 13.6 19.9 21.3 21.1 55.1
LSA MPOI 9.91 16.4 19.9 21.1 21.4 30.7
Fine Particulate Matter 24-hour (AAAQO = 30 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 5.40 9.49 9.60 1.15 12.2 28.6
Worker 3.98 6.53 6.62 1.35 8.54 30.7
Project MPOI 3.54 5.35 9.64 0.80 10.4 0.94
LSA MPOI 6.12 10.8 10.9 1.11 13.6 26.0
Carbon Monoxide 1-hour (AAAQO = 15,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 129.3 131.5 390.5 197 390.6 197
Page 3-79
TABLE 3.6-11 Cont'd
Worker 183.3 185.2 349.3 89 349.4 89
Project MPOI 495.8 500.2 621.6 24.3 621.8 24.3
LSA MPOI 643.4 644.8 667.5 3.51 667.6 3.54
Carbon Monoxide 8-hour (AAAQO = 6,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 135.3 135.9 259.6 91 259.7 91
Worker 137.8 145.3 316.8 118 316.9 118
Project MPOI 456.8 465.5 588.6 26.4 589.6 26.7
LSA MPOI 867.7 868.2 917.0 5.6 917.8 5.7
NOTES:
1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest, 24-hour concentrations are the 2nd highest, 8-hour and annual concentrations are the 1st highest.
The Project MPOI refers to the highest concentration predicted to occur along the Project CPF fence line.
LSA MPOI refers to the highest concentration predicted to occur in the LSA. This is only applicable to CACs as the full receptor grid was not
run for non-CACs.
TABLE 3.6-12
MAXIMUM PREDICTED HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA

RECEPTORS
Acetaldehyde 1-hour (AAAQO = 90 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.570 1.32 1.32 0 1.55 17
Worker 0.330 0.868 1.42 63 1.44 65
Project MPOI 0.303 0.779 1.66 114 1.66 114
Benzene 1-hour (AAAQO = 30 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.744 0.838 2.04 144 2.04 144
Worker 0.331 0.527 2.62 398 2.62 398
Project MPOI 0.345 0.489 9.72 1889 9.72 1889
Benzo(a)pyrene Annual (AAAQO = 0.0003 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.0000009 0.0000012 0.0000075 501 0.000008 505
Worker 0.0000005 0.0000008 0.0000129 1463 0.000013 1469
Project MPOI 0.0000007 0.0000011 0.0000731 6622 0.000073 6627
Ethylbenzene 1-hour (AAAQO = 2,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.457 0.770 0.770 0.00 0.775 0.65
Worker 0.331 0.560 0.560 0.00 0.563 0.57
Project MPOI 0.222 0.365 0.429 17.49 0.429 17.50
Formaldehyde 1-hour (AAAQO = 65 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.915 0.924 0.924 0 0.970 5
Worker 0.235 0.567 0.829 46 0.863 52
Project MPOI 0.376 0.569 2.70 375 2.71 375
Hexane 1-hour (AAAQO = 21,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 6.30 10.6 16.2 53 16.3 54
Worker 4.00 6.67 19.9 198 19.9 199
Project MPOI 3.53 6.03 72.5 1102 72.5 1103
Page 3-80
TABLE 3.6-12 Cont'd
Hexane 24-hour (AAAQO = 90 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 2.29 3.97 6.01 51 6.31 59
Worker 1.34 2.42 7.61 215 7.61 215
Project MPOI 1.19 2.13 27.9 1207 27.9 1208
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 1-hour (AAAQO = 500 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.029 0.045 0.045 0 0.045 0.006
Worker 0.019 0.029 0.029 0 0.029 0.004
Project MPOI 0.016 0.024 0.027 10.0 0.027 10.0
Methanol 1-hour (AAAQO = 2,600 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 1.21 1.21 1.21 0 1.21 0
Worker 0.164 0.164 0.318 94 0.318 94
Project MPOI 0.431 0.431 5.61 1203 5.61 1203
Styrene 1-hour (AAAQO = 215 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.00477 0.00477 0.00477 0 0.00477 0
Worker 0.00231 0.00249 0.00249 0.001 0.00249 0.04
Project MPOI 0.00239 0.00243 0.00703 189.01 0.00702 188.92
Toluene 1-hour (AAAQO = 1,880 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 1.84 3.01 3.01 0.01 3.04 1.0
Worker 1.11 1.97 1.97 0 1.98 0.4
Project MPOI 0.87 1.42 6.94 390 6.94 390
Toluene 24-hour (AAAQO = 400 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.713 1.18 1.18 0.002 1.20 1.4
Worker 0.439 0.745 0.819 9.9 0.823 10.4
Project MPOI 0.355 0.594 2.69 353 2.69 353
Xylenes 1-hour (AAAQO = 2,300 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 2.56 4.28 4.28 0 4.30 0.5
Worker 1.79 2.98 2.98 0.001 3.00 0.7
Project MPOI 1.21 1.98 2.12 7 2.13 8
NOTES:
1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest, 24-hour concentrations are the 2nd highest, annual concentrations are the 1st highest.
Page 3-81
TABLE 3.6-13
MAXIMUM PREDICTED TOTAL REDUCED SULPHUR SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA

RECEPTORS
Carbon Disulphide 1-hour (AAAQO = 30 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.192 0.288 0.288 0 0.322 12
Worker 0.123 0.184 0.184 0 0.208 13
Project MPOI 0.103 0.159 0.160 0.4 0.184 16
Carbon Disulphide Peak (Odour Threshold = 495 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.499 0.749 0.749 0 0.837 12
Worker 0.320 0.478 0.478 0 0.541 13
Project MPOI 0.268 0.413 0.416 0.4 0.478 16
Hydrogen Sulphide 1-hour (AAAQO = 14 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.532 0.831 0.831 0 0.840 1
Worker 0.351 0.556 0.556 0 0.560 0.7
Project MPOI 0.287 0.442 0.882 100 0.885 100
Hydrogen Sulphide Peak (Odour Threshold = 11.5 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 1.38 2.16 2.16 0 2.18 1
Worker 0.913 1.45 1.45 0 1.46 0.7
Project MPOI 0.746 1.15 2.29 100 2.30 100
Hydrogen Sulphide 24-hour (AAAQO = 4 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.185 0.293 0.293 0.01 0.338 15
Worker 0.112 0.182 0.182 0.002 0.190 5
Project MPOI 0.098 0.156 0.416 166 0.430 176
NOTES:
1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest and 24-hour concentrations are the 2nd highest.
Odour thresholds are from Cenovus (2010).
Page 3-82
TABLE 3.6-14
MAXIMUM PREDICTED TRACE METALS CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA RECEPTORS
Arsenic 1-hour (AAAQO = 0.1 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.00036 0.000095 0.00019 99.6 0.00019 99.7
Worker 0.00065 0.000082 0.00017 106.5 0.00017 106.5
Project MPOI 0.00066 0.000068 0.00030 340.2 0.00030 340.2
Arsenic Annual (AAAQO = 0.01 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.0000053 0.0000034 0.0000093 173 0.0000100 194
Worker 0.0000087 0.0000024 0.0000100 313 0.0000107 340
Project MPOI 0.0000090 0.0000024 0.0000179 640 0.0000187 672
Chromium 1-hour (AAAQO = 1 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.00165 0.00217 0.00217 0 0.00229 5.2
Worker 0.00128 0.00162 0.00162 0.001 0.00181 11.3
Project MPOI 0.00119 0.00130 0.00130 0.045 0.00138 6.5
Lead 1-hour (AAAQO = 1.5 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.000343 0.000603 0.000603 0.06 0.000656 8.72
Worker 0.000247 0.000396 0.000506 27.9 0.000520 31.2
Project MPOI 0.000237 0.000362 0.000568 57.1 0.000577 59.4
Manganese 1-hour (AAAQO = 2 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.000147 0.000120 0.000476 295 0.000476 296
Worker 0.000262 0.000113 0.000427 277 0.000427 277
Project MPOI 0.000269 0.000118 0.000752 535 0.000752 535
Manganese Annual (AAAQO = 0.2 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.000004 0.000005 0.000022 326 0.000023 356
Worker 0.000005 0.000005 0.000021 366 0.000023 399
Project MPOI 0.000005 0.000005 0.000042 773 0.000043 811
Nickel 1-hour (AAAQO = 6 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.00286 0.00363 0.00363 0 0.00383 5.58
Worker 0.00215 0.00293 0.00293 0.0006 0.00314 7.29
Project MPOI 0.00201 0.00232 0.00411 77.3 0.00411 77.3
Nickel Annual (AAAQO = 0.5 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.000063 0.000088 0.000138 57 0.000150 71
Worker 0.000048 0.000066 0.000133 102 0.000145 120
Project MPOI 0.000040 0.000060 0.000232 285 0.000243 304
NOTES:
1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest and annual concentrations are the 1st highest.
3.6.5 Acid-forming Substance Deposition

SO2 and NOX emissions contribute to the deposition of acid-forming substances, which is expressed as
Potential Acid Input (PAI) in units of keq H+/ha/a. PAI represents the sum of the sulphur substances (e.g.,
SO2 and SO42-) and the nitrogen substances (e.g., NO, NO2, HNO3 and NO3-) contributions minus the
neutralizing effects of the base cation (e.g., Ca2+ and Mg2+) contribution.
Page 3-83
3.6.5.1 PAI Precursor Emissions

For the NOX and SO2 emission rates used to represent the Project and the three assessment cases, see
Table 3.6-15. The Project represents 0.87% of the Baseline Case NOX emissions and 0.17% of the
Baseline Case SO2 emissions in the Model Domain (mainly the LAR).
TABLE 3.6-15
PAI PRECURSOR NOX AND SO2 EMISSION RATES
Assessment Case NOX Emissions (t/d) SO2 Emissions (t/d)

Project 5.32 0.502
Existing Condition 359.05 366.18
Baseline Case 613.88 304.16
Application Case 619.21 304.66
PDC 805.91 365.14
3.6.5.2 PAI Predictions

The CALPUFF model was used to predict PAI deposition in the RSA due to existing condition, Baseline
Case, Application Case and PDC precursor emissions that are identified in Table 3.6-15. The model
predictions were added to the AEW REgional Lagrangian Acid Deposition (RELAD) model predictions to
account for background contribution from sources located outside the model domain. AEW applied the
RELAD model to predict the background PAI for northeastern Alberta by excluding the WBEA oil sands
emission sources. For the southern portion of the Model Domain, there may some “double counting” of
contributions through the RELAD and the CALPUFF contributions.
The predicted annual PAI depositions are provided for each simulation year for the twelve 1° longitude x
1° latitude grid-cells that comprise the RSA. The annual values are based on the sum of the individual
hourly depositions that accumulates over each one-year simulation period. The PAI deposition used in
this assessment represents the average of the five individual years included in the simulation. The PAI
values that are provided incorporate the assumption that only a portion of the nitrogen compound
deposition is acidifying (See Appendix 3D for calculation details).
Existing Condition
For the existing condition PAI predictions, see Tables 3.6-16 and 3.6-17, and Figure 3.6-29. Depending
on the grid cell, the average PAI deposition ranges from 0.002 to 0.042 keq H+/ha/a. On a grid cell basis,
the PAI in the RSA is less than the most stringent deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a
Monitoring Load for sensitive grid cells).
Baseline Case
For the Baseline Case PAI predictions, see Tables 3.6-16 and 3.6-17, and Figure 3.6-30. Depending on
the grid cell, the average PAI deposition does not change and ranges from 0.002 to 0.042 keq H+/ha/a.
The highest value occurs in the grid cell that is in the NW corner of the RSA. The predicted values for all
grid cells are less than the most stringent deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a Monitoring
Load for sensitive grid cells).
Figure 3.6-30 shows that PAI maxima occur near the bitumen extraction facilities and near the City of Fort
McMurray. Approximately 0.39% of the RSA (171 km2) exceeds the monitoring load deposition criteria for
low sensitivity ecosystems (Table 3.6-17). For moderately sensitive ecosystems, about 0.94% of the RSA
(407 km2) exceeds the monitoring loading criteria. For sensitive ecosystems, about 3.31, 1.80, and 1.41%
of the RSA exceeds the monitoring, target and critical load criteria, respectively.
Application Case
For the Application Case PAI predictions, see Tables 3.6-16 and 3.6-17, and Figure 3.6-31. Depending
on the grid cell, the average PAI deposition ranges from 0.002 to 0.042 keq H+/ha/a (Table 3.6-16).
Page 3-84
Compared to the Baseline Case, the grid cell averages increase between 0 and 0.04 percent. The
predicted values for all grid cells are less than the most stringent deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17
keq H+/ha/a Monitoring Load for sensitive grid cells).
Figure 3.6-31 shows that PAI maxima occur near the bitumen extraction facilities and near the City of Fort
McMurray. Approximately 0.40% of the RSA (172 km2) exceeds the monitoring load deposition criteria for
low sensitivity ecosystems (Table 3.6-17). For moderately sensitive ecosystems, about 0.94% of the RSA
(407 km2) exceeds the monitoring loading criteria. For sensitive ecosystems, about 3.32, 1.80, and 1.41%
of the RSA exceeds the monitoring, target and critical load criteria, respectively.

For the PDC PAI predictions, see Tables 3.6-16 and 3.6-17, and Figure 3.6-32. Depending on the grid
cell, the average PAI deposition value ranges from 0.002 to 0.042 keq H+/ha/a (Table 3.6-16). Compared
to the Baseline Case, the grid cell averages increase between 0.06 and 6.45 percent. The predicted
values for all grid cells are less than the most stringent deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17 keq
H+/ha/a Monitoring Load for sensitive grid cells).
Figure 3.6-32 shows that PAI maxima in the RSA occur near the bitumen extraction facilities and near the
City of Fort McMurray. Approximately 0.57% of the RSA (250 km2) exceeds the monitoring load
deposition criteria for low sensitivity ecosystems (Table 3.6-17). For moderately sensitive ecosystems,
about 1.27% of the RSA (553 km2) exceeds the monitoring loading criteria. For sensitive ecosystems,
about 5.31, 3.19, and 2.26% of the RSA exceeds the monitoring, target and critical load criteria,
respectively.

In terms of predicting PAI deposition, the adopted approach can be regarded as a best estimate practice.
For this reason, the predicted deposition is given a high confidence rating as a relative indicator (e.g.,
determining areas with high, medium and low deposition), and an undetermined confidence rating as an
absolute indicator.
TABLE 3.6-16
PREDICTED GRID CELL AVERAGE PAI DEPOSITION
Annual PAI Deposition (keq H+/ha/a)

Application Case PDC
1° by 1° Grid Year Existing Condition Baseline Case Prediction % Change Prediction % Change
2002 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.00 0.042 0.07
2003 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.00 0.042 0.08
56 N
2004 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.00 0.042 0.10
114 W
2005 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.00 0.042 0.08
(NW RSA)
2006 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.00 0.042 0.11
Average 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.00 0.042 0.09
2002 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.00 0.023 0.23
56 N 2003 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.00 0.023 0.23
113 W 2004 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.00 0.023 0.26
(Fort 2005 0.022 0.023 0.023 0.00 0.023 0.24
McMurray) 2006 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.00 0.023 0.29
Average 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.00 0.023 0.25
2002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.04 0.002 6.58
2003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.04 0.002 6.43
56 N
2004 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.04 0.002 6.28
112 W
2005 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.04 0.002 6.41
(NE RSA)
2006 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.03 0.002 6.53
Average 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.04 0.002 6.45
Page 3-85
TABLE 3.6-16 Cont’d
Annual PAI Deposition (keq H+/ha/a)

Application Case PDC
1° by 1° Grid Year Existing Condition Baseline Case Prediction % Change Prediction % Change
2002 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.00 0.030 0.04
2003 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.00 0.030 0.05
55 N
2004 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.00 0.030 0.07
114 W
2005 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.00 0.030 0.06
(SW RSA)
2006 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.00 0.030 0.06
Average 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.00 0.030 0.06
2002 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.021 0.11
2003 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.021 0.12
55 N
2004 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.021 0.14
113 W
2005 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.021 0.14
(Project Area)
2006 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.021 0.15
Average 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.021 0.13
2002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.05 0.003 1.21
2003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.04 0.003 1.21
55 N
2004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.04 0.003 1.24
112 W
2005 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.05 0.003 1.34
(SE RSA)
2006 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.04 0.003 1.31
Average 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.04 0.003 1.27
TABLE 3.6-17
SPATIAL EXTENT OF PREDICTED PAI DEPOSITION IN THE RSA GREATER THAN INDICATED
THRESHOLDS
Deposition Area (km2)

Load keq H+/ha/a Existing Condition Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Low Sensitivity
Critical 1.0 64 (0.15%) 57 (0.13%) 57 (0.13%) 90 (0.21%)
Target 0.9 83 (0.19%) 89 (0.20%) 89 (0.20%) 129 (0.30%)
Monitoring 0.7 152 (0.35%) 171 (0.39%) 172 (0.40%) 250 (0.57%)
Moderately Sensitive
Critical 0.5 221 (0.51%) 277 (0.64%) 277 (0.64%) 400 (0.92%)
Target 0.45 244 (0.56%) 309 (0.71%) 310 (0.71%) 443 (1.02%)
Monitoring 0.35 307 (0.71%) 407 (0.94%) 407 (0.94%) 553 (1.27%)
Sensitive
Critical 0.25 480 (1.10%) 614 (1.41%) 614 (1.41%) 982 (2.26%)
Target 0.22 657 (1.51%) 781 (1.80%) 782 (1.80%) 1,389 (3.19%)
Monitoring 0.17 1,341 (3.08%) 1,440 (3.31%) 1,443 (3.32%) 2,310 (5.31%)
NOTES:
Based on average N deposition values for the five-year simulation period 2002 to 2006.
Values include background.
Area of the RSA = 43,479 km2.
The values in brackets indicate the percent of the RSA that exceeds the deposition loadings.
Page 3-86
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1
0 .5
0.2
5
6300000
6300000
0.1
0.22
7
0.1
07
0.
6280000
0.08
6280000
0.17
0.1
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.07
0.08
6240000
6240000
0.07
0.07 0.08
63
0. 0 0.07
6
6220000
6220000
0.06
NorthLake
Wabasca 0.06 0.08
0.06
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
0.05
SouthLake
Wabasca
0.05
Sandy
Lake
0.0
Sandy Lake 5
04
0.05
0.
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.05
Conklin
6160000
6160000
0.05 0.0
4
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
5
0.0
0.04
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Moose Portage Calling Lake
Wandering River
5 Breynat
Ranch 0.0
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake 0.04
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
FIGURE 3.6-29
March 2012
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.17
5
7
6300000
6300000
0.0
0.22
7
0.1
0.08
6280000
6280000
0.17
0.1
0 .1
0.
08
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.0
7
0.1
6240000
6240000
0.07
0.0
8
0.07 63
0.
1
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca
0 .0 0.08
6
0.06
0.
06
Wabasca-Desmarais
8
0.0
6200000
6200000
0.06
0.0
7
SouthLake
Wabasca
6
0.05 0.0
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican 5
6180000
6180000
Lake 0
0.
0.
05
0.0
5
0.06
0.05
0. Conklin
05
0.05
6160000
6160000
0.0
7
0.0
0.06
5
5
0.0
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
0.0
5
0.06
0.05
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
0.05
Breynat
Ranch
4
0.0
Calling River
0.04
0.0
6100000
6100000
5
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1
0.5
0.
25
6300000
6300000
0.22
0.1
0.08
7
0.1
7
6280000
6280000
0.1
0.
1
0.
07
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.1
6240000
6240000
0. 0 0.08
7
0.0
6 63
0.1
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca 0.08
0.0
6
Wabasca-Desmarais
8
0.0
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
0.0
6
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake 5
Pelican 0.0
6180000
6180000
Lake
5
0.0
0.06
0.0
Conklin
0.0
5
6160000
6160000
6
0.06
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
0.05
0.06
0.05
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
0.05
Breynat
Ranch 4
0. 0
Calling River
0.04
0.0
6100000
6100000
5
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1
1
0.5
0.1
0.22
6300000
6300000
0.17
0.25
2
0.2 0 .1
7
0.25
6280000
6280000
0.08
0.1
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.1
6240000
6240000
0.
17
08 63
0.
1
0. 0 0.
6220000
6220000
7
0 .0 8
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
0.07
6200000
6200000
0.1
0.06
SouthLake
Wabasca 0.07
8
0.0
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake 07
0.
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.0
6
0 .0 0. 0
8
5
0.0
7
0.0 Conklin
6160000
6160000
8
0.07
0.08
0.
06
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
0.0
6
0.05
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
5
0.0 Wandering River
0.05
Breynat
Ranch
0.05
Calling River
0.06
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake 0.05
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
3.6.6 Nitrogen Substance Deposition

NOX emissions contribute to the deposition of nitrogen substances, which is expressed in units of kg
N/ha/a. N deposition represents the sum of nitrogen substances (e.g., NO, NO2, HNO3 and NO3-). As
nitrogen is a nutrient, the deposition of nitrogen substances can influence aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. As different species in these ecosystems respond to nitrogen loading differently, nitrogen
deposition can potentially change ecosystem biodiversity.
3.6.6.1 N Deposition Precursor Emissions

For the NOX emission rates used to represent the Project, existing condition, and the three assessment
cases, see Table 3.6-18. The Project represents 0.87% of the Baseline Case NOX emissions in the Model
Domain (mainly the LAR).
TABLE 3.6-18
NITROGEN DEPOSITION PRECURSOR NOX EMISSION RATES
Assessment Case NOX Emissions (t/d)

Project 5.32
PDC 805.91
3.6.6.2 N Deposition Predictions

The CALPUFF model was used to predict nitrogen deposition in the RSA due to existing condition,
Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC precursor emissions that are identified in Table 3.6-18. The
model predictions were added to the AEW RELAD model predictions to account for background
contribution from sources located outside the model domain. AEW applied the RELAD model to predict
the background nitrogen deposition for northeastern Alberta by excluding the WBEA oil sands emission
sources. For the southern portion of the Model Domain, there may be some “double counting” of
The annual values are based on the sum of the individual hourly depositions that accumulates over each
one-year simulation period. The nitrogen deposition used in this assessment represents the average of
the five individual years included in the simulation.
Existing Condition
For the existing condition nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table 3.6-19 and Figure 3.6-33. The
bitumen extraction facilities result in enhanced nitrogen deposition near Fort McMurray. More distant from
the Project area, the main nitrogen deposition contribution is from emission sources located outside the
Model Domain. About 233 km2 (0.54%) of the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a.
Baseline Case
For the Baseline Case nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table 3.6-19 and Figure 3.6-34. The highest
nitrogen deposition occurs in the northeast of the RSA, which is where the precursor NOX emissions are
greater (see Figure 3.6-34). For most of the RSA, the predicted nitrogen deposition is in the 2 to 5 kg
N/ha/a range. About 478 km2 (1.10%) of the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a.
Application Case
For the Application Case nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table 3.6-19 and Figure 3.6-35. About
478 km2 (1.10%) of the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a; which is unchanged from the Baseline Case.
This shows that the Project is having practically no effect on the predicted nitrogen deposition values.
Page 3-91
Figure 3.6-35 shows that nitrogen deposition maxima occur near the bitumen extraction facilities and near
urban areas (i.e., the City of Fort McMurray).

For the PDC nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table 3.6-19 and Figure 3.6-36. About 679 km2 (1.56%)
of the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a; this represents a 0.5% increase in area above this threshold.
Figure 3.6-36 shows that nitrogen deposition maxima occur near the bitumen extraction facilities and near
urban areas (i.e., the City of Fort McMurray).

In terms of predicting nitrogen deposition, the adopted approach can be regarded as a best estimate
practice. For this reason, the predicted deposition is given a high confidence rating as a relative indicator
(e.g., determining areas with high, medium and low deposition), and an undetermined confidence rating
as an absolute indicator.
TABLE 3.6-19
SPATIAL EXTENT OF PREDICTED NITROGEN DEPOSITION IN THE RSA GREATER THAN THE
INDICATED THRESHOLDS
Area (km2)
Existing
Deposition Criteria (kg N/ha/a) Condition Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Critical Load for Boreal Forest – Upper Limit 10 155 (0.36%) 310 (0.71%) 310 (0.71%) 504 (1.16%)
Critical Load for Boreal Forest - Midpoint 8 233 (0.54%) 478 (1.10%) 478 (1.10%) 679 (1.56%)
Critical Load for Boreal Forest – Lower Limit 5 526 (1.21%) 1,219 (2.80%) 1,224 (2.82%) 1,806 (4.51%)
NOTES:
Based on average N deposition values for the five-year simulation period 2002 to 2006.
Values include background.
Area of the RSA = 43,479 km2.
The values in brackets indicate the percent of the RSA that exceeds the deposition criteria.
Page 3-92
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
6300000 1.8
6300000
2.5
5
2.1
1.7 3
3
2
6280000
6280000
2.3
5
2.
1
2.5
2 2.3
2
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
2.1
1.8
6240000
6240000
1
2.
2.1
2.3
2
2.1
2
63
6220000
6220000
2
2
2.3
NorthLake
Wabasca
2.1
2
2
2.1
2.1
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
2 2.1
2
SouthLake
Wabasca
2.1
Sandy 2
Lake
2.1
2
2 Sandy Lake 2
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
2.1
2
2.1
2.1
2
Conklin
2
6160000
6160000
2.1
2.1
2.3 2.
1
2.1
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Calling
2.1
Lake
6120000
6120000
2.1
Wandering River
.1 Breynat
Ranch2
Calling River
6100000
6100000
2.3 Avenir
Heart 2.1
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
2.1
1 .7
5
6300000
6300000
3
2
8
2.5
1.
5
2.
1
6280000
6280000
3
2.
3
6260000
6260000
2.1
Willow
Lake
2
3
6240000
6240000
2.3
2 .1
2.5
3
63
6220000
6220000
2.3
2.1
2
NorthLake
Wabasca
2. 5
2.3
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
2.3
SouthLake
Wabasca
2.5
Sandy
5
2.
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican 2.3
2.
6180000
6180000
Lake
1
2.1
2.1
2 .3
Conklin
6160000
6160000
2 .1
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.
3
2.3
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
2.3
2.3
2.
3
2.1
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
2.1
Wandering River
Breynat 2.
Ranch 3
Calling River
2.5
6100000
6100000
2.3 Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
2.1
1 .7
5
2.
6300000
6300000
3
2
8
1.
5
3
2.1
6280000
6280000
2.5
3
2.3
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
2.1
2
3
6240000
6240000
2.5
2. 5
2.1
63
6220000
6220000
3
2.3
2.
2.5
2
NorthLake
Wabasca
2.1
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
2.3
SouthLake
Wabasca
2.1
2.5
2.5
Sandy
5
Lake
2.
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
2.3
2.1 Lake
2 .1
2.3
Conklin
2.5
6160000
6160000
2.3
2.5
2.3 2.3
2.3
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
2. 3
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.1
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
2.3
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
2. 5
6100000
6100000
2. 3
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1 .8
2.3
6300000
6300000
3
2.1
5
2.5
5
2
6280000
6280000
2.3
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
3
2.5
3
2.1
6240000
6240000
63
2.5
6220000
6220000
3
2. 5
NorthLake
Wabasca
3
2.5
2.3
Wabasca-Desmarais
2.5
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca 2.3
3
Sandy
Lake
3
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
2.5
Lake
2.3
2.3
Conklin
3
6160000
6160000
3
2.3
2.
McMillan
5
6140000
6140000
Lake
2.5
2.3
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
2.3
2.5
2.3 Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
2.3
2.5
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
3.6.7 Ozone Concentrations

Ozone (O3) is a naturally-occurring constituent of the lower atmosphere (troposphere). Natural
background O3 concentrations can vary between approximately 20 to 60 µg/m3 (or between 10 and
30 ppb). Ozone also occurs naturally in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere), and this O3 can
occasionally be mixed to the ground. This atypical circumstance is known as a ‘stratospheric intrusion’
and is associated with a somewhat unique combination of meteorological circumstances.
Ozone can also be formed in the troposphere when oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC or reactive hydrocarbons) react in the presence of sunlight. These substances are
known as ozone precursors and the formation of ozone tends to peak during conditions of strong solar
radiation, high temperatures, and low wind speeds.
Typically, downwind of ozone precursor areas, the photochemically produced ozone concentration
reaches its maximum a few hours past solar noon. At night, O3 reverts back to oxygen (O2) in the
presence of nitric oxide (NO), which is oxidized to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Ozone can be transported long
distances under certain circumstances. Areas far removed from precursor source regions can experience
elevated ozone if they are positioned along a downwind trajectory from a source region.
In Alberta, there is a general tendency for greater O3 concentrations during the spring (March and April).
Due to the NO to NO2 conversion reaction, O3 concentrations near sources of NO emissions (e.g., urban
areas, congested roadways and industrial complexes) can be less than natural background values.
Ozone can be a respiratory irritant and can damage vegetation.
3.6.7.1 O3 Precursor Emissions

Table 3.6-20 compares the ozone precursor emission rates from: the Project, the existing condition, and
the three assessment cases. The cumulative emission rates shown in the table includes all substantive
industrial and community emissions sources located in the Model Domain (mainly the LAR). The Project
is projected to increase Baseline Case NOX emission and VOC emission rates by 0.9% and 0.5%,
respectively.
TABLE 3.6-20
O3 PRECURSOR NOX AND VOC EMISSION RATES
NOX VOC
Emission Percent Increase Percent Increase Emission Percent Increase Percent Increase
Rate from Existing from Baseline Rate from Existing from Baseline
Assessment Case (t/d) Condition Case (t/d) Condition Case
Project 5.32 - - 2.67 - -
Existing Condition 359.05 - - 252.23 - -
Baseline Case 613.88 71 - 564.82 124 -
Application Case 619.21 72 0.9 567.49 125 0.5
PDC 805.91 124 31 770.73 206 36
3.6.7.2 Ozone Model Studies

Photochemical modelling was not undertaken specifically for the Project. The potential for the Project and
other planned development precursor emissions to contribute to regional O3 formation is examined
through the review of regional photochemical model studies. Early O3 modelling studies specific to the oil
sands region include the SMOG model that was applied on a local basis to determine the potential for
ozone formation (e.g., Syncrude 1997). This was followed by the application of the CALGRID model to
support the Suncor Millennium and the Syncrude MLUEP projects (Earthtech and Conor Pacific, 1998).
The more recent ozone model studies focus on the application of the Community Multiscale Air Quality
(CMAQ) model over a larger domain. These studies include the Environment Canada study (Fox and
Kellerhals 2007), the CEMA study (Environ and Millennium 2010a), and the AEW study (Environ and
Page 3-97
Millennium 2010b). The Environment Canada study focused on all of Alberta, while the CEMA and AEW
studies focussed on the LAR. An overview of these more recent CMAQ studies is provided.
Environment Canada
The Environment Canada (EC) study was undertaken to determine: the relative contributions of industrial,
non-industrial, and transboundary (out of the province) sources; and expected ozone concentration
changes due to future precursor emission projections.
The approach was based on selecting a three-month simulation period of June through August 2002,
which was viewed as being representative of a summer period associated with high ozone formation
potential. CMAQ was applied to a 2880 x 3780 km area centered over Alberta; an area that includes
Western Canada and several northern U.S. states. The model focused on predicting the fourth-highest,
daily-maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration over the simulation period. This metric is consistent
with the CWS for ozone.
Based on year 2000 emissions, the peak ozone concentrations in the Fort McMurray area were predicted
to be in the 130 µg/m3 to 140 µg/m3 range (65 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion) range. The
contributors to the high ozone events in the Fort McMurray region (from most to least significant) are: oil
sands developments; the upstream oil and gas industry; the transportation sector; transboundary
sources; the electrical generating sector; and the chemical sector. Of these sectors, oil sands
development was clearly the dominant contributor to high predicted ozone events.
A future scenario, based on a 2012 and 2015 timeframe, was also assessed in the EC Study. Emissions
from the transportation sector were not adjusted to account for penetration of new vehicle technology,
and the future scenario may therefore be conservative. For this future scenario, the fourth highest daily
maximum eight-hour average ozone concentrations in the oil sands area were projected to increase by 10
to 50%. This is based on two factors, the O3 precursor emissions are projected to increase, and existing
ozone is relatively low for much of the area, and any future increases cause a large percent increment.
CEMA
The CEMA study was intended to update the EC study. The approach was based on a 12 month
simulation period for the 2006 calendar year. CMAQ was applied on a 12 km grid resolution over an 840 x
1320 km area centered over Alberta. The model focused on predicting the hourly, and the fourth-highest,
daily-maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration over the simulation period. The latter metric is
consistent with the CWS for ozone.
Better agreement was found for the 8-hour average predictions than for the 1-hour predictions. While
there was an underprediction bias for the 1-hour prediction, the 8-hour values were found to be within
±20% most of the time.
The model was used to examine sources leading to high concentration events in the WBEA region. The
results indicated that anthropogenic emissions in Alberta and outside of the LAR had the largest influence
on ozone in the WBEA region, and that LAR sources had only a minor influence. This is a different
conclusion than the EC study. The model was not used to evaluate any future emission scenarios.
AEW Study
The AEW study represents a more refined study than the CEMA study. The approach is based on a 5
month simulation period using meteorological data for the May to August 2002 period, which is similar to
the EC study. CMAQ was applied on a 4 km grid resolution over a 504 x 744 km area centered over the
LAR. The model focused on predicting the hourly, and the fourth-highest, daily-maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration over the simulation period. The latter metric is consistent with the CWS for ozone.
Emissions were based on 2006, and a future year (2015) was examined. The 2006 and 2015 NOX
emissions are 262 and 555 t/d, respectively (an increase of 112%). The 2006 value of 262 t/d is less than
the existing condition value of 359 t/d indicated in Table 3.6-20. The 2015 value of 555 t/d is less than the
Baseline Case and PDC values of 614 t/d and 806 t/d, respectively. The PDC includes more
developments than the AEW 2015 case. The 2006 and 2011 VOC emissions are 247 and 793 t/d (an
Page 3-98
increase of 221%), respectively. These are very close to the existing condition value (252 t/d) and the
Baseline Case and PDC values (565 and 771 t/d, respectively) in Table 3.6-20.
The model was found to achieve ozone and performance goals when using a 40 ppb ozone cutoff; the
model was, however, found to have an underestimation bias.
Based on year 2006 emissions, the peak fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour O3 concentrations in the
Fort McMurray/Fort McKay area were predicted to be in the 50 to 56 ppb range (i.e., in the 100 to
112 µg/m3 range).
For 2015, the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour O3 concentrations are predicted to increase in the 2 to
4 ppb range (i.e., in the 4 to 8 µg/m3 range). For the maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations, the increase
is predicted to be in the 10 ppb range (i.e., 20 µg/m3 range). These findings are consistent with the
Environment Canada study.
3.6.7.3 O3 Concentrations
Existing Condition
AEW reviewed O3 monitoring data collected across the province for the 2001 to 2007 period (AEW
2009c). The review is conducted on a three-year period basis (e.g. 2001 to 2003) according to the
procedure defined by the CWS for O3. This procedure removes high O3 episodes that are caused
primarily by natural events, high background, or transboundary transport. The results are used to assign
action levels to monitoring stations so that precursor O3 emission sources can be managed and
exceedances of the CWS can be prevented.
Five monitoring stations in the WBEA airshed are included in the AEW analysis. Results for these stations
indicate that O3 levels are consistently below both the CWS Exceedance Trigger of 65 ppb (127 µg/m3)
and the Planning Trigger of 58 ppb (113 µg/m3). All stations in this airshed have been assigned to the
Surveillance Actions action level for O3. The AEW review indicates that O3 levels in northeastern Alberta
are most influenced by background O3 in the spring (March to May) and that anthropogenic O3 episodes
occasionally occur during periods of hot weather in the Fort McMurray region.
The 1-hour measurements are summarized in Table 3.6-21 to provide an indication of existing conditions
in the region:
• Exceedances of the AAAQO have occurred at all monitoring stations.
• High concentrations tend to be associated with the spring period.
• The lowest annual average ozone concentrations are measured at the Athabasca Valley and Fort
McKay stations. This is likely due to local NO emissions reacting with O3 to produce NO2, reducing
the O3 concentrations.
• The highest annual average ozone concentrations occur at the remote Fort Chipewyan station where
the NOX emissions are the lowest.
The 8-hour measurements that reflect the CWS metric are summarized in Table 3.6-22 and also provide
an indication of existing conditions in the region. Natural and transboundary influences are removed in
accordance with the application of the CWS. The results indicate that existing ozone is less than the CWS
and the AEW framework triggers at all monitoring stations.
Baseline Case
The O3 precursor emissions are projected to increase substantively from the existing condition (i.e., NOX
emissions are projected to increase by 71% and VOC emissions are projected to increase by 124%).
While this increase is not likely to influence the background O3 concentrations that occur in the spring
(March to May), it is likely to contribute to anthropogenic O3 episodes that occur occasionally during
periods of hot weather.
Page 3-99
Relative to the existing condition, the maximum 1-hour O3 concentration could increase by 10 ppb (i.e.,
20 µg/m3), and the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour O3 concentrations could increase by 2 to 4 ppb
(i.e., in the 4 to 8 µg/m3 range) relative to the existing condition. This conclusion is based on the AEW
study.
Application Case
The Project is projected to increase O3 precursor emissions by 0.9% for NOX and by 0.5% for VOC,
relative to the Baseline Case. An appreciable difference between the Baseline Case and the Application
Case is not expected due to the relatively small incremental change associated with the Project.

The PDC is projected to increase O3 precursor emissions by 31% for NOX and by 36% for VOC, relative
to the Baseline Case. The findings for the PDC are similar to that associated with the Baseline Case.

The prediction confidence depends on the accuracy of the precursor emission estimates and the ability of
the CMAQ photochemical model to predict ambient O3 concentration changes. While the application of
the CMAQ model shows some promise in enhancing our understanding of precursor emissions and
ambient ozone relationships, the application of photochemical models in Alberta is still relatively new.
There a number of improvements to the emission sources located inside and outside the LAR that could
be undertaken.
The results from these models should be viewed as preliminary in an attempt to obtain an improved
understanding of source-receptor relationships. While the influence of the increased precursor was
provided, it is premature to use these results to determine potential impacts.
TABLE 3.6-21
1-HOUR O3 CONCENTRATION (µG/M3) MEASUREMENTS
Statistical Descriptor
Monitoring Station Maximum 99th %’ile 95th %’ile 90th %’ile 50th %’ile Average
Industry Stations
Syncrude UE1 159 100 84.4 74.6 35.3 37.3
Community Stations
Fort Chipewyan 130 98.1 84.4 78.5 53.0 54.4
Fort McKay 165 100 84.4 74.6 39.3 40.9
Athabasca Valley 171 100 84.4 72.6 33.4 37.2
Patricia McInnes 161 98.1 84.4 74.6 43.2 43.2
Anzac 171 106 90.3 80.5 49.1 49.8
Ambient Criteria/Targets
AAAQO 160 - - - - -
NAAQO 100 - - - - -
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a criterion or target are shown in bold-face font.
Values are provided to three significant figures.
Page 3-100
TABLE 3.6-22
MEASURED MAXIMUM 8-HOUR O3 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3)
8-hour Concentration
Station (µg/m3) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Industry Stations
Syncrude UE1 1-year (4th highest) - 63 113 98 101 109 112
3-year - - - 105 104 102 107
Community Stations
Fort Chipewyan 1-year (4th highest) 97 107 108 111 97 104 101
3-year - - 108 109 105 104 101
Fort McKay 1-year (4th highest) 99 100 121 94 107 105 108
3-year - - 107 105 108 102 107
Athabasca Valley 1-year (4th highest) 97 106 110 99 103 110 104
3-year - - 104 105 104 104 105
Patricia McInnes 1-year (4th highest) 106 109 105 94 105 108 103
3-year - - 107 102 101 102 105
Ambient Criteria/Targets
CWS 127
Alberta Framework Exceedance Trigger 127
Alberta Framework Planning Trigger 113
NOTES:
All values in this table have natural and/or transboundary contributions factored out.
Concentrations that exceed a criteria or target are shown in bold-face font.
The 1-year values represent the 4th highest day based on the maximum 8-hour average for that day.
The 3-year average value represents the average of the 4th highest 8-hour averages for the three worst days in each of the 3 years.
SOURCE: AEW 2009c
3.6.8 Regional Visibility

Visibility impairment is caused by adsorption and scattering due to gases and particles in the atmosphere.
Adsorption and scattering are collectively referred to as light extinction. A coherent visible plume that can
be attributable to a single development (or even a single stack) is referred to as plume blight. Haze is a
general reduction in visibility over a wide geographic area that cannot be attributable to a single source
and is usually due to cumulative emissions from multiple sources.
The Project and other developments’ precursor NOX, SO2 and PM emissions contribute to the formation
of regional haze. The NOX and SO2 emissions can form particulate nitrate (NO3-) and sulphate (SO4-2),
respectively; which can convert into ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) and ammonium sulphate ((NH4)2SO4).
These ammonium compounds are hygroscopic and can grow in size due to the presence of water vapour;
increasing particle sizes further impair visibility.
3.6.8.1 Haze Precursor Emissions

Table 3.6-23 compares the haze precursor emission rates from the Project, the existing condition, and the
three assessment cases. The cumulative emission rates shown are for a 332 x 700 km region that
includes all substantive industrial and community emission sources located in the Model Domain (mainly
the LAR). The Project increases Baseline Case NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 emission rates by 0.9%, 0.2%, and
1.3%, respectively.
Page 3-101
TABLE 3.6-23
HAZE PRECURSOR NOX, SO2, AND PM2.5 EMISSION RATES
Assessment Case NOX Emissions (t/d) SO2 Emissions (t/d) PM2.5 Emissions (t/d)
Project 5.32 0.502 0.443
Existing Condition 359.05 366.18 18.98
Baseline Case 613.88 304.16 33.53
Application Case 619.21 304.66 33.97
PDC 805.91 365.14 43.26
3.6.8.2 Haze Predictions

A haze index has been developed to account for light extinction and is designed to correspond linearly to
perceived changes in visibility. The haze index is expressed in ‘deciview’ units where a visibility change of
1 dv is regarded as a “just noticeable” change in visibility. ‘Visual range’ is used as another indicator of
haze; and visual range is related to the haze index as follows:
• A haze index of 0 dv corresponds to a visual range of 391 km. This is an ideal atmosphere where
light scattering is only due to atmospheric gases (this phenomenon is referred to as Rayleigh
scattering).
• For a low visibility impaired environment, a haze index of 9.6 dv corresponds to a visual range of
150 km. This is the calculated average visual range for Esther, Alberta, based on measurements over
the 1994 to 2000 period (McDonald and Sheperd 2004). Nephelometer measurements in Waterton
Park (1993 and 1994) indicated an average visual range of 115 km (Sandhu 1998). A haze index of
14 dv or less is associated with ‘excellent’ visibility.
• For a visibility impaired environment, a haze index of 20.4 dv corresponds to a visual range of 51 km.
This is the calculated average visual range for Toronto, based on measurements over the 1994 to
2000 period (McDonald and Sheperd 2004). Haze indices between 15 and 20 dv are associated with
‘good’ visibility, and haze indices between 21 and 24 dv are associated with ‘fair’ visibility.
• Haze indices of 25 to 28 dv or greater than 29 dv, indicates ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’ visibilities,
respectively. A haze index of 29 dv corresponds to a visual range of 21.5 km.
The monitoring and modelling of visibility impairment due to haze is relatively mature in the U.S.
regulatory framework where the focus is on visibility impairment in Class 1 National Parks and Wilderness
Areas. While British Columbia has examined visibility impairment approaches, it has not been a part of
the regulatory framework in Alberta. As a consequence, key measurements are not available to apply the
U.S. assessment framework to the Project area. For this reason, a first-order approach was adopted to
examine potential visibility changes in the Project area. This approach is described in Volume 2,
Appendix 3D and focuses on examining potential first-order visibility changes (∆dv) between the Baseline
Case and the Application Case.
Baseline Case and Application Case Change

The haze index changes between the Application and Baseline cases are plotted as visibility change
contours (i.e., ∆dv) superimposed on the RSA base map (see Figure 3.6-37). This comparison represents
the potential influence of the additional Project emissions. For much of the RSA, the change is less than
0.5 dv. The maximum haze index change is 0.9 dv, which is predicted to occur to the southeast of the
Project area.
A first-order interpretation of these predictions indicates that the Project is not expected to result in
substantive changes in regional haze relative to the Baseline Case.
While this approach can potentially indicate the same conclusions for each individual development (i.e.,
each development is not predicted to result in any substantive impaired visibility), collectively all the
Page 3-102
developments contribute to impaired visibility. The unresolved question is the determination of the
intensity and frequency of impaired visibility due to haze formation from the combined emissions.

The application of models to predict haze forms a part of the assessment process in the U.S. regulatory
framework; therefore their approach can be viewed as a best practice. However, application of the U.S.
approach to the oil sands region is strongly limited by the lack of regional PM concentrations and
associated speciation. For this reason, the prediction confidence is lower and the results should be
viewed as a first-order conservative estimate. It is likely to remain as such until more measurements are
available to quantify the PM speciation and size ranges. Prediction confidence can be enhanced by
confirming PM concentration and visibility relationships specific to the region.
Page 3-103
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
0.
1
0.25
0.1
6300000
6300000
0.1
0 .1
6280000
6280000
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.1
0.25
0.
1
0. 1
6240000
6240000
1
0.
0.1
63
0.1
6220000
6220000
0.1
0.25
0.1
NorthLake
Wabasca
0.1
Wabasca-Desmarais
0.5
0.2
25
5
0.
6200000
6200000
0.
25
SouthLake
Wabasca
0.5
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.1
0.1 1
0.
Conklin
0.2
6160000
6160000
5
0.1
0.2
5
1
0.1
0.
0.5
0.1
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
0.25
0.25
0.1
0.1
5
0.2
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
0.1
Wandering River
Breynat
0.
Ranch
1
Calling River
0.1
6100000
6100000
0.1
0.2
Avenir
Heart
0.1
5
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
3.6.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Due to the association between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, regulatory
agencies have been monitoring GHG emissions from industry and non-industry sources. Given this
interest, this section provides estimates of the GHG emission from the Project associated with
construction, operation and decommissioning activities. The assessment is undertaken on a project-only
basis.
3.6.9.1 Project Emissions

Project Construction and Decommissioning
GHG emissions at the Project site will occur from construction activities, and these will peak during the
initial period (2015 to 2017) due to construction activities at the CPF, the initial well pads, and the multi-
use corridor. For the period of 2016 to 2045 GHG emissions will decrease and these emissions are due
to construction activities that are associated with the development of additional well pads, which is
scheduled to continue until approximately 2035. Pipeline construction and some abandonment activities
also occur during this period. After 2045, GHG emissions are primarily associated with abandonment
activities (i.e., decommissioning) that are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2045.
A summary of Project GHG emissions associated with the construction and decommissioning activities is
provided in Table 3.6-24. Based on the full 30-year period of 2015 to 2045, the average GHG emissions
are 44.0 t/d CO2e for construction and decommissioning activities.
Project Operation
During Project operations, GHG emissions result from combustion sources, fugitive sources, well pads,
and the operations fleet. Compared to the conservative assumptions that were applied for the purposes of
assessing ambient concentration and deposition changes due to the Project, more realistic assumptions
were applied for the purposes of estimating expected GHG emissions from the Project operation. For
instance, realistic assumptions regarding the typical run times and average duties for the steam
generators were applied. More details regarding GHG calculations and assumptions are provided in
Volume 2, Appendix 3A.
A summary of Project operations GHG emissions is provided in Table 3.6-25. The total Project operations
GHG emissions of 5,476 t/d or 1,999 kt/a are largely caused by combustion sources.
3.6.9.2 GHG Emission Intensity

The GHG emission intensity for the Project operations is calculated based on the annual GHG emissions
divided by the total Project production bitumen capacity in bbl/d. The corresponding CO2e emission
intensity for the Project is based on a production capacity of 80,000 bbl/d; the corresponding emission
intensity is 68 kg CO2e/bbl (Table 3.6-26). This value is in the same range as other similar developments
(see Table 3.6-26).
3.6.9.3 Alberta/Canada Total

Many large GHG emitters in Canada began reporting their emissions through the Voluntary Challenge
and Registry early in the 1990s. Other sources of indirect GHG data, including energy consumption, are
also available. Therefore, Canada has been able to develop annual GHG emission values (Table 3.6-27).
Based on the Environment Canada (2011) National Inventory Report, the 2009 GHG emissions are as
follows:
• 690,000 kt/a for Canada. This represents a 17% increase from 1990. Over this period, the population
of Canada increased 22%. The Project GHG emissions of 1,999 kt/a represent 0.29% of the national
total.
• 234,000 kt/a for Alberta. This represents a 37% increase from 1990. Over this period, the population
of Alberta increased 44%. The Project GHG emissions of 1,999 kt/a represent 0.85% of the 2009
provincial total.
Page 3-105
The three main GHG emission sources in Canada are: stationary combustion sources (46%);
transportation (28%); and fugitive sources (9%). These sources collectively account for 83% of the
national total.

As the estimation of GHG emissions is based directly on engineering calculations, the prediction
confidence is high. Over the life of the Project, improvements will be expected to reflect operation
experience and technological improvements. On this basis, the emission projections may be overstated.
TABLE 3.6-24
ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND

DECOMMISSIONING
Emission Rate (t/d)

Project Source CO2 CH4 N2 O CO2e
CPF Construction 22.6 0.0009 0.0009 22.9
Above Ground Pipeline Construction 3.75 0.0002 0.0001 3.79
Underground Pipeline Construction 0.265 0.00001 0.000008 0.267
Wellpad and Road Construction 12.6 0.0006 0.0004 12.7
Reclamation 4.34 0.0002 0.0001 4.39
Total Construction and Decommissioning Emissions over Life of
43.5 0.002 0.002 44.0
Project (Daily Average)
TABLE 3.6-25
ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT OPERATIONS
Emission Rate (t/d)

Project Source CO2 CH4 N2 O CO2e
Combustion Sources 5,343 0.105 0.093 5,374
Fugitive Tank Emissions 0.281 1.70 0 36.0
Fugitive Area Emissions 0.303 0.134 0 3.12
Well pads 0.006 0.245 0 5.14
Construction and Operations Fleet (Peak Year) 56.8 0.003 0.002 5,476
Total Emission Rate 5,400 2.19 0.095 5,476
Total Emission Rate (kt/a) 1,999
TABLE 3.6-26
GHG EMISSION INTENSITY FOR THE PROJECT AND OTHER SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS
Total GHG Emissions GHG intensity

Project Production Capacity (bbl/d) (CO2e t/d) (kg CO2e / bbl)
BlackPearl Blackrod 80,000 5,476 68
Devon J3 35,000 1,968 56
OSUM Taiga 35,000 3,199 91
Jacos Hangingstone 35,000 2,817 80
Cenovus Narrow lakes 130,000 7,219 56
Larician Germain 150,000 8,297 55
Athabasca Mackay River 150,000 11,885 79
CNRL Kirby in-situ 45,000 3,667 81
Page 3-106
TABLE 3.6-27
NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL GHG EMISSIONS
Canadian GHG Project Alberta GHG Project

Reporting Year Emissions (kt CO2e/a) (% of Canada Total) Emissions (kt CO2e/a) (% of Alberta Total)
1990 590,000 0.34 171,000 1.17
1995 640,000 0.31 200,000 1.00
2000 716,000 0.28 224,000 0.89
2005 731,000 0.27 231,000 0.87
2008 732,000 0.27 244,000 0.82
2009 690,000 0.29 234,000 0.85
NOTE:
% calculation is based on Project GHG emission of 1,999 kt CO2e/a.
3.7 Follow-Up and Monitoring

The follow-up monitoring planned by BlackPearl includes two components: source monitoring, which
measures the emissions from the Project; and ambient monitoring that measures nearby ambient air
concentrations. To a large extent, the requirement for source and ambient monitoring procedures is
established by AEW through the development of the compliance terms in the EPEA approval.
3.8 Summary and Conclusions

Three primary assessment cases (i.e., Baseline, Application and Planned Development) are selected to
determine the effect of Project emissions on ambient air quality. For the most part, the effect has been
determined by comparing maximum ambient concentrations associated with each assessment case with
the respective ambient air quality criteria. Ambient concentrations in a region generally increase with
increasing emission rates, decrease with increasing distance from an emission source, and vary with the
prevailing meteorological conditions.
Ambient concentrations, therefore, vary considerably with location and time. This assessment focused on
worst-case situations, which for the most part assumes worst-case meteorological conditions and worst-
case locations. The latter of which tend to be along or near the facility property lines. A summary of key
air quality findings relating to the Project emissions follows.
3.8.1 NO2 Concentrations

The Project will increase Model Domain Baseline Case NOX emissions from 613.88 to 619.21 t/d; this is
an increase of 5.32 t/d (or 0.87%).
The maximum NO2 concentrations due to the Project are predicted to occur within the Project well pad
area; these maximum values are less than the respective AAAQO. There are no predicted AAAQO
exceedances within the LSA for any of the three assessment cases.
3.8.2 SO2 Concentrations

The Project will increase Model Domain Baseline Case SO2 emissions from 304.16 to 304.66 t/d; this is
an increase of 0.50 t/d (0.17%).
The maximum SO2 concentrations due to the Project are predicted to occur on the Project CPF fence
line; these maximum values are less than the respective AAAQO. There are no predicted AAAQO
exceedances within the LSA for any of the three assessment cases.
Page 3-107
3.8.3 PM2.5 Concentrations

The Project will increase Model Domain Baseline Case PM2.5 emissions from 33.53 to 33.97 t/d; this is an
increase of 0.43 t/d (1.3%).
The maximum PM2.5 concentrations due to the Project are predicted to occur on the Project CPF fence
line; these maximum values are less than the respective AAAQG and AAAQO. There are no predicted
AAAQO exceedances within the LSA for any of the three assessment cases due to the Project.
3.8.4 Health and Odour Related Substance Concentrations

Ambient concentrations for over 70 substance groups that could be emitted from the Project were
predicted at numerous HHRA receptor locations. The predicted values, where applicable, were compared
to the ambient air quality criteria and odour thresholds. In all cases, the predicted values were less than
the respective ambient air quality criteria and odour thresholds. Potential human health effects are further
discussed in a systematic manner in Volume 5, Section 4.0
3.8.5 Acid Forming Substance Deposition

PAI results from NOX and SO2 emission sources in the LAR, and from emission sources located outside
the region. Near major emission sources, the predicted PAI deposition is strongly influenced by these
emissions and less by outside sources. With more distance from the major source, the influence of
background due to these sources becomes more important.
Higher than background PAI deposition values tend to occur near the existing and planned oil sands
developments. Specifically, PAI deposition values greater than 0.17 keq H+/ha/a occur near Fort
McMurray. The Project emissions increase the area enclosed by the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a contour by 0.2%.
For the Application Case, the area greater than the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a contour represents 3.32% of the
RSA.
For further discussion relative to the implication of PAI deposition on aquatic and terrestrial systems, see
the Surface Water Quality (Volume 3, Section 3.0) and Terrain and Soils (Volume 4, Section 4.0)
Assessments.
3.8.6 Nitrogen Substance Deposition

Nitrogen deposition results from NOX emission sources in the LAR and from emission sources located
outside the region. Near major emission sources, the predicted nitrogen deposition is strongly influenced
by these emissions and less by outside sources. With more distance from the major source, the influence
of background due to these sources becomes more important.
Higher than background nitrogen deposition values tend to occur near the existing and planned oil sands
developments. Specifically, nitrogen deposition values greater than 8 kg/ha/a occur near the Fort
McMurray region. The Project emissions do not result in any increase in the area enclosed by the
8 kg N/ha/a contour. For the Application Case, the area greater than the 8 kg/ha/a contour represents
1.10% of the RSA.
For further discussion relative to the implication of nitrogen deposition on aquatic and terrestrial systems,
see the Surface Water Quality (Volume 3, Section 3.0) and Soils and Terrain (Volume 4 Section 4.0)
Assessments.
3.8.7 Ozone Concentrations

Ozone is a naturally occurring substance and is not directly emitted by the Project or by other oil sands
developments. High background levels occur in springtime (March to May). High NO concentrations due
to high NOX emissions will decrease the natural O3 levels in the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of
the emission source. During periods of hot weather in the summer, O3 can be formed due to precursor
NOX and VOC emissions.
The Project along with other existing and planned developments in the oil sands region collectively result
in a substantive increase on precursor NOX and VOC emissions. With the appropriate weather conditions,
Page 3-108
these emissions can lead to an increase in ambient ozone episodes. Collectively, the maximum 1-hour
ozone concentration could increase by 20 µg/m3, and the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations could increase by 4 to 8 µg/m3 relative to the existing condition.
3.8.8 Regional Visibility

The Project will be a source of regional haze precursor emissions. A first-order calculation estimate
indicates that while the Project contribution in itself may not result in regional haze, it will contribute with
other developments to regional haze and associated visibility impairment.
3.8.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Most of the Project GHG emissions are associated with the operation phase. The estimated Project GHG
operation emissions of 1,999 kt/a represent 0.85% of the provincial total and 0.29% of the national total
for 2009. The Project GHG emission intensity is expected to be 68 kg CO2e/bbl.
3.8.10 Closing
The Air Quality Assessment focuses on the pathway between sources and the potentially affected
receptor; the receptor responses to air quality changes are examined in other sections of this EIA:
• human health (multi-media exposure) – Volume 5, Section 4.0
• terrain and soils (acid deposition) – Volume 4, Section 4.0
• surface water quality (acid and nitrogen deposition) – Volume 3, Section 3.0
Page 3-109
3.9 References
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 1989 Air Monitoring Directive – Monitoring and Reporting
Procedures for Industry. June 1989 http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7297.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 1997 Guidelines for Secondary Containment for Above Ground
Storage Tanks. Industrial Waste and Wastewater Branch Alberta Environmental Protection May
1997 http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5714.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2006. Amendments to the Air Monitoring Directive, 1989.
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8339.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2007 Interim Emission Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for the Oil Sands Region in the
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a Review of Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) site:
http://www.environment.alberta.ca/documents/Oil-Sands_Interim_Emission_Guidelines.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2008 Alberta Acid Deposition Management Framework.
February 2008 http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7926.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2012. Final Terms of Reference for BlackPearl Resources Inc.’s
Proposed Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project. Alberta Environment. February 2, 2012. Alberta.
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2009a. Particulate matter and ozone management guidance
document. September 2007 (modified August 2009) http://environment.alberta.ca/0898.html
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2009b. Air quality model guideline 2009.
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8151.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2009c. Particulate matter and ozone assessment for Alberta:
2001-2007
http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/Particulate_Matter_and_Ozone_Assessment_for_Albert
a__2001_-_2007.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2011a. Lower Athabasca Region Air Quality Management
Framework for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) (Draft) March 2011
http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/LARP_AQMF_March_31_Final.pdf
Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2011b. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines
Summary. April 2011
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1992 National emission guidelines for
stationary combustion turbines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1072_e.pdf
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1995. Environmental guidelines for controlling
emissions of volatile organic compounds from aboveground storage tanks.
http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1180_e.pdf
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1998. National Emission Guideline for
Commercial/ Industrial Boilers and Heaters. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1286_e.pdf
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2002. Canada-wide standards for particulate
matter(PM) and ozone. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf
Cenovus. 2010. Cenovus FCCL Ltd. Narrows Lake Project Environmental Impact Assessment . Cenovus
FCCL Ltd.
Page 3-110
Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). 2004 Recommendations for The Acid
Deposition Management Framework for the Oil Sands Region Of North-Eastern Alberta.
Cumulative Environmental Management Framework. February 2004.
Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). 2006 Ozone Management Framework for
the Regional Municipality Of Wood Buffalo Area. http://cemaonline.ca/ozone-management-
framework.html
Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). 2008. Interim Nitrogen (Eutrophication)

Management Recommendations and Work Plan (NEP)
Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). 2009 Air Contaminant’s Management

Framework. http://cemaonline.ca/air-contaminants-management-framework.html
CASA. 2003 An Emissions Management Framework for the Alberta Electricity Sector Report to
Stakeholders http://www.hazmatmag.com/posted_documents/pdf/JuneJuly04.pdf
CASA. 2009 Recommendations for the clean air strategy – A report to the CASA board from the Clean air
strategy project team. http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/2009/ca6/casa/174376.pdf
Earthtech and Conor Pacific. 1998 . Initial CALGRID Ozone Modelling in the Athabasca Oil Sands
Region. Syncrude Canada Ltd., Fort McMurray, Alberta.
Environ and Millennium. 2010a. PM and Ozone Chemistry Modelling in the Alberta Oil Sands Area Using
the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model. Cumulative Environment Management
Association, Fort McMurray, Alberta.
Environ and Millennium. 2010b. Modelling Particulate Matter and Ground Level Ozone in North Eastern
Alberta. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta.
Environment Canada. 2010. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives. http://www.ec.gc.ca/rnspa-

naps/default.asp?lang=En&n=24441DC4-1. Last modified: April 30, 2010.
Environment Canada. 2011. National Inventory Report (1990-2009) Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks
in Canada (Part 1). Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Fox, D., and M. Kellerhals. 2007. Modelling of Ozone Levels in Alberta: Base Case, Sectoral
Contributions and a Future Scenario. Prairie and Northern Region, Environment Canada,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Golder Associates (Golder). 2010. The Assessment of Acid deposition on Alberta Oil Sands Region –
Phase 2 of Stage 2 Implementation of the CEMA Acid Deposition Management Framework.
Cumulative Environment Management Association, Fort McMurray, Alberta.
McDonald, K. And M. Shepard. 2004. Characterization of Visibility Impacts Related to Fine Particulate
Matter in Canada. J Ai & Waste Manage. Assoc. 54:1061 to 1068.
Sandhu, H.S., 1998. Ambient particulate matter in Alberta. Report prepared for Science and Technology
Branch, Alberta Environmental Protection, No. 1494-A-9805, Edmonton, Alberta.
Syncrude Canada. 1997. Air Quality Implications of NOX Emissions from the proposed Syncrude Aurora
Mine. Syncrude Canada Ltd., Fort McMurray, Alberta.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. Revision to the Guideline on Air
Quality Models: Adoption of a preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion
Model and Other Revisions: Final Rule. Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 51.
Page 3-111
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Source and Emission Inventory
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Volume 2 - Appendix 3A
APPENDIX 3A
SOURCE AND EMISSION INVENTORY
Page 3A-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3A.0 SOURCE AND EMISSION INVENTORY .................................................................................. 3A-6
3A.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 3A-6
3A.1.1 Emission Inventory Area ............................................................................................ 3A-6
3A.1.2 Emission Source Type ............................................................................................... 3A-6
3A.1.3 Compound List ........................................................................................................... 3A-7
3A.1.4 Information Sources ................................................................................................... 3A-7
3A.1.5 Project Emission Summary........................................................................................ 3A-8
3A.1.6 Assessment Case Emission Summary ...................................................................... 3A-8
3A.2 STACK EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................ 3A-15
3A.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3A-15
3A.2.2 Stack Parameters .................................................................................................... 3A-15
3A.2.2.1 SO2, NOX, PM2.5, CO, and VOC Approach .......................................... 3A-15
3A.2.2.2 Hydrocarbon (VOC and PAH) Approach ............................................. 3A-15
3A.2.2.3 TRS Approach ...................................................................................... 3A-16
3A.2.2.4 Metal Approach .................................................................................... 3A-16
3A.2.2.5 Approach for Non-gaseous Fuelled Stacks ......................................... 3A-17
3A.2.2.6 Intermittent Stacks................................................................................ 3A-18
3A.2.3 Project Stack Parameters ........................................................................................ 3A-19
3A.2.3.1 BlackPearl Pilot and Expansion Project Stacks ................................... 3A-19
3A.2.3.2 Project Stacks ...................................................................................... 3A-19
3A.2.4 Other Development Stack Parameters .................................................................... 3A-22
3A.2.4.1 Stack Parameters ................................................................................. 3A-22
3A.2.4.2 Space Heating ...................................................................................... 3A-22
3A.2.5 Stack Emission Summary ........................................................................................ 3A-22
3A.3 PLANT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 3A-117
3A.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3A-117
3A.3.2 Plants in the Model Domain ................................................................................... 3A-118
3A.3.3 Plant Fugitive Emissions Considerations .............................................................. 3A-118
3A.3.4 BlackPearl Commercial Project Fugitive Plant Emissions ..................................... 3A-118
3A.3.4.1 Project Storage Tank Emissions ........................................................ 3A-118
3A.3.4.2 Project Process Area Emissions ........................................................ 3A-119
3A.3.4.3 Project Well Pad emissions ................................................................ 3A-119
3A.3.4.4 Project Speciation .............................................................................. 3A-120
3A.3.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................. 3A-120
3A.3.5 Other Development Fugitive Plant Emissions ....................................................... 3A-120
3A.3.5.1 Integrated Extraction and Upgrading Plant Speciation Profile ........... 3A-121
3A.3.5.2 Extraction Plant Speciation Profile ..................................................... 3A-121
3A.3.5.3 In situ Plant Speciation Profile ........................................................... 3A-121
3A.3.6 Fugitive Plant Emission Summary ......................................................................... 3A-121
3A.4 MINE EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 3A-177
3A.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3A-177
3A.4.2 Mines in the Model Domain ................................................................................... 3A-177
3A.4.3 Mine Fleet Considerations ..................................................................................... 3A-177
3A.4.4 Mine Fleet Emissions ............................................................................................. 3A-178
3A.4.5 Mine Fleet Speciation Profile ................................................................................. 3A-179
3A.4.6 Fugitive Mine Face Emission Considerations........................................................ 3A-179
3A.4.6.1 Temporal Variation ............................................................................. 3A-180
3A.4.7 Mine Fugitive Emissions ........................................................................................ 3A-180
3A.4.8 Fugitive Mine Emission Speciation Profile ............................................................. 3A-180
3A.4.9 Mine Emission Summary ....................................................................................... 3A-180
3A.5 TAILINGS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................... 3A-193
3A.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3A-193
3A.5.2 Tailings Areas in the Model Domain ...................................................................... 3A-193
3A.5.3 Tailings Pond Emission Considerations ................................................................ 3A-194
Page 3A-2
3A.5.3.1 Seasonal Variation ............................................................................. 3A-195

3A.5.3.2 Independent Review .......................................................................... 3A-195
3A.5.4 Tailings Area Emissions ........................................................................................ 3A-195
3A.5.5 Tailings Speciation Profile ..................................................................................... 3A-197
3A.5.6 Summary................................................................................................................ 3A-197
3A.6 NON-INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 3A-208
3A.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3A-208
3A.6.2 Community Emissions ........................................................................................... 3A-208
3A.6.3 Traffic Emissions ................................................................................................... 3A-209
3A.6.4 Aircraft Emissions .................................................................................................. 3A-210
3A.6.5 Non-Industrial Emission Speciation Profile ............................................................ 3A-210
3A.6.6 Non-Industrial Summary ........................................................................................ 3A-211
3A.7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION FLEET EMISSIONS ................................ 3A-241
3A.8 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 3A-244
3A.8.1 Literature Cited ...................................................................................................... 3A-244
3A.8.2 Internet Sites .......................................................................................................... 3A-245
3A.8.3 Personal Communication....................................................................................... 3A-246
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3A-1 Locations of Stacks in the Model Domain ................................................................... 3A-23
Figure 3A-2 Locations of Stacks in the RSA................................................................................... 3A-24
Figure 3A-3 Locations of the Stacks and Buildings at the BlackPearl Pilot and Pilot Expansion
Projects ....................................................................................................................... 3A-25
Figure 3A-4 Locations of the Stacks and Buildings at the Project .................................................. 3A-26
Figure 3A-5 Locations of Plants in the RSA ................................................................................. 3A-122
Figure 3A-6 Locations of the Tanks and Process Areas for the Project ....................................... 3A-123
Figure 3A-7 Locations of the Well Pad for the Project .................................................................. 3A-124
Figure 3A-8 Locations of Mines in the Model Domain .................................................................. 3A-181
Figure 3A-9 Locations of the Tailings Areas in the RSA .............................................................. 3A-198
Figure 3A-10 Locations of Communities and Highway Traffic Segments ...................................... 3A-212
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3A-1 Potential Compound Groups Associated With the Project ............................................3A-9
Table 3A-2 Project CAC Emissions ............................................................................................... 3A-12
Table 3A-3 Project GHG Emissions .............................................................................................. 3A-13
Table 3A-4 Existing Condition Emissions ...................................................................................... 3A-13
Table 3A-5 Baseline Case Emissions ........................................................................................... 3A-14
Table 3A-6 Application Case Emissions ........................................................................................ 3A-14
Table 3A-7 PDC Emissions ........................................................................................................... 3A-14
Table 3A-8 Comparison of CATEF and AP-42 Emission Factors for Boilers, Heaters and
Steam Generators Burning Natural Gas ..................................................................... 3A-27
Table 3A-9 Comparison of CATEF and AP-42 Emission Factors for Natural Gas Combustion
Turbines ...................................................................................................................... 3A-28
Table 3A-10 Comparison of CATEF and AP-42 Emission Factors for Reciprocating Engines
Burning Natural Gas.................................................................................................... 3A-29
Table 3A-11 Comparison of CATEF and AP-42 Emission Factors for Flares ................................. 3A-30
Table 3A-12 VOC Speciation Profile (Mass Percent of Total VOC) for Heaters/Boilers,
Turbines, Reciprocating Engines and Flares .............................................................. 3A-31
Table 3A-13 Particulate Matter and Metal Emission Factors for Boilers, Heaters and Steam
Generators Burning Natural Gas ................................................................................ 3A-33
Table 3A-14 Comparison of AP-42 and Updated Particulate Matter and Metal Emission
Factors for Combustion Turbines Burning Natural Gas .............................................. 3A-34
Table 3A-15 Metal Speciation Profile (Mass % of Total PM2.5) for the Syncrude and Suncor
Main Powerhouse Stacks ........................................................................................... 3A-35
Table 3A-16 PAH Speciation Profile (Mass % of Total PM2.5) for the Syncrude and Suncor
Main Powerhouse Stacks ........................................................................................... 3A-36
Page 3A-3
Table 3A-17 VOC and PAH Speciation Profile for Waste Wood Burners ....................................... 3A-37
Table 3A-18 Metal Speciation Profile for Waste Wood Burners...................................................... 3A-38
Table 3A-19 VOC and PAH Speciation Profile for Diesel Engines ................................................. 3A-38
Table 3A-20 Metal Speciation Profile for Diesel Engines ................................................................ 3A-39
Table 3A-21 Stacks for the Pilot and Pilot Expansion Projects ....................................................... 3A-40
Table 3A-22 Stacks for the Project .................................................................................................. 3A-40
Table 3A-23 Gases Compositions (Mole Percent) for the Project................................................... 3A-41
Table 3A-24 Continuous Stack Parameters and Emissions for the Pilot and Pilot Expansion
Projects ....................................................................................................................... 3A-41
Table 3A-25 Heater and OTSGS Stack Parameters and Emissions for the Project Phase 1......... 3A-44
Table 3A-28 Flare Stack Parameters and Emissions (Normal Operations) for the Project ............ 3A-50
Table 3A-29 Flare Stack Parameters and Emissions (Emergency Operations) for the Project
Phase 1 ....................................................................................................................... 3A-53
Phase 2 ....................................................................................................................... 3A-54
Phase 3 ....................................................................................................................... 3A-55
Table 3A-32 Emergency Diesel Generator Stack Parameters and Emissions for the Project
Phases 1, 2 and 3 ....................................................................................................... 3A-56
Table 3A-33 Building Dimensions for the Pilot and Expansion Projects ......................................... 3A-57
Table 3A-34 Building Dimensions for the Project ............................................................................ 3A-58
Table 3A-35 Tank Dimensions for the Project ................................................................................. 3A-59
Table 3A-36 Stack GHG Emissions (Annual Average) for the Project ............................................ 3A-61
Table 3A-37 Stack and Emission Parameters for Mining and Extraction, and Mining,
Extraction and Upgrading Developments (Existing Condition (EX), Baseline Case
(BC), and Planned Development Case (PDC)) .......................................................... 3A-62
Table 3A-38 Stack and Emission Parameters for In Situ Facilities (Existing Condition (EX),
Baseline Case (BC), and Planned Development Case (PDC)) .................................. 3A-69
Table 3A-39 Stack and Emission Parameters for Gas Plant, Compressor Station and forestry
Industry Facilities (Existing Condition (EX), Baseline Case (BC), and Planned
Development Case (PDC)) ....................................................................................... 3A-103
Table 3A-40 Space Heating Status, Locations, and Emissions .................................................... 3A-116
Table 3A-41 Model Domain Stack Emissions ............................................................................... 3A-117
Table 3A-42 Industrial Plant Status ............................................................................................... 3A-125
Table 3A-43 Industrial Plant Locations .......................................................................................... 3A-128
Table 3A-44 Blackpearl Commercial Project Tanks In Hydrocarbon Service ............................... 3A-132
Table 3A-45 Blackpearl Commercial Project Tank Parameters and Emissions for Phase 1 (T1
To T11) ...................................................................................................................... 3A-133
Table 3A-46 Project Tank Parameters and Emissions for Phase 2 (T12 To T20) ........................ 3A-136
Table 3A-47 Project Tank Parameters and Emissions for Phase 3 (T21 To T28) ........................ 3A-139
Table 3A-48 Project Process Areas............................................................................................... 3A-142
Table 3A-49 Project Process Area Emissions for Phase 1 (A To L) ............................................. 3A-143
Table 3A-50 Project Process Area Emissions for Phase 2 (M To X) ............................................ 3A-146
Table 3A-51 Project Process Area Emissions for Phase 3 (Y To Ai) ............................................ 3A-149
Table 3A-52 Project Well Pad Areas (At Maximum Simultaneous Operation) .............................. 3A-152
Table 3A-53 Project Well Pad Area Emissions for Phase 1 (Well Pads 1 To 5) ........................... 3A-157
Table 3A-54 Project Well Pad Area Emissions for Phase 2 (Well Pads 6 To 15) ......................... 3A-160
Table 3A-55 Project Well Pad Area Emissions for Phase 3 (Well Pads 16 To 28) ....................... 3A-163
Table 3A-56 Project Well Pad Area Emissions for Phase 3 (Continued) (Well Pads 29 To 40) ... 3A-166
Table 3A-57 Project Fugitive Tank and Process Area GHG Emissions ........................................ 3A-169
Table 3A-58 Fugitive VOC and TRS Emissions for All Cases ...................................................... 3A-170
Table 3A-59 Fugitive VOC and TRS Speciation Profiles for Integrated Extraction and
Upgrading Plants....................................................................................................... 3A-174
Table 3A-60 Fugitive VOC and TRS Speciation Profiles for Extraction Plants ............................. 3A-175
Table 3A-61 Fugitive VOC and TRS Speciation Profiles for In-Situ Plants ................................... 3A-176
Table 3A-62 Model Domain Fugitive Plant Emissions .................................................................. 3A-176
Page 3A-4
Table 3A-63 Mine Status ............................................................................................................... 3A-182

Table 3A-64 Mine Area Locations ................................................................................................. 3A-184
Table 3A-65 Emission Standards for Diesel-Fuelled off-Road Vehicles ....................................... 3A-186
Table 3A-66 Mine Fleet Emissions for the Existing Condition, Baseline Case, Application
Case, and PDC ......................................................................................................... 3A-186
Table 3A-67 VOC and PAH Speciation Profile for the Mine Fleets ............................................... 3A-188
Table 3A-68 VOC and PAH Speciation Profile for the Mine Fleets ............................................... 3A-189
Table 3A-69 Seasonal Variation Assumptions for Fugitive Emissions From the Mine Faces ...... 3A-189
Table 3A-70 Fugitive Mine Face Emissions for the Existing Condition, Baseline Case,
Application Case and PDC ....................................................................................... 3A-190
Table 3A-71 VOC Speciation Profile for Mine Face Areas ............................................................ 3A-192
Table 3A-72 TRS Speciation Profile for Mine Face Areas ............................................................ 3A-192
Table 3A-73 Mine Emissions ......................................................................................................... 3A-192
Table 3A-74 Status of Tailings Areas ............................................................................................ 3A-199
Table 3A-75 Locations of the Tailings Areas ................................................................................. 3A-200
Table 3A-76 Solvent Losses To Existing Tailings Areas ............................................................... 3A-201
Table 3A-77 Seasonal Variation Assumptions for VOC Emissions From the Tailings Areas ....... 3A-202
Table 3A-78 Annualized Emission Rates Associated With the Tailings Areas ............................. 3A-203
Table 3A-79 Suncor Tailings Management Areas VOC Speciation Profiles ................................. 3A-204
Table 3A-80 Syncrude Tailings Management Areas VOC Speciation Profiles ............................. 3A-205
Table 3A-81 Other Operator Tailings Management Areas VOC Speciation Profiles .................... 3A-206
Table 3A-82 Tailings Emissions .................................................................................................... 3A-207
Table 3A-83 Distribution of Census Division 16 Population .......................................................... 3A-213
Table 3A-87 Summary of Community Locations ........................................................................... 3A-217
Table 3A-88 Scaling Factors To Determine Existing and Future Emissions From the Cheminfo
(2007) 2015 Values ................................................................................................... 3A-219
Table 3A-89 2015 Census Division Region Emissions (From Cheminfo 2007) ............................ 3A-220
Table 3A-90 Existing Census Division Region Emissions (Scaled From 2015) ............................ 3A-221
Table 3A-91 Future Census Division Region Emissions (Scaled From 2015) .............................. 3A-222
Table 3A-92 Existing Condition Community (Residential, Commercial) Emissions ...................... 3A-223
Table 3A-93 Existing Condition Community (Traffic) Emissions ................................................... 3A-224
Table 3A-94 Future Case Community (Residential, Commercial) Emissions ............................... 3A-226
Table 3A-95 Future Case Community (Traffic) Emissions ............................................................ 3A-227
Table 3A-96 Monthly Scaling Factors To Adjust Commercial and Residential Emissions............ 3A-229
Table 3A-97 Hourly Scaling Factors To Adjust Traffic Emissions ................................................. 3A-229
Table 3A-98 Summary of Highway Segment Locations ................................................................ 3A-230
Table 3A-99 Existing and Future Highway Emissions (Census Division 16) ................................ 3A-232
Table 3A-102 Summary of Aviation Activity Locations .................................................................... 3A-237
Table 3A-103 Summary of Existing Condition, Baseline Case, and Application Case Aviation
Emissions .................................................................................................................. 3A-237
Table 3A-104 Summary of the Planned Development Case Aviation Emissions ........................... 3A-237
Table 3A-105 VOC Speciation Profile for Traffic and Heating Emissions ....................................... 3A-238
Table 3A-106 Metals Speciation Profile for Traffic and Heating Emissions .................................... 3A-239
Table 3A-107 VOC Speciation Profile for Aviation Emissions ......................................................... 3A-240
Table 3A-108 Metal Speciation Profile for Aviation Emissions........................................................ 3A-240
Table 3A-109 Existing Condition, Baseline Case, and Application Case Non-Industrial
Emissions .................................................................................................................. 3A-241
Table 3A-110 Planned Development Case Non-Industrial Emissions ............................................ 3A-241
Table 3A-111 Mobile Source GHG Emission Factors ..................................................................... 3A-242
Table 3A-112 Estimated Emission for Construction and Operation Fleet ....................................... 3A-243
Table 3A-113 Locations of Construction and Operation Fleet ........................................................ 3A-243
Page 3A-5
3A.0 SOURCE AND EMISSION INVENTORY
3A.1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) is located near the Lower Athabasca
Planning Region (LAPR) (or more simply, the Lower Athabasca Region [LAR]), which is one of the seven
land-use regions defined by Alberta Environment & Water (AEW). The LAR includes the Wood Buffalo
Environmental Association (WBEA) airshed located around and to the north of Fort McMurray, and a
large portion of the Lakeland Industry and Community Association (LICA) airshed located in the Cold
Lake area. The Project is located about 90 km southwest of the WBEA airshed.
To assess the air quality effects associated with the Project, other industrial and non-industrial sources in
the Model Domain including gas plants to the east of the LAR and emission sources in the LAR were
identified and documented. This technical appendix identifies and characterizes emission sources
associated with the Project and other industry and non-industrial sources located in the Model Domain.
3A.1.1 Emission Inventory Area
To examine air quality in the region, an air quality “Model Domain” is defined with an east-west extent of
332 km and a north-south extent of 700 km. The CALMET (Appendix 3C) and CALPUFF (Appendix 3D)
models are also applied to this region. The Model Domain is comprised of the Regional Municipality of
Wood Buffalo in Division 16; Lac La Biche County, the Municipal District of Bonnyville, Smoky Lake
County, St. Paul County in Division 12; the Municipal District of Opportunity No.17 in Division 17, and the
county municipalities such as Athabasca County in Division 13. From an oil sands development
perspective, the region includes the primary oil sands development area to the north of Fort McMurray,
the in-situ bitumen operations in the region to the south of Fort McMurray, and the in-situ bitumen
operations in the Cold Lake region. The eastern boundary of the Model Domain extends into
Saskatchewan.
3A.1.2 Emission Source Type
The Project emissions are identified and quantified in Section 3A.2.0. Other emission sources in the
Model Domain are categorized and discussed as follows:
• Stacks. Stacks vent the products of combustion to the atmosphere and are associated with facilities
that include: gas-fired heaters and boilers that service oil sands extraction and upgrading facilities;
gas-fired heaters that service conventional gas production facilities; gas-fired combustion turbine
cogeneration facilities; coke-fired power plants that service bitumen upgrading facilities; and
reciprocating engines that drive compressors at gas production facilities. The stacks in the region are
identified and quantified in Section 3A.2.
• Fugitive Plant Emissions. Each industrial plant includes sources of fugitive emissions from small
leaks associated with valves, pipe fittings, seals and vents. While these sources are individually
small, collectively they can be substantial for larger facilities such as upgraders. Fugitive plant
sources are identified and quantified in Section 3A.3.
• Mines. Emissions associated with mine operations include the combustion exhaust from the diesel-
powered shovel and truck fleets. The exposed mine faces are also sources of fugitive hydrocarbon
emissions. The mines are identified and quantified in Section 3A.4.
• Tailings Management Areas. Fugitive emissions from tailings impoundments can be substantial
sources of fugitive hydrocarbon emissions. The tailings areas are identified and quantified in Section
3A.5.
• Non-industrial sources. These sources include community traffic emissions, and domestic and
commercial heating emissions from communities. Other non-industrial sources include highway
traffic. Non-industrial sources are identified and quantified in Section 3A.6.
Page 3A-6
The primary emissions associated with the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels are nitrogen (N2), carbon
dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). Criteria (or common) air contaminants (CAC) associated with
combustion processes include nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOC). SVOC include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Combustion products may also include
trace amounts of total reduced sulphur (TRS) compounds and metals. Emissions of VOC and TRS also
result from fugitive emission sources.
3A.1.3 Compound List
Table 3A-1 provides a summary of the gaseous and particulate compounds that were selected for this
assessment. NOX, SO2, CO, PM2.5, and VOC are referred to as CAC, and all other compounds that
include individual VOC groups, TRS groups, PAH and metals are referred to as non-CAC compounds.
The Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) and Guidelines (AAAQG) are applicable to many,
but not all compounds that are identified in the table. Additional compounds have been included as they
may have adverse potential human health or ecological outcomes.
3A.1.4 Information Sources
While there is no “formal” source and emission inventory for the region, information relating to existing
and proposed facilities were obtained from several inter-related inventories for the region. The term
“formal” is used here to denote an inventory that has an official regulatory or stakeholder group status in
terms of its preparation, its maintenance and upkeep, and its distribution to interested parties. As such
there is neither a formal inventory for the region, nor a designated custodian.
Informal source and emission inventories for existing and proposed sources located in the LAR have
evolved significantly over the last decade and are continuing to evolve and be refined. Much of source
and emission information is in the public domain from Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for
developments located in this region and from industry group studies (e.g., CEMA). Each EIA and study
tends to build on the information provided in previous assessments to result in updated emissions.
A number of information sources were used to prepare a source and emissions inventory for this
assessment:
• Regional emission inventories for the Wood Buffalo and Cold Lake regions. The inventories based on
previous EIAs and studies were reviewed, with adjustments to fill information gaps and resolve
inconsistencies.
• The NPRI database maintained by Environment Canada was used to confirm and update emissions.
This inventory can be accessed via the Environment Canada internet site: http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-
npri/.
• Provincial emission inventory summaries obtained from Cheminfo (2007) provide detailed results for
the four Census Divisions (CDs) that fall within the Model Domain: Census Division 16 includes the
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo; Census Division 12 includes Lac La Biche County, the
Municipal District of Bonneville, the County of Saint Paul, and the County of Smoky Lake; Census
Division 17 includes the Municipal District of Opportunity No.17; and Census Division 13 includes
Athabasca County No.12, Thorhild County No.7 and Westlock County.
Some previous inventories treat several identical, or near identical stacks, as a single stack. For sources
distant from a proponent, this simplifying approach does not necessarily compromise air quality
predictions. For this assessment, however, as much individual stack information as practical was
retained.
The emission inventory information presented in this Appendix, for the most part, is based on public
domain information. Most of the data have been supplied explicitly in the various regulatory applications.
As a consequence, the emission inventory for the oil sands area tends to parallel the “open source”
computer code concept due to the continuing integration and evolution of the data. Notwithstanding the
Page 3A-7
open source concept, there are some inconsistencies with the data contained in these inventories and not
all the methodologies are articulated in the associated documentation.
3A.1.5 Project Emission Summary
While the Project will be developed in three phases, the air quality assessment focused on the full build-
out that includes all three phases. The Project is expected to be operating at a nominal full capacity for
the Years 2021 to 2045.
Emission Summary
The Project emissions will result from: stacks that will operate on a continuous basis or on an intermittent
standby basis; and fugitive plant and hydrocarbon storage tanks. Table 3A-2 provides a summary of the
Project CAC (with TRS) emissions. The results indicate the following:
• NOX, PM2.5 and CO emissions are primarily due to stack emissions.
• SO2 emissions are mainly due to the sulphur content of the fuel gases from stacks.
• The VOC and TRS emissions are primarily from fugitive tank leaks and blanket gas leaks, fugitive
process area and fugitive well pad areas.
The approach and assumptions used to calculate the Project emissions are provided in this appendix.
GHG Emission Summary
The Project will be a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The GHG emissions: CO2, CH4 and
N2O result from combustion sources (i.e., stacks), and CO2 and CH4 result from fugitive plant. Table 3A-3
provides a summary of the Project GHG emissions. The results indicate:
• The continuous stack emissions account to 98% of the GHG emissions.
• The fugitive plant emission accounts for 2% of the GHG emissions.
The approach and assumptions used to calculate the Project GHG emissions are also provided in this
appendix.
3A.1.6 Assessment Case Emission Summary
The emission sources have been broadly grouped into the following assessment cases:
• Baseline Case: Includes emissions from existing and approved regional sources.
• Application Case: Includes emissions from the Baseline Case in combination with the Project
emissions.
• Planned Development Case (PDC): Includes emissions from the Application Case in combination
with emissions from “publicly disclosed” or “reasonably foreseeable” future planned facilities. From a
practical perspective, these future facilities are usually limited to those that have submitted a
regulatory application.
For the purpose of completeness, an emission summary is presented for the existing condition. The
existing condition emissions are nominally based on information representing the period 2006 to 2009.
The existing condition information was used to gauge the performance of the CALPUFF model by
comparing model predictions with ambient air quality measurements in the WBEA and LICA regions. The
existing condition, Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC emission summaries are provided in Tables
3A-4, 3A-5, 3A-6, and 3A-7, respectively.
The following comments can be made relative to the Application Case information presented in these
tables:
Page 3A-8
• The main sources of the NOX emissions are from stacks (62%) and mine fleets (34%). The Project
NOX emissions account for 0.9% of the Application Case total.
• Most (98%) of the SO2 emissions are from stacks. The Project SO2 emissions accounts for 0.2% of
the Application Case total.
• The main sources of CO emissions are from stacks (59%) and mine fleets (20%).The Project CO
• The main sources of PM2.5 emissions are from stacks (69%) and mine fleets (23%). The Project PM2.5
• The main sources of VOC emissions are from tailings areas (52%), mine faces (25%), and fugitive
plant sources (15%). The Project VOC emissions accounts for 0.5 % of the Application Case total.
• The main sources of TRS emissions are from tailings areas (about 52%) and fugitive plant sources
(32%). The Project TRS emissions accounts for 0.04% of the Application Case total.
The approach and assumptions used to estimate emissions for the existing condition and the three
assessment cases are provided in this appendix.
TABLE 3A-1
POTENTIAL COMPOUND GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT

Compound Groups Criteria Health Note
Common Air Contaminants - -
NO2 AAAQO HHRA
SO2 AAAQO HHRA
PM2.5 AAAQO/AAAQG/CWS HHRA
CO AAAQO HHRA
Ozone AAQO/CWS HHRA
Acid Deposition/Eutrophication - -
Total Sulphur Compound Deposition - -
Total Nitrogen Compound Deposition - -
Potential Acid Input (PAI) Deposition AEW Loadings -
Greenhouse Gases
CO2 GHG -
CH4 GHG -
N2O GHG -
Hydrocarbon Compounds
1,3-butadiene - HHRA also in the C4 group
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro- (also - HHRA
known as Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene)
1,3-Dioxolane - HHRA
1-Heptanamine - HHRA
1-Methylnaphthalene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-C16
group
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) - HHRA also in the Aliphatic
aldehydes group
2-methylnaphthalene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-C16
group
3-methylcholanthrene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C17-C34
group
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene - HHRA
Acenaphthene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-C16
group
Page 3A-9
TABLE 3A-1 Cont'd

Acenaphthylene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-C16
group
Acetaldehyde AAAQO HHRA also in the Aliphatic
aldehydes group
Acrolein - HHRA also in the Aliphatic
aldehydes group
Acrolein (2-propenal) - HHRA also in the Aliphatic
aldehydes group
aliphatic alcohols - HHRA
Aliphatic aldehydes - HHRA
Aliphatic C17-C34 - HHRA
Aliphatic ketones - HHRA
Aniline - HHRA
Anthracene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-
C16group
Aromatic C17-C34 - HHRA
Aromatic C9-C16 - HHRA
Aromatic ketones - HHRA
Benz(a)anthracene (Also known as - HHRA
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde - HHRA also in the Benzaldehyde
group
Benzaldehyde group - HHRA
Benzene AAAQO HHRA
Benzo(a)pyrene AAAQO HHRA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene - HHRA
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - HHRA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene - HHRA
Benzofuran group - HHRA
Butane, 1-isocyanato- (also known as Butyl - HHRA
isocyanate)
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and - HHRA
ethane)
Carboxylic acids - HHRA
Chrysene - HHRA
Cyclohexane - HHRA also in the Aliphatic C5-C8
group
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene - HHRA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene - HHRA
Dichlorobenzene - HHRA
Ethylbenzene AAAQO HHRA
Fluoranthene - HHRA
Fluorene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-C16
group
Formaldehyde AAAQO HHRA also in the Aliphatic
aldehydes group
Hexane AAAQO (n-Hexane) HHRA also in the Aliphatic C5-C8
group
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - HHRA
Page 3A-10
TABLE 3A-1 Cont'd

Isopropylbenzene (cumene) AAAQO HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-C16
group
Methanol AAAQO HHRA
Naphthalene - HHRA also in the Aromatic C9-C16
group
Oxirane, phenyl- (also known as - HHRA
Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene - HHRA
Phenothiazine group - HHRA
Piperidine - HHRA also in the Piperidine group
Piperidine Group - HHRA
Pyrene - HHRA
Pyridine, 4-methyl- (assessed as pyridine) - HHRA
Styrene AAAQO HHRA
Toluene AAAQO HHRA
Xylenes AAAQO HHRA
Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) Compounds
Carbon Disulphide AAAQO HHRA also in Carbon Disulphide
Group
Carbon Disulphide Group - HHRA
Hydrogen Sulphide AAAQO HHRA
Mercaptans - HHRA
Thiophenes - HHRA
Metals
Aluminum (Al) - HHRA
Antimony (Sb) - HHRA
Arsenic (As) AAAQO HHRA
Barium (Ba) - HHRA
Cadmium(Cd) - HHRA
Chromium (Cr) AAAQO HHRA
Cobalt (Co) - HHRA
Copper (Cu) - HHRA
Lead (Pb) AAAQO HHRA
Manganese (Mn) AAAQO HHRA
Nickel (Ni) AAAQO HHRA
Silver (Ag) - HHRA
Tin (Sn) - HHRA
Strontium (Sr) - HHRA
Vanadium (V) - HHRA
Zinc (Zn) - HHRA
Comment Key:
AAAQO = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective
AAAQG = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guideline
CWS = Canada Wide Standard
GHG = Greenhouse Gas
HHRA = Human Health Risk Assessment
Page 3A-11
TABLE 3A-2
PROJECT CAC EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Source NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC TRS
Stack Emissions
Phase 1 Continuous Stacks 1.27 0.126 0.108 4.02 0.0828 0.00000149
Total Stack Emissions 5.07 0.502 0.429 15.9 0.327 0.00000531
Fugitive Plant Emissions
Phase 1 Tanks emissions - - - - 0.138 0.000149
Phase 1 Process Area emissions - - - - 0.162 0.000162
Phase 1 Fugitive Well Pads emissions - - - - 0.171 0.000411
Total Fugitive Plant Emissions - - - - 2.30 0.00426
Construction and Operation Fleet Emissions
Peak Construction Year for the three Phases 0.253 0.000500 0.0149 0.257 0.0430 0.00
Total Construction and Operation Fleet Emissions 0.253 0.000500 0.0149 0.257 0.0430 0.00
Total Operation Emissions 5.32 0.502 0.443 16.2 2.67 0.00426
Intermittent Emissions
Phase 1 Emergency Diesel 0.428 0.000402 0.00298 0.0338 0.00805 -
Total Intermittent Emissions 1.28 0.00121 0.00893 0.101 0.0241 -
NOTES:
Total Operation and Intermittent emissions do not overlap.
Page 3A-12
TABLE 3A-3
PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Stack Emissions
Phase 1 Continuous Stacks 1,349 0.02639 0.02354 1,356
Total Stack Emissions 5,343 0.1045 0.09323 5,374
Fugitive Plant Emissions
Phase 1 Tanks emissions 0.0867 0.536 0.00 11.3
Phase 1 Process Area emissions 0.101 0.0426 0.00 0.996
Phase 1 Fugitive Well Pads emissions 0.000786 0.0306 0.00 0.643
Total Fugitive Plant Emissions 0.591 2.08 0.00 44.2
Construction and Operation Fleet Emissions
Peak Construction Year for 3 Phases 56.8 0.00266 0.00176 57.4
Total Construction and Operation Fleet Emissions 56.8 0.00266 0.00176 57.4
Total Operation Emissions 5,400 2.186 0.09499 5,476
Intermittent Emissions
Phase 1 Emergency Diesel 42.0 0.00210 0.00631 44.0
Total Intermittent Emissions 126 0.00629 0.0189 132
NOTES:
Full Operation and Intermittent emissions do not overlap.
TABLE 3A-4
EXISTING CONDITION EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Source Type NOX SO2 CO PM2.5 VOC TRS
Stacks 254.72 363.41 196.01 13.71 9.55 0.30
Plant Fugitives - - - 0.07 45.03 1.99
Mine Fleet 75.03 1.88 48.77 2.86 6.99 0.00
Mine Face - - - - 59.89 0.54
Tailings Management Areas - - - - 123.11 2.83
Non-Industrial 29.31 0.89 105.62 2.33 7.66 -
Existing Total 359.05 366.18 350.41 18.98 252.23 5.67
Page 3A-13
TABLE 3A-5
BASELINE CASE EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Stacks 380.40 299.31 391.12 23.09 15.86 0.35
Plant Fugitives - - - 0.07 82.14 3.14
Mine Fleet 207.58 4.00 141.03 7.92 23.25 0.00
Mine Face - - - - 142.42 1.29
Non-Industrial 25.90 0.84 144.02 2.44 7.94 -
Baseline Case Total 613.88 304.16 676.17 33.53 564.82 9.91
Increase Relative to Existing (%) 71 -17 93 77 124 75
TABLE 3A-6
APPLICATION CASE EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Stacks 385.47 299.82 407.02 23.52 16.19 0.35
Plant Fugitives - - - 0.07 84.44 3.14
Mine Fleet 207.83 4.00 141.28 7.94 23.29 0.00
Mine Face - - - - 142.42 1.29
Non-Industrial 25.90 0.84 144.02 2.44 7.94 -
Application Case Total 619.21 304.66 692.33 33.97 567.49 9.92
Increase Relative to Base (%) 0.87 0.17 2.39 1.32 0.47 0.04
TABLE 3A-7
PDC EMISSIONS
Emission Rate (t/d)
Source NOX SO2 CO PM2.5 VOC TRS
Stacks 530.17 360.51 689.32 31.70 24.57 0.40
Plant Fugitives 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 100.59 3.28
Mine Fleet 249.84 3.79 196.18 9.04 28.08 0.00
Mine Face 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 204.13 1.86
Tailings Management Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 405.42 5.94
Non-Industrial 25.90 0.84 144.02 2.44 7.94 0.00
Planned Development Case Total 805.91 365.14 1029.52 43.26 770.73 11.48
Increase Relative to Base (%) 31 20 52 29 36 16
Cenovus Narrows Lake 729.78 331.77 682.7 43.46 1000.38 9.9
Difference (%) 10 10 51 -0.5 -23 16
NOTES:
The Cenovus (2010) Narrows Lake Planned Development Case values are shown for comparison purposes.
The Cenovus VOC values do not include non-industrial CO emissions and refer to peak tailings pond emissions.
Page 3A-14
3A.2 Stack Emissions
3A.2.1 Introduction
Industrial operations vent combustion products to the atmosphere through stacks. While most of the
combustion stack emissions are comprised of nitrogen, water vapour and CO2, they also include common
air contaminants such as NOX, SO2, CO, and PM2.5. Other combustion emissions include trace levels of
hydrocarbon (i.e., VOC and PAH compounds) and metal emissions. The stack emissions depend on the
type of fuel and the combustion type, and are directly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed. The
combustion sources can be broadly classified as:
• Boilers and Heaters: These are external combustion sources that are fired with natural gas, a
natural gas-process/produced gas blend, or a refinery gas.
• Turbines: These combustion sources are typically fired with natural gas.
• Engines: These reciprocating units are used to drive compressors and are normally fired with natural
gas. Some reciprocating units used for emergency power generators or for water pumps may be fired
with diesel.
• Flares: These are external combustion sources that are used for both upset/emergency service and
maintenance operations. During normal operation, they are fired varyingly with natural gas and small
volumes of waste gas.
There are unique stack sources within the Model Domain that are fired with other fuels. These include the
Suncor Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) stack, the Syncrude main stacks, and the Northlands Forest
Products waste wood burner. There are also numerous smaller gas plants that are serviced by
compressors, heaters and flares.
Figures 3A-1 and 3A-2 show the location of the existing, approved, and planned stacks in the Model
Domain and in the Regional Study Area (RSA), respectively. There are very few facilities located in the
LSA. The planned Cenovus Energy Inc. Pelican Lake Grand Rapids project is located just outside the
northeast corner of the Project LSA.
3A.2.2 Stack Parameters
The number and type of stacks that are required for any industrial facility are based on engineering
design considerations specific to each project. Engineering design provides the locations of the individual
stacks on a plant plot plan, the stack heights and diameters specific to the process the stack services,
and the expected gross flow parameters such as the exit velocity and the exit temperature. For the
Project, these parameters were obtained through interactions with the design engineering team. For other
existing, approved and planned projects, these parameters were obtained from publically available data
contained in project specific applications (i.e., Environmental Impact Assessments or EIAs) and in
industry reports.
3A.2.2.1 SO2, NOX, PM2.5, CO, and VOC Approach
Virtually all EIAs and other information sources provide estimated emissions of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, CO, and
VOC for individual existing, approved and planned stacks. The NPRI database provides annual emissions
from existing developments on a facility-wide basis.
3A.2.2.2 Hydrocarbon (VOC and PAH) Approach
Previous EIA emission inventories typically do not provide the basis for estimating VOC and PAH
emissions from stacks. The basis for the estimates that are used for this assessment for both the Project
and other developments is described as follows:
Page 3A-15
• Boilers/heaters: The California Toxic Emission Factors (CATEF) provides maximum, average, and
median emission factors associated with these sources. Section 1.4 of AP-42 (U.S. EPA 1998,
Internet site) also provides average emission factors for these sources (see Table 3A-8).
• Turbines: The California Toxic Emission Factors (CATEF) provide average, median and maximum
emission factors associated with these sources (see CATEF turbine burning natural gas). Section 3.1
of AP-42 (U.S. EPA 2000a, Internet site) also provides average emission factors for these sources
(see Table 3A-9).
• Reciprocating Engines: The California Toxic Emission Factors (CATEF) provides average, median
and maximum emission factors associated with these sources (see CATEF internal combustion
engine burning natural gas (4 stroke/rich burn/less than 650 Hp). Section 3.2 of AP-42 (U.S. EPA
2000b, Internet site) also provides average emission factors for these sources (see Table 3A-10). For
diesel fuelled reciprocating engines, U.S. EPA Speciate Profile 4674 was selected.
• Flares: The California Toxic Emission Factors (CATEF) provide average, median and maximum
emission factors associated with these sources (see CATEF flare burning landfill gas). Section 13.5
of AP-42 (U.S. EPA 1991, Internet site) also provides emission factors for total hydrocarbons (see
Table 3A-11). The total hydrocarbons were assumed as total VOC. Some compounds such as
chlorinated chemicals that are not associated with industry flares were removed.
The U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors were assumed to represent average emissions. For this
assessment, the average emission factor from CATEF was given priority and this was supplemented with
the U.S. EPA value where the U.S. EPA identified a compound not identified by CATEF.
The emission factors were normalized relative to the associated VOC emission rate to provide the mass
speciation in Table 3A-12. For this assessment, source codes have been defined (see the bottom of
Table 3A-12). For example, any stack identified as a gas-fired heater, boiler, or steam generator was
assigned the source code H. Individual VOC and PAH group emissions would be calculated by
multiplying the corresponding factors by the VOC emission rate. For gas-fired cogeneration units, the
emission factor is based on 2/3 fuel consumption by the combustion turbine and 1/3 fuel consumption by
the HSRG.
3A.2.2.3 TRS Approach
Reduced sulphur compound emissions tend to be associated with combustion sources that are fired with
a sulphur containing fuel. These sources include sulphur plant incinerator (thermal oxidizer) stacks. No
TRS emissions were assumed for the source types identified in Table 3A-12. For controlled combustion
sources, it was assumed that the sulphur content in the fuel would be oxidized to SO2. For flare stacks,
where the combustion may not be complete, there may be TRS emission (ARC 1996). The ARC report
measured sulphur compound emissions downwind of a sour oil battery flare and found the following:
• Carbon Disulphide (CS2) comprised 72% of the TRS
• Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) comprised 19% of the TRS
• Carbonyl Sulphide (COS) comprised 9% of the TRS
For flares reported as emitting TRS, these factors were applied.
3A.2.2.4 Metal Approach
Metals tend to be bound in the particle phase emissions. In the previous EIAs completed in the region,
the PM2.5 emissions associated with gas combustion are based on U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors and
are likely based on the assumption that all the PM is in the fine fraction (i.e., in the PM2.5 size range).
Recent measurements have demonstrated that using the AP-42 emission factor approach can overstate
the PM2.5 emissions (England et al 2002).
Page 3A-16
England (England et al 2004) expresses metal emissions in terms of mass fraction of PM2.5 since metals
are a component PM2.5. The mass fractions are provided for boilers and for heaters. To assess the
Project, metal emission factors for boilers and for heaters were calculated and the maximum of the two
was adopted to estimate the mass fraction of each metal based on the AP-42 PM2.5 emission factor.
Table 3A-13 shows the emission factors that were applied to estimate metal emissions from boilers,
heaters, and steam generators. The emission factors are expressed as a mass percent of the PM2.5
emission.
Table 3A-14 compares the U.S. EPA and the updated emission factors for PM and metals for natural gas
fired turbines. The table also shows the speciation profile used for cogeneration units based on the
2/3:1/3 approach adopted for speciating VOC from these units (see Section 3A.2.2.2).
Metal emissions from reciprocating natural gas and diesel-fired engines were not considered for the
Project. These sources are only considered from an upset perspective and emissions were limited to
CAC.
3A.2.2.5 Approach for Non-gaseous Fuelled Stacks
Some existing and proposed stacks in the Model Domain are not gas fired, and their associated emission
profiles differ from those associated with the combustion of gas. Specifically, the use of other fuels (i.e.,
alternate fuels) may produce higher particulate emissions, and associated metal and VOC emissions.
These alternate fuel stacks, and associated source codes, include:
• The Syncrude Main stack: This stack is fired with coke burner off-gas (CBOG) from two coker
burners (Source Code S). In 2011, Syncrude proposes to commission the flue gas desulphurization
(FGD) control for this stack to reduce SO2 emissions.
• The Syncrude 8-3 stack: This stack is fired with CBOG from one coker burner and supplementary
natural gas (Source Code S).
• The Suncor flue gas desulphurization (FGD) stack: This stack vents emissions from the
powerhouse that burns a coke product (Source Code S). The Suncor FGD control was implemented
in 1997.
• The Suncor Powerhouse Stack: This stack burns a coke product (Source Code S).
• The Shell Jackpine Asphaltene Energy Recovery (AER) stacks: These stack vent emissions from
the Asphaltene-fired cogeneration unit (Source Code S). The asphaltene-fired cogeneration unit
consists of a high-pressure steam boiler and a steam turbine. Asphaltene recovered from the froth
treatment process will be used to fire the high-pressure steam boiler.
• The Shell Pierre River AER stacks. These stacks vent emissions from the Asphaltene-fired
cogeneration unit (Source Code S). The asphaltene-fired cogeneration unit consists of a high-
pressure steam boiler and a steam turbine. Asphaltene recovered from the froth treatment process
will be used to fire the high-pressure steam boiler.
• The Northlands conical burner (Source Code W): The Northlands waste wood burner emissions
were estimated using emission factors from Section 1.6 of AP-42, which refers to wood fired boilers.
Although Section 2.7 refers directly to waste wood burners, the section does not provide VOC, PAH
or metal speciation. For this reason, Section 1.6 was used to provide an indication of these emissions
even though the combustion processes differ.
• The Hammerstone Corp. (formerly BirchMountain) Hammerstone project stacks: The

Hammerstone project include three activated lime kiln stacks, one clinker cooler filter stack, one
clinker dome filter stack, four coke mill filter stack, one mill-kiln filter stack, and four quicklime kiln
stacks. During normal operations, it is expected that fuel requirements for kilns overall will be met by
a blend of 80% coke and 20% natural gas. (Source Code S).
Page 3A-17
• Diesel engine generator (Source Code D): The Athabasca Oil Sands Dover Central Pilot project
and the MacKay River Pilot project have diesel powered emergency generators. The VOC and PAH
speciation profiles for diesel powered generators is based on U.S. EPA Speciate 4 Profile 4674. The
metal speciation profile for diesel powered generators is based on U.S. EPA Speciation 4 Profile
91017.
Table 3A-15 provides a mass speciation profile of the metals based on stack surveys conducted in 1998
for the Syncrude and Suncor stacks (Syncrude 1998). The majority of the non-metal PM2.5 emissions are
comprised of elemental or organically bound carbon. The average of the two stack surveys was applied to
the source code S such as the Syncrude, Suncor and Shell alternate fuel stacks. The same stack surveys
also measured PAH emissions from these stacks, and the PAH speciation profiles are shown in Table 3A-
16. The same approach, as described above for metals, was adopted for the PAH profiles.
Table 3A-17 and 3A-18 provide the VOC/PAH and metal emission profiles that were adopted for the
waste wood burner. The individual VOC/PAH group emissions were scaled from the total VOC emissions,
and the metal emissions were scaled from the total PM emissions.
The VOC/PAH and metal emission profiles for diesel powered generators are provided in Table 3A-19
and 3A-20.
3A.2.2.6 Intermittent Stacks
This source and emission inventory focuses on normal day-to-day emissions, and does not include upset
or emergency emission events. Potential upset stack emission sources in the region include:
• The Suncor Powerhouse Stack: The powerhouse emissions are normally directed through a flue
gas desulphurization (FGD) facility and vented up the associated FGD stack. The FGD system
nominally removes 95% of the SO2 emission associated with the combustion of coke products in the
powerhouse. In the event of a disruption in the FGD capabilities, the powerhouse products of
combustion are vented up the powerhouse stack. In this event, the full SO2 emissions and greater PM
emissions occur. The Powerhouse Stack accounted for 22 and 25% of Suncor’s total SO2 emissions
in 2006 and 2007, respectively. For these two years, the FGD was online for about 88% of the time.
In 2008 and 2009, the Powerhouse Stack emissions were 11 and 10% of Suncor’s total SO2
emission, respectively, due to higher online availability of ~95%.
⇒ The BlackPearl assessment assumes that the Suncor Powerhouse stack contributes 17% of
the total Suncor Upgrader SO2 emissions.
• The Syncrude Diverter Stacks: The three diverter stacks serve as emergency bypass systems that
vent coke burner off-gas from the fluid cokers, tail gas from the sulphur plant, and sour water stripper
off-gas from the sour water plant. These gas streams can contain SO2, CO, TRS, PM, metals and
PAH. Expressed as an SO2 equivalent, the diverter stacks accounted for 0.3 to 0.9% of Syncrude’s
total SO2 emission over the 2006 to 2009 period.
⇒ The BlackPearl assessment did not assume any SO2 emissions from the Syncrude Diverter
stacks given the relatively small contribution on an annual basis (i.e., less than 1%).
For the upgraders in the region, flaring can periodically occur for limited periods of time for each event.
Depending on the gas streams directed to the flare system, substantive SO2 emissions can occur during
these events.
• Suncor Flare Stacks: Over the period 2006 to 2008, the Suncor flare stacks accounted for about
35% of Suncor’s total SO2 emissions. In 2009, the Suncor flare stacks accounted for 11% of the
Suncor total.
⇒ The BlackPearl assessment assumes that the Suncor flare stacks contribute 31% of the total
Suncor Upgrader SO2 emissions.
Page 3A-18
• Syncrude Flare Stacks: For the period 2006 to 2009, the Syncrude flare stack accounted for 2.3% of
the Syncrude total SO2 emission.
⇒ The BlackPearl assessment assumes that the Syncrude flare stacks contribute 2.2% of the
total Syncrude Upgrader SO2 emissions.
• Other Facility Flare Stacks: Flare stacks also service the extraction, in-situ, and gas plant operations
in the region; typically the SO2 emissions from these flaring operations are very low.
⇒ The BlackPearl assessment did not assume any upset SO2 emissions from the other facility
flare stacks.
The flare stack parameters typically reflect “pseudo parameters” that allow a flare stack to be simulated in
the model as a normal stack. The parameters are likely based on the Alberta Environment calculation
approach that is not strictly applicable to dispersion models like CALPUFF. The ERCB Guide 60
spreadsheet offers an updated approach for models like CALPUFF.
3A.2.3 Project Stack Parameters
This section identifies, characterizes and quantifies air emissions associated with BlackPearl Blackrod
SAGD Pilot Project (the Pilot Project) and BlackPearl Blackrod SAGD Pilot Expansion Project (the Pilot
Expansion Project) and emissions that are anticipated for the Project. Due to the close proximity of the
Project to the Pilot Project and the Pilot Expansion Project, detailed information for all three BlackPearl
projects is presented to help differentiate emissions and air quality changes due to the respective
projects.
3A.2.3.1 BlackPearl Pilot and Expansion Project Stacks
BlackPearl currently operates the Pilot Project under ERCB Crude Bitumen Scheme No 11522B and the
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) Approval No. 264736-00-00. The Pilot
Expansion Project adds a new well pair to the existing Pilot Plant, which requires the addition of
supplemental surface facility components including a new steam generator and a new power generator to
the existing facility. BlackPearl is applying to amend the existing ERCB & AEW Approvals for the Pilot
Expansion Project. For the purpose of this assessment, the Pilot Expansion Project was assumed to be
approved.
Figure 3A-3 shows the plot plan for the Pilot Project and Expansion Project. Table 3A-21 provides a
summary of the stacks at the Pilot and Expansion Project. Continuous stacks associated with the existing
Pilot Project include one steam generator, one main power generator and one flare. Continuous stacks
associated with the Pilot Expansion Project include one steam generator and one power generator in
addition to the three existing ones. Table 3A-24 identifies the parameters and emissions associated with
these two projects. Emissions from the existing Pilot Project were obtained from 2009 Blackrod Air Quality
Assessment report (Stantec, 2009) which is based on normal operating conditions. Emissions from the
additional two stacks at Pilot Expansion Project are determined by assuming the additional units to be
identical to the existing corresponding ones.
3A.2.3.2 Project Stacks
The Project will use the same Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) technology currently employed at
the Pilot Project to recover bitumen. The main infrastructure required for the Project will include central
processing facilities (CPF), maximum 40 well pads operated at the same time, and associated
infrastructure such as pipelines, roads and power lines. The Project is expected to operate for about 30
years. There are three phases for the proposed Project. Phase 1 is capable of producing 20,000 bbl/d.
Both Phase 2 and Phase 3 have an individual production capacity of 30,000 bbl/d. Each phase can
operate independently from the other two phases.
Figure 3A-4 shows the plot plan for the Project. The stacks are identified in Tables A-22. The Project will
employ 1 glycol heater stack, 4 OTSG stacks, and two flares stack for Phase 1; and 1 glycol heater stack,
Page 3A-19
6 OTSG stacks, and two flares stack at each of Phases 2 and 3. Each Phase also has one emergency
diesel generator. The OTSG stacks operate on a nominal continuous basis, while the emergency
generators are typically expected to be operated only during power disruption (or when tested once per
month for a nominal hour period). Although the glycol heaters are intermittent sources, and are expected
to operate at maximum only during winters or start-up, they are assumed as continuous stacks for the
purpose of this assessment to be conservative.
During normal operation, a small amount of sweet purge gas enters at upstream points in the flare header
to avoid oxygen ingress to the flare system and this pilot flame gas will be flared on a continuous basis.
While plant design will have adequate redundancy to reduce/eliminate the need to flare during normal
operation, upset flaring will occur only during inlet fuel gas failures, inlet produced gas to flare, and
1×50% VRU compressor outrages for three phases.
The inlet gas compositions associated with continuous stacks and upset flare scenarios are given in
Table 3A-23.
HEATER AND OTSG STACKS
Most of the stack parameters were provided by Worley Parsons Resources & Energy team. Following are
additional comments regarding the parameters and emissions associated with the conventional stacks:
• The locations, heights above grade, inside diameters, exit temperatures, and exit velocities for the
proposed stacks were provided by Worley Parsons;
• NOX, CO and PM2.5 emission rates for the stacks were calculated by Stantec based on the AEW
Compliance Limit, the CCME Limit, and the U.S. EPA AP42 emission factor, respectfully;
• SO2 emission rates for the stacks were provided by Worley Parson;
• VOC, PAH, and metal emissions are based on the application of U.S. EPA and CARB emission
factors. The selected compound groupings are based on classification by the Human and Ecological
Health Assessment team.
Tables A-25 to A-27 provide the emission parameters for the Project heaters and OTSGs.
FLARE STACKS
Each of the three Project phases is serviced by an independent high pressure (HP) and low pressure (LP)
flare system. For each phase the separate HP and LP flares are collated. Under normal operating
conditions, small volumes of sweet purge gas are directed to the flare stacks. The associated flare
parameters and emissions for normal operating conditions are provided in Table 3A-28.
Under upset conditions, which are expected to be infrequent and typically of a short-term nature, larger
volumes of gas will be directed to the flare stacks. Three potential upset scenarios associated with each
phase of the Project include:
• Inlet fuel gas control failure: Due to a failure with the inlet fuel gas control, the entire CPF will shut
down. The Phase 2 high pressure (HP) flare will be used for emergency operationand the other
Phase 2 facilities will shut down. This assessment examines the overlap of the Phase 2 HP flare
upset with other normal emission Phase 1 and Phase 3 sources (including the ongoing construction
and operation fleet sources).
• Inlet produced gas to flare: Produced gas will be directed to the Phase 2 HP flare instead of being
directed to the CPF fuel system. It is likely that the other Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 sources
would continue to operate normally when produced gas is being flared. However, the CPF would be
burning natural gas instead of mixed gas (i.e., a mixture of natural gas and produced gas) when
produced gas is flared. This assessment examines the overlap the Phase 2 HP flare upset with other
Page 3A-20
normal Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 sources (including the ongoing construction and operation
fleet sources).
• VRU compressor outrage: This scenario assumes that one of the two vapour recovery unit (VRUs)
has failed resulting in the flaring of vapours in the Phase 2 low pressure (LP) flare. It is likely that the
other emission sources at the plant would continue to operate normally during this scenario. This
assessment examines the overlap of the Phase 2 LP flare (VRU compressor outage) with other
normal Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 sources (including the ongoing construction and operation
fleet sources).
The associated flare parameters and emissions for these intermittent upset events are provided in
Tables A-29 to A-31. The SO2 emissions for these events were provided by Worley Parsons. CO and
PM2.5 emissions were estimated using AP-42 emission factors for municipal solid waste landfills (U.S.
EPA. 2008), and then was adjusted using CH4 heating value (37.7 MJ/m3). NOX and VOC emissions were
estimated based on AP-42 emission factor for industrial flares. (U.S. EPA. 1991).
Dispersion models cannot evaluate flare stacks directly; therefore, flare data must be modified to produce
“effective” or “pseudo” parameters for use by the models. The Energy Resources Conservation Board
(ERCB) Directive 60 spreadsheet (Version 1.05) was used to calculate the effective parameters for
normal and upset flaring scenarios. These pseudo flare parameters are provided in Tables A-28 to A-31.
EMERGENCY GENERATOR STACKS
The Project will be serviced by three diesel-fired reciprocating engine driven emergency generators (one
for each phase) that will be used during periods of electrical outage. Table 3A-31 provides the emission
parameters for the Project intermittent source stacks. The generator units will typically be tested on a
monthly basis for a nominal 1 hour period.
BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES
The flow of air over and around buildings or other structures (i.e., a storage tank) can generate a turbulent
wake zone that can influence the dispersion of stack plumes that are emitted near these structures (i.e.,
for stacks that are typically within 5 to 10 building heights of the building). This influence is the largest for
short stacks (i.e., for stacks that are less than or equal to the building height) and is negligible for stacks
that are much higher than the buildings (e.g., for stacks that more than 2.5 times the building height).
Table 3A-33 provides a summary of the buildings and other structures located at the Pilot and Pilot
Expansion Project. Tables A-34 and A-35 provide a summary of the substantive tanks and buildings
located at the Project CPF facilities.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
While the primary direct GHG emissions from combustion sources is CO2, trace amounts of methane and
N2O can also result from combustion sources. The direct Greenhouse gas emissions were based on the
following:
• The CO2 emissions due to natural gas combustion were based on the expected natural gas
consumption and composition (the latter being given in Table 3A-23).
• The CO2 emissions due to diesel combustion were based on the expected diesel consumption and
the Environment Canada GHG emission factor of 2663 g/L.
• The methane and N2O emissions due to natural gas combustion were based on the expected natural
gas consumption and the Environment Canada GHG emission factors of 0.037 g/m3 and 0.033 g/m3,
respectively.
Page 3A-21
• The methane and N2O emissions due to diesel combustion were based on the expected diesel
consumption and the Environment Canada GHG emission factors of 0.133 g/L and 0.4g/L for diesel
fuel, respectively.
The Environment Canada factors were obtained from the Environment Canada Climate Change website:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=AC2B7641-1. In estimating GHG emissions from
Project stacks, OTSG stacks were assumed to be operating 94% of the time at an average duty of 85%.
Table 3A-36 shows the annual average greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Project
continuous stack, intermittent stack. The CO2 equivalent emissions are based on the relative warming
potentials for CO2, methane and N2O (i.e., on 1.0, 21 for methane and 310 for N2O, respectively).
3A.2.4 Other Development Stack Parameters
3A.2.4.1 Stack Parameters
Tables A-37 to A-38 provide the stack parameters and associated NOX, SO2, CO, PM2.5, and VOC
emissions for the existing condition, Baseline Case, Application Case, and PDC. Specifically:
• Table 3A-37 provides the parameters and emissions on an individual stack basis for upgrading
facilities and mining operations. This table includes the Nexan/OPTI Long Lake development stacks,
which is an in-situ project but has upgrading facility as part of the same project.
• Table 3A-38 provides the parameters and emissions on an individual stack basis for in-situ bitumen
extracting facilities.
• Table 3A-39 provides the parameters and emissions on an individual stack basis for other stacks that
include the compressor stations, gas plants, Williams Energy and the Northlands stacks.
Codes in the respective tables indicate if the stack is associated with the existing condition, Baseline
Case, or PDC developments. The existing condition stack emissions are based on information filed by
various operators as part of the EPEA annual reporting process and they nominally reflect the 2008
emissions. The following provides an example of the NOX emissions (t/d) associated with the existing
major developments:
Development 2007 2008 2009

Shell Muskeg River 1.79 1.76 Not available
Suncor Millennium 28.6 26.9 32.0
Syncrude Mildred Lake 41.2 34.9 38.3
Syncrude Aurora 1.87 1.90 1.59
These values demonstrate that extraction plants (e.g., Muskeg River and Aurora) are smaller sources of
NOX emissions than upgraders (e.g., Millennium and Mildred Lake).
3A.2.4.2 Space Heating
Space heating units are also used for other projects. Table 3A-40 provides the space heating parameters
and emissions for these other projects when available. Space heating units are fired with natural gas.
3A.2.5 Stack Emission Summary
Table 3A-41 provides a summary of the stack emissions for the Project, the existing condition and for the
three assessment cases. The SO2 emissions for the existing scenario are greater than the Baseline Case
SO2 emissions due to recent Syncrude sulphur reduction initiatives. The emissions in the table nominally
reflect maximum emissions.
Page 3A-22
Planned Stack
May 2012
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
6300000
6300000
6280000
6280000
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
6240000
6240000
63
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
Conklin
6160000
6160000
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
Existing/Approved Stack
May 2012
395650 395700 395750 395800 395850 395900 395950
6165250
6165250
Flare
Existing OTSG
6165200
6165200
Main Power Generator 1
Main Power Generator 2

6165150
6165150
Expansion Power Generator
6165100
6165100
6165050
6165050
Expansion OTSG
6165000
6165000
6164950
6164950
395650 395700 395750 395800 395850 395900 395950
May 2012
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
6163700
6163700
21-T-465
11-T-465
6163600
6163600
Steam Generator Steam Generator
Steam Generator Steam Generator Steam Generator
6163500
6163500
Steam Generator Steam Generator
Glycol Heater Glycol Heater
Glycol Heater
11-T-520 21-T-520 31-T-520

Emergency Generator Package Emergency Generator Package
11-T-580 21-T-580 31-T-580
6163400
6163400
11-T-385 21-T-385 Emergency Generator Package
31-T-385
11-T-435 21-T-435
31-T-435
11-T-451 21-T-451
31-T-451
11-T-328 11-T-401 21-T-328 31-T-328
21-T-401
6163300
6163300
11-T-365 21-T-365 31-T-365
11-T-360 21-T-360 31-T-360 31-T-401
11-T-216 21-T-216
31-T-316
11-T-146 21-T-146 31-T-146

6163200
6163200
11-T-222 21-T-222 31-T-222
11-T-140 21-T-154 21-T-140 31-T-154 31-T-140
11-T-154
21-T-150 31-T-150 31-T-201

11-T-150
21-T-201
6163100
6163100
11-T-201
11-T-550
11-T-513
21-T-550
11-T-132
21-T-117A
6163000
6163000
11-T-117A
21-T-132
HP Flare Stack 21-T-117B
LP Flare Stack
11-T-117B
HP Flare Stack
LP Flare Stack 31-T-117A
6162900
6162900
HP Flare Stack
LP Flare Stack
31-T-117B
11-T-119
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
May 2012
TABLE 3A-8
COMPARISON OF CATEF AND AP-42 EMISSION FACTORS FOR BOILERS, HEATERS AND STEAM
GENERATORS BURNING NATURAL GAS
CATEF CATEF CATEF
Maximum Average Median AP-42
6 a
Compound Grouping (lb/10 scf) (lb/106 scf) a (lb/106 scf) a (lb/106 scf)
VOC - - - 5.50
2-Methylnaphthalene - - - 0.0000240
3-Methylchloranthrene - - - 0.00000180
7,12-
- - - 0.0000160
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene 0.00000162 0.00000139 0.00000140 0.00000180
Acenaphthylene 0.0000323 0.0000121 0.00000284 0.00000180
Acetaldehyde b 0.0166 0.0156 0.0157 -
Acrolein b 0.0222 0.0184 0.0175 -
Anthracene 0.00000185 0.00000161 0.00000183 0.00000240
Benzene 0.0400 0.0112 0.00685 0.00210
Benzaldehyde c 0.0272 0.0164 0.0157 -
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.00000285 0.00000196 0.00000197 0.00000180
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00000118 0.000000980 0.000000996 0.00000120
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00000118 0.00000114 0.00000115 0.00000180
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.00000142 0.00000125 0.00000118 0.00000120
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00000118 0.000000990 0.000000996 0.00000180
Butane - - - 2.10
Chrysene 0.00000183 0.00000139 0.00000118 0.00000180
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00000118 0.000000917 0.000000915 0.00000120
Dichlorobenzene - - - 0.00120
Ethylbenzene 0.00225 0.00225 0.00225 -
Fluoranthene 0.0000179 0.0000119 0.0000107 0.00000300
Fluorene 0.00000582 0.00000459 0.00000450 0.00000280
Formaldehyde c 0.672 0.221 0.0696 0.0750
Hexane - - - 1.80
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.00000150 0.00000117 0.00000117 0.00000180
Naphthalene 0.00247 0.00112 0.000920 0.000610
Pentane - - - 2.60
Phenanthrene 0.0000474 0.0000337 0.0000331 0.0000170
Propane - - - 1.60
Propylene 0.613 0.235 0.163 -
Pyrene 0.0000116 0.00000560 0.00000284 0.00000500
Toluene 0.0747 0.0295 0.0200 0.00340
Xylene (Total) b 0.0277 0.0276 0.0276 -
NOTES:
a
The CATEF values shown are based on the maximum of the steam generator, boiler, and heater emission
factors. Unless marked as b or c, the CATEF emission factors are for heaters.
b
CATEF emission factor for steam generators.
c
CATEF emission factor for boilers.
Page 3A-27
TABLE 3A-9
COMPARISON OF CATEF AND AP-42 EMISSION FACTORS FOR

NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION TURBINES
CATEF Maximum CATEF Average CATEF Median AP-42 a
Compound Grouping (lb/106 scf) (lb/106 scf) (lb/106 scf) (lb/106 scf)
VOC - - - 2.14
1,3-Butadiene 0.000133 0.000127 0.000124 0.000439
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.000000469 0.000000272 0.000000174 -
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.00000630 0.00000529 0.00000507 -
Acenaphthene 0.000122 0.0000190 0.00000523 -
Acenaphthylene 0.0000825 0.0000147 0.00000288 -
Acetaldehyde 0.511 0.137 0.0538 0.0408
Acrolein 0.0693 0.0189 0.0109 0.00653
Anthracene 0.000153 0.0000338 0.00000938 -
Benzene 0.0990 0.0909 0.0942 0.0122
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.000134 0.0000226 0.00000361 -
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0000916 0.0000139 0.00000257 -
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0000672 0.0000113 0.00000287 -
Benzo(e)pyrene 0.000000733 0.000000544 0.000000463 -
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0000825 0.0000137 0.00000303 -
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0000672 0.0000110 0.00000287 -
Chrysene 0.000150 0.0000252 0.00000499 -
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.000134 0.0000235 0.00000303 -
Ethylbenzene 0.0570 0.0179 0.00974 0.0326
Fluoranthene 0.000305 0.0000432 0.0000107 -
Fluorene 0.000458 0.0000580 0.0000156 -
Formaldehyde 6.87 0.917 0.112 0.724
Hexane 0.382 0.259 0.219 -
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.000134 0.0000235 0.00000287 -
Naphthalene 0.00788 0.00166 0.000926 0.00133
Perylene 0.000000968 0.000000700 0.000000579 -
Phenanthrene 0.00235 0.000313 0.0000857 -
Propylene 2.00 0.771 0.571 -
Propylene Oxide 0.0587 0.0478 0.0448 0.0296
Pyrene 0.000127 0.0000277 0.0000118 -
Toluene 0.168 0.0710 0.0591 0.133
Xylene (Total) 0.0626 0.0261 0.0193 0.0653
NOTE:
a
A combustion heating value of 1020 BTU/scf was used to convert the AP-42 lb/mmBTU values to lb/106 scf.
Page 3A-28
TABLE 3A-10
COMPARISON OF CATEF AND AP-42 EMISSION FACTORS FOR RECIPROCATING ENGINES

BURNING NATURAL GAS
CATEF CATEF
a
Maximum Average CATEF Median AP-42
6
VOC - - - 30.2
1,3-Butadiene 0.105 0.104 0.105 0.676
Acenaphthene 0.00339 0.00194 0.00132 -
Acenaphthylene 0.0162 0.0145 0.0145 -
Acetaldehyde 1.82 0.883 0.834 2.85
Acrolein 1.37 0.547 0.614 2.68
Anthracene 0.00226 0.00184 0.00177 -
Benzene 10.2 1.91 0.129 1.61
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.000151 0.000115 0.000104 -
Chrysene 0.000395 0.000310 0.000291 -
Ethylbenzene 0.0144 0.0116 0.0123 0.0253
Fluoranthene 0.00120 0.000995 0.000960 -
Fluorene 0.00904 0.00691 0.00662 -
Formaldehyde 11.4 2.35 0.421 20.9
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.000207 0.000169 0.000160 -
Methanol - - - 3.12
Naphthalene 0.0866 0.0765 0.0847 0.0990
Phenanthrene 0.00885 0.00707 0.00734 -
Propylene 42.0 16.0 0.439 -
Pyrene 0.00264 0.00179 0.00154 -
Styrene - - - 0.0121
Toluene 2.62 1.07 0.109 0.569
Xylene (Total) 0.0738 0.0602 0.0677 0.199
NOTE:
a 6
Page 3A-29
TABLE 3A-11
COMPARISON OF CATEF AND AP-42 EMISSION FACTORS FOR FLARES

CATEF Maximum CATEF Average CATEF Median AP-42 a
VOC b - - - 143
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0164 0.0151 0.0163 -
Acenaphthene 0.0560 0.0217 0.00120 -
Acenaphthylene 0.0560 0.0216 0.00105 -
Acetaldehyde 0.653 0.258 0.0667 -
Acrolein 0.0933 0.0844 0.0933 -
Anthracene 0.0560 0.0221 0.00195 -
Benzene 0.859 0.183 0.0978 -
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0560 0.0211 0.0000748 -
Benzo(e)pyrene 0.0000748 0.0000688 0.0000741 -
Chrysene 0.0560 0.0212 0.000593 -
Fluoranthene 0.0560 0.0227 0.00371 -
Fluorene 0.0560 0.0238 0.00493 -
Formaldehyde 67.4 29.5 23.7 -
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0560 0.0211 0.0000748 -
Naphthalene 35.4 13.0 0.0356 -
Perylene 0.0000748 0.0000688 0.0000741 -
Phenanthrene 0.0560 0.0280 0.0127 -
Pyrene 0.0560 0.0223 0.00224 -
Toluene 109 17.6 3.11 -
Xylene (Total) c 0.796 0.554 0.514 -
NOTES:
a
b
The AP-42 factor is labeled as HC which was conservatively assumed to be VOC.
c
Xylene (Total) = Xylene(m,p) + Xylene(o)
Page 3A-30
TABLE 3A-12
VOC SPECIATION PROFILE (MASS PERCENT OF TOTAL VOC) FOR HEATERS/BOILERS, TURBINES, RECIPROCATING ENGINES AND FLARES
Mass %
Gas fired Reciprocating
a
Compound Grouping Heaters/Boilers Turbines Cogeneration Engines Flares
VOC 100 100 100 100 100
1,3-Butadiene 0.00 0.00593 0.00593 0.344 0.00
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.000436 0.000247 0.000310 0.00 0.0106
3-methylcholanthrene 0.0000327 0.00 0.0000327 0.00 0.00
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 0.000291 0.00 0.000291 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene 0.0000253 0.000887 0.000600 0.00643 0.0152
Acenaphthylene 0.000220 0.000686 0.000531 0.0480 0.0151
Acetaldehyde 0.284 6.40 4.36 2.92 0.181
Acrolein 0.335 0.882 0.700 1.81 0.0591
Aliphatic aldehydes 4.64 50.1 34.9 12.5 20.9
Aliphatic C5-C8b 48.7 9.19 21.1 6.34c 48.7
Aliphatic C9-C16d 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40c 1.40
Page 3A-31
Anthracene 0.0000293 0.00158 0.00106 0.00609 0.0155

Aromatic C17-C34e 0.0000327 0.0000581 0.0000496 0.0000327 0.0000964
Aromatic C9-C16 0.0212 0.0836 0.0628 0.337 9.18
Benzaldehyde 0.298 0.00 0.298 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group 0.298 0.00 0.298 0.00 0.00
Benzene 0.204 4.24 2.90 6.33 0.128
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0000356 0.00106 0.000715 0.000974 0.0148
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0000178 0.000649 0.000439 0.000381 0.0148
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0000207 0.000528 0.000359 0.000785 0.0148
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0000227 0.000640 0.000434 0.000646 0.0148
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0000180 0.000514 0.000348 0.000341 0.0148
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and
b 43.6 27.4 33.1 53.3 0.00
ethane)
Chrysene 0.0000253 0.00118 0.000793 0.00103 0.0148
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.0000167 0.00110 0.000737 0.0000414 0.0148
Dichlorobenzene 0.0218 0.00 0.0218 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene 0.0409 0.836 0.571 0.0384 0.00
Fluoranthene 0.000216 0.00202 0.00142 0.00330 0.0159
Fluorene 0.0000835 0.00271 0.00183 0.0229 0.0167
Formaldehyde 4.02 42.8 29.9 7.78 20.7
Hexaneb 19.9 9.19 12.7 0.430c 0.00
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0000213 0.00110 0.000738 0.000560 0.0148
Methanol 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.3 0.00
TABLE 3A-12 Cont'd
Mass %
Gas fired Reciprocating
a
Compound Grouping Heaters/Boilers Turbines Cogeneration Engines Flares
Naphthalene 0.0204 0.0775 0.0585 0.253 9.10
Phenanthrene 0.000613 0.0146 0.00995 0.0234 0.0196
Pyrene 0.000102 0.00129 0.000896 0.00593 0.0156
Styrene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0402 0.00
Toluene 0.536 3.31 2.39 3.54 12.3
Xylene (Total) 0.502 1.22 0.980 0.199 0.388
Totalf 100 97.8 97.8 84.5 93.2
Based on: Table 3A-8 Table 3A-9 See Note a Table 3A-10 Table 3A-11
Source Code H T C R F
NOTES:
a
C = 67% from turbines factor plus 33% from heaters/boilers factor.
b
Mass% for heaters/boilers were based on total VOC emission factor of 8.68 lb/106 scf by adding all individual VOCs from AP42.
c
Based on U.S. EPA Speciate Version 4 VOC Profile 1001.
Page 3A-32
d
Emission factor for reciprocating engine used as a surrogate for all other natural gas fired sources where no other data available.
e
Emission factor for heaters/boilers used as a surrogate for reciprocating engines.
f
Heaters/boilers, Turbine and Cogeneration were renormalized to 100 based on Aliphatic C5-C8, C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and ethane),
and Hexane.
TABLE 3A-13
PARTICULATE MATTER AND METAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR BOILERS, HEATERS AND STEAM GENERATORS BURNING NATURAL GAS
U.S. EPA AP-42a Updatedb
Maximum of
Heater and Mass % of
Compound Grouping Boiler Boiler Heaterc Heaterd Boilerc Boilerd Boiler PM2.5f
Unit lb/MMscf lb/mmBTU % lb/mmBTU % lb/mmBTU lb/mmBTU %
PM2.5 (Total) 7.60 0.00745 − − − − − 100
PM2.5e (Dilution Tunnel) − − 100 0.0000890 100 0.000340 0.000340 −
Aluminum (Al) − − 1.30 0.00000116 1.20 0.00000408 0.00000408 0.0548
Arsenic (As) 0.000200 0.000000196 0 0 0.0400 0.000000136 0.000000136 0.00183
Barium (Ba) 0.00440 0.00000431 0.400 0.000000356 − − 0.000000356 0.00478
Cadmium (Cd) 0.00110 0.00000108 0.0500 0.0000000445 − − 0.0000000445 0.000597
Chromium (Cr) 0.00140 0.00000137 0.0400 0.0000000356 0.0100 0.0000000340 0.0000000356 0.000478
Cobalt (Co) 0.0000840 0.0000000824 1.10 0.000000979 0.0400 0.000000136 0.000000979 0.0131
Copper (Cu) 0.000850 0.000000833 1.00 0.000000890 0.500 0.00000170 0.00000170 0.0228
Lead (Pb) − − 0.0100 0.00000000890 0.0300 0.000000102 0.000000102 0.00137
Page 3A-33
Manganese (Mn) 0.000380 0.000000373 0.0400 0.0000000356 0.100 0.000000340 0.000000340 0.00456
Nickel (Ni) 0.00210 0.00000206 0.0600 0.0000000534 0.500 0.00000170 0.00000170 0.0228
Strontium (Sr) − − 0.0100 0.00000000890 0.0100 0.0000000340 0.0000000340 0.000456
Vanadium (V) 0.00230 0.00000225 0.0200 0.0000000178 0.200 0.000000680 0.000000680 0.00913
Zinc (Zn) 0.0290 0.0000284 1.40 0.00000125 0.800 0.00000272 0.00000272 0.0365
Source Code - - - - ‐ ‐ - H
NOTES:
a
Based on U.S. EPA AP42 Section 1.4.
b
Refer to England et al (2004)
c
Percentage of metals for boilers and heaters from Table 3-11 and Table 3-12 in England et al (2004).
d
Metals emission factor were calculated based on PM 2.5 emission factor (Dilution Tunnel method) and percentage of metals.
e
PM2.5 emission factors for heater and boiler (Dilution Tunnel method) from Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 in England et al (2004).
f
Calculated based on maximum metal emission factors for boiler and heaters and PM 2.5 AP 42 emission factor 7.6 lb/MMscf.
TABLE 3A-14
COMPARISON OF AP-42 AND UPDATED PARTICULATE MATTER AND METAL EMISSION

FACTORS FOR COMBUSTION TURBINES BURNING NATURAL GAS
Compound U.S. EPA AP-42 Updated a Mass % of PM2.5 b

Grouping lb/MMscf lb/mmBTU lb/MMscf lb/mmBTU Turbine Cogeneration
PM (Total) 6.73 0.00660 3.16 0.00310 100 100
PM (Condensable) 4.79 0.00470 3.06 0.00300 - -
PM2.5 (Filterable) 1.94 0.00190 0.0979 0.0000960 - -
PM2.5 (Dilution - - 0.173 0.000170 - -
Tunnel)
Aluminum (Al) - - 0.00204 0.00000200 0.0303 0.0384
Silver (Ag) - - 0.000775 0.000000760 0.0115 0.0115
Arsenic (As) 0.00235 0.00000230 - - - 0.00183
Barium (Ba) - - - - - 0.00478
Cadmium (Cd) 0.000592 0.000000580 - - - 0.000597
Cobalt (Co) - - 0.0000326 0.0000000320 0.000484 0.00466
Chromium (Cr) 0.00122 0.00000120 0.000622 0.000000610 0.00924 0.00635
Copper (Cu) - - 0.000449 0.000000440 0.00667 0.0120
Manganese (Mn) - - 0.000163 0.000000160 0.00242 0.00313
Nickel (Ni) 0.00204 0.00000200 0.000173 0.000000170 0.00257 0.00925
Lead (Pb) 0.00347 0.00000340 0.000102 0.000000100 0.00152 0.00147
Strontium (Sr) - - 0.0000612 0.0000000600 0.000909 0.000760
Vanadium (V) - - 0.000153 0.000000150 0.00227 0.00453
Zinc (Zn) - - 0.000541 0.000000530 0.00804 0.0174
Source Code: - - - - T Cc
NOTES:
a
Updated values from Table 4-3 in England et al (2002).
b
Mass % is based on U.S. EPA PM Total and the updated metal emission factors.
c
C = 67% from turbine factor plus 33% from heater factor.
Page 3A-34
TABLE 3A-15
METAL SPECIATION PROFILE (MASS % OF TOTAL PM2.5) FOR THE SYNCRUDE AND SUNCOR
MAIN POWERHOUSE STACKS
a
Mass % of PM2.5
Compounds Grouping Syncrude b Suncor c Average
Aluminum (Al) 0.63 0.64 0.635
Antimony (Sb) 0.0026 0.0066 0.0046
Arsenic (As) 0.0039 0.0084 0.00615
Barium (Ba) 0.035 0.086 0.0605
Cadmium (Cd) 0.0016 0.0012 0.0014
Chromium (Cr) 0.25 0.36 0.305
Cobalt (Co) 0.015 0.018 0.0165
Copper (Cu) 0.025 0.03 0.0275
Lead (Pb) 0.022 0.058 0.04
Nickel (Ni) 0.44 0.54 0.49
Silver (Ag) 0.0071 0.0046 0.00585
Tin (Sn) 0.025 0.054 0.0395
Vanadium (V) 0.17 0.3 0.235
Zinc (Zn) d 2.3 0.1 1.2
Source Code - - S
NOTES:
a
Shaded values are based on one-half the detection limit.
b
Syncrude values are expressed as a % of PM2.5; no FGD.
c
The Suncor values are expressed as % of PM2.5 assuming PM2.5 is half of total PM ; with FGD.
d
The largest difference (more than a factor of 10) between the two measured profiles is for zinc.
Page 3A-35
TABLE 3A-16
PAH SPECIATION PROFILE (MASS % OF TOTAL PM2.5) FOR THE SYNCRUDE AND SUNCOR MAIN
POWERHOUSE STACKS
Mass of PM2.5 a
Syncrude b Suncor c Average
1-Methylnaphthalene 0.00387 0.000962 0.00242
7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 0.0000258 0.0000943 0.0000601
Acenaphthene 0.0000258 0.000113 0.0000695
Acenaphthylene 0.00387 0.0000755 0.00197
Anthracene 0.0000355 0.000302 0.000169
Aromatic C17-C34 0.0000516 0.000189 0.000120
Aromatic C9-C16 0.0658 0.0104 0.0381
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0000387 0.0000943 0.0000665
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0000742 0.000113 0.0000937
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0000645 0.0000943 0.0000794
Chrysene 0.000155 0.000151 0.000153
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.0000290 0.0000943 0.0000617
Fluoranthene 0.000239 0.000792 0.000516
Fluorene 0.0000258 0.000566 0.000296
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0000806 0.0000943 0.0000875
Naphthalene 0.0548 0.00702 0.0309
Phenanthrene 0.00516 0.00340 0.00428
Pyrene 0.000548 0.000491 0.000519
Source Code - - S
NOTES:
a
Shaded values are based on one-half the detection limit.
b
Syncrude values are expressed as a % of PM2.5; no FGD.
c
The Suncor values are expressed as % of PM2.5 assuming PM2.5 is half of total PM; with FGD.
Page 3A-36
TABLE 3A-17
VOC AND PAH SPECIATION PROFILE FOR WASTE WOOD BURNERS

AP-42 AP-42
emission emission
factor factor Mass % of
Compound Grouping (lb/MMBtu) (lb/ton) VOC
VOCa 0.859 11 100
Acenaphthene 0.000000910 0.0000116 0.000106
Acenaphthylene 0.00000500 0.0000640 0.000582
Acetaldehyde 0.000830 0.0106 0.0966
Acrolein 0.00400 0.0512 0.465
Aliphatic aldehydes 0.00930 0.119 1.08
Aliphatic ketones 0.000190 0.00243 0.0221
Anthracene 0.00000300 0.0000384 0.000349
Aromatic C17-C34 0.00000000312 0.0000000399 0.000000363
Aromatic C9-C16 0.000120 0.00154 0.0140
Aromatic ketones 0.00000000320 0.0000000410 0.000000372
Benzaldehyde 0.000000850 0.0000109 0.0000989
Benzaldehyde group 0.000000850 0.0000109 0.0000989
Benzene 0.00420 0.0538 0.489
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0000000650 0.000000832 0.00000756
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00000260 0.0000333 0.000303
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.000000100 0.00000128 0.0000116
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0000000930 0.00000119 0.0000108
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0000000360 0.000000461 0.00000419
Chrysene 0.0000000380 0.000000486 0.00000442
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00000000910 0.000000116 0.00000106
Ethylbenzene 0.0000310 0.000397 0.00361
Fluoranthene 0.00000160 0.0000205 0.000186
Fluorene 0.00000340 0.0000435 0.000396
Formaldehyde 0.00440 0.0563 0.512
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0000000870 0.00000111 0.0000101
Naphthalene 0.0000970 0.00124 0.0113
Phenanthrene 0.00000700 0.0000896 0.000815
Pyrene 0.00000370 0.0000474 0.000431
Styrene 0.00190 0.0243 0.221
Toluene 0.000920 0.0118 0.107
Xylenes 0.0000250 0.000320 0.00291
Source Code W
NOTE:
a
VOC emission factor from AP-42, Section 2.7. Others from AP-42, Section 1.6.
Page 3A-37
TABLE 3A-18
METAL SPECIATION PROFILE FOR WASTE WOOD BURNERS

AP-42 Emission Factor AP-42 Emission Factor
Compound Grouping (lb/MMBtu) (lb/ton) Mass% of PM2.5
a
PM 0.0781 1.00 100
Antimony(Al) 0.00000790 0.000101 0.0101
Arsenic(As) 0.0000220 0.000282 0.0282
Barium(Ba) 0.000170 0.00218 0.218
Cadmium(Cd) 0.00000410 0.0000525 0.00525
Chromium(Cr) 0.0000210 0.000269 0.0269
Cobalt(Co) 0.00000650 0.0000832 0.00832
Copper(Cu) 0.0000490 0.000627 0.0627
Lead(Pb) 0.0000480 0.000614 0.0614
Nickel(Ni) 0.0000330 0.000422 0.0422
Silver (Ag) 0.00170 0.0218 2.18
Strontium (Sr) 0.0000100 0.000128 0.0128
Tin (Sn) 0.0000230 0.000294 0.0294
Vanadium (V) 0.000000980 0.0000125 0.00125
Zinc (Zn) 0.000420 0.00538 0.538
Source Code W
NOTE:
a
PM emission factor from AP-42, Section 2.7. Others from AP-42, Section 1.6. Assumes all PM are PM2.5.
TABLE 3A-19
VOC AND PAH SPECIATION PROFILE FOR DIESEL ENGINES

Compound Group Mass % of Total VOC a
1,3-butadiene 0.122
1-Methylnaphthalene 0.149
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) 1.58
2-methylnaphthalene 0.241
Acenaphthene 0.00761
Acenaphthylene 0.0276
Acetaldehyde 16.5
Acrolein (2-propenal) 1.34
Aliphatic aldehydes 49.5
Aliphatic C17-C34 1.38
Aliphatic ketones 3.31
Anthracene 0.00493
Aromatic C17-C34 0.00229
Aromatic ketones 2.06
Benz(a)anthracene (Also known as
0.00117
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde 1.50
Benzaldehyde group 3.11
Benzene 1.08
Benzofuran group 0.0323
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and ethane) 4.51
Page 3A-38
TABLE 3A-19 Cont'd

Carboxylic acids 1.09
Chrysene 0.00132
Cyclohexane 0.0828
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene 0.000812
Ethylbenzene 0.185
Fluoranthene 0.0209
Fluorene 0.0136
Formaldehyde 8.79
Naphthalene 0.243
Phenanthrene 0.0367
Phenothiazine group 0.0990
Pyrene 0.0283
Toluene 1.57
Xylenes 1.25
Source Code D
NOTE:
a
Based on U.S. EPA Speciate 4 Profile 4674.
TABLE 3A-20
METAL SPECIATION PROFILE FOR DIESEL ENGINES

Compound Group Mass % of PM2.5a
Aluminum 0.0210
Antimony 0.0073
Arsenic 0.0005
Barium 0.0173
Cadmium 0.0040
Chromium 0.0005
Cobalt 0.0001
Copper 0.0039
Lead 0.0155
Manganese 0.0003
Nickel 0.0003
Silver 0.0055
Tin 0.0019
Zinc 0.056
Source Code D
NOTE:
a
Based on U.S. EPA Speciate 4 Profile 91017. Assume all PM are PM2.5.
Page 3A-39
TABLE 3A-21
STACKS FOR THE PILOT AND PILOT EXPANSION PROJECTS

Facilities and Phase Stack ID Stack Name Source Type
FL1 HP Flare Continuous
BlackPearl Pilot Project OTSG1 OTSG1 Continuous
Gen1 Power Generator1 Continuous
OTSG2 OTSG2 Continuous
BlackPearl Pilot Expansion Projecta
Gen2 Power Generator2 Continuous
Note:
a
BlackPearl Pilot Expansion Project also include the stacks at BlackPearl Pilot Project
TABLE 3A-22
STACKS FOR THE PROJECT

Phase Stack ID Stack Name Source Typea
P1GLYH Glycol Heater Continuous
P1OTSG1 OTSG -1 Continuous
Phase 1
P1HP HP Flare Continuous
P1LP LP Flare Continuous
P1EGEN Diesel Generator Standby
Phase2
Phase3
NOTE:
a
Although glycol heaters are intermittent sources, which are expected to operate at maximum capacity
during winter start-ups. They were assumed to be continuous sources for modeling purpose to be conservative.
Page 3A-40
TABLE 3A-23
GASES COMPOSITIONS (MOLE PERCENT) FOR THE PROJECT

Natural Gas Produced Gas Mixed Fuel Gas
Helium 0.0200 0.00 0.0187
Hydrogen 0.0200 1.59 0.0489
Nitrogen 2.26 0.850 2.16
CO2 1.45 53.5 2.29
H2Sa 0.00230 0.160 0.00545
Methane 96.2 43.8 94.7
Ethane 0.0300 0.0200 0.0311
Propane 0.0200 0.0100 0.0192
i-Butane 0.0400 0.00 0.0908
n-Butane 0.00 0.00 0.0936
i-Pentane 0.00 0.00 0.00
n-Pentane 0.00 0.00 0.00
n-Hexane 0.00 0.00 0.00
n-Heptane 0.00 0.0700 0.566
Total 100 100 100
Note:
a
Assumes M-Mercaptan was added to H2S
TABLE 3A-24
CONTINUOUS STACK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS FOR THE PILOT AND PILOT EXPANSION
PROJECTS
Source Identification Number FL1 OTSG1 Gen1 OTSG2 Gen2
Power Power
Unit Name/Description HP Flare OTSG1 Generator 1 OTSG2 Generator 2
Temporal Variation Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous
MW 0.000193 11.4 0.999 11.4 0.999
Capacity – Heat Input mmBTU/
0.000659 38.9 3.41 38.9 3.41
h
Stack Location
UTM NAD 83 mE 395810 395822 395871 395809 395871
UTM NAD 83 mN 6165248 6165199 6165144 6165040 6165137
Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 612 613 613 614 613
Stack Dimensions
Height Above Base Elevation m 11.9 13.2 6.96 13.2 6.96
Inside Tip Diameter m 0.114 0.914 0.610 0.914 0.610
Exhaust Parameters
Exit Velocity m/s 0.000640 10.0 44.0 10.0 44.0
˚C 1000 154 500 154 500
Exit Temperature
K 1273 427 773 427 773
Emission Rate
NOX t/d 0.000000130 0.0284 0.0968 0.0284 0.0968
SO2 t/d 0.00000278 0.00 0.00346 0.00 0.00346
PM2.5 t/d 0.0000000710 0.00456 0.000480 0.00456 0.000480
CO t/d 0.0000000962 0.0348 0.163 0.0348 0.163
VOC t/d 0.000000267 0.00228 0.00131 0.00228 0.00131
TRS t/d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00165 0.00 0.00165
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro - (also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexachloro -1,3-butadiene)
Page 3A-41
TABLE 3A-24 Cont'd

Power Power
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.0000000103 0.00000363 0.00 0.00000363 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.000000273 0.00 0.000000273 0.00
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00000242 0.00 0.00000242 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.0000000148 0.000000210 0.0000308 0.000000210 0.0000308
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.0000000147 0.00000183 0.000230 0.00000183 0.000230
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.000000176 0.00236 0.0140 0.00236 0.0140
Acrolein t/a 0.0000000576 0.00279 0.00869 0.00279 0.00869
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.0000204 0.0386 0.0600 0.0386 0.0600
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 0.0000475 0.406 0.0304 0.406 0.0304
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00000136 0.0117 0.00671 0.0117 0.00671
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.0000000151 0.000000244 0.0000292 0.000000244 0.0000292
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.000000000094 0.000000273 0.000000157 0.000000273 0.000000157
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00000894 0.000176 0.00161 0.000176 0.00161
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benz(a)anthracene (Also
known as t/a 0.0000000145 0.000000297 0.00000467 0.000000297 0.00000467
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00248 0.00 0.00248 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00248 0.00 0.00248 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.000000125 0.00170 0.0303 0.00170 0.0303
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.0000000144 0.000000148 0.00000183 0.000000148 0.00000183
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.0000000144 0.000000173 0.00000376 0.000000173 0.00000376
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.0000000144 0.000000189 0.00000310 0.000000189 0.00000310
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.0000000144 0.000000150 0.00000164 0.000000150 0.00000164
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Butane, 1-isocyanato- (also
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as Butyl isocyanate)
C1 to C4 group (excluding
t/a 0.00 0.363 0.256 0.363 0.256
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.0000000145 0.000000210 0.00000492 0.000000210 0.00000492
Cyclohexane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.0000000144 0.000000139 0.000000199 0.000000139 0.000000199
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.000182 0.00 0.000182 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00 0.000341 0.000184 0.000341 0.000184
Fluoranthene t/a 0.0000000155 0.00000180 0.0000158 0.00000180 0.0000158
Fluorene t/a 0.0000000162 0.000000695 0.000110 0.000000695 0.000110
Formaldehyde t/a 0.0000201 0.0335 0.0373 0.0335 0.0373
Hexane t/a 0.00 0.166 0.00206 0.166 0.00206
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.0000000144 0.000000177 0.00000268 0.000000177 0.00000268
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.0495 0.00 0.0495
Naphthalene t/a 0.00000887 0.000170 0.00121 0.000170 0.00121
Oxirane, phenyl- (also known
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.0000000191 0.00000510 0.000112 0.00000510 0.000112
Page 3A-42
TABLE 3A-24 Cont'd

Power Power
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine Group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.0000000152 0.000000848 0.0000284 0.000000848 0.0000284
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(assessed as pyridine)
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.000193 0.00 0.000193
Toluene t/a 0.0000120 0.00447 0.0170 0.00447 0.0170
Xylenes t/a 0.000000378 0.00418 0.000956 0.00418 0.000956
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.00000774 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.00000876 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00000203 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mercaptans t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aluminum t/a 0.0000000142 0.000911 0.0000531 0.000911 0.0000531
Antimony t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arsenic t/a 0.000000000473 0.0000304 0.00 0.0000304 0.00
Barium t/a 0.00000000124 0.0000795 0.00 0.0000795 0.00
Cadmium t/a 0.000000000155 0.00000994 0.00 0.00000994 0.00
Chromium t/a 0.000000000124 0.00000795 0.0000162 0.00000795 0.0000162
Cobalt t/a 0.00000000341 0.000219 0.000000849 0.000219 0.000000849
Copper t/a 0.00000000591 0.000380 0.0000117 0.000380 0.0000117
Lead t/a 0.000000000355 0.0000228 0.00000266 0.0000228 0.00000266
Manganese t/a 0.00000000118 0.0000760 0.00000425 0.0000760 0.00000425
Nickel t/a 0.00000000591 0.000380 0.00000451 0.000380 0.00000451
Silver t/a 0.00 0.00 0.0000202 0.00 0.0000202
Strontium t/a 0.000000000118 0.00000760 0.00000159 0.00000760 0.00000159
Tin t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vanadium t/a 0.00000000237 0.000152 0.00000399 0.000152 0.00000399
Zinc t/a 0.00000000946 0.000608 0.0000141 0.000608 0.0000141
Page 3A-43
TABLE 3A-25
HEATER AND OTSGS STACK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS FOR THE PROJECT PHASE 1
Phase 1 Source identification P1GLYH P1OTSG1 P1OTSG2 P1OTSG3 P1OTSG4
Unit Name / Description Glycol Heater OTSG-1 OTSG-2 OTSG-3 OTSG-4
Temporal Variation Intermittent Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous
MW 11.5 90.1 90.1 90.1 90.1
Capacity - Heat Input (HHV)
mmBTU/h 39.2 307 307 307 307
Efficiency (HHV) % 87.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0
Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel
Fuel Type Natural Gas Mixed Fuel Gas
Gas Gas Gas
3 3
Fuel Consumption 10 Sm /d 27.3 214 214 214 214
Stack Location
UTM NAD 83 mE 397797 397712 397712 397712 397712
UTM NAD 83 mN 6163466 6163490 6163504 6163518 6163532
Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 717 712 712 712 713
Stack Dimensions
Height Above Base Elevation m 7.50 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Inside Tip Diameter m 0.899 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68
Exhaust Parameters
Exit Velocity m/s 12.0 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1
C 208 210 210 210 210
Exit Temperature
K 481 483 483 483 483
Emission Rate
NOX t/d 0.0258 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311
SO2 t/d 0.00170 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310
PM2.5 t/d 0.00332 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260
CO t/d 0.124 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973
VOC t/d 0.00240 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188
TRS t/d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro - (also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene)
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene t/a 0.00000255 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200
Acenaphthene t/a 0.000000222 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00249 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195
Acrolein t/a 0.00293 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 0.427 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0123 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.000000257 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.000000287 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.000185 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146
t/a 0.000000312 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00261 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205
Page 3A-44
TABLE 3A-25 Cont'd

Benzene t/a 0.00179 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.000000156 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123
Butane, 1-isocyanato- (also known
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Butyl isocyanate)
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane
t/a 0.382 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
and ethane)
Chrysene t/a 0.000000222 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174
Cyclohexane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.000359 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00000190 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149
Fluorene t/a 0.000000732 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574
Formaldehyde t/a 0.0352 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.276
Hexane t/a 0.175 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.000179 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140
Oxirane, phenyl- (also known as
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00000537 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.000000893 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701
Pyridine, 4-methyl- (assessed as
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
pyridine)
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.00470 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369
Xylenes t/a 0.00440 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345
Mercaptans t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aluminum t/a 0.000663 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521
Antimony t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arsenic t/a 0.0000221 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174
Barium t/a 0.0000579 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454
Cadmium t/a 0.00000723 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568
Chromium t/a 0.00000579 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454
Cobalt t/a 0.000159 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125
Copper t/a 0.000276 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217
Lead t/a 0.0000166 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130
Manganese t/a 0.0000553 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434
Nickel t/a 0.000276 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217
Silver t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strontium t/a 0.00000553 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434
Tin t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vanadium t/a 0.000111 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868
Page 3A-45
TABLE 3A-25 Cont'd

Zinc t/a 0.000442 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347
TABLE 3A-26
Phase 2 Source identification P2GLYH P2OTSG1 P2OTSG2 P2OTSG3 P2OTSG4 P2OTSG5 P2OTSG6
Glycol
Unit Name / Description Heater OTSG-1 OTSG-2 OTSG-3 OTSG-4 OTSG-5 OTSG-6
Temporal Variation Intermittent Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous
MW 11.5 90.1 90.1 90.1 90.1 90.1 90.1
mmBTU/h 39.2 307 307 307 307 307 307
Efficiency (HHV) % 87.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0
Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel
Fuel Type Natural Gas
Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas
3 3
Fuel Consumption 10 Sm /d 27.3 214 214 214 214 214 214
Stack Location
UTM NAD 83 mE 397980 397895 397895 397895 397895 397895 397895
UTM NAD 83 mN 6163466 6163490 6163504 6163518 6163532 6163546 6163560
Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 716 718 718 719 719 719 719
Stack Dimensions
Height Above Base Elevation m 7.50 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Inside Tip Diameter m 0.899 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68
Exhaust Parameters
Exit Velocity m/s 12.0 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1
C 208 210 210 210 210 210 210
Exit Temperature
K 481 483 483 483 483 483 483
Emission Rate
NOX t/d 0.0258 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311
SO2 t/d 0.00170 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310
PM2.5 t/d 0.00332 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260
CO t/d 0.124 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973
VOC t/d 0.00240 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188
TRS t/d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- (also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00000383 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.000000287 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225
7,12-
t/a 0.00000255 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200
Acenaphthene t/a 0.000000222 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00000193 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00249 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195
Acrolein t/a 0.00293 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.0406 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.319
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 0.427 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
Page 3A-46
TABLE 3A-26 Cont'd

Glycol
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0123 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.000000257 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.000000287 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.000185 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as t/a 0.000000312 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00261 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00261 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205
Benzene t/a 0.00179 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.000000156 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.000000182 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.000000199 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.000000158 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.382 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.000000222 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174
Cyclohexane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.000000146 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.000191 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.000359 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00000190 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149
Fluorene t/a 0.000000732 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574
Formaldehyde t/a 0.0352 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.276
Hexane t/a 0.175 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.000000186 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.000179 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00000537 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine Group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.000000893 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.00470 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369
Xylenes t/a 0.00440 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mercaptans t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aluminum t/a 0.000663 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521
Antimony t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arsenic t/a 0.0000221 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174
Page 3A-47
TABLE 3A-26 Cont'd

Glycol
Barium t/a 0.0000579 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454
Cadmium t/a 0.00000723 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568
Chromium t/a 0.00000579 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454
Cobalt t/a 0.000159 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125
Copper t/a 0.000276 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217
Lead t/a 0.0000166 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130
Manganese t/a 0.0000553 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434
Nickel t/a 0.000276 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217
Silver t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strontium t/a 0.00000553 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434
Tin t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vanadium t/a 0.000111 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868
Zinc t/a 0.000442 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347
TABLE 3A-27
Glycol
Temporal Variation Intermittent Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous
MW 11.5 90.1 90.1 90.1 90.1 90.1 90.1
mmBTU/h 39.2 307 307 307 307 307 307
Efficiency (HHV) % 87.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0
Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel Mixed Fuel
Fuel Type Natural Gas
Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas
3 3
Fuel Consumption 10 Sm /d 27.3 214 214 214 214 214 214
Stack Location
UTM NAD 83 mE 398163 398078 398078 398078 398078 398078 398078
UTM NAD 83 mN 6163466 6163490 6163504 6163518 6163532 6163546 6163560
Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 722 718 718 717 717 717 717
Stack Dimensions
Height Above Base Elevation m 7.50 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Inside Tip Diameter m 0.899 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68
Exhaust Parameters
Exit Velocity m/s 12.0 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1
C 208 210 210 210 210 210 210
Exit Temperature
K 481 483 483 483 483 483 483
Emission Rate
NOX t/d 0.0258 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311
SO2 t/d 0.00170 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310
PM2.5 t/d 0.00332 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260
CO t/d 0.124 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973
VOC t/d 0.00240 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188
TRS t/d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- (also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
Page 3A-48
TABLE 3A-27 Cont'd

Glycol
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00000383 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300 0.0000300
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.000000287 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225
7,12-
t/a 0.00000255 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200 0.0000200
Acenaphthene t/a 0.000000222 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00000193 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151 0.0000151
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00249 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195 0.0195
Acrolein t/a 0.00293 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230 0.0230
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.0406 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.319 0.319
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 0.427 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0123 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.000000257 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000201
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.000000287 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225 0.00000225
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.000185 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146 0.00146
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as t/a 0.000000312 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245 0.00000245
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00261 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00261 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205
Benzene t/a 0.00179 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.000000156 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123 0.00000123
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.000000182 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143 0.00000143
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.000000199 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156 0.00000156
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.000000158 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124 0.00000124
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.382 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.000000222 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174 0.00000174
Cyclohexane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.000000146 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115 0.00000115
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.000191 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150 0.00150
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.000359 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281 0.00281
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00000190 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149 0.0000149
Fluorene t/a 0.000000732 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574 0.00000574
Formaldehyde t/a 0.0352 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.276
Hexane t/a 0.175 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.000000186 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146 0.00000146
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.000179 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140 0.00140
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00000537 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422 0.0000422
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine Group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.000000893 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701 0.00000701
Page 3A-49
TABLE 3A-27 Cont'd

Glycol
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.00470 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369 0.0369
Xylenes t/a 0.00440 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345 0.0345
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mercaptans t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aluminum t/a 0.000663 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521 0.00521
Antimony t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arsenic t/a 0.0000221 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174 0.000174
Barium t/a 0.0000579 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454 0.000454
Cadmium t/a 0.00000723 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568 0.0000568
Chromium t/a 0.00000579 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454 0.0000454
Cobalt t/a 0.000159 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125
Copper t/a 0.000276 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217
Lead t/a 0.0000166 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130 0.000130
Manganese t/a 0.0000553 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434 0.000434
Nickel t/a 0.000276 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217 0.00217
Silver t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strontium t/a 0.00000553 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434 0.0000434
Tin t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vanadium t/a 0.000111 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868 0.000868
Zinc t/a 0.000442 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347 0.00347
TABLE 3A-28
FLARE STACK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS (NORMAL OPERATIONS) FOR THE PROJECT
Source identification P1HP P1LP P2HP P2LP P3HP P3LP
Phase 1 HP Phase 1 LP Phase 2 HP Phase 2 LP Phase 3 HP Phase 3 LP
Unit Name / Description Flare Flare Flare Flare Flare Flare
Temporal Variation Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous
Fuel Type Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas
Fuel Consumption 103 Sm3/d 0.960 1.31 1.31 1.71 1.31 1.71
Stack Location
UTM NAD 83 mE 397665 397665 397665 397665 397665 397665
UTM NAD 83 mN 6162970 6162970 6162934 6162934 6162898 6162898
Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 699 699 698 698 698 698
Stack Dimensions (Pseudo Parameters)
Height Above Base m
31.2 31.1 37.1 37.0 37.1 37.0
Elevation
Inside Tip Diameter m 3.67 4.29 4.29 4.91 4.29 4.91
Exhaust Parameters (Pseudo Parameters)
Exit Velocity m/s 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100
Exit Temperature C 1,005 1,006 1,005 1,006 1,005 1,006
K 1278 1279 1279 1279 1279 1279
Emission Rate
NOX t/d 0.00102 0.00140 0.00140 0.00182 0.00140 0.00182
SO2 t/d 0.0000600 0.0000800 0.0000800 0.000100 0.0000800 0.000100
PM2.5 t/d 0.000221 0.000301 0.000301 0.000393 0.000301 0.000393
CO t/d 0.000684 0.000933 0.000933 0.00122 0.000933 0.00122
Page 3A-50
TABLE 3A-28 Cont'd

VOC t/d 0.00210 0.00287 0.00287 0.00375 0.00287 0.00375
TRS t/d 0.000000638 0.000000850 0.000000850 0.00000106 0.000000850 0.00000106
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- ( (also known
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene)
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.0000812 0.000111 0.000111 0.000145 0.000111 0.000145
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.000117 0.000159 0.000159 0.000208 0.000159 0.000208
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.000116 0.000159 0.000159 0.000207 0.000159 0.000207
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00139 0.00189 0.00189 0.00247 0.00189 0.00247
Acrolein t/a 0.000454 0.000620 0.000620 0.000809 0.000620 0.000809
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.161 0.219 0.219 0.286 0.219 0.286
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 0.374 0.511 0.511 0.667 0.511 0.667
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0108 0.0147 0.0147 0.0192 0.0147 0.0192
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.000119 0.000162 0.000162 0.000212 0.000162 0.000212
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.000000740 0.00000101 0.00000101 0.00000132 0.00000101 0.00000132
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0705 0.0962 0.0962 0.126 0.0962 0.126
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as t/a 0.000114 0.000156 0.000156 0.000203 0.000156 0.000203
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.000985 0.00134 0.00134 0.00175 0.00134 0.00175
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.000114 0.000155 0.000155 0.000202 0.000155 0.000202
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.000114 0.000155 0.000155 0.000202 0.000155 0.000202
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.000114 0.000155 0.000155 0.000202 0.000155 0.000202
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.000114 0.000155 0.000155 0.000202 0.000155 0.000202
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.000114 0.000156 0.000156 0.000203 0.000156 0.000203
Cyclohexane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.000114 0.000155 0.000155 0.000202 0.000155 0.000202
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.000122 0.000167 0.000167 0.000218 0.000167 0.000218
Fluorene t/a 0.000128 0.000175 0.000175 0.000228 0.000175 0.000228
Formaldehyde t/a 0.159 0.217 0.217 0.283 0.217 0.283
Hexane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-51
TABLE 3A-28 Cont'd

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.000114 0.000155 0.000155 0.000202 0.000155 0.000202
Isopropylbenzene
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(cumene)
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.0699 0.0954 0.0954 0.125 0.0954 0.125
Oxirane, phenyl- (also
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.000151 0.000206 0.000206 0.000268 0.000206 0.000268
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine Group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.000120 0.000164 0.000164 0.000214 0.000164 0.000214
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.0947 0.129 0.129 0.169 0.129 0.169
Xylenes t/a 0.00298 0.00407 0.00407 0.00531 0.00407 0.00531
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.000167 0.000222 0.000222 0.000278 0.000222 0.000278
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.000189 0.000252 0.000252 0.000315 0.000252 0.000315
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.0000437 0.0000583 0.0000583 0.0000729 0.0000583 0.0000729
Mercaptans t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aluminum t/a 0.0000441 0.0000602 0.0000602 0.0000786 0.0000602 0.0000786
Antimony t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arsenic t/a 0.00000147 0.00000201 0.00000201 0.00000262 0.00000201 0.00000262
Barium t/a 0.00000385 0.00000526 0.00000526 0.00000686 0.00000526 0.00000686
Cadmium t/a 0.000000481 0.000000657 0.000000657 0.000000858 0.000000657 0.000000858
Chromium t/a 0.000000385 0.000000526 0.000000526 0.000000686 0.000000526 0.000000686
Cobalt t/a 0.0000106 0.0000145 0.0000145 0.0000189 0.0000145 0.0000189
Copper t/a 0.0000184 0.0000251 0.0000251 0.0000328 0.0000251 0.0000328
Lead t/a 0.00000110 0.00000151 0.00000151 0.00000197 0.00000151 0.00000197
Manganese t/a 0.00000368 0.00000502 0.00000502 0.00000655 0.00000502 0.00000655
Nickel t/a 0.0000184 0.0000251 0.0000251 0.0000328 0.0000251 0.0000328
Silver t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strontium t/a 0.000000368 0.000000502 0.000000502 0.000000655 0.000000502 0.000000655
Tin t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vanadium t/a 0.00000736 0.0000100 0.0000100 0.0000131 0.0000100 0.0000131
Zinc t/a 0.0000294 0.0000402 0.0000402 0.0000524 0.0000402 0.0000524
Page 3A-52
TABLE 3A-29
FLARE STACK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS (EMERGENCY OPERATIONS) FOR THE PROJECT
PHASE 1
Source Identification No. UP1HP_1 UP1HP_2 UP1LP_3
Unit Name / Description Phase 1 HP Flare Phase 1 HP Flare Phase 1 LP Flare
1x50% VRU
Inlet Fuel Gas
Event Inlet Produced Gas to Flare Compressors
Control Failure
Outage
Frequency 1 in 10 Years 1 in 2 Years 1 in 2 Years
Estimated Duration of Event Hours 1 1 6
Flow Rate
Fuel Type Natural Gas Produced Gas+Natural Gas Tank Vents
Inlet Gas Flow Rate 103 Sm3/d 964 61.6 49.3
Inlet Gas Composition
He Mole % 0.0200 0.00980 0.00
H2 Mole % 0.0200 0.353 0.115
N2 Mole % 2.26 1.31 0.437
CO2 Mole % 1.45 6.31 7.44
H2Sa Mole % 0.00230 0.0100 0.0281
C1 Mole % 96.2 57.1 51.3
C2 Mole % 0.0300 0.0183 0.0358
C3 Mole % 0.0200 0.0112 0.00540
C4 Mole % 0.0400 0.0196 1.87
C5 Mole % 0.00 0.00 0.00
C6 Mole % 0.00 0.00 0.00
C7+ Mole % 0.00 0.102 2.06
H20 Mole % 0.00 34.7 36.7
Total Mole % 100 100 100
Flared Gas Properties
Net Heating Value (LHV) MJ/m3 32.8 20.0 23.6
Gross Heating Value (HHV) MJ/m3 36.3 21.8 25.9
Stack Location for Phase 1
UTM NAD 83 mE 397665 397665 397665
UTM NAD 83 mN 6162970 6162970 6162970
Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 699 699 699
Stack Dimensions (Pseudo Parameter)
Height Above Base Elevation m 48.3 34.2 33.5
Inside Tip Diameter m 17.2 9.81 12.6
Exit Velocity m/s 4.62 0.541 0.310
C 1,011 989 1,004
Exit Temperature
K 1284 1262 1277
Emission Rate
NOx t/d 1.02 0.0394 0.0374
SO2 t/d 0.0600 0.0150 0.0366
PM2.5 t/d 0.221 0.00850 0.00807
CO t/d 0.685 0.0263 0.0250
VOC t/d 2.11 0.0810 0.0769
Page 3A-53
TABLE 3A-30
PHASE 2
Unit Name / Description Phase 2 HP Phase 2 HP Flare Phase 2 LP Flare
Flare
Inlet Fuel Gas Inlet Produced Gas to 1x50% VRU
Event
Control Failure Flare Compressors Outage
Flow Rate
Fuel Type Natural Gas Produced Gas+Natural Tank Vents
Gas
3
Inlet Gas Flow Rate 10 1432
3 92.6 74.0
Sm /d
He Mole % 0.0200 0.00980 0.00
H2 Mole % 0.0200 0.353 0.154
N2 Mole % 2.26 1.31 0.413
CO2 Mole % 1.45 6.31 9.82
H2S Mole % 0.00230 0.0100 0.0364
C1 Mole % 96.2 57.2 46.9
C2 Mole % 0.0300 0.0183 0.0325
C3 Mole % 0.0200 0.0112 0.00500
C4 Mole % 0.0400 0.00 2.51
C5 Mole % 0.00 0.00 0.00
C6 Mole % 0.00 0.00 0.00
C7+ Mole % 0.00 0.102 2.76
H20 Mole % 0.00 34.7 37.3
Total Mole % 100 100 100
Net Heating Value (HHV) MJ/m3 36.3 21.9 26.5
UTM NAD 83 mE 397665 397665 397665
UTM NAD 83 mN 6162934 6162934 6162934
Stack Dimensions (Pseudo)
Exit Temperature C 1,011 989 1,005
K 1,284 1,262 1,278
Emission Rate
NOx t/d 1.52 0.0592 0.0573
SO2 t/d 0.0890 0.0220 0.0710
PM2.5 t/d 0.329 0.0128 0.0124
CO t/d 1.02 0.0396 0.0383
VOC t/d 3.13 0.122 0.118
Page 3A-54
TABLE 3A-31
PHASE 3
Unit Name / Description Phase 3 HP Flare Phase 3 HP Flare Phase 3 LP Flare
1x50% VRU
Inlet Fuel Gas Inlet Produced Gas to
Event Compressors
Control Failure Flare
Outage
Flow Rate
Produced Gas+Natural
Fuel Type Natural Gas Tank Vents
Gas
103
Inlet Gas Flow Rate 3 1432 92.6 74.0
Sm /d
He Mole % 0.0200 0.00980 0.00
H2 Mole % 0.0200 0.353 0.154
N2 Mole % 2.26 1.31 0.413
CO2 Mole % 1.45 6.31 9.82
H2S Mole % 0.00230 0.0100 0.0364
C1 Mole % 96.2 57.2 46.9
C2 Mole % 0.0300 0.0183 0.0325
C3 Mole % 0.0200 0.0112 0.00500
C4 Mole % 0.0400 0.00 2.51
C5 Mole % 0.00 0.00 0.00
C6 Mole % 0.00 0.00 0.00
C7+ Mole % 0.00 0.102 2.76
H20 Mole % 0.00 34.7 37.3
Total Mole % 100 100 100
Net Heating Value (HHV) MJ/m3 36.3 21.9 26.5
UTM NAD 83 mE 397665 397665 397665
UTM NAD 83 mN 6162898 6162898 6162898
Stack Dimensions (Pseudo)
C 1,011 989 1,005
Exit Temperature
K 1,284 1,262 1,278
Emission Rate
NOx t/d 1.52 0.0592 0.0573
SO2 t/d 0.0890 0.0220 0.0710
PM2.5 t/d 0.329 0.0128 0.0124
CO t/d 1.02 0.0396 0.0383
VOC t/d 3.13 0.122 0.118
Page 3A-55
TABLE 3A-32
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR STACK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS FOR THE PROJECT
PHASES 1, 2 AND 3
Source identification P1EGEN P2EGEN P3EGEN
Unit Name / Description Phase 1
Phase 2 Emergency Phase 3 Emergency
Emergency Diesel
Diesel Generator Diesel Generator
Generator
Temporal Variation Standby Standby Standby
Efficiency (LHV) % 38.2 38.2 38.2
Rating - Power output (LHV) MW 2.50 2.50 2.50
mmBTU/h 8.53 8.53 8.53
Fuel Type Diesel Diesel Diesel
Fuel Consumption (Diesel) 103 m3/d 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158
Stack Location
UTM NAD 83 mE 397755 397938 398121
UTM NAD 83 mN 6163412 6163411.5 6163411.5
Base Elevation of Stack m ASL 713 716.4 720.5
Stack Dimensions
Exhaust Parameters
Exit Velocity m/s 126 126 126
Exit Temperature C 491 491 491
K 764 764 764
Emission Rateb
NOX t/d 0.428 0.428 0.428
SO2a t/d 0.000402 0.000402 0.000402
CO t/d 0.0338 0.0338 0.0338
PM2.5 t/d 0.00298 0.00298 0.00298
VOC t/d 0.00805 0.00805 0.00805
Note:
a
Based on 15 ppm Sulphur in diesel.
b
Emissions were calculated based on Cat 3616C-HD Tier 2 Engine.
Page 3A-56
TABLE 3A-33
BUILDING DIMENSIONS FOR THE PILOT AND EXPANSION PROJECTS

Building Building Building
Height Lenth Width
Building ID Building or Structure Description (m) (m) (m)
TK-2060 F.W.K.O. Tank Tk-2060 7.9 7 7.3
TK-2080 Shipping Oil Tank Tk-2080 7.9 7.2 7.7
TK-5010 Produced Water Skim Tank Tk-5010 9.8 7.6 7.3
Produced Water Surge Tank Tk-
TK-5020 9.8 8 7.5
5020
TK-3000 Raw Water Tank Tk-3000 7.3 6.5 6.6
TK-3040 Soft Water Tank Tk-3040 7.3 6.9 6.9
TK-4060 Warm-Up Tank Tk-4060 7.3 5.1 5
TK-9920 Pop Tank Tk-9920 9.8 3.5 3.7
TK-3050 Brine Tank Tk-3050 1.7 3.3 3.1
Q-440 Steam Generator Building Q-440 10.4 4 19.3
Q-210 Flash Separator Package Q-210 4.3 3.9 6.1
PK-330 Water Softener Package Pk-330 3.5 2.8 2.3
SK-470 Steam Separator Package Sk-470 4.2 4 2.3
Q-905 Fuel Gas Package Q-905 2.6 2.7 2.6
Q-050 Control Room Q-050 6.1 9.1 12.3
TK- Oil Process Chemical Tanks Tk-
1.6 10.8 3.1
2100/2110 2100/2110
Q-045 Mcc Building Q-045 4 5 6.2
Main Power Generation Package Q-
Q-910 3 7.1 12.4
910
PK-960 Instrument Air Package Pk-960 2.1 6.9 1.6
Produced Water Disposal Package
Q-560 3.1 12.3 3.8
Q-560
E-9040 Fuel Gas Line Heater E-9040 2.1 5.1 1.3
V-9900 Flare Knockout Drum V-9900 2.3 2.7 3.4
SK-430 Bfw-Condensate Hex Skid Sk-430 1.2 4.6 2.6
E-2030 Flash Gas Cooler E-2030 3.4 2.8 7.3
Power Generation Package Pk-
PK-29010 3 7.2 6.2
29010
PK-23030 Water Softner Package Pk-23030 4 3.9 3.7
TK-23000A/B Raw Water Tanks Tk-23000a/B 9.8 5 5
TK-24060 Warm-Up Tank Tk-24060 9.8 4.9 4.9
TK-29920 Pop Tank Tk-29920 9.8 3.8 3.4
PK-24400 Steam Generator Building Pk-24400 9.2 19.4 4.3
V-22010 Flash Separator V-22010 2.4 4.1 6.1
V-24070 Steam Separator Package V-24070 3 4.1 2.2
E-24030 Bfw-Condensate Hex Skid E-24030 1.2 4.5 2.6
E-22030 Flash Gas Cooler E-22030 3.4 3 7.1
V-29005 Fuel Gas Package V-29005 2.6 3 2.4
Page 3A-57
TABLE 3A-34
BUILDING DIMENSIONS FOR THE PROJECT

Height Length Width
Phase Building ID Building Description (m) (m) (m)
11-BU-101 Inlet Treating Building - North Side 13.5 53.0 20.0
11-BU-102 Inlet Treating Building - South Side 14.9 35.0 31.0
11-BU-103 Diluent Pump Building 6.88 14.0 7.00
11-BU-104 Sales Oil Booster Pump Building 6.88 14.0 7.00
11-BU-105 Inlet Treating Laboratory/Office Building 5.88 9.00 7.00
11-BU-211 LACT Facility Building 6.88 25.0 7.00
11-BU-301 Water Treating Building 15.9 98.0 39.0
11-BU-302 Water Treating Lean-to Building 7.75 17.0 6.00
11-BU-303 Water Treating Laboratory Building 4.75 8.00 6.00
11-BU-401 OTSG Building 15.5 61.0 36.0
11-BU-402 OTSG Laboratory Building 4.63 7.00 5.00
11-BU-403 OTSG Lean-to Building 8.75 54.6 20.0
11-BU-501 LA. Building 5.75 11.0 6.00
11-BU-502 Glycol Pump Building 6.88 24.0 7.00
Phase 1
11-BU-503 Vapour Recovery Unit Building Package #1 6.88 22.0 7.00
11-BU-504 VRU - #2 6.88 22.0 7.00
11-BU-505 Nitrogen Building Package 4.75 10.0 6.00
11-BU-506 Methanol Building Package 5.63 8.00 5.00
11-BU-511 Potable Water Package 4.88 20.0 7.00
11-BU-512 Brackish Water Pump Building 5.88 11.0 7.00
11-BU-514 Sanitary Treating Package 3.88 15.0 7.00
11-BU-541 LP Flare KO Building Package 6.88 17.0 7.00
11-BU-601 Security Building (Main CPF Entrance) 3.38 15.0 7.00
11-BU-611 Control Room/Administration Building 11.5 90.0 36.0
11-BU-612 Maintenance/Warehouse Building 15.5 82.0 36.0
11-BU-701 Emergency Diesel Generator Package 5.88 11.0 7.00
11-BU-702 Main CPF MCC Building - MCC #1 7.75 26.0 14.0
11-BU-703 MCC #2 6.88 25.0 7.00
21-BU-104 Sales Oil Booster Pump Building 6.88 12.0 7.00
21-BU-401 OTSG Building 15.5 89.0 36.0
Phase 2
21-BU-402 OTSG Laboratory Building 4.63 7.00 5.00
21-BU-501 LA. Building 5.75 11.0 6.00
Page 3A-58
TABLE 3A-34 Cont’d

Height Length Width
Phase Building ID Building Description (m) (m) (m)
31-BU-401 OTSG Building 15.5 89.0 36.0
Phase 3 31-BU-402 OTSG Laboratory Building 4.63 7.00 5.00
31-BU-501 LA. Building 5.75 11.0 6.00
TABLE 3A-35
TANK DIMENSIONS FOR THE PROJECT

Tank Height Tank Diameter
Phase Tank ID Tank Description (m) (m)
11-T-117A Dilbit Tank 19.2 24.0
11-T-117B Dilbit Tank 19.2 24.0
11-T-119 Off Spec Tank 19.2 24.0
11-T-132 Diluent Tank 16.8 21.0
11-T-140 Slop Tank 7.20 6.00
11-T-201 Skim Tank 9.60 30.0
11-T-216 De-oiled Water Tank 12.0 21.0
11-T-222 Desand Tank 7.32 11.0
11-T-146 Exchanger Wash Tank 11.0 6.80
11-T-513 Methanol Tank 3.66 3.66
11-T-580 Diesel Tank 9.80 2.30
11-T-150 Demulsifier Tank 9.60 3.00
Phase 1 Reverse Demulsifier
11-T-154 9.60 3.00
Tank
11-T-328 Neutralization Tank 12.0 7.50
11-T-360 Acid Tank 7.01 4.57
11-T-365 Caustic Tank 4.80 4.50
Oxygen Scavenger
11-T-385 9.60 3.00
Tank
11-T-401 BFW Tank 16.8 21.0
11-T-435 Evaporator Feed Tank 12.0 7.50
11-T-451 Disposal Water Tank 9.60 10.5
Start-up Blowdown
11-T-465 5.10 6.10
Tank
11-T-520 Glycol Make-up Tank 6.10 3.66
11-T-550 Brackish Water Tank 9.60 9.60
Page 3A-59
Tank Height Tank Diameter

Phase Tank ID Tank Description (m) (m)
21-T-117A Dilbit Tank 19.2 24.0
21-T-117B Dilbit Tank 19.2 24.0
21-T-132 Diluent Tank 16.8 21.0
21-T-140 Slop Tank 7.20 6.00
21-T-201 Skim Tank 9.60 30.0
21-T-222 Desand Tank 7.32 11.0
21-T-580 Diesel Tank 9.80 2.30
Reverse Demulsifier
21-T-154 9.60 3.00
Tank
Phase 2
21-T-360 Acid Tank 7.01 4.57
21-T-365 Caustic Tank 4.80 4.50
Oxygen Scavenger
21-T-385 9.60 3.00
Tank
21-T-401 BFW Tank 16.8 21.0
Start-up Blowdown
21-T-465 5.10 6.10
Tank
21-T-550 Brackish Water Tank 9.60 9.60
31-T-117A Dilbit Tank 19.2 24.0
31-T-117B Dilbit Tank 19.2 24.0
31-T-140 Slop Tank 7.20 6.00
31-T-201 Skim Tank 9.60 30.0
31-T-222 Desand Tank 7.32 11.0
31-T-580 Diesel Tank 9.80 2.30
Phase 3 Reverse Demulsifier
31-T-154 9.60 3.00
Tank
31-T-360 Acid Tank 7.01 4.57
31-T-365 Caustic Tank 4.80 4.50
Oxygen Scavenger
31-T-385 9.60 3.00
Tank
31-T-401 BFW Tank 16.8 21.0
Page 3A-60
TABLE 3A-36
STACK GHG EMISSIONS (ANNUAL AVERAGE) FOR THE PROJECT
Stacks Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Phase Stacks ID Description Typea t/d t/d t/d t/d
P1GLYH Glycol Heater Continuous 49.6 0.00101 0.000900 49.9
P1OTSG1 OTSG-1 Continuous 324 0.00633 0.00564 326
Phase 1
P1HP HP Flare Continuous 1.75 0.0000355 0.0000317 1.76
P1LP LP Flare Continuous 2.39 0.0000485 0.0000432 2.41
P1EGEN Diesel Generator Standby 42.0 0.00210 0.00631 44.0
Phase 2
Phase 3
Note:
a
Although glycol heaters are intermittent sources, which are expected to operate at maximum only during winter
start-ups, they were assumed to be continuous sources for assessment purposes to be conservative
Page 3A-61
TABLE 3A-37
STACK AND EMISSION PARAMETERS FOR MINING AND EXTRACTION, AND MINING, EXTRACTION AND UPGRADING DEVELOPMENTS
(EXISTING CONDITION (EX), BASELINE CASE (BC), AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE (PDC)) (PAGES 3A-63 TO 3A-69)
UTM UTM Elev Stack NOx SO2 CO PM2.5 VOC
Operator Facility Emission Source EX BC PDC (mE) (mN) (m) H (m) D (m) V (m/s) T (K) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d)
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Cogeneration Unit 1 1 1 1 455922 6354992 283 38.0 5.50 21.7 405 2.574 0.014 1.691 0.140 0.060
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Cogeneration Unit 2 1 1 1 455922 6354948 283 38.0 5.50 21.7 405 2.574 0.014 1.691 0.140 0.060
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Delayed Coking Unit Heater 1 1 1 1 454965 6355355 293 70.0 2.70 9.1 523 0.404 0.057 0.354 0.032 0.023
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Dilutent Recovery Unit Heater 1 1 1 1 455002 6355298 293 30.5 3.00 6.2 474 0.300 0.041 0.252 0.023 0.017
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Gas Oil Hydrotreater Heater 1 1 1 1 455052 6355014 292 30.5 1.50 13.7 799 0.124 0.018 0.110 0.010 0.007
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Gas Oil Hydrotreater Heater 2 1 1 1 454860 6354843 294 30.5 1.30 10.0 688 0.055 0.012 0.075 0.007 0.005
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Hydrogen Plant Furnace 1 1 1 1 455448 6355106 286 61.0 3.90 15.0 421 1.558 0.030 1.379 0.125 0.090
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Hydrogen Plant Furnace 2 1 1 1 455573 6355106 285 61.0 3.90 15.0 421 1.558 0.030 1.379 0.125 0.090
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Isomer Hydrotreater Heater 1 1 1 1 455154 6354852 291 30.5 1.50 12.9 799 0.117 0.017 0.104 0.009 0.007
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Isomer Hydrotreater Heater 2 1 1 1 455184 6354840 290 30.5 1.50 12.1 799 0.110 0.016 0.098 0.009 0.006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Naphtha Hydrotreater Heater 1 1 1 1 455166 6355014 291 30.5 0.90 12.4 555 0.038 0.008 0.052 0.005 0.003
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Naphtha Hydrotreater Heater 2 1 1 1 454854 6355014 293 30.5 1.50 11.6 799 0.105 0.015 0.093 0.008 0.006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Sulphur Recovery Unit Incinerator 1 1 1 455573 6355395 284 106.7 3.40 17.0 811 0.277 11.706 0.123 0.011 0.008
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Utility Boilers (three units) 1 1 1 455924 6354887 283 30.0 4.00 11.7 393 1.270 0.009 1.152 0.097 0.091
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Vacuum Tower Heater 1 1 1 1 455166 6355410 290 30.5 1.90 6.2 474 0.124 0.017 0.104 0.009 0.007
Page 3A-62
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project Vacuum Tower Heater 2 1 1 1 455171 6355410 290 30.5 1.40 6.2 474 0.041 0.009 0.053 0.005 0.003
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project 12.936 12.251 10.175 0.888 0.581
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Activated Lime Kiln 1 0 1 1 466066 6338958 276 65.0 3.26 20.0 533 0.415 0.048 0.198 0.014 0.045
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Air Separator Filter 1 0 1 1 466195 6338830 277 35.0 1.63 20.0 353 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Clinker Cooler Filter 1 0 1 1 466223 6338849 277 40.0 2.26 20.0 503 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Clinker Dome Filter 1 0 1 1 466247 6338774 277 30.0 0.78 20.0 293 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Coke Mill Filter 1 0 1 1 465915 6338938 275 35.0 0.78 20.0 373 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Flash Recalcining Kiln 0 1 1 466145 6339108 276 35.0 1.46 20.0 533 0.041 0.053 0.040 0.003 0.009
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Limestone Grinding Mill 1 0 1 1 466041 6338942 276 35.0 1.26 20.0 293 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Mill Filter 1 0 1 1 466182 6338830 277 35.0 0.78 20.0 293 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Mill-Kiln Filter Stack 1 0 1 1 466329 6338858 277 65.0 2.45 20.0 383 0.259 0.600 0.168 0.007 0.031
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Quicklime Kiln 1 0 1 1 466034 6338924 276 65.0 1.78 20.0 563 0.104 0.129 0.056 0.004 0.013
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone 2.063 1.443 1.083 0.095 0.239
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project - Phase 1 Auxiliary Boiler 1 0 1 1 496230 6362050 369 30.0 2.93 17.0 403 0.857 0.006 0.710 0.065 0.047
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project - Phase 1 3.430 0.025 2.840 0.260 0.190
TABLE 3A-37 Cont'd
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Cogeneration Unit 1 1 1 1 503159 6251532 495 30.0 5.18 18.2 433 2.436 0.590 1.834 0.127 0.081
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Cogeneration Unit 2 1 1 1 503193 6251498 496 30.0 5.18 18.2 433 2.436 0.590 1.834 0.127 0.081
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Glycol Heater 1 1 1 503164 6251722 492 30.0 1.80 6.0 422 0.118 0.001 0.104 0.009 0.006
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Glycol ReBoiler 1 1 1 502803 6251623 494 5.0 0.22 6.0 422 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North HP Flare 1 1 1 503801 6251754 486 28.7 3.85 0.0 1273 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Hydrocracker Heater 1 1 1 1 503478 6251249 494 30.0 1.82 6.0 582 0.058 0.024 0.073 0.007 0.003
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Hydrocracker Heater 2 1 1 1 503946 6251042 490 30.0 1.82 6.0 582 0.058 0.024 0.073 0.007 0.003
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North LP Flare 1 1 1 504016 6251410 485 38.0 3.85 0.0 1273 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Primary Thermal Cracker Heater 1 1 1 1 503497 6251579 494 37.7 2.36 8.9 422 0.170 0.050 0.150 0.014 0.009
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Sour Gas Flare 1 1 1 504016 6251331 486 115.5 3.85 0.0 1273 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Steam Generator 1 1 1 1 503237 6251626 493 30.0 1.68 18.8 464 0.319 0.094 0.282 0.026 0.018
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Steam SuperHeater 1 1 1 1 503336 6251343 496 51.4 1.89 6.5 578 0.060 0.025 0.074 0.007 0.003
Page 3A-63
Sulphur Recovery Unit Incinerator
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North 1 1 1 503410 6251145 493 115.0 1.52 30.0 811 0.035 7.762 0.030 0.003 0.000
1
Sulphur Recovery Unit Incinerator
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North 1 1 1 503732 6250845 490 115.0 1.52 30.0 811 0.035 7.762 0.030 0.003 0.000
2
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Thermal Oil Heater 1 1 1 1 503567 6251482 493 44.2 1.47 7.4 611 0.048 0.020 0.060 0.005 0.003
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Thermal Oil Heater 2 1 1 1 503719 6251037 491 44.2 1.47 7.4 611 0.048 0.020 0.060 0.005 0.003
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Utility Boiler 1 1 1 1 503307 6251379 496 30.0 1.51 29.5 416 0.406 0.120 0.358 0.032 0.022
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North Vacuum Tower Heater 1 1 1 1 503468 6251604 494 40.6 2.84 6.0 628 0.187 0.055 0.165 0.015 0.010
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake North 10.713 18.415 8.960 0.737 0.481
Muskeg River Mine - Cogeneration
Shell Canada Ltd. Boiler 1 1 1 1 469600 6346125 291 37.5 2.40 18.3 448 0.950 0.000 0.620 0.012 0.056
Facility
Shell Canada Ltd. Boiler 2 1 1 1 469575 6346125 291 37.5 2.40 18.3 448 0.950 0.000 0.620 0.012 0.056
Facility
Shell Canada Ltd. Cogeneration Unit 1 1 1 1 469565 6346240 291 37.5 5.00 18.3 398 2.126 0.000 0.990 0.019 0.056
Facility
Shell Canada Ltd. Cogeneration Unit 2 1 1 1 469580 6346240 291 37.5 5.00 18.3 398 2.126 0.000 0.990 0.019 0.056
Facility
Shell Canada Ltd. Fuel Heater 1 1 1 1 469625 6346240 291 8.0 0.30 18.3 448 0.007 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.001
Facility
Shell Canada Ltd. Fuel Heater 2 1 1 1 469640 6346240 291 8.0 0.30 18.3 448 0.007 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.001
Facility
Shell Canada Ltd. 6.167 0.000 3.242 0.064 0.225
Facility
Shell Canada Ltd. Muskeg River Mine Expansion Auxiliary Boiler 1 0 1 1 469565 6345851 289 38.0 2.00 18.0 442 0.510 0.000 0.450 0.040 0.030
Shell Canada Ltd. Muskeg River Mine Expansion Debottlenecking Boiler 1 0 1 1 469549 6345847 289 38.0 2.00 18.0 442 0.450 0.000 0.380 0.030 0.030
Shell Canada Ltd. Muskeg River Mine Expansion Debottlenecking Boiler 2 0 1 1 469562 6345798 289 38.0 2.00 18.0 442 0.450 0.000 0.380 0.030 0.030
Shell Canada Ltd. Muskeg River Mine Expansion Natural Gas Heater 0 1 1 469571 6345606 287 8.0 0.30 18.0 453 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000
TABLE 3A-37 Cont'd
Shell Canada Ltd. Muskeg River Mine Expansion 2.850 0.000 2.450 0.220 0.180
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 Cogeneration Unit 0 1 0 476180 6344235 310 30.0 5.50 15.0 393 3.375 0.017 1.960 0.164 0.075
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 Steam Generator 0 1 1 476376 6343975 312 13.0 0.90 14.3 392 0.054 0.001 0.068 0.006 0.004
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 Utility Boiler 1 0 1 0 476333 6343978 311 25.0 4.51 15.0 453 1.733 0.012 1.470 0.133 0.096
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 Utility Boiler 2 0 1 0 476340 6343965 311 25.0 4.51 15.0 453 1.733 0.012 1.470 0.133 0.096
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 6.896 0.041 4.968 0.436 0.272
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine Expansion Cogeneration Unit 1 0 0 1 476180 6344235 310 40.0 4.30 23.0 360 2.240 0.012 1.424 0.119 0.054
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine Expansion 7.428 4.097 6.773 0.423 0.273
Shell Canada Ltd. Pierre River Mine Cogeneration Unit 1 0 0 1 465980 6376404 258 40.0 4.30 23.0 360 2.240 0.012 1.424 0.119 0.054
Shell Canada Ltd. Pierre River Mine Cogenerations Unit 2 0 0 1 465946 6376782 263 150.0 4.50 20.0 328 2.893 4.073 3.856 0.178 0.161
Shell Canada Ltd. Pierre River Mine 5.134 4.085 5.281 0.297 0.215
Suncor Energy Inc. Fort Hills Auxillary Boiler 1 0 1 1 465722 6361155 348 40.0 2.74 21.9 436 0.904 0.002 0.791 0.045 0.043
Suncor Energy Inc. Fort Hills Cogeneration Unit 1 0 1 1 465997 6361155 346 40.0 4.30 23.0 360 1.613 0.002 0.852 0.092 0.083
Suncor Energy Inc. Fort Hills Cogeneration Unit 2 0 1 1 465637 6361155 349 40.0 4.30 23.0 360 1.613 0.002 0.852 0.092 0.083
Suncor Energy Inc. Fort Hills 5.938 0.009 4.077 0.319 0.295
Suncor Energy Inc. Base Plant (Plant 25), Charge Heater 1 1 1 470750 6318076 259 67.0 1.49 9.1 486 0.064 0.025 0.106 0.010 0.007
(Plant 5) Delayed Coking Unit,
Suncor Energy Inc. Base Plant 1 1 1 471012 6317923 256 41.1 2.18 7.6 728 0.190 0.039 0.166 0.015 0.011
Coker Feed Heater
Coker Feed Heater
Page 3A-64

Coker Feed Heater
Coker Feed Heater
Diluent Heater
Diluent Tower Feed Heater
Diluent Tower Feed Heater
(Plant 6) H2 Flare Pilots and
Ignitors
(Plant 6) Hydrogen Plant, H2 Plant
Waste Gas
(Plant 6) Hydrogen Plant,
Hydrogen Reforming Furnace
(Plant 7) Unifier Plant , Gas Oil
Charge Heater
Charge Heater
Charge Heater
(Plant 7) Unifier Plant , Kerosene
Charge Heater
(Plant 7) Unifier Plant , Naphtha
Charge Heater
(Plant 7) Unifier Plant , Naphtha
Depropanizer ReBoiler
(Plant 7)Unifier Plant, Kerosene
Stripper ReBoiler
Suncor Energy Inc. Base Plant Millennium TOU 1 1 1 470933 6318211 254 106.1 3.35 8.6 673 0.168 13.669 0.108 0.010 0.007
Suncor Energy Inc. Base Plant Sulphur Plant Incinerator 1 1 1 471003 6318016 255 106.7 1.98 22.0 673 0.057 4.573 0.027 0.002 0.002
Suncor Energy Inc. Base Plant 2.320 18.747 2.294 0.207 0.150
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium (Plant 25), Vacuum Heater 1 1 1 470737 6318091 259 80.7 2.21 9.1 489 0.262 0.054 0.229 0.021 0.015
(Plant 52) Coker Heater, Coker
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium 1 1 1 470912 6318381 251 60.7 3.28 7.6 487 0.172 0.185 0.305 0.028 0.020
Charge Heaters
(Plant 52) Delayed Coker, Diluent
Tower Fired Heater
(Plant 52) Delayed Coker, Diluent
Tower Fired Heater
TABLE 3A-37 Cont'd
(Plant 52) Diluent Recovery, Coker
Charge Heaters
(Plant 52) Diluent Recovery, Coker
Charge Heaters
(Plant 55) Diesel Hydrotreater,
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium Fired Heater Combined Feed 1 1 1 470637 6318600 254 38.1 1.22 7.6 533 0.014 0.010 0.044 0.004 0.003
Heater
Fired Heater Stripper ReBoiler
(Plant 55) Gas Oil Hydrotreater,
Fired Heater Comb. Feed Heater
(Plant 55) Naphtha Hydrotreater,
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium Fired Heater, Reactor No 2 1 1 1 470676 6318482 254 38.1 0.94 5.6 535 0.007 0.005 0.021 0.002 0.001
Charge Heater
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium (Plant 57) , Diluent Tower Heater 1 1 1 470733 6318662 247 49.1 1.73 10.1 483 0.064 0.067 0.111 0.010 0.007
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium (Plant 57) , Vacuum Tower Heater 1 1 1 470777 6318686 244 47.8 1.85 10.1 483 0.080 0.090 0.149 0.014 0.010
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium (Plant 57) , Vacuum Tower Heater 1 1 1 470789 6318691 244 47.8 1.85 10.1 483 0.080 0.090 0.149 0.014 0.010
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium (Plant 57), Diluent Tower Heater 1 1 1 470748 6318761 244 49.1 1.73 10.1 483 0.064 0.067 0.111 0.010 0.007
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium Flaring 1 1 1 471202 6318106 244 88.8 3.86 15.5 1273 0.010 10.859 0.106 0.000 0.026
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium H2 Plant #3 1 1 1 470465 6318577 261 42.7 3.50 13.7 422 0.213 0.093 0.324 0.029 0.021
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium NHT #3 Reactor Charge Heater 1 1 1 470411 6318623 264 38.1 0.52 5.6 533 0.011 0.018 0.026 0.002 0.002
Steam-Hydrocarbon Reforming,
Reformer
Page 3A-65
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium 1.607 21.783 2.908 0.253 0.211

Suncor Energy Inc. Suncor Upgrader Complex FGD Stack 1 1 1 471043 6317825 255 137.2 7.01 13.1 322 19.155 15.572 0.781 0.882 0.172
Suncor Energy Inc. Suncor Upgrader Complex Gas Turbine Generator 1 1 1 470360 6318450 268 30.5 6.10 15.9 383 1.352 0.000 1.728 0.145 0.067
Suncor Energy Inc. Suncor Upgrader Complex Gas Turbine Generator 1 1 1 470459 6318282 266 30.5 6.10 15.9 383 1.352 0.000 1.728 0.145 0.067
Suncor Energy Inc. Suncor Upgrader Complex Powerhouse 1 1 1 471026 6317764 257 106.7 5.79 7.0 466 2.864 11.561 2.053 0.106 0.143
Suncor Energy Inc. Suncor Upgrader Complex 24.722 27.133 6.290 1.277 0.448
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South Boiler 0 0 1 468606 6314832 330 30.5 3.66 24.4 450 0.649 0.018 0.527 0.048 0.035
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South Boiler 0 0 1 468556 6314832 330 30.5 3.66 24.4 450 0.649 0.018 0.527 0.048 0.035
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South Cogeneration Unit 0 0 1 468452 6314717 329 30.5 5.18 18.9 366 1.846 0.041 1.199 0.100 0.046
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South Cogeneration Unit 0 0 1 468412 6314640 329 30.5 5.18 18.9 366 1.846 0.041 1.199 0.100 0.046
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South LP Flare 0 0 1 468865 6313711 329 136.1 14.76 1.4 1273 0.001 4.538 0.007 0.000 0.002
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South 4.991 4.655 3.461 0.296 0.164
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader (Plant 202) Vacuum Tower Heater 0 1 1 468804 6314324 331 47.8 2.06 10.1 483 0.197 0.146 0.175 0.016 0.011
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader (Plant 202) Vacuum Tower Heater 0 1 1 468769 6314250 331 47.8 2.06 10.1 483 0.197 0.146 0.175 0.016 0.011
(Plant 203) Gasifier, HP Boiler
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader 0 1 1 469230 6314560 332 38.1 0.76 7.6 478 0.014 0.017 0.020 0.002 0.001
Package Heater
(Plant 205) Coker, Coker Charge
Heaters
Heaters
Heaters
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader Fired Heater Combined Feed 0 1 1 469012 6314457 332 39.6 1.49 7.6 478 0.043 0.048 0.057 0.005 0.004
Heater
Fired Heater Stripper ReBoiler
(Plant 207) Gas Oil Hydrotreater,
Fired Heater Comb. Feed Heater
(Plant 207) Naphtha Hydrotreater,
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader Fired Heater, Reactor No 2 0 1 1 468869 6314459 332 38.1 1.09 5.6 533 0.026 0.030 0.036 0.003 0.002
Charge Heater
(Plant 208) SRU, Sulphur Plant
Incinerator
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader Boiler Package Heater 0 1 1 469205 6314572 332 38.1 3.22 7.6 478 0.295 0.219 0.261 0.024 0.017
TABLE 3A-37 Cont'd
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader Fuel Gas Pipeline Heater 0 1 1 469404 6314474 332 45.7 0.69 7.6 478 0.009 0.010 0.012 0.001 0.001
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader Hot Bitumen Heating Furnace 0 1 1 468904 6314127 331 45.7 0.61 7.6 478 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.001 0.001
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader LP Flare 0 1 1 468795 6313746 329 127.6 5.68 1.4 1273 0.000 0.671 0.001 0.000 0.000
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader Steam SuperHeater 0 1 1 469257 6314546 332 45.7 0.65 7.6 478 0.009 0.010 0.012 0.001 0.001
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader VRU Combustion Unit 0 1 1 468786 6314288 331 45.7 1.34 7.6 478 0.042 0.048 0.057 0.005 0.004
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader 5.341 9.796 4.528 0.410 0.297
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North GTG/HRHWG Train 1 1 1 1 469516 6350431 299 30.5 5.20 16.3 355 0.727 0.000 1.010 0.079 0.026
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North GTG/HRHWG Train 2 1 1 1 469551 6350585 299 31.0 5.20 16.3 355 0.773 0.000 1.010 0.079 0.026
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North OTHWG-A 1 1 1 469451 6350679 301 24.5 1.70 15.2 351 0.071 0.000 0.173 0.014 0.004
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North OTHWG-B 1 1 1 469451 6350710 301 24.5 1.70 14.1 347 0.120 0.000 0.173 0.014 0.004
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North OTSG Train 1 1 1 1 469502 6350802 301 25.0 1.90 12.2 411 0.040 0.000 0.025 0.002 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North OTSG Train 2 1 1 1 469502 6350771 301 25.0 1.90 11.3 394 0.040 0.000 0.026 0.002 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North 1.771 0.000 2.418 0.188 0.062
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South GTG/HRHWG Train 1 0 1 1 482613 6341886 328 30.5 5.20 16.3 355 0.604 0.000 1.010 0.023 0.026
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South GTG/HRHWG Train 2 0 1 1 482704 6341886 328 31.0 5.20 16.3 355 0.749 0.000 1.010 0.023 0.026
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South OTHWG-A 0 1 1 484164 6342667 334 24.5 1.70 15.0 349 0.167 0.000 0.173 0.004 0.004
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South OTHWG-B 0 1 1 484164 6342700 334 24.5 1.70 15.0 349 0.152 0.000 0.173 0.004 0.004
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South OTSG Train 1 0 1 1 484151 6342653 334 25.0 1.90 12.2 411 0.024 0.000 0.025 0.001 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South OTSG Train 2 0 1 1 484131 6342653 334 25.0 1.90 12.2 411 0.024 0.000 0.026 0.001 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South 1.718 0.000 2.418 0.056 0.062
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Bitumen Column Feed Heater 1 1 1 1 462596 6322427 304 51.8 3.20 5.7 422 0.274 0.000 0.120 0.040 0.000
Page 3A-66
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Bitumen Feed 1 1 1 463038 6322626 305 45.7 1.70 8.2 652 0.057 0.000 0.030 0.010 0.002
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Bitumen Heater Stack 1 (East) 1 1 1 463964 6322778 309 7.6 0.30 29.0 839 0.019 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Bitumen Heater Stack 1 (North) 1 1 1 462865 6323038 304 6.1 0.30 29.0 839 0.019 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Diluent Reboiler 1 1 1 462647 6322475 304 30.5 1.10 7.8 618 0.095 0.000 0.100 0.002 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake FGD Stack 1 1 1 462807 6322880 305 76.2 6.60 10.5 348 2.616 10.765 13.500 0.641 0.110
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Fractionator Reboiler 1 1 1 1 462820 6322545 305 45.7 1.90 8.0 653 0.083 0.000 0.030 0.007 0.003
Gas Turbine 1 (31 GTG 201
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake 1 1 1 462693 6322003 304 46.0 2.80 15.8 423 1.451 0.000 0.430 0.140 0.010
/OTSG)
/OTSG)
/OTSG)
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake H2S Flare 1 1 1 1 461836 6321982 295 71.6 1.07 20.0 1273 0.034 2.383 0.025 0.001 0.000
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake H2S Flare 2 1 1 1 462858 6323274 304 71.6 1.07 20.0 1273 0.034 2.383 0.025 0.001 0.000
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake HP Flare 1 1 1 461683 6322356 296 71.6 1.21 20.0 1273 0.149 0.000 0.108 0.002 0.005
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Hydrogen Heater 1 1 1 1 462879 6322400 305 41.8 1.70 7.7 426 0.095 0.000 0.040 0.008 0.003
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake LP Flare 1 1 1 1 461710 6322272 296 71.6 0.76 20.0 1273 0.000 0.000 0.321 0.375 0.050
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake LP Flare 2 1 1 1 462713 6323274 303 71.6 0.76 20.0 1273 0.000 0.000 0.321 0.007 0.080
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Main Stack (existing/operating) 1 0 0 462632 6322111 304 183.0 7.90 28.8 513 18.971 199.857 3.464 0.994 0.117
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Main Stack (future, FGD) 0 1 1 462632 6322111 304 183.0 7.90 18.2 381 14.800 80.999 55.200 1.600 0.117
TABLE 3A-37 Cont'd
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Reactor Charge Heater 1 1 1 1 463311 6322539 307 42.7 1.80 6.9 433 0.051 0.000 0.040 0.008 0.002
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Reformer Furnace 1 1 1 1 463084 6322453 306 23.5 4.10 11.6 540 1.336 0.000 0.320 0.099 0.011
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Steam Super Heater 1 1 1 1 462662 6322261 304 39.6 2.10 5.2 616 0.051 0.000 0.030 0.010 0.002
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Sulfreen Regeneration 1 1 1 462741 6322333 305 25.9 0.50 37.2 616 0.038 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.001
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake VDU Bitumen Feed Heater 1 1 1 1 462578 6322525 304 54.3 3.30 4.0 435 0.127 0.000 0.100 0.030 0.003
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake VDU Bitumen Feed Heater 2 1 1 1 462607 6322535 304 50.8 2.10 4.0 435 0.127 0.000 0.100 0.030 0.003
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake (Existing) 38.589 215.387 25.631 4.478 0.646
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake (Approved and Planned) 34.418 96.529 77.366 5.084 0.646
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project NG Heaters(1530-HF-0001A) 0 0 1 463526 6393235 284 9.0 0.91 10.0 723 0.018 0.004 0.085 0.002 0.002
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project NG Heaters(1530-HF-0001B) 0 0 1 463532 6393235 284 9.0 0.91 10.0 723 0.018 0.004 0.085 0.002 0.002
Auxiliary Steam Boiler(1540-BR-
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project 0 0 1 463811 6393368 284 38.0 2.29 23.5 403 0.467 0.105 2.247 0.059 0.043
0006)
Page 3A-67

0007)
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project OTSG(1540-BR-0015) 0 0 1 463728 6393627 284 13.3 1.52 11.1 393 0.100 0.022 0.481 0.013 0.009
0005)
0006)
0007)
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project OTHWG(4510-HF-0001) 0 0 1 459388 6379264 299 13.3 2.74 8.2 403 0.234 0.052 1.123 0.029 0.021
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project OTHWG(4510-HF-0002) 0 0 1 459388 6379248 299 13.3 2.74 8.2 403 0.234 0.052 1.123 0.029 0.021
HRSG Boiler-Gas Trubine(1540-
BRTG-0005)
HRSG Boiler-Gas Trubine(2540-
BRTG-0005)
Flare Stack (1440-FR-001
PURGE/PILOT GAS ONLY)
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project 8.813 1.419 25.685 0.712 0.495
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase North Mine Project Boiler 1 0 1 1 450815 6349425 319 38.0 1.80 18.0 383 0.363 0.003 0.276 0.026 0.017
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase North Mine Project Cogeneration Unit 0 1 1 450875 6349645 318 38.0 4.60 22.0 383 1.570 0.086 0.960 0.121 0.363
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase North Mine Project Flare 0 1 1 450415 6349435 322 52.0 0.36 20.0 1273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase North Mine Project 2.659 0.095 1.788 0.199 0.414
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase South Mine Project Boiler 1 0 0 1 448819 6341489 324 38.0 1.80 18.0 383 0.363 0.003 0.276 0.026 0.017
TABLE 3A-37 Cont'd
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase South Mine Project Cogeneration Unit 0 0 1 448879 6341709 326 38.0 4.60 22.0 383 1.570 0.086 0.960 0.121 0.363
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase South Mine Project Flare 0 0 1 448419 6341499 324 52.0 0.36 20.0 1273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total E&P Canada Joslyn Phase South Mine Project 2.659 0.095 1.788 0.199 0.414
Total E&P Canada (Synenco
Northern Lights Auxiliary Boiler 1 0 0 1 496676 6378754 288 25.0 2.44 24.0 438 0.720 0.006 0.637 0.058 0.042
Energy Inc.)
Energy Inc.)
Energy Inc.)
Energy Inc.)
Northern Lights Cogeneration Unit 1 0 0 1 496646 6378723 288 30.0 3.35 41.0 389 1.352 0.011 1.165 0.097 0.043
Energy Inc.)
Northern Lights Cogeneration Unit 2 0 0 1 496632 6378709 288 30.0 3.35 41.0 389 1.352 0.011 1.165 0.097 0.043
Energy Inc.)
Northern Lights 4.144 0.035 3.604 0.309 0.168
Energy Inc.)
Page 3A-68
TABLE 3A-38
STACK AND EMISSION PARAMETERS FOR IN SITU FACILITIES (EXISTING CONDITION (EX), BASELINE CASE (BC), AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT CASE (PDC)) (PAGE 3A-70 TO 3A-103)
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Operator Facility Emission Source EX BC PDC UTM (mE) UTM (mN) (m) H (m) D (m) (m/s) T (K) (t/d) SO2 (t/d) CO (t/d) PM2.5 (t/d) (t/d)
Alberta oil sand (AOS) Clearwater West Lp-SAGD Pilot Project Steam Boiler 0 0 1 488080 6277554 376 30.0 0.70 15.6 450 0.1158 0.1469 0.3672 0.0095 0.0068
Alberta oil sand (AOS) Clearwater West Lp-SAGD Pilot Project Diluent Fractionator Heater 0 0 1 488033 6277530 376 8.5 0.51 4.8 494 0.0083 0.0000 0.0406 0.0012 0.0007
Alberta oil sand (AOS) Clearwater West Lp-SAGD Pilot Project 0.1241 0.1469 0.4078 0.0107 0.0075
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project Steam Generator 1 0 0 1 473867 6259490 454 36.0 2.44 26.4 443 0.4320 0.1153 1.3496 0.0354 0.0250
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project Steam Generator 2 0 0 1 473833 6259505 453 36.0 2.44 26.4 443 0.4320 0.1153 1.3496 0.0354 0.0250
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project Glycol Heater 0 0 1 473936 6259520 453 12.5 0.59 26.5 473 0.0251 0.0000 0.1201 0.0035 0.0022
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project HP Normal Flare (Purge) 0 0 1 474130 6259381 454 41.0 2.32 0.1 1262 0.0003 0.0000 0.0016 0.0000 0.0006
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project 0.8894 0.2307 2.8209 0.0743 0.0529
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project HP Steam Boiler 0 0 1 395728 6332846 529 30.5 1.52 11.7 447 0.0300 0.0700 0.0700 0.0100 0.0000
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project Gas Generator 0 0 1 395742 6332838 529 3.0 0.25 15.5 776 0.0600 0.0000 0.1700 0.0000 0.0200
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project Gas Generator 0 0 1 395742 6332838 529 3.0 0.25 15.5 776 0.0600 0.0000 0.1700 0.0000 0.0200
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project Diesel Generator 0 0 1 395752 6332838 529 2.3 0.13 11.9 783 0.1000 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 0.0100
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project Start-Up Boiler 0 0 1 395770 6332840 529 6.1 0.30 19.7 447 0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project Glycol Heater 0 0 1 395753 6332870 529 7.6 0.46 8.7 447 0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project Compressor 0 0 1 395715 6332867 529 3.7 0.15 19.7 313 0.0000 0.0000 0.6500 0.0000 0.0700
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) Dover Central Pilot Project Flare 0 0 1 395808 6332749 529 30.5 0.22 0.0 2780 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.
Dover Central Pilot Project 0.2700 0.0700 1.1200 0.0100 0.1200
(AOSC)
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River Pilot Project HP Steam Boiler 0 0 1 435666 6298088 485 30.5 1.52 11.7 447 0.0300 0.0700 0.0700 0.0100 0.0000
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River Pilot Project Gas Generator 0 0 1 435687 6298071 485 3.0 0.25 15.5 776 0.0600 0.0000 0.1700 0.0000 0.0200
Page 3A-69
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River Pilot Project Gas Generator 0 0 1 435691 6298066 485 3.0 0.25 15.5 776 0.0600 0.0000 0.1700 0.0000 0.0200
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River Pilot Project Diesel Generator 0 0 1 435682 6298076 485 2.3 0.13 11.9 783 0.1000 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 0.0100
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River Pilot Project Start-Up Boiler 0 0 1 435696 6298053 485 6.1 0.30 19.7 447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River Pilot Project Glycol Heater 0 0 1 435703 6298090 485 7.6 0.46 8.7 447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River Pilot Project Flare 0 0 1 435675 6297942 486 30.5 0.22 0.0 2780 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MacKay River Pilot Project 0.2500 0.0700 0.4500 0.0100 0.0500
(AOSC)
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Glycol Heater (central plant) 0 0 1 432295 6294503 490 12.5 0.59 9.5 473 0.0120 0.0000 0.0390 0.0010 0.0010
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Glycol Heater(central plant) 0 0 1 432286 6294493 490 12.5 0.59 9.5 473 0.0120 0.0000 0.0390 0.0010 0.0010
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Glycol Heater(central plant) 0 0 1 432192 6294392 489 12.5 0.59 9.5 473 0.0120 0.0000 0.0390 0.0010 0.0010
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Steam Generator(central plant) 0 0 1 432430 6294473 491 38.1 2.44 16.1 443 0.5380 0.1220 1.6810 0.0380 0.0280
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Cogeneration Unit(central plant) 0 0 1 432488 6294550 491 38.1 5.79 25.1 399 4.4370 0.3140 6.6580 0.1570 0.1580
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project MCPHPF1(central plant) 0 0 1 432112 6292637 496 40.0 29.16 0.0 2780 0.0034 0.0000 0.0183 0.0142 0.0010
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project MCP HPF2(central plant) 0 0 1 418009 6310564 473 41.0 19.53 0.0 2780 0.0034 0.0000 0.0183 0.0142 0.0010
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Glycol Heater (North Plant) 0 0 1 418098 6310528 473 12.5 0.59 9.5 473 0.0120 0.0000 0.0390 0.0010 0.0010
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Glycol Heater(North Plant) 0 0 1 418109 6310527 473 12.5 0.59 9.5 473 0.0120 0.0000 0.0390 0.0010 0.0010
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) MacKay River commercial Project Steam Generator(North Plant) 0 0 1 418245 6310529 473 38.1 2.44 17.9 443 0.5380 0.1320 1.6810 0.0430 0.0310
MacKay River commercial Project 11.5787 1.9790 28.9936 0.7225 0.5510
(AOSC)
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kirby Phase 1 Glycol Heater 0 1 1 498262 6132828 732 12.0 0.91 13.7 609 0.0300 0.0000 0.0400 0.0040 0.0260
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kirby Phase 1 High Pressure Flare 0 1 1 498663 6132984 728 41.6 2.39 0.5 1273 0.0020 0.0000 0.0130 0.0000 0.0260
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kirby Phase 1 Low Pressure Flare 0 1 1 498663 6132984 728 41.6 2.87 0.4 1273 0.0020 0.0000 0.0130 0.0000 0.0260
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kirby Phase 1 Steam Generator 1 0 1 1 498263 6132807 732 45.5 2.00 18.3 450 0.4740 0.3320 0.3980 0.0360 0.0260
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Alberta oil sand (AOS) Clearwater West Lp-SAGD Pilot Project Steam Boiler 0 0 1 488080 6277554 376 30.0 0.70 15.6 450 0.1158 0.1469 0.3672 0.0095 0.0068
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kirby Phase 1 2.8780 1.9920 2.4537 0.2199 0.2340
Primrose North 14-8-68-4W4 FGD
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose North Plant 1 1 1 526706 6081204 696 30.0 2.64 13.0 330 2.0080 0.8500 0.2160 0.1970 0.0120
Stack 1
Primrose North 14-8-68-4W4 FGD
Stack 2
Primrose North 14-8-68-4W4
Glycol Heater
OTSG 8
OTSG 7
OTSG 6
OTSG 5
OTSG 4
OTSG 3
OTSG 2
Page 3A-70

OTSG 1
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose North Plant 6.8970 3.6000 1.9414 0.5430 0.1330
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Wolf Lake Wolf Lake - OTSG3 1 1 1 517624 6061042 641 30.0 1.37 20.5 444 0.2810 0.3830 0.0000 0.0150 0.0110
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Wolf Lake Wolf Lake - Utility Boiler 1 1 1 1 517617 6061087 641 16.0 1.12 10.7 423 0.1720 0.0000 0.0000 0.0090 0.0070
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Wolf Lake Wolf Lake - Fuel Gas Heater 1 1 1 517613 6061136 640 8.0 0.40 0.8 423 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Wolf Lake Wolf Lake - Flare Stack 1 1 1 517870 6061226 638 44.0 4.41 0.5 1273 0.0790 0.0850 0.0000 0.0000 0.0110
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Wolf Lake 1.7990 2.0000 0.0004 0.0920 0.0790
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose East Plant Prim East FGD Stack 1 1 1 1 541466 6071727 699 30.0 2.64 25.9 330 2.0080 0.8500 0.2160 0.1970 0.0120
Prim East Seven 77 MW steam
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. 1 1 1 527074 6069387 682 30.0 1.37 21.6 473 2.3856 0.2187 0.5191 0.0469 0.0338
Primrose East Plant generator exhaust stacks
Prim East 35 MW steam generator
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. 1 1 1 527094 6069387 682 30.0 1.37 21.6 473 0.1560 0.0143 0.0339 0.0031 0.0022
Primrose East Plant exhaust stack
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose East Plant 8.0166 2.5500 1.1420 0.5870 0.0690
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - Fuel Gas Heater 2 1 1 1 527194 6069239 682 7.6 0.61 1.6 423 0.0130 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - Fuel Gas Heater 1 1 1 1 527190 6069243 682 15.3 0.71 1.2 423 0.0130 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - Utility Boiler 1 1 1 1 527383 6069578 683 6.8 0.46 8.2 533 0.0400 0.0000 0.0123 0.0020 0.0020
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - Utility Boiler 2 1 1 1 527391 6069578 683 6.8 0.46 8.2 533 0.0400 0.0000 0.0123 0.0020 0.0020
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - FGD Stack 1 1 1 1 527142 6069603 665 30.0 2.18 13.0 330 1.3380 0.5790 0.1470 0.1310 0.0080
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - FGD Stack 2 1 1 1 527143 6069624 684 30.0 2.52 13.0 330 1.7810 0.7780 0.1960 0.1740 0.0110
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - OTSG3 1 1 1 527154 6069596 684 27.0 1.37 17.1 444 0.4600 0.3070 0.1414 0.0180 0.0130
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Prim South - Cogeneration Unit
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant (Heat Recovery Steam Generator 1 1 1 527013 6069627 683 27.0 5.10 18.3 375 1.8510 0.0000 1.2020 0.1000 0.0440
Exhaust Stack)
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant Prim South - Well pad Flare Stack 1 1 1 526602 6069810 677 14.6 1.60 0.5 1273 0.0070 0.0050 0.0040 0.0000 0.0010
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant 8.1920 3.3560 2.5370 0.5700 0.1860
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon In situ steam generators 1 0 0 1 451326 6354385 313 30.0 1.37 21.6 473 0.2336 0.0430 0.2266 0.0204 0.0148
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon In situ 2.1020 0.3870 2.0390 0.1840 0.1330
Christina Lake Thermal Project - Phase 1
Cenovus Energy Steam Generator 1 (B-101) 1 1 0 506880 6159498 567 26.6 1.37 27.0 463 0.2520 0.1600 0.7880 0.0200 0.0150
A/1B
A/1B
Page 3A-71
A/1B
Christina Lake Thermal Project - Phase
Cenovus Energy 0.6350 0.4240 2.0860 0.0530 0.0390
1 A/1B (existing)
Cenovus Energy Glycol Heater (H-522) 0 1 0 506939 6159483 567 6.7 0.59 13.9 474 0.0150 0.0000 0.0740 0.0020 0.0010
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Glycol Heater (H7100A) 0 1 0 507380 6159601 567 9.2 0.91 9.6 474 0.0250 0.0000 0.1220 0.0030 0.0020
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Glycol Heater (H7100B) 0 1 0 507387 6159605 567 9.2 0.91 9.6 474 0.0250 0.0000 0.1220 0.0030 0.0020
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Flash Heater(H5070A) 0 1 0 507259 6159598 566 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Flash Heater(H5070B) 0 1 0 507249 6159595 566 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Christina Lake Thermal Project Glycol Heater 0 1 0 507440 6159072 570 8.0 0.71 7.7 483 0.0110 0.0000 0.0530 0.0010 0.0010
Cenovus Energy Christina Lake Thermal Project Preheater 0 1 0 507483 6159057 570 6.1 0.20 8.6 873 0.0010 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000
Cenovus Energy Christina Lake Thermal Project Incinerator 0 1 0 507483 6159023 570 60.0 0.32 10.7 811 0.0010 0.7820 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000
Christina Lake Thermal Project 1A/1B,
Cenovus Energy 3.3380 2.8540 10.7110 0.2740 0.2000
1C/1D (approved)
A/1B
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
A/1B
A/1B
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Glycol Heater (H7100A) 0 0 1 507380 6159601 567 9.2 0.91 9.6 474 0.0250 0.0000 0.1220 0.0030 0.0020
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Glycol Heater (H7100B) 0 0 1 507387 6159605 567 9.2 0.91 9.6 474 0.0250 0.0000 0.1220 0.0030 0.0020
C/1D
Page 3A-72
Cenovus Energy Flash Heater(H5070A) 0 0 1 507259 6159598 566 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Flash Heater(H5070B) 0 0 1 507249 6159595 566 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
C/1D
Cenovus Energy Christina Lake Thermal Project Incinerator 0 0 1 507483 6159023 570 60.0 0.90 8.2 811 0.0030 1.9700 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
Cenovus Energy Flash Heater (H-5270A) 0 0 1 507561 6159766 566 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
E, 1F and 1G
Cenovus Energy Flash Heater (H-5270B) 0 0 1 507552 6159762 566 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
E, 1F and 1G
E, 1F and 1G
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Christina Lake Thermal Project 1a/1B,
Cenovus Energy 7.2620 2.0360 23.0390 0.5910 0.4320
1C/1D, 1E,1F,1G (planned)
Cenovus Energy Borealis Glycol Heater 0 0 1 537806 6336806 510 8.2 1.46 4.1 580 0.0216 0.0002 0.0344 0.0027 0.0020
Cenovus Energy Borealis Steam Generator B-2100 0 0 1 537669 6337094 513 27.0 1.68 19.7 490 0.2791 0.3309 0.2602 0.0229 0.0170
Cenovus Energy Borealis Flash Treater Reheater 0 0 1 537835 6337129 514 9.5 0.62 14.1 889 0.0088 0.0001 0.0067 0.0010 0.0010
Cenovus Energy Borealis Air Compressor 0 0 1 536771 6339494 520 6.2 0.30 35.8 720 0.2130 0.0290 0.1170 0.0070 0.0110
Cenovus Energy Borealis 1.3598 1.3529 1.1989 0.1023 0.0820
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Steam Generator(B-2100) 0 0 1 507435 6167162 583 32.0 1.68 24.5 488 0.3240 0.0300 1.0130 0.0260 0.0190
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Steam Generator (B-2250) 0 0 1 507375 6167162 582 32.0 1.68 24.5 488 0.3240 0.0300 1.0130 0.0260 0.0190
Page 3A-73
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Steam Generator (H-7100) 0 0 1 507565 6166983 581 9.2 0.91 9.6 474 0.0250 0.0000 0.1220 0.0030 0.0020
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Steam Generator (H-7110) 0 0 1 507565 6166992 581 9.2 0.91 9.6 474 0.0250 0.0000 0.1220 0.0030 0.0020
Slop Oil Treater Reheater (H-
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project 0 0 1 507495 6167004 582 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
5070A)
Slop Oil Treater Reheater (H-
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project 0 0 1 507495 6166992 582 3.3 0.31 30.5 512 0.0070 0.0000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0010
5070B)
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Process Glycol Heater 0 0 1 507847 6167022 580 14.0 0.71 12.2 483 0.0140 0.0000 0.0660 0.0020 0.0010
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project SRU Preheater 0 0 1 507885 6167053 580 6.3 0.26 4.6 873 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Sulphur Incinerator 0 0 1 507930 6167058 579 29.0 0.91 15.0 811 0.0000 2.0530 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Well Pad Turbine 0 0 1 504641 6172293 574 6.1 0.61 20.0 773 0.0140 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Page 3A-74
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Page 3A-75
Cenovus Energy Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal Project Well Pad Line Heater 0 0 1 504643 6172326 574 4.6 0.36 4.0 959 0.0010 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Page 3A-76
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal
Cenovus Energy 6.5280 2.5030 16.3200 0.4000 0.2920
Project
Foster Creek Phase Phase 1A-1E
Cenovus Energy Cogen 1 1 0 0 529636 6102406 671 25.9 3.70 21.1 448 0.9170 0.0000 0.6260 0.0510 0.0057
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Cogen 2 1 0 0 529609 6102368 671 25.9 3.70 21.1 448 0.9170 0.0000 0.6260 0.0510 0.0057
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Steam Generator (B-0201) 1 0 0 529736 6102529 671 27.0 1.40 15.6 447 0.1970 0.0000 0.1450 0.0160 0.0108
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
Page 3A-77

(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Glycol Heater (H-0501B) 1 0 0 529764 6102798 674 8.2 0.90 4.1 580 0.0190 0.0000 0.0350 0.0020 0.0010
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Glycol Heater (H-0501C) 1 0 0 529753 6102840 674 8.2 0.90 4.1 580 0.0190 0.0000 0.0350 0.0020 0.0010
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Fuel Gas Heater (H-0502) 1 0 0 529797 6102590 671 8.0 0.60 2.0 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0002
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Fuel Gas Heater (H-0514) 1 0 0 529792 6102594 671 9.1 0.60 2.4 533 0.0350 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0019
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Hot Oil Heater (H-0503) 1 0 0 529662 6102630 674 8.0 0.60 4.6 533 0.0090 0.0000 0.0060 0.0010 0.0005
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Steam Generator #1 (Pilot) 1 0 0 529437 6102952 674 12.2 1.10 10.8 467 0.1530 0.0720 0.0540 0.0050 0.0084
(Existing)
(Existing)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Utility Boiler #1 (Pilot) 1 0 0 529405 6102960 673 6.1 0.50 4.0 672 0.0160 0.0070 0.0050 0.0000 0.0009
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Glycol Reboiler (Pilot) 1 0 0 529360 6102940 673 5.3 0.20 2.4 672 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Well Pad Heater 1 0 0 530439 6102875 662 6.6 0.40 3.6 533 0.0030 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0002
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Process Glycol Boiler 1 0 0 530273 6102801 663 8.0 0.70 14.0 483 0.0200 0.0000 0.0940 0.0020 0.0011
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Process Glycol Boiler 1 0 0 530277 6102801 663 8.0 0.70 14.0 483 0.0200 0.0000 0.0940 0.0020 0.0011
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Air Preheater 1 0 0 530240 6102835 664 6.1 0.20 1.4 873 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(Existing)
(Existing)
Page 3A-78
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy SRU Incinerator 1 0 0 530268 6102801 664 29.0 0.70 12.1 811 0.0060 2.0370 0.0050 0.0000 0.0003
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy 5.9850 2.2740 10.3120 0.3990 0.2398
(Existing)
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Cogen 1 0 1 1 529636 6102406 671 26.0 3.40 21.1 448 0.9590 0.0980 1.1860 0.0570 0.0060
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Cogen 2 0 1 1 529609 6102368 671 26.0 3.40 21.1 448 0.9590 0.0980 1.1860 0.0570 0.0060
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Steam Generator (B-0201) 0 1 1 529736 6102529 671 27.0 1.40 15.6 447 0.1860 0.0810 0.5800 0.0150 0.0102
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Glycol Heater (H-0501) 0 1 1 529716 6102588 673 8.2 0.80 12.0 533 0.0360 0.0000 0.0250 0.0030 0.0020
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Glycol Heater (H-0501B) 0 1 1 529764 6102798 674 8.2 0.90 4.1 580 0.0190 0.0000 0.0350 0.0020 0.0010
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Glycol Heater (H-0501C) 0 1 1 529753 6102840 674 8.2 0.90 4.1 580 0.0190 0.0000 0.0350 0.0020 0.0010
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Fuel Gas Heater (H-0502) 0 1 1 529797 6102590 671 8.0 0.60 2.0 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0002
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Fuel Gas Heater (H-0514) 0 1 1 529792 6102594 671 9.1 0.60 2.4 533 0.0350 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0019
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Hot Oil Heater (H-0503) 0 1 1 529662 6102630 674 8.0 0.60 4.6 533 0.0090 0.0000 0.0060 0.0010 0.0005
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Glycol Heater (Pilot) 0 1 1 529360 6102940 673 5.3 0.22 2.4 672 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Well Pad Heater 0 1 1 530439 6102875 662 6.6 0.40 3.6 533 0.0030 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0002
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Process Glycol Boiler 0 1 1 530273 6102801 663 14.0 0.80 12.1 499 0.0210 0.0000 0.1020 0.0030 0.0012
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Process Glycol Boiler 0 1 1 530277 6102801 663 14.0 0.80 12.1 499 0.0210 0.0000 0.1020 0.0030 0.0012
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) Air Preheater 0 1 1 530240 6102835 664 6.3 0.30 0.8 873 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) SRU Incinerator 0 1 1 530268 6102801 664 29.0 0.90 7.6 811 0.0090 0.9380 0.0080 0.0010 0.0005
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH (Approved) Steam Generator (FC3-B-0201) 0 1 1 529317 6103310 671 30.0 1.70 21.0 488 0.3250 0.0420 1.0140 0.0260 0.0179
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH (Approved) Glycol Heater (FC3-H-0501A) 0 1 1 529196 6103027 670 9.2 0.90 9.9 559 0.0280 0.0000 0.1330 0.0030 0.0015
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH (Approved) Glycol Heater (FC3-H-0501B) 0 1 1 529196 6103017 670 9.2 0.90 9.9 559 0.0280 0.0000 0.1330 0.0030 0.0015
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH (Approved) Glycol Heater (FC3-H-0501C) 0 1 1 529196 6103007 670 9.2 0.90 9.9 559 0.0280 0.0000 0.1330 0.0030 0.0015
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH (Approved) Flash Treater (FC3-V-0304A) 0 1 1 529324 6103225 672 6.7 0.60 9.7 970 0.0080 0.0000 0.0410 0.0010 0.0004
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH (Approved) Flash Treater (FC3-V-0304B) 0 1 1 529284 6103224 672 6.7 0.60 9.7 970 0.0080 0.0000 0.0410 0.0010 0.0004
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1A-1E (Approved) 6.2840 1.5390 15.7390 0.4640 0.2521
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH (Approved) 4.0000 0.5040 12.6490 0.3230 0.2200
Cenovus Energy Inc. Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project Steam Generator (B-01-2100) 0 0 1 350914 6223950 632 32.0 1.68 26.0 488 0.3240 0.0620 1.0140 0.0260 0.0190
Page 3A-79
Cogen (KGT-01-2900 + B-01-
Cenovus Energy Inc. Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project 0 0 1 351055 6223663 632 32.0 2.09 22.2 399 0.3160 0.0140 0.3860 0.0180 0.0080
2900)
Cogen (KGT-01-2950 + B-01-
2950)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Cogen (KGT-02-2900 + B-02-
2900)
Cogen (KGT-02-2950 + B-02-
2950)
Cenovus Energy Inc. Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project Glycol Heater (H-01-7100) 0 0 1 350551 6223920 633 9.2 0.91 11.6 473 0.0260 0.0000 0.1260 0.0030 0.0020
Slop Oil Treater Reheater (H-01-
5070A/B)
Slop Oil Treater Reheater (H-02-
5070A/B)
Process Glycol Heater (H-01-
8540)
Well Pad Fuel Gas Heater (H-
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
Page 3A-80
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
Page 3A-81
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
Page 3A-82
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
Page 3A-83
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
Page 3A-84
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
Page 3A-85
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
9300)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
9300)
Cenovus Energy Inc. Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project 11.9630 2.0400 35.3020 0.9360 0.6640
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Steam Boiler 1 1 0 455618 6218994 748 30.0 1.47 12.4 413 0.2520 0.9900 0.7890 0.0200 0.0139
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Utility Boiler 1 1 0 445669 6218822 667 8.5 0.51 4.8 425 0.0090 0.0000 0.0400 0.0010 0.0005
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Glycol Heater 1 1 0 455674 6218822 750 8.2 0.61 3.4 368 0.0100 0.0000 0.0460 0.0010 0.0006
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Cogeneration Unit 1 1 0 455564 6219003 748 15.2 1.83 8.9 807 0.1730 0.0000 0.2110 0.0110 0.0011
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Crystallizer 1 1 0 455787 6218952 747 13.7 0.46 0.1 422 0.0030 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0002
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar 0.6990 1.9800 1.8780 0.0530 0.0300
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) Steam Boiler 1 1 0 448529 6219128 706 30.5 1.83 14.3 561 0.2280 0.9900 0.1910 0.0170 0.0125
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) Utility Boiler 1 1 0 448609 6219097 708 10.1 0.51 8.9 495 0.0110 0.0000 0.0090 0.0010 0.0006
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) Glycol Heater 1 1 0 448638 6219007 710 8.5 0.61 5.2 438 0.0100 0.0000 0.0080 0.0010 0.0006
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) Recycle Treater 1 1 0 448579 6219017 709 12.2 0.25 4.0 588 0.0050 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0003
Great Divide Project (Pod one source
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited 0.4820 1.9800 0.4030 0.0360 0.0265
Existing)
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Utility Boiler 0 0 1 445669 6218822 667 8.5 0.51 4.8 425 0.0090 0.0000 0.0400 0.0010 0.0005
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Glycol Heater 0 0 1 455674 6218822 750 8.2 0.61 3.4 368 0.0100 0.0000 0.0460 0.0010 0.0006
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar Cogeneration Unit 0 0 1 455573 6219011 748 20.0 1.83 8.9 473 0.1560 0.0000 0.1900 0.0030 0.0010
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar 0.6790 0.4260 1.8540 0.0450 0.0297
Page 3A-86
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) Utility Boiler 0 0 1 448609 6219097 708 10.1 0.51 8.9 495 0.0110 0.0000 0.0090 0.0010 0.0006
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) Glycol Heater 0 0 1 448638 6219007 710 8.5 0.61 5.2 438 0.0100 0.0000 0.0080 0.0010 0.0006
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) Recycle Treater 0 0 1 448579 6219017 709 12.2 0.25 4.0 588 0.0050 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0003
Great Divide Project (Pod one source
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited 0.4820 1.9800 0.4030 0.0360 0.0265
Planned)
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Algar expansion Project Steam Boiler 0 0 1 455590 6218965 749 30.0 1.83 12.0 423 0.3710 0.3130 1.1590 0.0290 0.0204
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Algar expansion Project Utility Boiler 0 0 1 455684 6218793 750 8.5 0.76 4.3 425 0.0170 0.0000 0.0790 0.0020 0.0009
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Algar expansion Project Glycol Heater 0 0 1 455689 6218793 750 8.2 0.91 3.1 368 0.0190 0.0000 0.0930 0.0020 0.0010
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Algar expansion Project Cogeneration Unit 0 0 1 455560 6219035 747 20.0 2.13 8.9 473 0.2690 0.0000 0.3280 0.0060 0.0017
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Algar expansion Project 2.1600 1.5650 6.2950 0.1550 0.1057
ConocoPhillips Canada Resources
Surmont Phase 1 Continuous Flare FS-701 1 1 1 503418 6227513 633 48.8 0.76 20.0 1273 0.0242 0.0449 0.0011 0.0016 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 1 Glycol Trim Heater H-601 1 1 1 503440 6227633 631 15.0 0.90 7.8 652 0.0162 0.0432 0.0195 0.0017 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 1 Slop Treater X-240 1 1 1 503448 6227575 632 10.2 0.39 3.7 811 0.0024 0.0000 0.0031 0.0003 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 1 Steam Generator 1 1 1 1 503363 6227513 633 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
ConocoPhillips Canada
Surmont Phase 1 0.7236 1.4083 1.0986 0.1003 0.0000
Resources Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Continuous Flare 2FS-701 0 1 1 504488 6227645 612 48.8 0.76 20.0 1273 0.0242 0.0449 0.0011 0.0016 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Glycol Trim Heater 2H-601A 0 1 1 504058 6227733 611 15.0 0.90 7.8 652 0.0162 0.0432 0.0195 0.0017 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Glycol Trim Heater 2H-601B 0 1 1 504058 6227741 611 15.0 0.90 7.8 652 0.0162 0.0432 0.0195 0.0017 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Glycol Trim Heater 2H-601C 0 1 1 504058 6227749 611 15.0 0.90 7.8 652 0.0162 0.0432 0.0195 0.0017 0.0000
Corp.
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Surmont Phase 2 Slop Treater 2X-240 0 1 1 504144 6227407 618 10.2 0.39 3.7 811 0.0024 0.0000 0.0031 0.0003 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531A 0 1 1 504118 6227777 608 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531B 0 1 1 504200 6227777 607 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531C 0 1 1 504118 6227792 608 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531D 0 1 1 504200 6227792 607 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531E 0 1 1 504118 6227807 607 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531F 0 1 1 504200 6227807 606 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531G 0 1 1 504118 6227822 607 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531H 0 1 1 504200 6227822 606 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531I 0 1 1 504118 6227837 607 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531J 0 1 1 504200 6227837 606 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531K 0 1 1 504118 6227852 607 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531L 0 1 1 504200 6227852 606 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Page 3A-87
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531M 0 1 1 504118 6227867 607 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Steam Generator 531N 0 1 1 504200 6227867 606 27.0 1.68 20.1 469 0.1702 0.3300 0.2687 0.0242 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 Sulphur Plant Incinerator 0 1 1 504344 6227647 614 30.5 0.92 0.9 923 0.0002 0.2618 0.1175 0.0000 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Phase 2 2.4584 5.0570 3.9422 0.3457 0.0000
Resources Corp.
Surmont Pilot Boiler B-101 1 1 1 501840 6230040 583 13.3 0.91 8.3 423 0.0456 0.0000 0.0388 0.0009 0.0025
Corp.
Surmont Pilot Boiler B-121 1 1 1 501840 6230040 583 13.3 0.91 8.3 423 0.0171 0.0000 0.0145 0.0003 0.0009
Corp.
Surmont Pilot Flare 1 1 1 501840 6230040 583 12.2 1.20 2.1 1273 0.0003 0.0008 0.0016 0.0005 0.0002
Corp.
Surmont Pilot H-401 1 1 1 501840 6230040 583 13.3 0.91 83.0 423 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Pilot H-501 1 1 1 501840 6230040 583 13.3 0.91 83.0 423 0.0012 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 0.0001
Corp.
Surmont Pilot H-502 1 1 1 501840 6230040 583 13.3 0.91 83.0 423 0.0009 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Pilot H-53 1 1 1 501840 6230040 583 13.3 0.91 83.0 423 0.0009 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
Corp.
Surmont Pilot 0.0661 0.0008 0.0575 0.0018 0.0038
Resources Corp.
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 1 Steam Generator 1 1 1 1 507855 6153524 620 28.9 1.83 15.5 443 0.3528 0.3333 0.2227 0.0202 0.0146
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 1 Glycol Trim Heater 1 1 1 1 508036 6153691 617 6.7 0.71 27.7 399 0.0192 0.0000 0.0239 0.0022 0.0016
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 1 Flash Treater 1 1 1 508008 6153514 620 6.0 0.15 23.2 443 0.0065 0.0000 0.0022 0.0002 0.0001
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 1 Continuous Flare 1 1 1 508148 6153476 619 40.3 12.38 0.0 2777 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0004
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 1 2.1684 1.9998 1.3887 0.1257 0.0913
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 2 Flash Treater1 0 1 1 500199 6153286 673 6.0 0.15 23.2 443 0.0065 0.0000 0.0022 0.0002 0.0001
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 2 Flash Treater2 0 1 1 500200 6153285 673 6.0 0.15 23.2 443 0.0065 0.0000 0.0022 0.0002 0.0001
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant High Pressure Steam Generator 1 0 0 1 400962 6347726 569 38.1 2.40 16.5 443 0.4800 0.2500 1.4900 0.0006 0.0276
Page 3A-88
High Pressure Steam Generator
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant 0 0 1 401143 6347638 571 38.1 2.40 16.5 443 0.4800 0.2500 1.4900 0.0006 0.0276
10
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant Cogenerator (HRSG + Turbine) 0 0 1 401184 6347703 572 38.1 5.80 24.5 399 2.8900 0.4400 6.4300 0.0033 0.1263
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant Glycol Heater 1 0 0 1 400920 6347868 570 12.5 0.90 11.5 473 0.0200 0.0000 0.1200 0.0001 0.0022
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant Glycol Heater 2 0 0 1 400925 6347868 570 12.5 0.90 11.5 473 0.0200 0.0000 0.1200 0.0001 0.0022
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant High Pressure Flare Stack 0 0 1 400868 6347951 570 42.7 0.60 0.0 1273 0.0003 0.0000 0.0012 0.0000 0.0005
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant Low Pressure Flare Stack 0 0 1 400868 6347951 570 42.7 0.40 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0002
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant Vent Gas Incinerator 0 0 1 400679 6347934 569 24.4 0.50 9.1 811 0.0140 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant Process Glycol Heater 0 0 1 400758 6347916 570 14.0 0.50 9.0 483 0.0064 0.0000 0.0310 0.0000 0.0005
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant 7.7508 2.9400 21.6027 0.0093 0.4086
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant High Pressure Steam Generator 1 0 0 1 406004 6332422 517 38.1 2.40 18.1 443 0.5200 0.1100 1.6400 0.0006 0.0304
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant 0 0 1 406008 6332573 519 38.1 2.40 18.1 443 0.5200 0.1100 1.6400 0.0006 0.0304
10
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant Cogenerator (HRSG + Turbine) 0 0 1 406075 6332613 518 38.1 5.80 24.5 399 2.8900 0.1800 6.4300 0.0030 0.1263
11
12
13
14
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
15
16
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant Glycol Heater 1 0 0 1 406228 6332373 515 12.5 0.90 11.5 473 0.0200 0.0000 0.1200 0.0001 0.0022
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant Glycol Heater 2 0 0 1 406228 6332378 515 12.5 0.90 11.5 473 0.0200 0.0000 0.1200 0.0001 0.0022
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant High Pressure Flare Stack 0 0 1 406308 6332317 515 42.7 0.60 0.0 1273 0.0003 0.0000 0.0012 0.0000 0.0005
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant Low Pressure Flare Stack 0 0 1 406308 6332317 515 42.7 0.40 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0002
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant Vent Gas Incinerator 0 0 1 406211 6332011 515 24.4 0.60 9.9 811 0.0099 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant Process Glycol Heater 0 0 1 406196 6332090 516 14.0 0.50 8.9 483 0.0064 0.0000 0.0310 0.0000 0.0005
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant 11.2667 1.9400 32.9427 0.0133 0.6193
EnerMark Inc. Enerplus Resources
Kirby Oil Sands Project Phase I Steam generator 0 0 1 484860 6148483 671 27.0 1.60 20.0 423 0.3352 0.0397 0.2566 0.0233 0.0151
Fund
Kirby Oil Sands Project Phase I Steam generator 0 0 1 484871 6148495 671 27.0 1.60 20.0 423 0.3352 0.0397 0.2566 0.0233 0.0151
Fund
Kirby Oil Sands Project Phase I Glycol Heater 0 0 1 484905 6148498 672 8.0 0.90 8.0 523 0.0138 0.0000 0.0181 0.0017 0.0012
Fund
EnerMark Inc. Enerplus
Kirby Oil Sands Project Phase I 0.6843 0.0795 0.5314 0.0484 0.0315
Resources Fund
ET-Energy Poplar Creek Project Medium pre heater 0 1 1 471612 6299985 342 5.1 0.46 4.9 700 0.0075 0.0196 0.0063 0.0001 0.0004
ET-Energy Poplar Creek Project Medium Main Heater 0 1 1 471624 6299994 342 6.1 0.41 15.4 530 0.0144 0.0000 0.0121 0.0003 0.0008
ET-Energy Poplar Creek Project 0.0219 0.0196 0.0184 0.0003 0.0012
Excelsior Energy Limited Hangingstone In situ Combustion Project Vent 0 1 1 482882 6254293 503 42.0 0.31 74.0 623 0.0000 1.0260 2.4200 0.0000 0.0000
Excelsior Energy Limited Hangingstone In situ Combustion Project Incinerator 0 1 1 482901 6254297 503 36.0 1.52 4.7 811 0.0052 0.2565 0.0283 0.0005 0.0003
Page 3A-89
Excelsior Energy Limited Hangingstone In situ Combustion Project Hp Flare 0 1 1 483067 6255039 494 18.0 4.31 0.0 2273 0.0004 0.0063 0.0025 0.0001 0.0009
Excelsior Energy Limited Hangingstone In situ Combustion Project Lp Flare 0 1 1 483022 6254943 496 12.0 5.71 0.0 2273 0.0006 0.0000 0.0033 0.0002 0.0012
Excelsior Energy Limited Hangingstone In situ Combustion Project OTSG 0 1 1 482957 6255015 495 10.7 0.40 8.5 473 0.0048 0.0001 0.0234 0.0025 0.0018
Excelsior Energy Limited Hangingstone In situ Combustion Project OTSG 0 1 1 482960 6255015 495 10.7 0.76 9.5 473 0.0200 0.0001 0.0962 0.0006 0.0004
Hangingstone In situ Combustion
Excelsior Energy Limited 0.0466 2.0586 2.6587 0.0052 0.0057
Project
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC Algar Lake SAGD Project Boiler (Plant 1) 0 1 1 450756 6246276 531 28.0 1.80 18.4 444 0.1300 0.9500 0.3400 0.0120 0.0072
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC Algar Lake SAGD Project Boiler (Plant 2) 0 1 1 450788 6246189 530 28.0 1.80 18.4 444 0.1300 0.9500 0.3400 0.0120 0.0072
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC Algar Lake SAGD Project Power Turbine (Plant 1) 0 1 1 450769 6246242 531 18.0 1.00 11.0 453 0.0800 0.0000 0.0300 0.0120 0.0005
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC Algar Lake SAGD Project Power Turbine (Plant 2) 0 1 1 450801 6246156 529 18.0 1.00 11.0 453 0.0800 0.0000 0.0300 0.0120 0.0005
Grizzly Oil Sands ULC Algar Lake SAGD Project 0.4200 1.9000 0.7400 0.0480 0.0153
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Phase 1 Steam Generator 0 1 1 500996 6159358 612 30.0 1.50 27.0 483 0.3000 0.2100 0.2200 0.0300 0.0200
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Phase 1 Steam Generator 0 1 1 501006 6159358 612 30.0 1.50 27.0 483 0.3000 0.2100 0.2200 0.0300 0.0200
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Phase 1 Glycol Heater 0 1 1 501056 6159357 611 15.0 0.40 27.0 466 0.0200 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold expansion Steam Generator 0 0 1 500830 6159314 613 30.0 1.50 27.0 483 0.3000 0.2100 0.2200 0.0300 0.0200
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold expansion Steam Generator 0 0 1 500830 6159314 613 30.0 1.50 27.0 483 0.3000 0.2100 0.2200 0.0300 0.0200
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold expansion Glycol Heater 0 0 1 500830 6159314 613 15.0 0.40 27.0 466 0.0200 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold expansion HP Flare 0 0 1 500830 6159314 613 36.0 0.40 27.0 813 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold expansion LP Flare 0 0 1 500830 6159314 613 36.0 0.40 27.0 813 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Phase 1 0.6200 0.4200 0.4500 0.0600 0.0400
BlackGold expansion (approved
Harvest Energy Trust 1.2400 0.8400 0.9000 0.1200 0.0800
&expansion project planned )
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise Phase 1 Glycol Heater 1 0 1 1 496234 6344291 484 14.8 1.16 7.1 473 0.0600 0.0003 0.1091 0.0046 0.0033
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise Phase 1 HP Flare 0 1 1 495932 6344467 484 40.0 0.25 1.0 1273 0.0044 0.0000 0.0037 0.0003 0.0238
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise Phase 1 LP Flare 0 1 1 495938 6344467 484 40.0 0.31 1.0 1273 0.0044 0.0000 0.0037 0.0003 0.0238
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise Phase 1 Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 1 1 496251 6344268 484 27.0 1.65 24.0 458 0.2880 0.0536 0.8951 0.0156 0.0113
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise Phase 1 1.8569 0.3220 5.5962 0.1036 0.1221
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Page 3A-90
Caribou Lake Thermal Demonstration
Husky Energy Inc. Steam Generator 1 0 1 1 525137 6090343 692 30.0 1.67 25.5 423 0.3292 0.1953 0.3603 0.0239 0.0181
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Steam Generator 2 0 1 1 525151 6090343 692 30.0 1.67 25.5 423 0.3292 0.1953 0.3603 0.0239 0.0181
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Glycol heater 0 1 1 525105 6090330 692 12.0 0.46 20.5 523 0.0145 0.0000 0.0300 0.0016 0.0008
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Emergency Generator 0 1 1 525138 6090292 693 6.0 0.20 100.0 718 0.1538 0.0000 0.0840 0.0003 0.0085
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Flare 0 1 1 524930 6090335 689 30.8 2.38 0.1 1273 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Project
Husky Energy Inc. 0.8272 0.3905 0.8345 0.0498 0.0455
Project
McMullen Thermal Conduction Pilot Reciprocating Air Compressor
Husky Energy Inc. 0 1 1 325909 6187128 584 6.4 0.20 36.4 721 0.0182 0.0000 0.0135 0.0003 0.0009
Project Engine1
Husky Energy Inc. 0 1 1 325896 6187130 584 6.4 0.20 36.4 721 0.0182 0.0000 0.0135 0.0003 0.0009
Project Engine2
Husky Energy Inc. 0 1 1 325921 6187097 584 6.4 0.20 36.4 721 0.0182 0.0000 0.0135 0.0003 0.0009
Project Engine3
McMullen Thermal Conduction Pilot
Husky Energy Inc. Screw Air Compressor Engine 4 0 1 1 325906 6187099 584 10.7 0.40 34.7 741 0.0643 0.0000 0.0595 0.0011 0.0032
Project
Project
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Gas Electrical Generator 0 1 1 325873 6187126 585 4.2 0.08 72.4 697 0.0115 0.0000 0.0471 0.0001 0.0002
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Production Tank Heater A 0 1 1 325634 6187120 583 10.7 0.15 10.9 634 0.0007 0.0000 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Sales Oil Tank Heater B 0 1 1 325634 6187122 583 10.7 0.15 10.9 634 0.0007 0.0000 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Pump Driver Engine 0 1 1 325618 6187107 583 3.2 0.10 34.7 696 0.0194 0.0102 0.0326 0.0001 0.0002
Project
Husky Energy Inc. 0.2798 0.0102 0.2999 0.0048 0.0128
Project
Husky Energy Inc. Tucker Phase 1 Steam Generator 1 1 1 1 528572 6046671 614 26.0 1.60 21.0 421 0.2350 0.1940 0.0842 0.0230 0.0200
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Husky Energy Inc. Tucker Phase 1 1.4100 1.1640 0.5055 0.1380 0.1200
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Makheses Plant Makheses – Glycol Heaters 1 1 1 539202 6048676 654 16.0 0.76 7.5 552 0.0249 0.0000 0.0560 0.0030 0.0020
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Makheses Plant Makheses – Steam Generator 1 1 1 539191 6048695 654 24.0 1.52 15.3 479 0.2530 0.8200 0.2000 0.0500 0.0110
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Makheses Plant Makheses – Congeneration Unit 2 1 1 1 539280 6048721 654 24.0 5.18 20.3 417 1.8694 0.6400 0.6000 0.1100 0.0650
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Makheses Plant Makheses – Congeneration Unit 1 1 1 1 539241 6048749 653 24.0 5.18 20.3 417 1.8694 0.6400 0.6000 0.1100 0.0650
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Makheses Plant 4.0168 2.1000 1.4560 0.2730 0.1430
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Leming Plant Leming – Steam Generator 1 1 1 1 536881 6050441 623 27.0 1.37 14.3 443 0.2318 1.1200 0.1814 0.0160 0.0120
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Leming Plant 1.2675 3.2000 0.9936 0.0890 0.0660
Maskwa (Plant 1) – Utility Steam
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Maskwa Plant 1 1 1 534091 6051929 607 18.5 1.30 11.0 503 0.0926 0.0000 0.0717 0.0065 0.0090
Generator
Maskwa (Plant 1) – Utility Steam
Page 3A-91
Generator
Maskwa (Plant 1) – Steam
Generator 1
Generator 2
Generator 3
Generator 4
Generator 5
Generator 6
Generator 1
Generator 2
Generator 3
Generator 4
Generator 5
Generator 6
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Maskwa Plant 3.0118 4.6500 2.3414 0.2170 0.1620
Mahihkan (Plant 4) – Steam
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Mahihkan Plant 1 1 1 528948 6053996 617 27.0 1.52 12.9 433 0.2243 0.5300 0.1788 0.0160 0.0120
Generator 7
Generator 8
Generator 9
Generator 10
Generator 11
Generator 12
Generator 1
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Generator 2
Generator 3
Generator 4
Generator 5
Generator 6
Mahihkan (Plant 2) – Utility Steam
Generator
Mahihkan (Plant 2) – Utility Steam
Generator
Generator 6
Generator 5
Generator 4
Generator 3
Generator 2
Generator 1
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Mahihkan Plant 4.2830 4.8000 3.3886 0.3070 0.2255
Page 3A-92
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye Plant Nabiye – Glycol Heater 0 1 1 542315 6064541 628 16.0 0.76 7.5 552 0.0120 0.0000 0.0101 0.0015 0.0007
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye Plant Nabiye – Glycol Heater 0 1 1 542315 6064541 628 16.0 0.76 7.5 552 0.0120 0.0000 0.0101 0.0015 0.0007
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye Plant Nabiye – Steam Generator 0 1 1 542301 6064531 628 24.0 1.52 15.3 479 0.2100 0.3760 0.1764 0.0166 0.0116
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye Plant Nabiye – GT/HRSG 0 1 1 542238 6064569 628 24.0 5.18 20.3 417 1.5600 0.1880 1.3104 0.0811 0.0858
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye Plant Nabiye – GT/HRSG 0 1 1 542257 6064613 628 24.0 5.18 20.3 417 1.5600 0.1880 1.3104 0.0811 0.0858
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye Plant 3.3540 0.7520 2.8174 0.1818 0.1845
Tamarack Integrated Oil Sands Project
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Steam Generator 1 0 0 1 481818 6298136 415 30.0 1.66 17.3 469 0.2500 0.1600 0.2200 0.0100 0.0138
Phase 1 (SAGD)
Phase 1 (SAGD)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Glycol Heater 0 0 1 481814 6298021 415 8.2 0.58 3.4 700 0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0006
Phase 1 (SAGD)
Phase 1 (SAGD)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Cogen 1 0 0 1 481862 6298152 414 18.0 0.25 18.0 806 0.3000 0.0000 0.3400 0.0300 0.0019
Phase 1 (SAGD)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Cogen 2 0 0 1 481876 6298153 414 18.0 0.25 18.0 806 0.3000 0.0000 0.3400 0.0300 0.0019
Phase 1 (SAGD)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. FGD 0 0 1 481756 6298236 415 50.0 8.00 2.8 353 6.0400 6.4600 1.4800 0.1400 0.3322
Phase 1 (HTL)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. DRU Heater 0 0 1 481579 6298220 410 15.0 1.40 4.0 523 0.0300 0.0600 0.0300 0.0000 0.0017
Phase 1 (HTL)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Pre-Frac Heater 0 0 1 481564 6298149 409 15.0 1.90 4.1 523 0.0700 0.1200 0.0600 0.0100 0.0039
Phase 1 (HTL)
Phase2 (SAGD)
Phase2 (SAGD)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Glycol Heater 0 0 1 481987 6298001 415 8.2 0.58 3.4 700 0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0006
Phase2 (SAGD)
Phase2 (SAGD)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. FGD 0 0 1 481987 6298262 414 50.0 8.00 2.8 353 6.0400 6.4600 1.4800 0.1400 0.3322
Phase2 (HTL)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. DRU Heater 0 0 1 482164 6298288 415 15.0 1.40 4.0 523 0.0300 0.0600 0.0300 0.0000 0.0017
Phase2 (HTL)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Pre-Frac Heater 0 0 1 482195 6298224 415 15.0 1.90 4.1 523 0.0700 0.1200 0.0600 0.0100 0.0039
Phase2 (HTL)
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. 14.4000 14.2400 5.1600 0.4200 0.7628
Phase 1 & Phase2)
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Commercial OTSG1 0 0 1 461357 6237163 619 30.0 1.66 26.1 478 0.3030 1.0000 1.3000 0.0257 0.0186
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Commercial Heat Medium Heater #1 0 0 1 461597 6237108 623 6.0 0.60 15.1 473 0.0184 0.0000 0.0255 0.0023 0.0017
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Commercial Heat Medium Heater #2 0 0 1 461597 6237118 623 6.0 0.60 15.1 473 0.0184 0.0000 0.0255 0.0023 0.0017
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Commercial HP Flare 0 0 1 461122 6237053 617 44.9 15.15 0.0 2780 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0043
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Commercial LP Flare 0 0 1 461122 6237053 617 45.6 5.18 0.0 2780 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Commercial 2.1587 2.0000 9.1011 0.1816 0.1359
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project Steam Generator B-201A 1 1 1 460387 6241760 563 12.0 0.91 21.6 533 0.0689 0.0000 0.0579 0.0052 0.0043
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project Steam Generator B-201B 1 1 1 460382 6241756 563 12.0 0.91 21.6 533 0.0689 0.0000 0.0579 0.0052 0.0043
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project Glycol Heater H-701 1 1 1 460343 6241775 563 9.0 0.46 20.5 563 0.0119 0.0000 0.0100 0.0009 0.0007
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project Line Heater H-702 1 1 1 460404 6241716 564 12.0 0.46 7.7 563 0.0044 0.0000 0.0037 0.0003 0.0003
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project Steam Generator B-510 1 1 1 460798 6241554 568 30.0 1.37 23.6 479 0.1824 0.6546 0.1958 0.0177 0.0146
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project Glycol Heater H-755 1 1 1 460765 6241527 568 9.0 0.41 35.0 563 0.0159 0.0000 0.0122 0.0011 0.0009
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project LP Flare FS-702 Continuous 1 1 1 460357 6241841 563 20.4 4.33 0.1 2697 0.0021 0.0766 0.0114 0.0001 0.0073
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project HP Flare FS-701N Continuous 1 1 1 460371 6241850 563 26.3 5.33 0.0 2660 0.0013 0.0628 0.0069 0.0001 0.0045
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project LP Flare 804 Continuous 1 1 1 460786 6241399 568 18.4 6.89 0.0 2779 0.0004 0.0000 0.0023 0.0000 0.0015
Page 3A-93
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project HP Flare 801 Continuous 1 1 1 460786 6241400 568 18.5 8.67 0.0 2779 0.0009 0.0000 0.0051 0.0001 0.0033
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration Project 0.5773 1.6383 0.6187 0.0514 0.0627
Koch Exploration Canada, L.P.
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage1 Fuel Gas heater 0 0 1 543131 6004024 591 3.8 0.15 7.9 773 0.0000 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage1 Power generator 0 0 1 543127 6004055 590 6.2 0.25 71.2 996 0.1000 0.0294 0.0200 0.0000 0.0096
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage1 Steam Boiler 0 0 1 543162 6004048 590 18.9 1.77 7.2 483 0.0600 0.2246 0.1400 0.0100 0.0041
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage1 Flare 0 0 1 543101 6003978 592 13.4 5.03 0.0 2779 0.0004 0.0006 0.0024 0.0000 0.0009
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage1 0.1604 0.2558 0.1624 0.0100 0.0146
(KFC LP)
(KFC LP)
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage2 Glycol heater 0 0 1 542466 6004176 599 8.5 0.61 2.5 438 0.0060 0.0000 0.0285 0.0009 0.0005
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage2 Utility Boiler 0 0 1 542455 6004240 602 10.1 0.51 4.5 495 0.0069 0.0000 0.0320 0.0009 0.0006
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage2 Flare 0 0 1 542691 6004281 591 40.2 7.52 0.3 2780 0.0138 0.0000 0.0750 0.0000 0.0284
(KFC LP)
Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage2 0.5019 0.6569 1.6233 0.0397 0.0571
(KFC LP)
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 OTSG 1 (H5100) 0 0 1 351631 6246370 592 26.0 2.03 15.1 493 0.2970 0.1320 0.9270 0.0034 0.0278
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 OTSG 2(H5200) 0 0 1 351631 6246358 592 26.0 2.03 15.1 493 0.2970 0.1320 0.9270 0.0034 0.0278
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 Propane Vapourizer (H7470) 0 0 1 351650 6246645 592 10.0 0.41 10.6 513 0.0060 0.0000 0.0260 0.0001 0.0008
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 Diluent Injection Heater (H7140) 0 0 1 351643 6246452 592 10.0 0.53 13.4 513 0.0120 0.0000 0.0580 0.0002 0.0018
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 Glycol Heater (H9680) 0 0 1 351639 6246461 592 12.5 0.76 11.7 473 0.0230 0.0000 0.1110 0.0004 0.0034
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 LP Flare Pilot + Purge (FL9030) 0 0 1 352008 6246576 592 41.0 0.51 0.1 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0001
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 HP Flare Pilot + Purge (FL9060) 0 0 1 352008 6246576 592 41.0 0.51 0.1 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0001
Make-up Air units (3) + Building
Laricina Energy Limited Germain Expanson Project, phase 2 0 0 1 351631 6246370 592 26.0 2.03 15.1 493 0.0520 0.0000 0.2520 0.0009 0.0077
Heat
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Heat
Page 3A-94
Heat
Germain Expanson Project phases 2
Laricina Energy Limited 6.8330 3.9440 21.9870 0.0795 0.6573
to 4
Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain SAGD Pilot Project OTSG H-5100 0 1 1 351298 6246478 609 21.0 0.91 8.0 437 0.0280 0.1000 0.1330 0.0032 0.0023
Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain SAGD Pilot Project Propane Vapourizer H-7470 0 1 1 351334 6246645 609 10.0 0.20 9.1 408 0.0015 0.0000 0.0071 0.0002 0.0001
Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain SAGD Pilot Project Diluent Injector Heater H-7140 0 1 1 351334 6246641 609 10.0 0.25 9.8 473 0.0022 0.0000 0.0103 0.0003 0.0002
Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain SAGD Pilot Project Glycol Heater H-9680 0 1 1 351322 6246554 609 12.5 0.61 10.3 473 0.0125 0.0000 0.0600 0.0016 0.0011
Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain SAGD Pilot Project HP-Flare FL-9030 0 1 1 351591 6246469 611 32.0 0.51 0.0 1273 0.0002 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000
Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain SAGD Pilot Project 0.1003 0.3000 0.4772 0.0117 0.0084
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project OTSG Steam Generator 0 1 1 383346 6251533 588 12.2 1.37 5.3 463 0.0535 0.0003 0.0449 0.0041 0.0029
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project OTSG Steam Generator 0 1 1 383346 6251523 588 12.2 1.37 5.3 463 0.0535 0.0003 0.0449 0.0041 0.0029
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project Electricity Generator Package 0 1 1 383295 6251465 588 7.6 0.41 8.0 698 0.0036 0.0000 0.0031 0.0003 0.0127
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project Electricity Generator Package 0 1 1 383290 6251465 588 7.6 0.41 8.0 698 0.0036 0.0000 0.0031 0.0003 0.0127
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project HP Flare 0 1 1 383256 6251403 589 21.3 0.31 0.2 1198 0.0043 0.0000 0.0036 0.0003 0.0022
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project LP Flare 0 1 1 383261 6251413 589 15.2 0.20 0.2 1198 0.0043 0.0000 0.0036 0.0003 0.0010
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project 0.1229 0.0006 0.1032 0.0093 0.0346
Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 1
MEG Energy Corp. Steam Generator OTSG 1 1 1 517796 6168843 585 30.0 1.38 20.7 445 0.1990 0.0020 0.1770 0.0160 0.0120
(Pilot)
MEG Energy Corp. Glycol Heater 1 1 1 517828 6168816 585 7.5 0.51 4.5 434 0.0060 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
(Pilot)
MEG Energy Corp. LP Flare Continuous 1 1 1 517870 6168764 584 13.2 2.40 0.2 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0010
(Pilot)
MEG Energy Corp. HP Flare Continuous 1 1 1 517850 6168732 584 31.5 2.88 0.1 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0010
(Pilot)
Christina Lake Regional Project Phase
MEG Energy Corp. 0.2070 0.0020 0.1920 0.0160 0.0140
1 (Pilot) existing
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2 Steam Generator OTSG 1 1 1 517772 6168836 585 30.0 1.68 19.7 445 0.2830 0.0020 0.2510 0.0230 0.0160
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2 Cogeneration Unit 1 1 1 517704 6168835 585 24.0 5.18 21.4 437 2.4470 0.0120 1.4260 0.1190 0.0530
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2 Glycol Heater 1 1 1 517818 6168886 585 5.0 1.02 5.8 434 0.0210 0.0000 0.0280 0.0030 0.0020
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2 Slop Treater 1 1 1 517867 6168901 585 9.0 0.61 5.3 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2 Slop Treater 1 1 1 517867 6168900 585 9.0 0.61 5.3 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2 HP Flare Continuous 1 1 1 517874 6169058 586 55.2 5.75 0.0 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0020
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
MEG Energy Corp. 2.7600 0.0140 1.7220 0.1450 0.0730
2
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2B Steam Generator 1 0 1 1 517373 6169140 581 30.0 1.96 17.0 444 0.3320 0.0030 0.2940 0.0270 0.0190
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2B Cogeneration Unit 0 1 1 517632 6168815 585 24.0 5.18 21.4 437 2.4470 0.0120 1.4260 0.1190 0.0530
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2B Glycol Heater 0 1 1 517639 6169235 581 15.0 1.52 9.5 618 0.0510 0.0010 0.0700 0.0060 0.0050
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2B Amine Preheater 0 1 1 517917 6168990 586 15.0 0.31 76.3 533 0.0190 0.0000 0.0250 0.0020 0.0020
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 2B Flare 0 1 1 517860 6169109 585 55.2 7.19 0.0 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0020
MEG Energy Corp. 3.5140 0.0220 2.4100 0.2080 0.1190
2B (approved)
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Steam Generator 1 0 0 1 525543 6162802 607 30.0 1.96 17.0 444 0.3320 0.0030 0.2940 0.0270 0.0190
Page 3A-95
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Glycol Heater 1 0 0 1 525800 6162663 609 15.0 1.52 10.2 618 0.0550 0.0010 0.0750 0.0070 0.0050
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Glycol Heater 2 0 0 1 525801 6162627 610 15.0 1.52 10.2 618 0.0550 0.0010 0.0750 0.0070 0.0050
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Slop Treater 1A 0 0 1 526028 6162662 605 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Slop Treater 1B 0 0 1 526028 6162661 605 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Slop Treater 2A 0 0 1 526097 6162662 605 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Slop Treater 2B 0 0 1 526097 6162661 605 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Amine Preheater 1 0 0 1 525844 6162684 609 15.0 0.31 29.8 533 0.0120 0.0000 0.0160 0.0010 0.0010
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Amine Preheater 2 0 0 1 525843 6162609 609 15.0 0.31 29.8 533 0.0120 0.0000 0.0160 0.0010 0.0010
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Flare 1 0 0 1 526002 6162859 601 55.2 7.19 0.0 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0080 0.0000 0.0020
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3A Flare 2 0 0 1 526002 6162432 609 55.2 7.19 0.0 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0080 0.0000 0.0020
MEG Energy Corp. 4.8000 0.0440 4.3340 0.3940 0.2820
3A (planned)
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Glycol Heater 1 0 0 1 506700 6174763 602 15.0 1.52 10.2 618 0.0550 0.0010 0.0750 0.0070 0.0050
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Glycol Heater 2 0 0 1 506701 6174727 602 15.0 1.52 10.2 618 0.0550 0.0010 0.0750 0.0070 0.0050
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Slop Treater 1A 0 0 1 506928 6174762 602 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Slop Treater 1B 0 0 1 506928 6174761 602 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Slop Treater 2A 0 0 1 506997 6174762 603 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Slop Treater 2B 0 0 1 506997 6174761 603 15.0 0.61 5.7 533 0.0040 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Amine Preheater 1 0 0 1 506745 6174783 602 15.0 0.31 29.8 533 0.0120 0.0000 0.0160 0.0010 0.0010
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Amine Preheater 2 0 0 1 506745 6174708 602 15.0 0.31 29.8 533 0.0120 0.0000 0.0160 0.0010 0.0010
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Flare 1 0 0 1 506902 6174959 604 55.2 7.19 0.0 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0080 0.0000 0.0020
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project Phase 3B Flare 2 0 0 1 506902 6174532 600 55.2 7.19 0.0 1273 0.0010 0.0000 0.0080 0.0000 0.0020
MEG Energy Corp. 4.8000 0.0440 4.3340 0.3940 0.2820
3B (Planned)
MEG Energy Corp. Christina Lake Regional Project SRU Incinerator 1 0 1 0 517929 6168916 585 45.7 0.61 6.9 873 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000
Christina Lake Regional Project
MEG Energy Corp. 0.0030 1.4960 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000
(approved only)
Christina Lake Regional Project
MEG Energy Corp. 0.0050 2.6690 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
(planned)
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 Cogeneration Unit 0 1 1 500465 6239611 517 30.0 5.18 18.2 433 2.4360 0.5900 1.8340 0.1270 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 Continuous Flare 0 1 1 501160 6239853 513 37.5 3.85 0.0 1273 0.0002 0.0000 0.0009 0.0000 0.0006
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 Glycol Trim Heater 0 1 1 500689 6239602 516 30.0 1.80 6.0 422 0.1170 0.0010 0.1040 0.0090 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 Line Heater 1 0 1 1 500941 6240033 514 7.4 0.51 1.4 477 0.0024 0.0000 0.0021 0.0001 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 Line Heater 2 0 1 1 504806 6246080 451 7.4 0.51 1.4 477 0.0024 0.0000 0.0021 0.0001 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 Steam Generator 1 0 1 1 500521 6239541 517 30.0 1.68 18.8 464 0.3180 0.0940 0.2820 0.0260 0.0000
Page 3A-96
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 6.0560 1.6250 5.0450 0.4222 0.0006
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 2 Cogeneration Unit 1 0 1 1 500993 6240485 511 30.0 5.18 18.2 433 2.4360 0.5900 1.8340 0.1270 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 2 Cogeneration Unit 2 0 1 1 501033 6240460 510 30.0 5.18 18.2 433 2.4360 0.5900 1.8340 0.1270 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 2 Continuous Flare 0 1 1 501688 6240726 501 47.2 3.73 10.4 1273 0.1078 3.7805 0.5874 0.0082 0.4021
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 2 Glycol Trim Heater 0 1 1 501217 6240475 507 30.0 1.80 6.0 422 0.1170 0.0010 0.1040 0.0090 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 2 Line Heater 0 1 1 501474 6240903 504 7.4 0.51 1.4 477 0.0024 0.0000 0.0021 0.0001 0.0000
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 2 7.3252 5.6195 6.3354 0.4533 0.4021
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project OTSG1 H-4X00 1 0 0 1 560251 6061042 602 30.0 1.80 17.1 453 0.1490 0.2441 0.7158 0.0268 0.0194
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project Turbine & HRSG Z-5000/5100 0 0 1 560174 6061112 602 40.0 4.20 15.7 523 0.2400 0.0000 1.3700 0.0403 0.0128
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project Glycol Heater H-9650 0 0 1 560311 6061011 602 12.5 1.15 9.1 673 0.0200 0.0000 0.0940 0.0027 0.0020
Standby Generator Package Z-
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project 0 0 1 560315 6061049 602 9.0 0.40 55.3 760 0.0710 0.0000 0.0220 0.0008 0.0025
8000
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project Startup Evaporator Boiler H-3380 0 0 1 560284 6060977 602 6.0 0.26 44.6 760 0.0040 0.0000 0.0200 0.0006 0.0004
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project Fire Pump - Nat Gas P-9880 0 0 1 560349 6061014 602 2.0 0.25 4.3 473 0.0095 0.0000 0.0030 0.0001 0.0003
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project HP Flare FL-9030 (Normal Purge) 0 0 1 560410 6061147 610 30.2 19.60 0.0 2780 0.0002 0.0000 0.0009 0.0000 0.0005
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project 1.3877 1.7090 6.5205 0.2323 0.1544
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility OTSG1 0 0 1 525699 5985008 658 23.9 1.51 5.5 478 0.0412 0.0362 0.0346 0.0031 0.0023
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility Glycol Boiler 0 0 1 525715 5984894 656 7.4 0.45 13.8 430 0.0156 0.0000 0.0131 0.0012 0.0009
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility Glycol Boiler 0 0 1 525713 5984891 656 7.4 0.45 13.8 430 0.0156 0.0000 0.0131 0.0012 0.0009
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility HP flare 0 0 1 525781 5984840 656 18.9 1.95 0.1 1273 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility LP Flare 0 0 1 525782 5984840 656 18.8 1.50 0.1 1273 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility 0.1555 0.1086 0.1301 0.0118 0.0085
Petrobank Energy And Resources
May river phase I Project Well Pad Incinerator (Well Pad 2) 0 0 1 483463 6170387 570 12.2 2.43 15.3 918 0.0000 0.0250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ltd.
Petrobank Energy And Resources
May river phase I Project Well Pad Incinerator (Well Pad 3) 0 0 1 483169 6169940 580 12.2 2.43 23.7 973 0.0000 0.0930 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ltd.
Petrobank Energy And Resources Flue Gas Desulphurization Unit
May river phase I Project 0 0 1 482254 6168317 631 51.8 3.05 13.0 339 0.1900 1.5840 0.1596 0.0011 0.0105
Ltd. (CPF)
Petrobank Energy And
May river phase I Project 0.1900 1.7020 0.1596 0.0011 0.0105
Resources Ltd.
Shell Canada Ltd. Orion Steam Generator 5 0 1 1 538730 6043450 556 27.4 1.68 21.0 471 0.2310 0.1800 0.0810 0.0190 0.0190
Shell Canada Ltd. Orion (existing) 0.4620 0.3600 0.1620 0.0380 0.0380
Shell Canada Ltd. Orion (approved and Planned) 1.1550 0.9000 0.4050 0.0950 0.0950
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-Mckay SAGD project Steam Boiler 0 1 1 424249 6304792 464 30.3 1.68 9.1 450 0.2462 0.2324 0.7690 0.0199 0.0143
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-Mckay SAGD project Steam Boiler 0 1 1 424249 6304778 464 30.3 1.68 9.1 450 0.2462 0.2324 0.7690 0.0199 0.0143
Page 3A-97
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-Mckay SAGD project Cogen Unit #1 0 1 1 424206 6304809 464 15.2 1.52 1.4 484 0.0112 0.0000 0.0544 0.0017 0.0011
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-Mckay SAGD project Cogen Unit #2 0 1 1 424212 6304809 464 15.2 1.52 1.4 484 0.0112 0.0000 0.0544 0.0017 0.0011
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-Mckay SAGD project Utility Boiler 0 1 1 424217 6304680 464 10.1 0.51 4.5 495 0.0069 0.0000 0.0320 0.0009 0.0006
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-Mckay SAGD project Glycol Heater 0 1 1 424244 6304664 464 8.5 0.61 2.5 438 0.0060 0.0000 0.0285 0.0009 0.0005
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-Mckay SAGD project 0.5279 0.4648 1.7073 0.0449 0.0318
Southern Pacific Resources Corp. STP McKay Thermal Project_Phase2 Steam Boiler 1 0 0 1 428819 6304902 477 34.0 2.03 15.2 423 0.3490 0.2290 1.0900 0.0290 0.0541
Southern Pacific Resources Corp. STP McKay Thermal Project_Phase2 Cogen Unit 1 0 0 1 428952 6304922 477 20.0 1.83 24.4 473 0.3560 0.0000 0.4380 0.0050 0.0040
Southern Pacific Resources Corp. STP McKay Thermal Project_Phase2 Utility Boiler 0 0 1 429026 6304614 477 10.1 0.76 4.0 495 0.0140 0.0000 0.0640 0.0010 0.0032
Southern Pacific Resources Corp. STP McKay Thermal Project_Phase2 Glycol Heater 0 0 1 429022 6304615 477 8.5 0.91 2.2 438 0.0120 0.0000 0.0560 0.0010 0.0028
Southern Pacific Resources
STP McKay Thermal Project_Phase2 2.8390 1.1450 6.8840 0.1620 0.2883
Corp.
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 1 Glycol Heater 0 1 1 484327 6203124 721 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 1 HP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 484464 6203024 720 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 1 LP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 484464 6203025 720 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 1 Slop Treater 0 1 1 484524 6203207 725 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 1 Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 1 1 484246 6203282 724 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 1 Sulphur Plant Process Heater 0 1 1 484396 6203236 726 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 1 2.6907 0.4769 1.6151 0.2031 0.1503
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 2 Glycol Heater 0 1 1 485127 6203124 723 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 2 HP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 485264 6203024 718 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 2 LP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 485264 6203025 718 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 2 Slop Treater 0 1 1 485324 6203207 723 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 2 Sulphur Plant Process Heater 0 1 1 485196 6203236 724 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner 2 1.3542 0.2385 0.8132 0.1028 0.0760
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion Glycol Heater 0 0 1 484077 6203674 726 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 484214 6203574 727 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 484214 6203575 727 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion Slop Treater 0 0 1 484274 6203757 728 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion 0.0098 0.0000 0.0066 0.0014 0.0010
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion West Glycol Heater 0 0 1 480309 6210317 709 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion West HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 480446 6210217 711 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion West LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 480446 6210218 711 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion West Slop Treater 0 0 1 480507 6210399 709 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion West Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 0 1 480326 6210475 704 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
Kai Kos Dehseh - Corner Expansion
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. 1.3462 0.2385 0.8085 0.1017 0.0752
West
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Hangingstone Glycol Heater 0 0 1 475521 6226095 731 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Hangingstone HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 475658 6225995 730 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Hangingstone LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 475658 6225996 730 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
Page 3A-98
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Hangingstone Slop Treater 0 0 1 475719 6226178 731 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Hangingstone Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 0 1 475538 6226253 733 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Hangingstone Sulphur Plant Process Heater 0 0 1 475590 6226207 732 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Hangingstone 1.3542 0.2385 0.8132 0.1028 0.0760
Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Glycol Heater 0 1 1 660 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
Demo/Commercial 471809 6185646
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. HP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 666 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. LP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 666 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Slop Treater 0 1 1 667 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 1 1 659 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Sulphur Plant Process Heater 0 1 1 661 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
Demo/Commercial
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer Expansion Glycol Heater 0 1 1 472609 6185646 668 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer Expansion HP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 472746 6185545 670 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer Expansion LP Flare Continuous 0 1 1 472746 6185546 670 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer Expansion Slop Treater 0 1 1 472807 6185728 666 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer Expansion 0.0098 0.0000 0.0066 0.0014 0.0010
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer North West Glycol Heater 0 0 1 467333 6189009 688 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer North West HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 467469 6188908 691 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer North West LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 467469 6188909 691 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer North West Slop Treater 0 0 1 467530 6189091 688 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer North West Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 0 1 467349 6189167 683 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer North West 1.3462 0.2385 0.8085 0.1017 0.0752
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer South Glycol Heater 0 0 1 465808 6171753 691 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer South HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 465944 6171652 689 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer South LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 465944 6171653 689 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer South Slop Treater 0 0 1 466005 6171835 686 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer South Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 0 1 465824 6171911 690 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Leismer South 1.3462 0.2385 0.8085 0.1017 0.0752
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 1 Glycol Heater 0 0 1 455932 6194339 686 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 1 HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 456033 6194475 686 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 1 LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 456032 6194475 686 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 1 Slop Treater 0 0 1 455850 6194536 687 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 1 Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 0 1 455774 6194258 687 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
Page 3A-99
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 1 Sulphur Plant Process Heater 0 0 1 455821 6194408 687 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 1 2.6907 0.4769 1.6151 0.2031 0.1503
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 2 Glycol Heater 0 0 1 455932 6195139 688 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 2 HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 456033 6195275 687 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 2 LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 456032 6195275 687 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 2 Slop Treater 0 0 1 455850 6195336 688 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury 2 0.0098 0.0000 0.0066 0.0014 0.0010
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury Expansion Glycol Heater 0 0 1 448871 6199322 702 16.0 0.76 5.1 616 0.0080 0.0000 0.0047 0.0011 0.0008
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury Expansion HP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 449007 6199222 699 32.4 3.78 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury Expansion LP Flare Continuous 0 0 1 449007 6199223 699 32.3 1.89 0.0 1273 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury Expansion Slop Treater 0 0 1 449068 6199405 701 10.0 0.32 11.0 532 0.0016 0.0000 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd. Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury Expansion Steam Generator OTSG 1 0 0 1 448888 6199480 703 27.0 1.68 16.7 444 0.3341 0.0596 0.2005 0.0251 0.0186
Kai Kos Dehseh - Thornbury
Expansion
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Cogeneration Unit 1 0 0 1 494816 6305173 465 30.5 6.10 24.8 478 2.9860 0.6169 2.1384 0.1780 0.0966
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Cogeneration Unit 2 0 0 1 495049 6305173 465 30.5 6.10 24.8 478 2.9860 0.6169 2.1384 0.1780 0.0966
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Glycol Heater 1 0 0 1 494675 6305264 467 8.1 0.85 21.6 478 0.0691 0.0259 0.0691 0.0063 0.0022
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Glycol Heater 2 0 0 1 494675 6305271 467 8.1 0.85 21.6 478 0.0691 0.0259 0.0691 0.0063 0.0022
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Glycol Trim Heater 0 0 1 494695 6305250 467 7.8 0.25 11.0 478 0.0031 0.0012 0.0031 0.0003 0.0001
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis HP Flare 0 0 1 495052 6304877 464 39.6 0.58 0.4 1273 0.0121 0.0000 0.0467 0.0000 0.0004
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis LP Flare 0 0 1 494747 6304774 462 24.4 0.39 0.4 1273 0.0055 0.0000 0.0207 0.0000 0.0002
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Steam Generator 1 0 0 1 495045 6304972 464 27.0 1.76 21.6 478 0.2938 0.1097 0.2955 0.0268 0.0095
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis 7.0122 1.6160 5.3720 0.4492 0.2269
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Cogeneration Unit (operated by
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 1 1 1 1 445067 6322175 421 26.2 6.31 20.0 452 3.6000 0.1900 3.7200 0.1565 0.0438
TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.)
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 1 Glycol Trim Heater 1 1 1 444942 6322074 423 9.2 0.30 2.1 589 0.0015 0.0000 0.0035 0.0000 0.0001
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 1 Main Glycol Heater 1 1 1 444925 6322092 423 8.5 0.81 1.0 589 0.0415 0.0000 0.0346 0.0008 0.0022
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 1 Steam Generator 1 1 1 1 445136 6322011 418 27.0 1.34 27.5 553 0.2272 0.0983 0.2575 0.0058 0.0167
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 1 4.5519 0.5833 4.7881 0.1804 0.1128
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 2 Cogeneration Unit 1 0 1 1 445083 6322944 419 27.0 5.49 32.5 460 1.9848 0.1900 0.6200 0.0900 0.0500
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 2 Cogeneration Unit 2 0 1 1 445083 6322890 419 27.0 5.49 32.5 460 1.9848 0.1900 0.6200 0.0900 0.0500
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 2 Glycol Trim Heater 0 1 1 444900 6322816 423 5.8 0.91 8.2 589 0.0200 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 0.0000
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 2 4.4496 0.6200 1.5400 0.2401 0.1201
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek Phase 1 Cogeneration Unit 1 0 1 1 482144 6242326 724 30.5 6.10 23.6 478 2.9808 0.3525 2.1415 0.1780 0.0775
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek Phase 1 Cogeneration Unit 2 0 1 1 482144 6242261 723 30.5 6.10 23.6 478 2.9808 0.3525 2.1415 0.1780 0.0775
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek Phase 1 Glycol Heater 1 0 1 1 481869 6242361 728 8.1 0.69 20.6 478 0.0315 0.0300 0.0495 0.0045 0.0035
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek Phase 1 Glycol Heater 2 0 1 1 481869 6242354 728 8.1 0.69 20.6 478 0.0315 0.0300 0.0495 0.0045 0.0035
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek Phase 1 Glycol Trim Heater 1 0 1 1 481880 6242339 728 7.8 0.25 10.5 478 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek Phase 1 Steam Generator 1 0 1 1 482251 6242013 722 27.0 1.76 20.6 478 0.2946 0.1850 0.3077 0.0278 0.0203
Page 3A-100
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek Phase 1 7.2032 1.5049 5.6130 0.4760 0.2430
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek expansion Cogeneration Unit 0 1 1 468656 6246028 571 30.5 6.10 23.6 478 5.9440 0.6940 4.2880 0.3590 0.1540
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek expansion steam generators 0 1 1 468756 6246128 572 27.0 1.76 20.6 478 1.2360 0.7860 1.3320 0.1210 0.0870
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek expansion 7.1800 1.4800 5.6200 0.4800 0.2410
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS 2 Flare 1 1 1 509502 6342186 591 15.4 1.62 4.9 1273 0.0093 0.1159 0.0504 0.0000 0.0126
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS 2 0.0093 0.1159 0.0504 0.0000 0.0126
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS Pilot Flare 1 1 1 509554 6341373 590 14.0 1.51 1.7 1273 0.0028 0.0417 0.0154 0.0000 0.0039
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS Pilot Heater 1 1 1 509639 6341477 590 6.1 0.25 40.0 594 0.0066 0.0028 0.0126 0.0011 0.0008
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS Pilot Heather 1 1 1 509637 6341463 590 6.1 0.10 40.0 589 0.0031 0.0005 0.0019 0.0002 0.0001
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS Pilot Steam Generator 1 1 1 509627 6341492 590 3.8 0.15 79.5 813 0.0960 0.0020 0.0218 0.0027 0.0075
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS Pilot Steam Generator 1 1 1 509622 6341479 590 3.8 0.15 79.5 813 0.0960 0.0020 0.0218 0.0027 0.0075
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag ETS Pilot 0.2044 0.0491 0.0735 0.0066 0.0199
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag SAGD SRU Thermal Oxidizing Unit 0 1 1 509308 6343114 594 55.0 0.61 20.0 811 0.0036 2.4068 0.0030 0.0003 0.0002
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag SAGD 0.0036 2.4068 0.0030 0.0003 0.0002
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase 1 Steam Generator 1 1 1 508941 6343673 599 30.0 1.70 22.2 431 0.3565 0.3171 0.2854 0.0258 0.0187
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase 1 1.4261 0.8378 1.1415 0.1033 0.0747
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase 3 Cogeneration 0 1 1 508803 6344331 599 27.0 5.49 14.8 425 1.8461 0.2485 1.2820 0.1072 0.0490
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase 3 Diluent Stripper Unit 0 1 1 508889 6344323 599 57.5 2.03 6.8 458 0.1590 0.0812 0.1323 0.0120 0.0087
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase C&E Cogeneration 1 1 1 508884 6343671 600 27.0 5.49 16.4 439 1.8461 0.2485 1.2820 0.1072 0.0490
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase C&E 1.8461 0.2485 1.2820 0.1072 0.0490
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Harper Pilot project steam generater 0 1 1 328562 6349790 764 7.6 0.91 1.8 473 0.0264 0.0000 0.0222 0.0020 0.0015
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Harper Pilot project 0.0264 0.0000 0.0222 0.0020 0.0015
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 HP Boiler Exhaust 1 0 0 1 395777 6341089 542 30.0 1.54 15.6 450 0.2800 0.3500 0.8600 0.0350 0.0154
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 HP Boiler Exhaust 2 0 0 1 395783 6341073 542 30.0 1.54 15.6 450 0.2800 0.3500 0.8600 0.0350 0.0154
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 Utility Boiler 0 0 1 395665 6341283 546 8.5 0.51 4.8 494 0.0100 0.0000 0.0400 0.0010 0.0006
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 Glycol Heater 0 0 1 395666 6341288 546 8.2 0.61 3.4 700 0.0200 0.0000 0.0500 0.0010 0.0011
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 Cogen GT Exhaust 0 0 1 395716 6341054 542 20.0 1.08 12.0 484 0.1800 0.0000 0.0800 0.0070 0.0011
Page 3A-101
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 0.7700 0.7000 1.8900 0.0790 0.0336
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. THICKWOOD SAGD PROJECT Steam Boiler 1 0 0 1 391149 6300239 504 30.0 1.54 15.5 450 0.2700 0.2200 0.8500 0.0350 0.0158
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. THICKWOOD SAGD PROJECT Steam Boiler 2 0 0 1 391156 6300227 504 30.0 1.54 15.5 450 0.2700 0.2200 0.8500 0.0350 0.0158
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. THICKWOOD SAGD PROJECT Utility Boiler 0 0 1 391242 6300071 504 8.5 0.51 4.8 494 0.0083 0.0000 0.0300 0.0010 0.0007
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. THICKWOOD SAGD PROJECT Glycol Heater 0 0 1 391248 6300074 504 8.2 0.61 3.4 700 0.0097 0.0000 0.0300 0.0010 0.0009
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. THICKWOOD SAGD PROJECT Cogeneration Unit 0 0 1 391186 6300185 504 20.0 1.83 12.0 484 0.1400 0.0000 0.3700 0.0040 0.0027
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. THICKWOOD SAGD PROJECT Truck Flare 0 0 1 391393 6299855 504 25.0 0.10 3.0 1273 0.0030 0.0540 0.0013 0.0002 0.0062
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. THICKWOOD SAGD PROJECT 0.7010 0.4940 2.1313 0.0762 0.0423
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project Steam Boiler 1 0 0 1 388228 6354380 778 30.0 1.63 15.5 450 0.3000 0.2200 0.9500 0.0390 0.0177
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project Steam Boiler 2 0 0 1 388228 6354370 778 30.0 1.63 15.5 450 0.3000 0.2200 0.9500 0.0390 0.0177
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project Utility Boiler 0 0 1 388223 6354498 778 8.5 0.51 4.8 494 0.0083 0.0000 0.0300 0.0010 0.0007
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project Glycol Heater 0 0 1 388229 6354498 778 8.2 0.63 3.4 700 0.0100 0.0000 0.0300 0.0010 0.0010
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project Cogeneration Unit 0 0 1 388221 6354320 778 20.0 1.83 12.0 484 0.1400 0.0000 0.3700 0.0040 0.0027
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project Truck Flare 0 0 1 388252 6354759 778 25.0 0.10 3.0 1273 0.0030 0.0540 0.0013 0.0002 0.0062
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project 0.7613 0.4940 2.3313 0.0842 0.0460
Total E&P Canada Joslyn 1&2 Glycol Heater 1 0 1 1 445778 6348220 343 5.0 0.50 2.1 476 0.0030 0.0020 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000
Total E&P Canada Joslyn 1&2 Recycle Treater 0 1 1 445687 6348295 343 10.0 0.80 2.7 476 0.0110 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
Total E&P Canada Joslyn 1&2 Slop Heater 0 1 1 445688 6348272 343 4.9 0.50 3.3 476 0.0060 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000
Total E&P Canada Joslyn 1&2 Steam Generator 1 0 1 1 445741 6348200 343 30.0 3.50 5.0 553 0.2300 0.3680 0.2280 0.0210 0.0180
Total E&P Canada Joslyn 1&2 Steam Generator 2 0 1 1 445753 6348200 343 30.0 3.50 5.0 553 0.2300 0.3680 0.2280 0.0210 0.0160
Total E&P Canada Joslyn 1&2 Utility Boiler 0 1 1 445631 6348261 343 11.0 0.40 22.6 475 0.0250 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000
Total E&P Canada Joslyn 1&2 0.5140 0.7440 0.4800 0.0420 0.0340
Value Creation Inc. Terre de Grace Pilot Project Steam Boiler 1 0 1 1 436524 6351711 436 25.0 2.00 17.9 443 0.0600 0.4398 0.0300 0.0046 0.0033
Value Creation Inc. Terre de Grace Pilot Project Steam Boiler 2 0 1 1 436491 6351649 437 25.0 2.00 17.9 443 0.0600 0.4398 0.0300 0.0046 0.0033
Value Creation Inc. Terre de Grace Pilot Project USP Flue Gas stack 0 1 1 436684 6351647 432 70.0 1.30 10.1 443 0.3897 1.6589 0.0200 0.0300 0.0214
Value Creation Inc. Terre de Grace Pilot Project 0.5096 2.5384 0.0799 0.0391 0.0280
Value Creation Inc. Tristar Pilot Project Steam Boiler 0 0 1 484997 6270118 404 28.0 1.00 16.4 623 0.0300 0.9000 0.0400 0.0000 0.0017
Value Creation Inc. Tristar Pilot Project USP Unit 0 0 1 484946 6270134 404 40.0 0.30 8.5 443 0.0200 0.1000 0.0600 0.0100 0.0011
Value Creation Inc. Tristar Pilot Project 0.0500 1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0028
Whitesands Insitu Partnership Whitesands Pilot (including 3 wells
Flare Stack 1 1 1 483874 6168345 610 12.3 0.15 0.5 2738 0.0070 0.1830 0.0052 0.0017 0.0144
(Petrobank) expansion)
Steam Generator 1 1 1 484000 6168220 610 6.7 0.40 11.1 723 0.0250 0.0000 0.0210 0.0003 0.0014
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd
Stack
Elev V NOx VOC
Glycol Boiler 1 1 1 483894 6168325 610 5.6 0.60 1.7 773 0.0045 0.0000 0.0038 0.0003 0.0002
Glycol Boiler 1 1 1 483894 6168315 610 5.6 0.60 1.7 773 0.0045 0.0000 0.0038 0.0000 0.0002
Incinerator 1 1 1 483964 6168182 610 20.1 1.60 16.3 1179 0.0000 1.8940 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Whitesands Insitu Partnership
Whitesands Pilot 0.0410 2.0770 0.0338 0.0024 0.0163
(Petrobank)
Page 3A-102
TABLE 3A-39
STACK AND EMISSION PARAMETERS FOR GAS PLANT, COMPRESSOR STATION AND FORESTRY INDUSTRY FACILITIES (EXISTING
CONDITION (EX), BASELINE CASE (BC), AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE (PDC)) (PAGES 3A-104 TO 3A-116)
Stack
UTM UTM Elev H V NOx SO2 PM2.5 VOC
Operator Facility Emission Source EX BC PDC (mE) (mN) (m) (m) D (m) (m/s) T (K) (t/d) (t/d) CO (t/d) (t/d) (t/d)
AltaGas Ltd. Wabasca Comp Stn 06-22 #1 Cateroillar 3516 LE 1 1 1 322169 6194004 564 7.3 0.34 36.7 738 0.1146 0.0000 0.3878 0.0009 0.0016
AltaGas Ltd. Wabasca Comp Stn 06-22 #2 Waukesha L7042GSI 1 1 1 322169 6194004 564 9.7 0.40 26.9 881 0.2986 0.0000 0.4532 0.0011 0.0041
AltaGas Ltd. Wabasca Comp Stn 06-22 #3 Cummins GTA-12 1 1 1 322169 6194004 564 4.0 0.15 28.8 843 0.1540 0.0000 0.0658 0.0002 0.0021
AltaGas Ltd. Wabasca Comp Stn 06-22 0.5671 0.0000 0.9068 0.0022 0.0077
AltaGas Ltd. Thornbury South Comp Stn 02-29 Waykesha 7042 GSI 1 1 1 437348 6192009 694 8.2 0.25 65.0 880 0.6965 0.0000 0.3271 0.0008 0.0035
AltaGas Ltd. Thornbury South Comp Stn 02-29 Waykesha 3521 GI 1 1 1 437348 6192009 694 15.3 0.31 26.7 646 0.0292 0.0000 0.1633 0.0004 0.0018
AltaGas Ltd. Thornbury South Comp Stn 02-29 0.7258 0.0000 0.4904 0.0012 0.0053
AltaGas Ltd. Thornbury East Sweet Gas Plant 15-12 Compressor 1 1 1 443978 6197984 702 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1895 0.0000 0.4797 0.0012 0.0026
AltaGas Ltd. Thornbury West Comp Stn 05-28 Compressor 1 1 1 428332 6192560 694 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3717 0.0000 0.2381 0.0017 0.0050
AltaGas Ltd. Marianna Comp Stn 11-36 Compressor 1 1 1 424034 6204378 582 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0370 0.0000 0.0622 0.0002 0.0005
AltaGas Ltd. Marianna Comp Stn 12-31 Compressor 1 1 1 415454 6204538 571 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0360 0.0000 0.0606 0.0002 0.0005
AltaGas Ltd. Thornbury East Comp Stn 12-15 Compressor 1 1 1 439781 6189603 680 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1207 0.0000 0.1866 0.0005 0.0016
AltaGas Ltd. Hoole North Comp Stn ABCS (Sour Gas Plant) 10-24 Compressor 1 1 1 326652 6213668 589 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.4590 0.0000 0.5353 0.0015 0.0062
AltaGas Ltd. Rock Island Comp Stn 12-23 Compressor 1 1 1 343722 6154674 695 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.7275 0.0000 0.3100 0.0011 0.0099
242kW Compressor Engine (Cat
AltaGas Services Inc. Marianna Lake 06-06-081-13W4M 1 1 1 435831 6205215 681 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0156 0.0000 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000
3406 TA)
AltaGas Services Inc. Marianna Lake 06-06-081-13W4M 50 kW Generator 1 1 1 435831 6205215 681 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
AltaGas Services Inc. Marianna Lake 06-06-081-13W4M 37 kW ReBoiler 1 1 1 435831 6205215 681 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Page 3A-103
550 kW Compressor Engine

AltaGas Services Inc. Marianna Lake 06-06-081-13W4M 1 1 1 435831 6205215 681 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.1737 0.0000 0.0242 0.0000 0.0069
(Waukesha 3521)
AltaGas Services Inc. Marianna Lake 06-06-081-13W4M 0.1902 0.0000 0.0260 0.0000 0.0069
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Burnt Pine 04-20-083-11W4 1100 kW Compressor Engine 1 1 1 455870 6228868 659 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0372 0.0000 0.0052 0.0001 0.0009
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Burnt Pine 04-20-083-11W4 52 kW ReBoiler 1 1 1 455870 6228868 659 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0008 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Burnt Pine 04-20-083-11W4 0.0379 0.0000 0.0059 0.0001 0.0009
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Burnt Pine North 11-34-083-11W4 298 kW Compressor Engine 1 1 1 459584 6232874 643 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0104 0.0000 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Burnt Pine North 11-34-083-11W4 298 kW Compressor Engine 1 1 1 455560 6223183 742 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0104 0.0000 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Burnt Pine North 11-34-083-11W4 0.0207 0.0000 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Hangingstone 07-09-082-12W4 164 kW Compressor Engine 1 1 1 449399 6216374 745 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0467 0.0000 0.0069 0.0001 0.0017
447 kW Compressor Engine
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Hangingstone 07-09-082-12W4 1 1 1 449399 6216374 745 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.1253 0.0000 0.0173 0.0001 0.0043
(Waukesha 2895)
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Hangingstone 07-09-082-12W4 70kW Generator (Cat 3302 TA) 1 1 1 449399 6216374 745 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0173 0.0000 0.1253 0.0004 0.0051
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Hangingstone 07-09-082-12W4 70kW Generator (Cat 3306 TA) 1 1 1 449399 6216374 745 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0173 0.0000 0.1253 0.0004 0.0051
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Hangingstone 07-09-082-12W4 Dehydrator ReBoiler 1 1 1 449399 6216374 745 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0060 0.0000 0.0056 0.0000 0.0003
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury Hangingstone 07-09-082-12W4 0.2125 0.0000 0.2804 0.0010 0.0166
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury North 08-13-080-14W4M 552kW Compressor Engine 1 1 1 434920 6198752 694 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.1771 0.0000 0.0242 0.0006 0.0069
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury North 08-13-080-14W4M 775 kW Compressor Engine 1 1 1 434920 6198752 694 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.2480 0.0000 0.0346 0.0006 0.0095
AltaGas Services Inc. Thornbury North 08-13-080-14W4M 0.4251 0.0000 0.0588 0.0012 0.0164
AltaGas Services Inc. Winefred North 07-15-078-04W4 Caterpillar G3304 NA 1 1 1 529516 6179016 573 10.0 0.50 2.9 773 0.0361 0.0000 0.0093 0.0000 0.0001
AltaGas Services Inc. Winefred North 07-15-078-04W4 Caterpillar G3516 TA 1 1 1 529516 6179016 573 10.0 0.50 40.7 773 0.5440 0.0000 0.1304 0.0003 0.0010
AltaGas Services Inc. Winefred North 07-15-078-04W4 Waukesha L7042 GSI 1 1 1 529516 6179016 573 22.9 0.30 46.1 880 0.5320 0.0000 0.1270 0.0003 0.0010
AltaGas Services Inc. Winefred North 07-15-078-04W4 1.1121 0.0000 0.2667 0.0007 0.0021
AltaGas Services Inc. Winefred South 08-04-077-05W4 Caterpillar G3306 TA 1 1 1 518602 6165939 566 3.4 0.10 46.5 839 0.0480 0.0000 0.0037 0.0001 0.0014
AltaGas Services Inc. Winefred South 08-04-077-05W4 Waukesha L7042 GSI 1 1 1 518602 6165939 566 22.9 0.30 46.1 880 0.6380 0.0000 0.0496 0.0016 0.0185
AltaGas Services Inc. Winefred South 08-04-077-05W4 1.9521 0.0000 0.1517 0.0048 0.0565
AltaGas Services Inc. Alexander Facility 1 1 1 543255 6028885 539 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0398 0.0000 0.0669 0.0002 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Bonnyville South Facility 1 1 1 518839 6007612 582 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1980 0.0000 0.0157 0.0003 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Charlotte & Reita Facility 1 1 1 542518 6008971 577 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2725 0.0000 0.4585 0.0003 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Cold Lake Facility 1 1 1 544994 6031650 541 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1116 0.0000 0.1868 0.0003 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. East Angling Facility 1 1 1 549495 6007004 587 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0526 0.0000 0.0454 0.0003 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Jessie Lake Facility 1 1 1 515549 6010403 560 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0780 0.0000 0.1311 0.0002 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. John Lake North Compressor Engine 1 1 1 1 563065 5970749 664 9.0 0.30 81.3 376 0.1470 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0140
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
AltaGas Ltd. Wabasca Comp Stn 06-22 #1 Cateroillar 3516 LE 1 1 1 322169 6194004 564 7.3 0.34 36.7 738 0.1146 0.0000 0.3878 0.0009 0.0016
AltaGas Services Inc. John Lake North Compressor Engine 2 1 1 1 563075 5970749 664 12.2 0.25 68.6 608 1.4338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0120
AltaGas Services Inc. John Lake North Generator Engine 1 1 1 563095 5970749 664 2.4 0.08 16.6 650 0.0277 0.0000 0.4491 0.0000 0.0001
AltaGas Services Inc. John Lake North Glycol Heater 1 1 1 563105 5970749 665 5.3 0.25 4.0 477 0.0033 0.0000 0.0539 0.0002 0.0005
AltaGas Services Inc. John Lake North 1.6118 0.0000 0.5030 0.0002 0.0266
AltaGas Services Inc. John Lake South Facility 1 1 1 563580 5963868 648 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0547 0.0000 0.0919 0.0000 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Kehiwin Facility 1 1 1 504939 5999075 601 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0387 0.0000 0.0650 0.0000 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Lindberg Facility 1 1 1 520944 5986169 658 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.5437 0.0000 0.1441 0.0004 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Moonshine Facility 1 1 1 542481 5989532 663 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1053 0.0000 0.0056 0.0000 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Sage AJAX 1 1 1 527160 6008054 563 6.4 0.27 4.0 500 0.0300 0.0000 0.0015 0.0000 0.0011
AltaGas Services Inc. Sage Waukesha 1 1 1 1 527180 6008054 563 7.0 0.32 21.0 600 0.3200 0.0000 0.0157 0.0007 0.0021
AltaGas Services Inc. Sage Waukesha 2 1 1 1 527190 6008054 564 7.0 0.17 40.0 600 0.1800 0.0000 0.0088 0.0003 0.0008
AltaGas Services Inc. Sage 0.5300 0.0000 0.0260 0.0010 0.0040
AltaGas Services Inc. Soars Facility 1 1 1 546380 5990492 677 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0807 0.0000 0.1357 0.0001 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. South Angling Facility 1 1 1 545857 6002916 594 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1288 0.0000 0.0102 0.0002 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Southward Facility 1 1 1 543303 6036886 549 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0778 0.0000 0.1309 0.0000 0.0043
AltaGas Services Inc. Thompson Facility 1 1 1 551950 6006219 579 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0269 0.0000 0.0453 0.0001 0.0043
APACHE CANADA JARVIE GAS PLANT-04 White 8G-825 Compressor 1 1 1 301052 6025470 614 12.2 0.28 39.5 775 0.2076 0.0000 0.1018 0.0009 0.0028
APACHE CANADA JARVIE GAS PLANT-04 White 8G-825 Compressor 1 1 1 301052 6025470 614 12.2 0.28 39.5 775 0.2076 0.0000 0.1018 0.0009 0.0028
Eclipse Salt Bath Regereration
APACHE CANADA JARVIE GAS PLANT-04 1 1 1 301052 6025470 614 6.7 0.46 4.1 796 0.0036 0.0000 0.0008 0.0003 0.0002
Heater
APACHE CANADA JARVIE GAS PLANT-04 GlycolHeater 1 1 1 301052 6025470 614 8.5 0.41 3.8 783 0.0029 0.0000 0.0006 0.0002 0.0002
APACHE CANADA JARVIE GAS PLANT-04 Produced Water Tank Heater 1 1 1 301052 6025470 614 4.6 0.11 52.2 783 0.0029 0.0000 0.0006 0.0002 0.0002
Page 3A-104
APACHE CANADA JARVIE GAS PLANT-04 0.4247 0.0000 0.2055 0.0026 0.0062
ATCO electric Ltd. Fort Chipewyan Generating Station Power Plant 1 0 0 492389 6509915 218 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3041 0.0000 0.5119 0.0036 0.0041
ATCO electric Ltd. Fort Chipewyan Generating Station 0.3041 0.0000 0.5119 0.0036 0.0041
ATCO electric Ltd. Fort Chipewyan Third lake Generating Station Power Plant 0 1 1 492389 6509915 218 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 2.0448 0.1373 3.4419 0.0106 0.0278
ATCO electric Ltd. Fort Chipewyan Third lake Generating Station 2.0448 0.1373 3.4419 0.0106 0.0278
ATCO Electric Ltd. Chipewyan Lake Generating Station Compressor 1 1 1 349062 6313124 569 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.6097 0.0000 1.0263 0.0028 0.0083
Bonavista Petroleum Kent 10-01 Facility 1 1 1 544867 6020733 541 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.4121 0.0000 0.2301 0.0000 0.0043
Bonavista Petroleum Reita Lake 07-26 Facility 1 1 1 533617 5997548 617 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2106 0.0000 0.1788 0.0000 0.0043
BP CANADA BP NORTH DROWNED Compressor 1 1 1 336623 6175097 674 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1138 0.0000 0.0801 0.0001 0.0152
BP CANADA BP WEST CENTRAL Compressor 1 1 1 301291 6155968 841 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1526 0.0000 0.0728 0.0001 0.0212
BP Canada Energy Co. BP Canada Energy Company 00/08-33-074-06W4 Caterpillar G3412TA 1 1 1 509104 6145080 641 10.0 0.50 17.5 773 0.1772 0.0000 0.0122 0.0003 0.0008
BP Canada Energy Co. Kirby South 10-25-073-05W4M Cooper Superior 16SGT 1 1 1 523574 6134466 674 21.0 0.46 39.8 766 1.1430 0.0000 0.1554 0.0000 0.0179
BP Canada Energy Co. Kirby South 10-25-073-05W4M Heat Medium Boiler 1 1 1 523574 6134466 674 9.1 0.30 25.0 673 0.0080 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
BP Canada Energy Co. Kirby South 10-25-073-05W4M ReBoiler 1 1 1 523574 6134466 674 9.1 0.30 25.0 673 0.0040 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
BP Canada Energy Co. Kirby South 10-25-073-05W4M Waukesha F3521 G 1 1 1 523574 6134466 674 14.0 0.20 30.3 829 0.1847 0.0000 0.0074 0.0002 0.0012
BP Canada Energy Co. Kirby South 10-25-073-05W4M Waukesha L7044 GSI 1 1 1 523574 6134466 674 8.5 0.41 36.9 899 0.3448 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0030
BP Canada Energy Co. Kirby South 10-25-073-05W4M Waukesha L7044 GSI 1 1 1 523574 6134466 674 8.5 0.41 36.9 899 0.5075 0.0000 0.0441 0.0000 0.0044
BP Canada Energy Co. Kirby South 10-25-073-05W4M 4.8473 0.0000 0.4814 0.0006 0.0554
BP Canada Energy Co. Leismer 06-36-077-09 W4M Caterpillar G379TA 1 1 1 483877 6173990 576 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.2065 0.0000 0.0087 0.0004 0.0012
BP Canada Energy Co. Leismer 07-05-074-04 W4M Waukesha 5790GL 1 1 1 526532 6136791 640 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0215 0.0000 0.0381 0.0000 0.0144
BP Canada Energy Co. Leismer 08-20-077-08 W4 Waukeshaw L36GL 1 1 1 487456 6170984 563 10.0 0.50 25.7 773 0.0194 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0129
BP Canada Energy Co. Leismer 10-19-077-08 W4M Ford Industrial Ford 460 1 1 1 485484 6171547 570 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0005 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000
BP Canada Energy Co. Leismer 13-13-077-08 W4 Caterpillar 3306 1 1 1 492746 6170164 564 10.0 0.50 6.4 773 0.0653 0.0000 0.0035 0.0001 0.0003
BP Canada Energy Co. Leismer 13-33-077-09 W4 Waukesha F-18 1 1 1 478121 6175059 591 10.0 0.50 12.8 773 0.2875 0.0000 0.0082 0.0004 0.0026
BP Canada Energy Co. Leismer 15-26-077-09 W4M Cummins G855 1 1 1 483064 6173180 574 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0635 0.0000 0.0102 0.0001 0.0013
Kirby Leismer Amoco St. Lina
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-07-063-08 W4 1 1 1 487093 6032296 572 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0339 0.0000 0.0041 0.0001 0.0005
North 11-07-063-08W4
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-07-063-08 W4 North 11-07-063-08W4 , 1 1 1 487093 6032296 572 8.2 0.25 25.0 923 0.1940 0.0000 0.0121 0.0000 0.0035
Waukesha
Waukesha L5108GL
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
Waukesha L7042GL
Waukesha L7042GSIU
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-07-063-08 W4 North 11-07-063-08W4 , White 1 1 1 487093 6032296 572 16.0 0.25 34.3 973 0.2880 0.0000 0.0721 0.0080 0.0440
Superior 8G-825
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-07-063-08 W4 1.4219 0.0000 0.1245 0.0081 0.0785
BP Canada Energy Co. 15-23-62-9W4 Kirby Leismer 15-23-062-09W4 1 1 1 485308 6025826 591 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0112 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001
BP Canada Energy Co. 8-17-63-9W4 Kirby Leismer 08-17-063-09W4 1 1 1 479768 6033135 587 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0084 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001
White Superior 16SGT
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-8-74-5W4 1 1 1 516427 6139030 622 20.8 0.46 39.7 773 0.1086 0.0000 0.0861 0.0003 0.0149
Compressor Engine
Compressor Engine
Compressor Engine
Waukesha L5790GL Compressor
Engine
Engine
Engine
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-8-74-5W4 Kirby North Dehydrator Reboiler 1 1 1 516427 6139030 622 7.6 0.61 1.2 477 0.0005 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0003
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-8-74-5W4 Heat Medium Boiler 1 1 1 516427 6139030 622 6.1 0.31 5.6 477 0.0006 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0003
Page 3A-105
BP Canada Energy Co. 11-8-74-5W4 0.3396 0.0000 0.3781 0.0012 0.0658

BP Canada Energy Co. 16-23-77-9W4 MEP 12 cyl. 1 1 1 482577 6171800 584 12.2 0.66 34.3 672 0.2842 0.0000 0.3298 0.0007 0.0094
BP Canada Energy Co. 16-23-77-9W4 Superior 16 SGTB(engine) 1 1 1 482577 6171800 584 12.2 0.46 43.5 691 0.0368 0.0000 0.3435 0.0007 0.0098
BP Canada Energy Co. 16-23-77-9W4 Clycol reboiler 1 1 1 482577 6171800 584 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0012 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001
BP Canada Energy Co. 16-23-77-9W4 0.8931 0.0000 1.3342 0.0030 0.0384
BP Canada Energy Co. BP South Junction - 03-26-075-25W4M Waukesha 9390 GSIU 1 1 1 324432 6156217 768 9.1 0.34 39.6 848 0.0913 0.0000 0.1537 0.0004 0.0012
BP Canada Energy Co. BP South Junction - 03-26-075-25W4M Waukesha 9390 GSIU 1 1 1 324432 6156217 768 9.1 0.34 39.6 848 0.0913 0.0000 0.1537 0.0004 0.0012
BP Canada Energy Co. BP South Junction - 03-26-075-25W4M Caterpillar G3306TA 1 1 1 324432 6156217 768 5.9 0.51 25.1 810 0.0139 0.0000 0.0234 0.0001 0.0002
BP Canada Energy Co. BP South Junction - 03-26-075-25W4M Gaterpillar G3306NA 1 1 1 324432 6156217 768 2.8 0.10 37.8 833 0.0072 0.0000 0.0122 0.0000 0.0001
BP Canada Energy Co. BP South Junction - 03-26-075-25W4M Ford LSG 875 1 1 1 324432 6156217 768 2.8 0.10 37.8 833 0.0012 0.0000 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000
BP Canada Energy Co. BP South Junction - 03-26-075-25W4M Glycol Boiler 1 1 1 324432 6156217 768 5.9 0.56 1.2 477 0.0005 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000
BP Canada Energy Co. BP South Junction - 03-26-075-25W4M 0.2055 0.0000 0.3454 0.0010 0.0028
BP Canada Energy Co. 06-19-075-01 W5 Compressor 1 1 1 301291 6155968 841 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1534 0.0000 0.0740 0.0001 0.0211
CANADIAN NATURAL
Charron 12-18 Compressor 1 1 1 427018 6092549 562 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0874 0.0000 0.1471 0.0004 0.0012
RESOURCES
Canadian Natural Resources
TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER 9-30 white superior 8GT825 1 1 1 424916 6134267 649 8.1 0.31 41.0 705 0.1563 0.0000 0.0368 0.0009 0.0026
Limited
TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER 9-30 white superior 8GT825 1 1 1 424916 6134267 649 8.1 0.31 41.0 705 0.1563 0.0000 0.0368 0.0009 0.0026
Limited
TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER 9-30 Dehy Reboiler 1 1 1 424916 6134267 649 5.2 0.27 0.1 873 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Limited
TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER 9-30 0.3129 0.0000 0.0737 0.0018 0.0052
Limited
Thornbury South 02-25 Compressor 1 1 1 435126 6182324 678 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0663 0.0000 0.1116 0.0003 0.0009
Limited
Clyden 09-03 Compressor 1 1 1 441832 6166835 679 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0809 0.0000 0.1362 0.0004 0.0011
Limited
SB Pad #13 Compressor 1 1 1 352126 6205053 595 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0417 0.0000 0.0701 0.0049 0.0006
Limited
NIXON 8-35-73-15w4 Compressor 1 1 1 423268 6146696 740 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0840 0.0000 0.1414 0.0004 0.0011
Limited
TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER S Compressor 1 1 1 400375 6125602 574 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.7862 0.0000 0.3099 0.0012 0.0107
Limited
CANADIAN NATURAL
PELICAN 12-09 Compressor 1 1 1 350188 6209531 600 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.0057 0.0000 0.7674 0.0185 0.2562
RESOURCES LIMITED
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
BRINTNELL 9-2-81-23w4 Compressor 1 1 1 345289 6208133 598 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.6442 0.0000 0.9724 0.0068 0.0087
Limited
Calling Lake South 01-20 Compressor 1 1 1 352253 6104961 663 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.0131 0.0000 0.1213 0.0024 0.0138
Limited
Grew Lake South 01-27 Compressor 1 1 1 380637 6309892 522 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1380 0.0000 0.1380 0.0006 0.0019
Limited
Charron 03-02 Compressor 1 1 1 424243 6098405 567 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1868 0.0000 0.3144 0.0008 0.0025
Limited
Liege 03-29 Compressor 1 1 1 367076 6320017 522 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 3.0122 0.0000 0.5644 0.0063 0.0647
Limited
Brintnell North 6-26 Compressor 1 1 1 373951 6222958 594 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0869 0.0000 0.0938 0.0076 0.0285
Limited
Brintnell 07-27 Compressor 1 1 1 363201 6223265 622 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.8428 0.0000 0.7682 0.0083 0.0250
Limited
RIO ALTO EXPLORATION LTD COMPRESSOR 8-20 Compressor 1 1 1 449499 6093485 610 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0711 0.0000 0.1197 0.0003 0.0010
Limited
TALISMAN HEART LAKE Compressor 1 1 1 459293 6093786 661 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0576 0.0000 0.0969 0.0003 0.0008
Limited
Peerless 13-03 Compressor 1 1 1 341763 6189222 565 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.5293 0.0000 0.8909 0.0009 0.0072
Limited
Liege Central 13-04 Compressor 1 1 1 387446 6314112 523 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.9308 0.0000 0.0592 0.0016 0.0126
Limited
Liege Thickwood 13-24 Compressor 1 1 1 392483 6309146 509 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.0622 0.0000 0.0716 0.0019 0.0144
Limited
Mills 14-06 Compressor 1 1 1 455961 6108919 593 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1135 0.0000 0.0763 0.0005 0.0397
Limited
Page 3A-106

Calling River 14-14 Compressor 1 1 1 374170 6113575 585 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1849 0.0000 0.0944 0.0008 0.0025
Limited
Grew Lake North 14-17 Compressor 1 1 1 376476 6317676 529 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1042 0.0000 0.1753 0.0005 0.0014
Limited
Meyer North 15-29 Compressor 1 1 1 332578 6108374 645 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.6646 0.0000 1.1188 0.0015 0.0090
Limited
Heart Lake 10-20 Compressor 1 1 1 468679 6093710 648 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.4518 0.0000 0.7605 0.0009 0.0061
Limited
PARAMOUNT LIEGE Compressor 1 1 1 367123 6320327 518 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1238 0.0000 0.1912 0.0006 0.0017
Limited
HANGING STONE 12-28-84-10w4 Compressor 1 1 1 467033 6241044 585 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1375 0.0000 0.2314 0.0006 0.0019
Limited
South Brintnell Battery Compressor 1 1 1 345727 6208518 601 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.4433 0.0000 0.2024 0.0067 0.0370
Limited
CNRL CALLING LAKE Compressor 1 1 1 352253 6104961 663 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0674 0.0000 0.1134 0.0003 0.0009
Limited
MILLS 16-06-72-11W4 U#7534 Compressor 1 1 1 456954 6118581 642 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0728 0.0000 0.1225 0.0003 0.0010
Limited
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Cowpar Sour Gas Plant 11-19-080-04W4M 104 KW Generator 1 1 1 523589 6200560 487 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.1376 0.0000 0.0037 0.0001 0.0014
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Cowpar Sour Gas Plant 11-19-080-04W4M 150 KW TEG reGenerator 1 1 1 523601 6200560 487 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.1984 0.0000 0.0053 0.0002 0.0020
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Cowpar Sour Gas Plant 11-19-080-04W4M 176 KW Amine ReBoiler 1 1 1 523597 6200560 487 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0007 0.0000 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Cowpar Sour Gas Plant 11-19-080-04W4M 31 KW pump Exhaust Stack 1 1 1 523593 6200560 487 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0410 0.0000 0.0011 0.0000 0.0004
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Cowpar Sour Gas Plant 11-19-080-04W4M 492 KW Glycol Heater 1 1 1 523605 6200560 487 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0019 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0001
Cowpar Sour Gas Plant 11-19-080-04W4M 0.3797 0.0000 0.0123 0.0005 0.0039
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Jean Lake Field Booster 02-08-099-24W4 Compressor Engine 1 1 1 326718 6384508 588 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0319 0.0000 0.0025 0.0001 0.0009
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Jean Lake Field Booster 07-02-098-24W4 Compressor Engine 1 1 1 333407 6373288 714 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0455 0.0000 0.0035 0.0001 0.0013
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kettle River Gas Plant 15-14-083-05W4M 557 KW Boiler Exhaust Stack 1 1 1 520207 6228483 476 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0022 0.0000 0.0018 0.0002 0.0001
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kettle River Gas Plant 15-14-083-05W4M Acid Gas Flare Stack 1 1 1 520207 6228483 476 14.3 0.25 20.0 1273 0.0620 0.6000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0002
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kettle River Gas Plant 15-14-083-05W4M Waukesha F11 G 1 1 1 520207 6228483 476 6.1 0.50 2.5 773 0.0380 0.0000 0.0079 0.0000 0.0001
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kettle River Gas Plant 15-14-083-05W4M Waukesha L7042 GL 1 1 1 520207 6228483 476 9.1 0.50 45.0 773 0.0504 0.0000 0.1444 0.0004 0.0011
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
Kettle River Gas Plant 15-14-083-05W4M 0.3842 0.6000 0.6118 0.0021 0.0053
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Newby Sour Gas Plant 07-02-085-06W4M 100 kw power Generator 1 1 1 510363 6243820 481 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0086 0.0000 0.0035 0.0001 0.0013
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Newby Sour Gas Plant 07-02-085-06W4M 1100 KW Compressor Engine 1 1 1 510363 6243820 481 9.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0691 0.0000 0.0389 0.0012 0.0145
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Newby Sour Gas Plant 07-02-085-06W4M 205 KW ReBoiler 1 1 1 510363 6243820 481 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0008 0.0000 0.0007 0.0001 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Newby Sour Gas Plant 07-02-085-06W4M 67 KW dehydrator 1 1 1 510363 6243820 481 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000
Newby Sour Gas Plant 07-02-085-06W4M 0.0788 0.0000 0.0434 0.0014 0.0159
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Algar Divide 02/07-32-082-15W4 Engine 1 1 1 418669 6223322 551 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0822 0.0000 0.0064 0.0002 0.0024
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Algar Lake-House 15-21-084-15W4M Caterpillar G3412 TA 1 1 1 419323 6240371 529 10.0 0.50 19.3 773 0.2660 0.0000 0.0618 0.0006 0.0020
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Algar Lake-House 15-21-084-15W4M Waukesha L5790 GSI 1 1 1 419323 6240371 529 10.0 0.50 40.6 773 0.2130 0.0000 0.1303 0.0013 0.0042
Algar Lake-House 15-21-084-15W4M 0.4790 0.0000 0.1921 0.0020 0.0062
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Algar South 16-01-082-17W4M White Superior 16G-825 1 1 1 405535 6216353 535 10.0 0.50 51.3 773 0.5740 0.0000 0.1644 0.0004 0.0013
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Chard 10-02-080-06W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 511175 6195915 478 10.0 0.50 23.6 773 0.0907 0.0000 0.0757 0.0008 0.0024
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Chard 10-02-080-06W4M Waukesha F3521 GL 1 1 1 511175 6195915 478 10.0 0.50 23.7 773 0.0270 0.0000 0.0760 0.0002 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Chard 10-02-080-06W4M Waukesha L7042 GSI 1 1 1 511175 6195915 478 10.0 0.50 39.6 773 0.2070 0.0000 0.1270 0.0003 0.0010
Chard 10-02-080-06W4M 0.9457 0.0000 0.6597 0.0023 0.0071
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Clyde Compressor Stn. 09-23-073-09W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 483109 6132567 661 10.0 0.50 38.8 773 0.0480 0.0000 0.1244 0.0013 0.0040
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Cowpar Sour Gas Plant 11-19-080-04W4M Acid Gas Flare Stack 1 1 1 523609 6200560 487 18.0 0.18 20.0 1273 0.4600 0.5000 0.0360 0.0010 0.0130
Page 3A-107
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Hardy 10-22-078-05W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 519552 6181119 583 10.0 0.50 6.3 773 0.1440 0.0000 0.0200 0.0002 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M Dehydrator ReBoiler 1 1 1 513240 6186152 541 6.1 0.15 3.2 487 0.0194 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M G3306 TA Compressor Engine 1 1 1 513240 6186152 541 6.6 0.13 35.6 809 0.1079 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M G3306TA Compressor Engine 1 1 1 513240 6186152 541 6.6 0.13 35.6 809 0.1079 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M G3412TA Compressor Engine 1 1 1 513240 6186152 541 9.5 0.20 42.2 823 0.2405 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M Heater ReBoiler 1 1 1 513240 6186152 541 4.9 0.10 3.3 505 0.0194 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M White 8G825 Compressor Engine 1 1 1 513240 6186152 541 14.6 0.25 43.9 977 0.5760 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0006
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M White 8G825 Compressor Engine 1 1 1 513240 6186152 541 14.6 0.25 43.9 977 0.5760 0.0000 0.0016 0.0001 0.0006
Janvier/Chard 16-01-79-06W4M 1.6472 0.0000 0.0110 0.0010 0.0040
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Newby Sour Gas Plant 07-02-085-06W4M Flare Stack 1 1 1 510363 6243820 481 20.0 0.25 20.0 1237 0.0043 1.0800 0.0305 0.0028 0.0020
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Boil Off Tank Heater 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 6.0 0.15 0.8 333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M CAT G3512 TALE 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 7.5 0.25 50.5 733 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Dehydrator 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 7.0 0.20 1.5 451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Gen Set V6 Vortec 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 5.0 0.10 53.9 866 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Glycol Heater 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 4.6 0.25 2.7 624 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Glycol Heater 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 7.6 0.15 0.8 333 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Waukesha L7042 GSI 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 9.5 0.25 68.3 880 0.0021 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Waukesha L7042 GSI 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 9.5 0.25 68.3 880 0.0021 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M Waukesha L7042GU GSI 1 1 1 398327 6306367 504 9.0 0.25 40.3 880 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
South Liege Compressor Station 07-16-91-17-W4M 0.0046 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Wiau Lake 09-06-074-08W4M Compressor 1 1 1 486375 6137409 674 18.3 0.25 31.3 863 0.0035 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. AMOCO AEC MOORE EX SWD 10-5 Facility 1 1 1 527374 6069233 681 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2053 0.0000 1.9927 0.0000 0.0043
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Ardmore 05-21 Caterpillar 1 1 1 1 538844 6025427 617 4.1 0.15 18.7 557 0.0570 0.0000 0.1602 0.0329 0.0004
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Ardmore 05-21 Caterpillar 2 1 1 1 538854 6025427 617 5.3 0.15 28.2 649 0.0630 0.0000 0.1770 0.0383 0.0005
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Ardmore 05-21 Compressor Engine 1 1 1 538824 6025427 617 6.5 0.25 34.7 613 0.3190 0.0000 0.0000 0.0522 0.0018
Ardmore 05-21 0.4390 0.0000 0.3372 0.1234 0.0026
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Burnt Lake Glycol Heater 1 1 1 541478 6072986 693 10.5 0.50 11.6 448 0.1200 0.0000 0.1009 0.0084 0.0086
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Burnt Lake Steam Generator 1 1 1 1 541396 6072999 694 13.5 1.10 6.1 423 0.3200 0.4000 0.2690 0.0252 0.0171
Burnt Lake 1.0799 1.1999 0.9079 0.0840 0.0600
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Elkpoint 05-34 Gas Plant 1 1 1 510711 5959730 667 7.0 0.36 9.9 423 0.0630 0.0000 0.0440 0.0040 0.0030
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Frog Lake Compressor Engine (Waukesha) 1 1 1 535622 5979760 627 8.0 0.26 34.6 613 0.3894 0.0000 0.0121 0.0015 0.0098
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Frog Lake Water Tank Heater 1 1 1 535652 5979760 628 6.6 0.15 1.1 314 0.0002 0.0000 0.0259 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Frog Lake Dehydrator Reboiler 1 1 1 535672 5979760 628 4.1 0.26 2.2 481 0.0012 0.0000 0.0022 0.0000 0.0000
Frog Lake 0.3908 0.0000 0.0402 0.0015 0.0098
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kehewin 11-19 Facility 1 1 1 507404 5997432 593 11.0 0.30 21.0 928 0.3926 0.0000 0.0576 0.0010 0.0120
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Moose Hills Gas Plant 1 1 1 515621 5955283 638 7.0 0.36 8.1 423 0.3706 0.0000 0.0220 0.0020 0.0010
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Saddle Lake 09-09 Facility 1 1 1 462685 5983123 635 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.8968 0.0000 0.7467 0.0023 0.0043
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. St. Lina South Compressor Engine (Cat) 1 1 1 490230 6022538 570 8.1 0.22 33.0 565 0.4168 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 0.0096
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. St. Lina South Waukesha 1 1 1 490240 6022538 570 6.7 0.36 26.1 579 0.1968 0.0000 0.0121 0.0067 0.0445
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. St. Lina South 24" Dehydrator 1 1 1 490270 6022538 571 5.0 0.15 4.0 500 0.0012 0.0000 0.0022 0.0005 0.0007
St. Lina South 0.6148 0.0000 0.0143 0.0104 0.0548
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Wolf Lake –
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. near Wolf Lake and Primrose Plant 1 1 1 516749 6061300 641 2.1 0.05 46.3 811 0.0160 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Field Compressor 12
Canadian Natural Wolf Lake –
Field Compressor 5
Canadian Natural Primrose East–
Field Compressor 1
Canadian Natural Primrose –
Field Compressor 4
Field Compressor 9
Canadian Natural Primrose
North– Field Compressor 10
Page 3A-108
Field Compressor 8
Field Compressor 2
Field Compressor 6
Field Compressor 7
Field Compressor 13
Field Compressor 3
Field Compressor 14
Field Compressor 11
near Wolf Lake and Primrose Plant 0.9790 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0250
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL Clyde lake 04-35#1 Compressor 1 1 1 472023 6115628 666 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.6657 0.0000 1.1206 0.0011 0.0090
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL Grouse East 04-24 Compressor 1 1 1 473808 6141515 680 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3041 0.0000 0.5119 0.0014 0.0041
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL Clyde 08-22 Compressor 1 1 1 451560 6161519 689 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.4137 0.0000 0.0685 0.0019 0.0056
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL Chard 11-28 Compressor 1 1 1 507298 6192408 502 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1397 0.0000 0.2352 0.0006 0.0019
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL Chard S lesimer 06-18 Compressor 1 1 1 494228 6188757 568 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2301 0.0000 0.3874 0.0010 0.0031
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL Thornbury North 11-31 Compressor 1 1 1 455057 6194251 685 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2685 0.0000 0.4519 0.0012 0.0036
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER 4-28 White Superior 8GTLE 1 1 1 402293 6159514 622 8.1 0.31 41.0 727 0.2287 0.0000 0.0138 0.0005 0.0077
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER 4-28 Theoretical heaters and boilers 1 1 1 402293 6159514 622 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0146 0.0000 0.0122 0.0003 0.0008
TALISMAN WANDERING RIVER 4-28 0.2433 0.0000 0.0259 0.0008 0.0085
Ltd.
Talisman-Cmpr-08-33-075-15W4 0.1315 0.0000 0.0904 0.0006 0.0018
Ltd.
Caterpillar G3306-130 - 10.5:1 -
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. EAST DUNCAN 10-36-76-15w4 (NPRI 18070) 1 1 1 421579 6188436 635 3.4 0.10 46.5 839 0.0560 0.0000 0.0023 0.0001 0.0005
Standard
Caterpillar G3408-HS 32 HCR -
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. EAST DUNCAN 10-36-76-15w4 (NPRI 18070) 1 1 1 421579 6188436 635 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0805 0.0000 0.0033 0.0001 0.0013
Standard
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. EAST DUNCAN 10-36-76-15w4 (NPRI 18070) Theoretical heaters and boilers 1 1 1 421579 6188436 635 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0038 0.0000 0.0032 0.0001 0.0002
EAST DUNCAN 10-36-76-15w4 (NPRI 18070) 0.1403 0.0000 0.0088 0.0003 0.0019
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. NORTH DUNCAN 11-26 Compressor 1 1 1 413318 6173776 679 3.4 0.10 46.5 839 0.0580 0.0000 0.0024 0.0001 0.0005
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. North Duncan 15-33 Waukesha 7042 GL 1 1 1 420628 6175796 657 11.6 0.31 37.4 862 0.0190 0.0000 0.0335 0.0000 0.0127
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. North Duncan 15-33 Theoretical heaters and boilers 1 1 1 420628 6175796 657 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0264 0.0000 0.0220 0.0005 0.0015
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
North Duncan 15-33 0.0453 0.0000 0.0555 0.0005 0.0142
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. DUNCAN EAST 10-36-76-15W4 (NPRI 15945) Waukesha 5790 GL 1 1 1 425105 6165710 635 10.0 0.50 32.1 773 0.0280 0.0000 0.0495 0.0000 0.0188
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. DUNCAN EAST 10-36-76-15W4 (NPRI 15945) Waukesha L7042GSI 1 1 1 425105 6165710 635 11.6 0.31 37.4 862 0.4049 0.0000 0.0276 0.0007 0.0046
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. DUNCAN EAST 10-36-76-15W4 (NPRI 15945) Waukesha L7042GSI 1 1 1 425105 6165710 635 11.6 0.31 37.4 862 0.3850 0.0000 0.0263 0.0007 0.0044
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. DUNCAN EAST 10-36-76-15W4 (NPRI 15945) Theoretical heaters and boilers 1 1 1 425105 6165710 635 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0027 0.0000 0.0022 0.0000 0.0001
DUNCAN EAST 10-36-76-15W4 (NPRI 15945) 0.8205 0.0000 0.1056 0.0014 0.0279
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Smith West Booster 09-01 588 kW compressor 1 1 1 298563 6112858 598 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1902 0.0000 0.0428 0.0009 0.0026
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Smith West Booster 09-01 298 kW compressor 1 1 1 298563 6112858 598 7.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0964 0.0000 0.0217 0.0004 0.0013
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Smith West Booster 09-01 165 kW Compressor 1 1 1 298563 6112858 598 4.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0534 0.0000 0.0120 0.0002 0.0007
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Smith West Booster 09-01 197kw NG generator 1 1 1 298563 6112858 598 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0010 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Smith West Booster 09-01 147kw Line heater 1 1 1 298563 6112858 598 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Smith West Booster 09-01 147kw dehydrator 1 1 1 298563 6112858 598 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
Smith West Booster 09-01 0.3425 0.0000 0.0767 0.0017 0.0048
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 550 kw Compressor 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 8.8 0.50 25.0 773 0.0929 0.0000 0.1564 0.0007 0.0013
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 309 kw Compressor 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 5.9 0.50 25.0 773 0.0522 0.0000 0.0879 0.0004 0.0007
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 15kw Power Unit 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0025 0.0000 0.0043 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 15kw Power Unit 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0025 0.0000 0.0043 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 37 kw Glycol Reboiler 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 88 kw Glycol Reboiler 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 29 kw Heater 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Page 3A-109
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Bolloque 10-10 29 kw Heater 1 1 1 315800 6045496 678 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Bolloque 10-10 0.1507 0.0000 0.2532 0.0012 0.0021
Ltd.
STK1, compressor engine #2034
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL MCMULLEN 10-24 1 1 1 317897 6175182 682 7.6 0.25 35.0 886 0.0828 0.0000 0.1393 0.0004 0.0011
Waukesha F3521 GS1
STK2, compressor engine #2126
Superior 2408
STK3, Genset engine Ford CSG
649
STK4, compressor engine
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL MCMULLEN 10-24 Caterpillar G3306TAHCR 1 1 1 317897 6175182 682 6.0 0.15 27.0 811 0.0189 0.0000 0.0319 0.0001 0.0003
(ATAAC)
STK5, compressor engine
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNRL MCMULLEN 10-24 Caterpillar G3306TAHCR 1 1 1 317897 6175182 682 6.0 0.15 27.0 811 0.0189 0.0000 0.0319 0.0001 0.0003
(ATAAC)
CNRL MCMULLEN 10-24 0.1342 0.0000 0.2260 0.0006 0.0018
Ltd.
820 compressor engine exhaust
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Big Bend 13-36 1 1 1 309587 6072148 682 12.5 0.50 25.0 773 0.0860 0.0000 0.0177 0.0002 0.0012
stack
stack
stack
stack
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Big Bend 13-36 2841 kw Glycol Heater 1 1 1 309587 6072148 682 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0046 0.0000 0.0005 0.0002 0.0003
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Big Bend 13-36 293kw Glycol Heater 1 1 1 309587 6072148 682 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Big Bend 13-36 100kw Glycol Heater 1 1 1 309587 6072148 682 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Big Bend 13-36 Acid gas flare stack 1 1 1 309587 6072148 682 45.7 0.25 20.0 1273 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Big Bend 13-36 0.3479 0.0000 0.0712 0.0011 0.0049
Ltd.
The 550kW compressor engine
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR 1 1 1 304449 6214876 592 9.1 0.50 25.0 773 0.1856 0.0000 0.3123 0.0008 0.0025
exhaust stack
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR 186 kw Electrical Generator 1 1 1 304449 6214876 592 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0628 0.0000 0.1056 0.0003 0.0009
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR 186 kw Electrical Generator 1 1 1 304449 6214876 592 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0628 0.0000 0.1056 0.0003 0.0009
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR 428 kw Utility heater 1 1 1 304449 6214876 592 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0022 0.0000 0.0019 0.0002 0.0001
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR 147 kw Glycol Reboiler 1 1 1 304449 6214876 592 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0008 0.0000 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR 110 kw Amine Reboiler 1 1 1 304449 6214876 592 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000
44 kw Produced Water Drain
Tank heater
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
37 kw Amine Storage Tank
Heater
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR Acid gas flare stack 1 1 1 304449 6214876 592 18.3 0.25 20.0 1273 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
GODIN 15-19-81-1W5 COMPRESSOR 0.3151 0.0000 0.5270 0.0017 0.0044
Ltd.
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Chisholm Mills 02-32 Compressor 1 1 1 300624 6090722 672 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2219 0.0000 0.3735 0.0010 0.0030
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Dancing Lake 03-17 Compressor 1 1 1 312034 6095143 678 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1452 0.0000 0.2444 0.0007 0.0020
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. SPUR 11-6-73-1w5 Compressor 1 1 1 300281 6132106 616 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0712 0.0000 0.1199 0.0003 0.0010
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Smith 11-09 Compressor 1 1 1 321872 6113547 622 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1671 0.0000 0.2813 0.0008 0.0023
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Jean lake 04-11 Compressor 1 1 1 332450 6374751 731 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2466 0.0000 0.0849 0.0011 0.0033
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Chard 07-14 Compressor 1 1 1 510959 6198486 497 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0575 0.0000 0.0968 0.0003 0.0008
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Tarragon Jean lake 04-11-98-24 Compressor 1 1 1 332450 6374751 731 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0685 0.0000 0.1153 0.0003 0.0009
Cenovus Energy Granor Comp Stn 07-25 Compressor 1 1 1 394168 6232132 544 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1845 0.0000 0.2421 0.0008 0.0025
Cenovus Energy Brintnell Oil Battery and Comp Stn 11-07 Compressor 1 1 1 347679 6219366 617 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 2.0190 0.0000 3.3908 0.0162 0.0310
Cenovus Energy Bonnyville Comp Stn 05-11 Compressor 1 1 1 372233 6227698 610 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1484 0.0000 0.0861 0.0007 0.0020
Cenovus Energy Primrose Comp Stn 05-19 Compressor 1 1 1 485780 6102960 655 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0852 0.0000 0.1434 0.0004 0.0012
Cenovus Energy Primrose Comp Stn 07-08 Compressor 1 1 1 487697 6128872 703 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0584 0.0000 0.0903 0.0003 0.0008
Crescent Point Energy Trust Cold Lake 16-35 Facility 1 1 1 551874 6033671 544 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1210 0.0000 0.0663 0.0000 0.0043
Crescent Point Energy Trust John Lake 6-32 Facility 1 1 1 558078 5979987 659 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1171 0.0000 0.1811 0.0000 0.0043
Crescent Point Energy Trust Red Springs 10-13 Facility 1 1 1 564709 6014716 528 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0829 0.0000 0.1282 0.0000 0.0043
Daylight Energy Trust Fort Kent Facility 1 1 1 532610 6024279 549 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0747 0.0000 0.1155 0.0000 0.0043
Daylight Resources Trust Calling Lake Comp Station 06-29 Waukesha L5108 GSI 1 1 1 418415 6114992 602 12.6 0.25 36.7 824 0.0874 0.0000 0.1352 0.0007 0.0021
Daylight Resources Trust Calling Lake Comp Station 06-29 Waukesha L5108 GSI 1 1 1 418415 6114992 602 12.6 0.25 36.7 824 0.0874 0.0000 0.1352 0.0007 0.0021
Page 3A-110
Daylight Resources Trust Calling Lake Comp Station 06-29 Waukesha VRG-330U 1 1 1 418415 6114992 602 4.1 0.06 65.6 991 0.0068 0.0000 0.0106 0.0001 0.0002
Daylight Resources Trust Calling Lake Comp Station 06-29 Waukesha VRG-330U 1 1 1 418415 6114992 602 4.1 0.06 65.6 991 0.0068 0.0000 0.0106 0.0001 0.0002
Daylight Resources Trust Calling Lake Comp Station 06-29 Glycol rebioler 1 1 1 418415 6114992 602 4.9 0.23 1.7 477 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000
Daylight Resources Trust Calling Lake Comp Station 06-29 0.1886 0.0000 0.2916 0.0016 0.0046
Devon Canada Corp Chard 02-04-078-06W4M Caterpillar G3406Turbo 1 1 1 508197 6175417 610 10.0 0.50 10.5 773 0.2328 0.0000 0.0337 0.0003 0.0011
Devon Canada Corp Chard 11-02-78-07W4 Booster Caterpillar G3406 Turbo 1 1 1 501285 6176231 555 10.0 0.50 10.4 773 0.1700 0.0000 0.0334 0.0001 0.0003
Devon Canada Corp Hangingstone 05-13-84-11W4M Booster Caterpillar G3306TA 1 1 1 462278 6237500 620 10.0 0.50 7.1 773 0.0890 0.0000 0.0227 0.0001 0.0002
Devon Canada Corp Hangingstone Sweet 11-10-084-10W4M Caterpillar G3412 1 1 1 469198 6236234 658 6.9 0.20 73.0 772 0.0260 0.0000 0.0695 0.0002 0.0006
Devon Canada Corp Hangingstone Sweet 11-10-084-10W4M Caterpillar G3412 1 1 1 469198 6236234 658 6.9 0.20 73.0 772 0.0260 0.0000 0.0695 0.0002 0.0006
Waukesha 7042 GSI Catalytic
Devon Canada Corp Hangingstone Sweet 11-10-084-10W4M 1 1 1 469198 6236234 658 11.6 0.31 37.4 862 0.0520 0.0000 0.1242 0.0003 0.0010
Converter
Devon Canada Corp Hangingstone Sweet 11-10-084-10W4M Waukesha F7042 GSI 1 1 1 469198 6236234 658 11.6 0.31 37.4 862 0.5208 0.0000 0.1242 0.0003 0.0010
Devon Canada Corp Hangingstone Sweet 11-10-084-10W4M Waukesha F7042 GSI 1 1 1 469198 6236234 658 11.6 0.31 37.4 862 0.5208 0.0000 0.1242 0.0003 0.0010
Devon Canada Corp Hangingstone Sweet 11-10-084-10W4M 1.1456 0.0000 0.5117 0.0013 0.0041
Devon Canada Corp Kirby North 11-03-76-06 Booster Caterpillar 3412 Turbo 1 1 1 509457 6156810 589 10.0 0.50 20.1 773 0.3216 0.0000 0.0644 0.0007 0.0021
Devon Canada Corp Kirby North 13-05-076-06W4M Waukesha 7042 GSI 1 1 1 505784 6157210 597 10.0 0.50 43.8 773 0.0360 0.0000 0.1404 0.0015 0.0045
Devon Canada Corp Kirby South 07-02-75-06W4M Booster Caterpillar 3406 Turbo 1 1 1 511525 6146696 654 10.0 0.50 10.5 773 0.0792 0.0000 0.0337 0.0003 0.0011
Devon Canada Corp Kirby South 07-09-75-05W4M Booster Waukesha 3521 GSI Turbo 1 1 1 518064 6148339 628 10.0 0.50 19.0 773 0.2568 0.0000 0.0611 0.0006 0.0020
Devon Canada Corp Kirby South 16-25-74-05W4M Booster Waukesha H24GL 1 1 1 523720 6144328 622 10.0 0.50 17.2 773 0.0288 0.0000 0.0550 0.0006 0.0018
Devon Canada Corp Leismer Stn 4 Booster 11-17-77-07W4M Waukesha L5790GL 1 1 1 496406 6169752 559 10.0 0.50 32.1 773 0.0396 0.0000 0.1031 0.0003 0.0008
Devon Canada Corp Leismer Stn 8 Booster 7-35-77-06W4M Waukesha L5790GL 1 1 1 501693 6174206 560 10.0 0.50 32.1 773 0.0396 0.0000 0.1031 0.0003 0.0008
Devon Canada Corp Pony Creek 10-14-080-08W4M Caterpillar G3516TA 1 1 1 491392 6198887 645 10.0 0.50 34.9 773 0.0388 0.0000 0.1118 0.0003 0.0009
Devon Canada Corp Pony Creek 10-14-080-08W4M Caterpillar G3516TA 1 1 1 491392 6198887 645 10.0 0.50 34.9 773 0.0388 0.0000 0.1118 0.0003 0.0009
Devon Canada Corp Pony Creek 10-14-080-08W4M 0.0776 0.0000 0.2236 0.0006 0.0018
Devon Canada Corp West Surmont 06-09-82-08W4M Booster Caterpillar G3406TA 1 1 1 497517 6216281 734 10.0 0.50 7.1 773 0.0890 0.0000 0.0227 0.0001 0.0002
Devon Canada Corp West Surmont 15-17-082-08W4M Waukesha L7042 GSI 1 1 1 486562 6218730 741 10.0 0.50 39.6 773 0.2967 0.0000 0.1270 0.0003 0.0010
Devon Canada Corp West Surmont 15-17-082-08W4M 1.1868 0.0000 0.5080 0.0013 0.0040
Devon Canada Corp West Surmont 6-27-82-08W4M Booster Caterpillar G3306TA 1 1 1 489408 6221146 738 10.0 0.50 7.1 773 0.0890 0.0000 0.0227 0.0001 0.0002
Devon Canada Corp Forsyth 06-26 Facility 1 1 1 503695 6026579 546 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2869 0.0000 0.0587 0.0000 0.0043
Waukesha 9390 GL turbocharged
Devon Canada Corp Kirby south 11-04 1 1 1 517659 6147122 642 11.0 0.34 57.5 679 0.0152 0.0000 0.5800 0.0016 0.0047
Natural gas engine
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
Waukesha 3521 GL turbocharged
gas engine
Waukesha 3521 GSI
turbocharged Natural gas engine
Waukesha 3521 GSI
turbocharged Natural gas engine
Devon Canada Corp Kirby south 11-04 Glycol heater 1 1 1 517659 6147122 642 4.6 0.25 1.1 946 0.0002 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000
Devon Canada Corp Kirby south 11-04 Glycol heater 1 1 1 517659 6147122 642 4.3 0.15 1.5 946 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Devon Canada Corp Kirby south 11-04 Utility Boiler 1 1 1 517659 6147122 642 4.6 0.25 4.8 946 0.0009 0.0000 0.0013 0.0001 0.0001
Devon Canada Corp Kirby south 11-04 0.1589 0.0000 1.2332 0.0035 0.0100
MEP 10 naturally aspirated 10
Devon Canada Corp Leismer 03-07 1 1 1 494777 6167325 567 13.8 0.59 35.8 644 0.0396 0.0000 0.0276 0.0002 0.0053
cylindder natural gas engines
MEP 10Turbocharged,10
MEP 10Turbocharged,10
Devon Canada Corp Leismer 03-07 Heat Medium boilers 1 1 1 494777 6167325 567 6.4 0.38 32.8 728 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
Devon Canada Corp Leismer 03-07 Heat Medium boilers 1 1 1 494777 6167325 567 6.4 0.38 32.8 728 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
Devon Canada Corp Leismer 03-07 Glycol Reboiler 1 1 1 494777 6167325 567 5.8 0.26 8.1 728 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Page 3A-111
Devon Canada Corp Leismer 03-07 Glycol Reboiler 1 1 1 494777 6167325 567 5.8 0.26 8.1 728 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Devon Canada Corp Leismer 03-07 0.1616 0.0000 0.1781 0.0017 0.0349
Devon Canada Corp Devon home Leismer Gas Gathering Compressor 1 1 1 499254 6170967 561 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1233 0.0000 0.2794 0.0006 0.0017
Devon Canada Corp Victor/Decrene 06-17 Compressor 1 1 1 301246 6115435 611 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1370 0.0000 0.0877 0.0006 0.0019
Devon Canada Corp Hondo GGS 10-05 Compressor 1 1 1 311646 6112363 605 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1068 0.0000 0.1799 0.0005 0.0015
Devon Canada Corporation DEVON HANGINGSTONE COMPRESSOR Compressor 1 1 1 497530 6216275 734 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.5803 0.0000 0.4523 0.0013 0.0079
E ConsTRSution Ltd P-01 Cold Lake Facility 1 1 1 551314 6035578 541 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0548 0.0548 0.0548 0.0083 0.0014
E ConsTRSution Ltd P-24 Mobile Plant Facility 1 1 1 545146 6030695 533 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0548 0.0548 0.0548 0.0611 0.0014
EnCana Corp. Birch Mountain 04-33-098-14W4M Compressor 1 1 1 426927 6378238 818 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.8340 0.0000 0.0649 0.0020 0.0241
EnCana Corp. Leismer Compressor station 08-13 Compressor 1 1 1 483700 6188700 627 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0959 0.0000 0.0603 0.0002 0.0028
EnCana Corp. Leismer Compressor station 11-27 Compressor 1 1 1 479500 6192500 678 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0658 0.0000 0.3151 0.0002 0.0019
EnCana Corp. Encana 00/01-02-096-16W4 Compressor 1 1 1 411334 6351011 559 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0712 0.0000 0.0055 0.0002 0.0021
EnCana Corp. Caribou 02-21 Facility - FC 19 1 1 1 529057 6102373 673 5.6 0.13 34.0 813 0.2410 0.0000 0.1201 0.0010 0.0070
EnCana Corp. Caribou North 11-08 Superior 1 1 1 1 526843 6099985 672 7.8 0.41 30.6 632 0.0346 0.0000 0.1279 0.0057 0.0028
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
EnCana Corp. Caribou North 11-08 Caterpillar 1 1 1 1 526881 6099989 672 6.4 0.61 35.9 728 0.0561 0.0000 0.1980 0.0119 0.0045
EnCana Corp. Caribou North 11-08 Dehydrator 1 1 1 1 527144 6099912 671 6.4 0.40 3.6 533 0.0042 0.0000 0.0022 0.0021 0.0003
EnCana – Caribou North Gas
EnCana Corp. Caribou North 11-08 1 1 1 526855 6099971 672 8.8 0.51 29.6 632 0.8600 0.0000 2.3110 0.1350 0.0250
Plant
EnCana Corp. Caribou North 11-08 1.6156 0.0000 4.2719 0.2460 0.0857
EnCana – Caribou South Gas
EnCana Corp. Caribou South 15-01 1 1 1 524250 6089020 694 12.2 1.52 32.3 733 0.6600 0.0000 1.4500 0.0700 0.0190
Plant
EnCana Corp. Clyde Lake 08-09 Facility - FC 12 and 13 1 1 1 479940 6118916 677 6.9 0.30 21.5 886 0.1890 0.0000 0.2107 0.0000 0.0050
EnCana Corp. Primrose 01-04 Facility - FC 10 1 1 1 509428 6107140 641 6.8 0.13 35.0 811 0.2170 0.0000 0.1113 0.0010 0.0060
Page 3A-112
EnCana – Primrose North Gas
EnCana Corp. Primrose 12-01 1 1 1 513069 6127392 714 11.8 0.45 34.2 748 0.8300 0.0000 1.4314 0.0200 0.0240
Plant
EnCana Corp. Caribou Gas Battary 05-16 Compressor 1 1 1 517759 6111115 670 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1343 0.0000 0.0767 0.0006 0.0018
Harvest Operations CORP. MARTEN HILLS 1-26 GGS Compressor 1 1 1 307826 6137578 630 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1781 0.0000 0.2998 0.0008 0.0024
HARVEST OPERATIONS CORP. Tweedie Gas Plant Compressor 1 1 1 442801 6101690 588 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1804 0.0000 0.1145 0.0012 0.0024
HARVEST OPERATIONS CORP. Picne Gas Plant Compressor 1 1 1 456102 6108361 595 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1916 0.0000 0.3225 0.0009 0.0026
Harvest Operations CORP.
Wappau Compressor Station (10-3-74-12W4M) Compressor 1 1 1 451854 6137651 667 10.0 0.30 20.0 773 0.4026 0.0000 0.1123 0.0010 0.0100
(former Viking Energy)
Husky Energy Atmore C.S. Dehy Reboiler 1 1 1 400040 6117783 576 5.2 0.27 0.1 873 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
Husky Energy Atmore C.S. Waukesha F7042GU 1 1 1 400040 6117783 576 14.5 0.32 33.0 844 0.0869 0.0000 0.0250 0.0007 0.0021
Husky Energy Atmore C.S. Salt Bath Heater 1 1 1 400040 6117783 576 7.5 0.51 0.2 873 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Husky Energy Atmore C.S. 0.2611 0.0000 0.0751 0.0023 0.0065
Husky Energy Agnes Lake C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 429591 6194143 690 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2855 0.0000 0.4805 0.0013 0.0039
Husky Energy Calling West C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 379516 6129138 659 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3326 0.0000 0.5599 0.0015 0.0045
Husky Energy Rock Island Lake C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 346625 6157791 683 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1509 0.0000 0.1006 0.0007 0.0020
Husky Energy Amadou C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 373201 6139536 746 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.3175 0.0000 0.1962 0.0025 0.0400
Husky Energy Gambler G.P. Compressor 1 1 1 363352 6106600 664 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.5178 0.0000 0.0784 0.0023 0.0070
Husky Energy Fawcett River North C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 325968 6184501 594 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3704 0.0000 0.0597 0.0017 0.0050
Husky Energy Inc. Compressor Stn 05-24-082-14W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 433820 6220022 586 10.0 0.50 19.5 773 0.1152 0.0000 0.0625 0.0006 0.0020
Husky Energy Inc. Thornbury North 14-09-082-12W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 448802 6217386 735 10.0 0.50 37.9 773 0.0576 0.0000 0.1216 0.0013 0.0039
Husky Energy Inc. Twin Lakes C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 376243 6161720 597 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.5315 0.0000 0.0685 0.0024 0.0072
Husky Energy Inc. Pelican C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 375657 6184031 563 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3397 0.0000 0.5718 0.0015 0.0046
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 1929 kW compressor 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 12.1 0.50 25.0 773 0.5234 0.0000 0.0820 0.0018 0.0156
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 298 kw Genset 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0809 0.0000 0.0127 0.0003 0.0024
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 298 kw Genset 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0809 0.0000 0.0127 0.0003 0.0024
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 735kw amine reboiler 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0031 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 110kw glycol reboiler 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 147 kw MU water reboiler 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 351 kw heat medium boiler 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 5.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0015 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. Acid gas flare stack 1 1 1 320476 6235808 555 24.4 0.25 20.0 1273 0.0000 0.0658 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Husky Energy Inc. Muskwa River G.P. 1.4384 0.0658 0.2247 0.0055 0.0438
Husky Energy Inc. Bolloque West C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 316301 6049554 703 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3014 0.0000 0.5073 0.0014 0.0041
Husky Energy Inc. Dancing Lake C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 304388 6075590 681 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0822 0.0000 0.1383 0.0004 0.0011
Husky Energy Inc. Orloff Lake South C.S. Compressor 1 1 1 320925 6150665 707 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0959 0.0000 0.1614 0.0004 0.0013
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. 10-6-56-27W3M Facility 1 1 1 565614 5962939 667 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0676 0.0000 0.1138 0.0000 0.0043
Ish Energy Ltd. Compressor Stn Kirby 02-30-074-08W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 485989 6143073 675 10.0 0.50 17.0 773 0.1192 0.0001 0.1089 0.0012 0.0001
Ish Energy Ltd. Ish Energy Devenish Compressor station Compressor 1 1 1 485988 6143072 675 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1205 0.0000 0.1096 0.0012 0.0016
Iteration Energy Ltd Skinny Crow 8-4 Compressor 1 1 1 431043 6176476 678 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2650 0.0000 0.4461 0.0012 0.0036
Iteration Energy Ltd Portage 5-7 Compressor 1 1 1 406802 6178597 577 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0821 0.0000 0.1382 0.0004 0.0011
Iteration Energy Ltd. North Portage (Compton) 11-10 Waukesha L7042 GU 1 1 1 402067 6179191 560 16.7 0.29 18.6 728 0.2392 0.0000 0.0700 0.0011 0.0032
Iteration Energy Ltd. North Portage (Compton) 11-10 Waukesha L7042 GU 1 1 1 402067 6179191 560 16.7 0.29 18.6 728 0.2392 0.0000 0.0700 0.0011 0.0032
Iteration Energy Ltd. North Portage (Compton) 11-10 Catapiliar 3408 1 1 1 402067 6179191 560 5.9 0.20 27.0 728 0.1274 0.0000 0.0373 0.0006 0.0017
Iteration Energy Ltd. North Portage (Compton) 11-10 Salt Bath Heater 1 1 1 402067 6179191 560 3.7 0.34 25.0 773 0.0037 0.0000 0.0006 0.0003 0.0002
Iteration Energy Ltd. North Portage (Compton) 11-10 Glycol heating Boiler 1 1 1 402067 6179191 560 3.1 0.25 25.0 773 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
Iteration Energy Ltd. North Portage (Compton) 11-10 Glycol heating Boiler 1 1 1 402067 6179191 560 3.1 0.25 25.0 773 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
Iteration Energy Ltd. North Portage (Compton) 11-10 0.6110 0.0000 0.1781 0.0031 0.0085
Iteration Energy Ltd. Portage 6-29 Compressor 1 1 1 398487 6164042 691 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.6575 0.0000 1.1068 0.0030 0.0089
Iteration Energy Ltd. Algar 12-28 Compressor 1 1 1 419625 6183395 651 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1671 0.0000 0.2795 0.0008 0.0023
Iteration Energy Ltd. Portage 16-24 Compressor 1 1 1 406445 6182435 569 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0821 0.0000 0.1382 0.0004 0.0011
Iteration Energy Ltd. Charron 5-5 Compressor 1 1 1 419069 6098685 581 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3479 0.0000 0.1679 0.0016 0.0047
Page 3A-113
Iteration Energy Ltd. Atmore 8-32 Compressor 1 1 1 389161 6109291 576 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0684 0.0000 0.1142 0.0003 0.0009
Northlands Forest Products Ltd. Fort McMurray Sawmill Beehive Burner 1 1 1 473110 6303164 250 24.0 11.00 3.0 773 0.1900 0.0200 25.0000 0.1900 1.7065
Northlands Forest Products Ltd. Fort McMurray Sawmill 0.1900 0.0200 25.0000 0.1900 1.7065
Northstar Energy Corp. Compressor Stn 10-14-080-08W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 491392 6198887 645 10.0 0.50 37.9 773 0.1680 0.0000 0.1216 0.0013 0.0039
Northstar Energy Corp. Compressor Stn 15-17-082-08W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 486562 6218730 741 10.0 0.50 37.9 773 0.1608 0.0000 0.1216 0.0013 0.0039
Northstar Energy Corp. Northstar Energy Corporation Compressor Engine 1 1 1 487543 6235738 736 10.0 0.50 6.3 773 0.1100 0.0000 0.0200 0.0000 0.0092
Northstar Energy Corp. Northstar Energy Corporation Compressor Engine 1 1 1 486562 6218730 741 10.0 0.50 37.9 773 0.2400 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.0092
Northstar Energy Corp. Northstar Energy Corporation 0.3500 0.0000 0.1400 0.0000 0.0185
Open Range Energy Corpora Big Bend Compressor 1 1 1 309388 6074139 696 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0712 0.0000 0.0575 0.0003 0.0010
Paramount Energy Operating
Chard Compressor Stn. 14-32-79-05W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 515664 6194251 481 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0659 0.0000 0.0051 0.0000 0.0019
Corp.
Corner Compressor Stn. 14-04-81-09W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 477974 6205816 699 10.0 0.50 61.7 773 0.3696 0.0000 0.1979 0.0020 0.0064
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
Corner Compressor Stn. 14-4-81-09W4M 0.5825 0.0000 0.3790 0.0894 0.0167
Corp.
KettleCompressor Stn. 15-2-81-06W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 511146 6205572 478 8.0 0.43 26.8 672 0.1410 0.0000 0.0301 0.0003 0.0041
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
KettleCompressor Stn. 15-2-81-06W4M Generator Engine 1 1 1 511146 6205572 478 8.0 0.43 26.8 672 0.0088 0.0000 0.0019 0.0000 0.0003
Corp.
KettleCompressor Stn. 15-2-81-06W4M Generator Engine 1 1 1 511146 6205572 478 8.0 0.43 26.8 672 0.0088 0.0000 0.0019 0.0000 0.0003
Corp.
KettleCompressor Stn. 15-2-81-06W4M 0.6397 0.0000 0.1364 0.0014 0.0185
Corp.
Leismer Compressor Stn. 06-23-79-10W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 471359 6190475 669 10.0 0.50 47.5 773 0.0648 0.0000 0.1524 0.0016 0.0049
Corp.
Corp.
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
Corp.
Corp.
Leismer Compressor Stn. 12-16-79-09W4M Generator Engine 1 1 1 477480 6189226 677 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0329 0.0000 0.0340 0.0005 0.0010
Corp.
Leismer Compressor Stn. 12-16-79-09W4M 0.6153 0.0000 0.3446 0.0041 0.0108
Corp.
Quigley Compressor Stn. 07-02-083-06W4M Compressor Engine 1 1 1 510225 6224400 510 12.4 0.43 27.6 683 0.2640 0.0000 0.0280 0.0010 0.0080
Corp.
Ells North Compressor Station 00/03-31-093-14W4 Compressor Engine 1 1 1 424517 6329699 419 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0636 0.0000 0.0660 0.0002 0.0018
Corp.
Ells North Compressor Station 00/03-31-093-14W4 Generator Engine 1 1 1 424517 6329699 419 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0038 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0001
Corp.
Ells North Compressor Station 00/03-31-093-14W4 Generator Engine 1 1 1 424517 6329699 419 10.0 0.50 25.0 673 0.0038 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000 0.0001
Corp.
Ells North Compressor Station 00/03-31-093-14W4 0.0712 0.0000 0.0740 0.0002 0.0021
Corp.
DEVON MUSKWA Compressor engine 2335 kW 1 1 1 311087 6269095 764 10.7 0.50 25.0 773 0.0663 0.0000 0.0443 0.0003 0.0183
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
Corp.
Page 3A-114

DEVON MUSKWA Amine reboiler exhaust stacks 1 1 1 311087 6269095 764 7.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0004
Corp.
DEVON MUSKWA Amine reboiler exhaust stacks 1 1 1 311087 6269095 764 7.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0004
Corp.
DEVON MUSKWA Glycol reboiler exhaust stack 1 1 1 311087 6269095 764 7.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
Corp.
DEVON MUSKWA The utility heater exhaust 1 1 1 311087 6269095 764 6.7 0.31 2.8 477 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002
Corp.
DEVON MUSKWA The make-up water boiler exhaust 1 1 1 311087 6269095 764 7.5 0.31 2.8 477 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
Corp.
DEVON MUSKWA Acid gas flare stack 1 1 1 311087 6269095 764 24.4 0.25 20.0 1273 0.0000 0.1014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Corp.
DEVON MUSKWA 0.1562 0.1014 0.1041 0.0008 0.0438
Corp.
Peter 14-14 Compressor 1 1 1 306552 6125732 625 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.4658 0.0000 0.0630 0.0013 0.0063
Corp.
DEVON MISTAHAE Compressor 1 1 1 302439 6181964 623 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.6027 0.0000 1.0146 0.0011 0.0082
Corp.
CNW PETER 13-14 COMPRESSOR STN Compressor 1 1 1 306177 6125882 636 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0548 0.0000 0.0922 0.0002 0.0007
Corp.
DEVON CALLING LAKE Compressor 1 1 1 370455 6118225 611 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2071 0.0000 0.1628 0.0009 0.0028
Corp.
Numac Calling Lake 09-32 Compressor 1 1 1 370567 6118355 611 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0375 0.0000 0.0631 0.0002 0.0005
Corp.
Marten Hills 14-22 Compressor 1 1 1 334337 6145672 660 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.1721 0.0000 0.0698 0.0017 0.0680
Corp.
Otter Lake GGS 07-12 Compressor 1 1 1 327639 6132170 637 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1908 0.0000 0.0789 0.0009 0.0026
Corp.
Saleski 05-08 Compressor 1 1 1 386522 6275849 519 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.3286 0.0000 0.0787 0.0043 0.0281
Corp.
East Liege 01-30 Compressor 1 1 1 375669 6319750 528 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0738 0.0000 0.1242 0.0003 0.0010
Corp.
South Liege 06-27 Compressor 1 1 1 371133 6300830 514 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.8612 0.0000 0.1110 0.0024 0.0281
Corp.
DEVON WOODENHOUSE Compressor 1 1 1 348394 6267167 551 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.7900 0.0000 0.3490 0.0021 0.0449
Corp.
COSEKA SALESKI 5-8 Compressor 1 1 1 386694 6276078 518 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0731 0.0000 0.1230 0.0003 0.0010
Corp.
Paramount Liege Compressor 1 1 1 371530 6300817 516 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.1927 0.0000 0.3244 0.0009 0.0026
Corp.
Paramount Ells South Gs 5-20-92-14w4 Compressor 1 1 1 425352 6317222 444 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0594 0.0000 0.1328 0.0003 0.0008
Corp.
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd
Stack
Penn West Petroleum Sugden 3-16-61-8W4 Facility 1 1 1 490648 6013235 583 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.3341 0.0000 0.0712 0.0000 0.0043
SABRE ENERGY Big Bend 13-36-66-26W4M Compressor Station Compressor 1 1 1 318829 6071733 674 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.4356 0.0000 0.3096 0.0020 0.0059
SABRE ENERGY 11-28 Field Compressor Compressor 1 1 1 300513 6060739 665 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0329 0.0000 0.0027 0.0001 0.0004
SABRE ENERGY 2-5 Field Compressor Compressor 1 1 1 310966 6072457 673 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0521 0.0000 0.0027 0.0002 0.0007
SABRE ENERGY 12-30-66-26W4 Compressor Compressor 1 1 1 311289 6069870 675 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0170 0.0000 0.0009 0.0001 0.0002
SABRE ENERGY 7-19-66-26W4 Compressor 1 1 1 311834 6067942 677 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0329 0.0000 0.0019 0.0001 0.0004
Suncor Energy Canadian Pipeline
Mariana Pump Station Compressor 1 1 1 434300 6199011 696 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0615 0.0000 0.1036 0.0003 0.0008
Limited Partnership
TALISMAN ENERGY Talisman-Cmpr-08-33-075-15W4 White Superior 8GT825 1 1 1 420333 6155430 832 16.7 0.31 41.0 705 0.0630 0.0000 0.0331 0.0003 0.0009
TALISMAN ENERGY Talisman-Cmpr-08-33-075-15W4 White Superior 8GTL825 1 1 1 420333 6155430 832 15.0 0.31 41.0 705 0.0630 0.0000 0.0331 0.0003 0.0009
TALISMAN ENERGY Talisman-Cmpr-08-33-075-15W4 Catapiliar G3512 LE 1 1 1 420333 6155430 832 7.2 0.27 39.0 703 0.0054 0.0000 0.0242 0.0000 0.0001
TALISMAN ENERGY Talisman-Cmpr-08-33-075-15W4 Dehy Reboiler 1 1 1 420333 6155430 832 5.0 0.27 39.0 553 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
TALISMAN ENERGY Talisman-Cmpr-04-15-076-15W4 Compressor 1 1 1 415972 6180993 608 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0358 0.0000 0.0603 0.0002 0.0005
The Canadian Salt Company Ltd Lindbergh Facility Facility 1 1 1 525769 5968980 599 7.0 0.40 4.0 500 0.0630 0.0000 0.0575 0.0013 0.0112
TRANSCANADA ENERGY MacKay River Power Plant Compressor 1 1 1 478849 6280339 360 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 1.0572 0.0000 0.8875 0.0408 0.0728
Centrifugal Turbine Solar
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES Paul Lake 1 1 1 315151 6148854 820 10.1 1.22 30.1 718 0.1156 0.0000 0.0069 0.0002 0.0007
CENTAUR T-4500
Centrifugal Turbine Solar
CENTAUR T4700S
Turbine-Solar Solar Titan 130-
20502S
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES Paul Lake PPU-Cummins GTA-1150 1 1 1 315151 6148854 820 7.5 0.15 36.0 896 0.0009 0.0000 0.0230 0.0000 0.0000
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES Paul Lake APU-Cummins GTA-1150 1 1 1 315151 6148854 820 7.5 0.15 69.0 894 0.0000 0.0000 0.0372 0.0000 0.0000
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES Paul Lake APU-CATEPILLAR G3306 TA 1 1 1 315151 6148854 820 5.0 0.13 33.8 809 0.0000 0.0000 0.0181 0.0000 0.0000
Page 3A-115
Boiler-Saskatoon Boiler MFG.

CO. FWG-50
Boiler-Hydrotherm Inc. MR 900 B-
PV
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES Paul Lake 0.2274 0.0000 0.1315 0.0015 0.0015
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES Woodenhouse Compressor 1 1 1 307876 6264592 761 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.2849 0.0000 0.2411 0.0020 0.0039
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES Ltd. Buffalo Creek Compressor 1 1 1 386333 6259438 528 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0596 0.0000 0.0591 0.0003 0.0008
True Energy Trust Keyano 14-12 Facility 1 1 1 446664 6022838 611 10.0 0.50 25.0 773 0.0625 0.0000 0.0973 0.0000 0.0043
Williams Energy (Canada), Inc. Fort McMurray Chemical Plant Heat Medium Heater 1 1 1 471754 6314125 325 32.4 1.40 6.2 553 0.0244 0.0000 0.0609 0.0103 0.2631
Williams Energy (Canada), Inc. Fort McMurray Chemical Plant 0.0244 0.0000 0.0609 0.0103 0.2631
TABLE 3A-40
SPACE HEATING STATUS, LOCATIONS, AND EMISSIONS

Operator Facility Existing Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project Space Heating 1 - x x x
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project Space Heating 2 - x x x
Total E&P Canada Joslyn North Mine Project - x x x
Total E&P Canada Joslyn South Mine Project - - - x
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Mine Project - - - x
Base
Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4 Area Elev
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM (m
Operator Facility (mE) UTM (mN) UTM (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (km2) ASL)
Imperial Oil Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project Space
495138 6362612 496362 6362612 496362 6361388 495138 6361388 1.50 359
Resources Heating 1
Imperial Oil Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project Space
496037 6361385 496601 6361385 496601 6360821 496037 6360821 0.32 368
Resources Heating 2
Page 3A-116
Total E&P Canada Joslyn North Mine Project 450864 6350088 451086 6350088 451086 6349848 450864 6349848 0.05 307
Total E&P Canada Joslyn South Mine Project 448868 6342152 449090 6342152 449090 6341912 448868 6341912 0.05 327
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Mine Project 463373 6394815 466386 6394815 466386 6392789 463373 6392789 6.10 284
NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC

Operator Facility (t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d)
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project Space Heating 1 0.576 0.00200 0.0230 0.250 0.0170
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project Space Heating 2 2.41 0.0210 0.229 2.47 0.167
Total E&P Canada Joslyn North Mine Project 0.360 0.00300 0.0170 0.276 0.00300
Total E&P Canada Joslyn South Mine Project 0.360 0.00300 0.0170 0.276 0.00300
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Mine Project 0.121 0.0174 0.00981 0.0516 0.00710
Sum (Baseline Case) 3.35 0.0260 0.269 3.00 0.187
Sum (PDC) 3.83 0.0464 0.296 3.32 0.197
TABLE 3A-41
MODEL DOMAIN STACK EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Development Scenario/Source Type NOX SO2 CO PM2.5 VOC
Project
Stacks 5.07 0.502 15.9 0.429 0.327
Existing Condition
Mine, Extraction, and Upgrading Facilities 98.82 313.71 61.92 8.09 2.81
In-situ Facilities 64.79 46.15 47.04 4.47 2.26
Other Facilities 92.37 3.68 91.07 1.25 4.56
Existing Condition Total 256 363.5 200 13.8 9.6
Baseline Case
Baseline Case Total 383.6 299.6 401.1 23.3 16.1
Application Case
Application Case Total 385.5 300 407 23.5 16.2
PDC
PDC Total 530 361 689 31.70 24.57
NOTE:
The Project Full Operation and Intermittent emissions do not overlap.
3A.3 Plant Fugitive Emissions
3A.3.1 Introduction
Fugitive emissions can occur from oil sands facilities or gas plants due to small leaks from valves,
flanges, rotating seals, and vents. While each individual fugitive source is small; collectively, the
associated emissions can be significant for large industrial complexes such as a combined extraction and
upgrading facility. For the purpose of estimating fugitive plant sources, the plants in the Model Domain
were broadly classified as:
• Integrated Extraction and Upgrading Facilities
• Extraction Plants
• In-situ Plants
• Gas Processing Plants
Fugitive emissions from these types of plant facilities result from hydrocarbon storage facilities (i.e., fuel,
diluent, or final product storage tanks) and from hydrocarbon stream handling and processing areas.
Detailed fugitive emissions for individual tanks and process areas were estimated for the Project. The
fugitive emission estimates for the Project focus on methane, VOC and TRS emissions.
Page 3A-117
As the basis for fugitive emissions from other developments (i.e., plants other than the Project) are not
provided in the respective assessments, a consistent approach was adopted to provide these estimations
for this assessment. Specifically, fugitive emissions from the other plants were estimated on a whole plant
basis using emission profiles representative for each plant type, with a focus on fugitive VOC and TRS
emissions. The emission estimates and the speciation selection adopted in this assessment represent a
high-level approach. Furthermore, this assessment focuses on bitumen extraction facilities, and profiles
were not developed for the smaller gas processing plants. The approach for estimating fugitive plant
emissions from the non-project plants is similar to that adopted in the recent Frontier mine assessment
(Teck/SilverBirch 2011)
3A.3.2 Plants in the Model Domain
Table 3A-42 identifies the existing condition, Baseline Case, Application Case, and PDC plants in the
Model Domain. Figure 3A-5 shows the locations of the plants in the RSA. The coordinates for each plant
in the Model Domain are listed in Table 3A-43, are expressed in the UTM system, and the coordinates
refer to the four corners of each plant, which for the purposes of dispersion modelling were assumed to
be rectangular. In some cases, the plant areas are not provided in the respective assessment and for
these cases, default plant areas of 500 m by 500 m were adopted.
3A.3.3 Plant Fugitive Emissions Considerations
As previously indicated, the basis for the estimation of fugitive emissions for many facilities in the Model
Domain is not clearly documented. For this reason, generic emission profiles were developed for
representative source types and applied to the plants on the basis of bitumen production. The
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier plant emission estimates were scaled to obtain emission estimates for other
extraction-only plant facilities; and the Devon Jackfish emission estimates (Devon, 2010) were scaled to
obtain emission estimates for other in-situ plant facilities. Where possible, upgrader-specific emission
profiles were adopted; this approach, however, made use of older data.
3A.3.4 BlackPearl Commercial Project Fugitive Plant Emissions
For the Project, fugitive emissions that could occur from the hydrocarbon storage tanks and from the
various process/handling areas were estimated in a rigorous manner. The emission estimates were
undertaken by Clearstone Engineering through discussion with the Project design engineers and the
application of standard estimating practices.
3A.3.4.1 Project Storage Tank Emissions
Table 3A-44 identifies the storage tanks in hydrocarbon service Associated with the Project. Figure 3A-6
shows a plot plan indicating the locations of these tanks. Twenty-eight (28) tanks in hydrocarbon service
were identified: eleven for Phase 1, nine for Phase 2, and eight for Phase 3.
Most tanks are blanketed and are tied into a vapour recovery unit (VRU) to manage potential fugitive
emissions that may result from emptying and filling operations (referred to as working losses) and from
the diurnal heating and cooling of the tanks (referred to as breathing losses). Fugitive emissions
associated with the hydrocarbon tanks were estimated by Clearstone Engineering (2011) as per the
following:
• The US EPA TANKS emission estimation program was used to calculate total hydrocarbon emissions
based on the tank properties and the tank contents.
• For tanks that are tied into a VRU, a control efficiency of 95% was assumed. The control level is
specified for vapour control systems by CCME Guide EPC-87E (1995) for controlling VOC emissions
from above ground storage tanks.
• Compositions of the fugitive emissions from each storage tank are based on VOC, PAH and TRS
speciation profile.
Page 3A-118
Tables A-45 to A-47 provide representative emission estimates for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 tanks,
respectfully. The tables also provide emission rates for individual compound and subtotals for different
compound groups on the following basis:
• Total VOC refers to volatile organic compounds and is assumed to be the total hydrocarbons less
methane and ethane.
• Total TRS refers to the total reduced sulphur compounds and is the sum of all reduced sulphur
compounds.
The estimated total tank fugitive VOC and TRS emissions based on the Project design are 164 t/a and
0.172 t/a (or 0.45 t/d and 0.00049 t/d), respectively.
Tables 3A-45 to 3A-47 also provide the physical parameters for each tank. The initial sigma Y and sigma
Z represent the initial atmospheric turbulence levels associated with the tank structure. The sigma Y
value is assumed to be the diameter divided by 4.3 and the sigma Z value is assumed to be the tank
height divided by 2.15; these assumptions were obtained from the ISCST3 manual recommendations
(U.S. EPA 1995).
3A.3.4.2 Project Process Area Emissions
Clearstone Engineering (2011) also estimated fugitive emissions that could be expected from the valves,
flanges, seals, and drains; and provided representative speciation profiles. The magnitude and
composition of the fugitive emissions were based on measurements at similar facilities.
For the purpose of this assessment, emissions for thirty five process areas were identified and estimated
on the basis of equipment count and content. The areas are shown in Figure 3A-6. Table 3A-48 identifies
these areas, and Tables A-49, A-50 and A-51 provide summaries of the process area parameters and
emissions for Phase 1, 2 and 3, respectfully.
The VOC and TRS emissions for the process areas are estimated to be as follows:
• VOC refers to volatile organic compounds and is assumed to be the total hydrocarbons minus
methane and ethane. The VOC emissions from all three phases is 176 t/a.
• TRS refers to the total reduced sulphur compounds and is the sum of all TRS compounds. The TRS
emissions from all three phases is 0.175 t/a.
The release height of 3 m was selected to represent a blend of near surface and elevated pipe-rack
emission points. The sigma Z of 5 m was selected to represent the initial atmospheric turbulence levels
associated with the structures in these areas.
3A.3.4.3 Project Well Pad emissions
Well pad fugitive emissions include those from well pad pairs, test separator and produced vapour
package, start-up circulation package, and steam inlet instrument air and from the vent stack. Clearstone
Engineering estimated the fugitive emissions and provided representative speciation profiles for the well
pads (Clearstone, 2011). Fugitive emissions within each well pad were combined and treated as one area
source per well pad.
Well pad locations will change throughout the life of the Project. During the peak year, a maximum of 40
well pads will be in simultaneous production; this assessment focussed on the peak year. Out of these 40
well pads: five are for Phase 1, ten are for Phase 2, and 25 are for Phase 3. The total VOC and TRS
emissions are 500 t/a and 1.2 t/a, respectfully. Tables 3A-53, Table 3A-54 and Table 3A-55 provide
summaries of the well pad area parameters and emissions for Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3,
respectfully
Page 3A-119
The release height of 3 m was selected to represent a blend of near surface and elevated pipe rack
emission points. The sigma Z of 5 m was selected to represent the initial atmospheric turbulence levels
associated with the structures in these areas.
3A.3.4.4 Project Speciation
Several speciation profiles specific to the product being handled in each tank, within each process area
and at the well pads were identified. These include:
• Dilbit
• Diluent
• Blackrod Bitumen
• Fuel Gas
• Diesel
• Mixed Fuel Gas
• Process Gas
• Methanol
Tables 3A-44, 3A-48, and 3A-52 indicate the speciation profiles that were adopted for each specific tank,
process area, and well pad area, respectively. The speciation profiles were obtained from a blend of
information from surrogate tank and process and well pad area data, and were reviewed by the human
health team to identify individual compounds or groups of compounds that could be linked to potential
adverse health outcomes.
3A.3.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon dioxide and methane are of interest as they are Greenhouse Gases. The handling of methane as
a fuel, and the handling and storage of other hydrocarbon streams can result in fugitive methane and
carbon dioxide emissions. The estimated methane emission due to fugitive plant sources at the Project
(see Table 3A-56) are:
• Fugitive Tank Sources: 13,135 t/a as CO2e

• Fugitive Process Area Sources: 1,138 t/a as CO2e
• Fugitive Well pad Area Sources: 1,876 t/a as CO2e
The individual tank and process area contributions are provided in Tables A-45 to A-47 and in Tables A-
49 and A-51, respectively.
3A.3.5 Other Development Fugitive Plant Emissions
The basis for the fugitive emission estimates for other plants and the results are as follows:
Upgraders and Extraction Plants
The MLUEP EIA (Syncrude 1998) emission estimates for Mildred lake Upgrader for 2007 are 7.2 t/d for
VOC, and 1.08 t/d for TRS. The TRS emission corresponds to 15% of the VOC on a mass basis. For this
assessment, the TRS emission was assumed to be 5% to reflect improved control of these emissions. On
this basis, the TRS emission from the Syncrude facility is 0.36 t/d.
The VOC emission estimate associated with the existing Suncor Upgrader is 16.982 t/d (Cenovus 2010).
For the purpose of assessment, the TRS emission from the Suncor was assumed to also be 5% of the
VOC emissions (i.e., 0.85 t/d).
The fugitive plant emissions for the CNRL Horizon upgrader, the Nexan/OPTI Long Lake, and the Suncor
Voyageur were scaled based on bitumen production from the Syncrude Mildred Lake values. These
assumptions result in higher VOC emissions from these facilities than reported in other EIAs.
Page 3A-120
Extraction Only Plants
The total Teck/SilverBirch Frontier project plant fugitive emissions of VOC and TRS are 2.97 t/d (or
1084 t/a) and 0.0013 t/d (or 0.475 t/a), respectively. This includes fugitive emissions from tanks and
process areas. On this basis, production specific fugitive emission factors for extraction plants are
11.02 kg/1000 bbl of bitumen produced for VOC and 0.0049 kg/1000 bbl of bitumen produced for TRS.
These factors were applied to the other extraction plant only facilities that were identified in Table 3A-42
to estimate the fugitive emissions from these types of facilities.
In-situ Plants
On a whole facility basis, the total fugitive emissions of VOC and TRS from the Devon Jackfish project are
0.148 and 0.003 t/d respectively, which corresponds to a bitumen production of 35,000 bbl/cd (Devon
2010). This includes fugitive emissions from tanks and process areas. On this basis, the production
specific fugitive emission factors of VOC and TRS for the Jackfish project are 4.23 and 0.083 kg/1000 bbl
of bitumen produced. These factors were applied to the other in-situ plant facilities that were identified in
Table 3A-42 to estimate the fugitive emissions from these types of facilities. These factors were also
applied to the Pilot Project and Pilot Expansion Project
Emission Estimates
Table 3A-57 identifies the bitumen production capacity and provided the fugitive VOC and TRS emissions
for each plant. The fugitive emission estimates provided in the table include process leaks and tank
emissions.
3A.3.5.1 Integrated Extraction and Upgrading Plant Speciation Profile
The estimated VOC and TRS speciation profiles are provided in Table 3A-58 and are based on the
information provided in the MLUEP EIA specific to Syncrude. These profiles are applied to other
extraction and upgrading plants in the absence of similar information.
3A.3.5.2 Extraction Plant Speciation Profile
The Teck/SilverBirch Frontier project speciation profile provides the basis for individual compound
emission estimates for an extraction facility. Table 3A-59 provides the corresponding VOC and TRS
speciation profiles based on a blend of all the project emission rates and speciation profile. These profiles
are assumed to be applicable to all extraction only operations.
3A.3.5.3 In situ Plant Speciation Profile
In-situ plants can be comprised of steam generators and cogeneration facilities. Devon submitted
applications including estimates of fugitive emissions from their Jackfish 3 operations. Table 3A-60
provides the corresponding VOC and TRS speciation profiles. The profiles are assumed to be applicable
to all in-situ extraction facilities.
3A.3.6 Fugitive Plant Emission Summary
Table 3A-61 provides a summary of the mine emissions for the Project, the existing condition and the
three assessment cases. The emissions in the table nominally reflect maximum emissions.
Page 3A-121
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
6300000
6300000
6280000
6280000
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
6240000
6240000
63
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
Conklin
6160000
6160000
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
Plant Fugitive Area
May 2012
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
6163700
6163700
6163600
6163600
OTSG Steam Generators (4/6/6) OTSG Steam Generators (4/6/6)
OTSG Steam Generators (4/6/6)

6163500
6163500
Glycol System (Heater) Glycol System (Heater) Glycol System (Heater)
Steam Generation except OTSGs Steam Generation except OTSGs Steam Generation except OTSGs
6163400
6163400
Water treatment HLS System
Water treatment HLS System Water treatment HLS System
6163300
6163300
VRU (2 x 50%) Deoiling Skim Tank & IGF VRU (2 x 50%) Deoiling Skim Tank & IGF VRU (2 x 50%) Deoiling Skim Tank & IGF
Fuel Gas System Fuel Gas System Fuel Gas System

Produced Gas System Produced Gas System Produced Gas System
6163200
6163200
Oil Treating Oil Treating Oil Treating
6163100
6163100
Tanks in Diluent HC Services (2)
Tanks in Dilbit HC Services (22)
6163000
6163000
HP & LP Flare
Tanks in Diluent HC Services (2)
HP & LP Flare
6162900
6162900
HP & LP Flare
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
May 2012
May 2012
TABLE 3A-42
INDUSTRIAL PLANT STATUS

Planned
Baseline Application Development
Operator Facility Existing Case Case Case
Extraction
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project - x x x
Muskeg River Mine & Muskeg
x x x x
River Mine Expansion
Jackpine Mine Phase 1 - x x -
Shell Canada Ltd.
Jackpine Mine Expansion
- - - x
(including Phase 1)
Pierre River Mine Plant - - - x
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Mine Project - - - x
Suncor Energy Inc. Fort Hills - x x x
Aurora North x x x x
Syncrude
Aurora South - x x x
Joslyn North Mine Project - x x x
Total E&P Canada Joslyn South Mine Project - - - x
Northern Lights - - - x
Extraction and Upgrading
Horizon Project x x x x
Ltd.
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake Upgrader x x x x
Millennium Plant Area x x x x
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader Plant and
- x x x
Tank Farm
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake x x x x
In situ
Clearwater West Lp-SAGD
Alberta Oil Sand - - - x
Pilot Project
Dover Central Pilot Project - - - x
MacKay River Pilot Project - - - x
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project - - - x
MacKay River commercial
- - - x
Project
Blackrod Thermal Recovery
BlackPearl Resources Inc. x x x x
Pilot Project
Blackrod Thermal Recovery
BlackPearl Resources Inc. - x x x
Pilot Expansion Project
Blackrod Commercial SAGD
BlackPearl Resources Inc. x x
Project
Kirby phase 1 - x x x
Wolf Lake x x x x
Canadian Natural Resources Primrose South Plant x x x x
Ltd. Primrose North Plant x x x x
Primrose East Plant x x x x
Horizon In situ - - - x
Christina Lake Thermal Project
x x x x
- Phase 1 A&1B
- x x x
- Phase 1 C&1D
- - - x
Cenovus Energy - Phase 1 E, 1F and 1G
Borealis - - - x
Cenovus Narrows Lake
- - - x
Thermal Project
Foster Creek Phase FGH - x x x
Foster Creek Phase 1a x x x x
Page 3A-125

Planned
Foster Creek Phase 1b
x x x x
debottlenecking
Foster Creek Phase 1c s1 x x x x
Foster Creek Phase 1c s2 x x x x
Cenovus Energy (cont’d)
Foster Creek Phase 1d x x x x
Foster Creek Phase 1e x x x x
Pelican Lake Grand Rapids
- - - x
Project
Great Divide Project (Pod one
x x x x
source)
Connacher Oil and Gas
Alar - x x -
Limited
Great Divide Algar expansion
- - - x
Project (include Algar)
ConocoPhillips Canada Surmont phase 1 x x x x
Resources Corp. Surmont phase 2 - x x x
Jackfish1 x x x x
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish2 - x x x
Jackfish3 - x x x
Dover Commercial North Plant - - - x
Dover Operating Corp.
Dover Commercial South Plant - - - x
Enbridge Pipeline Athabasca terminal x x x x
EnerMark Inc./Enerplus
Kirby Oil Sands Project Phase I - - - x
Resources Fund
Hangingstone In situ
Excelsior Energy Limited - x x x
Combustion Project
Grizzly Oil Sand Alga Lake Project - x x x
Black Gold Phase 1 - x x x
Harvest Energy Trust
Black Gold Expansion - - - x
Sunrise Phase 1 - x x x
Husky Energy Inc. Tucker Phase 1 x x x x
Caribou Lake Thermal
- x x x
Demonstration Project
McMullen Thermal Conduction
- x x x
Pilot Project
Leming Plant x x x x
Maskwa Plant x x x x
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Mahikan Plant x x x x
Mahkeses x x x x
Nabiye - x x x
Tamarack Integrated Oil Sands
- - - x
Project Phase 1
Ivanhoe Energy Inc.
Tamarack Integrated Oil Sands
- - - x
Project Phase2
Hangingstone Commercial - - - x
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Demonstration
x x x x
Project Plant 1
Gemini Oil Sands Projects
- - - x
stage1
Koch Exploration Canada
Gemini Oil Sands Projects
- - - x
stage2
Saleski SAGD Pilot project - x x x
Germain Expansion Project
Laricina Energy Ltd. - - - x
phase 2 to 4
Germain SAGD Pilot Project - x x x
Page 3A-126

Planned
Christina Lake Regional
x x x x
Project Phase 1 (Pilot)
x x x x
Project Phase 2
MEG Energy Corp. - x x x
Project Phase 2B
- - - x
Project Phase 3A
- - - x
Project Phase 3B
Long Lake North Phase 1 x x x x
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake South Phase 1 - x x x
Long Lake South Phase 2 - x x x
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project - - - x
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility - - - x
Orion Phase 1 x - - -
Shell Canada Ltd.
Orion phase 1 & Phase 2 - x x x
STP-McKay SAGD project - x x x
Southern Pacific Resource
Corp. STP McKay Thermal
- - - x
Project_Phase2
Leismer Demonstration - x x x
Leismer commercial - x x x
Leismer Expansion - x x x
Corner 1&2 - x x x
Thornbury - - - x
StatoilHydro
Corner exp - - - x
Hangingstone - - - x
Thornbury exp - - - x
NW Leismer - - - x
S Leismer - - - x
Lewis Phase 1 - - - x
MacKay River Phase 1 x x x x
MacKay River Phase 2 - x x x
Firebag phase 1 x x x x
Firebag phase 2 x x x x
Firebag Phase C&E x x x x
Suncor Energy Inc.
Firebag phase 3 - x x x
Meadow creek phase 1 - x x x
Meadow Creek expansion - x x x
West Ells Phases 1&2 - - - x
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project - - - x
Thickwood SAGD Project - - - x
Joslyn phase 1 - x x x
Total E&P Canada
Joslyn phase 2 - x x x
Terre de Grace Pilot Project - x x x
Value Creation Inc.
Tristal Pilot Project - - - x
Page 3A-127
TABLE 3A-43
INDUSTRIAL PLANT LOCATIONS

Base
Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4 Elev
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM Area (m
2
Operator Facility (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (km ) ASL)
Extraction only
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Kearl Mine Oil Sands Project 495138 6362612 496362 6362612 496362 6361388 495138 6361388 1.5 360
Muskeg River Mine & Muskeg River
Shell Canada Ltd. 468884 6346621 470312 6346621 470312 6345783 468884 6345783 1.2 291
Mine Expansion
Jackpine Mine Expansion Plant
Shell Canada Ltd. 475746 6344242 477174 6344242 477174 6343404 475746 6343404 1.2 312
Fugitive & Tank Farm
Pierre River Mine Plant Fugitive &
Shell Canada Ltd. 465808 6377204 466901 6377204 466901 6374407 465808 6374407 3.06 259
Tank Farm
Suncor Energy Inc. Fort Hills 465150 6361935 468488 6361935 468488 6359759 465150 6359759 7.26 341
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South Plant Fugitive 468031 6315094 469127 6315094 469127 6313998 468031 6313998 1.2 330
Syncrude Aurora North 468947.5 6351211 470043.5 6351211 470043.5 6350115 468947.5 6350115 1.2 300
Syncrude Aurora South 483106.5 6342956 484202.5 6342956 484202.5 6341860 483106.5 6341860 1.2 333
Page 3A-128
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Fugitive Plant 463373 6394815 466386 6394815 466386 6392789 463373 6392789 6.1 284
Total E&P Canada Joslyn North Mine Project 450400 6349900 451266 6349900 451266 6349034 450400 6349034 0.75 315
Total E&P Canada Joslyn South Mine Project 448404 6341964 449270 6341964 449270 6341098 448404 6341098 0.75 327
Total E&P Canada Northern Lights 497229 6378993 497717 6378529 497247 6378059 496762 6378539 0.45 289
Extraction and Upgrading
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project 454895 6355619 455883 6355619 455883 6354631 454895 6354631 0.98 289
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake Upgrader 503247 6251612 503747 6251612 503747 6251112 503247 6251112 0.25 492
Suncor Energy Inc. Plant Area 470728 6318693 471443 6317492 470953 6317203 470238 6318402 0.8 256
Voyageur Upgrader Plant & Tank
Suncor Energy Inc. 468970 6314830 469922 6314350 469599 6313701 468647 6314184 0.77 322
Farm
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake 461894 6322443 463193 6322813 463019 6322441 462088 6321769 0.59 303
In situ
Clearwater West Lp-SAGD Pilot
Alberta oil sand 487830 6277804 488330 6277804 488330 6277304 487830 6277304 0.25 377
Project
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Dover Central Pilot Project 395478 6333096 395978 6333096 395978 6332596 395478 6332596 0.25 528
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project 473692 6259724 474192 6259724 474192 6259224 473692 6259224 0.25 454
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. MacKay River commercial Project 432045 6294753 432545 6294753 432545 6294253 432045 6294253 0.25 489
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. MacKay River Pilot Project 435416 6298338 435916 6298338 435916 6297838 435416 6297838 0.25 485
Blackrod Thermal Recovery Pilot
BlackPearl Resources Inc. 395545 6165440 396045 6165440 396045 6164940 395545 6164940 0.25 614
Project
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon In situ 451100 6354635 451600 6354635 451600 6354135 451100 6354135 0.25 313
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kirby phase 1 498118 6133088 498618 6133088 498618 6132588 498118 6132588 0.25 730
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose East Plant 535448 6071041 535948 6071041 535948 6070541 535448 6070541 0.25 670
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose North Plant 526484 6081427 526984 6081427 526984 6080927 526484 6080927 0.25 695
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant 526740 6069837 527240 6069837 527240 6069337 526740 6069337 0.25 681
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Wolf Lake 517400 6061347 517900 6061347 517900 6060847 517400 6060847 0.25 637
Base
2
Cenovus Energy Borealis 537556 6337056 538056 6337056 538056 6336556 537556 6336556 0.25 511
Cenovus Narrows Lake Thermal
Cenovus Energy 507155 6167365 507655 6167365 507655 6166865 507155 6166865 0.25 579
Project
Christina Lake Thermal Project -
Cenovus Energy 507036 6159699 507536 6159699 507536 6159199 507036 6159199 0.25 568
Phase 1 A&1B
Cenovus Energy 507036 6159699 507536 6159699 507536 6159199 507036 6159199 0.25 568
Phase 1 C&1D
Cenovus Energy 507123 6160053 507623 6160053 507623 6159553 507123 6159553 0.25 566
Phase 1 E, 1F and 1G
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH 529116 6103499 529616 6103499 529616 6102999 529116 6102999 0.25 669
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1a 529489 6102690 529989 6102690 529989 6102190 529489 6102190 0.25 669
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1b debot 529489 6102690 529989 6102690 529989 6102190 529489 6102190 0.25 669
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1c s1 529489 6102690 529989 6102690 529989 6102190 529489 6102190 0.25 669
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1c s2 529489 6102690 529989 6102690 529989 6102190 529489 6102190 0.25 669
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1d 529489 6102690 529989 6102690 529989 6102190 529489 6102190 0.25 669
Page 3A-129
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase 1e 529489 6102690 529989 6102690 529989 6102190 529489 6102190 0.25 669
Cenovus Energy Inc. Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project 355060 6223597 355560 6223597 355560 6223097 355060 6223097 0.25 625
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide (Pod 2) Algar 453740 6219179 454240 6219179 454240 6218679 453740 6218679 0.25 749
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Algar expansion Project 454368 6219173 454868 6219173 454868 6218673 454368 6218673 0.25 747
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Great Divide Project (Pod one source) 448332 6219329 448832 6219329 448832 6218829 448332 6218829 0.25 707
Surmont phase 1 (include Pilot) 502377 6229042 502877 6229042 502877 6228542 502377 6228542 0.25 601
Resources Corp.
Surmont phase 2 504088 6227372 504588 6227372 504588 6226872 504088 6226872 0.25 615
Resources Corp.
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish 1 507677 6153788 508177 6153788 508177 6153288 507677 6153288 0.25 617
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial North Plant 400724 6348006 401224 6348006 401224 6347506 400724 6347506 0.25 570
Dover Operating Corp. Dover Commercial South Plant 405848 6332736 406348 6332736 406348 6332236 405848 6332236 0.25 517
Enbridge Pipeline Athabasca terminal 470825 6315329 471415 6315329 471415 6313531 470825 6313531 1.06 328
EnerMark Inc./Enerplus
Kirby Oil Sands Project Phase I 484629 6148742 485129 6148742 485129 6148242 484629 6148242 0.25 669
Resources Fund
Hangingstone In situ Combustion
Excelsior Energy Limited 482694 6254859 483194 6254859 483194 6254359 482694 6254359 0.25 499
Project
Grizzly Oil Sand Alga Lake Project 451157 6249597 451657 6249597 451657 6249097 451157 6249097 0.25 521
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Expansion 500580 6159564 501080 6159564 501080 6159064 500580 6159064 0.25 612
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Phase 1 500769 6159608 501269 6159608 501269 6159108 500769 6159108 0.25 610
Husky Energy Inc. 524842 6090579 525342 6090579 525342 6090079 524842 6090079 0.25 691
Project
Husky Energy Inc. 325659 6187378 326159 6187378 326159 6186878 325659 6186878 0.25 578
Project
Base
2
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise Phase 1 495935 6344540 496435 6344540 496435 6344040 495935 6344040 0.25 484
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise phase2 496287 6344504 496787 6344504 496787 6344004 496287 6344004 0.25 488
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise phase3 496287 6344221 496787 6344221 496787 6343721 496287 6343721 0.25 487
Husky Energy Inc. Tucker phase 1 528355 6046921 528855 6046921 528855 6046421 528355 6046421 0.25 612
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Leming Plant 536649 6050759 537149 6050759 537149 6050259 536649 6050259 0.25 616
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Mahikan Plant 528868 6054345 529368 6054345 529368 6053845 528868 6053845 0.25 613
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Mahkeses 538979 6048960 539479 6048960 539479 6048460 538979 6048460 0.25 653
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Maskwa Plant 533827 6052193 534327 6052193 534327 6051693 533827 6051693 0.25 608
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye 542035 6064809 542535 6064809 542535 6064309 542035 6064309 0.25 627
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. 481518 6298393 482018 6298393 482018 6297893 481518 6297893 0.25 410
Phase 1
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. 481739 6298432 482239 6298432 482239 6297932 481739 6297932 0.25 414
Phase2
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Hangingstone Commercial 461107 6237413 461607 6237413 461607 6236913 461107 6236913 0.25 618
Page 3A-130
Hangingstone Demonstration Project

Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. 460137 6242010 460637 6242010 460637 6241510 460137 6241510 0.25 564
Plant 1
Koch Exploration Canada, Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage 1 542880 6004276 543380 6004276 543380 6003776 542880 6003776 0.25 589
Koch Exploration Canada, Gemini Oil Sands Projects stage 2 542323 6004475 542823 6004475 542823 6003975 542323 6003975 0.25 591
Germain Expansion Project phase 2
Laricina Energy Limited 352389 6246824 352889 6246824 352889 6246324 352389 6246324 0.25 611
to 4
Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain SAGD Pilot Project 351048 6246728 351548 6246728 351548 6246228 351048 6246228 0.25 609
Laricina Energy Ltd. Saleski SAGD Pilot project 383049 6251717 383549 6251717 383549 6251217 383049 6251217 0.25 589
MEG Energy Corp. 517546 6169093 518046 6169093 518046 6168593 517546 6168593 0.25 584
1 (Pilot)
MEG Energy Corp. 517522 6169086 518022 6169086 518022 6168586 517522 6168586 0.25 584
2
MEG Energy Corp. 517123 6169390 517623 6169390 517623 6168890 517123 6168890 0.25 581
2B
MEG Energy Corp. 525293 6163052 525793 6163052 525793 6162552 525293 6162552 0.25 604
3A
MEG Energy Corp. 506193 6175153 506693 6175153 506693 6174653 506193 6174653 0.25 600
3B
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long lake north phase 1 502788 6251879 503288 6251879 503288 6251379 502788 6251379 0.25 494
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long lake south phase 1 500652 6240271 501152 6240271 501152 6239771 500652 6239771 0.25 513
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long lake south phase 2 500940 6240752 501440 6240752 501440 6240252 500940 6240252 0.25 506
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project 560001 6061292 560501 6061292 560501 6060792 560001 6060792 0.25 604
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility 525478 5985179 525978 5985179 525978 5984679 525478 5984679 0.25 657
Shell Canada Ltd. Orion phase 1 538480 6043720 538980 6043720 538980 6043220 538480 6043220 0.25 556
Shell Canada Ltd. Orion phase 2 538480 6043720 538980 6043720 538980 6043220 538480 6043220 0.25 556
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP-McKay SAGD project 423980 6305005 424480 6305005 424480 6304505 423980 6304505 0.25 464
Southern Pacific Resources Corp. STP McKay Thermal Project_Phase2 428678 6305109 429178 6305109 429178 6304609 428678 6304609 0.25 470
Base
2
Statoil Canada Ltd. Corner 1&2 484445 6203450 484945 6203450 484945 6202950 484445 6202950 0.25 725
Statoil Canada Ltd. Corner exp 481399 6208380 481899 6208380 481899 6207880 481399 6207880 0.25 709
Statoil Canada Ltd. Hangingstone 475339 6226407 475839 6226407 475839 6225907 475339 6225907 0.25 731
Statoil Canada Ltd. Leismer commercial 471581 6185982 472081 6185982 472081 6185482 471581 6185482 0.25 661
Statoil Canada Ltd. Leismer Demonstration 471581 6185982 472081 6185982 472081 6185482 471581 6185482 0.25 661
Statoil Canada Ltd. Leismer Expansion 472477 6185867 472977 6185867 472977 6185367 472477 6185367 0.25 667
Statoil Canada Ltd. NW Leismer 467150 6189314 467650 6189314 467650 6188814 467150 6188814 0.25 685
Statoil Canada Ltd. S Leismer 465625 6172058 466125 6172058 466125 6171558 465625 6171558 0.25 688
Statoil Canada Ltd. Thornbury 455624 6194821 456124 6194821 456124 6194321 455624 6194321 0.25 687
Statoil Canada Ltd. Thornbury exp 448688 6199628 449188 6199628 449188 6199128 448688 6199128 0.25 701
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag phase 1 508703 6343883 509203 6343883 509203 6343383 508703 6343383 0.25 598
Page 3A-131
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase C&E 508634 6343921 509134 6343921 509134 6343421 508634 6343421 0.25 598
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Phase 1 494634 6305317 495134 6305317 495134 6304817 494634 6304817 0.25 465
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 1 444818 6322314 445318 6322314 445318 6321814 444818 6321814 0.25 418
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 2 444830 6323098 445330 6323098 445330 6322598 444830 6322598 0.25 418
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow creek phase 1 481831 6242441 482331 6242441 482331 6241941 481831 6241941 0.25 724
Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow creek phase 2 468406 6246278 468906 6246278 468906 6245778 468406 6245778 0.25 571
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Legend Lake SAGD Project 387980 6354721 388480 6354721 388480 6354221 387980 6354221 0.25 765
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Thickwood Sagd Project 390979 6300358 391479 6300358 391479 6299858 390979 6299858 0.25 503
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 395471 6341407 395971 6341407 395971 6340907 395471 6340907 0.25 542
Total E&P Canada Joslyn phase 1 445486 6348484 445986 6348484 445986 6347984 445486 6347984 0.25 342
Total E&P Canada Joslyn phase 2 445486 6348484 445986 6348484 445986 6347984 445486 6347984 0.25 342
Value Creation Inc. Terre de Grace Pilot Project 436316 6351919 436816 6351919 436816 6351419 436316 6351419 0.25 435
Value Creation Inc. Tristar Pilot Project 484722 6270376 485222 6270376 485222 6269876 484722 6269876 0.25 404
TABLE 3A-44
BLACKPEARL COMMERCIAL PROJECT TANKS IN HYDROCARBON SERVICE

Tank Estimated VOC EstimatedTRS
Phase Number Tank ID Description Speciation Profile Emissions(t/a) Emissions(t/a)
T1 11-T-117A Dilbit Tank Bilbit 11.0 0.0110
T2 11-T-117B Dilbit Tank Bilbit 11.0 0.0110
T3 11-T-119 Off-Spec Tank Bilbit 11.0 0.0110
T4 11-T-132 Diluent Tank Diluted Bitument 5.77 0.00738
T5 11-T-140 Slop Tank Bilbit 0.177 0.000188
T6 11-T-201 Skim Tank Bilbit 6.77 0.00781
Phase 1 De-Oiled
T7 11-T-216 Bilbit 3.43 0.00458
Water Tank
T8 11-T-222 Desand Tank Bilbit 0.727 0.000788
Exchanger
T9 11-T-146 Bilbit 0.395 0.000618
Wash Tank
T10 11-T-513 Methanol Tank Methanol 0.0713 0
T11 11-T-580 Diesel Tank Diesel 0.0168 0.00000990
T12 21-T-117A Dilbit Tank Bilbit 16.8 0.0166
T13 21-T-117B Dilbit Tank Bilbit 16.8 0.0166
T14 21-T-132 Diluent Tank Diluted Bitument 13.8 0.0174
T15 21-T-140 Slop Tank Bilbit 0.290 0.000300
T16 21-T-201 Skim Tank Bilbit 9.74 0.0109
Phase 2 De-Oiled
T17 21-T-216 Bilbit 5.26 0.00660
Water Tank
T18 21-T-222 Desand Tank Bilbit 0.727 0.000807
Exchanger
T19 21-T-146 Bilbit 0.397 0.000671
Wash Tank
T21 31-T-117A Dilbit Tank CL 16.8 0.0166
T22 31-T-117B Dilbit Tank CL 16.8 0.0167
T23 31-T-140 Slop Tank CL 0.290 0.000301
T24 31-T-201 Skim Tank CL 9.75 0.0110
Phase 3 De-Oiled
T25 31-T-216 CL 5.26 0.00666
Water Tank
T26 31-T-222 Desand Tank CL 0.728 0.000812
Exchanger
T27 31-T-146 CL 0.398 0.000682
Wash Tank
Total VOC and TRS Emissions 164 0.177
Page 3A-132
TABLE 3A-45
BLACKPEARL COMMERCIAL PROJECT TANK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 1 (T1 TO T11)
Tank Number T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11
11-T- 11-T-
Tank ID 117A 117B 11-T-119 11-T-132 11-T-140 11-T-201 11-T-216 11-T-222 11-T-146 11-T-513 11-T-580
De-Oiled
Dilbit Dilbit Off-Spec Diluent Skim Desand Exchanger Methanol Diesel
Unit Name / Description Slop Tank Water
Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank Wash Tank Tank Tank
Tank
Tank Location
mE 397769 397769 397769 397840 397744 397756 397753 397751 397738 397655 397756
UTM
mN 6163006 6162958 6162910 6163034 6163186 6163149 6163253 6163208 6163226 6163075 6163419
mAS
Elevation ( m ) 703 702 702 707 706 705 708 706 706 700 713
L
Release Dimensions
Diameter (m) 24.0 24.0 24.0 21.0 6.00 30.0 21.0 11.0 6.80 3.70 2.30
Height (m) 19.2 19.2 19.2 16.8 7.20 9.60 12.0 7.30 11.0 3.70 9.80
Sigma Y, m 5.58 5.58 5.58 4.88 1.40 6.98 4.88 2.56 1.58 0.860 0.535
Sigma Z, m 8.93 8.93 8.93 7.81 3.35 4.47 5.58 3.40 5.12 1.72 4.56
Emission Rate
Page 3A-133
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene,
1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-
0.000076 0.0000087
(also known as t/a 0.000245 0.000245 0.000245 0.00 0.00000396 0.000151 0.0000162 0.00 0.00
0 1
Hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene)
0.000005 0.000005 0.00000009 0.000003 0.000001 0.0000003 0.0000002
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00000572 0.00 0.00 0.00
72 72 23 51 77 78 03
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000229 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-
Dimethylbenz(a)anthrac t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ene
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00148 0.00148 0.00148 0.00 0.0000239 0.000911 0.000459 0.0000980 0.0000526 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.000449 0.0000403 0.00154 0.000774 0.000165 0.0000886 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 4.16 4.16 4.16 1.16 0.0672 2.56 1.29 0.275 0.148 0.00 0.0113
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0142 0.0142 0.0142 0.00290 0.000230 0.00875 0.00441 0.000942 0.000505 0.00 0.000960
TABLE 3A-45 Cont'd
11-T- 11-T-
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00104 0.00104 0.00104 0.00 0.0000168 0.000640 0.000322 0.0000688 0.0000369 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00153 0.00153 0.00153 0.00 0.0000247 0.000941 0.000474 0.000101 0.0000543 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00364 0.00364 0.00364 0.00 0.0000588 0.00224 0.00113 0.000241 0.000129 0.00 0.00
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benz(a)anthracene
(Also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.0367 0.0367 0.0367 0.0147 0.000593 0.0226 0.0114 0.00243 0.00130 0.00 0.000421
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-134
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Butane, 1-isocyanato-
(also known as Butyl t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000262 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
isocyanate)
C1 to C4 group
(excluding methane and t/a 6.71 6.71 6.71 4.58 0.109 4.15 2.11 0.445 0.244 0.00 0.00338
ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.000375 0.000375 0.000375 0.00 0.00000606 0.000231 0.000116 0.0000248 0.0000133 0.00 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane t/a 0.0587 0.0587 0.0587 0.0244 0.000947 0.0361 0.0182 0.00388 0.00208 0.00 0.000506
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00166 0.00166 0.00166 0.00 0.0000268 0.00102 0.000514 0.000110 0.0000589 0.00 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 0.270 0.270 0.270 0.0817 0.00436 0.166 0.0835 0.0178 0.00957 0.00 0.00103
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isopropylbenzene 0.000068 0.000068 0.000041 0.000021 0.0000045 0.0000024
t/a 0.0000680 0.00 0.00000110 0.00 0.00
(cumene) 0 0 8 1 0 1
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0713 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00263 0.00263 0.00263 0.00 0.0000425 0.00162 0.000815 0.000174 0.0000934 0.00 0.00
TABLE 3A-45 Cont'd
11-T- 11-T-
0.000045 0.000045 0.00000073 0.000027 0.000014 0.0000029 0.0000016
known as t/a 0.0000452 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 2 0 8 0 9 0
Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.000040 0.000040 0.00000065 0.000024 0.000012 0.0000026 0.0000014
Piperidine t/a 0.0000406 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 6 5 9 6 8 4
0.000073 0.0000084
Piperidine Group t/a 0.000237 0.000237 0.000237 0.000318 0.00000383 0.000146 0.0000157 0.00 0.00
4 1
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.000577 0.000577 0.000577 0.00 0.00000931 0.000354 0.000179 0.0000381 0.0000205 0.00 0.00
0.000028 0.000028 0.00000045 0.000017 0.000008 0.0000018 0.0000010
Styrene t/a 0.0000283 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 3 7 4 76 7 0
Toluene t/a 0.0271 0.0271 0.0271 0.00851 0.000437 0.0166 0.00838 0.00179 0.000960 0.00 0.000669
Xylenes t/a 0.00558 0.00558 0.00558 0.000182 0.0000901 0.00343 0.00173 0.000369 0.000198 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-135
Total VOC emission t/a 11.0 11.0 11.0 5.77 0.177 6.77 3.43 0.727 0.395 0.0713 0.0168
0.000032 0.000032 0.0000056 0.00000052 0.000019 0.000010 0.0000021 0.0000011
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.0000323 0.00 0.00
3 3 1 2 9 0 4 5
Carbon disulphide
t/a 0.000449 0.000449 0.000449 0.000695 0.00000725 0.000276 0.000139 0.0000297 0.0000159 0.00 0.00
group
0.000009
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00395 0.00395 0.00395 0.000763 0.0000750 0.00350 0.00241 0.000324 0.000369 0.00
9
Mercaptans t/a 0.00408 0.00408 0.00408 0.00576 0.0000659 0.00251 0.00126 0.000270 0.000145 0.00 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 0.000158 0.0000201 0.000767 0.000386 0.0000825 0.0000442 0.00 0.00
0.000009
Total TRS emission t/a 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.00738 0.000188 0.00781 0.00458 0.000788 0.000618 0.00
9
Carbon dioxide t/a 7.40 7.40 7.40 0.125 0.127 5.22 3.04 0.529 0.407 0.00 0.00296
Methane t/a 20.2 20.2 20.2 7.11 0.794 57.2 55.7 3.96 10.3 0.00 0.000175
CO2e t/a 431 431 431 149 16.8 1,210 1,170 83.6 217 0.00 0.00663
TABLE 3A-46
PROJECT TANK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 2 (T12 TO T20)

Tank Number T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20
Tank ID 21-T-117A 21-T-117B 21-T-132 21-T-140 21-T-201 21-T-216 21-T-222 21-T-146 21-T-580
De-Oiled Exchanger
Unit Name / Description Dilbit Tank Dilbit Tank Diluent Tank Slop Tank Skim Tank Desand Tank Diesel Tank
Water Tank Wash Tank
Tank Location
mE 397971 397971 397840 397927 397939 397936 397934 397921 397939
UTM
mN 6163028 6162980 6162987 6163186 6163149 6163253 6163208 6163226 6163419
Elevation ( m ) mASL 709 709 706 714 712 716 715 715 716
Release Dimensions
Diameter (m) 30.0 30.0 36.0 6.00 36.0 24.0 11.0 6.80 2.30
Height (m) 19.2 19.2 19.2 12.6 9.60 14.4 7.30 11.0 9.80
Sigma Y, m 6.98 6.98 8.37 1.40 8.37 5.58 2.56 1.58 0.535
Sigma Z, m 8.93 8.93 8.93 5.86 4.47 6.70 3.40 5.12 4.56
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- (also known as t/a 0.000376 0.000376 0.00 0.00000648 0.000217 0.000117 0.0000162 0.00000873 0.00
Page 3A-136
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00000875 0.00000875 0.00 0.000000151 0.00000506 0.00000272 0.000000378 0.000000203 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.000547 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00227 0.00227 0.00 0.0000391 0.00131 0.000706 0.0000980 0.0000527 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.00383 0.00383 0.00107 0.0000660 0.00221 0.00119 0.000165 0.0000889 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 6.37 6.37 2.77 0.110 3.68 1.98 0.275 0.148 0.0113
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0218 0.0218 0.00694 0.000376 0.0126 0.00678 0.000942 0.000506 0.000960
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00159 0.00159 0.00 0.0000275 0.000922 0.000495 0.0000688 0.0000370 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00234 0.00234 0.00 0.0000404 0.00136 0.000728 0.000101 0.0000544 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00558 0.00558 0.00 0.0000962 0.00323 0.00173 0.000241 0.000130 0.00
TABLE 3A-46 Cont'd
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.0563 0.0563 0.0351 0.000970 0.0325 0.0175 0.00243 0.00131 0.000421
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.000626 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 10.3 10.3 10.9 0.177 5.97 3.23 0.446 0.246 0.00338
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.000574 0.000574 0.00 0.00000990 0.000332 0.000179 0.0000248 0.0000133 0.00
Page 3A-137
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane t/a 0.0899 0.0899 0.0582 0.00155 0.0520 0.0279 0.00388 0.00209 0.000506
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00254 0.00254 0.00 0.0000438 0.00147 0.000790 0.000110 0.0000591 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 0.413 0.413 0.195 0.00712 0.239 0.128 0.0178 0.00959 0.00103
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.000104 0.000104 0.00 0.00000180 0.0000602 0.0000324 0.00000450 0.00000242 0.00
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00403 0.00403 0.00 0.0000695 0.00233 0.00125 0.000174 0.0000936 0.00
t/a 0.0000692 0.0000692 0.00 0.00000119 0.0000400 0.0000215 0.00000299 0.00000161 0.00
as Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.0000621 0.0000621 0.00 0.00000107 0.0000359 0.0000193 0.00000268 0.00000144 0.00
Piperidine Group t/a 0.000363 0.000363 0.000758 0.00000626 0.000210 0.000113 0.0000157 0.00000843 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyridine, 4-methyl- (assessed
t/a 0.000883 0.000883 0.00 0.0000152 0.000510 0.000274 0.0000381 0.0000205 0.00
as pyridine)
Styrene t/a 0.0000433 0.0000433 0.00 0.000000747 0.0000251 0.0000135 0.00000187 0.00000101 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.0414 0.0414 0.0203 0.000714 0.0240 0.0129 0.00179 0.000963 0.000669
TABLE 3A-46 Cont'd
Xylenes t/a 0.00854 0.00854 0.000435 0.000147 0.00494 0.00266 0.000369 0.000198 0.00
Total VOC emission t/a 16.8 16.8 13.8 0.290 9.74 5.26 0.727 0.397 0.0168
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.0000495 0.0000495 0.0000134 0.000000853 0.0000286 0.0000154 0.00000214 0.00000115 0.00
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.000687 0.000687 0.00166 0.0000119 0.000397 0.000214 0.0000297 0.0000160 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00590 0.00590 0.00163 0.000115 0.00473 0.00327 0.000344 0.000422 0.00000990
Mercaptans t/a 0.00625 0.00625 0.0138 0.000108 0.00361 0.00194 0.000270 0.000145 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00191 0.00191 0.000377 0.0000329 0.00110 0.000594 0.0000825 0.0000444 0.00
Total TRS emission t/a 0.0166 0.0166 0.0174 0.000300 0.0109 0.00660 0.000807 0.000671 0.00000990
Carbon dioxide t/a 11.2 11.2 0.174 0.202 7.33 4.40 0.541 0.440 0.00296
Methane t/a 24.7 24.7 8.70 0.966 69.4 67.6 4.78 12.5 0.000175
CO2e t/a 529 529 183 20.5 1,460 1,420 101 262 0.00663
Page 3A-138
TABLE 3A-47
PROJECT TANK PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 3 (T21 TO T28)

Tank Number T21 T22 T23 T24 T25 T26 T27 T28
Tank ID 31-T-117A 31-T-117B 31-T-140 31-T-201 31-T-216 31-T-222 31-T-146 31-T-580
De-Oiled Exchanger
Unit Name / Description Dilbit Tank Dilbit Tank Slop Tank Skim Tank Desand Tank Diesel Tank
Water Tank Wash Tank
Tank Location
mE 397971 397971 398110 398122 398119 398117 398104 398122
UTM
mN 6162932 6162884 6163186 6163149 6163253 6163208 6163226 6163419
Elevation ( m ) mASL 708 708 717 716 720 718 719 721
Release Dimensions
Diameter (m) 30.0 30.0 6.00 36.0 24.0 11.0 6.80 2.30
Height (m) 19.2 19.2 12.6 9.60 14.4 7.30 11.0 9.80
Sigma Y, m 6.98 6.98 1.40 8.37 5.58 2.56 1.58 0.535
Sigma Z, m 8.93 8.93 5.86 4.47 6.70 3.40 5.12 4.56
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-
(also known as Hexachloro-1,3- t/a 0.000376 0.000376 0.00000648 0.000217 0.000117 0.0000162 0.00000873 0.00
Page 3A-139
butadiene)
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00000875 0.00000875 0.000000151 0.00000506 0.00000272 0.000000378 0.000000203 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00227 0.00227 0.0000391 0.00131 0.000706 0.0000980 0.0000527 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.00383 0.00383 0.0000660 0.00221 0.00119 0.000165 0.0000889 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 6.37 6.37 0.110 3.68 1.98 0.275 0.148 0.0113
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0218 0.0218 0.000376 0.0126 0.00678 0.000942 0.000506 0.000960
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00159 0.00159 0.0000275 0.000922 0.000495 0.0000688 0.0000370 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00234 0.00234 0.0000404 0.00136 0.000728 0.000101 0.0000544 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00558 0.00558 0.0000962 0.00323 0.00173 0.000241 0.000130 0.00
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.0563 0.0563 0.000970 0.0325 0.0175 0.00243 0.00131 0.000421
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Butane, 1-isocyanato- (also known as
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Butyl isocyanate)
t/a 10.3 10.3 0.177 5.97 3.23 0.446 0.246 0.00338
and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.000574 0.000574 0.00000990 0.000332 0.000179 0.0000248 0.0000133 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-140
Cyclohexane t/a 0.0899 0.0899 0.00155 0.0520 0.0279 0.00388 0.00209 0.000506
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00254 0.00254 0.0000438 0.00147 0.000790 0.000110 0.0000591 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 0.413 0.413 0.00712 0.239 0.128 0.0178 0.00959 0.00103
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.000104 0.000104 0.00000180 0.0000602 0.0000324 0.00000450 0.00000242 0.00
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00403 0.00403 0.0000695 0.00233 0.00125 0.000174 0.0000936 0.00
t/a 0.0000692 0.0000692 0.00000119 0.0000400 0.0000215 0.00000299 0.00000161 0.00
Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.0000621 0.0000621 0.00000107 0.0000359 0.0000193 0.00000268 0.00000144 0.00
Piperidine Group t/a 0.000363 0.000363 0.00000626 0.000210 0.000113 0.0000157 0.00000843 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.000883 0.000883 0.0000152 0.000510 0.000274 0.0000381 0.0000205 0.00
pyridine)
Styrene t/a 0.0000433 0.0000433 0.000000747 0.0000251 0.0000135 0.00000187 0.00000101 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.0414 0.0414 0.000714 0.0240 0.0129 0.00179 0.000963 0.000669
Xylenes t/a 0.00854 0.00854 0.000147 0.00494 0.00266 0.000369 0.000198 0.00
Total VOC emission t/a 16.8 16.8 0.290 9.75 5.26 0.728 0.398 0.0168
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.0000495 0.0000495 0.000000853 0.0000286 0.0000154 0.00000214 0.00000115 0.00
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.000687 0.000687 0.0000119 0.000397 0.000214 0.0000297 0.0000160 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00588 0.00592 0.000115 0.00479 0.00333 0.000348 0.000432 0.00000990
Mercaptans t/a 0.00625 0.00625 0.000108 0.00361 0.00194 0.000270 0.000145 0.00
Thiophenes t/a 0.00191 0.00191 0.0000329 0.00110 0.000594 0.0000825 0.0000444 0.00
Total TRS emission t/a 0.0166 0.0167 0.000301 0.0110 0.00666 0.000812 0.000682 0.00000990
Carbon dioxide t/a 11.2 11.2 0.202 7.37 4.43 0.544 0.447 0.00296
Methane t/a 25.5 25.5 1.00 71.8 70.0 4.95 12.9 0.000175
CO2e t/a 547 547 21.2 1,520 1,470 105 272 0.00663
Page 3A-141
TABLE 3A-48
PROJECT PROCESS AREAS

Estimated VOC Estimated TRS
Phase Identification Process Area Description Speciation Profile Emissions(t/a) Emissions(t/a)
A Oil Treating Dilbit 6.03 0.00578
B Deoiling Skim Tank & IGF Dilbit 3.39 0.00325
C Water treatment HLS System Dilbit 0.00 0.00
D Steam Generation except OTSGs Dilbit 0.00 0.00
E OTSG Steam Generators Mixed Fuel Gas 0.0184 0.000131
F Produced Gas System Blackrod Bitumen 1.22 0.00291
Phase 1
G Fuel Gas System Mixed Fuel Gas 0.00655 0.0000464
H Glycol System (Heater) Fuel Gas 0.00540 0.000207
I VRU (2 x 50%) Dilbit 29.0 0.0278
J HP & LP Flare Dilbit 9.77 0.00936
K Tanks in Diluent HC Services Diluted Bitumen 1.18 0.00147
L Tanks in Dilbit HC Services Dilbit 8.39 0.00804
M Oil Treating Dilbit 6.03 0.00578
N Deoiling Skim Tank & IGF Dilbit 3.39 0.00325
O Water treatment HLS System Dilbit 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-142
P Steam Generation except OTSGs Dilbit 0.00 0.00

Q OTSG Steam Generators Mixed Fuel Gas 0.0277 0.000196
R Produced Gas System Blackrod Bitumen 1.22 0.00291
Phase 2
S Fuel Gas System Mixed Fuel Gas 0.00655 0.0000464
T Glycol System (Heater) Fuel Gas 0.00540 0.000207
U VRU (2 x 50%) Dilbit 29.0 0.0278
V HP & LP Flare Dilbit 9.77 0.00936
W Tanks in Diluent HC Services Diluted Bitumen 1.18 0.00147
X Tanks in Dilbit HC Services Dilbit 8.39 0.00804
Y Oil Treating Dilbit 6.03 0.00578
Z Deoiling Skim Tank & IGF Dilbit 3.39 0.00325
AA Water treatment HLS System Dilbit 0.00 0.00
AB Steam Generation except OTSGs Dilbit 0.00 0.00
AC OTSG Steam Generators Mixed Fuel Gas 0.0277 0.000196
Phase 3 AD Produced Gas System Blackrod Bitumen 1.22 0.00291
AE Fuel Gas System Mixed Fuel Gas 0.00655 0.0000464
AF Glycol System (Heater) Fuel Gas 0.00540 0.000207
AG VRU (2 x 50%) Dilbit 29.0 0.0278
AH HP & LP Flare Dilbit 9.77 0.00936
AI Tanks in Dilbit HC Services Dilbit 8.39 0.00804
TABLE 3A-49
PROJECT PROCESS AREA EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 1 (A TO L)

Phase 1 Source Number A B C D E F G H I J K L
Water Steam
Deoiling treatment Generation OTSG Glycol Tanks in Tanks in
Skim Tank HLS except Steam Produced Fuel Gas System VRU (2 x HP & LP Diluent HC Dilbit HC
Area Description Oil Treating & IGF System OTSGs Generators Gas System System (Heater) 50%) Flare Services Services
Area Source Locations
mE 397634 397695 397646 397641 397645 397666 397660 397771 397656 397643 397822 397744
Northwest
mN 6163221 6163274 6163387 6163477 6163547 6163243 6163258 6163501 6163271 6162987 6163056 6163024
mE 397694 397786 397773 397743 397744 397692 397693 397810 397694 397687 397859 397793
Northeast
mN 6163221 6163274 6163387 6163477 6163547 6163243 6163258 6163501 6163271 6162987 6163056 6163024
mE 397634 397695 397646 397641 397645 397666 397660 397771 397656 397643 397822 397744
Southwest
mN 6163123 6163123 6163276 6163453 6163478 6163224 6163242 6163452 6163259 6162953 6163014 6162887
mE 397694 397786 397773 397743 397744 397692 397693 397810 397694 397687 397859 397793
Southeast
mN 6163123 6163123 6163276 6163453 6163478 6163224 6163242 6163452 6163259 6162953 6163014 6162887
Area m2 5924 13730 14031 2478 6884 495 537 1953 426 1476 1534 6613
Base Elevation of Source m ASL 703 706 709 711 712 704 705 717 705 699 707 702
Release Dimensions
Page 3A-143
Release Height m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Initial Sigma Z m 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- ( (also known
t/a 0.000135 0.0000760 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000650 0.000219 0.00 0.000188
as Hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene)
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00000315 0.00000177 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000151 0.00000510 0.00 0.00000438
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000468 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00245 0.000459 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00392 0.00132 0.00 0.00114
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.00413 0.000774 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00661 0.00223 0.0000917 0.00191
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 6.87 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.0136 1.16 0.00482 0.00 11.0 3.71 0.237 3.19
TABLE 3A-49 Cont'd
Water Steam
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.0235 0.00441 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0377 0.0127 0.000594 0.0109
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00172 0.000322 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00275 0.000928 0.00 0.000797
Aniline t/a 0.00253 0.000474 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00405 0.00137 0.00 0.00117
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00602 0.00113 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00965 0.00325 0.00 0.00279
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.0607 0.0114 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0125 0.00 0.00 0.0972 0.0328 0.00300 0.0281
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-144
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000536 0.00
t/a 11.1 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00488 0.0394 0.00173 0.00540 17.7 5.97 0.935 5.13
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.000620 0.000116 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000993 0.000335 0.00 0.000287
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane t/a 0.0970 0.0182 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0248 0.00 0.00 0.155 0.0523 0.00498 0.0450
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00274 0.000515 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00440 0.00148 0.00 0.00127
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 0.446 0.0836 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.118 0.00 0.00 0.714 0.241 0.0167 0.207
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isopropylbenzene
t/a 0.000112 0.0000211 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000180 0.0000607 0.00 0.0000521
(cumene)
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00435 0.000816 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00697 0.00235 0.00 0.00202
TABLE 3A-49 Cont'd
Water Steam
t/a 0.0000747 0.0000140 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000120 0.0000403 0.00 0.0000346
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.0000670 0.0000126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000107 0.0000362 0.00 0.0000311
Piperidine Group t/a 0.000392 0.0000734 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000627 0.000211 0.0000649 0.000182
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.000953 0.000179 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00153 0.000514 0.00 0.000442
Styrene t/a 0.0000467 0.00000876 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000749 0.0000252 0.00 0.0000217
Toluene t/a 0.0447 0.00838 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00400 0.00 0.00 0.0716 0.0241 0.00174 0.0207
Xylenes t/a 0.00922 0.00173 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000192 0.00 0.00 0.0148 0.00498 0.0000372 0.00427
Total VOC emission t/a 6.03 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.0184 1.22 0.00655 0.00540 29.0 9.77 1.18 8.39
Page 3A-145
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.0000534 0.0000100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000390 0.00 0.00 0.0000855 0.0000288 0.00000115 0.0000248
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.000742 0.000139 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000123 0.00 0.00 0.00119 0.000400 0.000142 0.000344
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00576 0.00108 0.00 0.00 0.000131 0.00000137 0.0000464 0.000207 0.00923 0.00311 0.000122 0.00267
Mercaptans t/a 0.00674 0.00126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00254 0.00 0.00 0.0108 0.00364 0.00118 0.00312
Thiophenes t/a 0.00206 0.000386 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000202 0.00 0.00 0.00330 0.00111 0.0000322 0.000955
Total TRS emission t/a 0.00578 0.00325 0.00 0.00 0.000131 0.00291 0.0000464 0.000207 0.0278 0.00936 0.00147 0.00804
CO2 t/a 3.91 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.0548 0.00231 0.0195 0.131 18.8 6.34 0.00385 5.44
CH4 t/a 0.405 0.228 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.000204 0.806 8.66 1.95 0.656 0.0154 0.563
CO2e t/a 12.4 6.99 0.00 0.00 47.7 0.00660 16.9 182 59.7 20.1 0.328 17.3
TABLE 3A-50
PROJECT PROCESS AREA EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 2 (M TO X)

Phase 2 Source Number M N O P Q R S T U V W X
Water Steam
Oil Skim Tank HLS except Steam Produced Fuel Gas System VRU (2 x HP & LP Diluent HC Dilbit HC
Area Description Treating & IGF System OTSGs Generators Gas System System (Heater) 50%) Flare Services Services
mE 397824 397879 397829 397835 397837 397850 397848 397956 397836 397643 397821 397947
Northwest
mN 6163220 6163275 6163388 6163478 6163570 6163241 6163258 6163501 6163271 6162950 6163006 6163051
mE 397877 397970 397956 397936 397931 397876 397878 397995 397874 397687 397858 397995
Northeast
mN 6163220 6163275 6163388 6163478 6163570 6163241 6163258 6163501 6163271 6162950 6163006 6163051
mE 397824 397879 397829 397835 397837 397850 397848 397956 397836 397643 397821 397947
Southwest
mN 6163123 6163124 6163278 6163454 6163481 6163223 6163242 6163451 6163260 6162916 6162965 6162957
mE 397877 397970 397956 397936 397931 397876 397878 397995 397874 397687 397858 397995
Southeast
mN 6163123 6163124 6163278 6163454 6163481 6163223 6163242 6163451 6163260 6162916 6162965 6162957
Area m2 5218 13675 13907 2413 8401 486 485 1936 436 1494 1490 4572
Release Dimensions
Release Height m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Initial Sigma Z m 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Page 3A-146
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- (also known as t/a 0.000135 0.0000760 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000650 0.000219 0.00 0.000188
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00000315 0.00000177 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000151 0.00000510 0.00 0.00000438
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000468 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 2.29 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.0203 1.16 0.00482 0.00 11.0 3.71 0.237 3.19
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00784 0.00441 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0377 0.0127 0.000594 0.0109
Aniline t/a 0.000843 0.000474 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00405 0.00137 0.00 0.00117
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00201 0.00113 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00965 0.00325 0.00 0.00279
Water Steam
known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.0202 0.0114 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0125 0.00 0.00 0.0972 0.0328 0.00300 0.0281
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000536 0.00
t/a 3.69 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00732 0.0394 0.00173 0.00540 17.7 5.97 0.935 5.13
methane and ethane)
Page 3A-147
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane t/a 0.0323 0.0182 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0248 0.00 0.00 0.155 0.0523 0.00498 0.0450
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.000915 0.000515 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00440 0.00148 0.00 0.00127
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 0.149 0.0836 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.118 0.00 0.00 0.714 0.241 0.0167 0.207
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.0000374 0.0000211 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000180 0.0000607 0.00 0.0000521
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00145 0.000816 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00697 0.00235 0.00 0.00202
t/a 0.0000249 0.0000140 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000120 0.0000403 0.00 0.0000346
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.0000223 0.0000126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000107 0.0000362 0.00 0.0000311
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.000318 0.000179 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00153 0.000514 0.00 0.000442
Styrene t/a 0.0000156 0.00000876 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000749 0.0000252 0.00 0.0000217
Toluene t/a 0.0149 0.00838 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00400 0.00 0.00 0.0716 0.0241 0.00174 0.0207
Xylenes t/a 0.00307 0.00173 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000192 0.00 0.00 0.0148 0.00498 0.0000372 0.00427
Water Steam
Mercaptans t/a 0.00225 0.00126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00254 0.00 0.00 0.0108 0.00364 0.00118 0.00312
Thiophenes t/a 0.000687 0.000386 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000202 0.00 0.00 0.00330 0.00111 0.0000322 0.000955
CO2 t/a 3.91 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.0823 0.00231 0.0195 0.131 18.8 6.34 0.00385 5.44
CH4 t/a 0.405 0.228 0.00 0.00 3.41 0.000204 0.806 8.66 1.95 0.656 0.0154 0.563
CO2e t/a 12.4 6.99 0.00 0.00 71.6 0.00660 16.9 182 59.7 20.1 0.328 17.3
Page 3A-148
TABLE 3A-51
PROJECT PROCESS AREA EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 3 (Y TO AI)

Phase 3 Source Number Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI
Water Steam
Deoiling treatment Generation OTSG Glycol Tanks in
Oil Skim Tank HLS except Steam Produced Fuel Gas System VRU (2 x HP & LP Dilbit HC
Area Description Treating & IGF System OTSGs Generators Gas System System (Heater) 50%) Flare Services
mE 398009 398064 398014 398020 398020 398035 398033 398140 398022 397643 397947
Northwest
mN 6163220 6163274 6163387 6163477 6163569 6163240 6163257 6163499 6163270 6162915 6162954
mE 398062 398154 398141 398120 398114 398062 398064 398179 398060 397687 397995
Northeast
mN 6163220 6163274 6163387 6163477 6163569 6163240 6163257 6163499 6163270 6162915 6162954
mE 398009 398064 398014 398020 398020 398035 398033 398140 398022 397643 397947
Southwest
mN 6163121 6163123 6163277 6163453 6163480 6163222 6163241 6163450 6163259 6162882 6162861
mE 398062 398154 398141 398120 398114 398062 398064 398179 398060 397687 397995
Southeast
mN 6163121 6163123 6163277 6163453 6163480 6163222 6163241 6163450 6163259 6162882 6162861
Area m2 5330 13624 13966 2408 8331 474 490 1920 446 1426 4545
Base Elevation of Source m ASL 715 718 719 718 717 717 718 722 718 698 708
Release Dimensions
Release Height m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Initial Sigma Z m 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Page 3A-149
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- (also known as t/a 0.000135 0.0000760 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000650 0.000219 0.000188
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00000315 0.00000177 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000151 0.00000510 0.00000438
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.000817 0.000459 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00392 0.00132 0.00114
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.00138 0.000774 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00661 0.00223 0.00191
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 2.29 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.0203 1.16 0.00482 0.00 11.0 3.71 3.19
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00784 0.00441 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0377 0.0127 0.0109
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.000573 0.000322 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00275 0.000928 0.000797
Aniline t/a 0.000843 0.000474 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00405 0.00137 0.00117
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00201 0.00113 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00965 0.00325 0.00279
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Steam
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.0202 0.0114 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0125 0.00 0.00 0.0972 0.0328 0.0281
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Butane, 1-isocyanato- (also known
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Butyl isocyanate)
t/a 3.69 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00732 0.0394 0.00173 0.00540 17.7 5.97 5.13
and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.000207 0.000116 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000993 0.000335 0.000287
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-150
Cyclohexane t/a 0.0323 0.0182 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0248 0.00 0.00 0.155 0.0523 0.0450
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.000915 0.000515 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00440 0.00148 0.00127
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 0.149 0.0836 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.118 0.00 0.00 0.714 0.241 0.207
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.0000374 0.0000211 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000180 0.0000607 0.0000521
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00145 0.000816 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00697 0.00235 0.00202
t/a 0.0000249 0.0000140 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000120 0.0000403 0.0000346
Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.0000223 0.0000126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000107 0.0000362 0.0000311
Piperidine Group t/a 0.000131 0.0000734 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000627 0.000211 0.000182
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.000318 0.000179 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00153 0.000514 0.000442
pyridine)
Styrene t/a 0.0000156 0.00000876 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000749 0.0000252 0.0000217
Toluene t/a 0.0149 0.00838 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00400 0.00 0.00 0.0716 0.0241 0.0207
Xylenes t/a 0.00307 0.00173 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000192 0.00 0.00 0.0148 0.00498 0.00427
Total VOC emission t/a 6.03 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.0277 1.22 0.00655 0.00540 29.0 9.77 8.39
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.0000178 0.0000100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000390 0.00 0.00 0.0000855 0.0000288 0.0000248
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.000247 0.000139 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000123 0.00 0.00 0.00119 0.000400 0.000344
Water Steam
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00192 0.00108 0.00 0.00 0.000196 0.00000137 0.0000464 0.000207 0.00923 0.00311 0.00267
Mercaptans t/a 0.00225 0.00126 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00254 0.00 0.00 0.0108 0.00364 0.00312
Thiophenes t/a 0.000687 0.000386 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000202 0.00 0.00 0.00330 0.00111 0.000955
Total TRS emission t/a 0.00578 0.00325 0.00 0.00 0.000196 0.00291 0.0000464 0.000207 0.0278 0.00936 0.00804
CO2 t/a 3.91 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.0823 0.00231 0.0195 0.131 18.8 6.34 5.44
CH4 t/a 0.405 0.228 0.00 0.00 3.41 0.000204 0.806 8.66 1.95 0.656 0.563
CO2e t/a 12.4 6.99 0.00 0.00 71.6 0.00660 16.9 182 59.7 20.1 17.3
Page 3A-151
TABLE 3A-52
PROJECT WELL PAD AREAS (AT MAXIMUM SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION)

Estimated
TRS
Estimated VOC Emissions Emissions
Phase Well pad ID Well pad ID Description Speciation Profile (t/a) (t/a)
Well Head Pairs (8) Fuel Gas 0.00139 0.0000533
Test Sep & Produced Vapour Package Blackrod Bitumen 10.5 0.0251
Well Pad 1 P1P5-30
Start-Up Circulation Package Blackrod Bitumen 2.03 0.00486
Steam Inlet, Inst Air & Vent Stack Blackrod Bitumen 0.00 0.00
Well Pad 2 P1P2-25
Phase 1 Well Pad 3 P1P15-25
Page 3A-152
Well Pad 4 P1P2-36
Well Pad 5 P1P13-30
Well Pad 6 P2P12-31
Well Pad 7 P2P16-36
Phase 2
Well Pad 8 P2P13-36
Well Pad 9 P2P9-35
Well Pad 10 P2P1-35
Estimated
TRS
Well Pad 11 P2P4-36
Well Pad 12 P2P9-26
Phase 2 Well Head Pairs (8) Fuel Gas 0.00139 0.0000533
(cont’d) Test Sep & Produced Vapour Package Blackrod Bitumen 10.5 0.0251
Well Pad 13 P2P13-25
Page 3A-153

Well Pad 14 P2P5-25
Well Pad 15 P2P2-26
Well Pad 16 P3AP12-19
Phase 3 Well Head Pairs (8) Fuel Gas 0.00139 0.0000533
Well Pad 20 P3AP13-24 Well Head Pairs (8) Fuel Gas 0.00139 0.0000533
Estimated
TRS
Page 3A-154
Phase 3
(cont’d)
Well Pad 26 P3BP7-23
Estimated
TRS
Page 3A-155

Phase 3
(cont’d)
Well Pad 36 P3BP7-2
Well Pad 37 P3BP4-1
Well Pad 38 P3BP1-1
Well Pad 39 P3BP4-6 Test Sep & Produced Vapour Package Blackrod Bitumen 10.5 0.0251
Estimated
TRS
Phase 3
(cont’d) Well Pad 40 P3BP10-2
Page 3A-156
TABLE 3A-53
PROJECT WELL PAD AREA EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 1 (WELL PADS 1 TO 5)

Phase 1 Well Pad Number Well Pad 1 Well Pad 2 Well Pad 3 Well Pad 4 Well Pad 5
Well Pad ID P1P5-30 P1P2-25 P1P15-25 P1P2-36 P1P13-30
mE 396578 395792 395640 395864 396593
Northwest
mN 6164016 6163893 6165063 6165460 6164987
mE 396777 395993 395844 396072 396793
Northeast
mN 6164013 6163887 6165059 6165456 6164995
mE 396572 395785 395628 395860 396585
Southwest
mN 6163821 6163698 6164747 6165255 6164799
mE 396777 395990 395828 396064 396785
Southeast
mN 6163818 6163689 6164743 6165255 6164787
Area m2 39320 39973 64039 41722 39710
Base Elevation of Source m ASL 652 625 612 613 639
Release Dimensions
Release Height m 3 3 3 3 3
Initial Sigma Z m 5 5 5 5 5
Speciation Profile
Page 3A-157
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro- (also known
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene)
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Butane, 1-isocyanato- (also known as Butyl
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
isocyanate)
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and ethane) t/a 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406
Page 3A-158
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cyclohexane t/a 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oxirane, phenyl- (also known as Phenyloxirane) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyridine, 4-methyl- (assessed as pyridine) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411
Xylenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total VOC emission t/a 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Mercaptans t/a 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total TRS emission t/a 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
CO2 t/a 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057
CH4 t/a 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23
CO2e t/a 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91
Page 3A-159
TABLE 3A-54
Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad
Phase 2 Well Pad Number Well Pad 6 Well Pad 7 Well Pad 8 Well Pad 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Well Pad ID P2P12-31 P2P16-36 P2P13-36 P2P9-35 P2P1-35 P2P4-36 P2P9-26 P2P13-25 P2P5-25 P2P2-26
mE 396835 396056 395295 394445 394361 395066 394417 394994 394979 394175
Northwest
mN 6166360 6166503 6166264 6166305 6165625 6165454 6164635 6164809 6164011 6164027
mE 397033 396264 395494 394650 394566 395274 394619 395196 395178 394380
Northeast
mN 6166360 6166494 6166261 6166302 6165622 6165457 6164629 6164806 6164005 6164027
mE 396828 396056 395289 394445 394361 395066 394417 394994 394976 394172
Southwest
mN 6166168 6166305 6166066 6166109 6165420 6165256 6164433 6164607 6163810 6163828
mE 397027 396254 395491 394644 394563 395271 394616 395196 395174 394374
Southeast
mN 6166162 6166298 6166066 6166103 6165420 6165253 6164433 6164610 6163807 6163828
Area m2 38846 40088 39448 39761 41316 41624 39756 40060 39766 40368
Base Elevation of Source m ASL 611 602 599 599 603 601 605 603 604 605
Release Dimensions
Release Height m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Initial Sigma Z m 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Page 3A-160
Speciation Profile
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro-(also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TABLE 3A-54 Cont'd
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-161
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane t/a 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
as Phenyloxirane)
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TABLE 3A-54 Cont'd
Piperidine Group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411
Xylenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total VOC emission t/a 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mercaptans t/a 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total TRS emission t/a 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
CO2 t/a 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057
Page 3A-162
CH4 t/a 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23
CO2e t/a 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91
TABLE 3A-55
Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad
Phase 3 Well Pad Number 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
P3AP12- P3AP4- P3AP2- P3AP15- P3AP13- P3AP4- P3AP7- P3AP15- P3AP12- P3AP10- P3BP7- P3BP5- P3BP10-
Well Pad ID 19 19 24 19 24 24 23 23 35 34 23 23 22
mE 396608 396538 395737 395772 395006 394938 394085 394160 393429 392633 392539 393213 392559
Northwest
mN 6163150 6162373 6162391 6163432 6163369 6162337 6162371 6163229 6166451 6166468 6162539 6162516 6163267
mE 396810 396744 395943 395974 395208 395139 394290 394362 393631 392832 392742 393414 392759
Northeast
mN 6163150 6162370 6162384 6163429 6163366 6162334 6162371 6163229 6166451 6166464 6162532 6162516 6163267
mE 396605 396538 395737 395769 395006 394935 394085 394155 393429 392629 392536 393210 392555
Southwest
mN 6162948 6162171 6162188 6163234 6163171 6162135 6162173 6163036 6166249 6166268 6162333 6162314 6163070
mE 396810 396737 395939 395974 395204 395136 394287 394356 393631 392828 392738 393411 392755
Southeast
mN 6162948 6162168 6162185 6163234 6163167 6162135 6162170 6163028 6166249 6166265 6162333 6162314 6163065
Area m2 41174 40834 40828 40112 39778 40327 40613 39767 40742 39695 41033 40715 39924
Base Elevation of Source m ASL 669 661 626 628 606 610 606 607 594 594 608 607 608
Release Dimensions
Release Height m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Initial Sigma Z m 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Page 3A-163
Speciation Profile
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro- (also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
2-methylnaphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-methylcholanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein (2-propenal) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
aliphatic alcohols t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TABLE 3A-55 Cont'd
Well Pad ID 19 19 24 19 24 24 23 23 35 34 23 23 22
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic ketones t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzaldehyde group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzofuran group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-164
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406
methane and ethane)
Carboxylic acids t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane t/a 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dichlorobenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isopropylbenzene
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(cumene)
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenothiazine group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piperidine Group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TABLE 3A-55 Cont'd
Well Pad ID 19 19 24 19 24 24 23 23 35 34 23 23 22
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411
Xylenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total VOC emission t/a 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Carbon disulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbon disulphide group t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mercaptans t/a 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total TRS emission t/a 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
CO2 t/a 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057
CH4 t/a 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23
CO2e t/a 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91
Page 3A-165
TABLE 3A-56
PROJECT WELL PAD AREA EMISSIONS FOR PHASE 3 (CONTINUED) (WELL PADS 29 TO 40)
Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad Well Pad
Phase 3 Well Pad Number 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
P3BP12- P3BP10- P3BP13-
Well Pad ID 23 P3BP7-27 P3BP5-26 27 26 P3BP2-34 P3BP4-35 P3BP7-2 P3BP4-1 P3BP1-1 P3BP4-6 P3BP10-2
mE 393358 392541 393280 392595 393396 392614 393413 394216 395047 395945 396650 394269
Northwest
mN 6163250 6164074 6164105 6164869 6164848 6165670 6165651 6167303 6167207 6167215 6167170 6168026
mE 393558 392744 393479 392797 393596 392813 393614 394418 395252 396146 396850 394470
Northeast
mN 6163247 6164070 6164103 6164866 6164847 6165665 6165648 6167303 6167210 6167211 6167166 6168026
mE 393354 392538 393275 392591 393392 392610 393410 394213 395047 395943 396646 394266
Southwest
mN 6163050 6163873 6163906 6164669 6164648 6165469 6165449 6167105 6167008 6167014 6166971 6167831
mE 393557 392738 393475 392794 393593 392809 393610 394414 395246 396144 396846 394464
Southeast
mN 6163048 6163871 6163902 6164667 6164650 6165466 6165445 6167105 6167008 6167012 6166966 6167828
Area m2 40259 40263 39917 40434 39906 39748 40611 40046 40354 40198 40059 39434
Release Dimensions
Release Height m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Page 3A-166
Initial Sigma Z m 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Speciation Profile
Emission Rate
1,3-butadiene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-
hexachloro-(also known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,3-Dioxolane t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-Heptanamine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-methyl-2-propenal
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(methacrolein)
7,12-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acenaphthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acetaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acrolein t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic C5-C8 t/a 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
Aliphatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TABLE 3A-56 Cont'd
P3BP12- P3BP10- P3BP13-
Aniline t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthracene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C17-C34 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known as t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene t/a 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128
Benzo(a)pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-167
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406 0.406
methane and ethane)
Chrysene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane t/a 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
Ethylbenzene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluoranthene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fluorene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Formaldehyde t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hexane t/a 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Methanol t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phenanthrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TABLE 3A-56 Cont'd
P3BP12- P3BP10- P3BP13-
Piperidine t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pyridine, 4-methyl-
t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Styrene t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene t/a 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411 0.0411
Xylenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mercaptans t/a 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026
Thiophenes t/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-168
CO2 t/a 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057
CH4 t/a 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23
CO2e t/a 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.91
TABLE 3A-57
PROJECT FUGITIVE TANK AND PROCESS AREA GHG EMISSIONS

Emission Rate
(t/d)
Fugitive Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Phase 1 Tanks 0.0867 0.536 0.00 11.3
Phase 2 Tanks 0.0974 0.584 0.00 12.4
Phase 3 Tanks 0.0972 0.580 0.00 12.3
Phase 1 Process Area 0.101 0.0426 0.00 0.996
Phase 1 Fugitive Well Pads 0.000786 0.0306 0.00 0.643
Total Fugitive Plant GHG Emissions 0.591 2.08 0.00 44.2
Page 3A-169
TABLE 3A-58
FUGITIVE VOC AND TRS EMISSIONS FOR ALL CASES

Bitumen Capacity VOC TRS
Operator Facility Facility Type (bbl/d) t/d
Existing Condition
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project UP 120,000 6.43 0.322
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose East Plant IS 32,000 0.135 0.00265
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose North Plant IS 30,000 0.127 0.00249
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Primrose South Plant IS 45,000 0.190 0.00373
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. wolf lake IS 13,000 0.0550 0.00108
Blackrod Thermal Pilot
BlackPearl Resources Inc. IS 400 0.0196 0.000384
Project
Christina Lake Thermal
Cenovus Energy IS 18,800 0.0795 0.00156
Project - Phase 1 A&1B
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek phase 1a IS 24,000 0.101 0.00199
Foster Creek phase 1b
debot
Foster Creek phase 1c
s1
Foster Creek phase 1c
s2
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek phase 1d IS 30,000 0.127 0.00249
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek phase 1e IS 30,000 0.127 0.00249
Great Divide Project
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
(Pod one source)
Surmont phase 1 IS 27,000 0.114 0.00224
Corp.
Devon ARL Corp. Jackfish1 IS 35000 0.148 0.00290
Enbridge Pipeline Athabasca terminal IS 0.564 0.0126
Husky Energy Inc. Tucker phase 1 IS 30,000 0.127 0.00249
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Leming Plant IS 35,000 0.148 0.00290
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Mahikan Plant IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Mahkeses IS 30,000 0.127 0.00249
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Maskwa Plant IS 35,000 0.148 0.00290
Hangingstone
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. Demonstration Project IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Plant 1
MEG Energy Corp. IS 3,000 0.0127 0.000249
Project Phase 1 (Pilot)
Project Phase 2
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long lake north phase 1 IS 72,000 0.304 0.00597
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long Lake upgrader UP 144,000 7.71 0.386
Muskeg River Mine &
Shell Canada Ltd. Muskeg River Mine EX 155,000 1.71 0.000760
Expansion
Shell Canada Ltd. Orion phase 1 IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag phase 1 IS 35,000 0.148 0.00290
Suncor Energy Inc. Firebag Phase C&E IS 25,000 0.106 0.00207
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 1 IS 33,000 0.140 0.00273
Suncor Energy Inc. Millennium Plant Area UP 317,000 17.0 0.850
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora North EX 116,301 1.28 0.000570
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake UP 290,700 7.20 0.360
Subtotal Existing Condition 45.1 1.99
Baseline Case (Additional to Existing Condition plus Changes from the Existing Condition if Applicable)
Blackrod Thermal Pilot
BlackPearl Resources Inc. 400 0.0196 0.000384
Expension Project
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon Project UP 270,000 14.5 0.724
Page 3A-170
TABLE 3A-58 Cont'd

Existing Condition
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Kirby phase 1 IS 45,000 0.190 0.00373
Project - Phase 1 C&1D
Cenovus Energy Foster Creek Phase FGH IS 100,000 0.423 0.00829
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited Algar IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Surmont phase 2 IS 83,000 0.351 0.00688
Corp.
Hangingstone In situ
Excelsior Energy Limited IS 1000 0.00423 0.0000829
Combustion Project
Grizzly Oil Sand Alga Lake Project IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Phase 1 IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Caribou Lake Thermal
Husky Energy Inc. IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Demonstration Project
McMullen Thermal
Husky Energy Inc. IS 800 0.00338 0.0000663
Conduction Pilot Project
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise Phase 1 IS 50,000 0.211 0.00414
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise phase2 IS 50,000 0.211 0.00414
Husky Energy Inc. Sunrise phase3 IS 50,000 0.211 0.00414
Kearl Mine Oil Sands
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. EX 310,000 3.42 0.00152
Project
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Nabiye IS 30,000 0.127 0.00249
Germain SAGD Pilot
Laricina Energy Ltd. IS 5000 0.0211 0.000414
Project
Saleski SAGD Pilot
Laricina Energy Ltd. IS 1200 0.00507 0.0000994
project
Project Phase 2B
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long lake south phase 1 IS 70,000 0.296 0.00580
Nexen Inc./OPTI Canada Inc. Long lake south phase 2 IS 70,000 0.296 0.00580
Shell Canada Ltd. Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 EX 200,000 2.20 0.000980
Shell Canada Ltd. Orion phase 1 & Phase 2 IS 20,000 0.0846 0.00166
STP-McKay SAGD
Southern Pacific Resource Corp. IS 12000 0.0507 0.000994
project
StatoilHydro corner 1&2 IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
StatoilHydro Leismer comm IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
StatoilHydro Leismer demo IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
StatoilHydro Leismer Expansion IS 20,000 0.0846 0.00166
Suncor Energy Inc. Fort Hills EX 190,000 2.09 0.000931
Suncor Energy Inc. MacKay River Phase 2 IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
Meadow Creek
Suncor Energy Inc. IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
expansion
Suncor Energy Inc. meadow creek phase 1 IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur Upgrader UP 234,000 12.5 0.627
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Aurora South EX 200,000 2.20 0.000980
Joslyn North Mine
Total E&P Canada EX 100,000 1.10 0.000490
Project
Total E&P Canada Joslyn phase 1 IS 2,000 0.00846 0.000166
Total E&P Canada Joslyn phase 2 IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Terre de Grace Pilot
Value Creation Inc. IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
Project
Page 3A-171
TABLE 3A-58 Cont'd

Subtotal Baseline Case Additional 37.1 1.14
Subtotal Existing Condition 45.1 1.99
Subtotal Baseline Case 82.2 3.14
Application Case (Additional to Baseline Case)
Blackrod Commercial
BlackPearl Resources Inc. 80,000 2.30 0.00426
SAGD Project
Subtotal Application Case Additional 2.30 0.00426
Subtotal Baseline Case 82.2 3.14
Subtotal Application Case 84.5 3.14
PDC (Additional to Baseline Case)
Clearwater West Lp-
Alberta Oil Sand (AOS) IS 4500 0.0190 0.000373
SAGD Pilot Project
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Hangingstone project IS 12000 0.0507 0.000994
Dover Central Pilot
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (AOSC) IS 2000 0.00846 0.000166
Project
MacKay River
commercial Project
MacKay River Pilot
Project
Blackrod Commercial
BlackPearl Resources Inc. 80,000 2.30 0.00426
SAGD Project
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Horizon In situ IS 50,000 0.211 0.00414
Cenovus Energy Borealis IS 35,000 0.148 0.00290
Cenovus Narrows Lake
Thermal Project
Cenovus Energy Project - Phase 1 E, 1F IS 120,000 0.507 0.00994
and 1G
Pelican Lake Grand
Cenovus Energy Inc. IS 180000 0.761 0.0149
Rapids Project
Great Divide Algar
Connacher Oil and Gas Limited expansion Project IS 34,000 0.144 0.00282
(include Algar)
Dover Commercial North
Dover Operating Corp. IS 100000 0.423 0.00829
Plant
Dover Commercial South
Dover Operating Corp. IS 150000 0.634 0.0124
Plant
EnerMark Inc. Enerplus Resources Kirby Oil Sands Project
IS 10000 0.0423 0.000829
Fund Phase I
Harvest Energy Trust BlackGold Expansion IS 20,000 0.0846 0.00166
Tamarack Integrated Oil
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. IS 20000 0.0846 0.00166
Sands Project Phase 1
Tamarack Integrated Oil
Ivanhoe Energy Inc. IS 20000 0.0846 0.00166
Sands Project Phase2
Hangingstone
Japan Canada Oil Sands Ltd. IS 35,000 0.148 0.00290
Commercial
Koch Exploration Canada, L.P. (KFC Gemini Oil Sands
IS 1200 0.00507 0.0000994
LP) Projects stage1
Koch Exploration Canada, L.P. (KFC Gemini Oil Sands
IS 10000 0.0423 0.000829
LP) Projects stage2
Germain Expansion
Laricina Energy Limited IS 150000 0.634 0.0124
Project phase 2 to 4
Project Phase 3A
Project Phase 3B
OSUM Oil Sand Corp. Taiga Project IS 35,000 0.148 0.00290
Pengrowth Corp Lindbergh Facility IS 2500 0.0106 0.000207
Page 3A-172
TABLE 3A-58 Cont'd

Jackpine Mine
Shell Canada Ltd. Expansion (includes EX 300,000 3.31 0.00147
update phase I)
Shell Canada Ltd. Pierre River Mine EX 200,000 2.20 0.000980
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Mines Project EX 300,000 3.42 0.00161
STP McKay Thermal
Southern Pacific Resources Corp. IS 24000 0.101 0.00199
Project_Phase2
StatoilHydro corner exp IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
StatoilHydro Hangingstone IS 20,000 0.0846 0.00166
StatoilHydro NW Leismer IS 20,000 0.0846 0.00166
StatoilHydro S Leismer IS 20,000 0.0846 0.00166
StatoilHydro Thornbury IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
StatoilHydro Thornbury exp IS 20,000 0.0846 0.00166
Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis Phase 1 IS 40,000 0.169 0.00331
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. West Ells Phase 1&2 IS 10,000 0.0423 0.000829
Legend Lake SAGD
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. IS 10000 0.0423 0.000829
Project
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Thickwood SAGD Project IS 10000 0.0423 0.000829
Joslyn South Mine
Total E&P Canada EX 100,000 1.10 0.000490
Project
Total E&P Canada (Synenco Energy
Northern Lights EX 114500 1.26 0.000561
Inc.)
Value Creation Inc. Tristal Pilot Project IS 1,000 0.00423 0.0000829
Subtotal PDC Additional 16.1 0.142
Subtotal Application Case 84.5 3.14
Subtotal PDC 101 3.28
Notes:
IN = in situ facility
EX = Extraction only facility
UP = upgrading facility
Page 3A-173
TABLE 3A-59
FUGITIVE VOC AND TRS SPECIATION PROFILES FOR INTEGRATED EXTRACTION AND
UPGRADING PLANTS
VOC Grouping (Mass Percent of Total VOC)
1,3-butadiene 0.473
Aliphatic alcohols 0.0337
Benzene 2.35
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and
7.72
ethane)
Cyclohexane 0.00282
Ethylbenzene 0.958
Hexane 26.6
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) 0.153
Naphthalene 0.0183
Piperidine 0.00422
Piperidine Group 0.00422
Styrene 0.00382
Toluene 5.07
Xylenes 3.73
TRS Grouping (Mass Percent of Total TSC)
Carbon disulphide 7.33
Carbon disulphide group 10.4
Hydrogen Sulphide 56.3
Mercaptans 0.0816
Thiophenes 33.2
Note:
Unknown Gas Chromatograph peaks are placed in the Aliphatic C9-C16 category.
Page 3A-174
TABLE 3A-60
FUGITIVE VOC AND TRS SPECIATION PROFILES FOR EXTRACTION PLANTS

VOC Grouping (Mass Percent of Total VOC)
1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro- ( (also known as
0.000926
1,3-Dioxolane 0.0000216
1-Heptanamine 0.000422
aliphatic alcohols 0.00559
Aniline 0.00577
Benzene 0.220
Butane, 1-isocyanato- (also known as Butyl isocyanate) 0.000483
Cyclohexane 0.515
Ethylbenzene 0.00626
Hexane 1.30
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) 0.000256
Naphthalene 0.00993
Oxirane, phenyl- (also known as Phenyloxirane) 0.000170
Piperidine 0.000153
Piperidine Group 0.00148
Pyridine, 4-methyl- (assessed as pyridine) 0.00217
Styrene 0.000107
Toluene 0.204
Xylenes 0.0214
TRS Grouping (Mass Percent of Total TRS)
Mercaptans 48.0
Thiophenes 9.22
Note:
Based on the blended profile estimated for the Teck/SilverBirch Frontier project.
Page 3A-175
TABLE 3A-61
FUGITIVE VOC AND TRS SPECIATION PROFILES FOR IN-SITU PLANTS

VOC /PAH Grouping (Mass Percent of Total VOC)
Anthracene 0.00000000838
Benzene 0.230
Cyclohexane 0.0000580
Fluorene 0.00000226
Hexane 5.08
Naphthalene 0.000000866
Phenanthrene 0.0000000940
Toluene 0.0999
Xylenes 0.0295
TRS Grouping (Mass Percent of Total TRS)
Hydrogen Sulphide 100
Note:
Based on the blended profile estimated for the Devon Jackfish project.
TABLE 3A-62
MODEL DOMAIN FUGITIVE PLANT EMISSIONS
Development Scenario/Source Type VOC (t/d) TRS (t/d)

BlackPearl Commercial Project
Tanks 0.450 0.000485
Process Area 0.482 0.000481
Well Pad Area 1.37 0.00329
Project Total 2.30 0.00426
Existing Condition
Extraction and Upgrading 38.3 1.92
Extraction Only 2.99 0.00133
In situ 3.68 0.0736
Existing Total 45.0 1.99
Baseline Case
In situ 9.20 0.182
Baseline Case Total 82.1 3.14
Application Case
In situ 11.5 0.186
Application Case Total 84.4 3.14
PDC
Page 3A-176
TABLE 3A-62 Cont'd
Development Scenario/Source Type VOC (t/d) TRS (t/d)

In situ 18.6 0.325
PDC Total 101 3.28
3A.4 Mine Emissions
3A.4.1 Introduction
Some existing and planned oil sands developments use surface mining technology to extract oil sand
from the ground. Suncor and Syncrude originally used a combination of electrically driven draglines
and/or bucket wheels, coupled with a conveyer belt system to transport oil sand from the mines to the
extraction plants. Current mine technology is based on diesel-powered shovels and trucks; often coupled
with the hydro-transport of oil sand slurry (oil sand mixed with water) from a central location in the mine to
the extraction plant. While most of the mines in the region are associated with mining oil sand, there are
several quarries in the region that provide limestone.
Emissions associated with mine fleets result from the combustion of diesel fuel. Fugitive VOC and TRS
emissions can also result from the mine surfaces due to the exposed bitumen associated with the mine
faces. Although the Project does not have a mine component and although mining activities are
somewhat distant from the Project, the distant mine emissions are included in the assessment since they
can be substantive and are located in the LAR. Most of the mine information was obtained from the
recent Frontier mine assessment (Teck/SilverBirch 2011).
3A.4.2 Mines in the Model Domain
Table 3A-62 identifies existing condition, Baseline Case, Application Case, and PDC mines in the Model
Domain. Figure 3A-8 shows the locations of the mines in the RSA. All mines are located north of Fort
McMurray. The coordinates for each mine area that are listed in Table 3A-63 are expressed in the UTM
system and they refer to the four corners of each mine area, which for the purposes of dispersion
modelling, were assumed to be rectangular. The closest mine to the Project are located in the
northeastern corner of the RSA.
3A.4.3 Mine Fleet Considerations
Mine fleet emissions include common combustion air substances such as NOX, SO2, PM2.5, CO, and.
Other combustion emissions include trace levels of hydrocarbon (i.e., VOC and PAH compounds) and
metals in the diesel exhaust. Mine fleet emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel
consumed (i.e., related to the amount and power rating of the trucks/shovels), the emission control
technology associated with the equipment, and the associated levels of mining activity.
For modelling, the physical locations and parameters associated with the size of the mine are required as
well as the contaminant emissions rates. Each mine was treated as an area source in dispersion
modelling. An initial sigma z (σZ) value of 16 m was adopted for each mine to reflect the turbulence levels
over the mine area due to irregular mine terrain features (Davies and Prasad 2005, Lundgren et al 2008).
Mine fleet activity takes place for a nominal 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. In conjunction with
bitumen production, fleet activities also include the removal of overburden and stockpiling of overburden,
and the construction of tailings areas and berms. A mine may take a nominal 10 years to ramp up to peak
production that may last from 20 to 30 years. Air quality assessments typically examine the emissions that
occur during the peak production period. Emission rates from mine fleets can be calculated based on the
Page 3A-177
fuel consumption and associated emission factors. For future developments, emission standards are
often used in lieu of emission factors.
The NOX, PM2.5, and CO emissions are limited by the maximum levels indicated in the Off-Road
Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulation (Canada Gazette 2005, Internet site). The objective of
the Regulation is to limit emissions from off-road diesel engines in Canada by establishing stringent
Canadian off-road diesel emission standards and test procedures. The Regulation introduces emission
standards for engines used for off-road applications such as mining. The emission standards are
specified in terms of different “Tiers”. Tier I standards were established initially by the U.S.EPA with Tier
II, III and IV standards that follow which further reduce maximum allowable emissions from newer
vehicles.
The Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations are aligned with similar U.S. EPA
standards established for the United States for Tier II and Tier III standards for the model year 2006 and
later engines. A proposed amendment to the Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulation
will further align Canadian emission standards with those of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) by formally adopting the interim Tier IV and Tier IV emission standards for the 2008 to
2015 model years and beyond (Canada Gazette 2011, Internet site). A summary of the U.S. and
Canadian emission standards is presented in Table 3A-64. Environment Canada’s GHG emission factors
for heavy-duty diesel vehicles are listed in Table 3A-74.
The SO2 emissions are limited by the sulphur compound content in Diesel Fuel Regulations which sets
maximum limits for sulphur in on-road, off-road, locomotive and marine diesel fuels in Canada (Canada
Gazette 2005, Internet site). The regulation established a maximum sulphur limit of 500 ppmw for off-road
diesel fuel, effective June 1, 2007. The regulation further reduces the maximum sulphur content to 15
ppmw effective June 1, 2010. Earlier EIAs completed in the oil sands region assumed SO2 emissions
were based on 500 ppmw sulphur content in diesel fuel. More recent EIAs assume SO2 emissions are
based on 15 ppmw sulphur content in diesel.
The approach used on some recent EIAs in the oil sands region for estimating emission rates for mine
fleet vehicles have been based on the following equation:
Emission Rate (t/a) = (Number of Vehicles) × (Load Factor) × (Emission Standard) × (Engine
Horsepower) × (Operating Hours per Vehicle per year)
This approach includes a load factor that accounts for the for the average power output of an engine
relative to the engine’s maximum rated power output. The actual power output of the engines in mine fleet
vehicles will vary over time depending on activity. For example, an unloaded haul truck will likely operate
at a lower power output than a loaded truck. A load factor of 0.59 has been applied in many of the recent
assessments based upon the load factors specified for U.S.EPA NONROAD emission model. A factor of
0.59 implies that the average power output of the mine fleet vehicle is 59 percent of that vehicles
maximum rated power output.
To better understand the actual emissions associated with oil sands mining fleets, the Desert Research
Institute (DRI) installed and operated an exhaust monitoring package on several operating mine haul
trucks (Watson et al 2010). The trucks operated over several haul cycles, and the preliminary results
indicate higher NOX emissions during the idle cycle (i.e., about 60 g NOX/kg fuel), while NOX emissions
were relatively constant when hauling with either empty or full loads (i.e., about 28.7 NOX/kg fuel).
3A.4.4 Mine Fleet Emissions
Table 3A-65 provides the estimated mine fleet NOX, SO2, PM2.5, CO, and VOC emissions for the existing
condition, Baseline Case, Application Case, and PDC. The existing mine emissions are based on
information filed by various operators as part of the EPEA annual reporting process. The following
provides an example of the NOX emissions (t/d) associated with the existing major mines:
Page 3A-178
Mine 2007 2008 2009

Shell Muskeg River 11.9 13.4 22.2
Suncor Millennium 18.6 23.2 32.4
Syncrude Mildred Lake 13.7 20.4 19.9
Syncrude Aurora 12.8 14.4 18.2
Typical mine fleet NOx emissions tend to be in the 10 to 30 t/d range, depending on the size of the
associated mine.
The information for the Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC were based on various assessments
undertaken in the region (e.g., Teck/SilverBirch 2011, Cenovus FCCL Christina Lake 2010, Devon J3
2010, JACOS 2010, Shell Jackpine 2007, and Hammerstone 2006). In some cases, the VOC emissions
provided for the mines include the sum of the mine fleet and the mine face emissions. For these cases,
the mine fleet emissions were assumed to be 14% of the NOX emissions.
The Baseline Case mine fleets assume a blend of Tier I, II, III and IV emission standards based on
whether the mine is existing or proposed, and the time of the respective assessments. At the time when
the Project is operating at full capacity, all mine fleets are expected to meet the more stringent Tier IV
emission standards. This will result in lower NOX, PM2.5 and VOC emissions than indicated in Table 3A-
65.
3A.4.5 Mine Fleet Speciation Profile
The previous assessments completed in this region, for the most part, do not provide individual VOC,
PAH, and metal substance emission estimates for the mine fleets. However, if the total VOC emission
rate is known, then the emissions of individual VOC and PAH compound groups can be calculated from
information provided in the U.S. EPA SPECIATE database. Table 3A-66 shows the mass fraction of
various hydrocarbon compounds relative to the total mine fleet VOC. Similarly, if the total PM emission
rate is known, the U.S. EPA SPECIATE information can be used to determine the mass fraction of
various metal compounds (see Table 3A-67).
The individual VOC, PAH, and metal group emission rates for this assessment were calculated by
applying the respective factors in Tables 3A-66 and 3A-67 to the VOC and PM2.5 emission rates listed in
Tables 3A-65.
3A.4.6 Fugitive Mine Face Emission Considerations
Fugitive emissions from the mine face include emissions of CH4, CO2, VOC, and TRS compounds. Higher
emission fluxes are associated with freshly exposed mine faces and lower emission fluxes are associated
with aged mine areas. Operators in the region have used a surface flux chamber approach to measure
emission rates from several different types of mine surfaces. The sum-product of flux chamber
measurements and appropriate estimates of representative mine sub-areas can then be used to calculate
emission rate from a mine surface. The emission rate can then be used to derive an emission factor that
can be applied to similar mines.
An emission factor based on the mine bitumen production was applied to all mines to estimate mine face
fugitive emissions. A production based emission factor is expressed as kg emission per tonne of bitumen
production. A production based emission factor has been developed from recent surface flux chamber
measurements. The associated emission factors for THC, methane, VOC, and TRS are 2.27, 1.85 and
0.422, 0.00383 kg/t, respectively. As the ore from the Aurora mine is rich, these factors may overstate the
emissions from mines with lower quality ore.
The above-indicated TRS emission factor is scaled from the Syncrude Mildred Lake flux chamber
measurements that found, on average, that the TRS emission rate was about 0.907% of the VOC
emission rate (Syncrude 1998).
Page 3A-179
3A.4.6.1 Temporal Variation
The vitalization rates of VOCs from the mine face can depend on the intensity of the mining activity, the
age of the exposed mine face surface, the richness of the exposed ore and on environmental factors such
as ambient temperature and wind speed. Limited flux chamber measurements have been conducted in
the region to quantify the emission rates and the speciation profiles associated with these fugitive mine
face emissions.
As ambient temperature and wind speed can vary with time of year, the mine face emission will likely
have a seasonal dependence. A mass transfer model, as discussed in Syncrude (1998), was used to
extrapolate the mine surface emission rates based on flux chamber measurements in July to the rest of
the year (see Table 3A-68). On average, the annual average emission rate is similar to what was
measured in July. The peak emission months were found to be May and September. Wind speed, not
ambient temperature, appears to be the determining factor.
3A.4.7 Mine Fugitive Emissions
Table 3A-69 provides the estimated VOC and TRS emissions from the other existing and proposed mines
using the production based emission factors. Totals are provided for the existing condition, Baseline Case
and PDC. The emissions reflect annual average values. The VOC emissions provided in Table 3A-69
apply a consistent emission factor to all mines and the application of this factor has generally increased
the VOC emissions from mine faces that are provided in other project assessment applications.
3A.4.8 Fugitive Mine Emission Speciation Profile
Table 3A-70 and A-71 show the emission profiles on a mass basis for individual VOC and TRS
compound groups. These profiles represent a blend of information from the Mildred Lake Upgrader
Expansion project (Syncrude 1998) and SilverBirch Frontier project (Teck/SilverBirch, 2011). The
individual VOC and TRS emission rates for this assessment were calculated by applying the respective
factors in Tables A-70 and A-71 to the VOC and TRS emission rates listed in Table 3A-69. Fugitive mine
face VOC and TRS emissions associated with the quarry surfaces were assumed to be negligible.
3A.4.9 Mine Emission Summary
Table 3A-72 provides a summary of the mine emissions for the Project, the existing condition and for the
three assessment cases.
Page 3A-180
May 2012
TABLE 3A-63
MINE STATUS
Status
Existing Baseline Application
Operator Mine Condition Case Case PDC
Horizon Mine Area Existing Only X - - -
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
Horizon Mine Area Approved - X X X
Existing Open Pit Quarry Area 1 X X X -
Graymont Western Canada & Lehigh
Planned Open Pit Quarry Area 5 - - - X
(Parson’s Creek)
Hammerstone Aggregate 1 - X X X
Hammerstone Corporation Hammerstone Aggregate 3 - X X X
Muskeg Valley Quarry X X X X
Kearl Mine Area 1 - X X X
Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. Kearl Mine Area 3 - X X X
Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 - X X -
Jackpine Mine Expansion Area 1 - - - X
Muskeg River Mine Existing Only X - - -
Shell Canada Ltd.
Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 1 - X X X
Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 2 - X X X
Pierre River Mine Area 1 - - - X
Frontier Mine Area 1 - - - X
Teck/SilverBirch
Fort Hills Mine - X X X
Millennium Mine Areas Existing
only X - - -
Millennium Mine Areas Approved - X X X
North Steepbank Extension Mine
Suncor Energy Inc. Area 1 - X X X
Area 2 - X X X
Area 3 - X X X
Mine Dump 9 Fleet (MD 9) Area 1 - X X X
Page 3A-182

Status
Existing Baseline Application
Operator Mine Condition Case Case PDC
Suncor Energy Inc. Voyageur South Area 1 - - - X
Voyageur South Area 2 - - - X
Voyageur South Area 3 - - - X
Voyageur Upgrader Coke
Handling Fleet - X X X
Aurora North Existing Only X - - -
Aurora North Approved - X X X
Aurora South - X X X
Mildred Lake North Mine Existing
Syncrude Canada Ltd. Only X - - -
Mildred Lake North Mine Approved - X X X
Mildred Lake West Mine Existing
Only X - - -
Mildred Lake West Mine Approved - X X X
Joslyn North Mine Project - X X X
Total E&P Canada Joslyn South Mine Project - - - X
Northern Lights - - - X
Note:
An ‘X’ indicates that the mine is included for the respective assessment case.
Page 3A-183
TABLE 3A-64
MINE AREA LOCATIONS

Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM Area
Operator and Mine (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (km2)
CNRL Horizon Mine Area Existing Only 450010 6355279 451531 6355007 451482 6354316 449737 6354538 1.21
CNRL Horizon Mine Area Approved 454815 6354191 457513 6354191 457513 6351493 454815 6351493 7.28
Parson’s Creek Existing Open Pit Quarry Area 1 473205 6300880 473500 6300880 473500 6301100 473205 6301100 0.06
Parson’s Creek Planned Open Pit Quarry Area 5 474210 6295288 474310 6295288 474310 6295188 474210 6295188 0.01
Hammerstone Aggregate 1 466500 6336369 466800 6336369 466800 6336069 466500 6336069 0.09
Page 3A-184
Hammerstone Muskeg Valley Quarry 466156 6338297 466406 6338297 466406 6338047 466156 6338047 0.06
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Area 1 488748 6364366 490488 6364366 490488 6362626 488748 6362626 3.03
Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 477782.48 6348248.9 480594.93 6348248.9 480594.93 6343561.4 477782.48 6343561.4 13.2
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Area 1 475548 6347298 481526 6346101 481282 6343579 474634 6344827 16.47
Shell Muskeg River Mine Existing Only 462177 6348638 465177 6348638 465177 6347138 462177 6347138 4.5
Shell Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 1 462177 6348638 465177 6348638 465177 6347138 462177 6347138 4.5
Shell Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 2 467009 6339217 469266 6339217 469266 6337208 467009 6337208 4.53
Shell Pierre River Mine Area 1 458832 6374797 466112 6373523 462676 6368206 459087 6367883 33.99
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Area 1 (South) 460000 6381646 465078 6381658 465078 6379216 460000 6379116 12.62
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Area 2 (North) 466285 6396042 470515 6396042 469386 6392165 466644 6392190 13.47
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Area 3 (North) 458742 6394522 459934 6394497 459859 6393307 457775 6393257 2
TABLE 3A-64 Cont'd
Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM Area
Operator and Mine (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (km2)
CNRL Horizon Mine Area Existing Only 450010 6355279 451531 6355007 451482 6354316 449737 6354538 1.21
Suncor Fort Hills Mine 461550 6357700 464800 6357700 464800 6355200 461550 6355200 8.13
Suncor Millennium Mine Area Existing only 474300 6312589 476833 6314772 477487 6310617 474348 6309080 11.52
Suncor Millennium Mine Areas Approved 475300 6315135 479668 6315135 479668 6310767 475300 6310767 19.08
Suncor North Steepbank Extension Mine Area 1 475436 6321077 477273 6319240 476341 6318310 474503 6320144 3.42
Suncor MD 9 Area 1 477279 6310694 478929 6310694 478929 6309044 477279 6309044 2.72
Suncor MD 9 Area 2 479499 6309854 480717 6309854 480717 6308636 479499 6308636 1.48
Suncor MD 9 Area 3 481803 6309377 483065 6309377 483065 6308115 481803 6308115 1.59
Suncor MD 9 Area 4 483690 6308301 484672 6308301 484672 6307319 483690 6307319 0.96
Suncor MD 9 Area 5 484187 6307048 485755 6307048 485755 6305480 484187 6305480 2.46
Page 3A-185
Suncor Voyageur South Mine Area 1 457666 6313372 460935 6311555 460350 6309457 457000 6310567 9.03
Suncor Voyageur Upgrader Coke Handling Fleet 468667 6313491 469044 6314095 470775 6312095 469325 6311351 2.7
Syncrude Aurora North Existing Only 466965 6354537 468965 6354537 468965 6351537 466965 6351537 6
Syncrude Aurora North Approved 466965 6354537 468965 6354537 468965 6351537 466965 6351537 6
Syncrude Aurora South 482935 6347587 484935 6347587 484935 6344587 482935 6344587 6
Syncrude Mildred Lake North Mine Existing Only 455832 6323363 459532 6323363 459532 6321163 455832 6321163 8.14
Syncrude Mildred Lake North Mine Approved 455832 6323363 459532 6323363 459532 6321163 455832 6321163 8.14
Syncrude Mildred Lake West Mine Existing Only 458794 6318621 460394 6318621 460394 6316321 458794 6316321 3.68
Syncrude Mildred Lake West Mine Approved 458794 6318621 460394 6318621 460394 6316321 458794 6316321 3.68
TOTAL E&P Joslyn North 452000 6351000 453988 6351000 453988 6347685 452000 6347685 6.59
TOTAL E&P Joslyn South 450004 6343064 451992 6343064 451992 6339749 450004 6339749 6.59
TOTAL E&P Northern Lights 499100 6376400 501100 6376400 501100 6374600 499100 6374600 3.6
TABLE 3A-65
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR DIESEL-FUELLED OFF-ROAD VEHICLES
Model Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

Engine Power (hp) Tier Year HC NOx + HC CO NOx PM
≥300 to <600 bhp Tier I 1996-2000 1.0 - 8.5 6.9 0.4
Tier II 2001-2005 - 4.8 2.6 - 0.15
Tier III 2006-2010 - 3.0 2.6 - -
Tier IV transitional 2011-2013 0.14 - - 0.3 0.01
-
Tier IV final 2014+ 0.14 - 0.3 0.01
≥600 to ≤750 bhp Tier I 1996-2001 1.0 - 8.5 6.9 0.4
Tier II 2002-2005 - 4.8 2.6 - 0.15
Tier III 2006-2010 - 3.0 2.6 - -
Tier IV final 2014+ 0.14 - - 0.3 0.01
> 750 bhp except Tier I 2000-2005 1.0 - 8.5 6.9 0.4
generator sets Tier II 2006-2010 - 4.8 2.6 - 0.15
Tier IV final 2015+ 0.14 - - 2.6 0.03
Notes:
“-“ means not applicable.
Tier IV final emission factors were applied to the assessment. If there is no data for Tier IV final, Tier IV transitional or
Tier III/tier II data were applied.
The tier emission standard applies to HC, which for this assessment was assumed to be all VOC.
INFORMATION SOURCE:
U.S. EPA. 2010. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling- Compression-Ignition.
April 2004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2010/420r10018.pdf
TABLE 3A-66
MINE FLEET EMISSIONS FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, BASELINE CASE, APPLICATION CASE,
AND PDC
(t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d)
Existing Condition
CNRL Horizon Mine Area Existing Only 2.614 0.034 0.095 1.648 0.366
Hammerstone Muskeg Valley Quarry 0.88 0.02 0.05 0.3 0.05
Parson’s Creek Existing Open Pit Quarry Area 1 0.013 0.00001 0.008 0.019 0.002
Shell Muskeg River Mine Existing Only 13.282 0.361 0.565 12.54 1.789
Suncor Millennium Mine Areas Existing Only 23.2 0.132 1.217 24.895 3.213
Syncrude Aurora North Existing Only 14.33 0.324 0.4 3.674 0.601
Syncrude Mildred Lake North Mine Existing Only 18.194 0.899 0.434 4.76 0.815
Syncrude Mildred Lake West Mine Existing Only 2.116 0.106 0.053 0.529 0.095
Subtotal Existing 75.026 1.878 2.861 48.773 6.991
Baseline Case (Additional to existing condition plus Changes from existing condition if Applicable)
CNRL Horizon Mine Area Approved 33.125 0.432 1.205 20.886 4.638
Hammerstone Aggregate 1 0.419 0.011 0.036 0.141 0.024
Page 3A-186
TABLE 3A-66 Cont'd

(t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d)
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Area 1 3.009 0.061 0.109 1.908 0.421
Shell Jackpine Phase 1 11.20 0.288 0.398 6.97 1.551
Shell Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 1 20.598 0.56 0.877 19.447 2.775
Shell Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 2 1.943 0.053 0.083 1.835 0.262
Suncor Fort Hills Mine 16.3 0.4 0.57 9.85 1.1
Suncor Millennium Mine Areas Approved 12.307 0.005 0.667 13.759 1.723
Suncor North Steepbank Extension Mine Area 1 7.199 0.041 0.378 7.725 0.997
Suncor MD 9 Area 1 3.241 0.001 0.176 3.644 0.449
Suncor MD 9 Area 2 1.767 0 0.096 1.987 0.245
Suncor MD 9 Area 3 1.898 0 0.103 2.134 0.263
Suncor MD 9 Area 4 1.148 0 0.062 1.291 0.159
Suncor MD 9 Area 5 2.126 0.002 0.114 2.325 0.294
Suncor Voyageur Upgrader Coke Handling Fleet 0.771 0.009 0.027 0.478 0.107
Syncrude Aurora North Approved 12.482 0.283 0.348 3.2 0.523
Syncrude Aurora South 12.482 0.283 0.348 3.2 0.523
Syncrude Mildred Lake North Mine Approved 17.2 0.85 0.41 4.5 0.77
Syncrude Mildred Lake West Mine Approved 2 0.1 0.05 0.5 0.09
TOTAL E&P Joslyn North 9.2 0.006 0.273 7.82 1.288
Baseline Case Additional 132.55 2.12 5.06 92.25 16.26
Subtotal Existing Condition 75.03 1.88 2.86 48.77 6.99
Subtotal Baseline Case 207.58 4.00 7.92 141.03 23.25
Application Case
BlackPearl Commercial SAGD Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal Application Case 207.58 4.00 7.92 141.03 23.25
PDC (Additional to Application Case)
Parson’s Creek Planned Open Pit Quarry Area 5 0.092 0.00018 0.006 0.162 0.008
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Area 1 5.758 0.008 0.205 6.315 0.779
Shell Pierre River Mine Area 1 5.272 0.008 0.152 5.785 0.631
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project Total 10.364 0.024 0.124 20.054 0.669
Page 3A-187
TABLE 3A-66 Cont'd

(t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d)
Suncor Voyageur South Mine Area 1 3.345 0.002 0.122 2.131 0.463
TOTAL Joslyn South Mine Project 9.2 0.006 0.273 7.82 1.288
TOTAL Northern Lights 7.1 0.011 0.222 8.163 0.877
PDC Additionala 42.013 -0.215 1.105 54.90 4.785
Subtotal PDC 249.59 3.79 9.03 195.92 28.04
Note:
a
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion include Jackpine Phase 1, so Shell Jackpine Phase 1 emission in Baseline Case
was not included in PDC Case
TABLE 3A-67
VOC AND PAH SPECIATION PROFILE FOR THE MINE FLEETS

1,3-butadiene 0.122
1-Methylnaphthalene 0.149
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) 1.58
2-methylnaphthalene 0.241
Acetaldehyde 16.5
Anthracene 0.00493
Aromatic ketones 2.06
0.00117
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde 1.50
Benzene 1.08
Benzofuran group 0.0323
Chrysene 0.00132
Cyclohexane 0.0828
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene 0.000812
Ethylbenzene 0.185
Fluoranthene 0.0209
Fluorene 0.0136
Formaldehyde 8.79
Naphthalene 0.243
Page 3A-188
TABLE 3A-67 Cont'd

Phenanthrene 0.0367
Phenothiazine group 0.0990
Pyrene 0.0283
Toluene 1.57
Xylenes 1.25
Source Code D
NOTE:
a
Based on U.S. EPA Speciate 4 Profile 4674.
TABLE 3A-68
VOC AND PAH SPECIATION PROFILE FOR THE MINE FLEETS

Compound Group Mass % of PM2.5a
Aluminum 0.0210
Antimony 0.0073
Arsenic 0.0005
Barium 0.0173
Cadmium 0.0040
Chromium 0.0005
Cobalt 0.0001
Copper 0.0039
Lead 0.0155
Manganese 0.0003
Nickel 0.0003
Silver 0.0055
Tin 0.0019
Zinc 0.056
Source Code D
NOTE:
a
Based on U.S. EPA Speciate 4 Profile 91017. Assume all PM are PM2.5.
TABLE 3A-69
SEASONAL VARIATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM THE MINE FACES
Based on Mass Transfer Model
Ambient Temperature Wind Speed Variation (%)
Month (oC) (m/s) Annual = 100% July = 100%
January -15 3.2 63 65
February -15 3.5 73 76
March -1.4 3.6 94 98
April 4.9 3.8 115 120
May 11.5 4.0 152 158
June 16.9 3.0 118 123
July 18.3 2.9 96 100
August 17.9 3.1 109 113
September 10.5 4.0 152 158
October 3.7 3.4 95 99
Page 3A-189
TABLE 3A-69 Cont'd
Based on Mass Transfer Model

Ambient Temperature Wind Speed Variation (%)
Month (oC) (m/s) Annual = 100% July = 100%
November -5.2 3.2 74 77
December -13.2 3.0 61 63
Annual 2.8 3.4 100 104
TABLE 3A-70
FUGITIVE MINE FACE EMISSIONS FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, BASELINE CASE,
APPLICATION CASE AND PDC
Production Based Emission Factor
Facility
Individual Mine
Bitumen VOC TRS
Bitumen
Production
(bbl/cd) (bbl/cd) (t/d)g (t/d) (t/d)
Existing Condition
Horizon Mine Area Existing Only 120,000 120,000 18,697 7.9 0.07
Shell Muskeg River Mine Existing only 155,000 155,000 24,150 10.2 0.09
Millennium Mine Areas Existing Only 228,000 228,000 35,524 15.01 0.14
Syncrude Aurora North Existing Only 116,300 116,300 18,120 7.65 0.07
Syncrude Mildred Lake North Mine Existing
200,194 31,192 13.18 0.12
Only
290,700
Syncrude Mildred Lake West Mine Existing
90,506 14,101 5.96 0.05
Only
Sum Existing 910,000 910,000 141,785 59.89 0.54
Baseline Case (Additional to Existing Condition)
Horizon Mine Area Approved 270,000 270,000 42,068 17.77 0.16
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Area 1 32,784 5,108 2.16 0.02
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Area 3 310,000 33,717 5,253 2.22 0.02
Shell Jackpine Phase 1 200,000 200,000 31,162 13.162 0.119
Shell Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 1 155,000 155,000 24,150 10.2 0.09
Shell Muskeg River Mine & Expansion 2 115000 115,000 17,918 7.57 0.07
Suncor Fort Hills Mine 190,000 190,000 29,603 12.5 0.11
Millennium Mine Areas Approved 223,469 34,818 14.71 0.13
Suncor North Steepbank Extension Mine
40,104 6,248 2.64 0.02
Area 1
Suncor North Steepbank Extension Mine 317,000
32,333 5,038 2.13 0.02
Area 2
Suncor North Steepbank Extension Mine
21,094 3,287 1.39 0.01
Area 3
Syncrude Aurora North Approved 116,300 116,300 18,120 7.65 0.07
Syncrude Aurora South 100,000 100,000 15,581 6.58 0.06
Syncrude Mildred Lake North Mine
200,194 31,192 13.18 0.12
Approved
290,700
Syncrude Mildred Lake West Mine
90,506 14,101 5.96 0.05
Approved
TOTAL E&P Joslyn North 100,000 100,000 15,581 6.58 0.06
Page 3A-190
Production Based Emission Factor

Facility
Individual Mine
Bitumen VOC TRS
Bitumen
Production
(bbl/cd) (bbl/cd) (t/d)g (t/d) (t/d)
Baseline Case Additional 1,254,000 1,254,000 195,383 82.53 0.75
Sum Existing Condition 910,000 910,000 141,785 59.89 0.54
Sum Baseline Case 2,164,000 2,164,000 337,168 142.42 1.29
Application Case (Additional to Baseline Case)
BlackPearl Commercial SAGD Project N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal Application Case 2,164,000 2,164,000 337,168 142.42 1.29
PDC (Additional to Application Case)
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Area 1 162,532 25,324 10.7 0.1
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Area 2 300,000 92,436 14,402 6.08 0.06
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Area 3 45,032 7,016 2.96 0.03
Shell Pierre River Mine Area 1 144,188 22,466 9.49 0.09
Shell Pierre River Mine Area 2 200,000 40,323 6,283 2.65 0.02
Shell Pierre River Mine Area 3 15,489 2,413 1.02 0.01
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Project Total 310,500 310,500 46,742 19.96 0.19
Suncor Voyageur South Mine Area 1 46,382 7,227 3.05 0.03
Suncor Voyageur South Mine Area 2 120,000 51,543 8,031 3.39 0.03
Suncor Voyageur South Mine Area 3 22,075 3,439 1.45 0.01
TOTAL Joslyn South Mine Project 100,000 100,000 15,581 6.58 0.06
TOTAL Northern Lights 114,500 114,500 17,840 7.54 0.07
PDC Additional 945,000 945,000 145,602 61.71 0.58
Sum Application Case 2,164,000 2,164,000 337,168 142.42 1.29
Sum PDC 3,109,000 3,109,000 482,770 204.12 1.87
NOTES:
The bitumen production is assigned to individual mines on the basis of the respective areas.
A bitumen density of 980 kg/m3 was used to convert bbl/cd to t/d for all facilities except Frontier.
VOC and TRS emissions are based on 0.422 kg/t and 0.00383 kg/t emission factors, respectively.
The existing Horizon and Millennium Mine bitumen productions are based on 2008 annual reports.
Shell Jackpine Phase 1 emission in Baseline Case was not included in PDC Case
No fugitive mine face emissions were assumed to occur from the quarries or the mine dump areas.
Page 3A-191
TABLE 3A-71
VOC SPECIATION PROFILE FOR MINE FACE AREAS

Compound Group Emission Factor (Percent of Total VOC)
1,3-butadiene 0.0427
Benzene 0.00259
Cyclohexane 0.110
Hexane 10.4
Naphthalene 0.00424
Toluene 0.0562
Xylenes 0.0376
Total VOC 100
TABLE 3A-72
TRS SPECIATION PROFILE FOR MINE FACE AREAS

Compound Group Emission Factor (Percent of Total TRS)
Thiophenes 1.85
Total TRS 100
TABLE 3A-73
MINE EMISSIONS
Emission Rate (t/d)
VOC TRS
NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO Mine Mine Mine Mine
Total Total
Fleet Face Fleet Face
Existing Condition 75.0 1.88 2.86 48.8 6.99 59.9 66.9 0.00 0.540 0.540
Baseline Case 208 4.00 7.92 141 23.3 142 166 0.00 1.29 1.29
Application Case 208 4.00 7.92 141 23.3 142 166 0.00 1.29 1.29
PDC 250 3.79 9.03 196 28.1 204 232 0.00 1.87 1.87
Page 3A-192
3A.5 Tailings Emissions
3A.5.1 Introduction
Extraction facilities separate bitumen from sand using a hot water process. Tailings ponds are surface
impoundments that receive liquid effluent from primary and secondary extraction processes, and the
tailings ponds can varyingly include:
• Coarse Tailings refers to effluent from the primary extraction facilities and is comprised primarily of
water and sand, with small amounts crude unrecovered crude bitumen.
• Fine Tailings refers to effluent from the secondary extraction facilities, which may go through a
thickening process, and contains unrecovered solvent that has been used in the froth treatment
process. The tailings are comprised of water, diluents solvent and fine silt and clay particles.
• Mature Fine Tailings (MFT) results from the consolidation of fine tailings once placed in the tailings
pond. MFT can remain in suspension for decades after being deposited in a tailings pond. MFT can
be removed and treated to promote further consolidation and de-watering.
• Consolidated or Composite Tailings (CT) are comprised of MFT, sand and gypsum; and reflect the
treatment of tailings for reclamation. Other tailings treatment approaches that include the addition of a
thickener are being adopted.
The emission rates to the atmosphere from tailings ponds depends on pond factors such as: type of
tailings being handled, composition of the of solvent, tailings flowrate, type of discharge into the pond, the
pond area; and environmental factors such as ambient temperature, wind speed, and ice cover.
Specific sources of atmospheric emissions from tailings ponds and the management of tailings include
(Clearstone et al 2008):
• Pond Outfalls: The pond outfall or inlet to the pond may be below the pond surface (i.e.,
subaqueous) or above the pond surface (i.e., aerial). For the latter, the lighter VOC lighter fractions
may preferentially be volatized at the initial splash point and along the beach area where the tailings
drain into the pond.
• Oily Film: The presence of an oily film on the surface of the pond can be a source of emissions
associated with the degradation of this film.
• Bitumen Slicks: As the bitumen slicks on the surface of the pond weather, they becomes sufficiently
dense that it can sink into the pond.
• Biogenic Gas Formation: The ponds have become sources of methane due to biogenic activity in
the pond. This activity may also produce reduced sulphur compound emissions.
Atmospheric emissions from the tailings ponds include methane, VOCs, TRSs. Tailings ponds have
typically been the largest source of VOC emissions associated with bitumen mining and extraction
operations.
Although the Project does not have a tailings area component and although tailings related activities are
somewhat distant from the Project, the distant tailings area emissions are included in this assessment
since they can be substantive and are located in the LAR. Most of the tailings information was obtained
from the recent Frontier mine assessment (Teck/SilverBirch 2011).
3A.5.2 Tailings Areas in the Model Domain
Table 3A-73 identifies existing condition, Baseline Case, Application Case, and PDC tailings areas in the
Model Domain. The associated solvent type is identified and can be broadly classified as being either
naphthenic (i.e., solvent that is primarily comprised of hydrocarbons in the C7 to C9 range, [heptanes to
Page 3A-193
nonanes]) or paraffinic (solvent that is comprised primarily of C5 and/or C6 [pentanes or hexanes]). The
lighter hydrocarbons volatize more easily than the heavier ones.
Table 3A-74 provides the location coordinates and spatial extents of the tailings management areas
identified in Table 3A-73. The locations of the ponds are also shown in Figure 3A-9. The coordinates for
each pond are expressed in UTM coordinates and refer to the four corners of the pond, which is assumed
to be rectangular. As with the mines, the nearest tailings areas to the Project are located in the northeast
corner of the RSA.
All tailings ponds are treated as area sources in the CALPUFF dispersion model. An initial sigma z value
of 3.3 m was adopted to reflect the turbulence levels over the pond region due to the dykes (Davies and
Prasad, 2005).
3A.5.3 Tailings Pond Emission Considerations
Previous EIAs completed in the region have applied varying methods for estimating VOC emissions from
tailings ponds as follows:
• Method 1: The VOC emissions are based on surface flux measurements on the ponds. These
estimations are limited to existing ponds and do not always include adjustments for seasonally
varying factors such as wind speed or ambient temperature.
• Method 2: The VOC discharge to the ponds is based on 4 volumes of solvent per 1000 volumes of
bitumen produced. The associated VOC emissions from the pond are assumed to be some fraction of
this discharge.
• Method 3: The VOC discharge to the ponds is based on 4 volumes of solvent per 1000 volumes of
bitumen produced. The associated VOC emissions from the pond are adjusted according to a Henry’s
Law relationship that assumes some portion of the VOCs remain in the aqueous solution. Typically,
95% of the aliphatics have been assumed to volatize, and about 20% of the aromatics have been
assumed to volatize.
Relative to the Method 1, Sadek et al (1996) compared surface flux measurements and mass transfer
estimations of hydrocarbon emissions from a waste water treatment pond. They noted that:
• The vitalization (i.e., emission rate) is somewhat independent of wind speed for compounds with a
high Henry’s Law coefficient (e.g., aromatics) as the emission rate is liquid-phase controlled.
• The vitalization (i.e., emission rate) is very dependent on wind speed for compounds with a low
Henry’s Law coefficient (e.g., most aliphatics) as the emission rate is gas phase controlled.
This indicates that environmental factors such as wind speed need to be considered when estimating
emissions from tailings ponds.
Methods 2 and 3 depend on the estimated loss of solvent to the tailings ponds. Table 3A-75 provides a
summary of the solvent losses for existing ponds in the region, and the losses are expressed as volumes
of solvent per 1000 volumes of bitumen produced. Based on industry experience, the solvent losses in
2009 were less than 4 volumes of solvent per 1000 volumes of bitumen produced value. There is an
indication that the solvent losses can be greater during the initial commissioning period of a project.
Not all solvent losses to the tailings area results in corresponding emissions to the atmosphere. While
conservative assumptions can assume 100% of the solvent losses to the pond can volatilize, a value of
40% loss to the atmosphere has also been used. The following are noted with respect to this latter
assumption:
• Several oil sands project applications submitted to the ERCB and Alberta Environment have assumed
that 40% of the solvent sent to a tailings pond is volatilized based on a report prepared by Kasperski
and Monroz (1996). A clarification presentation (Kasperski et al, 2010) note that their 1996 report on
Page 3A-194
tailings ponds was erroneously interpreted; specifically, the 40% loss assumption is not justified by
the 1996 report.
• An NRC presentation (Arfara et al 2010) summarizes ongoing bench-top research related to tailings
ponds emissions. The preliminary results suggest that solvent loss rates are closely correlated with
the amount of bitumen and suspended clay contained in the tailings. Specifically, the portion of
naphtha released to the air can vary from 20% to 60%, depending on the proportions of bitumen and
clay.
On the basis of Arfara et al (2010), it appears that somewhere between 20 and 60% of the solvent may
be volatilized. This finding however, is based on a naphthenic solvent and not on a lighter paraffinic
solvent.
3A.5.3.1 Seasonal Variation
As previously indicated, pond emissions VOCs can depend on environmental factors such as ambient
temperature, water surface temperature, wind speed, and ice cover; all of which can vary with time. A
mass transfer model, as presented in Syncrude (1998), has been used to extrapolate the emission rates
measured from flux chamber measurements in July to the rest of the year (Table 3A-76). On average, the
annual average emission rate is not too different from what was measured in July. The peak emission
months were found to be May and September. Wind speed, not ambient temperature, appears to be the
determining factor.
This approach, however, does not account for the presence of ice cover that could limit the available
surface area from with volatilization can occur. For this reason, a modified mass transfer approach with
an ice cover adjustment was applied to account for seasonal variations (Table 3A-76). Specifically, during
the period when the majority of the pond surface was assumed to be covered with ice, the tailings
emissions were assumed to be 20% of the summer values based on winter and summer Mildred Lake
Settling Basin (MLSB) measurements.
The tailings pond emissions adopted for this assessment are based on the limited measurements and
high level assumptions indicated. As tailings technologies evolve, the assumptions adopted are expected
to overstate the emissions from the tailings ponds in the future. No adjustments, for potential
improvements in tailings technology has been accounted for the future assessment scenarios.
3A.5.3.2 Independent Review
Worley Parsons (2009) conducted an independent review of emissions from tailings ponds (and mine
faces) for Environment Canada. Their assessment articulates the challenges in estimating the fugitive
emissions from these areas. While no new quantitative information is presented in the report, it presents a
gap analysis that has many commonalities with the previously discussed limitations relative to estimating
tailings emissions. The report relies heavily on the speciation profiles and emission rates that were
derived from the Syncrude MLUEP EIA (Syncrude 1998).
3A.5.4 Tailings Area Emissions
Table 3A-77 provides the VOC and TRS emission rates for other existing and planned tailings
management areas in the Model Domain; the emission rates are annualized. The following assumptions
were made to estimate these emissions.
SUNCOR AREAS
The Suncor tailings area emissions are based on a blend of information from NPRI, recent EIAs, and
modified with some recent measurements at the ponds.
Page 3A-195
EXISTING CONDITION
• The average fugitive VOC emission over the four-year period 2006 to 2009 reported by Suncor via
the NPRI database is 57.5 t/d. Similarly, the average fugitive TRS emission over the two-year period
2008 to 2009 reported by Suncor via the NPRI database is 2.10 t/d. On a mass basis the TRS is
3.6% of the VOC emissions. These emissions were used to represent the total VOC and TRS
emission from the existing Suncor tailings ponds even though they may also include fugitive plant
emissions.
• For the existing condition, total VOC emissions were assigned to the individual ponds on the following
basis: 75% from Pond 2/3, 15% from Pond 1, and 2% from each of Pond 1A, Pond 5, Pond 6, Pond 7
and Pond 8A/8B. This distribution is based on surface flux chamber measurements conducted on the
ponds in 2007 (Clearstone et al 2008).
Worley Parsons (2009) estimated Suncor tailings pond VOC and TRS emissions to be 29.41 t/d and 4.9
t/d, respectively. This is based on questionnaire responses from Suncor and Worley Parsons’
interpolation and follow up calculations. As details of these calculations are not available, this assessment
defers to adopting the values based on the NPRI database to represent existing emissions.
BASELINE CASE, APPLICATION CASE, AND PDC
• No emissions were assumed to occur from Pond 1 as the pond is assumed to be decommissioned for
these future scenarios (Suncor 2009). The annualized VOC emission rates for ponds 1A to 8 were
assumed to be 86.0 t/d. This value is based on a Suncor tailings pond peak month emission rate of
215 t/d (e.g., Cenovus 2010). The average annual value is 40% of the peak monthly value (i.e., 0.4 ×
215 = 86.0 t/d). The additional VOC emissions (relative to the existing scenario) were assumed to
occur from Pond 2/3.
• For these cases, total VOC emissions were assigned to the individual ponds on the following basis:
90% from Pond 2/3, and 2% from each of Pond 1A, Pond 5, Pond 6, Pond 7 and Pond 8A/8B. This
distribution assumes the additional VOC emissions occur from Pond 2/3.
• The South tailings pond VOC emissions were assumed to be 1.82 t/d based on the peak month value
of 4.54 t/d (e.g., Cenovus 2010) (i.e., 0.4 × 4.54 = 1.82 t/d).
• The Suncor Voyageur South tailings pond VOC emissions were assumed to be 0.67 t/d based on the
peak month value of 1.68 t/d (e.g., Cenovus 2010) (i.e., 0.4 × 1.68 = 0.67 t/d).
• TRS emissions from the Suncor ponds were assumed to be 3.6% of the VOC emissions based on the
extrapolation of the NPRI values.
SYNCRUDE AREAS
The Syncrude tailings area emissions were based on a blend of information from the Mildred Lake
Upgrader Expansion Project (MLUEP) EIA (Syncrude 1998) and information provided by Syncrude to
Worley Parsons (2009):
The average fugitive VOC emissions over the four-year period 2006 to 2009 reported by Syncrude for the
Mildred Lake operation via the NPRI database are 21.0 t/d. Similarly, the average fugitive TRS emissions
over the two-year period 2008 to 2009 reported by Syncrude via the NPRI database are 0.10 t/d. On a
mass basis, the TRS emissions are 0.5% of the VOC emissions.
The emission estimates for the Mildred Lake tailing pond that were made by Syncrude in 1998 (Syncrude
1998) were 43 t/d for VOC and 0.5 t/d for TRS, respectively. These emission rates form the basis of the
values that have been used to represent the Mildred Lake tailing facilities in EIAs since this time (e.g., the
Syncrude South West Sand Storage (SWSS) EIA (Syncrude 2008), the Cenovus Narrows Lake EIA
(Cenovus 2010), and the Devon Jackfish EIA (Devon 2010).
Page 3A-196
• Worley Parsons (2009) provided Syncrude Mildred Lake tailings pond VOC and TRS emissions as
16.42 t/d and 0.17 t/d, respectively. For the Aurora North Mine, the corresponding tailings pond VOC
and TRS emissions are 1.26 t/d and 0.025 t/d, respectively. These values were provided to Worley
Parsons directly by Syncrude. These emissions were used to represent the total VOC and TRS
emission from the Syncrude Mildred Lake Settling Basin (MLSB) water surface and from the Aurora
North Mine.
• For the other Mildred Lake tailings areas, the “Baseline” values from the MLUEP EIA were used.
These are based on the assumption that the VOC and TRS emission reductions are due to the
increased efficiency of the naphtha recovery unit that influences the discharge to the MLSB.
OTHER AREAS:
• For the other tailings areas, the VOC emissions were taken from the information contained in the
various EIA documents. When the values were provided for the peak emission month, the annual
emission rates were assumed to be 40% of the peak month value. These adjustments are applied to
the CNRL Horizon and the Imperial Oil Kearl tailings areas.
• The TRS emission was assumed to be a uniform 0.5% of the VOC emission rate on a mass basis.
• No solubility (i.e., Henry’s Law) adjustments have been made to account for the retention of
aromatics in the ponds. This is viewed as being conservative as the aromatic emissions will be
overstated.
In light of the challenges with respect to estimating the emission rates from the tailings areas, these
assumptions were viewed as being consistent with the available data.
3A.5.5 Tailings Speciation Profile
The speciation profile specific to a tailings area will depend on the facility in terms of the nature of the
received effluent and the solvent profile. For this reason, different speciation profiles were derived from
the available information and applied to the respective areas.
• Suncor Areas: The Suncor speciation profiles are a blend of the speciation profiles conducted by
Suncor in 1997 (Golder and Conor Pacific 1998), those based on measurements conducted in 2007
(Clearstone (2008), and on measurements conducted on the Mildred Lake Settling Basin (Syncrude
1998). Although, the 2007 data are more recent, only a few VOC compounds (i.e., benzene,
ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene) were presented.
• Syncrude Areas: The Syncrude tailings management area speciation profiles are based on the
Syncrude MLUEP EIA (Syncrude 1998).
• Other Areas: The speciation profile based on the Joslyn North Mine application was adopted for the
other ponds that use a paraffinic solvent (i.e., the Frontier, Shell, Imperial Oil, Suncor Jackpine,
Northern Lights and Joslyn ponds). The CNRL speciation was obtained from the MLSB profile since
the Horizon facility uses a naphthanic solvent. The TRS profiles for the paraffinic ponds are based on
the Suncor Pond 7 profile, and the CNRL Horizon TRS profile is based on the MLSB profile.
Table 3A-78, A-79 and A-80 provide the mass compositions that were applied to the tailings management
areas for the Suncor, Syncrude and other ponds, respectively.
3A.5.6 Summary
Table 3A-81 provides a summary of the Frontier project, existing condition, Baseline Case, Application
Case and PDC VOC and TRS emissions from tailings areas.
Page 3A-197
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
6300000
6300000
6280000
6280000
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
6240000
6240000
63
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
Conklin
6160000
6160000
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
Tailing Area
May 2012
TABLE 3A-74
STATUS OF TAILINGS AREAS

Status
Baseline Application
Operator and Pond Comment Diluent Type Existing Case Case PDC
CNRL Horizon Existing Only Coarse/Fine Naphthenic x - - -
CNRL Horizon Approved Coarse/Fine Naphthenic - x x x
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - x x x
Shell Muskeg River Mine Coarse/Fine Paraffinic x x x x
Shell Jackpine Phase 1 Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - x x -
Shell Jackpine Expansion Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - - - x
Shell Pierre River Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - - - x
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - - - x
Suncor Pond 1 Coarse - x - - -
Suncor Pond 1A Coarse - x x x x
Suncor Pond 2/3 Coarse/Fine Naphthenic x x x x
Suncor Pond 5 CT - x x x x
Suncor Pond 6 CT x x x x
Page 3A-199
Suncor South Coarse - x x x x
Suncor Voyageur South Coarse - - - - x
Suncor Fort Hills Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - x x x
Syncrude MLSB water Coarse/Fine Naphthenic x x x x
Syncrude MLSB beach Coarse/Fine Naphthenic x x x x
Syncrude East Mine In-pit CT - x x x x
Syncrude West Mine In-pit CT - x x x x
Syncrude SWSS water Coarse - x x x x
Syncrude SWSS beach Coarse - x x x x
Syncrude Aurora North Coarse/MFT - x x x x
Syncrude Aurora South Coarse/MFT - - x x x
TOTAL E&P Northern Lights Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - - - x
TOTAL E&P Joslyn North Mine Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - x x x
TOTAL E&P Joslyn South Mine Coarse/Fine Paraffinic - - - x
TABLE 3A-75
LOCATIONS OF THE TAILINGS AREAS

Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4 Area Base Elev
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM
2
Operator and Pond (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (km ) (m asl)
CNRL Horizon Existing Only 445853 6357304 447679 6357304 445853 6353196 447679 6353196 7.5 342
CNRL Horizon Approved 443571 6357304 447679 6357304 443571 6353196 447679 6353196 16.9 358
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl 494019 6366622 498397 6366622 494019 6362244 498397 6362244 19.2 369
Shell Muskeg River Mine 463313 6347375 465077 6347375 463313 6345653 465077 6345653 3.04 292
Shell Jackpine Phase 1 478225 6342857 479538 6343093 479935 6340994 478053 6340879 3.28 325
Shell Jackpine Expansion 478225 6342857 479538 6343093 478053 6340879 479935 6340994 3.28 320
Shell Pierre River 464045 6386446 467794 6386409 464047 6385263 466580 6384684 4.75 283
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier 465919 6396189 470428 6396189 466999 6392175 469284 6392194 13.6 279
Suncor Pond 1 471422 6316732 472582 6316732 471422 6315572 472582 6315572 1.34 300
Suncor Pond 1A 470562 6316312 471362 6316312 470562 6315512 471362 6315512 0.64 324
Suncor Pond 2/3 468233 6317061 469459 6317061 468233 6315759 469459 6315759 1.60 287
Suncor Pond 5 467089 6319189 468489 6319189 467089 6317789 468489 6317789 1.96 315
Suncor Pond 6 466100 6321500 467900 6321500 466100 6319700 467900 6319700 3.24 313
Suncor Pond 7 474258 6316858 476358 6316858 474258 6314758 476358 6314758 4.41 302
Page 3A-200
Suncor Pond 8 475135 6312435 476335 6312435 475135 6311235 476335 6311235 1.44 328
Suncor South 478109 6305130 481783 6305130 481783 6301456 478109 6301456 13.5 371
Suncor Voyageur South 456627 6308921 461836 6307609 457151 6306149 462094 6301868 20.5 375
Suncor Fort Hills 466550 6362000 467550 6362000 466550 6361000 467550 6361000 1.00 337
Syncrude MLSB water 460470 6327060 463870 6327060 460470 6323660 463870 6323660 11.5 304
Syncrude MLSB beach 459340 6327610 463640 6327610 459340 6323310 463640 6323310 18.5 298
Syncrude East Mine In-pit 464150 6320450 467350 6320450 464150 6317250 467350 6317250 10.2 320
Syncrude West Mine In-pit 461460 6319880 463960 6319880 461460 6317380 463960 6317380 6.25 310
Syncrude SWSS area water 452780 6316480 454180 6316480 452780 6315080 454180 6315080 1.96 371
Syncrude SWSS area beach 452650 6319190 457450 6319190 452650 6314390 457450 6314390 23.0 357
Syncrude Aurora North 472990 6352490 474890 6352490 472990 6350590 474890 6350590 3.61 291
Syncrude Aurora South 486630 6340330 488530 6340330 486630 6338430 488530 6338430 3.61 382
Synenco Northern Lights 498186 6382040 500497 6382042 498188 6379293 500497 6379290 6.35 295
TOTAL E&P Joslyn North 450384 6347544 452372 6347544 450384 6345820 452372 6345820 3.43 320
TOTAL E&P Joslyn South 448388 6339608 450376 6339608 448388 6337884 450376 6337884 3.43 327
TABLE 3A-76
SOLVENT LOSSES TO EXISTING TAILINGS AREAS

Year Suncor Syncrude Shell CNRL
2009 2.9 2.9 2.8 NR
2008 < 4.5 and 4.0 3.5 4.0 -
2007 < 4.5 2.7 4.2 -
2006 NR 2.9 5.3 -
Notes:
The losses are expressed as volume of solvent per 1000 volumes of bitumen produced.
Based on the 2007, 2008 and 2009 air emission summary reports submitted to Alberta Environment as part of the respective EPEA
approvals.
NR = not reported.
Page 3A-201
TABLE 3A-77
SEASONAL VARIATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR VOC EMISSIONS FROM THE TAILINGS AREAS
Based on Mass Transfer Model Adjusted Mass Transfer Model based on winter = 20%
Ambient Wind Speed Variation (%) Variation (%)
Month Temp (oC) (m/s) Annual = 100% July = 100% Ice Cover Annual = 100% July = 100%
January -15 3.2 63 65 ice 24 20
February -15 3.5 73 76 ice 24 20
March -1.4 3.6 94 98 ice 72 59
April 4.9 3.8 115 120 trans 85 70
May 11.5 4 152 158 ice-free 192 158
June 16.9 3 118 123 ice-free 149 123
July 18.3 2.9 96 100 ice-free 121 100
August 17.9 3.1 109 113 ice-free 137 113
September 10.5 4 152 158 ice-free 192 158
October 3.7 3.4 95 99 ice-free 120 99
November -5.2 3.2 74 77 trans 59 49
December -13.2 3 61 63 ice 24 20
Annual 2.8 3.4 100 104 - 100 82
Page 3A-202
TABLE 3A-78
ANNUALIZED EMISSION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TAILINGS AREAS

(t/d) (t/d) (t/d) (t/d)
Operator and Pond VOC TRS VOC TRS VOC TRS VOC TRS
CNRL Horizon approved 24.78 0.12 55.74 0.279 55.74 0.279 55.74 0.279
Imperial Oil Resources Kearl - - 55.18 0.276 55.18 0.276 55.18 0.276
Shell Muskeg River 14.38 0.072 14.38 0.072 14.38 0.072 14.38 0.072
Shell Jackpine Phase 1 and expansion - - 9.92 0.05 9.92 0.05 14.88 0.074
Shell Pierre River - - - - - - 9.92 0.05
Teck/SilverBirch Frontier - - - - - - 58.5 0.293
Suncor Pond 1 8.63 0.315 - - - - - -
Suncor Pond 1A 1.15 0.042 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062
Suncor Pond 2/3 43.13 1.575 77.4 2.786 77.4 2.786 77.4 2.786
Suncor Pond 5 1.15 0.042 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062
Suncor Pond 6 1.15 0.042 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062
Suncor Pond 7 1.15 0.042 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062
Suncor Pond 8 1.15 0.042 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062 1.72 0.062
Suncor South 0.17 0.061 1.82 0.655 1.82 0.655 1.82 0.655
Page 3A-203
Suncor Voyageur South - - - - - - 0.67 0.241

Suncor Fort Hills - - 25.44 0.127 25.44 0.127 25.44 0.127
Syncrude MLSB water 16.42 0.17 16.42 0.17 16.42 0.17 16.42 0.17
Syncrude MLSB beach 0.17 0.035 0.17 0.035 0.17 0.035 0.17 0.035
Syncrude East Mine In-pit 0.54 0.027 0.54 0.027 0.54 0.027 0.54 0.027
Syncrude West Mine In-pit 0.43 0.022 0.43 0.022 0.43 0.022 0.43 0.022
Syncrude SWSS area water 2.23 0.05 2.23 0.05 2.23 0.05 2.23 0.05
Syncrude SWSS area beach 5.22 0.141 5.22 0.141 5.22 0.141 5.22 0.141
Syncrude Aurora North 1.26 0.025 1.26 0.025 1.26 0.025 1.26 0.025
Syncrude Aurora South - - 1.26 0.025 1.26 0.025 1.26 0.025
TOTAL Northern Lights - - - - - - 20.96 0.105
TOTAL E&P Joslyn North Mine - - 17.2 0.086 17.2 0.086 17.2 0.086
TOTAL E&P Joslyn South Mine - - - - - - 17.2 0.086
Total 123 2.82 293 5.14 293 5.14 405 5.94
Note:
Emission rates have been adjusted so they represent an annual average emission rate.
TABLE 3A-79
SUNCOR TAILINGS MANAGEMENT AREAS VOC SPECIATION PROFILES

Suncor Tailings Management Areas – Mass Percent
Voyageur
Compound Group Pond 1 Pond 1A Pond 2/3 Pond 5 Pond 6 Pond 7 Pond 8 South South
VOC 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Aliphatic C5-C8 63.5 53.2 56.7 66.6 63.5 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1
Aliphatic C9-C16 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4
Aliphatic C17-C34 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300
Aromatic C9-C16 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30
Aliphatic Alcohol 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400
Aliphatic aldehydes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Benzene 0.190 0.500 0.300 0.800 0.100 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400
0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270 0.0270
and ethane)
Cyclohexane 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150
Ethylbenzene 0.510 2.20 2.00 1.40 0.600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hexane 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400
Isopropylbenzene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400
Page 3A-204
Styrene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toluene 0.630 8.30 6.30 2.10 0.400 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Xylenes 4.90 12.6 11.5 6.00 3.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
TRS 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Carbon Disulphide 4.13 3.98 3.96 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.00 3.70 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carbon Disulphide Group 63.1 60.8 60.5 63.1 63.1 63.1 63.1 63.1 63.1
Thiophene 36.9 35.5 35.3 36.9 36.9 36.9 36.9 36.9 36.9
Notes:
C4, Aliphatic C5-C8, Aliphatic C9-C16, Aromatic C9-C16 are based on Suncor 1997 measurements (Golder and Conor Pacific 1998).
Unknown Gas Chromatograph peaks were placed in the Aliphatic C9-C16 category.
Aliphatic C17-C34, hexane, naphthalene, and aliphatic alcohol are based on Mildred Lake Settling Basin (MLSB) 1997 measurements (Syncrude 1998).
Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene and Xylenes are based on Suncor 2007 measurements (Clearstone 2008).
Pond 1A and Pond 5 Aliphatic C5 to C8 group recalculated to ensure the total VOC value does not exceed 100.
Pond 7, Pond 9, South Pond and Voyageur South Pond are based on the average of Pond 5 and Pond 6.
H2S based on Suncor 1997 measurements, and CS2 and thiophene partitioning based on Syncrude MLSB 1997 measurements. Upsets are removed.
TABLE 3A-80
SYNCRUDE TAILINGS MANAGEMENT AREAS VOC SPECIATION PROFILES

Syncrude Tailings Management Areas – Mass %
Compound Group MLSB Water MLSB Beach East Mine In-pit West Mine In-Pit SWSS Water SWSS Beach Aurora
VOC 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Aliphatic C5-C8 5.29 0.00 6.03 6.03 0.196 0.00 5.29
Aliphatic C9-C16 85.8 89.6 86.7 86.7 88.8 99.0 85.8
Aliphatic C17-C34 0.0330 0.214 0.0325 0.0325 0.00339 0.00 0.0330
Aromatic C9-C16 1.06 1.02 1.27 1.27 1.41 0.0352 1.06
Aliphatic Alcohol 0.0448 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.478 0.0448
Aliphatic aldehydes 0.00230 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00230
Benzene 0.363 0.160 0.353 0.353 0.0511 0.00 0.363
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and ethane) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0138 0.00 0.00
Cyclohexane 0.155 0.00 0.0838 0.0838 0.00 0.00 0.155
Ethylbenzene 0.333 0.00 0.155 0.155 0.0654 0.00 0.333
Hexane 0.378 0.00 0.119 0.119 0.00 0.00 0.378
Isopropylbenzene 0.0824 0.00 0.0413 0.0413 0.00 0.00 0.0824
Naphthalene 0.0386 0.150 0.0420 0.0420 0.127 0.00 0.0386
Styrene 0.000238 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000238
Toluene 0.983 2.01 0.341 0.341 0.250 0.370 0.983
Page 3A-205
Xylenes 2.16 0.0968 3.29 3.29 0.246 0.0830 2.16

TRS 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Carbon Disulphide 3.57 13.7 18.0 18.0 17.7 51.8 3.57
Hydrogen Sulphide 12.9 68.3 32.9 32.9 12.5 31.9 12.9
Carbon Disulphide Group 55.0 31.7 67.1 67.1 87.5 68.1 55.0
Thiophene 32.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.1
Notes:
Based on surface flux chamber measurements.
Aurora speciation profile assumed to be the same as the MLSB Water speciation profile.
Unknown Gas Chromatograph peaks are placed in the VOC category Aliphatic C9-C16.
TABLE 3A-81
OTHER OPERATOR TAILINGS MANAGEMENT AREAS VOC SPECIATION PROFILES

Other Operator Tailings Management Areas – Mass %
Compound Group Petro-Canada
Albian Sands Imperial Oil
Shell Jackpine Shell Pierre River Fort Hills (now CNRL Horizon TOTAL Joslyn Frontier
Muskeg River Resources Kearl
Suncor)
VOC 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Aliphatic C5-C8 96.7 96.7 96.7 96.7 96.7 5.29 96.7 95.2
Aliphatic C9-C16 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 85.8 3.11 3.11
Aliphatic C17-C34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0330 0.00 0.00
Aromatic C9-C16 0.00657 0.00657 0.00657 0.00657 0.00657 1.06 0.00657 0.00657
Aliphatic Alcohol 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0448 0.00 0.00
Aliphatic aldehydes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00230 0.00 0.00
Benzene 0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 0.363 0.0394 0.0394
0.0458 0.0458 0.0458 0.0458 0.0458 0.00 0.0458 1.50
and ethane)
Cyclohexane 0.558 0.558 0.558 0.558 0.558 0.00 0.558 0.400
Ethylbenzene 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.333 0.0114 0.0114
Hexane 0.683 0.683 0.683 0.683 0.683 0.378 0.683 0.683
Isopropylbenzene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0824 0.00 0.00
Naphthalene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0386 0.00 0.00
Page 3A-206
Styrene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000238 0.00 0.00

Toluene 0.0567 0.0567 0.0567 0.0567 0.0567 0.983 0.0567 0.0567
Xylenes 0.0702 0.0702 0.0702 0.0702 0.0702 2.16 0.0702 0.0702
TRS 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Carbon Disulphide 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57
Hydrogen Sulphide 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9
Carbon Disulphide 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0
Thiophene 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1
Notes:
The TOTAL Joslyn VOC values are assumed to represent the Albian, Jackpine, Kearl and Fort Hills Tailings Management Areas. The Frontier VOC profile is based on the Clearstone Report for Tailings for
Frontier and the TOTAL Joslyn VOC values. The CNRL Horizon VOC profile was based on the Syncrude MLSB.
TRS profiles are based on Syncrude MLSB.
TABLE 3A-82
TAILINGS EMISSIONS
Emission Rate (t/d)
Development Scenario VOC TRS
Existing Condition 123.1 2.8
Baseline Case 293.2 5.1
Application Case 293.2 5.1
PDC 405.4 5.9
Page 3A-207
3A.6 Non-Industrial Emissions
3A.6.1 Introduction
The Model Domain includes non-industrial emission sources that are comprised of community and traffic
emissions. Community emissions are comprised of residential and commercial sources, and traffic
emissions can occur in the communities and on the highways. Emission data for Alberta are available on
a Census Division basis; and Census Divisions 12, 16, part of 17 and 13 fall within the Model Domain.
Cheminfo Services (2007) completed a forecast of common air contaminant emissions in Alberta on a
Census Division basis for the year 2015. This information was used to estimate community and traffic
emissions in the Model Domain.
Figure 3A-10 shows the location of the communities and the highway segments for which emission
estimates are provided. In some instances, the term “community” can denote a large rural area that is
comprised of numerous residential acreages or farms spread over a large area.
3A.6.2 Community Emissions
The communities in each Census Division and the associated populations are provided in Table 3A-82 to
A-85. The individual community locations and associated areas are provided in Table 3A-86. The City of
Fort McMurray was divided into three areas: Residential to represent the Thickwood Hills portion to the
northwest; downtown to represent the area in the valley near the intersection of the Clearwater and
Athabasca rivers; and commercial to represent the area on the elevated terrain to the south of the
downtown area. The City of Cold Lake was divided into two areas: a northern portion and a southern
portion. The southern portion is referred to as Grand Centre. Community Wabasca 166C was divided into
two parts, Wabasca 166C1 (East of North Wabasca Lake) and Wabasca 166C2 (North of North Wabasca
Lake).
As the Cheminfo report did not provide emission estimates on a Census Division basis year other than
2015, the scaling factors for heating and traffic that are shown in Table 3A-87 were used to generate
existing and future emission estimates from the 2015 emissions. The heating scaling factors are based on
expected Fort McMurray population changes and were applied to residential and commercial sources;
and the traffic scaling factors are based on provincial scale transportation emission changes for different
years (Cheminfo 2007). The application of these scaling factors is described further in the following text.
Table 3A-88 provides the 2015 emission estimates for the Four Census Divisions (Cheminfo 2007).
Tables A-89 and A-90 present the calculated existing and future emissions, respectively. These emission
estimates were spatially allocated to the individual communities as follows:
• All Census Division 16 commercial emissions were assigned to the City of Fort McMurray on the
following basis: 25% to the residential area, 25% to the downtown area, and 50% to the commercial
area.
• All Census Division 12 commercial emissions were assigned to the town of Lac La Biche, the town of
Bonnyville, and the City of Cold Lake on the basis of population.
• Census Division 17 and 13 commercial emissions were assigned to the individual communities on the
basis of population.
• The residential emissions were assigned to the individual communities on the basis of population.
• The residential emissions from Fort Chipewyan and La Loche were adjusted to account for the use of
heating oil instead of natural gas. On this basis, calculations using U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors
(U.S. EPA 1998, 1999) were used, and the SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions from this community were
increased by factors of 523, 1.5, and 1.5, respectively. CO and VOC emissions remain unchanged.
Page 3A-208
• Traffic emissions are comprised of on- and off-road components. These were summed and 40% of
these emissions were assumed to occur within the communities. This 40% was prorated according to
population similar to the residential emissions.
• The community emission sources were assumed to be “area” sources by the CALPUFF model with
an effective release height of 3 m and an initial dispersion (i.e., sigma z) of 5 m.
Based on the previously indicated adjustment factors, the individual community emissions (residential and
commercial) for the existing and future scenarios are shown in Tables 3A-91 and 3A-93, respectively. The
individual community emissions (traffic) for the existing and the future scenarios are shown in Tables A-92
and A-94, respectively.
Heating emissions are greater during the colder seasons, and 85% of the commercial and residential
emissions were assumed to be distributed throughout the year based on heating-degree days for Fort
McMurray. The Fort McMurray heating-degree days are shown in Table 3A-95 (Environment Canada,
2011, Internet Site). The remaining 15% was assumed to be due to water heating and cooking purposes,
and was assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the year.
Similarly, traffic emissions will be greater during the day, specifically during the morning and evening
commuting periods. The scaling factors indicated in Table 3A-96 are used to represent the diurnal
variation, and this profile was adopted for both weekdays and weekends.
3A.6.3 Traffic Emissions
For Division 16 and Division 12, the other 60% of the estimated traffic emissions were assigned to the
following highways in the region (from north to south):
• Highway 63. This highway was divided into 12 segments running from Fort McKay in the north to the
intersection of Highways 63 and 55 west of Lac La Biche.
• Highway 69. This section represents the traffic from the intersection of Highways 63 and 69 to the
Fort McMurray Airport and Saprae Creek, and is depicted as a single segment.
• Highway 881. This highway was divided into 12 segments running from the intersection of Highways
69 and 881 past Gregoire Estates, Anzac, Janvier, Conklin to the intersection of Lac La Biche, and
Highway 663.
• Highway 663. This section represents the traffic of the south of Beaver Lake starting from Lac La
Biche, and is depicted as a single segment.
• Highway 55. This highway was divided into 8 segments running from the intersection of Highways 63
and 55, past Lac La Biche to Cold Lake, and south past Grande Centre.
• Highway 897. This two segment section represents the traffic from the intersection of Highways 55
and 887, north to Marie Lake.
• Highway 28. This four segment section runs from the Bonnyville MD boundary on the west, though
Town of Bonnyville, to the intersection of Highways 28 and 55.
• Highway 41. This segment runs from the intersection of Highways 55 and 41, through La Cory, to the
intersection of Highways 41 and 28.
For Division 17, the estimated traffic emissions were scaled from the traffic emissions from Division 16
based on the total average annual daily traffic count (AADT) multiplied by the total highway lengths, and
assigned to the following highways in the region:
• Highway 754. This highway was divided into 3 segments running from the Mistehae Lake in the west
to the north point of Wabasca Desmarais.
Page 3A-209
• Highway 813. This highway was divided into 9 segments running from the south point of Wabasca
Desmarais in the north to the south point of the Opportunity No.17 Municipal District intersecting with
Athabasca Municipal District.
The traffic emissions in Division 13 were not estimated for this assessment since the emissions sources
were outside RSA Model Domain and they are small.
The coordinates for the endpoints of each highway segment are provided in Table 3A-97.
The highway traffic emission rates based on the Census Division estimates were allocated to each
segment on the basis of traffic volumes. That is, the emissions for each segment (ERi) were calculated
from the average annual daily traffic count information (AADTi) for 2007 that were obtained from the
Alberta Ministry of Transportation (2009, Internet site) and from the length (Li) of the individual highway
segment as follows:
i i
i ERtot* ∑ i i
ERtot : Total Emissions for traffic (60% On-road + Off-road for CD 16 and CD 12)
The associated traffic counts, lengths, and emission rates for each segment are provided in Tables A-98
to A-100 for the Census Division (CD) 16, 12 and 17 segments, respectively. Note that the CD 12 total
adds up to more than 100% because two segments are outside CD 12 but were included in the
assessment for completeness.
Tables A-98 to A-100 also provide existing and the future traffic emissions for each Census Division,
respectively. The scaling factors shown in Table 3A-87 for traffic were used to generate existing and
future traffic emissions from the 2015 emissions. The traffic scaling factors were based on transportation
sources emission forecast for different years in Alberta (Cheminfo 2007).
The highway segments were simulated in the CALPUFF model using the CALPUFF “buoyant line source”
algorithms. This approach was suggested by (Radonjic et al 2003) who indicated that the area source
algorithms in CALPUFF did not provide good agreement when compared to highway specific dispersion
models. The highway segments are therefore represented with an initial release height of 2 m and a
4 3
buoyancy flux of 50 m /s . Similar approaches have also been used for other highway assessments (e.g.,
the Roberts Bank Container Expansion Program, RWDI 2005)
3A.6.4 Aircraft Emissions
The Cheminfo database (Cheminfo 2007) also identifies aviation emissions. For this assessment, all
aviation emissions in Census Division 16 were assumed to originate from the Fort McMurray airport.
Similarly, all Census Division 12 aviation emissions were assumed to originate from CFB Cold Lake.
Aviation emissions for Census Division 17 and 13 were not count for this assessment. Table 3A-101
provides the respective locations for these airports. The individual airport emissions for the existing and
future scenarios are shown in Table 3A-102 and Table 3A-103, respectively. These emissions were
calculated based on 2015 aviation emissions for Census Division 16 and Census Division 12 (Cheminfo
2007) by applying the traffic adjustment factors shown in Table 3A-87.
The aircraft emissions were assumed to be “area” sources by the CALPUFF model with an effective
release height of 3 m and an initial dispersion (i.e., sigma z) of 5 m.
3A.6.5 Non-Industrial Emission Speciation Profile
Table 3A-104 provides the VOC and PAH speciation (relative to the total VOC) for traffic. This speciation
profile was assumed to be representative of both community and highway traffic. Table 3A-122 shows the
metal speciation (relative to the PM2.5) for traffic and heating. Both the traffic profiles are based on an
assumption of 40% diesel and 60% gasoline mix.
Page 3A-210
The VOC and PAH emission profile (relative to total VOC) used for residential and commercial heating is
also provided in Table 3A-104. These are the same factors applied to natural gas fired heaters and
boilers. The metal speciation profile (relative to PM2.5) used for residential and commercial heating is also
provided in Table 3A-105. These are the same factors applied to natural gas fired heaters and boilers.
Table 3A-106 provides the VOC and PAH speciation (relative to the total VOC) for aviation. Table 3A-107
shows the metal speciation (relative to the PM2.5) for aviation.
3A.6.6 Non-Industrial Summary
A summary of the community, traffic and aviation emissions associated with the existing and future
conditions are presented in Tables 3A-108 and 3A-109, respectively. The existing conditions were used
to represent both Baseline case and Application case. While there may be some differences in the
emission for these two cases, the differences were not viewed as being substantive relative to the
process of estimating these non-industrial sources.
Although non-industry emission sources are small relative to the industrial emission, they are important
for this assessment since community proximity can lead to larger contributions to community exposures
than the more distant, larger industrial emissions.
Page 3A-211
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
6300000
6300000
6280000
6280000
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
6240000
6240000
63
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
Conklin
6160000
6160000
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
Community Area
May 2012
TABLE 3A-83
DISTRIBUTION OF CENSUS DIVISION 16 POPULATION

Population Distribution
Community In Model Domain (2006) (%)
Fort Chipewyan Yes 915 1.1
Fort McKay Yes 536 0.7
Work Camps Yes 10,442 13.1
Fort McMurray Yes 64,441 80.7
Draper Yes 118 0.1
Saprae Creek Yes 728 0.9
Gregoire Lake Estates Yes 285 0.4
Anzac Yes 711 0.9
Janvier Yes 218 0.3
Conklin Yes 338 0.4
Other Yes 1,074 1.4
Municipal District of Wood Buffalo 79,810 100.0
La Loche Yes 2,348 2.9
Note: The most recent census values are for 2006, an updated census is scheduled for 2011. The future population
distributions are expected to be similar to that derived from the 2006 data.
La Loche is not in CD 16, but is in the Model Domain, emission estimates for the community are based on scaling CD
16 emissions on the basis of population.
TABLE 3A-84

Lac La Biche County
Beaver Lake 131 (Indian Reserve) Yes 379 0.6
Heart Lake 167 (Indian Reserve) Yes 165 0.3
Lac La Biche (Town) Yes 2,758 4.6
Lakeland County (Municipal District) Yes 6,365 10.6
Subtotal - 9,667 16.1
MD of Bonnyville
Bonnyville (Town) Yes 5,832 9.7
Bonnyville Beach (Summer Village) Yes 97 0.2
Bonnyville No. 87 (Municipal District) Yes 10,194 17.0
Cold Lake (City) Yes 11,991 20.0
Cold Lake 149 (Indian Reserve) Yes 438 0.7
Cold Lake 149A (Indian Reserve) Yes 49 0.1
Cold Lake 149B (Indian Reserve) Yes 105 0.2
Glendon (Village) Yes 421 0.7
Kehewin 123 (Indian Reserve) Yes 1,007 1.7
Pelican Narrows (Summer Village) Yes 141 0.2
Puskiakiwenin 122 (Indian Reserve) Yes 411 0.7
Unipouheos 121 (Indian Reserve) Yes 749 1.2
Subtotal - 31,435 52.4
Smoky Lake County
Smoky Lake (Town) No 1,010 1.7
Smoky Lake County Yes 3,357 5.6
Vilna (Village) No 274 0.5
Page 3A-213
TABLE 3A-84 Cont'd
Waskatenau (Village) No 278 0.5
White Fish Lake 128 (Indian Reserve) Yes 1,237 2.1
Subtotal - 6,156 10.3
St. Paul County
Elk Point (Town) No 1,487 2.5
Horseshoe Bay (Summer Village) No 214 0.4
St. Paul (Town) No 5,106 8.5
St. Paul County No. 19 (County (Municipality)) Yes 5,925 9.9
Subtotal - 12,732 21.1
Census Division Total 59,990 100.0
Note: The most recent census values are for 2006, an updated census is scheduled for 2011. The future population
distributions are expected to be similar to that derived from the 2006 data.
TABLE 3A-85

In Model Population Distribution
Community Domain (2006) (%)
Beaver Ranch 163 (Indian reserve) No 15 0.03
Big Lakes (Municipal District) No 5805 9.79
Boyer 164 (Indian reserve) No 178 0.30
Bushe River 207 (Indian reserve) No 400 0.67
Child Lake 164A (Indian reserve) No 160 0.27
Clear Hills No. 21 (Municipal District) No 2714 4.58
Desmarais (Indian settlement) Yes 78 0.13
Drift Pile River 150 (Indian reserve) No 720 1.21
Fort Vermillion 173B (Indian reserve) No 71 0.12
Fox Lake 162 (Indian reserve) No 1753 2.96
Hay Lake 209 (Indian reserve) No 951 1.60
High Level Town No 3887 6.56
High Prairie Town No 2750 4.64
Hines Creek Village No 430 0.73
Jean Baptiste Gambler 183 (Indian reserve) Yes 214 0.36
John d'Or Prairie 215 (Indian reserve) No 1025 1.73
Kapawe'no First Nation (Freeman 150B) (Indian
No 143 0.24
reserve)
Kinuso Village No 219 0.37
Lesser Slave River No.124 (Municipal District) Yes 2820 4.76
Loon Lake 235 (Indian reserve) No 425 0.72
Mackenzie No. 23 (Municipal District) No 10002 16.87
Manning Town No 1493 2.52
Nampa Village No 360 0.61
Northern Lights No. 22 (Municipal District) No 3772 6.36
Northern Sunrise County (Municipal District) No 1747 2.95
Opportunity No. 17 (Municipal District) Yes 2847 4.80
Rainbow Lake Town No 965 1.63
Sawridge 150G (Indian reserve) No 45 0.08
Sawridge 150H (Indian reserve) No 10 0.02
Page 3A-214
TABLE 3A-85 Cont'd
In Model Population Distribution

Community Domain (2006) (%)
Slave Lake Town No 6703 11.31
Sucker Creek 150A (Indian reserve) No 594 1.00
Swan Hills Town No 1645 2.77
Swan River 150E (Indian reserve) No 305 0.51
Tall Cree 173 (Indian reserve) No 201 0.34
Tall Cree 173A (Indian reserve) No 123 0.21
Upper Hay River 212 (Indian reserve) No 289 0.49
Utikoomak Lake 155 (Indian reserve) No 786 1.33
Utikoomak Lake 155A (Indian reserve) No 103 0.17
Wabasca 166 (Indian reserve) Yes 78 0.13
Wabasca 166A (Indian reserve) Yes 648 1.09
Wabasca 166B (Indian reserve) Yes 216 0.36
Wabasca 166C (Indian reserve) Yes 173 0.29
Wabasca 166D (Indian reserve) Yes 863 1.46
Woodland Cree 226 (Indian reserve) No 439 0.74
Woodland Cree 228 (Indian reserve) No 117 0.20
Census Division Total - 59,282 100
Note: Half of population from Lesser Slave River No.124 and 80% of population from St. Paul County were
counted for emissions estimations.
TABLE 3A-86

Distribution
Community In Model Domain Population (2006) (%)
Alberta Beach (Village) No 884 1.32
Alexis 133 (Indian reserve) No 734 1.10
Athabasca Town Yes 2,575 3.84
Athabasca County No. 12 (County
Yes 7,587 11.33
municipality)
Barrhead Town No 4,209 6.28
Barrhead County No. 11 (County
No 5,845 8.73
municipality)
Birch Cove (Small Village) No 38 0.06
Bondiss (Small Village) Yes 131 0.20
Boyle (Village) Yes 844 1.26
Castle Island (Small Village) No 22 0.03
Clyde (Village) No 470 0.70
Island Lake (Small Village) Yes 351 0.52
Island Lake South (Small Village) Yes 105 0.16
Lac Ste. Anne County (Municipal District) No 9,516 14.21
Larkspur (Small Village) Yes 56 0.08
Mayerthorpe Town No 1,474 2.20
Mewatha Beach (Small Village) Yes 167 0.25
Nakamun Park (Small Village) No 88 0.13
Onoway Town No 875 1.31
Ross Haven (Small Village) No 198 0.30
Sandy Beach (Small Village) No 239 0.36
Page 3A-215
TABLE 3A-86 Cont'd
Distribution
Community In Model Domain Population (2006) (%)
Sangudo (Village) No 364 0.54
Silver Sands (Small Village) No 173 0.26
South Baptiste (Small Village) Yes 69 0.10
South View (Small Village) No 115 0.17
Sunrise Beach (Small Village) No 170 0.25
Sunset Beach (Small Village) Yes 88 0.13
Sunset Point (Small Village) No 242 0.36
Thorhild (Village) No 505 0.75
Thorhild County No. 7 (County
yes 3,042 4.54
municipality)
Val Quentin (Small Village) No 181 0.27
West Baptiste (Small Village) Yes 104 0.16
West Cove (Small Village) No 169 0.25
Westlock Town No 5,008 7.48
Westlock County (Municipal District) yes 6,910 10.32
Whispering Hills (Small Village) Yes 125 0.19
Whitecourt Town No 8,971 13.40
Woodlands County (Municipal District) No 4,158 6.21
Yellowstone (Small Village) No 170 0.25
Census Division Total - 66,972 100
Page 3A-216
TABLE 3A-87
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY LOCATIONS

Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4 Base
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM Area Elev
Community (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (km2) (m asl)
Municipal District of Wood Buffalo
Fort Chipewyan 491700 6510300 493000 6510300 489800 6507900 491600 6507900 3.72 219
Fort McKay 460400 6338800 462000 6338800 460400 6336400 462000 6336400 3.84 264
Fort McMurray (Downtown) 476000 6287900 477600 6287600 478400 6284700 479200 6285800 3.80 245
Fort McMurray (Residential, NW) 470600 6291750 472300 6291700 470150 6289000 472750 6289550 5.27 356
Fort McMurray (Residential, S) 470850 6288550 474700 6289150 471500 6286050 474550 6286950 8.30 338
Fort McMurray (Commercial) 478400 6281200 480000 6281200 479200 6279000 480400 6279000 3.08 358
Draper 484200 6281200 486000 6281200 484400 6280500 486000 6280500 1.19 272
Saprae Creek 488500 6279900 492500 6279900 488500 6278800 492500 6278800 4.40 357
Gregoire Lake Estates 487600 6258200 488400 6258100 487800 6257900 488100 6257850 0.16 485
Anzac 496600 6257800 497900 6256000 495700 6254800 497700 6254000 4.84 492
Janvier 516900 6199000 517800 6199000 514900 6194500 515800 6194500 4.05 464
Page 3A-217
Conklin 493000 6165600 497000 6165400 493000 6164200 497000 6165100 3.40 580
Lac La Biche County
Beaver Lake 131 (Indian Reserve) 440600 6060000 441700 6060000 440600 6059000 441700 6059000 1.10 584
Heart Lake 167 (Indian Reserve) 466000 6099800 466500 6099600 464900 6097900 465300 6097800 1.01 599
Lac La Biche (Town) 436000 6069450 437700 6070300 437600 6068800 438600 6069400 1.95 556
Lakeland County (Municipal district) 412900 6079650 447400 6070050 409600 6052900 468050 6037600 1267.7 581
Municipal District of Bonnyville
Bonnyville (Town) 514300 6014100 518400 6013700 514300 6013150 518500 6012000 5.46 551
Bonnyville Beach (Summer village) a 508880 6009600 508950 6009600 508470 6008700 508600 6008750 0.08 535
Bonnyville No. 87 (Municipal district) 477000 6019850 549500 6052800 508350 5994650 564600 6021850 2505.8 590
Cold Lake (City – North) 552100 6036700 554000 6035400 552100 6035700 554150 6033900 2.35 547
Cold Lake (City – South, Grand Center) b 549800 6030300 553000 6030400 550250 6029350 552400 6029350 2.67 543
Cold Lake 149 (Indian Reserve) 540300 6023300 551700 6023300 540300 6010300 551700 6010300 148.2 538
Cold Lake 149A (Indian Reserve) 554500 6035100 555650 6035100 554300 6034700 555650 6034700 0.5 541
Cold Lake 149B (Indian Reserve) 544800 6044450 548650 6044450 544800 6037000 549700 6037000 32.59 552
Glendon (Village) 489000 6011700 490100 6011700 489000 6011100 490100 6011100 0.66 588
Kehewin 123 (Indian Reserve) 507400 5996500 509600 5996800 507400 5995900 509500 5995900 1.61 579
Pelican Narrows (Summer Village) a 507050 6013900 507250 6013800 506550 6012350 506900 6011400 0.77 535
Puskiakiwenin 122 (Indian Reserve) 531100 5987500 541000 5987500 531100 5971600 540400 5975900 131.36 625
Unipouheos 121 (Indian Reserve) 536000 5976100 540400 5975900 536000 5964900 540400 5964900 48.84 603
Smoky Lake County
Smoky Lake County (County municipality) 398606 6049933 427409 6049314 456555 5971431 380265 5990399 3557 619
TABLE 3A-87 Cont'd

White Fish Lake 128 (Indian reserve) 443225 6028496 444744 6029129 452845 6014646 447023 6014646 53.9 585
St. Paul County
St. Paul County No. 19 (County municipality) 445949 6029155 474766 6030331 546603 5956423 470104 5956631 3879 622
Saskatchewan
La Loche 595300 6261950 596000 6262300 596250 6260600 597100 6260600 1.36 448
Division 17
Desmarais (Indian settlement) 323232 6204533 325969 6205560 325545 6203198 324924 6202820 3.9 549
Wabasca 166 (Indian reserve) 334663 6198566 349902 6198566 349902 6192696 334663 6192696 89.5 565
Wabasca 166A (Indian reserve) 325772 6205366 329474 6204635 329012 6202250 326535 6201918 9.0 551
Wabasca 166B (Indian reserve) 317238 6205515 318571 6205353 318110 6202679 316933 6202681 3.5 548
Wabasca 166 C1 (Indian reserve) East of
c 323082 6223348 323718 6223348 323718 6221007 323082 6221007 1.5 549
North Wabasca Lake
Wabasca 166C2 (Indian reserve) North of
Page 3A-218
c 325773 6235436 329517 6232963 322898 6223994 321037 6224938 37.0 552
North Wabasca Lake
Wabasca 166D (Indian reserve) 314668 6201978 321981 6203155 324863 6195597 314688 6200025 39.2 557
Jean Baptiste Gambler 183 (Indian reserve) 356252 6130139 361197 6131243 362881 6116709 357851 6116312 72.0 618
Opportunity No. 17 (Municipal District) 296983 6101357 337955 6101357 326023 6052460 296983 6053333 1699.0 643
Lesser Slave River No.124 (Municipal
319152 6207310 320369 6212692 325688 6205495 323469 6204249 24.8 553
District)
Division 13
Athabasca (Town) 350676 6068183 355449 6068183 355449 6062860 350676 6062860 25.4 577
Athabasca County No. 12 (County
328902 6090534 416502 6111281 407844 6049766 326280 6023257 5313 639
municipality)
Bondiss (Small Village) 389301 6053007 390885 6053007 390885 6051000 389301 6051000 3.2 633
Boyle 382066 6051875 385047 6051875 385047 6049543 382066 6049543 7.0 640
Island Lake (Small Village) 334931 6081417 336127 6081588 336298 6078854 335785 6078683 2.4 614
Island Lake South (Small Village) 336860 6079185 337478 6078960 337760 6077779 337085 6077779 0.8 604
Larkspur (Small Village) 319865 6036385 320239 6036490 320926 6035316 320514 6035261 0.5 701
Mewatha Beach (Small Village) 386414 6053298 387569 6053382 388383 6051892 388255 6051627 1.2 630
South Baptiste (Small Village) 333896 6067700 335759 6067136 335759 6066458 333896 6066515 1.7 589
Sunset Beach (Small Village) 335858 6070111 336997 6069922 337549 6067956 336117 6067574 2.9 588
Thorhild County No. 7 (County municipality) 358346 6031544 384864 6040560 379118 5982854 346101 5983229 1539 662
West Baptiste (Small Village) 334610 6072175 335298 6071831 335298 6069078 334572 6068925 2.1 585
Westlock County (Municipal District) 297423 6053580 326150 6052076 346288 5988294 299576 5979664 2637 680
Whispering Hills (Small Village) 335056 6071196 336258 6071798 336434 6071232 335411 6070243 1.1 582
TABLE 3A-87 Cont'd

NOTES:
a
The area shown for the two summer villages represent only the main populated beach area.
b
Cold Lake has two distinct communities about 5 km apart, the southern community is often referred to as Grand Center.
C
Wabasca 166C was divided into two parts, Wabasca 166C1 (East of North Wabasca Lake) and Wabasca 166C2 (North of North Wabasca Lake).
TABLE 3A-88
SCALING FACTORS TO DETERMINE EXISTING AND FUTURE EMISSIONS FROM THE CHEMINFO (2007) 2015 VALUES
Factors used to scale
the 2015 Cheminfo Ratio of Future to
Scenario Source Type Contaminants Comment Emissions Existing Emissions
SO2 1.00 1.00
Page 3A-219
NOX 1.00 1.00

The 2015 Cheminfo emissions were conservatively
Heating CO 1.00 1.00
selected to represent the existing scenario emissions.
PM2.5 1.00 1.00
Existing VOC 1.00 1.00
Condition SO2 3.00 1.00
The adjustment factor is based on 2008 transportation
NOX emissions. The 2008 emissions were interpolated from 1.53 1.00
Traffic CO the Cheminfo 2006 and 2010 values. Lower emissions 1.24 1.00
PM2.5 occur in 2015 due to improved emission performance 1.67 1.00
standards.
VOC 1.51 1.00
SO2 1.73 1.73
NOX The 2015 Cheminfo emissions were scaled according to 1.73 1.73
the expected population increase from 2010 to 2028. A
Heating CO 1.73 1.73
uniform population increase was assumed for all
PM2.5 communities. 1.73 1.73
VOC 1.73 1.73
Future
SO2 1.73 0.58
NOX The adjustment factor is based on Cheminfo 2020 1.29 0.84
Traffic CO transportation emissions and increased according to the 1.68 1.01
PM2.5 expected population increase from 2010 to 2028. 1.44 0.86
VOC 1.50 0.99
Note:
Heating adjustment factors are applied to commercial and residential emissions.
Traffic adjustment factors are applied to on-road traffic and off-road traffic emissions.
TABLE 3A-89
2015 CENSUS DIVISION REGION EMISSIONS (FROM CHEMINFO 2007)

Emission Rate
(t/a)
Emission Group NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC
Census Region 16
Commercial 73 19 7 58 4
Residential 99 2 57 318 59
On-road Traffic 1,151 16 61 3,812 208
Off-road Traffic 929 1 81 4,967 296
CD 16 Total (t/a) 2,252 38 206 9,155 567
Census Region 12
On-road Traffic 1,956 25 89 7,660 405
Off-road Traffic 1,231 1 107 6,584 393
CD 12 Total (t/a) 3,425 54 287 14,777 888
Census Region 17
On-road Traffic 3,337 42 108 10,788 613
Off-road Traffic 940 1 82 5,026 299
CD 17 Total (t/a) 4,504 71 273 16,302 993
Census Region 13
On-road Traffic 4,301 44 176 32,602 1,768
Off-road Traffic 1,391 1 121 7,437 444
CD 13 Total (t/a) 5,970 80 399 40,639 2,311
Note: The CD 12, 13, and 17 totals include some communities that are located outside the Model Domain.
Page 3A-220
TABLE 3A-90
EXISTING CENSUS DIVISION REGION EMISSIONS (SCALED FROM 2015)

Emission Rate
(t/a)
Census Region 16
On-road Traffic 1,760 48 102 4,726 314
Off-road Traffic 1,420 3 135 6,158 447
CD 16 Total (t/a) 3,352 72 301 11,259 825
Census Region 12
On-road Traffic 2,990 75 148 9,496 612
Off-road Traffic 1,882 3 178 8,162 594
CD 12 Total (t/a) 5,110 106 418 18,191 1,296
Census Region 17
On-road Traffic 5,101 126 180 13,374 926
Off-road Traffic 1,437 3 137 6,231 452
CD 17 Total (t/a) 6,765 157 400 20,093 1,459
Census Region 13
On-road Traffic 6,575 132 293 40,417 2,672
Off-road Traffic 2,126 3 202 9,220 671
CD 13 Total (t/a) 8,979 170 597 50,236 3,442
Page 3A-221
TABLE 3A-91
FUTURE CENSUS DIVISION REGION EMISSIONS (SCALED FROM 2015)

Emission Rate
(t/a)
Census Region 16
Commercial 126 33 12 100 7
Residential 171 3 98 549 102
On-road Traffic 1,483 28 88 6,395 311
Off-road Traffic 1,197 2 117 8,333 443
CD 16 Total (t/a) 2,977 66 315 15,378 863
Census Region 12
Commercial 164 43 16 128 9
Residential 247 5 142 793 147
On-road Traffic 2,520 43 128 12,851 606
Off-road Traffic 1,586 2 154 11,046 588
CD 12 Total (t/a) 4,517 93 439 24,817 1,350
Census Region 17
Commercial 171 45 17 135 9
Residential 221 3 126 708 131
On-road Traffic 4,299 73 155 18,099 918
Off-road Traffic 1,211 2 118 8,432 448
CD 17 Total (t/a) 5,902 123 417 27,374 1,505
Census Region 13
Commercial 207 55 21 162 10
Residential 273 5 155 874 161
On-road Traffic 5,541 76 253 54,696 2,647
Off-road Traffic 1,792 2 174 12,477 665
CD 13 Total (t/a) 7,814 138 604 68,209 3,482
Page 3A-222
TABLE 3A-92
EXISTING CONDITION COMMUNITY (RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL) EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Community NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC
Fort Chipewyan 0.00448 0.03152 0.00258 0.00958 0.00178
Fort McKay 0.0019 0.00004 0.00109 0.0061 0.00113
Fort McMurray Downtown 0.10472 0.01412 0.0363 0.2155 0.03535
Fort McMurray (Residential, NW) 0.06192 0.00591 0.02633 0.15195 0.02639
Fort McMurray (Residential, S) 0.09752 0.00931 0.04147 0.23932 0.04157
Fort McMurray (Commercial) 0.15472 0.02713 0.0411 0.25522 0.03809
Draper 0.00027 0.00001 0.00016 0.00087 0.00016
Saprae Creek 0.00244 0.00005 0.00141 0.00784 0.00145
Gregoire Lake Estates 0.00108 0.00002 0.00062 0.00348 0.00065
Anzac 0.00244 0.00005 0.00141 0.00784 0.00145
Janvier 0.00081 0.00002 0.00047 0.00261 0.00048
Conklin 0.00108 0.00002 0.00062 0.00348 0.00065
Lac La Biche County
Beaver Lake 131 (Indian reserve) 0.00235 0.00005 0.00135 0.00755 0.0014
Heart Lake 167 (Indian reserve) 0.00118 0.00002 0.00067 0.00377 0.0007
Lac la Biche (Town) 0.0529 0.00956 0.01364 0.08502 0.01255
Lakeland County (Municipal district) 0.04153 0.00087 0.02381 0.1333 0.02468
Bonnyville (Town) 0.11176 0.02021 0.02878 0.17943 0.02647
Bonnyville Beach (Summer village) 0.00078 0.00002 0.00045 0.00252 0.00047
Bonnyville No. 87 (Municipal district) 0.0666 0.0014 0.03819 0.21378 0.03959
Cold Lake (City – North) 0.10767 0.01945 0.02776 0.17303 0.02554
Cold Lake (City-South, Grand Center) 0.12233 0.0221 0.03154 0.19659 0.02902
Cold Lake 149 (Indian reserve) 0.00274 0.00006 0.00157 0.0088 0.00163
Cold Lake 149A (Indian reserve) 0.00039 0.00001 0.00022 0.00126 0.00023
Cold Lake 149B (Indian reserve) 0.00078 0.00002 0.00045 0.00252 0.00047
Glendon (Village) 0.00274 0.00006 0.00157 0.0088 0.00163
Kehewin 123 (Indian reserve) 0.00666 0.00014 0.00382 0.02138 0.00396
Pelican Narrows (Summer village) 0.00078 0.00002 0.00045 0.00252 0.00047
Puskiakiwenin 122 (Indian reserve) 0.00274 0.00006 0.00157 0.0088 0.00163
Unipouheos 121 (Indian reserve) 0.0047 0.0001 0.0027 0.01509 0.00279
Smoky Lake County
Smoky Lake County (County municipality) 0.0219 0.0005 0.0126 0.0704 0.0130
White Fish Lake 128 (Indian reserve) 0.0081 0.0002 0.0046 0.0259 0.0048
St. Paul County
St. Paul County No. 19 (County municipality) 0.0388 0.0008 0.0222 0.1245 0.0231
Saskatchewan
La Loche (Saskatchewan) 0.01197 0.08431 0.00689 0.02563 0.00476
Census Division 17
Desmarais (Indian settlement) 0.00082 0.00010 0.00030 0.00176 0.00029
Wabasca 166 (Indian reserve) 0.00082 0.00010 0.00030 0.00176 0.00029
Wabasca 166A (Indian reserve) 0.00680 0.00084 0.00249 0.01461 0.00243
Wabasca 166B (Indian reserve) 0.00227 0.00028 0.00083 0.00487 0.00081
Wabasca 166 C1 (Indian reserve) East of North wabasca Lake 0.00007 0.00001 0.00003 0.00015 0.00003
Wabasca 166C2 (Indian reserve) North of North Wabasca Lake 0.00174 0.00022 0.00064 0.00375 0.00062
Wabasca 166D (Indian reserve) 0.00905 0.00112 0.00331 0.01946 0.00323
Jean Baptiste Gambler 183 (Indian reserve) 0.00225 0.00028 0.00082 0.00483 0.00080
Lesser Slave River No.124 (Municipal District) 0.01479 0.00182 0.00541 0.03180 0.00528
Opportunity No. 17 (Municipal District) 0.02389 0.00295 0.00874 0.05137 0.00853
Census Division 13
Athabasca (Town) 0.02928 0.00369 0.01074 0.06320 0.01043
Page 3A-223
TABLE 3A-92 Cont'd

Emission Rate (t/d)
Athabasca County No. 12 (County municipality) 0.08628 0.01086 0.03166 0.18622 0.03073
Bondiss (Small Village) 0.00149 0.00019 0.00055 0.00322 0.00053
Boyle 0.00960 0.00121 0.00352 0.02072 0.00342
Island Lake (Small Village) 0.00399 0.00050 0.00146 0.00862 0.00142
Island Lake South (Small Village) 0.00119 0.00015 0.00044 0.00258 0.00043
Larkspur (Small Village) 0.00064 0.00008 0.00023 0.00137 0.00023
Mewatha Beach (Small Village) 0.00190 0.00024 0.00070 0.00410 0.00068
South Baptiste (Small Village) 0.00078 0.00010 0.00029 0.00169 0.00028
Sunset Beach (Small Village) 0.00100 0.00013 0.00037 0.00216 0.00036
Thorhild County No. 7 (County municipality) 0.03460 0.00436 0.01269 0.07467 0.01232
West Baptiste (Small Village) 0.00118 0.00015 0.00043 0.00255 0.00042
Westlock County (Municipal District) 0.07858 0.00989 0.02883 0.16961 0.02799
Whispering Hills (Small Village) 0.00142 0.00018 0.00052 0.00307 0.00051
TABLE 3A-93
EXISTING CONDITION COMMUNITY (TRAFFIC) EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Fort Chipewyan 0.03833 0.00061 0.00285 0.1312 0.00918
Fort McKay 0.02439 0.00039 0.00182 0.08349 0.00584
Draper 0.00348 0.00006 0.00026 0.01193 0.00083
Saprae Creek 0.03136 0.0005 0.00233 0.10734 0.00751
Anzac 0.03136 0.0005 0.00233 0.10734 0.00751
Janvier 0.01045 0.00017 0.00078 0.03578 0.0025
Conklin 0.01394 0.00022 0.00104 0.04771 0.00334
Lac La Biche County
Lac la Biche (Town) 0.2456 0.00393 0.01647 0.89017 0.06079
Bonnyville (Town) 0.51789 0.00829 0.03473 1.8771 0.12819
B
B
Glendon (Village) 0.03737 0.0006 0.00251 0.13546 0.00925
Page 3A-224
TABLE 3A-93 Cont'd

Emission Rate (t/d)
Smoky Lake County
St. Paul County
Saskatchewan
Census Division 17
Wabasca 166 C1 (Indian reserve) East of North Wabasca Lake 0.00081 0.00002 0.00004 0.00243 0.00017
Census Division 13
Athabasca (Town) 0.36664 0.00569 0.02086 2.09147 0.14084
Boyle 0.12017 0.00186 0.00684 0.68551 0.04616
Page 3A-225
TABLE 3A-94
FUTURE CASE COMMUNITY (RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL) EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Fort Chipewyan 0.0077 0.0544 0.0045 0.0166 0.0031
Fort McKay 0.0033 0.0001 0.0019 0.0105 0.002
b
b
Draper 0.0005 0.0000 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003
Saprae Creek 0.0042 0.0001 0.0024 0.0135 0.0025
Anzac 0.0042 0.0001 0.0024 0.0135 0.0025
Janvier 0.0014 0.0000 0.0008 0.0045 0.0008
Conklin 0.0019 0.0000 0.0011 0.006 0.0011
Lac La Biche County
Lac la Biche (Town) 0.0914 0.0165 0.0236 0.1468 0.0217
Bonnyville (Town) 0.193 0.0349 0.0497 0.3099 0.0457
c
c
Glendon (Village) 0.0047 0.0001 0.0027 0.0152 0.0028
Smoky Lake County
St. Paul County
Saskatchewan
Census Division 17
Census Division 13
Athabasca (Town) 0.05058 0.00637 0.01856 0.10917 0.01801
Page 3A-226
TABLE 3A-94 Cont'd

Emission Rate (t/d)
Boyle 0.01658 0.00209 0.00608 0.03578 0.00590
TABLE 3A-95
FUTURE CASE COMMUNITY (TRAFFIC) EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Fort Chipewyan 0.0323 0.00035 0.00246 0.17755 0.0091
Fort McKay 0.02056 0.00023 0.00157 0.11298 0.00579
A
A
Draper 0.00294 0.00003 0.00022 0.01614 0.00083
Saprae Creek 0.02643 0.00029 0.00202 0.14527 0.00744
Anzac 0.02643 0.00029 0.00202 0.14527 0.00744
Janvier 0.00881 0.0001 0.00067 0.04842 0.00248
Conklin 0.01175 0.00013 0.0009 0.06456 0.00331
Lac La Biche County
Lac la Biche (Town) 0.20699 0.00226 0.01422 1.20466 0.06022
Bonnyville (Town) 0.43648 0.00477 0.02999 2.54026 0.12699
B
B
Glendon (Village) 0.0315 0.00034 0.00216 0.18332 0.00916
Page 3A-227
TABLE 3A-95 Cont'd

Emission Rate (t/d)
Smoky Lake County
St. Paul County
Saskatchewan
Census Division 17
Census Division 13
Athabasca (Town) 0.30900 0.00328 0.01801 2.83036 0.13952
Boyle 0.10128 0.00107 0.00590 0.92770 0.04573
Page 3A-228
TABLE 3A-96
MONTHLY SCALING FACTORS TO ADJUST COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL EMISSIONS

Heating Degree (°C) Percentage of Multiplier Based on
Month Days Annual (%) Average Scaling Factor
Jan 1,142 18.0 2.16 1.99
Feb 896 14.1 1.69 1.59
Mar 758 11.9 1.43 1.37
Apr 439 6.9 0.83 0.86
May 240 3.8 0.45 0.54
Jun 108 1.7 0.20 0.32
Jul 61 1.0 0.12 0.25
Aug 104 1.6 0.20 0.32
Sep 259 4.1 0.49 0.57
Oct 472 7.4 0.89 0.91
Nov 796 12.5 1.51 1.43
Dec 1,071 16.9 2.03 1.87
Note:
Scaling factor assumes 15% of emissions are uniform throughout the year and the remaining 85% is distributed
according to heating degree days that are based on Fort McMurray airport measurements.
TABLE 3A-97
HOURLY SCALING FACTORS TO ADJUST TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

Hour Distribution of traffic by time of day Scaling Factor
1 0.8 0.19
2 0.4 0.10
3 0.3 0.07
4 0.3 0.07
5 0.4 0.10
6 1.3 0.31
7 4.4 1.05
8 8.4 2.01
9 7.6 1.82
10 4.8 1.15
11 4.2 1.01
12 4.8 1.15
13 5.0 1.20
14 5.1 1.22
15 5.5 1.32
16 6.9 1.65
17 9.1 2.18
18 9.0 2.16
19 6.4 1.53
20 4.4 1.05
21 3.6 0.86
22 3.4 0.81
23 2.6 0.62
24 1.5 0.36
Average 4.2 1.00
Page 3A-229
TABLE 3A-98
SUMMARY OF HIGHWAY SEGMENT LOCATIONS

Base
Starting Point End Point Length Elevation
Highway Segment UTM (m E) UTM (m N) UTM (m E) UTM (m N) km (m ASL)
Highway 63
1. Fort McKay to Ruth Lake 461500 6338100 466500 6316300 22.37 292
2. Ruth Lake to Suncor turnoff 466500 6316300 470450 6314000 4.57 329
3. Suncor turnoff to Fort McMurray 470450 6314000 475150 6288000 26.42 296
4. Fort McMurray 475150 6288000 478900 6279400 9.38 309
5. Fort McMurray to Maqua Lake turnoff 478900 6279400 481500 6254500 25.04 429
6. South of Maqua Lake turnoff 481500 6254500 463550 6244200 20.7 528
7. Section of the straight south near Stony Park 463550 6244200 463100 6236700 7.51 592
8. Section past Mariana Lake 463100 6236700 426400 6190750 58.81 658
9. Section past Crow Lake 426400 6190750 426200 6172100 18.65 676
10. South of Compton Sweet Gas Battery 10-19 426200 6172100 406600 6135900 41.17 619
Page 3A-230
11. Section past Wandering River 406600 6135900 403550 6088950 47.05 559
12. Section to Hwy 55 403550 6088950 398850 6075900 13.87 561
Highway 69
1. Highway 63 to Saprae Creek 478900 6279400 492600 6279600 13.7 367
Highway 881
1. Departing from Highway 63 480600 6263900 486550 6260900 6.66 455
2. Section west of Gregoire Lake 486550 6260900 489300 6254800 6.69 481
3. Section south of Gregoire Lake 489300 6254800 496150 6244750 12.16 492
4. Section south of Anzac 496150 6244750 509000 6225000 23.56 538
5. Section north of Janvier 509000 6225000 511750 6191400 33.71 517
6. Section past Chard 511750 6191400 508400 6181250 10.69 498
7. Section going together along Christina River 508400 6181250 493300 6169200 19.32 546
8. Section past Conklin 493300 6169200 493550 6145400 23.8 627
9. Section along Wiau Lake 493550 6145400 467400 6107100 46.38 673
10. Section past Imperial Mills 467400 6107100 446700 6093500 24.77 624
11. Section past Square Lake 446700 6093500 443100 6078600 15.33 589
12. Section to Hwy 663 443100 6078600 447400 6070050 9.57 564
Highway 663
1. Section Beaver Lake 447400 6070050 437500 6068800 9.98 552
Highway 55
1. East from Hwy 63 398850 6075900 422600 6075450 23.75 577
2. East of the cross with the Old Mission Rd. 422600 6075450 432100 6068800 11.6 583
3. Section west of Lac la Biche 432100 6068800 437500 6068800 5.4 576
TABLE 3A-98 Cont'd
Base
Starting Point End Point Length Elevation
Highway Segment UTM (m E) UTM (m N) UTM (m E) UTM (m N) km (m ASL)
4. Section south of Lac la Biche 437500 6068800 437250 6050150 18.65 553
5. Departing east from Hwy 36/55 437250 6050150 450100 6035400 19.56 543
6. Section from Hwy 866 to Cold Lake 450100 6035400 552100 6036300 102 541
7. South of Cold Lake to Hwy 28 552100 6036300 551600 6025000 11.31 545
8. Hwy 28 to SK boarder 551600 6025000 564600 6021850 13.38 556
Highway 897
1. Departing north from Hwy 55 544800 6036200 544800 6045300 9.1 550
2. Arriving at Marie Lake 544800 6045300 549089 6052553 8.43 569
Highway 28
1. Departing west from Hwy 55 to 41 551600 6025000 515900 6013300 37.57 549
2. Bonnyville 515900 6013300 511100 6013300 4.8 545
3. Section east of Moose Lake 511100 6013300 511100 6003500 9.8 546
Page 3A-231
4. Section west to Rge. Rd. 102 511100 6003500 473700 6003650 37.4 604
Highway 41
1. Section from Hwy 55 to 28 515998 6036108 515900 6013300 22.8 557
Highway 753
1. From 20 km Southeast to Mistehae Lake to Misstassiniy Rd 308124 6197470 323767 6203933 16.9 572
2. From 754 cross with RR 253A to 754 cross with Muskawa Dr 320253 6208615 323149 6206053 3.87 548
3. From 754 cross with Muskawa Dr to West starting point of
323149 6206053 323762 6203993 2.15 548
Highway 813
Highway 813
1. From 813 cross with 754 or Mistassiniy Rd to The point Highway
323762 6203993 344555 6198260 21.6 555
813 Turning to North South Direction
2. From The point Highway 813 Turning to North South Direction to
344555 6198260 347739 6186878 11.8 561
South point of Sandy lake
3. From South point of Sandy lake to 13 Km East and 2.5 km South
347739 6186878 351140 6172075 15.2 639
of BP Noth Drown Gas Plant
4. From 13 Km East and 2.5 km South of BP Noth Drown Gas Plant
to 2 Km West and 2 km South of Husky Rock Island Lake 351140 6172075 344409 6160054 13.8 725
Compressor Station
5. From 2 Km West and 2 km South of Husky Rock Island Lake
344409 6160054 345286 6150271 9.82 724
Compressor Station to South Rock Island Lake
6. From South Rock Island Lake to North of Rang Road 221A 345286 6150271 354942 6133820 19.1 667
7. From North of Range Road 221A to Calling Lake town 354942 6133820 361353 6121598 13.8 609
8. From Calling Lake town to 7 km North of Township Road 700 361353 6121598 352501 6106318 17.7 635
9. From 7 km North of Township Road 700 to 2.5km South of
352501 6106318 352194 6094791 11.5 669
Township Road 700
TABLE 3A-99
EXISTING AND FUTURE HIGHWAY EMISSIONS (CENSUS DIVISION 16)
Emission Rate - Existing Emission Rate - Future

Length AADT x % of (t/d) (t/d)
Census Division 16 Highway Segment AADT (km) Length CD 16 NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC
Highway 63
1. Fort McKay to Ruth Lake 9,160 22 204873 10.78 0.563 0.009 0.042 1.929 0.135 0.475 0.005 0.036 2.61 0.134
2. Ruth Lake to Suncor turnoff 16,870 5 77110 4.06 0.212 0.003 0.016 0.726 0.051 0.179 0.002 0.014 0.982 0.05
3. Suncor turnoff to Fort McMurray 20,775 26 548904 28.88 1.51 0.024 0.112 5.167 0.362 1.272 0.014 0.097 6.993 0.358
4. Fort McMurray 32,532 9 305220 16.06 0.839 0.013 0.062 2.873 0.201 0.707 0.008 0.054 3.888 0.199
5. Fort McMurray to Maqua Lake turnoff 7,030 25 175999 9.26 0.484 0.008 0.036 1.657 0.116 0.408 0.004 0.031 2.242 0.115
6. Maqua Lake turnoff 3,845 21 79573 4.19 0.219 0.004 0.016 0.749 0.052 0.184 0.002 0.014 1.014 0.052
7. Section of the straight south near Stony Park 3,500 8 26297 1.38 0.072 0.001 0.005 0.248 0.017 0.061 0.001 0.005 0.335 0.017
8. Segment past Mariana Lake 3,500 59 205825 10.83 0.566 0.009 0.042 1.938 0.136 0.477 0.005 0.036 2.622 0.134
Highway 69
1. Highway 63 to Saprae Creek 4,510 14 61794 3.25 0.17 0.003 0.013 0.582 0.041 0.143 0.002 0.011 0.787 0.04
Highway 881
Page 3A-232
1. Departing from Highway 63 4,163 7 27742 1.46 0.076 0.001 0.006 0.261 0.018 0.064 0.001 0.005 0.353 0.018
2. Section west of Gregoire Lake 3,960 7 26497 1.39 0.073 0.001 0.005 0.249 0.017 0.061 0.001 0.005 0.338 0.017
3. Section south of Gregoire Lake 3,893 12 47352 2.49 0.13 0.002 0.01 0.446 0.031 0.11 0.001 0.008 0.603 0.031
4. Section south of Anzac 1,882 24 44344 2.33 0.122 0.002 0.009 0.417 0.029 0.103 0.001 0.008 0.565 0.029
5. Section north of Janvier 770 34 25959 1.37 0.071 0.001 0.005 0.244 0.017 0.06 0.001 0.005 0.331 0.017
6. Section past Chard 750 11 8016 0.42 0.022 0.00 0.002 0.075 0.005 0.019 0.00 0.001 0.102 0.005
7.Section going together along Christina River 800 19 15455 0.81 0.043 0.001 0.003 0.145 0.01 0.036 0.00 0.003 0.197 0.01
8. Section past Conklin 820 24 19517 1.03 0.054 0.001 0.004 0.184 0.013 0.045 0.00 0.003 0.249 0.013
Total 118,761 325 1900478 100 5.227 0.084 0.389 17.89 1.252 4.405 0.048 0.336 24.211 1.24
Note:
AADT is the Average Annual Daily Traffic (2007)
TABLE 3A-100

Census Division 12 Highway Length AADT x % of (t/d) (t/d)
Segment AADT (km) Length CD 12 NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC
Highway 63
9. Section past Crow Lake 3,500 19 65279 6 0.442 0.007 0.03 1.603 0.109 0.373 0.004 0.026 2.169 0.108
10. South of Compton Sweet Gas
3,500 41 144079 12 0.976 0.016 0.065 3.538 0.242 0.823 0.009 0.057 4.788 0.239
Battery 10-19
11. Section past Wandering River 3,570 47 167965 14 1.138 0.018 0.076 4.124 0.282 0.959 0.01 0.066 5.581 0.279
12. Section to Hwy 55 3,487 14 48362 4 0.328 0.005 0.022 1.188 0.081 0.276 0.003 0.019 1.607 0.08
Highway 881
9. Section along Wiau Lake 890 46 41274 3 0.28 0.004 0.019 1.013 0.069 0.236 0.003 0.016 1.372 0.069
10. Section past Imperial Mills 1,020 25 25263 2 0.171 0.003 0.011 0.62 0.042 0.144 0.002 0.01 0.84 0.042
11.Section past Square Lake b 1,095 15 16785 1 0.114 0.002 0.008 0.412 0.028 0.096 0.001 0.007 0.558 0.028
12. Section to Hwy 663 b 1,310 10 12537 1 0.085 0.001 0.006 0.308 0.021 0.072 0.001 0.005 0.417 0.021
Page 3A-233
Highway 663
1. Section Beaver Lake 1,090 10 10877 1 0.074 0.001 0.005 0.267 0.018 0.062 0.001 0.004 0.361 0.018
Highway 55
1. East from Hwy 63 1,673 24 39729 3 0.269 0.004 0.018 0.976 0.067 0.227 0.002 0.016 1.32 0.066
2. East of the cross with the Old
2,235 12 25918 2 0.176 0.003 0.012 0.636 0.043 0.148 0.002 0.01 0.861 0.043
Mission Rd.
3. Section west of Lac la Biche 6,183 5 33390 3 0.226 0.004 0.015 0.82 0.056 0.191 0.002 0.013 1.11 0.055
4. Section south of Lac la Biche 1,020 19 19025 2 0.129 0.002 0.009 0.467 0.032 0.109 0.001 0.007 0.632 0.032
5. Departing east from Hwy 36/55 890 20 17410 1 0.118 0.002 0.008 0.428 0.029 0.099 0.001 0.007 0.579 0.029
6. Section from Hwy 866 to Cold
1,716 102 174988 15 1.185 0.019 0.079 4.297 0.293 0.999 0.011 0.069 5.815 0.291
Lake
7. South of Cold Lake to Hwy 28 4,530 11 51239 4 0.347 0.006 0.023 1.258 0.086 0.293 0.003 0.02 1.703 0.085
8. Hwy 28 to SK boarder 2,453 13 32805 3 0.222 0.004 0.015 0.806 0.055 0.187 0.002 0.013 1.09 0.054
Highway 897
1. Departing north from Hwy 55 585 9 5324 0 0.036 0.001 0.002 0.131 0.009 0.03 0.00 0.002 0.177 0.009
2. Arriving at Marie Lake 360 8 3033 0 0.021 0.00 0.001 0.074 0.005 0.017 0.00 0.001 0.101 0.005
Highway 28
1. Departing west from Hwy 55 to
5,300 38 199125 17 1.349 0.022 0.09 4.89 0.334 1.137 0.012 0.078 6.617 0.331
41
2. Bonnyville 7,828 5 37572 3 0.255 0.004 0.017 0.923 0.063 0.215 0.002 0.015 1.249 0.062
3. Section east of Moose Lake 3,858 10 37804 3 0.256 0.004 0.017 0.928 0.063 0.216 0.002 0.015 1.256 0.063
4. Section west to Rge. Rd. 102 2,338 37 87442 7 0.592 0.009 0.04 2.147 0.147 0.499 0.005 0.034 2.906 0.145
Highway 41
1. Section from Hwy 55 to 28 4,439 23 101236 9 0.686 0.011 0.046 2.486 0.17 0.578 0.006 0.04 3.364 0.168
TABLE 3A-100 Cont'd

Total all segments 64,867 562 1398461 118 9.474 0.152 0.635 34.339 2.345 7.985 0.087 0.549 46.471 2.323
Total CD 12 segments only 57811 501 1182134 100 8.009 0.128 0.537 29.027 1.982 6.75 0.074 0.464 39.282 1.964
NOTES:
AADT is the Average Annual Daily Traffic (2007).
b
These two segments are located outside of CD 12.
Page 3A-234
TABLE 3A-101

Emission Rate - Existing Emission Rate – Future
Highway 63
1. From 20 km Southeast to
Mistehae Lake to Misstassiniy 2650 17 44851 22.31 0.1234 0.0020 0.0092 0.4222 0.0295 0.1040 0.0011 0.0079 0.5714 0.0293
Rd
2. From 754 cross with range
road 253A to 754 cross with 4070 4 15738 7.83 0.0433 0.0007 0.0032 0.1481 0.0104 0.0365 0.0004 0.0028 0.2005 0.0103
Muskawa Dr
3. From 754 cross with
Muskawa Dr to West starting 4070 2 8750 4.35 0.0241 0.0004 0.0018 0.0824 0.0058 0.0203 0.0002 0.0015 0.1115 0.0057
point of Highway 813
1. From 813 cross with 754 or
Mistassiniy Rd to The point
3020 22 65139 32.40 0.1792 0.0029 0.0133 0.6132 0.0429 0.1510 0.0017 0.0115 0.8298 0.0425
Highway 813 Turning to North
Page 3A-235
South Direction
2. From The point Highway
813 Turning to North South
480 12 5673 2.82 0.0156 0.0003 0.0012 0.0534 0.0037 0.0132 0.0001 0.0010 0.0723 0.0037
Direction to South point of
Sandy lake
3. From South point of Sandy
lake to 13 Km East and 2.5 km
460 15 6987 3.47 0.0192 0.0003 0.0014 0.0658 0.0046 0.0162 0.0002 0.0012 0.0890 0.0046
South of BP Noth Drown Gas
Plant
4. From 13 Km East and 2.5
km South of BP Noth Drown
Gas Plant to 2 Km West and 2 460 14 6338 3.15 0.0174 0.0003 0.0013 0.0597 0.0042 0.0147 0.0002 0.0011 0.0807 0.0041
km South of Husky Rock Island
Lake Compressor Station
5. From 2 Km West and 2 km
South of Husky Rock Island
520 10 5107 2.54 0.0140 0.0002 0.0010 0.0481 0.0034 0.0118 0.0001 0.0009 0.0651 0.0033
Lake Compressor Station to
South Rock Island Lake
6. From South Rock Island
Lake to North of Rang Road 520 19 9919 4.93 0.0273 0.0004 0.0020 0.0934 0.0065 0.0230 0.0003 0.0018 0.1264 0.0065
221A
7. From North of Rang Road
760 14 10489 5.22 0.0288 0.0005 0.0021 0.0987 0.0069 0.0243 0.0003 0.0019 0.1336 0.0068
221A to Calling Lake town
8. From Calling Lake town to 7
km North of Township Road 780 18 13774 6.85 0.0379 0.0006 0.0028 0.1297 0.0091 0.0319 0.0003 0.0024 0.1755 0.0090
700
TABLE 3A-101 Cont'd
Emission Rate - Existing Emission Rate – Future

9. From 7 km North of
Township Road 700 to 2.5km 720 12 8302 4.13 0.0228 0.0004 0.0017 0.0782 0.0055 0.0192 0.0002 0.0015 0.1058 0.0054
South of Township Road 700
Total 18,510 157 201,068 100 0.5530 0.0089 0.0412 1.8928 0.1325 0.4661 0.0051 0.0355 2.5615 0.1312
Note:
AADT is the Average Annual Daily Traffic (2007)
Page 3A-236
TABLE 3A-102
SUMMARY OF AVIATION ACTIVITY LOCATIONS

Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4 Area Base Elev
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM
Airport (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (km2) (m asl)
Fort McMurray Airport 483980 6279321 488471 6279321 488471 6277613 483980 6277613 8 360
CFB Cold Lake
544200 6030400 546650 6032200 549200 6028750 546750 6027000 13 531
Airport
TABLE 3A-103
SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITION, BASELINE CASE, AND APPLICATION CASE AVIATION EMISSIONS
Emission Rate (t/d)
Airport NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC
Fort McMurray Airport 0.5947 0.0986 0.0137 1.1004 0.1946
Page 3A-237
CFB Cold Lake Airport 0.5528 0.074 0.0091 0.1528 0.0124
TABLE 3A-104
SUMMARY OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE AVIATION EMISSIONS

Emission Rate (t/d)
Airport NOX SO2 PM2.5 CO VOC
Fort McMurray Airport 0.5012 0.0568 0.0118 1.4892 0.1928
CFB Cold Lake Airport 0.4659 0.0426 0.0079 0.2068 0.0123
TABLE 3A-105
VOC SPECIATION PROFILE FOR TRAFFIC AND HEATING EMISSIONS

Mass % of VOC Mass % of VOC
Compound Group (Traffic) a (Heating) b
1,3-butadiene 0.405 −
1-Methylnaphthalene 0.0596 −
2-methyl-2-propenal (methacrolein) 0.631 −
2-methylnaphthalene 0.0964 0.000436
3-methylcholanthrene − 0.0000327
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene − 0.000291
Acenaphthene 0.00304 0.0000253
Acenaphthylene 0.0111 0.000220
Acetaldehyde 7.30 0.284
Acrolein − 0.335
Acrolein (2-propenal) 0.579 −
aliphatic alcohols 1.99 −
Aliphatic aldehydes 21.8 4.64
Aliphatic C17-C34 0.550 −
Aliphatic C5-C8 22.0 48.7
Aliphatic C9-C16 2.89 1.40
Aliphatic ketones 1.77 −
Anthracene 0.00197 0.0000293
Aromatic C17-C34 0.000918 0.0000327
Aromatic C9-C16 6.55 0.0212
Aromatic ketones 0.823 −
0.000470 0.0000356
Benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzaldehyde 0.678 0.298
Benzaldehyde group 1.32 0.298
Benzene 3.07 0.204
Benzo(a)pyrene − 0.0000178
Benzo(b)fluoranthene − 0.0000207
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene − 0.0000227
Benzo(k)fluoranthene − 0.0000180
Benzofuran group 0.0129 −
C1 to C4 group (excluding methane and ethane) 14.3 43.6
Carboxylic acids 0.434 −
Chrysene 0.000528 0.0000253
Cyclohexane 0.0402 −
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene 0.000325 −
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene − 0.0000167
Dichlorobenzene − 0.0218
Ethylbenzene 1.03 0.0409
Fluoranthene 0.00836 0.000216
Fluorene 0.00546 0.0000835
Formaldehyde 4.59 4.02
Hexane 0.491 19.9
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene − 0.0000213
Isopropylbenzene (cumene) 0.00712 −
Naphthalene 0.233 0.0204
Phenanthrene 0.0147 0.000613
Page 3A-238
TABLE 3A-105 Cont'd
Mass % of VOC Mass % of VOC

Compound Group (Traffic) a (Heating) b
Phenothiazine group 0.0396 −
Pyrene 0.0113 0.000102
Styrene 0.221 −
Toluene 7.37 0.536
Xylenes 4.29 0.502
NOTES:
a
Traffic data based on 40% diesel and 60% gasoline fleet mix.
Diesel data are from SPECIATE 4.0 Section 4676. Gasoline data are from SPECIATE 4.0 Section 1314.
b
From CATEF as well as EPA AP-42 (Section 1.4)
TABLE 3A-106
METALS SPECIATION PROFILE FOR TRAFFIC AND HEATING EMISSIONS

Mass % of PM2.5 Mass % of PM2.5
Metal (Traffic) a (Heating) b
Aluminum (Al) 0.09635 0.05476
Antimony (Sb) 0.01425 0
Arsenic (As) 0.00053 0.00183
Barium (Ba) 0.04215 0.00478
Cadmium(Cd) 0.00597 0.0006
Chromium (Cr) 0.00311 0.00048
Cobalt (Co) 0.00048 0.01314
Copper (Cu) 0.01415 0.02282
Lead (Pb) 0.03471 0.00137
Manganese (Mn) 0.00254 0.00456
Nickel (Ni) 0.00396 0.02282
Silver (Ag) 0.00568 0
Strontium (Sr) 0.00066 0.00046
Tin (Sn) 0.00868 0
Vanadium (V) 0.00119 0.00913
Zinc (Zn) 0.18134 0.03651
Total 0.42 0.17
NOTES:
a
Traffic data based on 40% diesel and 60% gasoline mix.
Diesel data are from SPECIATE 4.0 Section 91017.
Gasoline data are from SPECIATE 4.0 Section 91022.
b
From England et al (2004).
Page 3A-239
TABLE 3A-107
VOC SPECIATION PROFILE FOR AVIATION EMISSIONS

Compound Group Mass Percent of VOC a
1,3-butadiene 1.97
Acetaldehyde 5.16
Benzaldehyde 0.617
Benzene 2.15
Ethylbenzene 0.187
Formaldehyde 16.7
Naphthalene 0.628
Styrene 0.438
Toluene 0.583
Xylenes 0.531
Note:
a
Values based on the average of Speciate 4 profiles 1097, 1098, and 1099.
TABLE 3A-108
METAL SPECIATION PROFILE FOR AVIATION EMISSIONS

Metal Mass Percent of PM2.5 a
Aluminum (Al) 0.1844
Arsenic (As) 0.0104
Barium (Ba) 0.1018
Copper (Cu) 0.0175
Lead (Pb) 0.0018
Manganese (Mn) 0.0074
Nickel (Ni) 0.0016
Strontium (Sr) 0.0014
Vanadium (V) 0.0001
Zinc (Zn) 0.0352
Total 0.3616
NOTE:
Values based on the Speciate 4.0 profile 3861. PM were assumed to be all PM2.5
Page 3A-240
TABLE 3A-109
EXISTING CONDITION, BASELINE CASE, AND APPLICATION CASE NON-INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS

Emission Rate
(t/d)
Community 12.91 0.47 1.25 50.25 3.72
Highway Traffic 15.25 0.24 1.07 54.12 3.73
Aviation 1.15 0.17 0.02 1.25 0.21
Totals 29.31 0.89 2.33 105.62 7.65
TABLE 3A-110
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE NON-INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS

Emission Rate
Emission Group (t/d)
Community 12.08 0.6 1.5 69.08 4.04
Highway Traffic 12.86 0.14 0.92 73.24 3.69
Aviation 0.97 0.1 0.02 1.7 0.21
Future Totals 25.9 0.84 2.44 144.02 7.94
3A.7 Project Construction and Operation Fleet Emissions

Emissions associated with facility construction and operation fleet activities are due to heavy construction
equipment (e.g. dozers, scrapers, off-highway dump trucks, excavators, backhoes, loaders, rollers,
compactors), on-road vehicles (heavy duty trucks, dump trucks, pickups, welding rigs, backhoes,
compactors, cranes, forklifts and welding rigs), and other miscellaneous equipment such as heaters,
electrical generators, compressors, lighting towers.
Quarterly estimates of the manpower and diesel, gasoline and propane fuel requirements are based on
the Project construction and operation fleet schedule for the following activities:
• CPF construction
• Above ground pipeline construction
• Underground pipeline construction
• Well pad and Road Construction
• Operations Vehicle fleet—Phase 1
• Reclamation
Emissions of NOX, PM2.5, CO, and VOC are determined from U.S. EPA/Canada CEPA emission Tier IV
standards for off-road heavy duty diesel engines (Table 3A-64) and Canadian emission factors for on-
road diesel engines. U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors are used to determine emissions from heaters
(U.S.EPA 2010b), generator engines (U.S.EPA 1996) and other miscellaneous sources such as
compressor and lighting towers. SO2 emissions are based on the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel
(15 mg/kg sulphur) (U.S.EPA 2006), typical sulphur content in gasoline (18 mg/kg) (Environment Canada
2009) and maximum expected sulphur content propane (185 mg/kg) (GPSA 2004). GHG emissions are
based on the emission factors presented in Table 3A-110.
While emissions of NOX, SO2, PM2.5, CO, and VOC were calculated for the period of 2013 to 2043, the
maximum emission rates for the time period September 2021 to December 2042 are used for air quality
Page 3A-241
assessment purposes. This period is between start-up of Phase 3 (bringing the full production rate to
80,000 bpd) and end of Project operation. Table 3A-111 shows the emission rates for the assessment.
Table 3A-112 provides the locations of the CPF and well pads associated with the construction and
operation fleet emissions. The well pad construction and vehicle emissions are assumed to occur
uniformly over the 26 km2 well pad area.
TABLE 3A-111
MOBILE SOURCE GHG EMISSION FACTORS

CO2 CH4 N2O
Emission Factors (g/L fuel) (g/L fuel) (g/L fuel)
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles
Advance Control 2,730 0.12 0.082
Moderate Control 2,730 0.14 0.082
Uncontrolled 2,730 0.15 0.075
EF Used for Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles 2,730 0.13 0.08
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (Non-Catalytic Controlled) 2,360 0.29 0.047
Propane Vehicles 1,510 0.64 0.028
Off-Road Gasoline 2,360 2.70 0.05
Off-Road Diesel 2,730 0.15 1.10
INFORMATION SOURCE:
EC, 2007. National Inventory Report, 1990-2005 - Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada
Table 3A12-7: Emission Factors for Energy Mobile Combustion Sources
Available at: http://timbousquet.com/blog/documents/GHGNIR2007%5B1%5D.pdf
Page 3A-242
TABLE 3A-112
ESTIMATED EMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION FLEET

CACs Emissions (t/d) GHG Emissions (t/d)
Chemical NOX SO2 PM CO VOC CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
Maximum Emission Rates from Mobile
Equipment (t/d) During Plant Operations 0.253 0.0005 0.0149 0.257 0.043 56.8 0.00266 0.00176 57.4
% Inside CPF 3.8
% Well pads/roads 96.2
TABLE 3A-113
LOCATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION FLEET

Base
Corner 1 Corner 2 Corner 3 Corner 4 Area Elev
UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM UTM (km2) (m asl)
Page 3A-243
Source ID Source Description (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN) (mE) (mN)
CPF_VEH Center Plant Facility 397609 6163755 398509 6163755 398509 6162825 397609 6162825 0.837 706
WELL_VEH Well pads/ Road 394200 6170500 397300 6170500 397300 6162100 394200 6162100 26.04 601
3A.8 References
3A.8.1 Literature Cited
ARC. 1996. Investigation of Flare Gas Emissions in Alberta. Prepared by: M. Strosher, Environmental
Technologies. Alberta Research Council. November 1996.
Arfara. M., V.Munoz and R. Mikula. 2010. Naphtha Interaction with Bitumen and Clays: A preliminary
Study. PowerPoint presentation by Natural Resources Canada, CanmetEnergy Research.
Presented at the 2nd International Oil Sands Tailings Conference. December 2010. 18 pp.
Canada Gazette. 2005. Part II, Vol. 139, No.21, Regulations Amending the Sulphur in Diesel Fuel
Regulations. October 4, 2005. Available at: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-10-
19/pdf/g2-13921.pdf#page=99
Canada Gazette. 2011. Part II, Vol. 145, No.7, Regulations Amending the Off-Road Compression-Ignition
Engine Emission Regulations. February 12, 2011. Available at: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-
pr/p1/2011/2011-02-12/html/reg1-eng.html
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) technical report A National Inventory of

Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC) and Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S)
Emissions by the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry Volume 4 - Methodology for CAC and H2S
Emissions, dated 2005.
Cheminfo. 2007. Forecast of Criteria Air Contaminants in Alberta (2002 to 2020). Final Report. Prepared
for Environment Canada. May 2007.
Clearstone Engineering Ltd. 2006. An Inventory of GHGs, CACs and H2S Emissions by the Canadian
Bitumen Industry: 1990 to 2003. Volume 2: CAC & H2S Emissions. Prepared for CAPP.
September 6, 2006.
Clearstone Engineering Ltd. 2011. UTS Fugitive Emissions – Frontier Plant, Frontier Pit and Equinox Pit.
Clearstone Engineering Ltd., Zelt PSI, PSAQM Inc. 2008. Air Quality Impacts of Potential Key Sources of
H2S and Odour Emissions at the Suncor Oil Sands Plant. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc. July
13, 2008.
Davies, M. and S. Prasad. 2005. NOX Dispersion and Chemistry Assumptions in the CALPUFF Model.
CEMA Contract 2003-0034. Prepared by RWDI Air Inc for the Cumulative Environmental
Management Association.
England, G., Chang, O., Wien, S. 2002. Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and
Speciation Profiles for Oil- and Gas-Fired Combustion Systems. Annual Technical Progress
Report No. 2. Prepared for the National Petroleum Technology Laboratory, United States
Department of Energy. February 14, 2002.
Fort Hills Energy Corporation. 2007. Volume 2: Environmental Effects Update. Fort Hills Oil Sands Project
Amendment Application. Prepared by Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.
Gas Processors Suppliers Association. 2004. Engineering Data Book. Section 2: Product Specifications.
Published as a service to the gas processing and related process industries by the Gas
Processors Suppliers Association.
Hsu et al. New Upgrades to EPA’s SPECIATE Database. Ying Hsu, Stephen M. Roe, Frank Divita, and
David Holoman. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. Presented at the 14th International Emission
Inventory Conference “Transforming Emissions Inventories – Meeting Future Challenges Today”
Papers and Presentations. Las Vegas, Nevada, April 11-14, 2005.
Page 3A-244
Kasperski, K., V. Munoz, and R. Mikula. 2010. Naphtha Evaporation from Oil Sands Tailings Pond.
PowerPoint presentation by Natural Resources Canada, CanmetEnergy Research. Presented at
the 2nd International Oil Sands Tailings Conference. December 2010. 13 pp.
Lundgren, J.S. Roberts and D. Chadder. 2008. Development of a Workplan for CALPUFF Modelling in
the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Prepared for AEW by RWDI Air Inc. 68pp.RWDI.
2005. Roberts Bank Container Expansion, Program Delta Port Third Berth Project. Appendix D
and Appendix E.
Teck/SilverBirch. 2011. Frontier Project Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 4 Section 3.

September, 2011.
Sadek, S.E., Smith, D.J., Watkin, A.T., Gebel, R. 1996. Mass Transfer of Volatile Organics from Large
Open Basins. Environmental Progress (Vol. 15, No. 2). Summer, 1996.
Syncrude Canada Ltd. 2008. SWSS Conversion Project. Volume 2 – EIA.
Syncrude. 1998. Mildred Lake Upgrader Expansion Application and Environmental Impact Assessment.
Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environmental Protection. July 1998.
U.S. EPA. 1995. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models. Volume II –
Description of Model Algorithms. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division. EPA-454/B-95-
003b. September 1995.
U.S. EPA. 2006. Regulatory Announcement. EPA Finalizes Alternative Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel Transition
Program for Alaska. EPA420-F-06-040.
U.S. EPA. 2008. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal. Section 2.4: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills. October 2008. Available at: http://www.epa.gov /ttn/chief/ap42/
Worley Parsons. 2009. Review and Summary of Emission Factors for Oil Sands Tailings Ponds and
Mining Faces and Options for Reducing Emissions. Prepared for Environment Canada. Report
B2179. 106 pp.
3A.8.2 Internet Sites
Alberta Ministry of Transportation. Traffic Volumes at Points on the Highway. Available at:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2639.htm. Accessed 2011.
Canada Gazette. 2005. Part II, Vol. 139, No.4, off-road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission
regulations. February 23, 2005. Available at: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2005/20050223/
pdf/g2-13904.pdf
Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000 Available at:

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/stnselect_e.html. Accessed 2011.
Environment Canada. 2006. Environment Canada National Inventory Report, 1990-2004 – Greenhouse
Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, Annex 13: Emission Factors.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/ 2004_report/ann13_e.cfm
Environment Canada. 2009. Report of the Technical Working Group on Certain Fuel Quality Parameters.
Available at http://www.cppi.ca/userfiles/file/ReportoftheTechnicalWorkingGroup[1].pdf
Environment Canada. 2009. Report of the Technical Working Group on Certain Fuel Quality Parameters.
Available at http://www.cppi.ca/userfiles/file/ReportoftheTechnicalWorkingGroup[1].pdf
Gas Processors Suppliers Association (GPSA). 2004. Engineering Data Book. Section 2: Product
Specifications. Published as a service to the gas processing and related process industries by the
Gas Processors Suppliers Association.
Page 3A-245
JBAQS 2009. James Bay Air Quality Study: Phase II: Report on the Results of CALPUFF Air Quality
Dispersion Modelling 2007. The James Bay Air Quality Study Team. Prepared for the Vancourver
Island Health Authority. Victoria , British Columbia. Page 34.
U.S. EPA. 1991. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources. Section 13.5:
Industrial Flares. September 1991. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/
U.S. EPA. 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources. Section 1.4:
Natural Gas Combustion. July 1998. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/
U.S. EPA. 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources. Section 1.3:
Fuel Oil Combustion. September 1999. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42
/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2000a. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion Sources.
Section 3.1: Stationary Gas Turbines. April 2000. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/
U.S. EPA. 2000b. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion Sources.
Section 3.2: Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engines. August 2000. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling-
Compression-Ignition. April 2004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/models
/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004 /420p04009.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. May
2004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2006. Regulatory Announcement. EPA Finalizes Alternative Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel Transition
Program for Alaska. EPA420-F-06-040.
U.S. EPA. 2008. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal. Section 2.4: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills. October 2008. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf
U.S.EPA. 1996. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion Sources.
Section 3.3: Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. October 1996. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf
U.S.EPA. 2010. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions
modeling. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2010/420r10016.pdf
U.S.EPA. 2010a. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions
modeling. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2010/420r10016.pdf
U.S.EPA. 2010b. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources. Section 1.3:
Fuel Oil Combustion. May 2010. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002. Report of the Conference
of the Parties on its eighth session, held at New Delhi from 23 October to 1 November 2002,
Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the
Convention, part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories, Decision /CP.8,2002.
http://unfccc.int/cop8/latest/ 5_sbstal5add1.pdf
3A.8.3 Personal Communication
David Picard. Clearstone Engineering. Personal Communication with Mervyn Davies of Stantec. 2011.
Page 3A-246
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Ambient Air Quality
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Volume 2 - Appendix 3B
APPENDIX 3B
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Page 3B-1
Table of Contents
3B.0 Ambient Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 3B-6
3B.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3B-6
3B.1.1 Continuous Air Monitoring Data Sources .............................................................. 3B-6
3B.1.2 Passive Air Monitoring Data Sources ..................................................................... 3B-7
3B.1.3 Scope of the Assessment......................................................................................... 3B-7
3B.1.4 Background Concentration Considerations ............................................................ 3B-8
3B.1.5 Ambient Air Quality Criteria .................................................................................. 3B-8
3B.1.6 Appendix Organization ........................................................................................... 3B-9
3B.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Concentrations .................................................................................. 3B-14
3B.2.1 1-Hour Average .................................................................................................... 3B-14
3B.2.2 24-Hour Average .................................................................................................. 3B-26
3B.2.3 Annual Average .................................................................................................... 3B-26
3B.3 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Concentrations .................................................................................... 3B-30
3B.3.1 1-Hour Average .................................................................................................... 3B-30
3B.3.2 24-Hour Average .................................................................................................. 3B-32
3B.4 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Concentrations ....................................................................... 3B-47
3B.4.1 1-Hour Average .................................................................................................... 3B-47
3B.4.2 24-Hour Average .................................................................................................. 3B-57
3B.5 Ozone (O3) Concentrations....................................................................................................... 3B-66
3B.5.1 1-Hour Average .................................................................................................... 3B-66
3B.5.2 8-Hour Average .................................................................................................... 3B-71
3B.6 Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) and Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) Concentrations ........................ 3B-79
3B.6.1 1-Hour Average .................................................................................................... 3B-79
3B.6.2 24-Hour Average .................................................................................................. 3B-92
3B.7 Total Hydrocarbon Compound (THC) Concentrations ............................................................ 3B-95
3B.7.1 1-Hour Average .................................................................................................... 3B-95
3B.7.3 Hydrocarbon Speciation ....................................................................................... 3B-96
3B.8 Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 3B-108
3B.9 References .............................................................................................................................. 3B-111
List of Tables
Table 3B-1 Locations And Parameters Measured At Continuous Air Monitoring Stations In
The Region .................................................................................................................. 3B-11
Table 3B-2 Passive Monitoring Sites In The Region ..................................................................... 3B-13
Table 3B-3 Ambient Air Quality Criteria ...................................................................................... 3B-14
Table 3B-4 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ............................. 3B-15
Table 3B-5 Year-To-Year Variation Of The Maximum Measured 1-Hour NO2
Concentrations ............................................................................................................. 3B-24
May 2012 Page 3B-2

Table 3B-6 Year-To-Year Variation Of The Maximum Measured Top-25 Measured 1-Hour
NO2 Concentrations .................................................................................................... 3B-25
Table 3B-7 24-Hour NO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ........................... 3B-27
Table 3B-8 Annual NO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ............................. 3B-28
Table 3B-9 Annual NO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Passive Stations ................................... 3B-29
Table 3B-10 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations .............................. 3B-31
Table 3B-11 Year-To-Year Variation Of The Maximum Measured 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations... 3B-41
Table 3B-12 Year-To-Year Variation Of The Top-25 Measured 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations ....... 3B-42
Table 3B-13 24-Hour SO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ............................ 3B-43
Table 3B-14 Annual SO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations.............................. 3B-45
Table 3B-15 Annual SO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Passive Stations .................................... 3B-46
Table 3B-16 SO2 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Blackpearl Passive Stations .............................. 3B-47
Table 3B-17 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/M3) Measured At The Monitoring Stations........... 3B-48
Table 3B-18 Year-To-Year Variation Of The Maximum Measured 1-Hour PM2.5
Concentrations ............................................................................................................. 3B-55
Table 3B-19 Year-To-Year Variation Of The Top-25 Measured 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations ..... 3B-56
Table 3B-20 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/M3) Measured At The Monitoring Stations......... 3B-58
Table 3B-21 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Continuous Monitoring Stations
By Alberta Environment ............................................................................................. 3B-58
Table 3B-22 Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ........................... 3B-65
Table 3B-23 1-Hour O3 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ................................ 3B-66
Table 3B-24 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations .............. 3B-72
Table 3B-25 Annual O3 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ................................ 3B-77
Table 3B-26 Annual O3 Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Passive Sites ........................................... 3B-78
Table 3B-27 1-Hour H2S Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations .............................. 3B-80
Table 3B-28 1-Hour TRS Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ............................. 3B-80
Table 3B-29 24-Hour H2S And TRS Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Monitoring Stations ............ 3B-93
Table 3B-30 Annual H2S And TRS Concentrations (µg/M3) Measured At The Monitoring
Stations ........................................................................................................................ 3B-94
Table 3B-31 Annual H2S Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Passive Stations .................................... 3B-95
Table 3B-32 H2S Concentrations (µg/M3) At The Blackpearl Passive Stations .............................. 3B-95
Table 3B-33 1-Hour Thc Concentrations (PPM) Measured At The Monitoring Stations ............... 3B-96
Table 3B-34 Annual Thc Concentrations (PPM) Measured At The Monitoring Stations ............. 3B-105
Table 3B-35 Maximum 24-Hour HC Species Concentrations (μG/M3) Measured At The
Monitoring Stations ................................................................................................... 3B-106
List of Figures
Figure 3B-1 Air Quality Monitoring Sites in the Model Domain ................................................... 3B-10
Figure 3B-2 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station ....................................... 3B-16
Figure 3B-3 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Conklin Station .................................................... 3B-17
Figure 3B-4 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Anzac Station ....................................................... 3B-17
Figure 3B-5 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Jackfish Station .................................................... 3B-18
Figure 3B-6 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Maskwa Station .................................................... 3B-18
Figure 3B-7 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station ..................... 3B-19
Figure 3B-8 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Horizon Station .................................................... 3B-19
Figure 3B-9 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station ..................................... 3B-20
Figure 3B-10 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station .......................................... 3B-20
May 2012 Page 3B-3

Figure 3B-11 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station ..................................... 3B-21
Figure 3B-12 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station ...................................... 3B-21
Figure 3B-13 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station ...................................... 3B-22
Figure 3B-14 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station.............................................. 3B-22
Figure 3B-15 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station ........................................ 3B-32
Figure 3B-16 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Conklin Station ..................................................... 3B-33
Figure 3B-17 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Anzac Station ........................................................ 3B-33
Figure 3B-18 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Jackfish Station ..................................................... 3B-34
Figure 3B-19 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Maskwa Station .................................................... 3B-34
Figure 3B-20 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station ...................... 3B-35
Figure 3B-21 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Buffalo Viewpoint Station .................................... 3B-35
Figure 3B-22 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Horizon Station ..................................................... 3B-36
Figure 3B-23 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station ............................................. 3B-36
Figure 3B-24 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Mannix Station ..................................................... 3B-37
Figure 3B-25 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Mildred Lake Station ............................................ 3B-37
Figure 3B-26 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station...................................... 3B-38
Figure 3B-27 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station .......................................... 3B-38
Figure 3B-28 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station ...................................... 3B-39
Figure 3B-29 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station ....................................... 3B-39
Figure 3B-30 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station ....................................... 3B-40
Figure 3B-31 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station .............................................. 3B-40
Figure 3B-32 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station ..................................... 3B-49
Figure 3B-33 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Anzac Station ..................................................... 3B-49
Figure 3B-34 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station ................... 3B-50
Figure 3B-35 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Horizon Station .................................................. 3B-50
Figure 3B-36 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station ................................... 3B-51
Figure 3B-37 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station ........................................ 3B-51
Figure 3B-38 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Mine Station .......................... 3B-52
Figure 3B-39 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station .................................... 3B-52
Figure 3B-40 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station .................................... 3B-53
Figure 3B-41 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station ............................................ 3B-53
Figure 3B-42 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station.................................... 3B-59
Figure 3B-43 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Anzac Station ................................................... 3B-60
Figure 3B-44 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station ................. 3B-60
Figure 3B-45 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations at the Horizon Station .................................. 3B-61
Figure 3B-46 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station ................................. 3B-61
Figure 3B-47 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station ...................................... 3B-62
Figure 3B-48 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station ................................. 3B-62
Figure 3B-49 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station .................................. 3B-63
Figure 3B-50 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station .................................. 3B-63
Figure 3B-51 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station .......................................... 3B-64
Figure 3B-52 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station .......................................... 3B-67
Figure 3B-53 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Anzac Station .......................................................... 3B-68
Figure 3B-54 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station ............................................. 3B-68
Figure 3B-55 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station ........................................ 3B-69
Figure 3B-56 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station ......................................... 3B-69
Figure 3B-57 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station ......................................... 3B-70
May 2012 Page 3B-4

Figure 3B-58 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station ................................................ 3B-70
Figure 3B-59 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station ......................... 3B-73
Figure 3B-60 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Anzac Station ........................................ 3B-73
Figure 3B-61 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station ........................... 3B-74
Figure 3B-62 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station ...................... 3B-74
Figure 3B-63 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station ....................... 3B-75
Figure 3B-64 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Patricia Mclnnes Station........................ 3B-75
Figure 3B-65 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station ............................... 3B-76
Figure 3B-66 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Conklin Station ..................................................... 3B-81
Figure 3B-67 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Anzac Station ....................................................... 3B-82
Figure 3B-68 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Maskwa Station ................................................... 3B-82
Figure 3B-69 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Buffalo Viewpoint Station .................................... 3B-83
Figure 3B-70a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station ............................................. 3B-83
Figure 3B-70b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station ............................................ 3B-84
Figure 3B-71 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Mannix Station ..................................................... 3B-84
Figure 3B-72 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Mildred Lake Station ............................................ 3B-85
Figure 3B-73a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station...................................... 3B-85
Figure 3B-73b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station..................................... 3B-86
Figure 3B-74a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station .......................................... 3B-86
Figure 3B-74b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station.......................................... 3B-87
Figure 3B-75 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Barge Landing Station ......................................... 3B-87
Figure 3B-76 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Horizon Station .................................................... 3B-88
Figure 3B-77a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station...................................... 3B-88
Figure 3B-77b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station ..................................... 3B-89
Figure 3B-78 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station ...................................... 3B-89
Figure 3B-79a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station ....................................... 3B-90
Figure 3B-79b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station ...................................... 3B-90
Figure 3B-80a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station .............................................. 3B-91
Figure 3B-80b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station ............................................. 3B-91
Figure 3B-81 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Anzac Station ...................................................... 3B-97
Figure 3B-82 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Maskwa Station ................................................... 3B-97
Figure 3B-83 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station .................... 3B-98
Figure 3B-84 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Barge Landing Station ........................................ 3B-98
Figure 3B-85 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Buffalo Viewpoint Station .................................. 3B-99
Figure 3B-86 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Horizon Station ................................................... 3B-99
Figure 3B-87 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station ......................................... 3B-100
Figure 3B-88 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Mannix Station .................................................. 3B-100
Figure 3B-89 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Mildred Lake Station ........................................ 3B-101
Figure 3B-90 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Millennium Station ........................................... 3B-101
Figure 3B-91 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station ....................................... 3B-102
Figure 3B-92 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station .................................. 3B-102
Figure 3B-93 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station ................................... 3B-103
Figure 3B-94 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station ................................... 3B-103
Figure 3B-95 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station........................................... 3B-104
May 2012 Page 3B-5

3B.0 Ambient Air Quality
3B.1 Introduction
Ambient air quality measurements provide an indication of air quality levels associated with existing
sources and provide a baseline that can be compared to predicted air quality associated with future
developments. This section provides an overview of the magnitude and trends associated with ambient air
quality measured in the region. The Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) development area
falls near two ambient monitoring networks where extensive ambient air quality monitoring data are
available:
• The Lakeland Industry and Community Association (LICA) network; most of the LICA monitoring is
south of the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range. Primary emission sources in the LICA area include in-
situ bitumen extraction facilities.
• The Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) network; most of the WBEA monitoring is
conducted north of Fort McMurray. Emission sources in the WBEA area include integrated mining,
extraction and upgrading facilities, and some in-situ bitumen extraction facilities.
While there is considerable monitoring in the LICA and WBEA areas, additional also includes the
following:
• The Devon Jackfish compliance monitoring station, located near the Jackfish in-situ project central
processing facility (CPF).
• The EnCana Conklin air quality monitoring station, located near the community of Conklin.
• The EnCana Christina Lake compliance monitoring station, located near the Christina Lake in-situ
project CPF.
Figure B2.1 shows the location of monitoring stations relative to the modelling study area (332 km by
700 km domain), the regional study area (the RSA is defined as being 2° latitude by 3° longitude), and the
local study area (the LSA is defined as being a 100 by 100 km region centered on the Project).
The closest continuous station to the Project is the Conklin air monitoring station, located approximately
100 km east of the Project location. The data measured at the Conklin station are from the period May
2001 to August 2002, which may not represent the current air quality in the area. Thus, monitoring data
from other stations are included in this review.
3B.1.1 Continuous Air Monitoring Data Sources

There are 15 continuous ambient air quality stations in the WBEA airshed: Albian Mine, Albian Muskeg
River, Anzac, Athabasca Valley, Barge Landing, Buffalo Viewpoint, Horizon, Fort Chipewyan, Fort
McKay, Lower Camp, Mannix, Mildred Lake, Millennium Mine, Patricia Mclnnes, and Syncrude UE1.
WBEA continuous hourly data from these stations for the period from January 1999 to December 2010
were obtained from the Alberta Ambient Air Data Management System (AAADMS), also known as the
CASA Data Warehouse. The AAADMS is a central repository for ambient air quality data collected in
Alberta (http://www.casadata.org/).
There are two ambient air quality stations in the LICA airshed in the study area, Cold Lake South and
Maskwa stations. LICA ambient air quality data for the Cold Lake South station (November 2005 to
May 2012 Page 3B-6

December 2010) and the Maskwa station (January 2009 to December 2009) were also obtained from the
AAADMS.
In addition, Devon provided the hourly data from the Jackfish Project compliance station for the period of
January 2008 to December 2009. The Conklin ambient air quality station was operated for the period of
May 2001 to August 2002. The hourly observation data from the station were obtained from Devon ARL
Corporation (2006). The summary of the observed data at Christina Lake (27 months of data over the
2001 to 2005 period) was obtained from EnCana FCCL Ltd. (2009).
For air quality evaluation purpose, the air quality stations mentioned above are classified into five
categories: rural background, conventional oil sands extraction/upgrading, large community, small
community, and in-situ operations. A summary of the air quality parameters monitored at each of the
continuous air monitoring stations in the region and their classifications are provided in Table B2.1
3B.1.2 Passive Air Monitoring Data Sources

A series of passive monitoring stations have been established in the region, which monitor SO2, NO2, O3,
and H2S. The passive samplers provide monthly average measurements. The number and locations of the
passive samplers have changed in the last ten years. Some sites have been decommissioned while other
sites have been added. The current passive monitoring network comprises:
• 3 passive sites co-located with the AMS 1 (Fort McKay), AMS 6 (Patricia McInnis) and AMS 14
(Anzac) continuous stations
• 4 passive sites associated with the Suncor (formerly Petro-Canada) MacKay River in-situ project
• 30 sites associated with the Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring (TEEM) program.
• 4 sites associated with the Project Area
Passive SO2, NO2, O3, and H2S data were obtained from the WBEA ambient reports for the monitoring
years 2003 to 2010. Table 3B-2 and Figure 3B-1 identify the stations and locations of the passive
monitoring sites.
Passive stations located near the Project include: four BlackPearl passive sites about 3 km northwest of
the Project CPF, SM7 about 51 km east northeast of the Project, SM8 about 112 km northeast of the
Project, and PL1/JPL1 about 116 km north of the Project. Measurements from these stations should be
more representative of ambient concentrations near the Project site than those from other more distant
stations.
3B.1.3 Scope of the Assessment

The primary focus of this assessment is to review ambient air quality monitoring data collected in the
bitumen production areas located in northeastern Alberta. The review addresses three primary
components:
• Determination of representative ambient air quality levels in the Project Area from data collected at
rural background sites.
• Determination of expected future ambient air quality levels that could occur near the Project Area
from data collected near existing operating in-situ facilities.
• Provide a relative comparison of air quality in the Project with those measured near conventional
bitumen mining, extraction and upgrading facilities; and within communities.
May 2012 Page 3B-7

This review also compares the measured data with relevant ambient air quality criteria.
A secondary focus is to summarize measurements that can be compared to the CALPUFF model
predictions for the existing condition to provide an indicator of the CALPUFF model performance. The
Top-25 1-hour NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 measurements for each year were extracted to gauge the model
performance. For further details regarding the model performance, see Appendix 3D.
3B.1.4 Background Concentration Considerations

Background air quality results from natural sources, and nearby and distant anthropogenic (industry and
non-industry) sources. For the l Project assessment, nearby industry sources were explicitly included in
the CALPUFF simulation model that is described in Appendix 3D. A review of the ambient air quality
data can provide an indication of the contributions from both natural sources and distant anthropogenic
sources. These two have been grouped together as it is often difficult to distinguish between the two
respective source contributions. The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV 2009) provides
guidance for determining background levels:
• The nearby industry background contribution can be determined by including these sources explicitly
in the simulation models. While the model guideline indicates a need to include sources within 5 km
of the Project in the modeling, the modeling undertaken for the BlackPearl assessment considers a
larger 332 km by 700 km Model Domain.
• The natural background 1-hour and 24-hour average concentration contribution can be determined
from the 99th percentile for screening assessments and from the 90th percentile for refined
assessments. At least one year of representative monitoring data are required. The l Project
assessment can be considered a refined assessment.
• The natural background annual average concentration contribution can be determined from the
median. At least one year of representative monitoring data are required. While the model guideline
explicitly refers to the use of the median, the BlackPearl assessment uses the average for conservative
reasons as the average is often greater than the median.
The above approach was applied to the Fort Chipewyan and the Conklin community data to derive
background values. These two monitoring stations were selected as they are somewhat distant from
nearby industrial sources.
3B.1.5 Ambient Air Quality Criteria

One component of the ambient air quality review is to compare air quality measurements to ambient air
quality criteria that include the following:
• The Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) and Guidelines (AAAQG) (AENV 2011).
For NO2, the new AAAQO (AENV 2011) focuses only on 1-hour and annual average periods.
• The National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQO) identifies desirable, acceptable and tolerable
levels, with “desirable” being the most stringent. The AAAQO are typically based on the “desirable”
level.
• The Canada Wide Standards (CWS) standards for PM2.5 and O3 (Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment [CCME] 2000). For PM2.5, the CWS refers to the 98th percentile from each year,
averaged over three years. For O3, the CWS refers to the 4th highest (99th percentile) rolling 8-hour
May 2012 Page 3B-8

average in each day from each year, averaged over three years. In applying the CWS, contributions
from natural events and long-range transport can be excluded.
• The Alberta Framework Triggers for PM2.5 and O3 (AENV 2009). These triggers are calculated in the
same manner as the CWS. Exceeding an Exceedance Trigger (E) requires a mandatory plan to reduce
levels to be less than the CWS; exceeding a Planning Trigger (P) requires planning actions to prevent
future CWS exceedances; and exceeding a Surveillance Trigger (S) requires monitoring to establish
trends.
• The draft Lower Athabasca Region (LAR) triggers and limits for NO2 and SO2 (AENV 2011).
Alberta Environment describes four ambient air quality levels as follows:
• Level 4, ambient NO2 or SO2 exceeds air quality limits (i.e., the respective AAAQO)
• Level 3, ambient NO2 or SO2 below but approaching the air quality limits
• Level 2, ambient NO2 or SO2 below air quality limits
• Level 1, ambient NO2 or SO2 well below air quality limits
To prevent ambient concentrations from reaching the limits, the annual average ambient air quality
triggers for Level 2 and Level 3 are set as 1/3 and 2/3 of the AAAQOs. The hourly ambient air quality
triggers for Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 refer to 99th percentiles.
Table 3B-3 compares AAAQO, AAAQG, NAAQO, CWS, Alberta Framework triggers for PM2.5 and O3,
and Lower Athabasca Region (LAR) triggers for the substances that are reviewed.
The AAAQO, AAAQG, NAAQO, CWS, the Alberta Framework triggers for PM2.5 and O3 are viewed as
being applicable anywhere in the province (outside industrial property boundaries). The Lower Athabasca
Region (LAR) triggers are applicable to the LAR region as defined by Alberta Environment land use
framework. The LAR provides an early warning component designed to preclude exceedances of the
AAAQO.
3B.1.6 Appendix Organization

The analysis that is presented in this appendix provides an overview on a substance basis:
• Section 3B.2: NO2
• Section 3B.3: SO2
• Section 3B.4: PM2.5
• Section 3B.5: O3
• Section3 B.6: H2S and TRS
• Section 3B.7: THC
Sulphur (S) deposition, nitrogen (N) deposition, base cation deposition (BC), and Potential Acid Input
(PAI) deposition values used in this assessment are based on the Alberta Environment provincial scale
RELAD modeling since there are very limited measurements of these parameters in the region. These
deposition values are discussed in Appendix 3D.
May 2012 Page 3B-9

May 2012
TABLE 3B-1
LOCATIONS AND PARAMETERS MEASURED AT CONTINUOUS AIR MONITORING STATIONS IN THE REGION
Station Location Parameters Monitored
Site Representative
PM2.5
THC
TRS
NOX
NO2
SO2
H2S
NO
O3
mE Station
Station organization and (UTM m N (UTM Elevation
Name NAD 83) NAD 83) (m amsl) Data Period
WBEA Albian Mine 468309 6348774 303 July 2001– x x x x x x Conventional Oil Sands
(AMS 10) Jan 2009 Extraction/Upgrading
WBEA Albian Muskeg 469313 6345230 284 Feb 2009– x x x x x x Conventional Oil Sands
River Dec 2010 Extraction/Upgrading
(AMS 16)
WBEA Anzac 497654 6256043 496 Jan 2006– x x x x x x x x In Situ
(AMS 14) Dec 2010
WBEA Athabasca Valley 476129 6287709 250 Jan 1997– x x x x x x x x Large Community
(AMS 7) Dec 2010
WBEA Barge Landing 463770 6339608 282 July 2001– x x Conventional Oil Sands
(AMS 9) Dec 2010 Extraction/Upgrading
Page 3B-11
WBEA Buffalo Viewpoint 464001 6317180 322 Jan 1999– x x x Conventional Oil Sands
WBEA Horizon 455451 6351438 303 Jan 2008– x x x x x x x Conventional Oil Sands
WBEA Fort Chipewyan 489780 6507592 218 Jan 1999– x x x x x x Rural Background
(AMS 8) Dec 2010
WBEA Fort McKay 461287 6338622 270 Jan 1997– x x x x x x x x Small Community
(AMS 1) Dec 2010
WBEA Lower Camp 469251 6321053 241 Jan 1999– x x x Conventional Oil Sands
original Oct 2000 Extraction/Upgrading
(AMS 3)
WBEA Lower Camp 469599 6320486 237 July 2001– x x x x Conventional Oil Sands
WBEA Mannix 470695 6314020 333 Jan 1999– x x x Conventional Oil Sands
WBEA Mildred Lake Jan 1999– x x x Conventional Oil Sands
465773 6323084 315
WBEA Millennium Mine Sep 2001– x x x x x x x x Conventional Oil Sands
476658 6305102 346
WBEA Patricia McInnes Jan 1999– x x x x x x x x x Large Community
470884 6289915 362
(AMS 6) Dec 2010
WBEA Syncrude UE1 Sep 2002– x x x x x x x x Conventional Oil Sands
461129 6334175 268
Devon Jackfish Jan 2008 – x x In Situ
508499 6153105 626
Dec 2009
TABLE 3B-1 Cont'd
Station Location Parameters Monitored
Site Representative
PM2.5
THC
TRS
NOX
NO2
SO2
H2S
NO
O3
mE Station
Station organization and (UTM m N (UTM Elevation
Name NAD 83) NAD 83) (m amsl) Data Period
EnCana Conklin May 2001 – x x x In Situ
494770 6164891 565
Aug 2002
EnCana Christina Lake Jan 2001 – x x x In Situ
512513 6161329 569
Dec 2005
LICA Maskwa Jan 2009 – x x x x x x In Situ
535454 6051157 603
Dec 2010
LICA Cold Lake South Nov 2005 – x x x x x x x x Large Community
549786 6029823 533
Dec 2010
NOTES:
The Albian station was relocated from AMS 10 to AMS 16 in February 2009. In this assessment, the data were combined and are referred to as the Albian Mine/Muskeg River station.
Lower Camp air quality monitoring equipment was relocated a few hundred metres from the original location in 2000 (from AMS 3 to AMS 11)
Summary observations at Christina Lake were provided by EnCana FCCL Ltd. (2009). No continuous hourly measurements were available.
Page 3B-12
TABLE 3B-2
PASSIVE MONITORING SITES IN THE REGION

Station 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
205 - - x x x x x x
210 - - x x x x x x
212 - - - - x - -
213 - - x x x x x x
PH6 x x - - - - - -
AH8 x x - - - - - -
PL8 x x - - - - - -
AL8 x x x - - - - -
AH3 x x x x x x x x
AH7 x x x x x x x x
AH8-R - - - x x x x x
BM10 - - - - - x x x
BM11 - - - - - x x x
BM7 - - - - - x x x
JP212 - - - - - x x x
JPH2 - - - - x x x X
JPH4 - - - - x x x X
JPL1 - - - - x x x X
JPL7 - - - - x x x X
PH2 x x x x - - - -
PH4 x x x x x - - -
PL1 x x x x - - - -
PL7 x x x x x - - -
NE10 - - - - - x x X
NE11 - - - - - x x X
NE7 - - - - - x x X
R2 - - - - - - x X
SM7 - - - - - x x X
SM8 - - - - - x x X
WF4 - - - - - x x X
AMS 1 Fort McKay x x x x x x x X
AMS 6 Patricia McInnes x x x x x x x X
AMS 14 Anzac - - - - - x x X
MacKay River MK1(SW) x x x x x x x X
MacKay River MK2(NW) x x x x x x x X
MacKay River MK3(SE) x x x x x x x X
MacKay River MK4(NE) x x x x x x x X
Blackrod PASS 01-A & 01-B Sep 2011 to Jan 2012
NOTES:
Four Blackrod stations monitor SO2 and H2S for the period of Sep 2011 to Jan 2012.
All other stations monitor SO2, NO2 and O3.
The four MacKay River stations also monitor H2S.
Four Blackrod stations are onsite stations. The closest passive stations to the Project site are SM7, SM8, PL7, and
JPL7.
May 2012 Page 3B-13

TABLE 3B-3
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY CRITERIA

3
Concentration (µg/m )
Averaging AAAQO AENV Framework Triggers
Substance Period AAAQG NAAQO CWS CWS LAR
Nitrogen 1-hour 300 400 - - 176 (99%, Level 4)
Dioxide 118 (99%, Level 3)
(NO2) 57 (99%, Level 2)
Annual 45 60 - - 45 (Level 4)
30 (Level 3)
15 (Level 2)
Sulphur 1-hour 450 450 - - 94 (99%, Level 4)
Dioxide (SO2) 63 (99%, Level 3)
31 (99%, Level 2)
24-hour 125 150 - - -
30-day 30 - - - -
Annual 20 30 - - 20 (Level 4)
13 (Level 3)
8 (Level 2)
PM2.5 1-hour 80 - - - -
(AAAQG)
24-hour 30 - 30 (98%) 30 (98%, E) -
20 (98%, P)
15 (98%, S)
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 160 100 - - -
8-hour - - 127 (99%) 127 (99%, E) -
113 (99%, P)
Hydrogen 1-hour 14 - - - -
Sulphide 24-hour 4 - - - -
NOTES:
AAAQO = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective
AAAQG = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guideline
NAAQO = National Ambient Air Quality Objective
CWS = Canada Wide Standard
LAR = Lower Athabasca Region
3B.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Concentrations

Ambient oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations are routinely measured on a
continuous basis at nine of the 14 WBEA continuous stations, and Jackfish, Conklin, Christina Lake,
Maskwa, and Cold Lake South stations. Ambient concentration data are archived as 1-hour averages in
concentration units of ppm. These units, for the purposes of this assessment, were converted into units of
µg/m3. Note: 1 ppm = 1,881 µg/m3. The 1-hour and annual AAAQO for NO2 are 300 and 45 µg/m3.
3B.2.1 1-Hour Average

Table 3B-4 provides an overview of the 1-hour frequency statistics at the rural background stations (i.e.,
Fort Chipewyan and Conklin), the in-situ stations (i.e., Anzac, Christina Lake, Jackfish, and Maskwa), the
conventional oil sands extraction/upgrading stations (i.e., Albian Mine/Muskeg River, Horizon,
Millennium, and Syncrude UE1 stations), and the community stations (i.e., Athabasca Valley, Cold Lake
South, Patricia Mclnnes, and Fort McKay). The following are noted:
May 2012 Page 3B-14

• Rural Background: Based on the AEW background 90th percentile selection criteria and the rural
background NO2 measurements indicated in the table, a representative 1-hour background NO2
concentration is 7.52 µg/m3.
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations near the
Project could range from 109 to 158 µg/m3. This is less than the 1-hour AAAQO of 300 µg/m3.
• Conventional: Based on measurements near existing mining, extraction and upgrading operations,
the maximum 1-hour NO2 ranges from 100 to 427 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 300 µg/m3 was
exceeded at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River, Millennium, Syncrude UE1 stations.
• Large Community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, the maximum 1-hour
NO2 ranges from 88 to 344 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 300 µg/m3 was exceeded at the Fort
McMurray Athabasca station that is located near a major highway.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 1-hour NO2 is 100
µg/m3. This is less than the 1-hour AAAQO of 300 µg/m3.
Figures 3B-2 to 3B-14 show the 1-hour NO2 concentration time series plots at same stations. The
following are noted:
• There is a seasonal variation with the highest values occurring during the winter period and the lowest
values during the summer period. This likely reflects the enhanced dispersion during the summer
and/or lower NOX emissions during the summer.
• For some stations, short-term peaks occur frequently nearly every year (e.g., Albian Mine/Muskeg
River, Millennium Mine, and Anzac). While for others, high peaks have occurred in one or two years
(e.g. Albian Mine/Muskeg River, Syncrude UE1, and Athabasca Valley)
TABLE 3B-4
1-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
Monitoring Station Maximum 99 %ile 95 %ile 90 %ile 50 %ile Average
Rural background
Fort Chipewyan 63.8 20.7 9.40 5.64 0.38 2.00
Conklin 109 26.3 11.3 7.52 0.00 2.49
In-Situ
Anzac 158 37.6 18.8 13.2 3.76 5.47
Christina Lake 109 - 18.8 - - 2.70
Jackfish 109 28.2 15.0 11.3 1.88 3.96
Maskwa 152 32.0 18.8 13.2 1.88 4.86
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 427 84.6 58.3 48.9 15.0 20.1
Horizon 99.7 60.2 41.4 30.1 3.76 10.2
Millennium 316 90.3 67.7 58.3 18.8 25.0
Syncrude UE1 325 50.8 35.7 28.2 3.76 9.70
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 344 67.7 48.9 39.5 13.2 18.4
Cold Lake South 88.4 50.8 32.0 20.7 3.76 7.97
Small Community
Fort McKay 99.7 54.5 39.5 30.1 5.64 10.6
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 300 - - - - -
May 2012 Page 3B-15

TABLE 3B-4 Cont'd

th th th th
NAAQO 400 - - - - -
LAR Framework Trigger 4 - 176 - - - -
LAR Framework Trigger 3 - 118 - - - -
LAR Framework Trigger 2 - 57 - - -
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a criterion are shown in bold text.
Figure 3B-2 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station
May 2012 Page 3B-16

Figure 3B-3 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Conklin Station
Figure 3B-4 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Anzac Station
May 2012 Page 3B-17

Figure 3B-5 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Jackfish Station
Figure 3B-6 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Maskwa Station
May 2012 Page 3B-18

Figure 3B-7 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station
Figure 3B-8 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Horizon Station
May 2012 Page 3B-19

Figure 3B-9 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station
Figure 3B-10 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
May 2012 Page 3B-20

Figure 3B-11 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station
Figure 3B-12 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
May 2012 Page 3B-21

Figure 3B-13 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station
Figure 3B-14 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station
May 2012 Page 3B-22

A more detailed analysis of the variability of the maximum 1-hour concentration is provided in Table 3B-
5. The ratio of the highest maximum in one year to the lowest maximum in another year can provide an
indication of variability. At some stations, this ratio can exceed three (e.g., Albian Mine/Muskeg River,
Millennium, Syncrude UE1, and Athabasca Valley) indicating that the year-to-year variability may be
attributed to intermittent emission events. Ratios of less than three indicate are likely associated with
meteorological variations. Ignoring the peaks, the data in the table indicate a systematic increase with
time at the Millennium and Fort McKay stations.
The Top-25 1-hour concentrations can be used to provide a more robust indicator of maximum
concentrations associated with normal emissions by “smoothing out” the contributions that may be due to
intermittent upset events. Table 3B-6 shows the year-to-year variability of the Top-25 concentrations at
each site. The average “Max/Min” ratio has been reduced from 2.7 (Table 3B-5) to 1.8. The data in the
table still indicate a systematic increase with time at the Millennium and Fort McKay stations. The
“Average” values in this table were used to gauge the performance of the CALPUFF model (see
Appendix 3D).
The concentrations measured at the in-situ sites may be representative of what could be measured in
similar proximity to the Project site.
May 2012 Page 3B-23

TABLE 3B-5
YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION OF THE MAXIMUM MEASURED 1-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum Measured 1-hour NO2 Concentration
3
(µg/m )
Monitoring Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Min Max Average Max/Min
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - - 53 44 64 48 49 56 58 58 53 49 45 44 64 52 1.5
Conklin - - - - 36 109 - - - - - - - - 36 109 73 3.0
In-Situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 62 109 158 85 102 62 158 103 2.5
Jackfish - - - - - - - - - - - 110 81 - 81 110 96 1.4
Maskwa 154 49 49 154 102 3.2
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River - - - - - 134 164 152 135 209 143 427 197 199 134 427 196 3.2
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 94 100 92 92 100 95 1.1
Millennium - - - - - 85 - 117 145 118 316 197 205 231 85 316 177 3.7
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 73 70 73 70 73 325 87 92 70 325 108 4.6
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 113 96 88 98 117 105 118 344 109 134 100 149 113 134 88 344 130 3.9
Page 3B-24
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 71 77 88 75 64 64 88 75 1.4

Patricia McInnes - - 88 70 137 70 75 85 83 75 79 73 83 73 70 137 83 2.0
Small Community
Fort McKay 58 53 55 68 79 66 81 71 100 79 88 87 79 87 53 100 75 1.9
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 300
NAAQO 400
NOTES:
“-“ means no observational data or no full year observational data.
Concentrations that exceed AAAQO are shown in bold text.
3
Values are provided to the nearest µg/m .
The average “Max/Min” ratio is 2.6.
TABLE 3B-6
YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION OF THE MAXIMUM MEASURED TOP-25 MEASURED 1-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
Average of Top-25 1-hour Observed NO2 Concentrations
3
(µg/m )
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - - 34 28 38 34 37 31 37 48 39 38 33 28 48 36 1.7
Conklin - - - - 24 54 - - - - - - - - 24 54 39 2.3
In-Situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 51 77 67 54 53 51 77 60 1.5
Jackfish - - - - - - - - - - - 49 45 - 45 49 47 1.1
Maskwa 74 40 40 74 57 1.9
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg - - - - - 93 108 107 108 113 116 258 159 119 93 258 131 2.8
River
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 80 77 79 77 80 79 1.0
Millennium - - - - - 66 - 92 101 99 112 150 148 154 66 154 115 2.3
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 56 56 63 58 64 105 75 68 56 105 68 1.9
Large Community
Page 3B-25

Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 58 66 74 64 52 52 74 63 1.4
Small Community
Fort McKay 46 46 49 59 61 57 67 67 80 68 76 70 69 71 46 80 63 1.7
NOTES:
3

Table 3B-7 provides an overview of the 24-hour average NO2 frequency statistics at each station. The
• Rural Background: Based on the AEW background 90th percentile selection criteria and the
background NO2 measurements indicated in the table, a representative 24-hour background NO2
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 24-hour NO2 concentrations near
the Project could range from 30 to 36 µg/m3. This is less than the 24-hour NAAQO of 200 µg/m3.
the maximum 24-hour NO2 ranges from 56 to 156 µg/m3. The 24-hour NAAQO of 200 µg/m3 was
not exceeded at all stations.
• Large Community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, the maximum 24-
hour NO2 ranges from 48 to 78 µg/m3. The 24-hour NAAQO of 200 µg/m3 was not exceeded at all
stations.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 24-hour NO2 is 64
µg/m3. This is less than the 24-hour NAAQO of 200 µg/m3.
3B.2.3 Annual Average

Table 3B-8 provides the annual average NO2 concentrations for the individual years at each station.
• Rural background: Based on the average and the rural background NO2 measurements indicated in
the table, a representative annual background NO2 concentration ranges 2.44 µg/m3.
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the annual NO2 concentrations near the Project
could range from 2.60 to 5.47 µg/m3.
the annual NO2 ranges from 9.7 to 25.7 µg/m3.
• Large community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, the annual NO2
ranges from 7.9 to 18.4 µg/m3.
• Small community: Based on measurements in Fort Mckay, the annual NO2 is 10.6 µg/m3
Table 3B-9 provides the annual average NO2 concentrations for the individual years at each passive
monitoring site. The long-term average concentrations vary from 0.4 µg/m3 to 10.2 µg/m3 for all stations.
The long-term average concentrations vary from 1.0 to 1.4 µg/m3 for the four stations (SM7, SM8, PL1,
and JPL1) nearest to the Project site.
The annual AAAQO of 45 µg/m3 was not exceeded at any of the continuous or passive monitoring sites.
A comparison between co-located continuous and passive sites indicates the continuous values are
slightly higher than the passive values (i.e., Continuous = 0.88 x Passive + 3.41, where the concentrations
are in μg/m3). This relationship is based on comparing Anzac, Fort McKay and Patricia Mclnnes values
on a year-by-year basis (2003 to 2010).
May 2012 Page 3B-26

TABLE 3B-7
24-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
Rural background
Fort Chipewyan 40.9 13.2 6.79 4.80 1.07 1.96
Conklin 34.0 18.2 8.05 6.13 1.49 2.53
In-Situ
Anzac 35.9 25.8 15.9 11.7 3.68 5.44
Christina Lake 34.0 - 11.9 - - 2.70
Jackfish 29.8 19.1 12.6 9.08 2.86 3.97
Maskwa 33.9 23.8 15.1 11.4 3.19 4.85
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg 156 66.2 46.0 39.5 17.3 20.2
River
Horizon 63.3 44.6 34.2 26.5 6.38 10.3
Millennium 106 70.7 56.4 49.1 22.2 24.8
Syncrude UE1 56.4 38.5 28.9 23.1 7.03 9.67
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 77.8 50.8 39.7 34.1 15.3 18.4
Cold Lake South 53.4 36.7 26.0 19.1 4.75 7.94
Patricia McInnes 48.2 34.6 26.4 21.1 7.93 10.1
Small Community
Fort McKay 63.8 43.6 32.7 26.0 7.52 10.6
Ambient Criteria
NAAQO 200 - - - - -
NOTES:
May 2012 Page 3B-27

TABLE 3B-8
ANNUAL NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

Year
Full Period
Monitoring Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (1997 – 2010)
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - - 1.91 1.67 1.64 2.04 1.86 1.41 1.62 2.92 2.30 2.07 1.98 1.95
Conklin - - - - 1.94 2.94 - - - - - - - - 2.44
In-Situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 4.88 6.32 6.11 4.78 5.26 5.47
Christina Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.60
Jackfish - - - - - - - - - - - 4.68 3.24 - 3.96
Maskwa - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.03 4.69 4.86
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River - - - - - 13.9 18.5 18.8 17.2 17.1 21.7 27.9 24.8 24.4 20.5
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 11.1 9.11 10.3 10.2
Millennium - - - - - 6.81 - 21.9 22.3 27.1 29.8 34.0 32.5 31.4 25.7
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 8.47 8.34 8.38 8.05 11.2 12.2 10.7 10.5 9.73
Page 3B-28
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 17.8 17.7 16.5 17.7 18.3 17.6 19.1 17.2 17.1 19.5 18.3 19.5 20.3 20.7 18.4
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 6.98 8.74 8.92 8.11 6.89 7.93
Patricia McInnes - - 8.36 8.72 9.27 8.93 9.97 10.4 10.9 9.52 11.3 11.6 11.1 11.2 10.1
Small Community
Fort McKay - 5.07 6.84 11.1 10.3 12.3 10.9 10.6 10.1 9.94 11.8 13.1 12.0 13.2 10.6
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 45
NAAQO 60
LAR Framework Trigger 4 45
NOTES:
TABLE 3B-9
ANNUAL NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE PASSIVE STATIONS

Station 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
205 - - 0.6 0.6 1.5 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.9
210 - - 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.8
212 - - - - 7.2 - - ‐ 7.2
213 - - 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5
PH6 3.6 7.2 - - - - - ‐ 5.4
AH8 3.4 2.8 - - - - - ‐ 3.1
PL8 0.9 1.3 - - - - - ‐ 1.1
AL8 1.8 2.1 2.3 - - - - ‐ 2.1
AH3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.3 2.5 1.9 2.4 1.7 1.9
AH7 3.1 3.2 2.3 1.9 3.2 2.5 3.6 2.3 2.7
AH8-R - - - 0.9 2.6 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.0
BM10 - - - - - 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.9
BM11 - - - - - 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8
BM7 - - - - - 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4
JP212 - - - - - 6.6 6.6 5.8 6.3
JPH2 - - - - 6.0 4.3 5.5 3.9 4.9
JPH4 - - - - 8.5 7.5 9.2 7.3 8.1
JPL1 - - - - 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.4
JPL7 - - - - 2.5 2.6 3.2 2.8 2.8
PH2 4.4 5.1 4.3 3.4 - - - ‐ 4.3
PH4 6.2 5.1 5.7 5.3 6.2 - - ‐ 5.7
PL1 1.6 1.7 1.1 0.9 - - - ‐ 1.4
PL7 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.5 - - ‐ 2.0
NE10 - - - - - 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.7
NE11 - - - - - 4.0 3.6 2.4 3.3
NE7 - - - - - 2.1 1.9 1.1 1.7
R2 - - - - - - 14.1 6.2 10.2
SM7 - - - - - 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.2
SM8 - - - - - 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.0
WF4 - - - - - 3.4 2.4 1.7 2.5
AMS 1 Fort McKay 8.7 6.6 7.2 7.2 10.2 9.1 9.8 8.5 8.4
AMS 6 Patricia McInnes 9.3 8.1 8.3 8.3 10.0 8.5 10.3 7.9 8.8
AMS 14 Anzac - - - - - 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.9
MacKay River MK1(SW) 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.5 4.7 4.5 4.7 3.8 3.4
MacKay River MK2(NW) 3.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.8 3.6 4.3 3.2 3.1
MacKay River MK3(SE) 3.2 2.5 3.0 2.5 4.9 5.1 5.1 4.7 3.9
MacKay River MK4(NE) 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.1 4.5 5.3 5.1 4.5 3.7
Average 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.6 4.4 3.1 3.9 2.8 3.3
Minimum 0.9 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4
Maximum 9.3 8.1 8.3 8.3 10.2 9.1 14.1 8.5 10.2
AAAQO 45
NAAQO 60
NOTES:
3
Values are provided to the nearest 0.1 µg/m .
“–” indicates that data are not available.
May 2012 Page 3B-29

3B.3 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Concentrations

Ambient sulphur dioxide concentrations are routinely measured on a continuous basis at 13 of the 14
WBEA continuous stations, and at Conklin, Christina Lake, Jackfish, Maskwa, and Cold Lake South
stations. Ambient concentration data are archived as 1-hour averages in concentration units of ppm (parts
per million). These units, for the purposes of this assessment, were converted into units of µg/m3
(micrograms per cubic metre). Note: 1 ppm = 2,616 µg/m3. The 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual AAAQOs
for SO2 are 450 µg/m3, 125 µg/m3, and 20 µg/m3, respectively.

Table 3B-10 provides an overview of the 1-hour frequency statistics at the rural background station (i.e.,
Fort Chipewyan and Conklin), the in-situ stations (i.e., Anzac, Christina Lake, Jackfish, and Maskwa),
the conventional oil sands extraction/upgrading stations (i.e., Albian Mine/Muskeg River, Buffalo
Viewpoint, Horizon, Lower Camp, Mannix, Mildred Lake, Millennium, and Syncrude UE1 s), and the
community stations (i.e., Athabasca Valley, Cold Lake South, Patricia Mclnnes, and Fort McKay). The
background SO2 measurements indicated in the table, a representative 1-hour background SO2
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations near the
Project could range from 76 to 181 µg/m3. This is less than the 1-hour AAAQO of 450 µg/m3.
the maximum 1-hour SO2 ranges from 254 to 1845 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 450 µg/m3 was
exceeded at the all stations except for Horizon.
SO2 ranges from 69 to 395 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 450 µg/m3 was not exceeded at any station.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 1-hour SO2 is 481 µg/m3.
The 1-hour AAAQO of 300 µg/m3 was exceeded.
Figures 3B-15 to 3B-31 show the 1-hour NO2 concentration time series plots at same stations. The
• There is a seasonal variation with the highest values occurring during the summer period and the
lowest values during the winter period. This is likely because high concentrations from stacks are
associated with convective conditions, which are more intense and frequent during the summer.
• For some stations, short-term peaks occur frequently nearly every year (e.g., Buffalo Viewpoint,
Lower Camp, Millennium Mine, Syncrude UE1, Fort McKay, and Patricia McInnes); For some
stations, anomalously high peaks have occurred in one or two years (e.g. Albian Mine/Muskeg River,
Mannix, and Mildred Lake); For some stations, the concentrations are relatively low and there are no
anomalous short-term peaks (e.g., Horizon, Fort Chipewyan, Athabasca Valley, and Cold Lake
South).
May 2012 Page 3B-30

TABLE 3B-10
1-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 64.1 13.1 5.23 2.62 0 0.87
Conklin 75.9 15.7 5.23 2.62 0 0.93
In-situ
Anzac 181 20.9 7.85 2.62 0 1.41
Christina Lake 76.0 - 2.60 - - 0.70
Jackfish 120 26.2 13.1 7.85 2.62 3.42
Maskwa 115 18.3 7.85 5.23 0 1.48
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 699 60.2 18.3 10.5 0 4.29
Buffalo Viewpoint 657 57.6 13.1 5.23 0 3.30
Horizon 254 49.7 13.1 5.23 0 2.76
Lower Camp 756 73.3 23.6 10.5 2.62 5.23
Mannix 1,845 89.0 28.8 13.1 2.62 6.79
Mildred Lake 1,000 89.0 28.8 13.1 0 6.15
Millennium 754 57.6 18.3 10.5 0 4.31
Syncrude UE1 764 57.6 13.1 5.23 0 3.15
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 220 31.4 10.5 5.23 0 2.31
Cold Lake South 68.8 5.23 2.62 2.09 0 0.55
Patricia McInnes 395 36.6 13.1 5.76 0 2.86
Small Community
Fort McKay 481 52.3 15.7 7.85 0 3.46
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO / NAAQO 450 - - - - 20
LAR Framework Trigger 4 - 94 - - - 20
NOTES:
A more detailed analysis of the variability of the maximum 1-hour concentration for each year at each site
is provided in Table 3B-11. The ratio of the highest maximum in one year to the lowest maximum in
another year can exceed three at most stations except for Fort Chipewyan, Horizon, Lower Camp,
Athabasca Valley, and four in-situ stations (i.e., Anzac, Conklin, jackfish, and Maskwa). While some of
the year-to-year variability can be attributed to meteorological variations, the high variations are likely
due to intermittent upset and/or abnormal emission events.
The Top-25 1-hour concentrations are used to provide a more robust indicator of maximum
concentrations associated with normal emissions by “smoothing out” the intermittent peak contributions.
Table 3B-12 shows the year-to-year variability of the Top-25 1-hour concentrations at each site. The ratio
of the “Max/Min” has been reduced from 3.3 (Table 3B-11) to 2.1. The “Average” values in this table
were used to gauge the performance of the CALPUFF model (see Appendix 3D).
The concentrations measured at the in-situ sites may be representative of what could be measured in
similar proximity to the l Project site.
May 2012 Page 3B-31


Table 3B-13 provides an overview of the 24-hour frequency statistics at each station. The following are
noted:
background SO2 measurements indicated in the table, a representative 24-hour background SO2
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 24-hour SO2 concentrations near
the Project could range from 28 to 40 µg/m3. This is less than the 24-hour AAAQO of 125 µg/m3.
the maximum 24-hour SO2 ranges from 57 to 308 µg/m3. The 24-hour AAAQO of 125 µg/m3 were
exceeded at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River and Mannix stations.
hour SO2 ranges from 7 to 51 µg/m3. The 24-hour AAAQO of 125 µg/m3 was not exceeded at all
stations.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 1-hour SO2 is 63 µg/m3.
The 24-hour AAAQO of 125 µg/m3 was not exceeded.
Figure 3B-15 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station
May 2012 Page 3B-32

Figure 3B-16 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Conklin Station
Figure 3B-17 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Anzac Station
May 2012 Page 3B-33

Figure 3B-18 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Jackfish Station
Figure 3B-19 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Maskwa Station
May 2012 Page 3B-34

Figure 3B-20 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station
Figure 3B-21 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Buffalo Viewpoint Station
May 2012 Page 3B-35

Figure 3B-22 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Horizon Station
Figure 3B-23 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station
May 2012 Page 3B-36

Figure 3B-24 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Mannix Station
Figure 3B-25 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Mildred Lake Station
May 2012 Page 3B-37

Figure 3B-26 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station
Figure 3B-27 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
May 2012 Page 3B-38

Figure 3B-28 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station
Figure 3B-29 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
May 2012 Page 3B-39

Figure 3B-30 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station
Figure 3B-31 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station
May 2012 Page 3B-40

TABLE 3B-11
YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION OF THE MAXIMUM MEASURED 1-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS

3
Monitoring Maximum Measured 1-Hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m )
Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Min Max Average Max/Min
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - 46 34 64 47 52 47 50 47 52 50 47 52 34 64 49 1.9
Conklin - - - - 50 76 - - - - - - - - 50 76 63 1.5
In-Situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 86 92 97 181 175 86 181 126 2.1
Jackfish - - - - - - - - - - - 120 89 - 89 120 105 1.3
Maskwa 39 115 39 115 77 2.9
Conventional
Albian - - - - - 442 699 327 447 217 162 201 167 421 162 699 343 4.3
Mine/Muskeg
River
Buffalo Viewpoint - - 188 481 604 565 267 466 489 319 657 356 322 288 188 657 417 3.5
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 217 254 217 217 254 229 1.2
Lower Camp - - 209 - - 544 369 586 421 526 510 293 330 304 209 586 409 2.8
Mannix - - 440 743 552 366 471 1845 466 518 1798 597 225 515 225 1845 711 8.2
Page 3B-41
Mildred Lake - - 364 589 356 1000 385 453 385 366 625 620 243 246 243 1000 469 4.1
Millennium - - - - - 754 - 447 322 400 555 319 175 251 175 754 403 4.3
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 505 604 353 369 298 764 204 379 204 764 435 3.7
Large Community
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 69 42 21 16 34 16 69 36 4.3
Small
Community
Fort McKay 293 230 246 322 413 167 249 225 330 256 481 280 144 275 144 481 279 3.3
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO/ 450
NAAQO
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a criteria or target are shown in bold text.
3
TABLE 3B-12
YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION OF THE TOP-25 MEASURED 1-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS

3
Average of Top-25 1-Hour measured SO2 Concentration (µg/m )
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - 24 14 30 29 31 30 41 31 36 22 22 41 14 41 29 2.8
Conklin - - - - 20 45 - - - - - - - - 20 45 33 2.3
In-Situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 39 47 58 68 43 39 68 51 1.7
Jackfish - - - - - - - - - - - 27 68 - 27 68 48 2.5
Maskwa - - - - - - - - - - - - 28 52 28 52 40 1.9
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg - - - - - 218 224 146 198 124 119 111 116 167 111 224 158 2.0
River
Buffalo Viewpoint - - 126 156 183 208 150 229 172 160 190 147 172 148 126 229 170 1.8
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 129 148 125 125 148 134 1.2
Lower Camp - - 118 - - 164 203 227 246 264 208 165 155 144 118 264 189 2.2
Mannix - - 158 186 178 175 219 599 309 292 397 258 135 279 135 599 265 4.4
Mildred Lake - - 222 203 252 268 242 196 211 241 254 221 173 173 173 268 221 1.5
Page 3B-42
Millennium - - - - - 163 - 200 182 151 205 167 127 133 127 205 166 1.6
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 160 162 194 172 157 201 106 122 106 201 159 1.9
Large Community
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 16 14 12 12 12 12 16 13 1.3
Small Community
Fort McKay 161 104 116 85 154 87 135 138 182 149 161 155 95 115 85 182 131 2.1
NOTES:
3
TABLE 3B-13
24-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 26.5 9.59 4.21 2.67 0.14 0.87
Conklin 37.9 15.6 3.90 2.28 0 0.92
In-Situ
Anzac 28.1 10.2 5.92 3.87 0.40 1.39
Christina Lake 37.9 - 3.20 - - 0.70
Jackfish 39.3 23.7 11.3 6.83 2.28 3.42
Conventional
Buffalo Viewpoint 92.4 33.1 14.9 8.76 1.14 3.29
Horizon 56.9 26.1 13.6 7.85 0.57 2.74
Lower Camp 96.0 37.3 17.6 12.1 3.07 5.20
Mannix 308 51.3 23.9 16.2 3.19 6.77
Mildred Lake 122 42.6 23.0 15.6 3.07 6.13
Millennium 82.9 30.8 16.5 10.8 2.16 4.29
Syncrude UE1 58.6 27.6 15.0 9.33 0.80 3.13
Large Community
Cold Lake South 7.22 4.11 2.33 1.70 0 0.54
Small Community
Fort McKay 63.1 27.2 14.3 9.44 1.37 3.45
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 125 - - - - -
NAAQO 150 - - - - -
NOTES:
3 3
Values are provided to the nearest 0.1 µg/m or 0.01 µg/m .

Table 3B-14 provides the annual average SO2 concentrations for the individual years at each continuous
station. The following are noted:
• Rural Background: Based on the average and the rural background SO2 measurements indicated in
the table, the representative annual background SO2 concentration is 0.9 µg/m3.
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the annual average SO2 concentrations near the
Project could range from 1.1 to 3.4 µg/m3.
the annual SO2 ranges from 2.8 to 6.8 µg/m3.
• Large Community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, the annual SO2
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the annual SO2 average is 3.5 µg/m3
Table 3B-15 provides the annual average SO2 concentrations for the individual years at each passive
monitoring station. The long-term average concentrations vary from 0.8 to 6.0 µg/m3 for all stations. The
long-term average concentrations vary from 1.5 to 2.4 µg/m3 for four stations (SM7, SM8, PL1, and
May 2012 Page 3B-43

JPL1) close to the Project site. The annual AAAQO, and LAR Framework Triggers were not exceeded at
any of the stations.
The passive monitoring concentrations at the four BlackPearl stations were summarized at Table 3B-16.
The SO2 concentrations are very low. The average concentrations during Sep 2011 – Jan 2012 are less
than 1.0 µg/m3.
A more detailed comparison between collocated continuous and passive data, however, indicates the
continuous values are slightly higher than the passive values (i.e., Continuous = 0.97 x Passive + 0.80,
where the concentrations are in μg/m3). This relationship is based on comparing Anzac, Fort McKay and
Patricia Mclnnes values on a year-by-year basis (2003 to 2010).
May 2012 Page 3B-44

TABLE 3B-14
ANNUAL SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

Year
Full Period (1997
Monitoring Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 – 2010)
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - 1.08 0.59 0.95 0.97 1.14 0.89 0.87 0.80 0.87 0.69 0.73 0.91 0.9
Conklin - - - - 0.49 1.37 - - - - - - - - 0.9
In-situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 1.06 1.48 1.25 1.92 1.29 1.4
Christina Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.1
Jackfish - - - - - - - - - - - 2.16 4.68 - 3.4
Conventional
Buffalo Viewpoint - - 2.70 3.38 3.39 4.66 3.19 4.37 3.19 2.47 3.18 3.14 3.42 2.54 3.3
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 2.84 2.96 2.47 2.8
Lower Camp - - 4.84 - - 5.36 5.45 5.57 5.68 6.59 5.55 4.94 4.82 3.93 5.3
Mannix - - 5.61 5.81 5.21 6.64 7.53 11.2 7.84 7.25 7.21 6.31 4.81 6.03 6.8
Mildred Lake - - 6.22 5.02 7.43 7.32 6.83 5.23 5.83 6.84 6.07 6.89 5.33 4.82 6.2
Page 3B-45
Millennium - - - - - 3.38 - 4.31 4.12 4.40 5.79 5.86 5.01 2.43 4.4
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 3.10 2.79 3.50 3.42 2.66 4.05 2.85 3.26 3.2
Large Community
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 1.31 0.36 0.44 0.22 0.21 0.5
Small Community
Fort McKay 5.89 3.53 3.71 2.44 3.17 2.65 3.12 2.79 4.03 3.85 3.14 3.73 2.88 3.46 3.5
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 20
NAAQO 30
NOTES:
3
TABLE 3B-15
ANNUAL SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE PASSIVE STATIONS

Station 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
205 - - 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.0
210 - - 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.3
212 - - - - 4.7 - - - 4.7
213 - - 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.4
PH6 2.8 2.1 - - - - - - 2.5
AH8 4.8 4.7 - - - - - - 4.8
PL8 0.8 0.8 - - - - - - 0.8
AL8 1.5 2.1 3.7 - - - - - 2.4
AH3 2.1 2.1 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
AH7 4.8 6.5 5.8 3.4 4.7 4.7 4.2 3.7 4.7
AH8-R - - - 1.3 2.1 1.8 2.4 1.6 1.8
BM10 - - - - - 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7
BM11 - - - - - 3.1 2.1 2.6 2.6
BM7 - - - - - 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1
JP212 - - - - - 4.2 4.7 3.1 4.0
JPH2 - - - - 4.2 4.2 4.4 3.9 4.2
JPH4 - - - - 4.4 5.8 5.5 4.7 5.1
JPL1 - - - - 1.8 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.2
JPL7 - - - - 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.4
PH2 4.0 6.5 4.7 4.2 - - - - 4.9
PH4 6.6 5.2 5.8 5.0 7.6 - - - 6.0
PL1 2.0 3.1 2.6 1.8 - - - - 2.4
PL7 2.1 1.8 2.6 1.8 4.2 - - - 2.5
NE10 - - - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
NE11 - - - - - 3.7 2.9 2.9 3.2
NE7 - - - - - 3.7 3.1 2.6 3.1
R2 - - - - - - - 3.9 3.9
SM7 - - - - - 1.3 3.1 1.3 1.9
SM8 - - - - - 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.5
WF4 - - - - - 2.4 1.6 2.1 2.0
AMS1 Fort McKay 3.7 3.4 4.4 3.9 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.7 3.9
AMS6 Patricia McInnes 4.1 4.7 3.4 3.4 5.0 3.1 3.9 3.1 3.8
AMS14 Anzac - - - - - 1.3 2.4 1.8 1.8
Average 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.3 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.7
Minimum 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8
Maximum 6.6 6.5 5.8 5.0 7.6 5.8 5.5 4.7 6.0
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 20
NAAQO 30
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a criterion or target are shown in bold text.
3
May 2012 Page 3B-46

TABLE 3B-16
SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE BLACKPEARL PASSIVE STATIONS

Station Sep 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Average
Blackrod PASS 01-A & 01-B 0.26 0.39 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.60
Blackrod PASS 02-A & 02-B 0.65 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.84
Blackrod PASS 03-A & 03-B 0.52 0.52 1.18 0.92 1.18 0.86
Blackrod PASS 04-A & 04-B 0.65 0.26 0.79 0.79 1.31 0.76
Average 0.52 0.52 0.92 0.82 1.05 0.77
Minimum 0.26 0.26 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.60
Maximum 0.65 0.92 1.18 0.92 1.31 0.86
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 20
NAAQO 30
NOTES:
3
3B.4 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Concentrations

Ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations are routinely measured on a continuous basis at
nine of the 14 WBEA continuous stations and at the LICA Cold Lake South station. Ambient
concentration data are archived as 1-hour averages in units of micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3). The
1-hour Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guideline (AAAQG) and the 24-hour AAAQO for PM2.5 are 80
µg/m3 and 30 µg/m3, respectively.

Table 3B-17 provides an overview of the frequency statistics at the rural background station (i.e., Fort
Chipewyan), in-situ stations (i.e., Anzac), conventional oil sand extraction/upgrading stations (i.e., Albian
Mine/Muskeg River, Horizon, Millennium, and Syncrude UE1 stations), and community stations (i.e.,
Athabasca Valley, Cold Lake South, Patricia McInnes, and Fort McKay). The following are noted:
background PM2.5 measurements indicated in the table, a representative 1-hour background PM2.5
• Others: The maximum 1-hour average PM2.5 concentration at other stations range from 186 to 445
µg/m3. The AAAQG for PM2.5 is 80 µg/m3 and this was exceeded at all these monitoring stations
The high values are often due to abnormal intermittent emission events such as slash burning or wildfires.
Industrial emissions, however, can influence PM2.5 levels in the wintertime (AENV 2009).
May 2012 Page 3B-47

TABLE 3B-17
1-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) MEASURED AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 269 17.4 7.60 5.70 1.70 2.75
In-situ
Anzac 225 25.0 12.2 8.90 3.00 4.38
Conventional
Horizon 289 28.9 16.3 12.2 5.10 6.74
Millennium 354 38.0 19.9 14.3 4.10 6.47
Syncrude UE1 445 24.1 12.5 8.90 2.20 3.80
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 267 27.3 14.5 10.9 4.10 5.42
Cold Lake South 355 20.9 12.9 9.90 3.30 4.52
Small Community
Fort McKay 228 27.3 15.0 11.3 3.60 5.16
Ambient Criteria
AAAQG 80 - - - - -
NOTES:
Figures 3B-32 to 3B-41 show the 1-hour PM2.5 concentration time series plots at same stations. The
• There is a seasonal variation with the highest values occurring during the summer period and the
lowest values during the winter period. This is largely due to the wildfire and long-range transport
during the summer.
• For some stations, short-term peaks occur frequently nearly every year (e.g., Mine/Muskeg River,
Fort Chipewyan, Fort McKay, Athabasca Valley, Patricia McInnes, and Anzac). While for others,
anomalously high peaks have occurred in one or two years (e.g. Horizon, Millennium Mine, and
Syncrude UE1).
.
May 2012 Page 3B-48

Figure 3B-32 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station
Figure 3B-33 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Anzac Station
May 2012 Page 3B-49

Figure 3B-34 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station
Figure 3B-35 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Horizon Station
May 2012 Page 3B-50

Figure 3B-36 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station
Figure 3B-37 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
May 2012 Page 3B-51

Figure 3B-38 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Mine Station
Figure 3B-39 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
May 2012 Page 3B-52

Figure 3B-40 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station
Figure 3B-41 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station
A more detailed analysis of the variability of the maximum 1-hour concentration in each year at each site
is provided in Table 3B-18. The ratio of the highest maximum in one year to the lowest maximum in
May 2012 Page 3B-53

another year exceeded 3.0 at all stations except for Millennium. While some year-to-year variability can
be attributed to meteorological variations, the high variations are likely due to the previously indicated
abnormal intermittent emission events.
The Top-25 1-hour concentrations are used to provide a more robust indicator of maximum
concentrations associated with normal emissions by “smoothing out” the intermittent contributions.
Table 3B-19 shows the year-to-year variability of the Top-25 concentrations at each site. The ratio of the
“Max/Min” has been reduced from 5.7 (Table 3B-18) to 3.4. The “Average” values in this table were used
to gauge the performance of the CALPUFF model (see Appendix 3D).
May 2012 Page 3B-54

TABLE 3B-18
YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION OF THE MAXIMUM MEASURED 1-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum 1-Hour Measured PM2.5 Concentrations
3
(µg/m )
Monitoring Max/
Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Min Max Average Min
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - - - 58 119 49 76 97 214 144 89 23 269 23 269 114 11.7
In-situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - - 225 66 151 82 66 225 131 3.4
Conventional
Albian - - - - - 186 53 71 182 157 164 101 177 133 53 186 136 3.5
Mine/Muskeg River
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 99 82 289 82 289 157 3.5
Millennium - - - - - 176 - 179 252 92 - 176 190 197 92 252 180 2.7
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 445 67 64 157 95 61 94 86 61 445 134 7.3
Large Community
Athabasca Valley - 265 133 121 267 239 48 189 121 226 126 131 102 87 48 267 158 5.6
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 81 34 93 55 355 34 355 123 10.4
Page 3B-55
Small Community
Fort McKay - - 102 48 86 204 81 75 73 138 142 68 79 98 48 204 100 4.3
Ambient Criteria
AAAQG 80
NOTES:
3
AAAQG is 80 µg/m .
3
TABLE 3B-19
YEAR-TO-YEAR VARIATION OF THE TOP-25 MEASURED 1-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

Average of Top-25 1-Hour Measured PM2.5 Concentrations
3
(µg/m )
Max/
Monitoring Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Min Max Average Min
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - - - 22 53 31 55 52 97 89 66 18 138 18 138 62 7.7
In-situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - - 75 47 73 58 47 75 63 1.6
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River - - - - - 101 39 53 72 75 73 68 84 80 39 101 72 2.6
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 62 40 103 40 103 68 2.6
Millennium - - - - - 106 - 75 111 70 - 84 92 88 70 111 89 1.6
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 70 44 41 68 64 47 55 61 41 70 56 1.7
Large Community
Athabasca Valley - 134 75 42 86 111 33 46 52 108 79 63 58 54 33 134 72 4.1
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 32 22 52 32 114 22 114 50 5.2
Page 3B-56
Small Community
Fort McKay - - 39 34 45 113 56 54 47 61 71 48 47 65 34 113 57 3.3
NOTES:
3

Chipewyan), in-situ station (i.e. Anzac), conventional oil sand extraction/upgrading stations (i.e., Albian
Mine/Muskeg River, Horizon, Millennium, and Syncrude UE1 stations), and community stations (i.e.,
Athabasca Valley, Cold Lake South, Patricia McInnes, and Fort McKay). The following are noted:
background PM2.5 measurements indicated in the table, a representative 24-hour background PM2.5
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 24-hour PM2.5 concentration near
the Project is 77 µg/m3. This is large than the 24-hour AAAQG of 30 µg/m3.
the maximum 24-hour PM2.5 ranges from 60 to 73 µg/m3. The 24-hour AAAQG of 30 µg/m3 was
exceeded at all stations.
hour PM2.5 ranges from 78 to 79 µg/m3. The 24-hour AAAQG of 30 µg/m3 was exceeded at all
stations.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 1-hour PM2.5 is 84
µg/m3. The 24-hour AAAQG of 30 µg/m3 was exceeded
Alberta Environment (2009) examined PM2.5 concentrations at various locations across Alberta for the
period 2001 to 2007 where natural or transboundary contributions were factored out. Table 3B-20
provides the information as summarized by Alberta Environment. The 98th percentile values are provided
to be consistent with the Canada Wide Standard (CWS) of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME 2000). Similarly, three-year rolling averages are also provided to be consistent with
the form of the CWS. The summary data indicate:
• No exceedances of the CWS or the Exceedance Trigger (30 µg/m3).
• No exceedances of the Alberta Environment Planning Trigger (20 µg/m3).
• No exceedances of the Alberta Environment Surveillance Trigger (15 µg/m3).
Alberta Environment (2009) concluded their analysis by stating all stations in the WBEA airshed are
“assigned a Baseline Monitoring action level” and that “particulate levels in northern Alberta are largely
driven by forest fire smoke influence”. However, Alberta Environment also notes industrial activities in
the area “influence PM2.5 levels during in the wintertime during periods of stagnant winds”.
Figures 3B-42 to 3B-51 show the 24-hour PM2.5 concentration time series plots at the same stations. The
Alberta Exceedance, Planning, and Surveillance triggers are shown in the figures. The concentration data
in these figures do not have natural and/or transboundary contributions factored out. The values show
periodic occurrences when the maximum 24-hour concentrations have exceeded the Exceedance Trigger,
the Planning Trigger, and the Surveillance Trigger metrics.
May 2012 Page 3B-57

TABLE 3B-20
24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) MEASURED AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 96.4 15.6 10.5 5.25 1.88 2.78
In-situ
Anzac 77.0 20.3 15.5 8.61 3.40 4.45
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 62.3 22.7 18.7 11.2 4.86 5.93
Horizon 72.9 21.5 17.7 11.7 5.63 6.79
Millennium 60.2 26.4 20.8 12.7 5.00 6.43
Syncrude UE1 63.7 16.3 13.4 7.48 2.87 3.82
Large Community
Cold Lake South 79.1 17.3 14.6 8.46 3.67 4.50
Small Community
Fort McKay 83.5 20.2 16.0 9.81 4.19 5.16
Ambient Criteria
AAAQG 30 - - - - -
NAAQO 15 - - - - -
CWS - - 30 - - -
AENV Exceedance - - 30 - - -
AENV Planning - - 20 - - -
AENV Surveillance - - 15 - - -
NOTES:
TABLE 3B-21
24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE CONTINUOUS MONITORING STATIONS BY

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT
th
98 Percentile
3
Monitoring Station (µg/m ) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 1-year 7.6 11.0 7.8 13.6 12.2 10.5 10.2
3-year - - 7.7 10.7 11.2 12.1 10.9
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 1-year 17.5 12.1 12.7 11.0 11.7 12.8 14.9
3-year - - 12.4 11.9 11.8 11.8 13.1
Millennium 1-year 10.7 12.6 7.5 11.8 14.3 17.0 18.8
3-year - - - 12.2 13.1 13.1 -
Syncrude UE1 1-year - 10.9 12.8 13.5 13.0 13.3 12.1
3-year - - - 13.1 13.1 13.3 12.8
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 1-year 17.5 16.2 11.3 11.1 12.7 15.0 14.2
3-year - - 15.0 12.9 11.7 12.9 13.9
Cold Lake South 1-year - - - - - 11.0 9.2
3-year - - - - - - 10.1
Patricia McInnes 1-year 14.3 14.2 11.6 11.4 9.4 13.1 13.2
3-year - - 13.3 12.4 11.5 12.2 13.2
May 2012 Page 3B-58

TABLE 3B-21 Cont’d

th
98 Percentile
3
Monitoring Station (µg/m ) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Small Community
Fort McKay 1-year 14.6 12.7 14.8 9.4 12.5 13.3 14.6
3-year - - 14.0 12.3 12.2 11.7 13.5
Ambient Criteria
CWS 30
Alberta Framework 30
Triggers for Exceedance
Triggers for Planning
Triggers for Surveillance
NOTES:
3
Bold values indicate an exceedance of the surveillance trigger of 15 µg/m .
SOURCE: Alberta Environment 2009
Figure 3B-42 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station
May 2012 Page 3B-59

Figure 3B-43 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Anzac Station
Figure 3B-44 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station
May 2012 Page 3B-60

Figure 3B-45 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations at the Horizon Station
Figure 3B-46 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station
May 2012 Page 3B-61

Figure 3B-47 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
Figure 3B-48 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station
May 2012 Page 3B-62

Figure 3B-49 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
Figure 3B-50 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station
May 2012 Page 3B-63

Figure 3B-51 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station

Table 3B-22 provides the annual average PM2.5 concentrations for the individual years at each continuous
station. The following are noted:
• Rural Background: Based on the average and the rural background PM2.5 measurements indicated in
the table, the representative annual background PM2.5 concentration is 2.8 µg/m3.
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the annual PM2.5 concentrations near the Project
is 3.9 µg/m3.
the annual PM2.5 ranges from 3.9 to 6.8 µg/m3.
• Large Community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, the annual PM2.5
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the annual average PM2.5 is 4.9 µg/m3
May 2012 Page 3B-64

TABLE 3B-22
ANNUAL PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

Year
Full Period
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - - - 4.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.3 3.7 2.8
In-situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - - 5.1 3.5 3.3 3.8 3.9
Conventional
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 7.1 5.7 7.5 6.8
Millennium - - - - - 4.3 - 4.7 4.7 5.9 - 7.8 8.3 9.8 6.5
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 3.6 3.2 3.4 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.8 4.8 3.9
Large Community
Athabasca Valley - 9.3 7.3 6.3 6.9 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.5 4.5 5.2 5.6 4.2 4.7 5.4
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - 2.5 3.5 3.2 3.7 5.7 6.8 4.2
Small Community
Page 3B-65
Fort McKay - - 5.9 6.3 6.6 5.0 5.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 5.0 4.0 4.7 4.9
NOTES:
Values are provided to two significant figures.
3B.5 Ozone (O3) Concentrations

Ambient ozone (O3) concentrations are routinely measured on a continuous basis at six continuous
stations. Ambient concentration data are archived as 1-hour averages in concentration units of ppm. These
units, for the purposes of this assessment, were converted into units of µg/m3. Note: 1 ppm = 1,951 µg/m3.
The 1-hour AAAQO is 160 µg/m3.

Chipewyan), in-situ station (i.e., Anzac), conventional oil sands extraction/upgrading stations (i.e.,
Syncrude UE1), and community stations (i.e., Anthabasca Valley, Cold lake South, Patricia Mclnnes, and
Fort McKay). The following are noted:
background O3 measurements indicated in the table, the background O3 concentration is 79 µg/m3
(about 40 ppb).
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 1-hour O3 concentrations near the
Project could be 171 µg/m3. This exceeded the 1-hour AAAQO of 170 µg/m3.
• Conventional: Based on measurements near existing extraction and upgrading operations, the
maximum 1-hour O3 concentration is 159 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 160 µg/m3 was not
exceeded, but 1-hour NAAQO of 100 µg/m3 was exceeded.
O3 ranges from 130 to 171 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 160 µg/m3 was exceeded at the Fort
McMurray Athabasca and Patricia Mclnnes stations.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 1-hour O3 is 165 µg/m3.
The 1-hour AAAQO of 160 µg/m3 was exceeded.
Figures 3B-52 to 3B-58 show the 1-hour O3 concentration time series at the same stations. On a seasonal
basis, high concentrations typically occur in the spring (March to May period), which has been attributed
to westerly air flow over the Rocky Mountains or large-scale frontal activity that brings ozone rich air
from upper elevations to the ground (AENV 2009). The short-term, intermittent exceedances tend to
occur during the summer period.
TABLE 3B-23
1-HOUR O3 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 130 98.1 84.4 78.5 53.0 54.4
In-situ
Anzac 171 106 90.3 80.5 49.1 49.8
Conventional
Syncrude UE1 159 100 84.4 74.6 35.3 37.3
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 171 100 84.4 72.6 33.4 37.2
Cold Lake South 130 112 95.2 84.4 49.1 49.0
May 2012 Page 3B-66

TABLE 3B-23 Cont'd

th th th th
Small Community
Fort McKay 165 100 84.4 74.6 39.3 40.9
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 160 - - - - -
NAAQO 100 - - - - -
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a criterion or target are shown in bold text.
Figure 3B-52 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station
May 2012 Page 3B-67

Figure 3B-53 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Anzac Station
Figure 3B-54 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
May 2012 Page 3B-68

Figure 3B-55 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station
Figure 3B-56 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
May 2012 Page 3B-69

Figure 3B-57 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station
Figure 3B-58 1-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station
May 2012 Page 3B-70


Alberta Environment (2009) examined O3 concentrations at various locations across Alberta for the
period 2001 to 2007 where natural or transboundary contributions were factored out. Table 3B-24
provides the monitoring information summarized by Alberta Environment. The 4th highest values are
provided to be consistent with the form of the Canada Wide Standard (CWS). Similarly, three-year rolling
averages are also provided to be consistent with the form of the CWS. The summary data indicate:
• No exceedances of the CWS (128 µg/m3) or the Alberta Environment Exceedance Trigger
(128 µg/m3).
• No exceedances of the Alberta Environment Planning Trigger (113 µg/m3).
Alberta Environment (2009) concluded their analysis by stating all stations in the WBEA and LICA
airsheds are assigned a Surveillance Actions level and that stations in the airsheds can be influenced by
wildfires in the summertime. Alberta Environment also notes that anthropogenic ozone episodes in the
Fort McMurray region can occur during periods of hot summertime weather.
Figures 3B-59 to 3B-65 show the maximum 8-hour PM2.5 concentration time series plots at Fort
Chipewyan, Syncrude UE1, Athabasca Valley, Cold Lake South, Patricia McInnes, and Fort McKay,
respectively. The Alberta Exceedance and Planning triggers are shown in the figures. The concentration
data in these figures do not have natural and/or transboundary contributions factored out. The values show
periodic occurrences when the maximum 8-hour concentrations exceed the Exceedance Trigger and the
Planning Trigger.

Table 3B-25 provides annual O3 concentrations at six stations in each year. The following are noted:
• Rural Background: Based on the measurements indicated in the table, the annual background O3
concentration is about 54 µg/m3.
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the annual O3 concentrations near the Project is
about 50 µg/m3.
• Conventional: Based on measurements near existing extraction and upgrading operations, the annual
O3 is about 38µg/m3.
• Large Community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, the annual O3 ranges
from 37 to 47 µg/m3.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the annual O3 concentration is 41 µg/m3.
Table 3B-26 provides the annual average ozone concentrations for the individual years based on the
passive monitoring. The period averages based on the passive data range from 30.3 µg/m3 to 57.5 µg/m3.
May 2012 Page 3B-71

TABLE 3B-24
MAXIMUM 8-HOUR O3 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

8-hour
Concentration
3
Station (µg/m ) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Rural Background
th
Fort Chipewyan 1-year (4 highest) 97 107 108 111 97 104 101
3-year - - 108 109 105 104 101
Conventional
th
Syncrude UE1 1-year (4 highest) - 63 113 98 101 109 112
3-year - - - 105 104 102 107
Large Community
th
Athabasca Valley 1-year (4 highest) 97 106 110 99 103 110 104
3-year - - 104 105 104 104 105
th
Cold Lake South 1-year (4 highest) - - - - - 111 112
3-year - - - - - - -
th
Patricia McInnes 1-year (4 highest) 106 109 105 94 105 108 103
3-year - - 107 102 101 102 105
Small Community
th
Fort McKay 1-year (4 highest) 99 100 121 94 107 105 108
3-year - - 107 105 108 102 107
Ambient Criteria
CWS 127
Alberta Framework Triggers 127
for Exceedance
Alberta Framework Triggers 113
for Planning
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a criteria r target are shown in bold text.
th
The 1-year values represent the 4 highest day based on the maximum 8-hour average for that day.
th
The 3-year average value represents the average of the 4 highest 8-hour averages for the three worst days in each of the 3 years.
SOURCE: Alberta Environment 2009
May 2012 Page 3B-72

Figure 3B-59 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort Chipewyan Station
Figure 3B-60 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Anzac Station
May 2012 Page 3B-73

Figure 3B-61 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
Figure 3B-62 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station
May 2012 Page 3B-74

Figure 3B-63 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
Figure 3B-64 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Patricia Mclnnes Station
May 2012 Page 3B-75

Figure 3B-65 Maximum 8-Hour O3 Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station
May 2012 Page 3B-76

TABLE 3B-25
ANNUAL O3 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

Year
Full Period (1997
Monitoring Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 – 2010)
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan - - 53.2 53.9 56.8 55.1 57.9 58.9 51.6 55.6 53.2 52.9 49.8 53.9 54.4
In-situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 48.7 45.8 50.5 53.2 50.8 49.8
Conventional
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 41.4 40.9 36.2 37.7 37.6 34.0 36.0 37.9 37.7
Large Community
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - 36.2 48.9 51.6 50.9 48.7 46.7 47.2
Small Community
Fort McKay - 44.8 41.3 38.7 40.6 38.2 44.3 44.1 39.3 41.8 41.1 39.2 39.2 39.9 41.0
NOTES:
Page 3B-77

TABLE 3B-26
ANNUAL O3 CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE PASSIVE SITES

Station 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
205 - - 40.4 61.7 48.4 62.0 49.1 51.2 52.1
210 - - 37.7 56.2 53.7 58.1 49.3 49.1 50.7
212 - - - - 35.5 - - - 35.5
213 - - 43.9 60.7 55.0 65.0 53.8 54.4 55.5
PH6 50.9 54.0 - - - - - - 52.5
AH8 57.2 57.8 - - - - - - 57.5
PL8 45.7 53.3 - - - - - - 49.5
AL8 48.0 63.4 42.1 - - - - - 51.2
AH3 57.8 58.9 50.9 56.2 54.0 59.5 48.5 48.1 54.2
AH7 57.3 62.2 53.7 58.9 54.0 60.7 50.4 50.4 56.0
AH8-R - - - 48.8 45.5 49.2 42.2 39.6 45.1
BM10 - - - - - 34.9 45.3 39.6 39.9
BM11 - - - - - 43.5 52.8 46.7 47.7
BM7 - - - - - 47.4 57.5 51.4 52.1
JP212 - - - - - 42.1 34.5 34.1 36.9
JPH2 - - - - 40.4 54.2 48.7 43.2 46.6
JPH4 - - - - 39.6 52.5 47.1 39.4 44.7
JPL1 - - - - 46.4 62.2 51.4 49.3 52.3
JPL7 - - - - 44.3 57.8 51.2 45.5 49.7
PH2 50.7 52.5 47.8 52.5 - - - - 50.9
PH4 56.1 55.0 47.4 52.5 64.8 - - - 55.2
PL1 56.5 60.5 53.5 57.6 - - - - 57.0
PL7 53.1 58.3 50.0 54.4 61.1 - - - 55.4
NE10 - - - - - 39.8 46.1 42.0 42.6
NE11 - - - - - 31.6 41.4 35.9 36.3
NE7 - - - - - 37.9 49.1 44.9 44.0
R2 - - - - - - 26.3 34.3 30.3
SM7 - - - - - 45.9 54.0 47.5 49.1
SM8 - - - - - 44.5 55.7 47.7 49.3
WF4 - - - - - 39.4 39.1 35.1 37.9
AMS1 Fort McKay 40.3 50.1 41.0 42.5 42.5 41.0 37.1 35.7 41.3
AMS6 Patricia McInnes 45.7 54.4 46.4 45.1 52.1 46.2 45.5 42.4 47.2
AMS14 Anzac - - - - - 45.3 44.0 42.2 43.8
Average 50.0 55.6 46.3 52.4 49.1 48.6 45.9 44.1 47.5
Minimum 40.3 50.1 37.7 42.5 35.5 31.6 26.3 34.1 30.3
Maximum 57.8 63.4 53.7 61.7 64.8 65.0 57.5 54.4 57.5
NOTES:
3
May 2012 Page 3B-78

3B.6 Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) and Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS)

Concentrations
Ambient hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) measurements are discussed
collectively in this section. While ambient H2S and TRS concentrations have been measured on a
continuous basis at most of the stations, the respective lengths of records tend to favour either H2S or TRS
at each station.
TRS includes H2S and other sulphur compounds such as methyl sulphide, dimethyl sulphide, methyl
mercaptan, and other mercaptans. As there is no AAAQO for TRS, and since most of the TRS is often in
the form of H2S, the measured TRS values are often informally compared to the AAAQO for H2S. For
this assessment, the H2S AAAQOs were assumed applicable to both H2S and TRS (14 µg/m3 as a 1-hour
average and 4 µg/m3 as a 24-hour average).
Ambient H2S and TRS concentration data are archived as 1-hour averages in concentration units of ppb.
These units, for the purposes of this assessment, were converted into units of µg/m3. Note: 1 ppb = 1.4
µg/m3 based on H2S.

Tables 3B-27 and 3B-28 provide an overview of the 1-hour frequency statistics at the rural background
station (i.e., Conklin), in-situ stations (i.e., Anzac, Christina Lake, and Maskwa), conventional oil sands
extraction/upgrading stations (i.e., Buffalo Viewpoint, Barge Landing, Horizon, Lower Camp, Mannix,
Mildred Lake, Millennium, and Syncrude UE1 stations), and the community stations (i.e., Athabasca
Valley, Cold Lake South, Patricia McInnes, and Fort McKay). The following are noted:
background H2S measurements indicated in the table, a representative 1-hour background H2S
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 1-hour H2S concentrations near the
Project could range from 10 to 13 µg/m3, which is less than the 1-hour AAAQO of 14 µg/m3. The
maximum 1-hour TRS concentration near the Project is 53 µg/m3, which exceeded the AAAQO of 14
µg/m3.
the maximum 1-hour H2S ranges from 10 to 139 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 14 µg/m3 was
exceeded at all stations except for Syncrude UE1 station. The maximum 1-hour TRS concentration
near the Project range from 12 to 140 µg/m3, which exceeded the AAAQO of 14 µg/m3 at all stations
except for Lower Camp.
• Large Community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray Patricia Mclnnes, the
maximum 1-hour H2S ranges from about 4 to 6 µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 14 µg/m3 was not
exceeded at the two stations. The maximum 1-hour TRS concentrations range from about 13 to 21
µg/m3. The 1-hour AAAQO of 14 µg/m3 was exceeded at Athabasca Valley and Patricia Mclnnes.
• Small Community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 1-hour H2S is about 7
µg/m3, which was less than the 1-hour AAAQO of 14 µg/m3. The maximum 1-hour TRS
concentration is about 71 µg/m3, which exceeded the 1-hour AAAQO of 14 µg/m3.
May 2012 Page 3B-79

TABLE 3B-27
1-HOUR H2S CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

H2S Statistical Descriptor
th th th th
Rural Background
Conklin 4.17 1.39 1.39 0 0 0.081
In-situ
Christina Lake 9.80 - 1.40 - - 0.100
Maskwa 12.5 1.39 0 0 0 0.070
Conventional
Lower Camp 133 11.1 4.17 2.78 0.00 1.29
Mannix 139 13.9 5.56 2.78 0.00 1.24
Mildred Lake 139 18.1 5.56 2.78 0.00 1.39
Millennium 16.7 5.56 2.78 1.39 0.00 0.655
Syncrude UE1 9.73 4.17 1.39 1.39 0.00 0.266
Large Community
Small Community
Fort McKay 6.95 2.78 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.162
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 14 - - - - -
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a criteria are shown in bold-face font.
TABLE 3B-28
1-HOUR TRS CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

TRS Statistical Descriptor
th th th th
In-situ
Anzac 52.8 2.78 1.39 1.39 0.00 0.363
Conventional
Barge Landing 140 4.17 2.78 1.39 0.629 0.629
Horizon 25.0 1.39 1.39 1.39 0.00 0.470
Lower Camp 12.5 9.73 2.78 1.39 0.00 0.807
Millennium 70.9 11.1 4.17 2.78 0.00 1.19
Syncrude UE1 37.5 4.17 2.78 1.39 0.00 0.530
Large Community
Cold Lake South 12.5 1.39 0.695 0.556 0 0.147
Small Community
Fort McKay 70.9 5.56 2.78 1.39 0.00 0.833
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 14 - - - - -
NOTES:
May 2012 Page 3B-80

Figures 3B-66 to 3B-80 show time series 1-hour H2S and/or TRS concentrations at the same stations. The
short-term peak H2S/TRS concentrations occur frequently nearly every year. However, it is noted that the
high frequencies of peak H2S/TRS concentrations were observed for year 2009 nearly for all stations
(except for Anzac). This is likely due to tailings pond reclamation activities that took place during this
period.
For most recent year 2010, 1-hour H2S AAAQO exceedances were measured at four WBEA stations as
follows: Buffalo Viewpoint (12 hours), Lower Camp (74 hours), Mannix (176 hours), Mildred Lake (192
hours); 1-hour TRS AAAQO exceedances were measured at five WBEA stations as follows: Barge
Landing (5 hours), Millennium (148 hours), Fort McKay (5 hours), Athabasca Valley (1 hour), and Anzac
(1 hour).
Figure 3B-66 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Conklin Station
May 2012 Page 3B-81

Figure 3B-67 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Anzac Station
Figure 3B-68 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Maskwa Station
May 2012 Page 3B-82

Figure 3B-69 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Buffalo Viewpoint Station
Figure 3B-70a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station
May 2012 Page 3B-83

Figure 3B-70b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station
Figure 3B-71 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Mannix Station
May 2012 Page 3B-84

Figure 3B-72 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Mildred Lake Station
Figure 3B-73a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station
May 2012 Page 3B-85

Figure 3B-73b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Millennium Mine Station
Figure 3B-74a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
May 2012 Page 3B-86

Figure 3B-74b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
Figure 3B-75 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Barge Landing Station
May 2012 Page 3B-87

Figure 3B-76 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Horizon Station
Figure 3B-77a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station
May 2012 Page 3B-88

Figure 3B-77b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station
Figure 3B-78 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
May 2012 Page 3B-89

Figure 3B-79a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station
Figure 3B-79b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station
May 2012 Page 3B-90

Figure 3B-80a 1-Hour H2S Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station
Figure 3B-80b 1-Hour TRS Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station
May 2012 Page 3B-91


A summary of the 24-hour H2S and TRS concentrations is provided in Table 3B-29. The 24-hour
AAAQO of 4.0 µg/m3 was exceeded at five H2S stations, and at six TRS stations. The maximum 24-hour
average H2S concentrations ranged from 1.51 µg/m3 at the Athabasca Valley station to 38.3 µg/m3 at the
Mildred Lake station. The maximum 24-hour average TRS concentrations ranged from 2.54 µg/m3 at the
Horizon station to 19.7 µg/m3 at the Millennium Station.

A summary of the annual H2S and TRS concentrations is provided in Table 3B-30. The period averages
are in the 0.07 to 1.39 µg/m3 range for H2S and in the 0.21 to 1.26 µg/m3 range for TRS. There is no
annual AAAQO for H2S or TRS.
Table 3B-31 provides the annual average H2S concentrations for the individual years at the four passive
stations. There is large year-to-year variability in the annual average values for the MacKay River MK1
and MacKay River MK4 stations. The period average at the four sites is in the 0.14 to 0.20 µg/m3 range.
Table 3B-32 provides H2S observations at the four BlackPearl stations for the period of Sep 2011 – Jan
2012. The average concentrations are in the 0.10 to 0.13 0.20 µg/m3 range.
May 2012 Page 3B-92

TABLE 3B-29
24-HOUR H2S AND TRS CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

H2S Statistical Descriptor
th th th th
Rural Background
Conklin 1.75 1.03 0.583 0.260 0 0.082
In-situ
Christina Lake 2.80 - 0.6000 - - 0.100
Maskwa 1.93 0.809 0.423 0.242 0 0.070
Conventional
Lower Camp 34.2 7.17 3.63 2.59 0.967 1.29
Mannix 36.7 10.2 4.00 2.66 0.725 1.24
Mildred Lake 38.3 13.0 4.96 3.08 0.665 1.39
Millennium 5.14 3.91 2.05 1.63 0.423 0.654
Syncrude UE1 2.78 1.98 1.15 0.846 0.0604 0.270
Large Community
Page 3B-93

Small Community
Fort McKay 3.48 1.55 0.927 0.637 0.00 0.161
TRS Statistical Descriptor
th th th th
In-situ
Anzac 7.37 2.19 1.33 1.15 0.121 0.362
Conventional
Barge Landing 12.5 3.34 1.93 1.48 0.628 0.379
Horizon 2.54 1.51 1.39 1.27 0.323 0.472
Lower Camp 3.69 3.32 1.87 1.49 0.665 0.817
Millennium 19.7 6.98 3.51 2.57 0.907 1.18
Syncrude UE1 5.98 3.24 1.81 1.39 0.242 0.529
Large Community
Cold Lake South 1.95 1.24 0.689 0.562 0 0.147
Small Community
Fort McKay 11.5 3.65 2.24 1.75 0.665 0.834
Ambient Criteria
AAAQO 4 - - - - -
NOTES:
TABLE 3B-30
ANNUAL H2S AND TRS CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) MEASURED AT THE MONITORING STATIONS
Year (H2S)
Full Period
Rural Background
Conklin - - - - 0.12 0.05 - - - - - - - - 0.09
In-situ
Christina Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.10
Maskwa - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.06 0.08 0.07
Conventional
Lower Camp - - 1.50 - - 0.81 1.13 0.91 0.71 1.18 1.39 1.47 2.53 1.47 1.31
Mannix - - 0.69 0.98 0.90 0.99 0.76 0.82 0.54 1.45 1.62 1.34 3.18 1.66 1.24
Mildred Lake - - 0.65 1.05 0.79 0.65 0.70 0.77 1.00 1.46 1.81 2.14 3.91 1.78 1.39
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 0.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.19
Small Community
Fort McKay 0.16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.16
Page 3B-94
Year (TRS)
Full Period
In-situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 0.22 0.84 0.42 0.11 0.22 0.36
Conventional
Barge Landing - - - - - 0.29 0.72 0.69 0.78 0.89 0.49 0.36 0.92 0.71 0.65
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 0.22 0.56 0.63 0.47
Millennium - - - - - 0.09 - - 0.68 1.24 1.58 1.63 1.95 1.66 1.26
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 0.26 - 0.56 0.74 0.81 0.65 0.54 0.18 0.54
Large Community
Athabasca Valley - 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.31 1.29 1.18 0.63 1.14 0.96 0.90 0.84 0.81 0.67
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 0.51 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.002 0.13
Patricia McInnes - - 0.12 0.11 0.25 0.15 0.48 0.55 - 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.18 0.21
Small Community
Fort McKay - 0.29 0.38 0.48 0.50 0.69 0.95 0.48 0.64 1.28 1.50 1.27 1.25 1.05 0.83
Ambient Criteria
Fort McKay Target 1
NOTES:
Concentrations that exceed a target are shown in bold-face font.
“–” means no observational data or no full year observational data.
3
Values are given to the nearest 0.01 µg/m .
TABLE 3B-31
ANNUAL H2S CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE PASSIVE STATIONS

Station 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
Average 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.14 0.16
Minimum 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Maximum 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.19
NOTES:
Only these four passive sites measure H2S concentration.
3
TABLE 3B-32
H2S CONCENTRATIONS (µg/m3) AT THE BLACKPEARL PASSIVE STATIONS

Station Sep 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Average
Blackrod PASS 01-A & 01-B 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.10
Blackrod PASS 02-A & 02-B 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.10
Blackrod PASS 03-A & 03-B 0.07 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.16 0.13
Blackrod PASS 04-A & 04-B 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.11
Average 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.11
Minimum 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.10
Maximum 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.13
NOTES:
3
3B.7 Total Hydrocarbon Compound (THC) Concentrations

Total Hydrocarbon Compound (THC) concentrations are routinely measured on a continuous basis at 13 stations.
Total hydrocarbon compound includes methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and higher molecular mass
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The reported global background methane concentration is in the 1.9 to
2.0 ppm range. Ambient concentration data are archived as 1-hour averages in concentration units of ppm. These
units were used for this assessment. There are no AAAQO for ground-level THC concentrations.

Table 3B-33 provides an overview of the 1-hour frequency statistics at the in-situ stations (i.e., Anzac and
Maskwa), the conventional oil sands extraction/upgrading stations (i.e., Albian Mine/Muskeg River, Barge
Landing, Buffalo Viewpoint, Horizon, Lower Camp, Mannix, Mildred Lake, Millennium, and Syncrude UE1
stations), and community stations (i.e., Athabasca Valley, Cold Lake South, Patricia Mclnnes, and Fort McKay).
The following are noted:
• In-situ: Based on the in-situ station measurements, the maximum 1-hour THC concentrations near the
Project range from 3.8 to 4.1 ppm.
• Conventional: Based on measurements near existing mining, extraction and upgrading operations, the
maximum 1-hour THC ranges from about 11 to 50 ppm.
May 2012 Page 3B-95

• Large community: Based on measurements in Cold Lake and Fort McMurray, the maximum 1-hour THC
ranges from 6.3 to 7.7 ppm.
• Small community: Based on measurements in Fort McKay, the maximum 1-hour THC is about 11 ppm.
Figures 3B-81 to 3B-95 show concentration time series plots of 1-hour THC concentrations at the same stations.
Generally, the peak THC concentrations are less than 4 ppm except for mine area, where the peak THC
concentrations generally are up to 5 to 6 ppm (Albian Mine/Muskeg River and Millennium).

A summary of the annual THC concentrations is provided in Table 3B-34. The long-term average concentrations
range from 2.00 to 2.35 ppm at the conventional oil sand extraction/upgrading stations, from 1.94 to 2.03 ppm at
the community stations, and from 1.94 to 2.02 at the in-situ stations.
3B.7.3 Hydrocarbon Speciation

WBEA collects 24-hour HC samples measured at one in-situ station (Anzac), four conventional stations (i.e.,
Barge Landing, Horizon, Millennium Mine, and Syncrude UE1) and three community stations (i.e., Fort McKay,
Athabasca Valley, and Patricia Mclnnes). Selected hydrocarbon speciation is provided in the WBEA annual
reports, specifically, the annual reports identify the hydrocarbon compounds with the highest concentrations, and
the maximum 24h averages are summarized in Table 3B-35. The information in Table 3B-35 shows an increasing
temporal trend. The increase trend observed at the industry stations is more significant than at the community
stations. Most species show the maximum in the year 2009. The Benzene (87.51 µg/m3) and Toluene (154.5
µg/m3) are the highest at Barge Landing in 2009.
TABLE 3B-33
1-HOUR THC CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) MEASURED AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

th th th th
In-situ
Anzac 3.8 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.9
Maskwa 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.1
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 49.9 4.3 3.0 2.6 2.1 2.2
Barge Landing 30.8 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.0
Horizon 10.9 3.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.0
Lower Camp 13.2 3.3 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.1
Mannix 10.5 3.2 2.5 2.3 1.9 2.0
Mildred Lake 18.2 3.9 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.2
Millennium 15.5 5.2 3.5 2.9 2.1 2.3
Syncrude UE1 15.4 3.6 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.1
Large Community
Cold Lake South 7.7 3.4 2.7 2.5 1.9 2.0
Small Community
Fort McKay 11.1 3.0 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.9
NOTES:
3
May 2012 Page 3B-96

Figure 3B-81 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Anzac Station
Figure 3B-82 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Maskwa Station
May 2012 Page 3B-97

Figure 3B-83 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Albian Mine/Muskeg River Station
Figure 3B-84 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Barge Landing Station
May 2012 Page 3B-98

Figure 3B-85 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Buffalo Viewpoint Station
Figure 3B-86 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Horizon Station
May 2012 Page 3B-99

Figure 3B-87 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Lower Camp Station
Figure 3B-88 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Mannix Station
May 2012 Page 3B-100

Figure 3B-89 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Mildred Lake Station
Figure 3B-90 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Millennium Station

Figure 3B-91 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Syncrude UE1 Station
Figure 3B-92 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Athabasca Valley Station

Figure 3B-93 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Cold Lake South Station
Figure 3B-94 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Patricia McInnes Station

Figure 3B-95 1-Hour THC Concentrations at the Fort McKay Station

TABLE 3B-34
ANNUAL THC CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) MEASURED AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

Year
Full Period
Monitoring Station 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (1997–2010)
In-situ
Anzac - - - - - - - - - 1.90 1.86 1.95 1.93 2.08 1.94
Maskwa - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.04 2.00 2.02
Conventional
Barge Landing - - - - - 1.83 2.08 2.06 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.16 2.07 2.35 2.09
Horizon - - - - - - - - - - - 2.01 2.00 2.12 2.04
Lower Camp - - 2.06 - - 2.02 2.10 2.09 2.08 2.26 2.20 2.20 2.12 2.23 2.14
Mannix - - 1.97 1.95 1.86 1.84 1.98 2.02 1.99 2.11 2.02 2.05 2.09 2.12 2.00
Mildred Lake - - 2.27 2.21 2.09 2.12 2.25 1.98 1.95 2.17 2.10 2.24 2.22 2.33 2.16
Millennium - - - - - 1.97 - 2.16 2.30 2.44 2.44 2.50 2.40 2.55 2.35
Syncrude UE1 - - - - - - 2.18 2.04 2.08 2.13 1.98 2.25 2.10 2.34 2.14
Page 3B-105
Large Community
Cold Lake South - - - - - - - - - 2.01 2.04 1.91 2.06 2.07 2.02
Small Community
Fort McKay 1.77 1.85 1.97 1.91 1.86 1.86 1.85 1.89 1.97 2.09 2.03 2.04 1.99 2.11 1.94
NOTES:
“-“ means no observational data or no full-year observational data.
Values are provided to the nearest 0.01 ppm.
TABLE 3B-35
MAXIMUM 24-HOUR HC SPECIES CONCENTRATIONS (μG/M3) MEASURED AT THE MONITORING STATIONS

Monitoring Stations Acetaldehyde Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde n-Hexane Toluene Xylenes
Year 2008
In-situ
Anzac - 0.39 - - - 46.2 -
Conventional
Barge Landing - 2.76 - 48.22 - 14.92 -
Horizon 15.49 0.42 0.77 - - 7.71 3.69
Millennium Mine - 0.59 - - - 12.39 -
Syncrude UE 1 - 0.39 - - - 22.47 -
Large Community
Athabasca Valley - 1.22 - - - 6.06 -
Patricia McInnes - 0.82 - - - 10.18 -
Small Community
Fort McKay 70.07 0.41 - - - 2.81 -
Year 2009
In-situ
Page 3B-106
Anzac 45.57 2.24 - - - 6.78 -

Conventional
Barge Landing - 87.51 - - - 154.5 -
Horizon 88.43 69.62 - - 3.52 39.56 9.55
Millennium Mine 34.76 1.28 - - - 7.53 -
Syncrude UE 1 36.38 2.87 - - - 10.55 -
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 56.19 1.60 - - - 24.86 -
Patricia McInnes 25.39 1.60 - - - 12.43 -
Small Community
Fort McKay 42.32 1.92 - - - - -
Year 2010
In-situ
Anzac - 2.24 - - 2.47 23.36 8.25
Conventional
Barge Landing - 3.83 - - 3.52 55.38 16.49
CNRL horizon - 27.78 - - - 17.71 22.57
Millennium Mine - 2.24 - - 1.41 33.91 -
Syncrude UE 1 - 3.83 - - 5.99 27.12 21.27
Large Community
Athabasca Valley - 6.71 - - 1.06 6.78 4.77
Patricia McInnes - 2.24 - - 20.08 12.06 -
Small Community
Fort McKay - 2.87 - - - 13.56 19.97
TABLE 3B-35 Cont'd
Monitoring Stations Acetaldehyde Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde n-Hexane Toluene Xylenes
Ambient Criteria
a a a a a a
AAAQO - 30 2000 65 21,000 1,880 2,300
NOTES:
a
As a 1-hour average
“-“ means no observational data or AAAQO.
SOURCES: WBEA 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Page 3B-107
3B.8 Summary and Conclusions

Continuous ambient monitoring has been conducted in the Model Domain at 21 locations: two are in rural
background locations; four are near in-situ operations; eleven are near conventional oil sand
extraction/upgrading locations; three are within large communities; and one is near a smaller community.
The continuous monitoring is complemented by a network of 41 passive sampling sites that are located
varyingly near existing oil sands operations, in urban centers, and in remote rural areas. While there are
limited monitoring sites near the Project, ambient monitoring data have been examined to obtain an
indication of air quality relative to the Project area:
Rural Background
Representative background concentrations are required to help place the predicted NO2, SO2,
PM2.5 and H2S concentrations in perspective. The associated background values (µg/m3) based on
the maximum of the two indicated background sites are as follows:
Rural Background 1-hour 24-hour Annual

NO2 7.52 6.13 2.44
SO2 2.62 2.28 0.9
PM2.5 5.7 5.25 2.8
H2S/TRS 1.4 0.26 0.1
Basis 90th percentile Average
Background NO2, SO2 and H2S concentrations are expected to be influenced by distant
anthropogenic sources. Background PM2.5 concentrations are influenced by both anthropogenic
and natural sources. The latter includes wild fire contributions. Background ambient ozone
concentrations are expected to be greater in areas located distant from NOX emission sources and
the ozone profiles in the region are driven by natural daily and annual ozone cycles that occur in
the province.
In-situ
An examination of measurements (µg/m3) near existing in-situ operations can be used to provide
an indication of maximum concentrations that could occur near the Project:
In-situ 1-hour 24-hour Annual

NO2 109 – 158 (300) 29.8 – 35.9 (none) 2.6 – 5.47 (45)
SO2 76 – 181 (450) 28.1 – 39.3 (125) 1.1 – 3.4 (20)
PM2.5 225 (80) 77 (30) 3.9 (none)
H2S/TRS 9.8 – 52.8 (14) 1.93 – 7.37 (4) 0.07 – 0.36 (none)
THC 3.8 – 4.1 ppm - 1.94 – 2.02 ppm
Basis Maximum Average

A range is given as the monitoring sites are not necessarily located the same distances from the
respective nearby in-situ CPF. The above table shows the AAAQO and the AAAQG. With the
exception of PM2.5 and H2S/TRS, the maximum measured values are less than the respective
AAAQO and AAAQG. The maximum PM2.5 values measured at these stations are likely due to
wild fire contributions. The H2S/TRS and the peak THC values are associated with fugitive
emissions.
Limited passive sampling near the BlackPearl area (5 months) indicates: average SO2
concentration of 0.77 µg/m3, and average H2S concentrations of 0.11 µg/m3. These values are
somewhat consistent with the values indicated in the above table.
Conventional
An examination of measurements (µg/m3) near conventional mining, extraction and upgrading
operations is provided for comparison purposes:
Conventional 1-hour 24-hour Annual

NO2 100 – 427 (300) 56 – 156 (none) 9.7 – 25.7 (45)
SO2 254 – 1,845 (450) 57 – 308 (125) 2.8 – 6.8 (20)
PM2.5 186 – 445 (80) 60.2 – 72.9 (30) 3.9 – 6.8 (none)
H2S/TRS 9.7 – 140 (14) 2.78 – 38.3 (4) 0.39 – 1.39 (none)
THC 10.5 – 49.9 ppm - 2.00 – 2.35 ppm
The ambient concentrations measured near the conventional mining, extraction and upgrading
operations are greater than those measured near the in-situ operations. General, the emissions are
greater near the conventional operations, and the processes tend to be more complex than the in-
situ operations. The maximum measured values have exceeded the respective AAAQO and
AAAQG for all substances except for the annual averages. Again, the maximum PM2.5 values
measured at these stations are likely due to wild fire contributions. The magnitude and frequency
of high H2S/TRS concentrations and exceedances increased significantly during the 2007 to 2009
period. This has been attributed to tailing pond decommissioning actions.
Community
An examination of measurements (µg/m3) near large communities (Fort McMurray and Cold
Lake) is provided for comparison purposes:
Conventional 1-hour 24-hour Annual

NO2 88 – 344 (300) 48 – 78 (none) 7.9 – 18.4 (45)
SO2 69 – 395 (450) 7.2 – 50.5 (125) 0.5 – 2.9 (20)
PM2.5 267 – 355 (80) 78.0 – 79.1 (30) 4.2 – 5.4 (none)
H2S/TRS 4.2 – 20.9 (14) 1.51 – 6.77 (4) 0.13 – 0.67 (none)
THC 6.3 – 7.7 ppm - 1.94 – 2.03 ppm

The ambient concentrations measured in Cold Lake are generally less than those measured in Fort
McMurray. The highest vales measured in Fort McMurray tend to be at the Athabasca valley site.
Again, the maximum PM2.5 values measured at these stations are likely due to wild fire
contributions.
O3 Concentrations
High O3 concentrations typically occur during the spring period (March to May) and these are
attributed to westerly air flow over the Rocky Mountains or large-scale frontal activity that brings
ozone rich air from upper elevations to the ground (AENV 2009). Short-term, intermittent
exceedances tend to occur during the summer period and the 1-hour AAAQO has been exceeded
at least once at four of the seven monitoring stations. The O3 events are influenced by wildfire
and anthropogenic precursor emissions. The highest annual average O3 concentration is measured
at the background Fort Chipewyan station; this station is distant from NOX emission sources.
Closing
The air quality near the Project is expected to be similar to the air quality measured at the in-situ
areas when the Project is in operation. That means existing concentrations of NO2, SO2,
H2S/TRS, and THC near the Project will increase slightly. Peak ambient PM2.5 and O3 levels will
largely remain the same as the existing levels since these substances are strongly influenced by
regional scale factors.

3B.9 References
AENV (Alberta Environment). 2009. Particulate Matter and Ozone Assessment for Alberta: 2001-2007.
Air Policy Section, Alberta Environment. Edmonton, Alberta.
AENV. 2011. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. Available at:
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5726.pdf. Accessed: May 16, 2011.
AENV. 2011. Lower Athabasca Region Air Quality Management Framework for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2). Alberta Environment. Edmonton, Alberta.
CASA. 2011. The CASA Data Warehouse. Available at: http://www.casadata.ca/org/. Accessed: Feb 22,
2011.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2000. Canada-Wide Standards for
Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
Endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Québec, QC, June 5-6, 2000.
Available at: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf. Accessed: May 18, 2011.
Devon ARL Corporation. 2006. Application for Approval of the Devon Jackfish 2 Project Volume 3 EIA
Appendices. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment.
EnCana FCCL Ltd. 2009. Christina Lake Thermal Expansion Project, Phase 1E, 1F, and 1G.
WBEA (Wood Buffalo Association). 2010. Wood Buffalo Environmental Association Annual Report
2009. Fort McMurray, Alberta. 87.
WBEA (Wood Buffalo Association). 2009. Wood Buffalo Environmental Association Annual Report
2008. Fort McMurray, Alberta. 60.
WBEA. 2008. Wood Buffalo Environmental Association Annual Report 2007. Fort McMurray,
Alberta. 48.
Alberta.75.
Alberta. 56.
Alberta. 48.

BlackPearl Resources Inc. Meteorology/CALMET
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Volume 2 - Appendix 3C
APPENDIX 3C
METEOROLOGY/CALMET
Page 3C-1
Table of Contents
3C.0 METEOROLOGY/CALMET .................................................................................................... 3C-5
3C.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3C-5
3C.2 Model Domain ............................................................................................................................ 3C-5
3C.2.1 Boundaries ..................................................................................................................... 3C-5
3C.2.2 Topography ...................................................................................................................3C-8
3C.2.3 Land-Cover Types ......................................................................................................... 3C-8
3C.2.4 Land-Cover Parameters ............................................................................................... 3C-13
3C.2.5 Meteorological Stations ............................................................................................... 3C-14
3C.3 Meteorological Measurements ................................................................................................. 3C-20
3C.3.1 Ambient Air Temperature ........................................................................................... 3C-20
3C.3.1.1 Climate Means ........................................................................................... 3C-20
3C.3.1.2 Fort Chipewyan Airport ............................................................................. 3C-20
3C.3.1.3 Fort McMurray Airport.............................................................................. 3C-21
3C.3.1.4 Cold Lake Airport ...................................................................................... 3C-21
3C.3.2 Precipitation ................................................................................................................ 3C-25
3C.3.2.1 Climate Means ........................................................................................... 3C-25
3C.3.2.2 Fort Chipewyan Airport ............................................................................. 3C-25
3C.3.2.3 Fort McMurray Airport.............................................................................. 3C-25
3C.3.2.4 Cold Lake Airport ...................................................................................... 3C-29
3C.3.2.5 Effects of Elevated Terrain on Precipitation .............................................. 3C-29
3C.3.2.6 Relative Humidity ...................................................................................... 3C-31
3C.3.3 Visibility ...................................................................................................................... 3C-32
3C.3.4 Solar Radiation ............................................................................................................ 3C-33
3C.3.5 Wind ............................................................................................................................ 3C-34
3C.3.5.1 Surface Winds ............................................................................................ 3C-34
3C.3.5.2 Elevated Winds .......................................................................................... 3C-34
3C.3.5.3 Wind Speed ................................................................................................ 3C-39
3C.3.6 Meteorological Conditions in the Project Area ........................................................... 3C-40
3C.4 Meteorological Predictions....................................................................................................... 3C-40
3C.4.1 Meteorological Models................................................................................................ 3C-40
3C.4.2 Selection of Prognostic Model .................................................................................... 3C-41
3C.4.3 Regional Scale Winds ................................................................................................. 3C-43
3C.4.3.1 Surface Wind Vector Plots (2006) ............................................................. 3C-43
3C.4.3.2 Predicted Elevated Winds (2002 to 2006) ................................................. 3C-49
3C.4.4 Predicted Mixing Heights ............................................................................................ 3C-49
3C.4.5 Predicted Atmospheric Stability Class ........................................................................ 3C-55
3C.4.6 Predicted Precipitation ................................................................................................ 3C-57
3C.5 Advantages of A Meteorological Model .................................................................................. 3C-61
3C.6 CALMET Application .............................................................................................................. 3C-61
3C.7 References ................................................................................................................................ 3C-70
May 2012 Page 3C-2

List of Tables
Table 3C-1 Model Domain (332 km By 700 km) Coordinates (UTM Zone 12; Nad 83)................ 3C-6
Table 3C-2 Comparison Of Land-Cover Type Distribution For The Original Resolution
100 m Data And The Processed 4 km Grid Data .......................................................... 3C-9
Table 3C-3 Values Of Leaf Area Index (LAI) For The Different Land-Cover Types ................... 3C-15
Table 3C-4 Values Of Surface Roughness, ZO (m), For The Different Land-Cover Types.......... 3C-15
Table 3C-5 Values Of Albedo (Fraction) For The Different Land-Cover Types........................... 3C-16
Table 3C-6 Values Of Bowen Ratio (B) For The Different Land-Cover Types ............................ 3C-16
Table 3C-7 Values Of Soil Heat Flux (Fraction) For The Different Land-Cover Types ............... 3C-17
Table 3C-8 Coordinates Of Meteorological Stations In The Model Domain ................................ 3C-18
Table 3C-9 Historical Monthly And Annual Mean Daily Temperatures ....................................... 3C-20
Table 3C-10 Mean Monthly And Annual Precipitation, Rainfall And Snowfall ............................. 3C-26
Table 3C-11 Measured Wind Speeds At Selected Locations In The Model Domain ...................... 3C-40
Table 3C-12 Mixing Heights (m) Derived From Measured Vertical Temperature Profiles ............ 3C-53
Table 3C-13 Stability Class Frequency Distributions (%) At Three Airports And The Project
Area (2002 to 2006) .................................................................................................... 3C-55
Table 3C-14 Comparison Of Measured And Predicted Annual Total Precipitation At The
Three Airports (2002 to 2006)..................................................................................... 3C-57
Table 3C-15 Comparison Of Measured And Predicted July Monthly Total Precipitation At
The Three Airports And Two High Elevation Stations (2002 to 2006) ...................... 3C-58
Table 3C-16 Input Groups In The CALMET Control File .............................................................. 3C-62
Table 3C-17 CALMET Model Options Groups 0 And 1 ................................................................. 3C-62
Table 3C-18 CALMET Model Options Group 2: Grid Control Parameters .................................... 3C-63
Table 3C-19 CALMET Model Options Group 3: Output Options .................................................. 3C-64
Table 3C-20 CALMET Model Options Group 4: Meteorological Data Options ............................. 3C-65
Table 3C-21 CALMET Model Option Group 5: Wind Field Options And Parameters .................. 3C-65
Table 3C-22 CALMET Model Option Group 6: Mixing Height, Temperature And
Precipitation Parameters .............................................................................................. 3C-67
Table 3C-23 CALMET Model Option Group 7: Surface Meteorological Station Parameters ........ 3C-68
List of Figures
Figure 3C-1 Terrain in the Model Domain ........................................................................................ 3C-7
Figure 3C-2a Land-cover Classes in the Model Domain .................................................................. 3C-11
Figure 3C-2b Land-cover Classes with Modifications in the Model Domain ................................... 3C-12
Figure 3C-3 Locations of Surface Stations in the Model Domain................................................... 3C-19
Figure 3C-4 Annual Average Temperature Difference from the Mean Temperature based on
Fort Chipewyan Measurements ................................................................................... 3C-22
Figure 3C-5 Mean Monthly Average Temperatures based on Fort Chipewyan Measurements...... 3C-22
Fort McMurray Measurements .................................................................................... 3C-23
Figure 3C-7 Mean Monthly Average Temperatures based on Fort McMurray Measurements ...... 3C-23
Cold Lake Measurements ............................................................................................ 3C-24
Figure 3C-9 Mean Monthly Average Temperatures based on Cold Lake Measurements............... 3C-24
Figure 3C-10 Annual Average Precipitation Difference from the Mean Precipitation based on
Fort Chipewyan Measurements ................................................................................... 3C-27
May 2012 Page 3C-3

Figure 3C-11 Mean Monthly Average Precipitation based on Fort Chipewyan Measurements ....... 3C-27
Fort McMurray Measurements .................................................................................... 3C-28
Figure 3C-13 Mean Monthly Average Precipitation based on Fort McMurray Measurements ........ 3C-28
Cold Lake Measurements ............................................................................................ 3C-30
Figure 3C-15 Mean Monthly Average Precipitation based on Cold Lake Measurements ................ 3C-30
Figure 3C-16 Monthly Mean Relative Humidity at Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray and Cold
Lake Airports (1971-2000) .......................................................................................... 3C-31
Figure 3C-17 Monthly Mean Visibilities at Cold Lake and Fort McMurray Airports (1971-
2000)............................................................................................................................ 3C-32
Figure 3C-18 Mean Daily Global Solar Radiation at Various Monitoring Stations in the Cold
Lake, Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan Areas ...................................................... 3C-33
Figure 3C-19 Comparison of Wind Roses based on Measurements at the Three Environment
Canada Airports (2002-2006) ...................................................................................... 3C-36
Figure 3C-20 Comparison of Wind Roses based on Measurements in the WBEA Area (2002 to
2006)............................................................................................................................ 3C-37
Figure 3C-21 Comparison of Wind Roses based on Measurements in the WBEA and Fort
McMurray Areas (2002 to 2006)................................................................................. 3C-38
Figure 3C-22 Comparison of Higher Elevation Wind Roses based on Historical Measurements .... 3C-39
Figure 3C-23 Locations of the 4 km Resolution WRF Grid Points ................................................... 3C-42
Figure 3C-24 Comparison of WRF and CALMET Wind Roses at the Project Area (2002 to
2006)............................................................................................................................ 3C-44
Figure 3C-25 Individual Year (2002 to 2006) Predicted (CALMET) Project Area wind roses at
10 m ............................................................................................................................. 3C-45
Figure 3C-26 Predicted Surface Wind Field for Unstable Conditions (1800 LST July 20, 2006) ... 3C-46
Figure 3C-27 Predicted Surface Wind Field for Stable Conditions (0100 LST January 27,
2006)............................................................................................................................ 3C-47
Figure 3C-28 Predicted Surface Wind Field for High Winds Conditions (1700 LST May 1,
2006)............................................................................................................................ 3C-48
Figure 3C-29 Predicted (CALMET) Project Area Wind Roses at 4 levels (2002 to 2006)............... 3C-51
Figure 3C-30 Predicted (CALMET) Birch Mountain, Mildred Lake and Bitumount Site Wind
Roses (2002 to 2006) ................................................................................................... 3C-52
Figure 3C-31 CALMET Predicted Mixing Heights for Different Seasons and Times of Day for
the Project Area (2002 to 2006) .................................................................................. 3C-54
Figure 3C-32 Frequency of Predicted PG Stability Class for the Project Area (2002 to 2006) ........ 3C-56
Figure 3C-33 Average CALMET Predicted July Monthly Total Precipitation (2002-2006) ............ 3C-60
May 2012 Page 3C-4

3C.0 METEOROLOGY/CALMET
3C.1 Introduction
This appendix provides an overview of the meteorology and climate for the Model Domain that includes
the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) and the Lakeland Industry and Community
Association (LICA) airsheds. Also provided are the technical details and options that were used for the
application of the CALMET model for the Blackpearl Project assessment. An overview of CALMET
predictions for the region is also provided.
Meteorology determines the transport and dispersion of industrial emissions, and hence plays a significant
role in determining air quality downwind of emission sources. For this air quality assessment,
meteorological data for the five-year period of 2002 to 2006 were used to define transport and dispersion
parameters. The selection of a five-year period is consistent with the Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline
(AENV 2009) that requires data for a five-year period when using data from a meteorological model (e.g.,
CALMET).
Meteorological characteristics vary with time (e.g., season and time of day) and location (e.g., height,
terrain and land cover). Historically, meteorological data measured at one location have been used and
extrapolated to reflect the conditions over the full Model Domain. For large model domains, this approach
fails to recognize that meteorological conditions for any given hour can vary from one location to another
due to terrain and geophysical differences. Curvilinear airflow can also result from meso-scale and
synoptic-scale weather patterns.
More recently, meteorological models have been used to provide spatially and temporally varying wind
and temperature fields across the model domain to overcome the limitations associated with the use of
single station measurements. The CALMET meteorological pre-processing program was used to provide
temporally and spatially varying meteorological parameters required by the CALPUFF model.
3C.2 Model Domain
3C.2.1 Boundaries
The Model Domain adopted for this assessment extends from approximately 53.6993 degrees latitude to
60.0161 degrees latitude (resulting in a north south extent of 700 km), and from 114.2571 degrees
longitude to 108.9012 degrees longitude (resulting in an east west extent of 332 km) as shown in Figure
3C-1. This Model Domain covers a 232,400 km2 area, the extents of which are provided in Table 3C-1.
May 2012 Page 3C-5

TABLE 3C-1
MODEL DOMAIN (332 KM BY 700 KM) COORDINATES (UTM ZONE 12; NAD 83)
Domain Corner Easting (m) Northing (m)
Southwest 285000 5955000
Northwest 285000 6655000
Southeast 617000 5955000
Northeast 617000 6655000
May 2012 Page 3C-6

Lake
Athabasca
Birch Mountains
Wabasca Lakes
Pelican Mountains
Primrose Lake
Cold Lake
North Saskatchwan River
May 2012
The Model Domain includes the communities of Cold Lake in the south of the domain, Fort McMurray
near the centre of the domain, and Fort Chipewyan in the north of the Model Domain. It also includes the
major existing and proposed oil sands developments north of Fort McMurray, and the in-situ bitumen
extraction facilities that are located primarily to the south of Fort McMurray and in the Cold Lake region.
To the east, the Model Domain extends into the Province of Saskatchewan. To the west, the Model
Domain includes the Wabasca Lakes area.
3C.2.2 Topography
The valleys and elevated terrain features in the meteorological domain can affect surface wind flow
patterns. The terrain data used to define these features were obtained from Canadian Digital Elevation
Data (CDED 2009). The source data for CDED at scales of 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 were extracted from
the hypsographic and hydrographical elements of the National Topographic Data Base (NTDB), and from
various scaled positional data acquired from the provinces and territories. These data have a horizontal
resolution of ~30 m, which is more than sufficient for air quality assessment purposes.
A general overview of the terrain within the domain is presented in Figure 3C-1. Major water features in
the domain include:
• Wabasca Lakes are located in the west portion of the domain.
• Lake Athabasca is located in the northeastern portion of the domain.
• The Athabasca River flows from the southwestern portion of the domain to Fort McMurray and then
flows north to Lake Athabasca.
• The Clearwater River flows from the east in Saskatchewan and into the Athabasca River at Fort
McMurray.
• Cold Lake and Primrose Lake are located in the southeastern portion of the domain.
• The North Saskatchewan River runs from west to east along the southern boundary of the domain.
Broadly speaking, the higher elevations are towards the south of the domain and the lowest elevations are
near the northeastern portion of the domain. Major elevated features in the domain include:
• Birch Mountain is near the central/northern-western boundary of the domain, west of the Athabasca
River, and rises to an elevation of over 800 m above mean sea level (ASL).
• Stony Mountain, which is to the east of the Project, has elevations of approximately 750 m ASL.
• The Pelican Mountains are to the south of the Birch Mountains and are along the western boundary of
the domain and have elevations up to 900 m ASL.
Previous analyses of winds in the region have demonstrated the influence of these terrain features on
surface winds (e.g., Davison et al 1981, Leahey and Hansen 1981). The terrain features can therefore
influence the transport and the dispersion of air emissions as they are transported by the winds from the
source regions.
3C.2.3 Land-Cover Types

Features of the land (e.g., vegetation canopy) can influence surface energy balances, create atmospheric
turbulence, and affect dry deposition processes. For these reasons, the characteristics of the surface cover
need to be determined for different land/vegetation types (referred to as land cover). The Model Domain
May 2012 Page 3C-8

falls primarily in the boreal forest that supports a mixture of upland and lowland vegetation. Specifically,
the region is characterized by forests of black spruce, white spruce, balsam fir, jack pine, tamarack, aspen,
poplar, and white birch. Due to differing drainage patterns, soil types, and sun exposure; vegetation cover
throughout the region is non-uniform and forest canopy heights may vary from less than 10 m to more
than 30 m, depending on these conditions and the varying tree types present.
The Earth Observation for Sustainable Development of Forests (EOSD) initiative by the Canadian Forest
Service, in partnership with the Canadian Space Agency, developed a land-cover map for the forested
area of Canada. 100 metre resolution land-cover data based on this initiative were obtained from the
Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre. The 100 metre data were grouped on a 4 km grid
basis and the land-cover type assigned to the larger grid is based on the dominant land-cover type for that
grid. Table 3C-2 and Figure 3C-2 show the land cover on a 4 km resolution basis for the domain. The
predominant land-cover types are as follows:
• Forests are defined as coniferous, deciduous and mixed. Based on the 4 km data, the domain is
comprised of 39.6 percent coniferous forest, 16.3 percent broadleaf forest, and 1 percent mixed forest.
• The domain is comprised of 19.7 percent wetland, which is primarily comprised of trees and shrubs.
• The domain is comprised of 6.8 percent water, which includes Lake Claire and a portion of Lake
Athabasca in the north of the domain, Gordon and Winifred lakes in the east-central portion of the
domain and Lac La Biche, Primrose Lake and Cold Lake in the south of the domain.
• All 4 km land-cover cells within existing and future mine disturbance areas were converted to the
exposed land-cover type. Figure 3C-2a and 3C-2b show the land cover before and after this
conversion was applied.
As indicated in Table 3C-2, the relative occurrences of the respective land-cover types do not differ much
between the original 100 m resolution data that was obtained from the Canadian Forest Service, from the
data that were processed to produce the 4 km resolution data.
TABLE 3C-2
COMPARISON OF LAND-COVER TYPE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 100 M

DATA AND THE PROCESSED 4 KM GRID DATA
With Modifications due to
Based on Canadian Forest Service Data Existing And Planned Mines
Based on 100 m by 100 m Based on 4 km by 4 km Based on 4 km by 4 km
Land-cover Class Grids (%) Grids (%) Grids (%)
Water 8.6 6.8 6.8
Exposed Land 1.1 0.8 1.5
Shrub Tall 4.6 3.8 3.8
Shrub Low 0.6 0.8 0.8
Shrub Subtotal 5.2 4.6 4.6
Wetland-Treed 12.1 9.4 9.4
Wetland-Shrub 10.6 9.9 9.8
Wetland-Herb 2.3 0.5 0.5
Wetland Subtotal 25.0 19.8 19.7
Herb 8.1 10.7 10.7
Coniferous Dense 24.4 32.0 31.3
Coniferous Open 6.8 8.2 8.2
Coniferous Sparse 0.1 0.0 0.0
May 2012 Page 3C-9

TABLE 3C-2 Cont'd
With Modifications due to

Based on Canadian Forest Service Data Existing And Planned Mines
Based on 100 m by 100 m Based on 4 km by 4 km Based on 4 km by 4 km
Land-cover Class Grids (%) Grids (%) Grids (%)
Coniferous Subtotal 31.3 40.2 39.6
Water 8.6 6.8 6.8
Broadleaf Dense 15.1 15.9 15.7
Broadleaf Open 1.2 0.6 0.6
Broadleaf Subtotal 16.3 16.5 16.3
Mixedwood Dense 2.5 0.1 0.1
Mixedwood Open 1.3 0.9 0.9
Mixedwood Subtotal 3.8 1.0 1.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: percentage may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
May 2012 Page 3C-10

May 2012
6000000 6050000 6100000 6150000 6200000 6250000 6300000 6350000 6400000 6450000 6500000 6550000 6600000 6650000
300000
300000
350000
350000
400000
400000
450000
450000
500000
500000
550000
550000
600000
600000
6000000 6050000 6100000 6150000 6200000 6250000 6300000 6350000 6400000 6450000 6500000 6550000 6600000 6650000
May 2012
3C.2.4 Land-Cover Parameters

Each land-cover type can be characterized by a number of geophysical parameters. These parameters vary
with season to reflect the presence or absence of: snow cover, ice cover on water bodies, and leaves
associated with broadleaf forests. The parameters were allowed to vary on a monthly basis, and they
include the following:
• The leaf area index (LAI) for deciduous forest canopies is the ratio of one side of the vegetation
canopy surface area to the corresponding ground surface area. Table 3C-3 shows the parameters that
were used to represent the identified land-cover types. For coniferous canopies, the LAI is the ratio of
both sides of the needles to the corresponding ground surface areas. Higher dry deposition is
associated with forest canopies that have higher LAI values. The values used to represent the
identified land covers are based on Bourque and Hassin (2008) with the following adjustments:
• 1-sided LAI adjustment for broadleaf forests.
• 1.5-sided LAI adjustment for mixed forests.
• 2-sided LAI adjustment for coniferous forests.
• Due to the limitation of the spectral approach in the winter, higher spring and fall
values were used to represent the LAI during the winter.
• As the Bourque and Hassin August values appeared to be low relative to the July
and September values, the August values were taken as the average of the July
and September values.
• The surface roughness length (z0) is a measure of the surface features’ influence on generating
mechanical turbulence. Table 3C-4 shows the parameters that are used to represent the identified
land-cover types. A forest canopy can have a roughness length of about 1.0 m, whereas a flat grass
covered area can have a surface roughness of 0.01 m.
• The albedo is the fraction of sunlight reflected by the surface. Table 3C-5 shows the parameters that
were used to represent the identified land-cover types. Fresh snow may reflect 80 percent of the
sunlight whereas a forest canopy may only reflect 10 percent. The forest albedo values are based on
boreal forest measurements by Betts and Ball (1997). The other albedo values are based on
AERMET/AERMOD recommendations (U.S. EPA 2004).
• The Bowen ratio defines how energy is distributed in the atmosphere at the surface and is formally
defined as the ratio of the sensible heat flux to the latent heat flux. Table 3C-6 shows the parameters
that were used to represent the identified land-cover types. Typical values range from 5 over semi-
arid regions to 0.5 over grasslands. The values are based on a blend of boreal forest summer
measurements (Barr et al 1997), Saskatoon area values (Barr and Strong 1996), AERMET/AERMOD
recommendations (U.S. EPA 2004), and CALPUFF/CALMET recommendations (Scire et al 2000).
• The soil heat flux is the portion of the energy that is absorbed by the ground and is expressed as a
fraction of the incoming heat flux. Table 3C-7 shows the parameters that were used to represent the
identified land-cover types. Typical values of 10 to 15 percent indicate most of the incoming heat flux
is transferred to the atmosphere. The values are based on CALPUFF/CALMET recommendations
(Scire et al 2000) and are assumed to be constant with time of year.
• The anthropogenic heat flux accounts for energy input from urban development (e.g., heating of
homes). The anthropogenic contribution was assumed to be negligible for the region.
May 2012 Page 3C-13

3C.2.5 Meteorological Stations

Meteorological measurements are used to help define the meteorological conditions in the domain. The
locations of the meteorological stations in the domain are summarized in Table 3C-8 and presented
graphically in Figure 3C-3. These stations include:
• Environment Canada (EC) airports: Cold Lake Airport, Fort McMurray Airport, and Fort Chipewyan
Airport (Environment Canada 2006). The airports span the north to south extent of the domain.
• Other Environment Canada locations: Limited measurements are also available from Rich Lake,
Mildred Lake, Lac La Biche and Jimmy Lake. For the most part, these stations are located in the
southern portion of the domain.
• Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) meteorological measurements from thirteen
ambient air quality monitoring networks. For the most part, the meteorological measurements are
limited to wind speed and wind direction. These stations tend to be in proximity to the Athabasca
River Valley along the Fort McMurray to Fort McKay corridor.
In summary, although there are a number of locations where meteorological measurements are taken, the
spatial coverage is not uniform across the domain. The Project Area is located between Fort Chipewyan
and Fort McMurray airports. The nearest WBEA monitoring site to the Project is Anzac station (130 km
from the Project Area).
May 2012 Page 3C-14

TABLE 3C-3
VALUES OF LEAF AREA INDEX (LAI) FOR THE DIFFERENT LAND-COVER TYPES
Land Cover Type Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Water 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Exposed Land 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Shrub Tall 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3
Shrub Low 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.8 1.7 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3
Wetland-Treed 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.7 4.4 4.7 3.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Wetland-Shrub 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3
Wetland-Herb 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
Herb 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
Coniferous Dense 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 5.2 4.9 3.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Coniferous Open 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.8 4.0 3.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Coniferous Sparse 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.8 4.0 3.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Broadleaf Dense 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.6 3.4 3.4 2.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.5
Broadleaf Open 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.7 2.7 1.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4
Mixedwood Dense 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.0 4.4 4.5 3.1 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2
Page 3C-15
Mixedwood Open 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 3.5 3.6 2.5 1.4 0.9 1.0 1.0
TABLE 3C-4
VALUES OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS, ZO (M), FOR THE DIFFERENT LAND-COVER TYPES

Water 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Exposed Land 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Shrub Tall 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Shrub Low 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Wetland-Treed 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.90 0.90 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Wetland-Shrub 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Wetland-Herb 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Herb 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Coniferous Open 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Broadleaf Dense 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.75 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.95 0.55 0.55
Broadleaf Open 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.75 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.95 0.55 0.55
Mixedwood Dense 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.2 1.2
Mixedwood Open 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.2 1.2
TABLE 3C-5
VALUES OF ALBEDO (FRACTION) FOR THE DIFFERENT LAND-COVER TYPES

Water 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.20 0.75 0.75
Exposed Land 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.60
Shrub Tall 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.43 0.43
Shrub Low 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.75 0.75
Wetland-Treed 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.11 0.11
Wetland-Shrub 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.43 0.43
Wetland-Herb 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.75 0.75
Herb 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.75 0.75
Coniferous Open 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.15 0.15
Broadleaf Dense 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.21 0.21
Broadleaf Open 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.31 0.31
Mixedwood Dense 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.11 0.11
Page 3C-16
Mixedwood Open 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.15 0.15
TABLE 3C-6
VALUES OF BOWEN RATIO (B) FOR THE DIFFERENT LAND-COVER TYPES

Water 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.50 1.50
Exposed Land 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shrub Tall 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.25 1.25 1.25
Shrub Low 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50
Wetland-Treed 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 2.00 2.00 2.00
Wetland-Shrub 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 2.00 2.00 2.00
Wetland-Herb 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 2.00 2.00 2.00
Herb 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50
Coniferous Open 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 2.00 2.00 2.00
Broadleaf Dense 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 2.00 2.00 2.00
Broadleaf Open 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mixedwood Dense 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mixedwood Open 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 2.00 2.00 2.00
TABLE 3C-7
VALUES OF SOIL HEAT FLUX (FRACTION) FOR THE DIFFERENT LAND-COVER TYPES
Water 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Exposed Land 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Shrub Tall 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Shrub Low 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Wetland-Treed 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Wetland-Shrub 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Wetland-Herb 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Herb 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Coniferous Open 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Broadleaf Dense 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Broadleaf Open 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Mixedwood Dense 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Page 3C-17
Mixedwood Open 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
TABLE 3C-8
COORDINATES OF METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS IN THE MODEL DOMAIN
Elevation UTM NAD 83

Source Station Name Latitude Longitude (m ASL) km East km North Zone
Environment Fort Chipewyan Airport 58°46' N 111°7' W 232 493.252 6514.077 12
Canada (EC) Fort McMurray Airport 56°39' 111°13' 369 486.715 6278.448 12
Cold Lake Airport 54°25' N 110°17' W 541 546.506 6030.118 12
Rich Lake 54°30' N 111°42' W 585 454.668 6039.380 12
Lac La Biche 54°46.2' N 112°1.2' W 567 434.380 6069.675 12
Jimmy Lake (SA) 54°54' N 109°58.2' W 636 566.050 6084.150 12
Wood Buffalo Albian Mine 57°16'51'' N 111°31'32'' W 295 468.315 6348.770 12
Environmental Barge Landing 57°11'54'' N 111°35'59'' W 286 463.770 6339.608 12
Association
Buffalo Viewpoint 56°59'48'' N 111°35'33'' W 317 463.998 6317.175 12
(WBEA)
Fort McKay 57°11'21'' N 111°38'26'' W 256 461.289 6338.652 12
Athabasca Valley 56°43'58'' N 111°23'25'' W 252 476.127 6287.711 12
Patricia McInnes 56°45'08'' N 111°18'34'' W 316 470.886 6289.915 12
Lower Camp 57°01'36'' N 111°29'59'' W 291 469.603 6320.475 12
Page 3C-18
Mannix 56°58'08'' N 111°18'55'' W 342 470.695 6314.016 12

Mildred Lake 57°02'60'' N 111°33'47'' W 246 465.839 6323.093 12
Lake
Athabasca
Birch Mountains
Wabasca Lakes
Pelican Mountains
Primrose Lake
Cold Lake
May 2012
3C.3 Meteorological Measurements

Meteorological data parameterize a wide range of phenomena that include: ambient air temperature,
precipitation, relative humidity, visibility, solar radiation, wind, severe weather, and thermal inversions.
Selected parameters were reviewed in the context of evaluating the representativeness of meteorological
data from 2002 to 2006 to represent long-term means.
3C.3.1 Ambient Air Temperature
3C.3.1.1 Climate Means

Table 3C-9 summarizes the historical monthly and annual mean air temperatures at the three airport
locations. Annual average ambient temperatures are equal to -1.8, 0.2 and 1.6 oC at the Fort Chipewyan,
Fort McMurray, and Cold Lake Airports, respectively. Generally, the temperatures decrease as one moves
from south to north.
TABLE 3C-9
HISTORICAL MONTHLY AND ANNUAL MEAN DAILY TEMPERATURES

Mean Daily Temperature (°C)
Month Fort Chipewyan Airport Fort McMurray Airport Cold Lake Airport
January -19.5 -19.5 -17.0
February -15.0 -15.0 -12.7
March -7.8 -7.8 -6.2
April 2.5 2.5 3.5
May 9.6 9.6 10.4
June 14.2 14.2 14.7
July 16.7 16.7 17.2
August 15.0 15.0 15.8
September 9.3 9.3 10.2
October 2.9 2.9 4.1
November -8.3 -8.3 -6.3
December -16.5 -16.5 -14.1
ANNUAL 0.3 0.3 1.6
SOURCE: National Climate Data and Information Archive
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html
3C.3.1.2 Fort Chipewyan Airport

Figure 3C-4 shows the Fort Chipewyan annual temperature difference for each year from the long-term
mean (the data are shown for the 1968 to 2010 period). Cold years are about 2oC colder than the long-
term mean, and warm years are almost 3oC warmer than the long-term mean. The years 2002 and 2004
were cooler than average, and the years 2005 and 2006 were warmer than average.
Figure 3C-5 shows the mean monthly temperatures measured at Fort Chipewyan for each year from 1968
to 2010. The figure also shows the overall average for this period and the average values for the 2002 to
2006 period. Over the whole period, the mean summer temperatures span a 5oC range; in contrast, the
mean winter temperatures can span a 20oC range. For the 2002 to 2006 period, 2006 has the highest
May 2012 Page 3C-20

monthly temperature variation: more than 10oC warmer in April and May while very cold in September
and October.
3C.3.1.3 Fort McMurray Airport

Figure 3C-6 shows the Fort McMurray annual temperature difference for each year from the long-term
mean (the data are shown for the 1944 to 2010 period). Cold years are almost 3oC colder than the long-
term mean, and warm years are almost 3oC warmer than the long-term mean. The years 2005 and 2006
were warmer than average.
Figure 3C-7 shows the mean monthly temperatures measured at Fort McMurray for each year from 1944
to 2010. The figure also shows the overall average for this period and the average values for 2002 to
2006. Over the whole period, the summers mean temperatures span a 5oC range; in contrast, the mean
winter temperatures can span a 20oC range. For the 2002 to 2006 period, 2003 has the highest monthly
temperature variation: 2 to 5oC cooler than normal from February to July while 5 to10oC warmer than
normal for the rest of year.
3C.3.1.4 Cold Lake Airport

Figure 3C-8 shows the Cold Lake annual temperature difference for each year from the mean (the data are
shown for the 1953 to 2010 period). Cold years are almost 2oC colder than the long-term average, and
warm years are almost 2oC warmer than the long-term average. The years 2002, 2005 and 2006 were
warmer than average.
Figure 3C-9 shows the mean monthly temperatures measured at Cold Lake for each year from 1953 to
2010. The figure also shows the overall average for this period and the average values for 2002. Over the
whole period, the summer mean temperatures are spread over a 5oC range; in contrast, the mean winter
temperatures can span a 20oC range. For the 2002 to 2006 period, both 2004 and 2005 have a warm
spring and winter while springs were cooler than normal in 2002 and 2003.
May 2012 Page 3C-21

Fort Chipewyan Measurements
Figure 3C-5 Mean Monthly Average Temperatures based on Fort Chipewyan Measurements
May 2012 Page 3C-22

Fort McMurray Measurements
Figure 3C-7 Mean Monthly Average Temperatures based on Fort McMurray Measurements
May 2012 Page 3C-23

Cold Lake Measurements
Figure 3C-9 Mean Monthly Average Temperatures based on Cold Lake Measurements
May 2012 Page 3C-24

3C.3.2 Precipitation
3C.3.2.1 Climate Means

Monthly mean total precipitation, rainfall, and snowfall are summarized in Table 3C-10 for the Fort
Chipewyan, Fort McMurray, and Cold Lake airports. The average total precipitation at the Fort
Chipewyan, Fort McMurray and Cold Lake airports are 369, 438 and 438 mm/y, respectively. The
northern portion of the domain is drier than the central and southern portions. The driest months are
during the winter, the wettest months are during the summer. Cold Lake is drier than the other two
locations in October and November.
3C.3.2.2 Fort Chipewyan Airport

Figure 3C-10 shows the Fort Chipewyan annual precipitation difference for each year from the mean (the
data are shown for the 1968 to 2010 period). During the wettest year, an additional 100 mm or more of
precipitation occurred. During the 5 driest years, the precipitation was 100 mm or lower than the long-
term average. The years 2004 and 2006 were drier than average.
Figure 3C-11 shows the monthly precipitation measured at Fort Chipewyan for each year from 1967 to
2010. The figure also shows the overall average for this period and the average values for 2002. There can
be a considerable precipitation variation for a given month relative to the long-term average. For the 2002
to 2006 period, July 2002, September 2002, August 2005 and July 2002 were much wetter than average.
3C.3.2.3 Fort McMurray Airport

Figure 3C-12 shows the Fort McMurray annual precipitation difference for each year from the mean (the
data are shown for the 1944 to 2010 period). During the 9 wettest years, an additional 100 mm or more of
precipitation occurred. During the 7 driest years, the precipitation was 100 mm or more lower than the
long-term average. The year 2003 was wetter, and 2004, 2005 and 2006 were drier than average.
Figure 3C-13 shows the monthly precipitation measured at Fort McMurray for each year from 1944 to
2010. The figure also shows the overall average for this period and the average values for 2002. There can
be a considerable precipitation variation for a given month relative to the long-term average. For the 2002
to 2006 period, July 2002, September 2003 and July 2005 were much wetter than average.
May 2012 Page 3C-25

TABLE 3C-10
MEAN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, RAINFALL AND SNOWFALL

Total Precipitation Total Rainfall Snowfall
(mm) (mm) (cm)
Fort Fort Fort Fort Fort Fort
Chipewyan McMurray Cold Lake Chipewyan McMurray Cold Lake Chipewyan McMurray Cold Lake
Month Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport
January 16.6 19.1 18.9 0.2 0.5 0.6 17.3 23.7 23.1
February 13.5 15.5 13.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 14.7 19.5 16.6
March 16.2 17.2 18.7 0.2 1.3 2.1 16.9 20.2 19.2
April 17.4 20.8 26.7 5.9 8.8 14.0 11.8 12.7 13.2
May 28.8 34.7 40.3 24.6 32.8 37.1 3.5 2.8 3.2
June 47.1 66.2 72.4 44.8 66.6 72.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
July 64.0 76.9 82.0 65.5 78.0 82.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
August 51.5 68.0 66.1 50.1 66.4 66.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
September 44.6 48.1 41.7 43.3 46.0 40.4 1.1 2.4 1.4
October 27.5 25.9 18.6 14.6 15.4 11.1 13.4 11.7 7.3
Page 3C-26
November 22.7 22.3 19.8 0.6 2.4 1.7 24.3 25.5 22.4
December 18.5 20.1 21.4 0.1 0.7 0.8 20.2 24.6 25.1
ANNUAL 368.4 434.8 439.9 249.9 319.4 328.5 123.1 142.9 131.6
Fort Chipewyan Measurements
Figure 3C-11 Mean Monthly Average Precipitation based on Fort Chipewyan Measurements
May 2012 Page 3C-27

Fort McMurray Measurements
Figure 3C-13 Mean Monthly Average Precipitation based on Fort McMurray Measurements
May 2012 Page 3C-28

3C.3.2.4 Cold Lake Airport

Figure 3C-14 shows the Cold Lake annual precipitation difference for each year from the mean (the data
are shown for the 1953 to 2010 period). During the 8 wettest years, an additional 100 mm or more of
precipitation occurred. During the 7 driest years, the precipitation was 100 mm lower or more than the
long-term average. The year 2002 was drier than average, and the years 2003 and 2005 were wetter than
average.
Figure 3C-15 shows the monthly precipitation measured at Cold Lake for each year from 1953 to 2010.
The figure also shows the overall average for this period and the average values for 2002. There can be a
considerable precipitation variation for a given month relative to the long-term average. For the 2002 to
2006 period, April and September in 2003, May 2006 and all summer months in 2005 were much wetter
than average.
3C.3.2.5 Effects of Elevated Terrain on Precipitation

The Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program (AOSERP) commissioned a study to examine
climate parameters that included precipitation measurements in the oil sands area near and to the north of
Fort McMurray (Rudolph et al 1984). The study compared precipitation amounts measured at Fort
McMurray Airport with those measured at nine weather stations in the region. The data period examined
was from 1966 to 1979. The elevations of these other stations ranged from 0 to 484 m above the airport
location. The results indicated that even though there are long-term precipitation measurements at Fort
McMurray Airport, the precipitation values at higher elevation sites could be about two times those
measured at the airport.
May 2012 Page 3C-29

Cold Lake Measurements
Figure 3C-15 Mean Monthly Average Precipitation based on Cold Lake Measurements
May 2012 Page 3C-30

3C.3.2.6 Relative Humidity

Relative humidity is the ratio of the amount of water vapour in the air compared to the maximum amount
of water vapour the air can hold before becoming saturated. Relative humidity depends on the water
content of the air and the ambient air temperature. It is therefore the ratio expressed as percent of the air’s
water vapour content to its capacity, as shown below:
Relative Humidity (%) = 100 x (Water Vapour Content) / (Water Vapour Capacity)
Figure 3C-16 shows the mean relative humidity for each month at 6:00 and 15:00 local standard time
(LST), as recorded at the Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray and Cold Lake airports from 1971 to 2000.
The mean 6:00 LST relative humidity fluctuates to its lowest point in late spring and its highest in late
summer and early fall. The mean 15:00 LST annual relative humidity fluctuates to its lowest point in late
spring and its highest in late fall and early winter. The higher morning (6:00 LST) values are due to the
colder air temperatures, as colder air cannot hold as much water.
Figure 3C-16 Monthly Mean Relative Humidity at Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray and Cold
Lake Airports (1971-2000)
May 2012 Page 3C-31

3C.3.3 Visibility
Figure 3C-17 presents the mean number of hours for each month from 1971 to 2000 when reported
visibilities were less than 1 km, and when reported visibilities were between 1 and 9 km. Visibility is
recorded at the Cold Lake and Fort McMurray airports and is not recorded at the Fort Chipewyan airport.
At Cold Lake, visibilities less than 1 km tend to be more frequent in winter (November to March) and
least frequent during the late spring and early summer (May and June). At Fort McMurray, visibilities
less than 1 km tend to be more frequent in late summer and early fall (August to September) and least
frequent during the late spring and early summer (May and June). Visibilities between 1 and 9 km tend to
be more frequent in winter (November to March) and least frequent during the spring to fall period (April
to October).
Fort McMurray experiences fog as a result of being located near the junction of two rivers, the Clearwater
and Athabasca Rivers. Overnight, cooler air tends to collect in the valleys, which can also lead to fog
formation. This occurs most often in the fall of the year (Nav Canada 2001). There are many small lakes
and stretches of muskeg in the Fort McMurray area that support fog formation, even during the summer
period. This is most common right after a thunderstorm (Nav Canada 2001).
Figure 3C-17 Monthly Mean Visibilities at Cold Lake and Fort McMurray Airports (1971-2000)
May 2012 Page 3C-32

3C.3.4 Solar Radiation

Figure 3C-18 presents the mean daily global solar radiation values measured in the Cold Lake, Fort
McMurray, and Fort Chipewyan areas (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1997). The highest global
solar radiation values are recorded in the months of May through July while the lowest values are
recorded in the months of December and January. Alberta has some of the sunniest skies in Canada.
Summer is the sunniest season, partly because the northern parts of Alberta can experience up to 18 hours
of daylight in the summer months. The amount of annual bright sunshine is in excess of 2,000 hours in
almost all areas of the province (Environment Canada 1990).
25
Solar Radiation (MJ/m2/day)
20
15
Cold Lake Area

Fort McMurray Area
10
Fort Chipewyan Area
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure 3C-18 Mean Daily Global Solar Radiation at Various Monitoring Stations in the Cold
Lake, Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan Areas
May 2012 Page 3C-33

3C.3.5 Wind
Wind direction and wind speed are measured at the Environment Canada airport locations, the WBEA
ambient air quality monitoring site locations, and the LICA ambient air quality monitoring locations.
Wind direction and speed data are commonly plotted as a “wind rose”. A wind rose is a histogram plotted
in polar coordinates. The histogram is comprised of 16 bars whose length represents the frequency that
the wind blows from one of the 16 cardinal compass points (e.g., N, NNE, NE, ENE to WNW, NW, and
NNW). The bar can be broken down to represent different wind speed classes. Wind roses were prepared
from data collected at various monitoring locations in the domain.
3C.3.5.1 Surface Winds

Figure 3C-19 shows wind roses for the three airports (i.e., Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray and Cold
Lake) for the five-year period 2002 to 2006. The winds at all three airports show a bias for east-west
directions. This bias may be related to the local topography near each of the airports.
• The Fort Chipewyan airport runway has a west-southwest to east-northwest orientation. Other than
this, the topography is slightly rolling near the airport.
• The Fort McMurray airport winds are influenced by proximity to the Clearwater River Valley that has
an east to west orientation. The influence of the terrain at this airport is significant.
• The Beaver River drainage has a broad east to west orientation in the near Cold Lake airport.
The general east-west bias at all three airports is evident in the five-year 2002 to 2006 data. Surface winds
from the WBEA ambient air quality monitoring networks are compared in the following figures:
• Figure 3C-20 compares the 2002 to 2006 wind roses for four monitoring locations at Albian Mine,
Fort McKay and near the Syncrude and Suncor upgraders. Three of the locations show a strong north
to south bias that is associated with the north to south orientation of the Athabasca River Valley.
• Figure 3C-21 compares the 2002 to 2006 wind roses for two monitoring locations near the Syncrude
and Suncor upgraders and near Fort McMurray. Directional biases associated with terrain are evident
at the sites.
The winds measured at monitoring sites may also be influenced by the presence and orientation of nearby
tree canopies in addition to terrain influences. It is therefore a challenge to extrapolate wind information
from the location where it was measured to a more distant location.
3C.3.5.2 Elevated Winds

Historical wind rose data are available for elevated sites (Figure 3C-25) from the following locations:
• The AOSERP Birch Mountain Tower site (1976 to 1979) (Leahey and Hansen 1981). This site is at
an elevation of 850 m ASL and is about 70 km north-northwest of the Mildred Lake monitoring
station. This is the highest surface elevation site in the region where wind data are collected. Winds
are primarily from the west to northwest sectors.
• The AOSERP Bitumount Tower site (1976 to 1979) (Leahey and Hansen 1981). This site is at an
elevation of 350 m ASL and is about 34 km north-northeast of the Mildred Lake monitoring station.
This site is at a higher elevation that any of the WBEA monitoring sites. The winds from this location
still show the influence of the north-south orientation of the Athabasca River Valley.
May 2012 Page 3C-34

• The 1200 m level based on 2344 minisonde releases (1975 to 1979) in the Mildred Lake area
(Davison et al 1981). The winds are primarily from the west to northwest sectors; these frequent
winds are similar to those measured at Birch Mountain. The wind data from both sites indicate that
the upper level prevailing winds are from the west to northwest sectors.
• The 400 m level based on 2344 minisonde releases (1975 to 1979) in the Mildred Lake area (Davison
et al 1981). These winds are more uniform than those measured at the Bitumount site, and the most
frequent winds are from the west.
In summary, the wind data indicate that the upper level prevailing winds are from the west to northwest
sectors and that the lower elevation sites are strongly influenced by local topography.
May 2012 Page 3C-35

Fort Chipewyan Airport

NORTH
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 10.10%
Fort McMurray Airport

NORTH
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 10.48%
Cold Lake Airport

NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 9.59%
Figure 3C-19 Comparison of Wind Roses based on Measurements at the Three Environment
Canada Airports (2002-2006)
May 2012 Page 3C-36

Fort McKay Mildred Lake
NORTH NORTH
20% 20%
16% 16%
12% 12%
8% 8%
4% 4%
WEST EAST WEST EAST
WIND SPEED WIND SPEED

(m/s) (m/s)
>= 10.0 >= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.38%
Calms: 0.18%
Albian Mine Buffalo Viewpoint
NORTH NORTH
20% 20%
16% 16%
12% 12%
8% 8%
4% 4%
WEST EAST
WEST EAST
WINDSPEED
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
(m/s)
>= 10.0
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH 6.0 - 8.0
4.0 - 6.0 SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.02%
Calms: 0.11%
Figure 3C-20 Comparison of Wind Roses based on Measurements in the WBEA Area (2002
to 2006)
May 2012 Page 3C-37

Lower Camp A Patricia McInnis (Fort McMurray)
NORTH NORTH
20% 15%
16% 12%
12% 9%
8% 6%
4% 3%
WEST EAST WEST EAST

(m/s) (m/s)
>= 10.0 >= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0 0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.25% Calms: 0.10%
Mannix Athabasca Valley (Fort McMurray)
NORTH NORTH
20% 20%
16% 16%
12% 12%
8% 8%
4% 4%
WEST EAST WEST EAST

(m/s) (m/s)
>= 10.0 >= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0 0.1 - 2.0
Figure 3C-21 Comparison of Wind Roses based on Measurements in the WBEA and Fort
McMurray Areas (2002 to 2006)
May 2012 Page 3C-38

Birch Mountain Minisonde (1200 m)
Bitumount Tower Minisonde (400 m)
Figure 3C-22 Comparison of Higher Elevation Wind Roses based on Historical

Measurements
3C.3.5.3 Wind Speed

Table 3C-11 provides wind speed statistics for various Environment Canada and WBEA measurement
sites. Average wind speeds tend to be in the 0.8 to 5.1 m/s range. Some locations indicate a bias to lower
May 2012 Page 3C-39

wind speeds (e.g., Syncrude UE1); while others indicate a bias to higher wind speeds (e.g., Rich Lake and
Millennium). These biases are likely due to the relative wind sensor exposures associated with the
different sites. It should also be noted that there can be a year-to-year average wind speed variability that
may be due to meteorological differences or due to land cover changes (e.g., clearing).
3C.3.6 Meteorological Conditions in the Project Area

On a general basis, the Project Area meteorological variables such as temperature, precipitation, relative
humidity, visibility and solar radiation are expected to be more similar to those measured at Fort
McMurray and Cold Lake airports than those measurements at Fort Chipewyan airport. The winds at the
Project Area are expected to experience a north-south bias due to the nearby north-south coordinator of
the Athabasca River Valley, and due to the high terrain associated with the Pelican Mountains that are to
the west and east of the river.
TABLE 3C-11
MEASURED WIND SPEEDS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE MODEL DOMAIN

Average Wind Speed Maximum Wind Speed
Location Period (m/s) (m/s)
Environment Canada Sites
Fort Chipewyan Airport 2002-2006 2.9 13.9
Fort McMurray Airport 2002-2006 2.7 17.5
Cold Lake Airport 2002-2006 3.2 20.6
Rich Lake 2002-2006 3.2 14.4
Lac la Biche 2002-2006 2.9 15.8
Jimmy Lake 2002-2006 3.1 14.4
WBEA Sites
Fort McKay 2002-2006 2.4 10.3
Mildred Lake 2002-2006 2.9 11.4
Syncrude UE1 2002-2006 1.3 6.6
Buffalo Viewpoint 2002-2006 3.0 13.6
Lower Camp A 2002-2006 3.3 14.5
Barge Landing 2002-2006 1.5 7.0
Mannix 2002-2006 2.2 15.0
Albian Mine 2002-2006 2.1 8.9
Patricia McInnis 2002-2006 2.9 13.2
Athabasca Valley 2002-2006 2.4 21.1
3C.4 Meteorological Predictions
3C.4.1 Meteorological Models

Due to the paucity of meteorological data in a large domain, and the question of the representativeness of
measured data to larger regions; meteorological models have been used to provide spatially and
temporally varying wind and temperature fields across a large domain. These models can be categorized
as either prognostic or diagnostic models.
• Prognostic models use meteorological measurements and fundamental equations of atmospheric
motion to determine how the meteorological conditions will behave between the observing stations.
May 2012 Page 3C-40

The Fifth-Generation Penn State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research mesoscale model
(commonly referred to as MM5) is a frequently-used meteorological model for historical episodes. It is a
limited-area, nonhydrostatic, terrain-following sigma-coordinate model designed to simulate or predict
mesoscale and regional-scale atmospheric circulations. As a community model it is continuously being
improved by contributions from multiple users.
The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model is a next-generation mesoscale numerical weather
prediction system designed to serve both operational forecasting and atmospheric research needs. This
state-of-the-art system will serve as an update to MM5. It is designed to be a flexible atmospheric
simulation system that is portable and efficient on available parallel computing platforms. WRF is
suitable for use in a broad range of applications across scales ranging from meters to thousands of
kilometers and will also be community-based.
• Diagnostic models use interpolation schemes that can rely on empirical relationships to account for
topographical or other influences that can occur between the observing sites. The CALMET model is
an example of a diagnostic model (Scire et al. 2000). The CALMET model can be applied on a finer
scale than the WRF or MM5 model output in order to resolve more local-scale terrain influences.
3C.4.2 Selection of Prognostic Model

Historically the MM5 model was widely used in the air quality modeling community. However, it has
been officially phased out by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in 2008. On October
31, 2008, NACR (NACR 2008) announced that all technical support for the MM5 model has been
discontinued and all users are strongly encouraged to move to the new WRF model which is fully
supported by NCAR. WRF provides better algorithms, better handling of topography, better programming
than MM5 and includes all new features and options developed by Mesoscale & Microscale Meteorology
Division at NCAR in the recent years. Many studies have already proven that WRF has met the
requirements for the transition from MM5 and outperforms MM5 in overall model accuracy (U.S. EPA
2010).
Considering the advantage of using a new generation model, the WRF model was selected as the
prognostic model for this assessment. The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) 32 km
resolution North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) gridded analysis data were used as input to the
Version 3 of WRF model to produce a 5-year (2002 to 2006) meteorological data on a 4 km grid
resolution using the Stantec high performance computing cluster. The 4 km grid resolution WRF model
output being used as an initial guess field and the CALMET model adjusted the initial guess field for the
kinematic effects of terrain, slope flows, and terrain blocking effects using the finer scaled CALMET
terrain data to produce a modified wind field. This approach has become the standard for air quality
assessments that have been prepared for oil sands project applications in northeastern Alberta and in the
Fort Saskatchewan area.
Figure 3C-23 shows the WRF grid point locations based on the 4 km grid resolution. While it is clear that
the grid points provide a greater and uniform density across the domain than the locations where
meteorological parameters are measured (see Figure 3C-3), it must be noted that these are
interpolated/predicted data. Figure 3C-3 also shows the Project Area where wind, mixing height and PG
stability class data were extracted for analysis. These are the main parameters that influence transport and
dispersion of emissions from the Project.
May 2012 Page 3C-41

May 2012
3C.4.3 Regional Scale Winds

Figure 3C-24 compares wind roses from the WRF model that serves as input into the CALMET model
with the wind roses for the same location based on the CALMET model output. The WRF and CALMET
winds for the Project Area are similar. While there is a southerly bias that can be associated with the
nearby Athabasca River Valley influence. There is also a northwest bias that can be associated with the
upper level airflow (as depicted in Figure 3C-22 for Birch Mountain and the 1200 m minisonde
measurement.
Figure 3C-25 shows the individual years wind roses predicted by CALMET for the Project Area at 10 m
above the ground. The results indicate there is very little variation for the dominant winds from year to
year at this site.
3C.4.3.1 Surface Wind Vector Plots (2006)

The CALMET model can provide surface wind vector plots for all the grid points across the Model
Domain. Three plots were selected to represent unstable, stable and neutral conditions:
• Figure 3C-26 shows the wind field as a vector plot at 1800 LST on July 20, 2006 for convective (i.e.,
unstable) conditions (PG class B). The winds in the center part of the domain tend to be lighter than
the winds in the other parts of the domain. In the areas with light winds, the airflow is less organized.
The predicted wind at the Project Area is from the southwest with a wind speed of 4.6 m/s.
• Figure 3C-27 shows the wind field as a vector plot at 0100 LST on January 27, 2006 for stable
conditions (PG class E). The winds in the northern part of the domain tend to be northerly, while
those in the southwest of the domain tend to be easterly. The predicted wind at the Project Area is
from the east with a wind speed of 2.7 m/s.
• Figure 3C-28 shows the wind field as a vector plot at 1700 LST on May 1, 2006 for high wind speed
(i.e., neutral) conditions. Under these strong wind sped condition, the wind tends to be northerly
across the whole domain. The predicted wind at the Project Area is from the north with a wind speed
of 6.1 m/s.
The vector plots presented in these figures were not selected to be representative of a specific
meteorological condition. The vector plots are provided to show the variability of the airflow that can
occur over the 332 by 700 km region during any given hour. Note that departures of the predicted vector
plots from the actual profiles for a given hour are to be expected given the nature of modelling and the
relatively low density of actual observations across the region. The predicted values, however, can be
viewed as preferable to assuming a homogeneous wind field across the domain for each hour, based on
the local terrain influences that show up in the measured data.
May 2012 Page 3C-43

WRF 2002 to 2006
NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.07%
CALMET 2002 to 2006
NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.07%
Figure 3C-24 Comparison of WRF and CALMET Wind Roses at the Project Area (2002 to
2006)
May 2012 Page 3C-44

NORTH NORTH
15% 15%
12% 12%
9% 9%
6% 6%
3% 3%
WEST EAST WEST EAST

(m/s) (m/s)
>= 10.0
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
6.0 - 8.0 SOUTH
SOUTH 4.0 - 6.0
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.07%
Calms: 0.06%
2002 2003
NORTH NORTH
15% 15%
12% 12%
9% 9%
6% 6%
3% 3%
WEST EAST WEST EAST

(m/s) (m/s)
>= 10.0 >= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0 0.1 - 2.0
2004 2005
NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.09%
2006
Figure 3C-25 Individual Year (2002 to 2006) Predicted (CALMET) Project Area wind roses at
10 m
May 2012 Page 3C-45

.
May 2012
.
May 2012
.
May 2012
3C.4.3.2 Predicted Elevated Winds (2002 to 2006)

Figure 3C-29 shows the wind roses predicted by CALMET for the Project Area at various elevations (10
m, 60 m, 120 m and 240 m) above the ground. The results indicate a tendency for less southerly winds
and an increase in wind speed, with increasing height above the ground.
Figure 3C-30 shows the predicted Birch Mountain and Bitumount wind roses at various elevations (60 m,
120 m and 240 m) and Mildred Lake site wind roses at various elevations (240 m, 460 m and 1000 m)
above the ground based on the CALMET model predictions. The predicted wind roses based on the 2002
to 2006 data indicates winds are similar to the wind rose based on measurements (Figure 3C-25):
• Predicted Winds at 60 m and 120 m elevations at Birch Mountain and Bitumount sites show the
influence of the north-south orientation of the Athabasca River Valley
• Predicted Winds at 240 m elevation at Birch Mountain and Bitumount sites and predicted winds at
240 m, 460 m and 1000 m elevations at Mildred Lake site show upper level prevailing winds are from
the west to northwest sectors.
Although the upper-level wind comparisons are not specific to the Project Area, the comparison does
illustrate the ability of the meteorological modelling approach to simulate the vertical wind variations that
have been measured in the Model Domain.
3C.4.4 Predicted Mixing Heights

The presence of an elevated inversion can trap effluents discharged into the atmosphere in the layer
between the surface and the base of the inversion layer, which can increase ground-level ambient
concentrations relative to the absence of an inversion layer. Mixing heights are usually the highest (i.e., in
the 1000 to 2000 m range) during daytime periods that are characterized by strong solar heating, and the
lowest (i.e., about 100 m) during the night. High wind speeds can also produce well-mixed layers.
Mixing heights are typically determined by analyzing vertical temperature profiles, which are not directly
measured on a routine basis. Portelli (1977) reviewed temperature profiles from upper air stations across
Canada and the northern U.S. and provided mean maximum afternoon mixing height values for Canada.
Davison et al (1981) analyzed temperature over 2200 vertical temperature profiles taken over the Mildred
Lake area for the period 1975 to 1978. Seasonal mixing height statistics were derived from these profiles.
Table 3C-12 shows the mean maximum mixing height values based on the Portelli and the Davison et al
studies. The mixing heights were found to range from low (i.e., 200 to 300 m) for the December to
February period, to high (i.e., 2000 to 2400 m) for the May to August period. The Davison et al summer
values are less than those derived by Portelli.
For this assessment, the CALMET post-processor was used to extract the mixing heights from CALMET
output files, and the mixing height predictions for the Project Area are provided in Figure 3C-31. The
results show:
• Winter: The maximum median value is the 400 to 500 m range, which is in between the Portelli
value (e.g., about 340 m) and the Davison et al value (e.g., about 520 m).
• Spring: The maximum median afternoon values are about 1500 m, which is smaller than the Portelli
values and larger than the Davison et al values.
May 2012 Page 3C-49

• Summer: The maximum median afternoon value about 1700 m, which is between the Portelli and the
Davison et al values.
• Fall: The maximum median afternoon values are about 1000 m, which is similar to the Portelli
values.
The minimum values for each season are predicted to occur during the night. During the night, the mixing
height tends to be determined from mechanical mixing, with higher wind speeds resulting in a deeper
mixed layer. The convective mixing process dominates during the day, leading to maximum mixed layer
depths during the afternoon. The CALMET model, as applied sets the minimum mixing height to 50 m.
May 2012 Page 3C-50

NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
240 m
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.01%
NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
120 m
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.02%
NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
60 m
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.03%
NORTH
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
WEST EAST
10 m
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.07%
Figure 3C-29 Predicted (CALMET) Project Area Wind Roses at 4 levels (2002 to 2006)
May 2012 Page 3C-51

Birch Mountain 240 m Mildred Lake 1000 m Bitumount 240 m

NORTH NORTH NORTH
15% 15% 15%
12% 12% 12%
9% 9% 9%
6% 6% 6%
3% 3% 3%
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
WINDSPEED WINDSPEED WINDSPEED

(m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
>= 10.0 >= 10.0 >= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0

SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0 0.1 - 2.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.02%

NORTH NORTH NORTH
15% 15% 15%

12% 12% 12%
9% 9% 9%
6% 6% 6%
3% 3% 3%
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
WINDSPEED
WINDSPEED WINDSPEED
(m/s)
(m/s) (m/s)
>= 10.0
>= 10.0 >= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH 6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0
4.0 - 6.0 SOUTH SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0
0.1 - 2.0
0.1 - 2.0 0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.02%

NORTH NORTH NORTH
15% 15% 15%

12% 12% 12%
9%
9% 9%
6%
6% 6%
3%
3% 3%
WEST EAST
WEST EAST WEST EAST
WINDSPEED
(m/s) WINDSPEED
WINDSPEED
(m/s)
>= 10.0 (m/s)
8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0
>= 10.0
6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0
SOUTH 8.0 - 10.0
4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH 6.0 - 8.0
4.0 - 6.0 SOUTH
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 6.0
0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 4.0
Calms: 0.04% 0.1 - 2.0
0.1 - 2.0
Calms: 0.03%
Calms: 0.02%
Figure 3C-30 Predicted (CALMET) Birch Mountain, Mildred Lake and Bitumount Site Wind
Roses (2002 to 2006)
May 2012 Page 3C-52

TABLE 3C-12
MIXING HEIGHTS (M) DERIVED FROM MEASURED VERTICAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES

Environment Canada AOSERP
Month Fort Smith Stony Plain Average Mildred Lake
Jan 208 227 218 270
Feb 324 295 310 270
Mar 547 696 622 1000
Apr 1025 1578 1302 1000
May 1499 2396 1948 1000
Jun 1779 2185 1982 1000
Jul 1610 1954 1782 1000
Aug 1537 1563 1550 1000
Sep 1009 1322 1166 800
Oct 578 998 788 800
Nov 283 420 352 800
Dec 231 208 220 270
NOTES:
The Environment Canada values represent mean maximum afternoon mixing heights based on the analysis of
radiosonde measurements (Portelli 1977).
The “Average” values are the average of the northern Fort Smith and the southern Stony Plain values.
The AOSERP values are based on a seasonal analysis of minisonde measurements in the Mildred Lake area
(Davison et al 1981).
May 2012 Page 3C-53

Page 3C-54
NOTE: Winter: November, December, January, February and March. Spring: April and May.
Summer: June, July and August. Fall: September and October
Figure 3C-31 CALMET Predicted Mixing Heights for Different Seasons and Times of Day for the Project Area (2002 to 2006)
3C.4.5 Predicted Atmospheric Stability Class

Atmospheric dispersion results from atmospheric turbulence, which can be related to atmospheric
stability. Meteorologists define six stability classes (referred to as the Pasquill Gifford [PG] classes):
• Stability classes A, B and C occurs during the day, when the earth is heated by solar radiation. The air
next to the earth is heated and tends to rise, enhancing vertical motions. This is referred to as an
unstable atmosphere.
• Stability classes E and F occur during the night, when the earth cools due to long-wave radiation
losses. The air next to the earth cools, suppressing vertical motions. This is referred to as a stable
atmosphere.
• Stability class D is associated with completely overcast conditions (day or night) when there is no net
heating or cooling of the earth, transitional periods between stable and unstable conditions, or during
high wind speed periods (winds greater than 6 m/s [or 22 km/h]). This is referred to as a neutral
atmosphere.
Stability classes undergo a significant daily variation, and they have a seasonal dependence. Stability
classes can be determined from routine airport observations using the method devised by Turner (1963).
A stability classification algorithm is also included in the CALMET model, this approach is also based on
the Turner approach using wind speed and cloud cover information for each grid point in the domain. For
this assessment, cloud cover information was obtained from WRF data for the five-year period 2002 to
2006.
Figure 3C-32 shows the frequency distributions of predicted seasonal PG stability classes for the Project
Area on a diurnal basis. Unstable conditions are more frequent during the summer, and during daytime
periods. Stable conditions are more frequent during nighttime periods.
Table 3C-13 compares the stability class frequency distributions based on the CALMET model
predictions for the Project Area and three airports. The stability class frequency distribution for the
Project Area shows less neutral conditions and more stable conditions than those at the three airports.
TABLE 3C-13
STABILITY CLASS FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS (%) AT THREE AIRPORTS AND THE PROJECT
Area (2002 TO 2006)
Fort Chipewyan Fort McMurray
PG Class Airport Airport Cold Lake Airport Project Area
A 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3
B 5.6 7.7 7.2 7.2
C 15.3 16.0 14.8 15.2
D 49.2 42.3 44.1 38.0
E 6.6 7.5 9.5 10.6
F 23.1 26.1 24.0 28.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
NOTE: PG – Pasquill-Gifford
May 2012 Page 3C-55

W in te r S p r in g
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
70% 70%
P G F
60% P G F 60%
P G E
P G E
50% 50% P G D
P G D
P G C
40% P G C 40%
P G B
P G B
30% 30% P G A
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Sum m er Fa ll
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
Page 3C-56
70% 70%
P G F
60% 60% P G F
P G E
P G E
50% P G D 50%
P G D
P G C
40% 40% P G C
P G B
P G B
30% P G A 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
NOTE: Winter: November, December, January, February and March. Spring: April and May.
Summer: June, July, and August. Fall: September and October.
Figure 3C-32 Frequency of Predicted PG Stability Class for the Project Area (2002 to 2006)
3C.4.6 Predicted Precipitation

Predicted precipitation totals were compared to the measurements at the three airports. Prior to
comparison, the measurements were adjusted for undercatch, evaporation, and gauge specific wetting
losses, etc. Environment Canada adjusted precipitation data were used for this comparison (Environment
Canada 2010) with the adjustment methodology described in Mekis and Hogg (1999). Adjustments were
applied on daily values for rain and snow separately. The details of rain gauge corrections are explained
in Devine and Mekis (2008). For snowfall, density corrections based upon coincident ruler and Nipher
measurements were applied to all snow ruler measurements (Mekis and Hopkinson, 2004).
Table 3C-14 compares the annual total precipitation measured at the three airports for the 2002 to 2006
period with the associated predictions based on the CALMET and WRF models. In general, the predicted
values are greater than the measured values by 26 to 67%. The best comparison is in the southern portion
of the Model Domain based on the closer agreement between measurements and predictions at the Cold
Lake airport. The largest overpredictions are at the Fort McMurray airport.
Table 3C-15 shows the adjusted measurements at three airports and two high elevation Environment
Canada weather stations for the month of July for the 2002 to 2006 period. The best agreement is for the
high elevation stations (i.e., the Birch Mountain [+10%] and Stony Mountain stations [-21%]). The over
predictions at the other stations were in the 39 to 59 % range.
Figure 3C-33 shows the 5-year average July monthly total precipitation for the entire domain. It indicates
relatively large variations within the Model Domain with high values occurring in the central region.
Gridded meteorological model precipitation provides better spatial variation than the use of limited
precipitation measurements from airports. The model predictions are consistent with Rudolph et al
(1984) who found measured precipitation in the Fort McMurray area was greater on high at the high
elevation sites than at the lower elevation sites.
TABLE 3C-14
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED ANNUAL TOTAL PRECIPITATION AT THE THREE

AIRPORTS (2002 TO 2006)
Measured Total
Predicted Total Precipitation Over/Under Over/Under
Precipitation (Adjusted) Prediction Prediction
Year (mm) (mm) (mm) (%)
Fort Chipewyan Airport
2002 487 357 131 37
2003 418 339 78 23
2004 353 303 50 17
2005 521 386 136 35
2006 446 255 192 75
Average 445 328 117 37
Fort McMurray Airport
2002 663 451 213 47
2003 746 542 204 38
2004 659 365 294 81
2005 621 396 225 57
2006 807 376 431 115
May 2012 Page 3C-57

TABLE 3C-14 Cont'd
Measured Total
Average 699 426 273 67
Cold Lake Airport
2002 438 335 103 31
2003 615 640 -25 -4
2004 664 536 128 24
2005 657 580 77 13
2006 852 513 340 66
Average 645 521 124 26
TABLE 3C-15
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED JULY MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION AT THE

THREE AIRPORTS AND TWO HIGH ELEVATION STATIONS (2002 TO 2006)
Measured Total
Fort Chipewyan Airport (elevation 232 m)
July 2002 89 85 4 4
July 2003 75 42 33 78
July 2004 73 89 -16 -17
July 2005 100 57 43 75
July 2006 81 53 29 54
Average 84 65 18 39
Fort McMurray Airport (elevation 369 m)
July 2002 199 151 48 31
July 2003 84 73 10 14
July 2004 85 39 46 119
July 2005 149 141 7 5
July 2006 150 92 58 63
Average 133 99 34 47
Cold Lake Airport (elevation 541 m)
July 2002 95 68 27 40
July 2003 154 101 53 52
July 2004 119 102 18 17
July 2005 104 112 -7 -7
July 2006 182 62 120 193
Average 131 89 42 59
Birch Mountain Station (elevation 853 m)
July 2002 97 214 -117 -55
July 2003 103 100 3 3
July 2004 148 125 23 18
July 2005 141 102 40 39
May 2012 Page 3C-58

TABLE 3C-15 Cont'd
Measured Total
July 2006 284 195 88 45
Average 155 147 7 10
Stony Mountain Station (elevation 762 m)
July 2002 197 281 -84 -30
July 2003 81 163 -81 -50
July 2004 134 111 24 22
July 2005 133 257 -124 -48
July 2006 209 210 0 0
Average 151 204 -53 -21
May 2012 Page 3C-59

100
Lake
Athabasca
0
10
0
125 10
125
Birch Mountains
175
175
Wabasca Lakes
Pelican Mountains
15
0
Primrose Lake
Cold Lake
May 2012
3C.5 Advantages of A Meteorological Model

Given the large Model Domain, the paucity of meteorological measurements within the Model Domain,
and the demonstrated terrain influences on regional air flow, the use of the WRF and CALMET models is
seen as providing representative meteorological data for the CALPUFF model (discussed in Appendix
3D). Key advantages relating to application of these models include:
• The current Alberta Environment MM5 data for 2002 to 2006 period are for a 12 km grid spacing
basis. The WRF data used in this assessment are for a 4 km basis, which should allow terrain
influenced air flow to be better resolved.
• The models allow the meteorological data to vary spatially across the Model Domain in response to
synoptic airflow patterns (based on WRF), terrain influences (based on the CALMET), and land-
cover properties (based on CALMET). The land cover properties were adjusted for land use changes
associated with planned mining operations. The CALMET model supplemented the WRF data with
regional surface winds and temperatures.
• The models provide hourly meteorological predictions that account for systematic daily and seasonal
variations in consort with the spatial influences.
• The models show the southerly wind direction bias likely due to the Athabasca River Valley, and a
northwest wind direction bias, likely related to the prevailing upper level airflow.
• The predicted mixing heights show the expected seasonal and diurnal variation and the vales are
consistent with the limited measurements in the region.
• The predicted PG classes are similar to those derived at the airport locations.
• There are two options with respect to precipitation data, one uses monitoring station meteorological
data and the other uses predicted data from WRF. The WRF approach was used since it allow the
precipitation field to vary across the domain and provides higher values that are more consistent to
increased precipitation that can occur over elevated terrain.
The application of the CALMET model with mesoscale data has been used to provide input data for the
CALPUFF model for over a decade. The first applications focussed on one year periods (i.e., first 1995
and then 2002). Applications of the CALMET model in the region since 2009 have typically used five
years of meteorological data from 2002 to 2206 to provide more robust model predictions. While the goal
of using more sophisticated models and more data is to improve model predictions, the application as
described cannot resolve detailed micro-scale influences within valleys. The approach, however, is seen
as an improvement over using single station data.
3C.6 CALMET Application

The CALMET pre-processor is available from the model developer’s (i.e., the Atmospheric Studies
Group at TRC) web site (http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm). The current U.S. EPA version of
CALMET is Version 5.8, level 070623. For this assessment, a more recent version, Version 6.326 - Level
080709 was adopted.
A horizontal grid spacing of 4 km was selected for the CALMET simulation; the study area therefore
corresponds to 175 rows by 83 columns. With this grid spacing, it was possible to maximize run time and
file size efficiencies while still capturing large-scale terrain feature influences on wind flow patterns. This
May 2012 Page 3C-61

resolution is consistent with the US EPA recommendation for a minimum grid resolution of 4 km when
applying CALMET on a regional scale (US EPA 2009).
To simulate transport and dispersion processes, it is also important to simulate the representative vertical
profiles of wind direction, wind speed, temperature, and turbulence intensity within the atmospheric
boundary layer (i.e., the layer within about 2000 metres above the Earth’s surface). To capture this
vertical structure, eight vertical layers were selected. CALMET defines a vertical layer as the midpoint
between two faces (i.e., nine faces corresponds to eight layers, with the lowest layer always being ground
level or 10 m). The vertical faces used in this study are 0, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 600, 1400 and 2600 m.
The CALMET model was applied using 2002 to 2006 (i.e., for 43,824 hours) meteorological data. The
model requires surface and upper air information. The gridded 3-D meteorological dataset produced by
the WRF model (a mesoscale meteorological model produced by Penn State/NCAR) were used as an
initial guess field (Klausmann et al. 2003). The WRF mesoscale information was prepared by Stantec and
was used to generate vertical wind and temperature profiles across whole study domain on a 4 km grid
resolution for the 2002 to 2006 years.
The CALMET model adjusted the initial guess field for the kinematic effects of terrain, slope flows, and
terrain blocking effects using the finer scaled CALMET terrain data to produce a modified wind field.
The CALMET model used concurrent surface station measurements. The input parameters for the
CALMET control file used in the modelling assessment are provided in Tables 3C-16 to 3C-23.
TABLE 3C-16
INPUT GROUPS IN THE CALMET CONTROL FILE

Input Group Description Applicable to Project
0 Input and output file names Yes
1 General run control parameters Yes
2 Grid control parameters Yes
3 Output Options Yes
4 Meteorological data options Yes
5 Wind Field Options and Parameters Yes
6 Mixing Height, Temperature and Precipitation Parameters Yes
7 Surface meteorological station parameters Yes
8 Upper air meteorological station parameters No
9 Precipitation parameters No
TABLE 3C-17
CALMET MODEL OPTIONS GROUPS 0 AND 1

Parameter Default Project Comment
Input Group 0: Input and Output File Names
NUSTA - 0 Number of upper air stations (Not Applicable)
NOWSTA - 0 Number of overwater met stations (Not Applicable)
MM3D - 1826 Number of WRF 3D.DAT files (one for each day)
NIGF - 0 Number of IGF-CALMET.DAT files (Not Applicable)
Input Group 1: General run control parameters
IBYR - 2002 Starting year
May 2012 Page 3C-62

TABLE 3C-17 Cont'd

IBMO - 1 Starting month
IBDY - 1 Starting day
IBHR - 0 Starting hour
IBSEC - 0 Starting second
IEYR - 2007 Ending year
IEMO - 1 Ending month
IEDY - 1 Ending day
IEHR - 0 Ending hour
IESEC - 0 Ending second
ABTZ - UTC-0700 UTC time zone
NSECDT 3600 3600 Length of modeling time-step (seconds)
IRTYPE 1 1 Run type
LCALGRD T T Special data fields
ITEST 2 2 Flag to stop run after SETUP phase
TABLE 3C-18
CALMET MODEL OPTIONS GROUP 2: GRID CONTROL PARAMETERS

PMAP UTM UTM Map projection
IUTMZN - 12 UTM Zone
UTMHEM N N Hemisphere for UTM projection
DATUM WGS-84 NAR-C NORTH AMERICAN 1983 GRS 80 Spheroid used for output
coordinate in consistent with the applied CDED terrain data
NX - 83 No. X grid cells
NY - 175 No. Y grid cells
DGRIDKM - 4. Grid spacing (km)
XORIGKM - 285.0 Reference coordinate of SW corner of grid cell (1,1) -X coordinate
(km)
YORIGKM - 5955.0 Reference coordinate of SW corner of grid cell (1,1) -Y coordinate
(km)
NZ - 8 Vertical grid definition: Number of vertical layers
ZFACE - 0,20,40,80, Vertical grid definition: Cell face heights in arbitrary vertical grid
160,320,600, (m)
1400,2600
May 2012 Page 3C-63

TABLE 3C-19
CALMET MODEL OPTIONS GROUP 3: OUTPUT OPTIONS

Disk Output:
LSAVE T T Save meteorological fields in the unformatted output files
IFORMO 1 1 Type of unformatted output file
Line Printer Output:
LPRINT F F Print meteorological fields
IPRINF 1 12 Print intervals (hrs)
IUVOUT (NZ) 0 1,0,0,0,0, Specify which layers of U,V wind component to print
0,0,0
IWOUT (NZ) 0 0,0,0,0,0, Specify which level of the w wind component to print
0,0,0
ITOUT (NZ) 0 1,0,0,0,0, Specify which levels of the 3-D temperature field to print
0,0,0
Meteorological fields to print:
Print?
0 = no print
Variable 1 = print Comment
STABILITY 1 PGT stability
USTAR 1 Friction velocity
MONIN 1 Monin-Obukhov length
MIXHT 1 Mixing height
WSTAR 0 Convective velocity scale
PRECIP 1 Precipitation rate
SENSHEAT 0 Sensible heat flux
CONVZI 0 Convective mixing height
Testing and debug print options for micrometeorological module:
LDB F F Print input meteorological data and internal variables
NN1 1 1 First time step for which debug data are printed
NN2 1 1 Last time step for which debug data are printed
LDBCST F F Print distance to land internal variables
Testing and debug print options for wind field module:
IOUTD 0 0 Control variable for writing the test/debug wind fields to disk files
NZPRN2 1 1 Number of levels, starting at surface, to print
IPR0 0 0 Print the interpolated wind components
IPR1 0 0 Print the terrain adjusted surface wind components
IPR2 0 0 Print the smoothed wind components and the initial divergence
fields
IPR3 0 0 Print the final wind speed and direction
IPR4 0 0 Print the final divergence fields
IPR5 0 0 Print the winds after kinematic effects are added
IPR6 0 0 Print the winds after the Froude number adjustment is made
IPR7 0 0 Print the winds after slope flows are added
IPR8 0 0 Print the final wind field components
May 2012 Page 3C-64

TABLE 3C-20
CALMET MODEL OPTIONS GROUP 4: METEOROLOGICAL DATA OPTIONS

NOOBS 0 1 Use surface stations (no upper air observations); Use WRF
3D.DAT for upper air data
Number of Surface & Precipitation Meteorological Stations:
NSSTA - 15 Number of surface stations
NPSTA - -1 Precipitation observations not used (WRF model gridded
precipitation data used)
Cloud Data Options:
ICLOUD 0 4 Gridded cloud cover from prognostic model relative humidity
File Formats:
IFORMS 2 2 Used free-formatted surface meteorological data file
IFORMP 2 2 Precipitation data file format (Not Applicable)
IFORMC 2 2 Cloud data file format (Not Applicable)
TABLE 3C-21
CALMET MODEL OPTION GROUP 5: WIND FIELD OPTIONS AND PARAMETERS

Wind Field Model Options:
IWFCOD 1 1 Model selection variables
IFRADJ 1 1 Compute Froude number adjustment
IKINE 0 0 Compute kinematic effects
IOBR 0 0 Use O’Brien procedure for adjustment of the vertical velocity
ISLOPE 1 1 Compute slope flow effects
IEXTRP -4 -4 Extrapolate surface wind observations to upper layers (similarity
theory used with layer 1 data at upper air stations ignored)
ICALM 0 0 Extrapolate surface winds even if calm
BIAS 0 0,0,0,0,0,0, Layer-dependent biases modifying the weights of surface and
0,0 upper air stations
RMIN2 4 -1.0 Minimum distance from nearest upper air station to surface station
for which extrapolation of surface winds at surface station will be
allowed (Not Applicable)
IPROG 0 14 Use gridded prognostic wind field model output fields as input to
the diagnostic wind field model
Set to 14 as WRF gridded model data was used as the main input
to CALMET model for this assessment
ISTEPPG 1 1 Time step (hours) of the prognostic model input data
IGFMET 0 0 Use coarse CALMET fields as initial guess fields
Radius of Influence Parameters:
LVARY F F Use varying radius of influence
RMAX1 - 50 Maximum radius of influence over land in the surface layer (km)
RMAX2 - 50 Maximum radius of influence over land aloft (km) (Not Applicable)
RMAX3 - 10 Maximum radius of influence over water (Not Applicable)
Other Wind Field Input Parameters:
RMIN 0.1 0.1 Minimum radius of influence used in the wind field interpolation
(km)
TERRAD - 15 Radius of influence of terrain features (km)
May 2012 Page 3C-65

TABLE 3C-21 Cont'd

R1 - 8 Relative weighting of the first guess field and observations in the
surface layer (km)
R2 - 8 Relative weighting of the first guess field and observations in the
layers aloft (km) (Not Applicable)
RPROG - 0 Relative weighting parameter of the prognostic wind field data
(km) (Not Applicable, used only IPROG = 1)
DIVLIM 5.0E-6 5.0E-6 Maximum acceptable divergence in the divergence minimization
procedure
NITER 50 50 Maximum number of iterations in the divergence minimization
procedure
NSMTH (NZ) 2, 2,4,4,4,4, Number of passes in the smoothing procedure
(mxnz-1) *4 4,4,4
NINTR2 99 5,5,5,5,5, Maximum number of stations used in each layer for the
5,5,5 interpolation of data to a grid point
CRITFN 1.0 1.0 Critical Froude number
ALPHA 0.1 0.1 Empirical factor controlling the influence of kinematic effects
FEXTR2(NZ) 0.0 0.,0.,0.,0., Multiplicative scaling factor for extrapolation of surface
0.,0.,0.,0. observations to upper layers
Barrier Information:
NBAR 0 0 Number of barriers to interpolation of the wind fields
(The barrier option was not used)
KBAR NZ 8 Level (1 to NZ) up to which barriers apply (Not Applicable)
XBBAR - 0 X coordinate of beginning of each barrier (Not Applicable)
YBBAR - 0 Y coordinate of beginning of each barrier (Not Applicable)
XEBAR - 0 X coordinate of ending of each barrier (Not Applicable)
YEBAR - 0 Y coordinate of ending of each barrier (Not Applicable)
Diagnostic Module Data Input Options:
IDIOPT1 0 0 Surface temperature (0 = compute internally from hourly surface
observation)
ISURFT - -1 use 2-D spatially varying surface temperatures
IDIOPT2 0 0 Domain-averaged temperature lapse (0 = compute internally from
hourly surface observation)
IUPT - - Upper air station not used (Not Applicable)
ZUPT 200 200 Depth through which the domain-scale lapse rate is computed (m)
IDIOPT3 0 0 Domain-averaged wind components
IUPWND -1 -1 3-D initial guess fields from WRF model
ZUPWND 1., 1000 1., 1000 Bottom and top of layer through which domain-scale winds are
computed (m) (Not Applicable)
IDIOPT4 0 0 Observed surface wind components for wind field module
IDIOPT5 0 - Observed upper air wind components for wind field module (Not
Applicable)
Lake Breeze Information:
LLBREZE F F Lake breeze module was not used (Not Applicable)
NBOX - 0 Number of lake breeze regions (Not Applicable)
XG1 - 0 X Grid line 1 defining the region of interest (Not Applicable)
XG2 - 0 X Grid line 2 defining the region of interest (Not Applicable)
YG1 - 0 Y Grid line 1 defining the region of interest (Not Applicable)
YG2 - 0 Y Grid line 2 defining the region of interest (Not Applicable)
May 2012 Page 3C-66

TABLE 3C-21 Cont'd

XBCST - 0 X Point defining the coastline in kilometres (Straight line) (Not
Applicable)
YBCST - 0 Y Point defining the coastline in kilometres (Straight line) (Not
Applicable)
XECST - 0 X Point defining the coastline in kilometres (Straight line) (Not
Applicable)
YECST - 0 Y Point defining the coastline in kilometres (Straight line) (Not
Applicable)
NLB - 0 Number of stations in the region (Not Applicable)
METBXID - 0 Station ID’s in the region (Not Applicable)
TABLE 3C-22
CALMET MODEL OPTION GROUP 6: MIXING HEIGHT, TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION

PARAMETERS
Empirical Mixing Height Constants:
CONSTB 1.41 1.41 Neutral, mechanical equation
CONSTE 0.15 0.15 Convective mixing height equation
CONSTN 2400 2400 Stable mixing height equation
CONSTW 0.16 0.16 Over water mixing height equation
FCORIO 1.0E-4 1.2E-04 Absolute value of Coriolis (l/s)
Spatial Averaging of Mixing Heights:
IAVEZI 1 1 Conduct spatial averaging
MNMDAV 1 2 Maximum search radius in averaging (grid cells)
2 grid cells (8 km) was used as maximum search radius in
averaging
HAFANG 30 30 Half-angle of upwind looking cone for averaging
ILEVZI 1 1 Layer of winds used in upwind averaging
Convective Mixing Heights Options:
IMIXH 1 1 Method to compute the convective mixing height (Maul-Carson)
THRESHL 0.05 0.05 Threshold buoyancy flux required to sustain convective mixing
3
height growth overland (W/m )
THRESHW 0.05 0.05 Threshold buoyancy flux required to sustain convective mixing
3
height growth overwater (W/m )
ITWPROG 0 0 Option for overwater lapse rates used in convective mixing height
growth (1=use prognostic lapse rates)
ILUOC3D 16 16 Land use category ocean in 3D.DAT datasets
Other Mixing Height Variables:
DPTMIN 0.001 0.001 Minimum potential temperature lapse rate in the stable layer
above the current convective mixing height (K/m)
DZZI 200 200 Depth of layer above current convective mixing height through
which lapse rate is computed (m)
ZIMIN 50 50 Minimum overland mixing height (m)
ZIMAX 3000 3000 Maximum overland mixing height (m)
ZIMINW 50 50 Minimum overwater mixing height (m)
ZIMAXW 3000 3000 Maximum overwater mixing height (m)
May 2012 Page 3C-67

TABLE 3C-22 Cont'd

Overwater Surface Fluxes Method and Parameters:
ICOARE 10 10 Overwater surface fluxes method. Set to 10 means COARE with
no wave parameterization (Not Applicable)
DSHELF 0 0 Coastal/Shallow water length scale (km) (Not Applicable)
IWARM 0 0 COARE warm layer computation (Not Applicable)
ICOOL 0 0 COARE cool skin layer computation (Not Applicable)
Relative Humidity Parameters:
IRHPROG 0 1 3D relative humidity from WRF 4 km grid resolution prognostic
data for the Project
Temperature Parameters:
ITPROG 0 1 3D temperature from WRF 4 km grid resolution prognostic data
for the Project
IRAD 1 1 Interpolation type
TRADKM 500 500 Radius of influence for temperature interpolation (km)
NUMTS 5 15 Maximum number of stations to include in temperature
interpolation
IAVET 1 1 Conduct spatial averaging of temperatures (1 = yes)
TGDEFB -0.0098 -0.0098 Default temperature gradient below the mixing height over water
(K/m)
TGDEFA -0.0045 -0.0045 Default temperature gradient above the mixing height over water
(K/m)
JWAT1 - 55 Beginning land use categories for temperature interpolation over
water
JWAT2 - 55 Ending land use categories for temperature interpolation over
water
Precipitation Interpolation Parameters:
NFLAGP 2 - Method of interpolation (Not Applicable)
SIGMAP 100 - Radius of Influence (km) (Not Applicable)
CUTP 0.01 - Minimum Precipitation rate cut-off (mm/h) (Not Applicable)
TABLE 3C-23
CALMET MODEL OPTION GROUP 7: SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL STATION PARAMETERS

X coordinate Y coordinate Anemometer
Name ID (km) (km) Time zone Height
ALBN 10010 468.315 6348.770 7 10
BGLD 10009 463.770 6339.608 7 10
BFLV 10004 463.998 6317.175 7 10
FTMK 10001 461.289 6338.652 7 10
ATAHB 10007 476.127 6287.711 7 10
PMFM 10006 470.886 6289.915 7 10
LWCA 10011 469.603 6320.475 7 10
MNNX 10005 470.695 6314.016 7 10
MDLK 10002 465.839 6323.093 7 10
ECFC 20101 493.252 6514.077 7 10
ECFM 20102 486.715 6278.448 7 10
ECCL 20103 546.506 6030.118 7 10
May 2012 Page 3C-68

TABLE 3C-23 Cont'd
X coordinate Y coordinate Anemometer

Name ID (km) (km) Time zone Height
ECRL 20104 454.668 6039.38 7 10
ECLB 20106 434.38 6069.675 7 10
ECJL 20107 566.05 6084.15 7 10
NOTE:
The sites are shown for the 2002-2006 simulation and include:
ALBN Albian Mine
BGLD Barge landing
BFLV Buffalo Viewpoint
FTMK Fort McKay
ATAHB Athabasca Valley
PMFM Patricia McInnes
LWCA Lower camp A
MNNX Mannix
MDLK Mildred lake
ECFC Fort Chipewyan Airport
ECFM Fort McMurray Airport
ECCL Cold Lake Airport
ECRL Rich Lake
ECLB Lac la Biche
ECJL Jimmy Lake
May 2012 Page 3C-69

3C.7 References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 1997. Canadian Ecodistrict Climate Normals (December
1997 Revised). Available at: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/district/climate.html.
Alberta Environment (2009) Alberta Environment. 2009. Air Quality Model Guideline. Climate Change,
Air and Land Policy Branch. May 2009.
Barr, A.G., Betts, A.K., Desjardins, R.L., MacPherson, J.I. 1997. Comparison of regional surface fluxes
from boundary-layer budgets and aircraft measurements above boreal forest. Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 102, No. D24, Pages 29,213-29,218. December, 1997.
Barr, A.G. and Strong, G.S. 1996. Estimating regional surface heat and moisture fluxes above prairie
cropland from surface and upper-air measurements. J. Applied Meteorology. 35: 1716-1735.
Betts, A.K. and J.H. Ball. 1997. Albedo over the Boreal Forest. Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume
102. Number D24.
Bourque, C., Hassan, Q. Leaf Area Index Review and Determination for the Greater Athabasca Oil Sands
Region of Northern Alberta, Canada. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management
Association (CEMA). December 31, 2008.
Brooks, J.R., L. Zhang, Y. Li, and D. Johnson, 1999. Description and evaluation of a model of deposition
velocities four routine estimates of dry deposition over North America Part II: Review of past
measurements and model results. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 33.
Canadian Digital Elevation Data. 2009. Available at: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cded/
description.html;jsessionid=2A590C1F53D1EC843B1CEA547C94F499
Davison D.S., M.C. Hansen, R.C. Rudolph and M.J.E Davies. 1981. Airshed Management System for the
Alberta Oil Sands. Volume II: Meteorological Data. Prepared for the Research Management
Division by Intera Environmental Management Consultants and Western Research and
Development. AOSERP Report 120. 89 pp.
Devine, K.A. and É. Mekis, 2008: Field accuracy of Canadian rain measurements. Atmosphere-Ocean 46
(2), 213–227.
Environment Canada. 1990. The Climate of Canada. Canadian Publishing Centre. ISSNO-660-13459-4.
176 pp.
Environment Canada. 2006. Canadian Climate Normals on Averages 1971¬–2000. Available at:
http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. Accessed: 2006.
Environment Canada. 2010. Adjusted Precipitation Data Access. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/dccha-
ahccd/default.asp?lang=en&n=2E5F8A39-1. Accessed: 2011
Klausmann, A. M., M. Phadnis and J.S Scire. 2003. The Application of MM5/WRF Models to Air
Quality Assessments. Thirteen PSU/NCAR Mesoscale Model Users’ Workshop. June 2003
Leahey, D.M. and M. Hansen. 1981. Analysis of Wind Data for Mildred Lake, Birch Mountain
Bitumount Towers. Prepared by: Western Research. December 1981.
Mekis, É. and W.D. Hogg, 1999: Rehabilitation and analysis of Canadian daily precipitation time series.
Atmosphere-Ocean 37(1), 53-85.
May 2012 Page 3C-70

Mekis, É. and R. Hopkinson, 2004: Derivation of an improved snow water equivalent adjustment factor
map for application on snowfall ruler measurements in Canada. 14th Conf. on Applied
Climatology, Seattle, USA. 7.12.
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 2008: Consultation for the MM5 Modeling System
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/support/consult.html
Portelli, R.V. 1977. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Ventilation Coefficients for Canada.
Climatological Studies, Number 31. Fisheries and Environment Canada and Atmospheric
Environment.
Nav Canada. 2001. The Weather of the Canadian Prairies. Graphic Area Forecast 32 Prairie Region. 227
pp.
Prasad, S., and M. Davies. 2005. NOx Dispersion and Chemistry Assumptions in the CALPUFF Model.
Prepared for CEMA by RWDI Air Inc. July 2005.
Scire J.S., F.R. Robe, M. E. Ferneau, and R.J. Yamartino. 2000, A User’s Guide for the CALMET
Meteorological Model. Earth Tech Inc., Jan. 2000, p 332.
Turner, D.B. 1963. A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 3:83 91.
U.S. EPA. 2004. United States Environmental Protection Agency: User Guide for the AERMOD
Meteorological Processor (AERMET). November 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2009. Clarification on EPA-ELM Recommended Settings for CALMET. Memorandum
Prepared by T.J. Fox, Air Quality Modeling Group, August 9, 2009
U.S. EPA. 2010. Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division (AMAD): Multiscale Meteorological
Modeling http://www.epa.gov/AMD/ModelDevelopment/meteorologyModeling.html
May 2012 Page 3C-71

BlackPearl Resources Inc. CALPUFF Dispersion Model
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Volume 2 - Appendix 3D
APPENDIX 3D
CALPUFF DISPERSION MODEL
Page 3D-1
Table of Contents
3D.0 CALPUFF ................................................................................................................................. 3D-5
3D.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3D-5
3D.1.1 Model Types ............................................................................................................. 3D-5
3D.1.2 Model Input/Output Files .......................................................................................... 3D-5
3D.2 Model Selection ......................................................................................................................... 3D-6
3D.2.1 Model Requirements ................................................................................................. 3D-6
3D.2.2 Candidate Models ..................................................................................................... 3D-6
3D.2.3 CALPUFF Model ...................................................................................................... 3D-7
3D.3 Model Application ..................................................................................................................... 3D-8
3D.3.1 Model Domain .......................................................................................................... 3D-8
3D.3.2 Receptor Locations ................................................................................................... 3D-9
3D.3.2.1 Gridded Cartesian Receptors ................................................................. 3D-9
3D.3.2.2 Discrete Receptors ............................................................................... 3D-10
3D.3.3 Meteorology ............................................................................................................ 3D-23
3D.3.4 Dispersion ............................................................................................................... 3D-23
3D.3.5 Building Downwash ................................................................................................ 3D-24
3D.3.6 Terrain Coefficients ................................................................................................ 3D-24
3D.3.7 Chemical Transformation........................................................................................ 3D-24
3D.3.8 NO to NO2 Chemistry ............................................................................................. 3D-24
3D.3.9 NH3 Concentrations ................................................................................................ 3D-25
3D.3.10 Particulate Formation .............................................................................................. 3D-25
3D.3.11 Short-term Concentrations ...................................................................................... 3D-26
3D.3.12 Deposition Calculation Approach ........................................................................... 3D-26
3D.3.13 Background Deposition........................................................................................... 3D-28
3D.3.14 Visibility.................................................................................................................. 3D-35
3D.3.15 Interpretation of Predictions .................................................................................... 3D-36
3D.4 CALPUFF Performance .......................................................................................................... 3D-37
3D.4.1 Model Prediction Confidence ................................................................................. 3D-37
3D.4.2 Performance Approach............................................................................................ 3D-37
3D.4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide Comparison ................................................................................ 3D-38
3D.4.3.1 Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Comparison ................................................... 3D-39
3D.4.3.2 Top-25 1-Hour NO2 Comparison ........................................................ 3D-39
3D.4.3.3 Annual Average NO2 Comparison ...................................................... 3D-40
3D.4.4 Sulphur Dioxide Comparisons ................................................................................ 3D-46
3D.4.4.1 Maximum 1-Hour SO2 Comparison .................................................... 3D-46
3D.4.4.2 Top-25 1-Hour SO2 Comparison ......................................................... 3D-47
3D.4.4.3 Annual Average SO2 Comparison ....................................................... 3D-47
3D.4.5 PM2.5 Comparison ................................................................................................... 3D-53
3D.4.5.1 Maximum 1-Hour PM2.5 Comparison.................................................. 3D-53
3D.4.5.2 Top-25 1-Hour PM2.5 Comparison ...................................................... 3D-54
3D.4.5.3 Annual Average PM2.5 Comparison .................................................... 3D-54
3D.5 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 3D-59
3D.5.1 Model Application .................................................................................................. 3D-59
3D.5.2 Comparison Conclusions ........................................................................................ 3D-60
May 2012 Page 3D-2

3D.6 CALPUFF Model Options .......................................................................................................3D-61

3D.7 References ................................................................................................................................3D-71
List of Tables
Table 3D-1 Dispersion Models Identified In The Alberta Air Model Guideline ............................ 3D-7
Table 3D-2 CALPUFF Study Area Coordinates (UTM Zone 12; Nad 83)..................................... 3D-8
Table 3D-3 Locations Of Discrete Lake (SWQ) Receptors ...........................................................3D-14
Table 3D-4 Locations Of Discrete Monitoring Station (MS) Receptors ........................................3D-18
Table 3D-5 Locations Of Discrete Human Health (HHRA) Receptors .........................................3D-19
Table 3D-6 Ambient NH3 Concentrations Assumed For The Domain ..........................................3D-25
Table 3D-7 PM2.5 Multipliers For SO42- And NO3- ........................................................................3D-26
Table 3D-8 Maximum Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations.......................................................3D-41
Table 3D-9 Comparison Of Maximum Measured And Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations ....3D-42
Table 3D-10 Top-25 Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations ...........................................................3D-43
Table 3D-11 Comparison Of Top-25 Measured And Top-25 Predicted 1-Hour NO2
Concentrations .............................................................................................................3D-44
Table 3D-12 Comparison Of The Annual Measured And Predicted NO2 Concentrations ..............3D-45
Table 3D-13 Maximum Predicted 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations .......................................................3D-48
Table 3D-14 Comparison Of Maximum Measured And Predicted 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations .....3D-49
Table 3D-15 Top-25 Predicted 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations ............................................................3D-50
Table 3D-16 Comparison Of Top-25 Measured And Top-25 Predicted 1-Hour SO2
Table 3D-17 Comparison Of The Annual Measured And Predicted SO2 Concentrations ...............3D-52
Table 3D-18 Maximum Predicted 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations.....................................................3D-55
Table 3D-19 Comparison Of Maximum Measured And Predicted 1-Hour PM2.5
Table 3D-20 Top-25 Predicted 1-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations .........................................................3D-57
Table 3D-21 Comparison Of Top-25 Measured And Top-25 Predicted 1-Hour PM2.5
Table 3D-22 Comparison Of Annual Measured And Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations ....................3D-59
Table 3D-23 Input Groups In The CALPUFF Control File .............................................................3D-61
Table 3D-24 CALPUFF Model Options Groups 1 And 2 ................................................................3D-62
Table 3D-25 CALPUFF Model Options Groups 3 And 4 ................................................................3D-63
Table 3D-26 CALPUFF Model Option Group 5 ..............................................................................3D-64
Table 3D-27 CALPUFF Model Option Groups 6 And 7 .................................................................3D-65
Table 3D-28 CALPUFF Model Option Groups 8, 9, 10, And 11 ....................................................3D-66
Table 3D-29 CALPUFF Model Option Group 12 ............................................................................3D-67
Table 3D-30 CALPUFF Model Option Groups 13, 14, And 15 ......................................................3D-69
Table 3D-31 CALPUFF Model Option Groups 16 And 17 .............................................................3D-70
May 2012 Page 3D-3

List of Figures
Figure 3D-1a Cartesian Receptor Grid in the RSA .......................................................................... 3D-11
Figure 3D-1b Cartesian Receptor Grid in the RSA (Zoom in Project Area) .................................... 3D-12
Figure 3D-2 Discrete Receptors in the Model Domain .................................................................. 3D-13
Figure 3D-3 Background Sulphur Deposition (keq H+/ha/a) in the RSA ........................................ 3D-29
Figure 3D-4 Background Sulphur Deposition (kg S/ha/a) in the RSA ........................................... 3D-30
Figure 3D-5 Background Nitrogen Deposition (keq H+/ha/a) in the RSA ....................................... 3D-31
Figure 3D-6 Background Nitrogen Deposition (kg N/ha/a) in the RSA ......................................... 3D-32
Figure 3D-7 Background Base Cation Deposition (keq H+/ha/a) in the RSA .................................. 3D-33
Figure 3D-8 Background PAI Deposition (keq H+/ha/a) in the RSA ............................................... 3D-34
May 2012 Page 3D-4

3D.0 CALPUFF
3D.1 Introduction
Ambient air quality models are used to predict air quality changes (i.e., changes to ambient concentrations
or deposition) associated with current and future emission scenarios. This section discusses the selection
and application of the primary dispersion model that was used for the Project air quality assessment.
3D.1.1 Model Types

Air quality simulation (or dispersion) models provide a scientific means of relating industrial and
community emissions to air quality changes, by using mathematical equations to simulate transport,
dispersion, transformation, and deposition processes in the atmosphere. Dispersion models can address a
wide range of distance scales (hundreds of metres to thousands of kilometres) and time scales (minutes to
years). There are two modelling levels of effort:
• Screening models that estimate maximum short-term (1-hour) average concentrations for a wide
range of pre-selected meteorological conditions. These models are typically limited to single sources
and downwind distances of less than 10 km (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
SCREEN3 model).
• Refined models that use sequential hourly meteorological data for a one to five year period (8,760 to
47,800 hours, respectively). These models can address multiple sources, and predict hourly average
concentrations for all source, meteorology, and receptor combinations. The hourly concentrations can
be used to predict concentrations for averaging periods that are factors of 24 (i.e., 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, or 12
h), or for longer periods (i.e., seasonal or annual). Some refined models can also account for chemical
transformation and deposition processes.
Regulatory agencies have relied on dispersion models as part of their approval process. Numerous models
are available to predict ambient air quality changes and the appropriate selection depends on project-
specific circumstances. In response to the regulatory use of these models, formal guidelines regarding the
selection and application of these models have been developed (e.g., Alberta Environment [AENV]
2009a; U.S. EPA 2005).
3D.1.2 Model Input/Output Files

The application of a dispersion model requires the preparation of input files and the analysis of output
files. The input files include the following:
• control/option information to identify the model run, to select the available technical features, and to
control the output options specific to the selected model
• source data that identify the locations, emission characteristics (e.g., stack height), and emission rates
(e.g., NOX emission rate) for each source
• terrain elevations and surface characteristics to account for terrain influences on airflow and
turbulence
• surface characteristics to provide the deposition properties for the vegetation canopy
• meteorological data on an hourly basis to characterize airflow and turbulence in the region
The output files can include:
May 2012 Page 3D-5

• a summary file to identify the model run and to provide an overview of the run
• hourly concentration files for each receptor and meteorological combination
• hourly deposition files for each receptor and meteorological combination
Presentation software is used to re-format the model predictions and to provide concentrations and
deposition contour plots that can be superimposed over base maps.
3D.2 Model Selection
3D.2.1 Model Requirements

For the BlackPearl Project assessment, the selected model must have the ability to account for:
• Multiple point and area sources
• Flat and elevated terrain features
• Secondary PM2.5 formation
• SO2 to sulphate (SO42-), and NOX to nitrate (NO3-) conversion
• Wet and dry, and gaseous and particulate deposition processes
These features are required to predict ambient concentrations and potential acid input (PAI).
3D.2.2 Candidate Models

Table 3D-1 describes the dispersion models outlined in the Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline (AENV
2009a). Of these models, only the CALPUFF model can be used to predict secondary PM2.5 formation,
chemical transformation, and deposition of acidifying compounds.
The CALPUFF model was therefore selected as the preferred model for this assessment. CALPUFF has
two options with respect to meteorological data:
• The simple mode assumes a uniform meteorological field over the Model Domain (defined in
Appendix 3C) during a given hour. While this approach is consistent with the AERMOD model,
CALPUFF has the advantage of allowing the plume trajectories to vary from hour-to-hour in a
systematic manner as the wind direction varies from hour-to-hour. This becomes more important to
include when the model is applied to larger domains.
• The CALMET model allows for three-dimensionally varying meteorological fields over the model
domain during a given hour.
For this assessment, the CALPUFF model with the three-dimensional CALMET wind field was selected
(see Appendix 3C). The CALPUFF model performance was tested by comparing model predictions to
selected observations.
The SCREEN3 model is applied to the individual BlackPearl Project stacks (Appendix 3E) to evaluate the
relative stack contributions. The SCREEN3 model and corresponding documentation are available from
the U.S. Support Centre for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM) web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/).
The CALPUFF and CALMET models and documentation are available from the
http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm website.
May 2012 Page 3D-6

TABLE 3D-1
DISPERSION MODELS IDENTIFIED IN THE ALBERTA AIR MODEL GUIDELINE
The SCREEN3 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1995a) model is a simple Gaussian
plume model that uses Pasquill Gifford dispersion coefficients to characterize atmospheric
turbulence and Briggs relationships to determine plume rise. The model calculates the maximum
ground-level concentration that occurs below the plume centreline. The model examines a 54
atmospheric stability class and wind speed combinations to identify the combination that is
associated with the maximum ground-level concentration. Limited mixing conditions are assumed
for selected meteorological events. A pre-selected array of 50 distances, ranging from 100 m to
50 km, can be used. An iteration routine is used to determine the maximum concentration and the
associated distance to the nearest metre.
AERMOD (U.S. EPA 2004) is a new-generation U.S. air quality modelling system. It contains
updated algorithms for convective boundary layers; for computing vertical profiles of wind,
turbulence, and temperature; and for the treatment of all types of terrain. It was developed by the
U.S EPA, in collaboration with the American Meteorological Society.
The CALPUFF (Scire et al. 1999) model is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady state puff
dispersion model that can simulate the effects of time and space-varying meteorological
conditions on substance transport, transformation, and removal. CALPUFF can use the three-
dimensional meteorological fields developed by the CALMET model or simple, single station,
winds in a format consistent with the meteorological files used to drive the ISCST3 or the
AERMOD steady-state Gaussian models.
3D.2.3 CALPUFF Model

CALPUFF contains algorithms for near-source effects such as building downwash, transitional plume
rise, partial plume penetration, as well as longer-range effects such as chemical transformation, and
pollutant removal (wet scavenging and dry deposition). It can accommodate arbitrarily varying point
source and area source emissions. Most of the algorithms contain options to treat physical processes at
differing levels of detail depending on the requirements for the particular model application:
• Atmospheric Dispersion: several options are provided in CALPUFF for the computation of
dispersion coefficients:
o similarity theory to estimate σv and σw from surface heat and momentum fluxes provided by
CALMET
o Pasquill-Gifford (PG) or McElroy-Pooler (MP) dispersion coefficients
o dispersion equations based on the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model (CTDM)
o hourly values of direct turbulence measurements (σv and σw)
• Chemical Transformation: CALPUFF includes options to parameterize chemical transformation
effects using the five species scheme (SO2, SO42-, NOX, HNO3, and NO3-) employed in the
MESOPUFF II model, a modified six-species scheme (SO2, SO42-, NO, NO2, HNO3, and NO3-)
adapted from the RIVAD/ARM3 method, or a set of user specified, diurnally-varying transformation
rates.
• Dry Deposition: A full resistance model is provided to calculate dry deposition rates of gases and
particulate matter as a function of geophysical parameters, meteorological conditions, and substance
properties. Options are provided to allow user-specified, diurnally varying deposition velocities to be
used for one or more pollutants instead of the resistance model (e.g., for sensitivity testing) or to
bypass the dry deposition model completely.
May 2012 Page 3D-7

• Wet Deposition: An empirical scavenging coefficient approach is used in CALPUFF to compute the
depletion and wet deposition fluxes due to precipitation scavenging. The scavenging coefficients are
specified as a function of the pollutant and precipitation type (i.e., frozen vs. liquid precipitation).
The following section describes the application of the CALPUFF model specific to the Project
assessment.
3D.3 Model Application
3D.3.1 Model Domain

The CALPUFF model requires the user to define an area where the emissions sources are identified, the
meteorological conditions are characterized, and the locations where the air quality changes are to be
predicted. The CALPUFF computational domain was selected to represent the same 332 km by 700 km
domain (referred to as the Model Domain) used for the CALMET model (Appendix 3C). The Model
Domain is sufficiently large to include the complete Alberta Environment Lower Athabasca Region
(LAR). The model results, however, are presented for two sub-areas that are of relevance to the Project:
• The regional study area (RSA) is comprised of six, 1° longitude by 1° latitude grid cells that include
the Project Area. This area was selected because PAI deposition is managed on this basis in Alberta.
The RSA is about 227 km (north-south) by 192 km (east-west).
• The local study area (LSA) is comprised of a 100 km by 100 km area centered on the Project. The
LSA was selected to include the BlackPearl lease area, and the nearby smaller communities of
Wandering River, Calling Lake, and Sandy Lake.
Table 3D-2 provides the corners of the Model Domain, the RSA, and the LSA.
While CALPUFF has been used for large domains, the model has shown a bias to overpredicting ambient
concentrations for source-receptor distances greater than 200 km (Tonnesen et al. 2007; Levga et al.,
2002; U.S. EPA 1998). The Cold Lake in-situ oil sands operations to the southeast are within 200 km of
the Project. Similarly, the oil sands mining operations north of Fort McMurray are also within 200 km of
the Project.
TABLE 3D-2
CALPUFF STUDY AREA COORDINATES (UTM ZONE 12; NAD 83)

Easting (m) Northing (m)
Model Domain
Southwest Corner 285000 5955000
Southeast Corner 617000 5955000
Northwest Corner 285000 6655000
Northeast Corner 617000 6655000
Regional Study Area (RSA)
Local Study Area (LSA)
May 2012 Page 3D-8

TABLE 3D-2 Cont'd
Easting (m) Northing (m)

3D.3.2 Receptor Locations

Two types of receptors within the Model Domain were defined: nested Cartesian grid points and discrete
locations. Gridded Cartesian receptors are limited to the RSA and LSA.
3D.3.2.1 Gridded Cartesian Receptors

Figures 3D-1a and 3D-1b show the nested receptor points that are used to provide an understanding of the
spatial concentration and deposition patterns due to the Project emissions. The receptors are based on the
following spacing:
• 20 m spacing along the Project central processing facilities (CPF) fence line (identified as the blue
line in Figure 3D-1b)
• 20 m spacing along the Pilot and Expansion Project fence line (also identified as the blue line in
Figure 3D-1b)
• 100 m spacing within the Project CPF (identified as the dark region Grid G in Figure 3D-1b)
• 100 m spacing within well pad area (identified as the red region in Figure 3D-1a, and as Grid F in
Figure 3D-1b)
• 100 m spacing within 500 m of the well pad area (identified as the green region in Figure 3D-1a, and
as Grid E in Figure 3D-1b)
• 250 m spacing between 500 m and 2000 m of the well pad area (identified as the blue region in
Figure 3D-1a, and as Grid D in Figure 3D-1b)
• 500 m spacing between 2000 m and 5000 m of the well pad area (identified as the lighter brown
region in Figure 3D-1a, and as Grid C in Figure 3D-1b)
• 2,000 m spacing outside 5000 m of the well pad area and in the LSA (identified as Grid B in Figure
3D-1a)
• 5,000 m spacing within the RSA (identified as Grid A in Figure 3D-1a)
The grid density is the greatest near the Project to allow the assessment to focus on the effects of the
Project emissions. More distant from the Project, the resolution is sufficient to determine the additive
effects of the l Project emissions with emissions from other sources. The indicated receptor grid deviates
slightly from the guidance provided by Alberta Environment (2009a); specifically, the indicated spacing
does not explicitly meet the “1000-m spacing beyond 5 km”. For this type of assessment, however, this is
not seen as a limitation.
The above indicated spacing is depicted in Figures 3D-1a and 3D-1b is viewed as being sufficient to
provide an indication of the magnitude and spatial concentrations due to Project emissions. The described
grid is comprised of 13,590 receptor points.
May 2012 Page 3D-9

3D.3.2.2 Discrete Receptors

In addition, 393 discrete locations corresponding to specific sites of interest were included. Figure 3D-2
shows the locations of the discrete receptors that were included in the assessment. These receptors were
broadly grouped as follows:
• 178 discrete lake receptors (SWQ), all in the RSA. Predictions for these lakes are used to assess the
potential for lake acidification. Table 3D-3 identifies the lake receptors and associated coordinates.
• 47 ambient air-quality monitoring sites (MS). Model predictions are compared to measurements at
some monitoring sites to gauge the model performance. Table 3D-4 identifies the air quality
monitoring stations and associated coordinates.
• 168 human health locations (HHRA), all in the RSA. Table 3D-5 identifies the human health
assessment sites and associated coordinates.
May 2012 Page 3D-10

320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
6300000
6300000
6280000
6280000
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
Grid A
6240000
6240000
Grid B
63
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Grid C
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
Grid C
Conklin
6160000
6160000
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
6175280
6175280
390000 392000 394000 396000 398000 400000 402000 404000
Grid C
Grid E Grid D
Grid F
6173280
6173280
6171280
6171280
6169280
6169280
6167280
6167280
Pilot and Expansion Project Fenceline
Commercial Project CPF Fenceline

6165280
6165280
Grid E
Grid G
6163280
6163280
6161280
6161280
390000 392000 394000 396000 398000 400000 402000 404000
0 600 1200 1800

May 2012
TABLE 3D-3
LOCATIONS OF DISCRETE LAKE (SWQ) RECEPTORS

Elevation
SWQ Receptor Name Group ID UTM Easting (m) UTM Northing (m) (m)
D222(i) SWQ 349070 6289490 515
Sandy-1 SWQ 349626 6188280 562
Chipewyan SWQ 350513 6315440 535
Horsetail SWQ 350527 6214240 612
D226(i) SWQ 351247 6264350 563
Carrot SWQ 354281 6317280 529
41(g) SWQ 355095 6256780 574
Pelican SWQ 358952 6185800 562
50(g) SWQ 360472 6232480 623
44(g) SWQ 360775 6241740 609
22(h) SWQ 361308 6293770 493
D223(i) SWQ 361754 6287200 516
75(g) SWQ 363259 6189680 567
45(g) SWQ 363355 6241660 611
42(g), A42(f) SWQ 365015 6247320 614
D221(i) SWQ 365323 6302860 508
49(g), A300(f) SWQ 366124 6230030 627
47(g), A47(f) SWQ 367321 6235430 630
48(g) SWQ 367765 6234090 630
Wood Buffalo SWQ 368566 6243360 615
Long-2 SWQ 369298 6182080 558
46(g) SWQ 370920 6235860 632
D254(i) SWQ 374162 6271210 514
58(g) SWQ 376102 6200430 575
73(g) SWQ 376481 6177230 560
72(g) SWQ 376691 6184650 563
71(g) SWQ 381000 6189160 559
69(g) SWQ 383412 6181680 556
59(g), A59(f) SWQ 383467 6197730 564
70(g) SWQ 388380 6191750 556
Agnes-1 SWQ 404923 6184860 555
55(g) SWQ 413272 6235710 522
60(g) SWQ 413544 6197670 562
67(g) SWQ 414088 6172610 653
Algar SWQ 420102 6242080 526
57(g) SWQ 420621 6214240 562
53(g) SWQ 422698 6242950 528
54(g) SWQ 423111 6237380 546
65(g) SWQ 425742 6179810 598
Crow SWQ 426862 6184440 621
66(g) SWQ 429371 6177910 651
62(g) SWQ 432308 6198260 682
56(g) SWQ 432715 6224230 574
Mariana SWQ 435473 6201000 695
63(g) SWQ 437499 6197260 678
May 2012 Page 3D-14

TABLE 3D-3 Cont'd
Elevation
83(g) SWQ 438372 6185180 674
88(g) SWQ 438648 6204660 696
1(g), 25(h), 1 [267](f) SWQ 441917 6290880 512
PF3(d) SWQ 442406 6276540 463
84(g) SWQ 443436 6173060 668
P95(d) SWQ 443552 6301610 494
125(g) SWQ 443614 6104420 576
P96(d), P96(f) SWQ 444002 6295510 510
78(g) SWQ 444220 6193450 682
123(g) SWQ 444801 6114610 611
PF1(d) SWQ 445481 6278370 465
PF4(d) SWQ 446055 6279120 467
Base SWQ 446510 6167450 651
85(g) SWQ 446589 6173940 669
124(g) SWQ 446862 6109020 575
P101(d) SWQ 448002 6287960 516
86(g), A86(f) SWQ 448014 6170900 672
82(g), 82 [342](f) SWQ 448271 6183210 674
PF2(d) SWQ 448416 6280450 464
79(g) SWQ 448879 6190610 682
PF6(d) SWQ 450033 6268140 458
P99(d) SWQ 451402 6281110 461
PF5(d) SWQ 451429 6268550 457
P98(d), P98(f) SWQ 451762 6293510 517
116(g) SWQ 452463 6135860 654
77(g) SWQ 452595 6196130 679
P97(d), P97(f) SWQ 456002 6296460 498
Goodwin SWQ 457796 6141370 657
80(g) SWQ 458295 6193290 682
122(g) SWQ 458438 6096840 604
Big Chief SWQ 458671 6121880 643
Piche SWQ 461651 6098660 596
Wappau SWQ 463161 6151510 644
110(g) SWQ 464179 6147800 664
Behan SWQ 465073 6127390 658
29(g), A29(f) SWQ 466180 6224950 721
117(g) SWQ 467222 6132000 661
Heart SWQ 468042 6098610 596
114(g) SWQ 468315 6136640 661
Clyde SWQ 470369 6128280 654
128(g) SWQ 470756 6106020 607
PF8(d) SWQ 471630 6268390 410
81(g) SWQ 471892 6199680 691
Suncor_VS_UW1 SWQ 472298 6310390 239
Shipyard SWQ 473350 6313240 235
34(g), 1(h) SWQ 474056 6213580 698
May 2012 Page 3D-15

TABLE 3D-3 Cont'd
Elevation
120(g) SWQ 475613 6118970 668
111(g) SWQ 475751 6144010 659
Logan SWQ 476591 6104120 596
27(g), 27 [289](f) SWQ 477248 6228400 721
Wiau SWQ 479375 6142060 654
PF7(d) SWQ 479616 6256890 467
31(g) SWQ 480350 6228390 723
L10(c) SWQ 480727 6243330 735
L11(c) SWQ 481229 6244130 730
Maqua SWQ 482249 6246920 720
21(g), A21(f) SWQ 483819 6235130 728
24(g), A24(f) SWQ 484387 6230870 721
28(g), 28 [290](f) SWQ 487068 6225580 726
30(g) SWQ 487070 6226500 726
17(g) SWQ 487107 6238570 708
25(g), 25 [287](f) SWQ 487594 6229280 723
PF9(d) SWQ 488075 6256730 489
22(g) SWQ 489154 6232990 721
Surmont SWQ 489222 6240030 707
26(g), A26(f) SWQ 489502 6230880 721
Gregoire SWQ 489729 6258040 476
UNL13(c) SWQ 489844 6137550 692
L8(c) SWQ 490427 6237960 724
UNL7(c) SWQ 491151 6134420 711
33(g) SWQ 491196 6222320 733
UNL1(c) SWQ 491437 6137990 686
PTH12(d) SWQ 491531 6306260 451
PTH11(d) SWQ 492308 6313540 464
113(g) SWQ 492606 6137450 697
UNL12(c) SWQ 493107 6134650 694
PF10(d) SWQ 493296 6259810 491
32(g), 2(h) SWQ 493516 6226030 715
UNL5(c) SWQ 493933 6132220 692
PF11(d) SWQ 495869 6259630 495
Ipiatik SWQ 496692 6127900 679
UNL3(c) SWQ 497711 6132160 724
UNL4(c) SWQ 498367 6133580 724
P30(d) SWQ 498500 6314210 483
PF13(d) SWQ 498560 6265950 437
Canoe SWQ 498871 6257220 489
Kiskatinaw SWQ 499562 6256370 491
WQ267 SWQ 442016 6292310 513
LakeRAMPs1 SWQ 442044 6292125 513
WQA226 SWQ 442406 6276535 463
WQA215 SWQ 443552 6301613 494
WQ225A SWQ 443913 6295483 510
May 2012 Page 3D-16

TABLE 3D-3 Cont'd
Elevation
WQA55 SWQ 444222 6193454 682
WQ253 SWQ 444801 6114608 611
WQ131 SWQ 446510 6167454 651
WQ254 SWQ 446862 6106018 575
LakeSM7/LakeRAMPsA
86 SWQ 448014 6170896 672
LakeRAMPs82 SWQ 448271 6183205 674
WQA57 SWQ 458297 6193296 682
WQ167A SWQ 466149 6224878 721
WQ248 SWQ 470369 6128275 654
WQ258 SWQ 470756 6106015 607
WQ462 SWQ 471630 6268385 410
WQA58 SWQ 471892 6199679 691
Unnamed Lake SWQ 475050 6119494 665
WQ144 SWQ 477248 6225400 726
LakeRAMPs28 SWQ 485613 6222949 728
WQA34 SWQ 493791 6225561 715
Ipitiak Lake SWQ 496892 6127900 682
WQ33 SWQ 499571 6266398 435
SWQ 360906 6309193 513
SWQ 365466 6309193 511
SWQ 343030 6275081 529
SWQ 316032 6255928 614
SWQ 336280 6247537 568
SWQ 343212 6226377 600
SWQ 309648 6220905 555
SWQ 318039 6205947 545
SWQ 334639 6195367 548
SWQ 341570 6191536 560
SWQ 344489 6196826 554
SWQ 309283 6206677 574
SWQ 348684 6153412 651
SWQ 394470 6144474 587
SWQ 343030 6141190 640
SWQ 321140 6136630 614
SWQ 356711 6128239 593
SWQ 395017 6122584 590
SWQ 405050 6122219 560
SWQ 426392 6123132 601
SWQ 423109 6105985 565
SWQ 325336 6099965 643
Sandy Lake SWQ 350311 6190340 562
May 2012 Page 3D-17

TABLE 3D-4
LOCATIONS OF DISCRETE MONITORING STATION (MS) RECEPTORS

UTM Easting UTM Northing Elevation
MS Receptor Name Group ID (m) (m) (m)
Fort McKay MS 461287 6338622 270
Mildred Lake MS 465773 6323084 315
Lower Camp Original MS 469251 6321053 241
Buffalo Viewpoint MS 464001 6317180 322
Mannix MS 470695 6314020 333
Patricia McInnes MS 470884 6289915 362
Athabasca Valley MS 476129 6287709 250
Fort Chipewyan MS 489780 6507592 218
Barge Landing MS 463770 6339608 282
Albian Mine MS 468309 6348774 303
Lower Camp MS 469599 6320486 237
Millennium Mine MS 476658 6305102 346
Syncrude UE1 MS 461129 6334175 268
Anzac MS 497654 6256043 496
CNRL Horizon MS 455451 6351438 303
Albian Muskeg River MS 469313 6345230 284
Cold Lake South MS 549786 6029823 533
Maskwa MS 535454 6051157 603
Conklin MS 494770 6164891 565
Christina Lake MS 512514 6161329 569
Jackfish MS 508499 6153105 626
PH4 MS 474466 6331012 335
AH8 MS 485945 6322883 430
PL1 MS 421615 6266911 477
AH7 MS 453144 6298705 497
AL8 MS 436792 6330114 365
AH3 MS 492511 6283600 419
213 MS 575768 6323120 555
210 MS 534292 6236467 455
JP212 MS 475198 6323464 341
WF4 MS 440461 6334275 361
NE7 MS 508089 6333722 593
NE10 MS 549559 6274101 488
SM8 MS 489125 6228533 728
SM7 MS 448663 6171396 673
MacKay River SE MS 447180 6322073 390
MacKay River SW MS 443803 6319657 430
MacKay River NE MS 445757 6324006 408
MacKay River NW MS 444338 6323498 426
JPL1 MS 421565 6266865 477
JPH4 MS 474305 6330766 336
JPH2 MS 467073 6307455 325
PL8 MS 565735 6284941 313
Blackrod PASS 01-A & 01-B MS 395932 6164961 615
May 2012 Page 3D-18

TABLE 3D-5
LOCATIONS OF DISCRETE HUMAN HEALTH (HHRA) RECEPTORS

HHRA Receptor Name Group ID (m) (m) (m)
FN 327474 6203660 545
Otter-Orloff Lakes Wildland
PA 337872 6138330 642
Provincial Park
FN 342376 6195880 555
CBN 356166 6283180 522
CBN 356790 6270020 546
FN 358898 6126600 618
Grand Rapids Wildland Provincial
PA 394293 6255140 368
Park
La Biche River Wildland Provincial
PA 399700 6101720 564
Park
PA 404928 6232590 392
Park
FN 406400 6229470 395
PA 414619 6270070 331
Park
PA 446095 6272120 365
Park
FN 454300 6095880 585
PA 457393 6275190 264
Park
FN 465074 6101140 608
CBN 467388 6307130 319
CBN 469536 6277930 381
Residence COM 471498 6285890 360
FN 471730 6103490 638
Jackpine 2002 Report - Trappers
CBN 473314 6313990 236
Cabin
CBN 473372 6306180 243
Cabin
Residence COM 473639 6294180 256
CBN 474182 6315150 269
Cabin
CBN 476381 6282290 359
Fort McMurray COM 476829 6288340 250
Stony Mountain Wildland Provincial
PA 484098 6231430 722
Park
FN 488958 6255690 480
FN 490800 6252100 490
FN 493006 6258440 483
COM 497074 6255870 495
FN 498891 6278760 258
Wabasca 166C FN 325534 6221058 577
Wabasca 166C FN 325931 6231147 545
Wabasca 166B FN 329186 6204489 552
Wabasca 166 FN 334861 6192803 570
Wabasca 166 FN 335109 6199198 554
May 2012 Page 3D-19

TABLE 3D-5 Cont'd

Wabasca 166 FN 342266 6195799 555
Wabasca 166 FN 349569 6193163 562
Wabasca 166 FN 349763 6198691 582
Jean Baptiste Gambler 183 FN 358806 6126585 618
House River Indian Cemetery 178 FN 406410 6229442 395
Heat Lake 167A FN 454271 6095884 585
First Nations land – Heat lake 167 FN 462764 6103629 624
Heat lake 167 FN 465262 6101507 626
Behan COM 472645 6125634 669
Grayling Creek Provincial Forest
PA 472750 6248000 554
Recreation Area
First Nations land - Heat lake 167 FN 473169 6103792 594
Provincial Campsite – Highway 63 PA 477400 6252648 526
Margie COM 478910 6143061 660
Magua Lake Provincial Forest
PA 482500 6246750 723
Recreation Area
Old Cabins and Settlement Area
CBN 483500 6136000 660
(Wiau Lake)
Gregoire Lake Provincial Park SW
PA 486650 6258349 494
corner
Gregoire Lake IR 176 FN 487383 6249950 601
Gregoire Lake Townsite COM 487935 6258015 487
Devenish COM 487938 6154133 655
Devenish COM 488000 6154000 654
Gregoire Lake IR 176A FN 488935 6255515 484
Fire Lookout Tower IND 489000 6164000 673
Gregoire Lake 176A FN 489026 6255469 483
Gregoire Lake IR 176 Townsite FN 489235 6250214 552
Gregoire Lake 176 FN 490774 6252040 491
Gregoire Lake Provincial Park NE
PA 491435 6261015 486
corner
Gregoire Lake IR 176B FN 492935 6258314 480
Gregoire Lake 176B FN 492966 6258321 481
Cabins CBN 493000 6173000 544
Cabins near Gravel Pit CBN 493500 6170000 550
Conklin COM 494494 6164871 573
Conklin COM 494770 6164890 565
Conklin COM 495464 6165073 561
May 2012 Page 3D-20

TABLE 3D-5 Cont'd

Christina River Remote Provincial
PA 495750 6280250 251
Forest Recreation Area
Anzac COM 496800 6256000 488
Campground (Christina Lake) PA 496968 6164596 555
Leismer COM 497500 6178500 548
Medicinal Plants PA 498000 6162000 599
Future Kinosis Business/Industrial
PA 498300 6248000 469
Park
Jackfish Central Camp COM 498413 6155690 649
Cabins (NW Christina Lake) CBN 498573 6164766 561
Clearwater 175 FN 498913 6278622 273
Trappers Cabin CBN 499300 6257000 491
Trappers Cabin CBN 499400 6243000 485
Christina Lake Lodge CBN 499711 6163283 568
J2 Operations Camp COM 499755 6153351 671
Lawrence Lake CMP 329930 6096785 653
No Name CMP 481520 6278704 349
Hangingstone Camp CMP 476507 6252969 491
Gregorie Lake CMP 488205 6258985 485
No Name CMP 469154 6246619 572
North Wabasca Lake Camp ground CMP 320760 6214534 559
Crow Lake Camp CMP 425705 6183451 622
No Name CMP 427711 6166740 642
No Name CMP 404984 6129308 576
No Name CMP 379583 6107249 524
La Biche River Camp CMP 389610 6098225 545
No Name CMP 345827 6151366 670
Heart Lake 1 FN 462875 6104525 618
Heart Lake 4 FN 472725 6103613 598
Heart Lake 5 FN 465064 6098688 596
Wabasca 166C 1 FN 325700 6221087 578
Wabasca 166C 2 FN 325883 6231302 544
Wabasca 166C 3 FN 321870 6231850 555
Wabasca 166C 4 FN 321687 6225283 548
Wabasca 166C 5 FN 323329 6221452 547
Wabasca 166 1 FN 350144 6198833 580
Wabasca 166 2 FN 349779 6193543 567
Wabasca 166 3 FN 347955 6192266 562
Wabasca 166 4 FN 335003 6193178 568
Wabasca 166 5 FN 335368 6199198 556
Wabasca 166B 1 FN 312749 6208501 570
Wabasca 166B 2 FN 315668 6208501 545
May 2012 Page 3D-21

TABLE 3D-5 Cont'd

Wabasca 166B 3 FN 316762 6205765 545
Wabasca 166B 4 FN 318586 6205582 545
Wabasca 166B 5 FN 318769 6207406 545
Wabasca 166B 6 FN 319681 6207224 545
Wabasca 166B 7 FN 319681 6203758 547
Wabasca 166B 8 FN 312749 6203940 570
Wabasca 166D 1 FN 319498 6205217 546
Wabasca 166D 2 FN 322235 6205765 545
Wabasca 166D 3 FN 323511 6204123 545
Wabasca 166D 4 FN 322235 6201569 546
Wabasca 166D 5 FN 324059 6195549 548
Wabasca 166D 6 FN 316945 6195549 560
Wabasca 166D 7 FN 315668 6197009 562
Wabasca 166D 8 FN 316215 6202116 558
Bigstone TLE Claim 1 FN 347772 6319225 586
Clearwater 1 FN 496326 6280518 255
Clearwater 4 FN 497693 6277272 376
Gregorie Lake 176 1 FN 490858 6255231 476
Gregorie Lake 176 2 FN 493250 6254889 476
Gregorie Lake 176 3 FN 493250 6249934 496
Gregorie Lake 176 4 FN 488466 6249592 588
Gregorie Lake 176 5 FN 488637 6253864 483
Lawrence Lake PA PA 327885 6099666 662
Chain Lakes PA PA 340328 6094896 642
Opportunity No 17 COM 327055 6236953 545
Calling Lake TWN COM 360294 6125333 620
Wandering River TWN COM 407220 6118114 580
Conkin COM 494719 6165059 569
Desmerais FN 323788 6204078 546
Imperial Mill PA 453091 6095040 585
Philomena 460872 6114458 616
Maqua Lake PRA PA 485387 6249899 696
Cabin 1 CBN 399089 6162954 706
Cabin 2 CBN 387461 6162646 469
Cabin 3 CBN 399518 6176336 456
Operations Camp CMP 397787 6163932 698
Fort McKay Community COM 461508 6338018 261
May 2012 Page 3D-22

TABLE 3D-5 Cont'd

Fort Chipewyan Community COM 491427 6508493 220
NOTES:
FN = First Nation PA = Protected Area
CBN = Cabin (Trapper or Historic) CMP = Campground
IND = Commercial Area COM = Community/Residence Area
Five receptors were used to represent Fort McMurray; the human health assessment was based on the
receptor with the maximum concentration
3D.3.3 Meteorology
The CALMET diagnostic wind field module was used to provide representative wind, temperature, and
turbulence fields (see Appendix 3C). Five years (2002 to 2006) of hourly CALMET input files were
prepared and used for this assessment. The meteorology inputs for each year reflect seasonal variations in
the land cover properties (see Appendix 3C).
3D.3.4 Dispersion
The CALPUFF model offers a number of dispersion options. The following identifies the dispersion
options that were selected for this assessment:
• The selection of the similarity scaling approach to estimate σv and σw is viewed as using a more up-to-
date understanding of dispersion in the boundary layer than the historical discrete PG dispersion
approach. The similarity approach treats dispersion as a continuous function, whereas the PG
approach considers discrete classes. For this reason, MDISP = 2 (Input group 2) was used to select
the similarity approach.
• The Probability Distribution Function (PDF) approach accounts for downdrafts and updrafts that
occur under convective conditions. The PDF approach increases the predicted concentrations
resulting from stacks under convective conditions. For this assessment MPDF = 1 (PDF assumed)
was selected.
• The Heffter σy adjustment was used. This approach enhances the lateral horizontal dispersion for
large distances. This or a similar type of enhancement is recommended for large distances. Draxler
(1984), for example, indicates that any sort of large distant adjustment will likely provide better
predictions than extrapolating standard dispersion coefficients to the large distances without any
correction. For this reason, the default Heffter value of 550 m was adopted (Input group 12).
• The default minimum σw values as required as part of Input group 12 were adopted. These values are
based on the Briggs (1973) rural dispersion coefficients. These values are also consistent with plume
measurements in the oil sands region.
• The default minimum σv values (0.5 m/s) as required as part of Input group 12 were adopted.
This discussion is provided as the selection of the dispersion algorithms can have an influence on the
model predictions. The values that were selected are represent our recent understanding of dispersion
processes in the atmosphere and are viewed as appropriate for this assessment.
May 2012 Page 3D-23

3D.3.5 Building Downwash

Buildings or other solid structures may affect the flow of air in the vicinity of a source and cause building
downwash effects (e.g., eddies on the downwind side), which have potential to reduce plume rise and
affect dispersion. For dispersion modelling purposes, building downwash effects were considered for the
Project sources with the Plume Rise Model Enhancement (PRIME) downwash routine. The buildings and
structures that were considered in dispersion modelling are provided in Appendix 3A.
3D.3.6 Terrain Coefficients

Terrain in the domain was described in the CALMET description (Appendix 3C). As a plume/puff passes
over complex terrain, it has the potential to move closer to the ground. The plume path coefficient (PPC)
method can be used to account for this potential decrease in height above the ground. A PPC of 1.0
assumes that the plume trajectory is parallel to the terrain features.
The default CALPUFF values are 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.35, and 0.35 for PG stability categories A, B, C, D,
E, and F, respectively. The selection of these values is not justified in the user guide (Scire et al. 1999).
Lott (1984) compared a number of alternate terrain assessment schemes and recommended PPC values of
0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, and 0.3 for Pasquill-Gifford (PG) stability categories A, B, C, D, E, and F,
respectively. For this assessment, PPC values of 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, and 0.35 for PG categories A, B, C,
D, E and F, respectively, per Davies and Prasad (2005) were adopted.
3D.3.7 Chemical Transformation

CALPUFF employs two alternate chemical reaction schemes: the MESOPUFF II and the RIVAD/ARM3
(Regional Impact in Visibility and Acid Deposition/Acid Rain Mountain Mesoscale Model) schemes. The
RIVAD/ARM3 chemical scheme was selected since the MESOPUFF II scheme is viewed as being more
robust (Morris et al. 2003). The RIVAD/ARM3 chemistry scheme treats the NO and NO2 conversion
process in addition to the NO2 to NO3- and SO2 to SO42- conversions, with equilibrium between gaseous
HNO3 and particulate NH4NO3 (Scire et al. 1999). The selected chemical transformation scheme was
applied relative to the prediction of sulphate and nitrate compounds and the associated deposition.
The chemical transformation scheme requires NO and NO2 emissions rates. Typically, only the NOX
emission rate is known, and this is expressed in terms of NO2 mass equivalent. Based on the NOX
emission rate, the individual NO and NO2 emission rates were calculated as follows:
• 90% NO and 10% NO2 on a volume basis
• NO mass emission = 0.9*(30/46)*(NOX mass emission)
• NO2 mass emission = 0.1 *(46/46)*(NOX mass emission)
These assumptions result in 85% NO and 15% NO2 emission on a mass basis. The 90% NO and 10% NO2
volume ratio is consistent with the ozone limiting method (See Section 3D-3.8).
3D.3.8 NO to NO2 Chemistry

The ozone limiting method (OLM) was applied to account for the NO to NO2 conversion. The OLM
assumes that the conversion of NO to NO2 in the atmosphere is limited by the ambient O3 concentration
in the atmosphere. The approach assumes that 10 percent (on a volume basis) of the NO is converted to
NO2 prior to discharge into the atmosphere. For the remaining NO, the following is adopted:
May 2012 Page 3D-24

• If 0.9 (NO) is greater than the ambient O3 concentration then NO2 = 0.1 (NO) + 0.9 (O3). For this
case, the conversion is not complete.
• If 0.9 (NO) is less than the ambient O3 concentration then NO2 = 0.1 (NO) + 0.9 (NO) = NO. This is
equivalent to the total conversion approach, since there is sufficient ozone to effect the complete
conversion.
In the application of the OLM, the above relationships assume the concentrations are expressed on a ppb
basis.
Alberta Environment (2009a) indicates that hourly ambient O3 data can be used to calculate the NO to
NO2 conversion on an hourly basis. For consistency, the hourly O3 data should coincide with the
meteorological data used in the modelling. For the application of the OLM approach used for this
assessment, hourly O3 data from Athabasca monitoring site for the 2002 to 2006 simulation periods were
used. Any gaps in the data were filled through interpolation by using O3 data from the Patricia McInnis
monitoring site.
For this assessment, the OLM method was applied to the recombined NO and NO2 predictions from the
CALPUFF model. As indicated in Davies and Prasad (2005), the OLM method and the CALPUFF
method of computing NO2 concentrations provide similar results.
3D.3.9 NH3 Concentrations

The CALPUFF chemistry scheme requires ambient ammonia concentrations. Table 3D-6 provides the
NH3 values that were used for this assessment. The NH3 concentrations were allowed to vary on a
monthly basis and they are based on four years of passive monitoring by the WBEA.
3D.3.10 Particulate Formation

The CALPUFF model was used to predict secondary PM2.5 formation due to precursor SO2 and NOX
emissions. The model predicts particulate nitrate NO3-, which can exist as an aerosol (i.e., dissolved in a
water droplet) or as a particle (e.g., NH4NO3). Similarly, sulphate SO42- can also exist as an aerosol (i.e.,
dissolved in a water droplet) or as a particle (e.g., (NH4)2SO4). NO3- and SO42- are assumed to react with
ambient ammonia (NH3) to produce ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate, respectively; the
predicted sulphate and nitrate are multiplied by the factors indicated in Table 3D-7.
The PM2.5 predictions derived from the CALPUFF model include the primary PM2.5 contribution plus the
secondary sulphate contribution and the secondary nitrate contribution.
TABLE 3D-6
AMBIENT NH3 CONCENTRATIONS ASSUMED FOR THE DOMAIN

Ammonia Concentration (µg/m3)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 - - - - 1.49 1.23 3.22 1.40 1.43 1.24 0.73 0.95
2006 0.95 1.09 0.80 1.68 1.72 2.35 2.34 0.86 1.65 1.01 1.06 1.31
2007 1.31 1.79 1.79 1.47 1.50 1.90 2.35 1.71 1.43 0.98 1.08 1.08
2008 1.08 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.30 - - - - - - -
Average (µg/m3) 1.11 1.18 1.08 1.29 1.50 1.94 2.63 1.32 1.5 1.08 0.96 1.11
Average (ppb) 1.59 1.69 1.55 1.86 2.16 2.79 3.78 1.9 2.15 1.55 1.37 1.59
May 2012 Page 3D-25

TABLE 3D-7
PM2.5 MULTIPLIERS FOR SO42- AND NO3-

Predicted Parameter SO42- NO3-
Molecular Mass 96 62
End Product (NH4)2SO4 NH4NO3
Molecular Mass 132 80
Multiplier 1.375 1.290
NOTE:
Multiplier = (Molecular Mass of End Product)/(Molecular Mass of Predicted Parameter)
3D.3.11 Short-term Concentrations

The CALPUFF model predicts 1-hour average concentrations. Since an odour can be associated with a
shorter time-period, associated odour peaks can be larger than the 1-hour average concentration
predictions by CALPUFF. A power law relationship is often used to convert concentrations from one
averaging period to another averaging period:
60
Where X = concentration for averaging periods t minutes and 60 minutes, t is the averaging period
associated with the odour event, and p is an empirical constant. For this assessment, the odour peak
calculation assumed an averaging period of 3 minutes and a power law exponent of 0.32. The power law
exponent is consistent (and slightly conservative) with that developed for the Energy Resources
Conservation Board (ERCB) field measurement program (ERCB 1990).
The application of this relationship with the selected parameters results in odour peaks that are 2.6 times
the 1-hour average prediction.
3D.3.12 Deposition Calculation Approach

Deposition is comprised of dry and wet removal mechanisms. The dry and wet deposition rates depend on
the phase of the compound being deposited (e.g., vapour or particle), and other physical and chemical
properties of the compound. For this assessment, deposition of nitrogen and sulphur compounds were
modelled as these compounds can have potential acidification or eutrophication effects on terrestrial and
aquatic systems.
Sulphur Deposition
The total sulphur deposition (S) was calculated as follows:
32 32
64 96
where S is expressed in kg S/ha/a and the values in the [ ] brackets represent the sum of the
predicted wet and dry deposition values in kg/ha/a. The multiplication coefficients account for
molecular mass differences for the individual species.
May 2012 Page 3D-26

Nitrogen Deposition
The total nitrogen deposition (N) was calculated as follows:
14 14 14 14
30 46 63 62
where the N is expressed in kg N/ha/a and the values in the [ ] brackets represent the sum of the
predicted wet and dry deposition values in kg/ha/a. The multiplication coefficients account for
molecular mass differences for the individual species.
PAI Deposition
Potential Acid Input (PAI) deposition is derived from the total sulphur compound contribution
(PAI [sulphur]) plus the total nitrogen compound (PAI [nitrogen]) contribution minus the
neutralizing effect of base cations (PAI [base cation]). The Alberta Acid Deposition Assessment
Group (ADAG), indicates that 25% of PAI [nitrogen] up to 10 kg N/ha/a, and 100% of PAI
[nitrogen] in excess of 10 kg N/ha/a should be considered acidifying for northeastern Alberta
assessments (ADAG 2007). Note that 10 kg N/ha/a = 0.714 keq H+/ha/a.
On this basis, the PAI values are calculated as follows:
PAI [total] = PAI [sulphur] + PAIA [nitrogen] – PAI [base cation]
where:
2 2
PAI sulphur PAIB sulphur so so2‐
64 2 96 4
PAIB sulphur background sulphur deposition
PAIA nitrogen 0.25 PAI nitrogen
when PAI nitrogen 0.714 k eq H /ha/a
PAIA nitrogen 0.1785 PAI nitrogen ‐ 0.714
0.714 / /
1 1 1 1
AI nitrogen PAIB nitrogen NO NO2 HNO3 NO‐3
30 46 63 62
The background PAI deposition (PAIB) reflects the contribution from emission sources that are
located outside the Model Domain and were not explicitly included in the model assessment.
The CALPUFF model predicts SO2, SO42-, NO, NO2, HNO3, and NO3- deposition as annual
averages due to emission sources located in the Model Domain. The values in the [ ] brackets
represent the sum of the predicted wet and dry deposition in kg/ha/a. The multiplication
coefficients account for valance and molecular mass differences for the individual species. As the
May 2012 Page 3D-27

emission sources do not emit base cations, the PAI [base cation] is based on background
contributions.
3D.3.13 Background Deposition

The background deposition (i.e., the deposition due to sources located outside the Model Domain) is
intuitively expected to be greater in the southern portion of the Model Domain and decrease towards the
north. This is because most of the emission sources external to the Model Domain are located to the
southwest in central Alberta. As there is very limited monitoring in the Model Domain for wet and dry
deposition, the use of the Alberta Environment RELAD model predictions has become the standard
practice for incorporating background. Specifically, Alberta Environment applied the RELAD model to
predict the background PAI and N deposition for northeastern Alberta by excluding the WBEA oil sands
emission sources. For the southern portion of the Model Domain, there may some “double counting” of
The background deposition values were obtained from Alberta Environment on 1° latitude and a 1°
longitude grid-cell basis (Cheng 2009, pers. comm.). These results have been plotted for the study domain
in Figures 3D-3 to 3D-8. The 1° latitude by 1° longitude grid-cell values are shown on the figures.
Sulphur Deposition
Figure 3D-3 shows the background sulphur deposition (PAIB [sulphur]) in units of keq H+/ha/a.
The background sulphur deposition ranges from 0.10 keq H+/ha/a in the northeast to 0.14 keq
H+/ha/a in the southwest. Figure 3D-4 shows the background sulphur deposition (PAIB [sulphur])
in units of kg S/ha/a. The figure is based on the information in Figure 3D-3 in different units.
The information in the figures show a clear decrease as one moves northward, which is further
away from the SO2 emission source regions in central Alberta.
Nitrogen Deposition
Figure 3D-5 shows the background nitrogen deposition (PAIB [nitrogen]) in units of keq H+/ha/a.
No adjustments were made with respect to the acidifying portion. The background nitrogen
deposition ranges from 0.09 keq H+/ha/a in the northeast to 0.135 keq H+/ha/a in the southwest. The
sulphur and nitrogen values are similar in magnitude. Figure 3D-6 shows the background nitrogen
deposition (PAIB [nitrogen]) in units of kg N/ha/a. The figure is based on the information in
Figure 3D-5 in different units.
The information in the figures shows a clear decrease as one moves northward, which is further
away from the NOX emission source regions in central Alberta.
Base Cation Deposition

Figure 3D-7 shows the background base cation deposition (PAIB [base cation]). The background
base cation deposition ranges from 0.095 in the northwest to 0.155 keq H+/ha/a in the southeast.
PAI Deposition
Figure 3D-8 shows the background PAI deposition (PAI [total]). The nitrogen contribution has
been adjusted according to ADAG (2007). The background PAI ranges from 0.09 keq H+/ha/a in
the northeast to 0.135 keq H+/ha/a in the southwest of the RSA area.
May 2012 Page 3D-28

320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
0.1
0.1 0.
15 11
0.1
05
6300000
6300000
0.12
6280000
6280000
0.1
0.
11
15
0.1242
0.1
0.1153 0.1093
6260000
6260000
2
Willow
Lake
6240000
6240000
63
6220000
6220000
0.1
15
0.1
NorthLake
Wabasca
1
0.
21
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0. 0.
12 11
5
Conklin
6160000
6160000
25
0.1
0.1212
0.1281 0.1
25 0.1202
McMillan
6140000
6140000
0.125 Lake 0.1
2
0.13
0.13
Calling 0.1
Lake 3
6120000
6120000
0.1
Wandering River 2 5
0.135 0.135
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
0.14
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
May 2012
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1.6
1.8
1.
7
6300000
6300000
1.9
6280000
6280000
1.
9
1.
8
1.988
1.845 1.748
6260000
6260000
1.7
Willow
Lake
6240000
6240000
63
1.9
6220000
6220000
1 .8
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
1.
Sandy Lake 9
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
Conklin
6160000
6160000
2
2
1.939
2.049 1.924 1.9
McMillan
6140000
6140000
2 Lake
2.1
2
2.1 Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
2.1
Wandering River
Breynat
Ranch 2.2
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
May 2012
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
0.1
0.0
9
0.0
95
6300000
6300000
0.105
6280000
6280000
0 .1
05
0 .1
0.1092
0.106 0.08572
6260000
6260000
0.11 Willow
Lake
0.
09
0 .0
95
0.
6240000
6240000
11
0 .1 0
5
63
6220000
6220000
0.115 0.
1
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
0.
0.
11
11
SouthLake
Wabasca 5 0.1
05
Sandy
Lake
0.12 Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.1 0 .1 Conklin
2 0.1 1
6160000
6160000
15
0.125
0.1251
0.1191 0.1115
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
0.1
2 5 0 .1
2
0.13 0.
11
5
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
0.13
0.1
Breynat 2 5
Ranch
Calling River
0.135
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
May 2012
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1.4
1.3
6300000
6300000
6280000
6280000
1.5
1 .4
1 .5
1.529
1.485 1.2
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
1.
3
6240000
6240000
1.6 63
1.5
6220000
6220000
1.
4
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
1.
6
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake 1.5
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
1.7
1.6
Conklin
6160000
6160000
1.7
1.751
1.668 1.561
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
1.
1.8 6
1 .7
Calling
Lake 1.8
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
1.9 Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
May 2012
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
5
0.09
6300000
6300000
2
0.1
5
11
0.
5
10
0.
6280000
6280000
5
0.1 12
0.
0.1028 1 2
0.1199
0.
1
0.1302
1
0.
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.105
13
11
5 0.
6240000
6240000
0.
5
13
5
0.
12
0.
0.11
63
6220000
6220000
12
0.
Wabasca 0.115
NorthLake
Wabasca-Desmarais
13
0.
14
6200000
6200000
0.
SouthLake
Wabasca 5
5
12
13
0.
0.
0.12
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.125 Conklin
13
6160000
6160000
0.
5
0.14
14
0.
0.1272
5
0.1377
13
0.1455
0.
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
0.13
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
0.155
0.15
45
4
5 Breynat
13
0.1
0.1
Ranch
0.
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
May 2012
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
0.045
0.02
0.04
0.03
1
0 .0
6300000
6300000
0
0.0
49
6280000
6280000
0.04879
0.02197 0.0005271
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
45
0.0
0.01
0.02
04
0.03
0.
0
6240000
6240000
-0.01
63
6220000
6220000
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
3
6200000
6200000
0.0
SouthLake
Wabasca
0.01
0.02
0
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
Conklin
6160000
6160000
0.02527
0.0202 0.002598
McMillan
6140000
6140000
Lake
0
0.0
0.0
2
0.03
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
0 .0
3
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
0.04
Avenir
Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
May 2012
3D.3.14 Visibility
Regional haze is the impairment of visibility over a wide geographic area due to cumulative emissions
from multiple sources. A haze index (HI) has been developed to account for light extinction and is
designed to correspond linearly to perceived changes in visibility (Richards 1999). The haze index is
expressed in ‘deciview’ units where a visibility change of 1 deciview (or dv) being regarded as a “just
noticeable” change in visibility. ‘Visual range’ or VR is used as another indicator of haze; and visual
range (km) is related to the haze index as follows:
391
10 ln
A haze index of 0 dv corresponds to a visual range of 391 km. This is an ideal atmosphere where light
scattering is only due to atmospheric gases (this phenomenon is referred to as Rayleigh scattering). A
haze index of 9.6 dv corresponds to a visual range of 150 km (good visibility), and a haze index of 29 dv
corresponds to a visual range of 21.5 km (poor visibility).
Visibility impairment can be caused by adsorption and scattering that are due to both gases and particles
in the atmosphere. The HI can be related to the concentrations of these gases and particles using the
relationship:
10 ln
10
Adsorption and scattering are collectively referred to as light extinction and the extinction coefficient can
be calculated as follows (U.S. EPA 2003):
3· 4 3 4 10 1 0.6 10
Where Bext = extinction coefficient (Mm-1)

f(RH) = a relative humidity (RH) term
SO4 = ammonium sulphate concentration (μg/m3)
NO3 = ammonium nitrate concentration (μg/m3)
OMC = organic aerosol concentration (μg/m3)
LAC = light absorbing carbon concentration (μg/m3)
SOIL = fine particulate concentration (μg/m3)
CM = coarse particulate concentration (μg/m3)
10 = contribution from clean air (due to Rayleigh scattering)
The relative humidity term recognizes that ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate are hygroscopic,
that is, they increase in size under high humidity conditions. This term varies from 1 when RH is less than
70% and can increase to 7.4 when RH is 95%.
In terms of calculating the haze index in the Project area, the lack of representative measurements
presents a challenge. For this reason, the following approach was conservatively adopted to provide a first
May 2012 Page 3D-35

order indicator of changes in haze. The haze index change between Case 1 and Case 2 can be calculated
from:
∆ 10 ln
The haze index change can be simplified as follows:
4 3
∆ 10 ln
4 3
This relationship assumes that ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate are the dominant terms and the
ratio will mathematically produce a greater value than the more rigorous application if concentrations of
the other scattering and absorbing substances were known. The relationship was used to calculate the haze
index change between the Application and the Base cases (i.e., due to the Project) as follows:
4 3
∆ 10 ln
4 3
where the concentrations are based on the 8th highest 24-hour NO3- and SO4-2 predictions predicted by
CALPUFF for each development scenario. All NO3- is assumed to be in the form of NH4NO3 and all SO4-
2
is assumed to be in the form of (NH4)2SO4. The 8th highest corresponds to the 98th percentile, and this
value has been used in the US regulatory framework when evaluating visibility changes in Class 1 areas
due to a single source.
3D.3.15 Interpretation of Predictions
Comparison to AAAQO
Alberta Environment (2009a) recommends discarding the eight highest 1-hour predictions at each
receptor location during any given year, as these values “are considered outliers and should not be
used as the basis for selecting stack height”. This means that the 1-hour Alberta Ambient Air
Quality Objectives (AAAQO) values should be compared to the 9th highest prediction, not to the
highest prediction. For a one-year period, the 9th highest value corresponds to the 99.9th percentile
predicted concentration.
When effecting this comparison, Alberta Environment has the expectation that the 9th highest
corresponds to a realistic worst-case scenario. Although “realistic” is not defined, one can assume
it refers to a normal maximum emissions case that could reasonably be expected during routine
operations. Specifically, it does not appear to be associated with maximum emissions due to
process upsets or due to pollution-control technology downtime.
Alberta Environment also indicates that the second-highest 24-hour average prediction should be
compared to the corresponding 24-hour AAAQO (AENV 2009b). The annual average
concentration is compared directly to the annual AAAQO. When comparing the 24-hour and
annual average concentration to the respective AAAQO, the top eight 1-hour average values are
included.
May 2012 Page 3D-36

Contour Maps
Ambient concentration and deposition predictions are displayed as contour plots superimposed
over a base map of the study areas. The concentration contour plots are based on the maximum
values for the five-year simulation period. The deposition contour plots are based on the average
values for the five-year period. In preparing these contour plots, a grid spacing of 500 m was
adopted for the LSA and RSA contour plots. This may result in some “smoothing” of the
contours. However, the tabular results are based on the model output and not smoothed data.
3D.4 CALPUFF Performance
3D.4.1 Model Prediction Confidence

Uncertainty associated with dispersion model predictions stems from two main areas (U.S. EPA 2005):
• Reducible uncertainty, which results from uncertainties associated with the input values and with the
limitations of the model formulations. Reducible uncertainty can be minimized by better (i.e., more
accurate and representative) measurements and improved model formulations.
• Inherent uncertainty, which is associated with the stochastic nature of the atmosphere and its
representation. Models predict concentrations that represent an ensemble average of numerous
repetitions for the same nominal event. An individual observed value can deviate significantly from
the ensemble value. This uncertainty may be responsible for a ±50% deviation from the measured
values.
Generally, models are quoted as having a factor-of-two accuracy. Comparison studies indicate that
models can predict the magnitude of highest concentration occurring sometime and somewhere within an
area to within ±10 to ±40%. Predictions for a specific site and time are often poorly correlated with
observed values. This poor correlation can often be related to errors in wind direction. For example, an
uncertainty of 5º to 10º in the wind direction can produce a concentration error in the 20 to 70% range
(U.S. EPA 2005).
The U.S. EPA (2005) provides guidance to decision makers relative to model uncertainty. Specifically,
they recommend that the model predictions be accepted as a “best estimate”, until sufficient technical
progress has been made to meaningfully implement concepts dealing with uncertainty.
3D.4.2 Performance Approach

As there are no ambient air quality measurements near the Project area, the performance of the CALPUFF
model is determined by comparing model predictions to the more distance WBEA and LICA ambient air
quality measurements (see Appendix 3B). For purpose of gauging model performance, the ambient
measurements were grouped as follows:
• Rural background: Fort Chipewyan (WBEA) and Conklin.
• In-situ: monitoring stations that are near existing in-situ operations include Anzac (WBEA), Jackfish,
and Maskwa (LICA).
• Conventional oil sand extraction/upgrading: WBEA stations Albian Mine/Muskeg River, Buffalo
Viewpoint, CNRL Horizon, Lower Camp, Mannix, Mildred Lake, Millennium, and Syncrude UE1.
• Large community: WBEA stations Athabasca Valley and Patricia Mclnnes, and LICA station Cold
Lake South.
May 2012 Page 3D-37

• Small community: Fort McKay (WBEA).

Relative to the Project, the Fort Chipewyan and Conklin stations provide an indication of rural
background values, and the in-situ stations provide an indication of air quality near facilities that are
similar to the Project.
The performance of the CALPUFF/CALMET dispersion model predictions is gauged by comparing the
ambient air quality data measured at the monitoring sites with model predictions. The comparison should
note:
• Existing sources are subject to hour-to-hour and day-to-day variability associated with normal and
abnormal emissions. The model, as applied for this comparison assessment, does not explicitly
account for abnormal emissions.
• Ambient monitoring data represent contributions from existing facilities in the study area and smaller
contributions from sources outside the study area. The model predictions, as applied for this
comparison assessment, do not include the contribution from sources outside the Model Domain.
Model performance is often gauged by comparing the highest predicted values with the highest measured
values as the model is often used to determine compliance with AAAQO. However, the meteorological
variability and the emission variability can lead to uncertainties with this type of model performance
comparisons. For this assessment, the Top-25 1-hour predicted and measured concentrations are
calculated and compared. The use of the Top-25 concentrations is viewed as a more robust indicator than
the single highest value (U.S. EPA 1992).
The fractional bias (FB) has also been used as a model performance indicator (U.S. EPA 1992) that is
defined as:
where:
• OB = the average of the Top-25 1-hour concentrations observed at a given site.
• PR = the average of the Top-25 1-hour concentrations predicted at the same site.
The FB has the following properties:
• It is bounded ranging from +2.0 (extreme overprediction) to -2.0 (extreme underprediction).
• FB values corresponding to overpredictions and underpredictions by a factor of two range
from +0.67 to -0.67, respectively.
• A FB value of 0.0 indicates perfect agreement.
The use of the absolute fractional bias (AFB) simplifies the comparison calculations. A model is viewed
as acceptable if the AFB is less than 0.67; that is, the model is predicting within a factor of two.
The CALPUFF model comparison was undertaken for the existing scenario and the comparison focuses
on SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 concentration comparisons. Measured and predicted concentrations are compared
for the indicated ambient monitoring sites.
3D.4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide Comparison

The NO2 concentrations are influenced by NOX emissions from industrial and non-industrial sources. The
confidence for non-industrial NOX emission estimates is lower than those for industrial NOX sources.
May 2012 Page 3D-38

While the SO2 predictions have to account for emission, transport, and dispersion processes, the NO2
predictions have to account for emission, transport, dispersion, and chemical transformation processes.
The ability for the model to predict NO2 concentrations can therefore be more demanding than that for
SO2.
3D.4.3.1 Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Comparison

Table 3D-8 shows the maximum (first highest) predicted NO2 concentrations for each simulation year for
the indicated monitoring stations. The table shows the minimum, the maximum, and the average of the
first highest values for the five-year period. The ratio of the maximum-to-minimum concentration is a
measure of the temporal robustness of the average maximum to represent typical peak concentrations.
Ratios are 1.5 or less for all sites, indicating that the high concentrations are similar from year-to-year. As
indicated in Appendix 3B, the year-to-year variability between the maximum values that are measured in
each year is larger than those associated with the predicted values.
Table 3D-9 compares the maximum 1-hour average concentrations measured and predicted at each
monitoring site. The predicted values are based on the average maximum for each site (from Table 3D-8),
and measured values in the table are based on the average maximum from Table 3B-5 in Appendix 3B.
Table 3D-9 also provides the ratio of the predicted-to-measured concentrations. Values greater than unity
indicate overprediction, while values less than unity indicate underprediction. The absolute fractional bias
(AFB) is also shown. AFB values less than 0.67 indicates the model is predicting within a factor of two.
An examination of the information in Table 3D-9 indicates that the model underpredicts NO2
concentrations at the rural background stations by 55% and at the in-situ stations by 31%. The
underprediction at the rural background sites could be due to either not including a background
contribution from sources located outside the model domain, or to not fully representing community
emissions. The underprediction at the in-situ sites may be due to underestimation of NOX emissions from
these sources. There is good agreement between predictions and measurements at the conventional sites
with average predicted/measured ratios of 1.01 and associated AFBs of 0.13. The model overpredicts
NO2 concentrations at the community stations by about 39%.
The predicted values at all but one station are within a factor of two of the measurements.
3D.4.3.2 Top-25 1-Hour NO2 Comparison

The comparison between the measured and predicted values was repeated by comparing the average of
the Top-25 measured 1-hour concentrations with the average of the Top-25 predicted 1-hour
concentrations.
Table 3D-10 shows the predicted concentrations for each simulation year for the monitoring stations
located in the model domain. The maximum-to-minimum ratios are similar to the corresponding values
based on the maximum 1-hour predictions. As indicated in Appendix 3B, the year-to-year variability
between the maximum values that are measured in each year are lower for the Top-25 values.
Table 3D-11 compares the Top-25 1-hour average concentrations measured and predicted at each
monitoring site. The predicted values are based on the average Top-25 concentrations for each site (from
Table 3D-10), and measured values in the table are based on the average Top-25 concentrations from
Table 3B-6 in Appendix 3B. An examination of the information in the table indicates that the model
underpredicts NO2 concentrations at the rural background and in-situ sites by 49% and 8%, respectively.
May 2012 Page 3D-39

The model overpredicts NO2 concentrations at the conventional and community sites by 25% and 34%,
respectively.
The predicted values at all stations are within a factor of two of the measurements. On average, the
predicted values near the in-situ facilities are within 10% of the measured values, with individual values
varying from +26% to -49%. The highest in-situ station underprediction is associated with the Conklin
station; the data from this station are for the 2001 and 2002 period, and may not reflect current emission
sources that are included in the model.
3D.4.3.3 Annual Average NO2 Comparison

Table 3D-12 compares the long-term measured and predicted NO2 concentration at the continuous and
passive sites. The measured values in the table are based on the average concentrations from Table 3B-8
for continuous stations and from Table 3B-9 for passive stations in Appendix 3B.
On average, the model underpredicts by 31% at the rural background sites; overpredicts by 24% and 50%
at the conventional and community sites, respectively. There are good agreement between predictions and
measurements at the in-situ sites with average predicted/measured ratio of 1.10. The model overpredicts
by about 110% at passive sites. The annual average concentrations are overpredicted by a factor of two or
more at one of the 14 continuous stations (i.e., Patricia Mclnnes) and at 11 of the 25 passive stations (i.e.,
sites 213, AH8, AH3, AH7, JP212, JPH2, PH4, NE10, AMS 1 Fort McKay, AMS 6 Patricia Mclnnes, and
McKay River MK2 (NW)).
May 2012 Page 3D-40

TABLE 3D-8
MAXIMUM PREDICTED 1-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations
(µg/m3)
Station 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Min Max Average Max/Min
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 23 32 22 26 26 22 32 26 1.4
Conklin 35 27 26 26 28 26 35 29 1.3
In-situ
Anzac 42 65 61 54 50 42 65 55 1.5
Jackfish 68 68 73 64 67 64 73 68 1.1
Maskwa 88 81 94 78 81 78 94 84 1.2
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 158 161 130 137 148 130 161 147 1.2
CNRL Horizon 109 129 113 129 115 109 129 119 1.2
Millennium 180 173 179 187 171 171 187 178 1.1
Syncrude UE1 110 108 114 106 105 105 114 109 1.1
Page 3D-41
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 129 121 126 124 117 117 129 123 1.1
Cold Lake South 116 138 122 116 143 116 143 127 1.2
Patricia McInnes 123 142 108 121 135 108 142 126 1.3
Small Community
Fort McKay 137 134 126 128 114 114 137 128 1.2
NOTE:
The predicted values are based on existing emission sources only.
TABLE 3D-9
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum 1-h NO2 Concentrations
(µg/m3) Predicted
Station Measured Predicted Measured AFB
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 52 26 0.50 0.67
Conklin 73 29 0.40 0.86
Average 63 28 0.45 0.77
In-situ
Anzac 103 55 0.53 0.61
Jackfish 96 68 0.71 0.34
Maskwa 102 84 0.82 0.19
Average 100 69 0.69 0.38
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 196 147 0.75 0.29
CNRL Horizon 95 119 1.25 0.22
Millennium 177 178 1.01 0.01
Syncrude UE1 108 109 1.01 0.01
Average 144 138 1.01 0.13
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 130 123 0.95 0.06
Cold Lake South 75 127 1.69 0.51
Patricia McInnes 83 126 1.52 0.41
Average 96 125 1.39 0.33
Small Community
Fort McKay 75 128 1.71 0.52
Average 75 128 1.71 0.52
NOTES:
st
The Measured values represent the average of the 1 highest measurements from each year over the period 1997
to 2010 (see appendix 3B).
The Predicted values are based on the Average values in Table 3D-8. The “Predicted/Measured” and “AFB”
averages are the means of the individual values in each subgroup.
May 2012 Page 3D-42

TABLE 3D-10
TOP-25 PREDICTED 1-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Average of Top-25 1-Hour Predicted NO2 Concentrations
(µg/m3)
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 17 20 17 19 18 17 20 18 1.1
Conklin 20 20 20 20 19 19 20 20 1.1
In-situ
Anzac 36 42 45 41 39 36 45 40 1.3
Jackfish 58 59 60 56 63 56 63 59 1.1
Maskwa 73 70 72 65 74 65 74 71 1.1
Conventional
CNRL Horizon 99 97 100 104 98 97 104 100 1.1
Millennium 161 154 159 157 151 151 161 156 1.1
Syncrude UE1 99 97 96 96 89 89 99 95 1.1
Page 3D-43
Large Community
Cold Lake South 94 92 87 93 95 87 95 92 1.1
Small Community
Fort McKay 119 115 114 110 103 103 119 112 1.2
NOTE:
TABLE 3D-11
COMPARISON OF TOP-25 MEASURED AND TOP-25 PREDICTED 1-HOUR NO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Average of Top 25 1-h NO2
Concentrations
(µg/m3) Predicted
Rural Background
Conklin 39 20 0.51 0.64
Average 38 19 0.51 0.66
In-situ
Anzac 60 40 0.67 0.40
Conklin 39 20 0.51 0.64
Jackfish 47 59 1.26 0.23
Maskwa 57 71 1.25 0.22
Average 51 48 0.92 0.37
Conventional
CNRL Horizon 79 100 1.27 0.23
Millennium 115 156 1.36 0.30
Syncrude UE1 68 95 1.40 0.33
Average 98 119 1.25 0.23
Large Community
Average 74 96 1.34 0.27
Small Community
Fort McKay 63 112 1.78 0.56
Average 63 112 1.78 0.56
NOTES:
The Measured values represent the average of the Top-25 measurements from each year over the period 1997 to
2010.
May 2012 Page 3D-44

TABLE 3D-12
COMPARISON OF THE ANNUAL MEASURED AND PREDICTED NO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Annual Average NO2 Concentrations
(µg/m3) Predicted
Station Measured Predicted Measured
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 1.95 1.10 0.56
Conklin 2.44 2.00 0.82
Average 2.20 1.55 0.69
In-situ
Anzac 5.47 4.86 0.89
Jackfish 3.96 4.88 1.23
Maskwa 4.86 5.69 1.17
Average 4.76 5.14 1.10
Conventional
Albian Mine/Muskeg River 20.5 22.3 1.09
CNRL Horizon 10.2 13.0 1.27
Millennium 25.7 18.6 0.72
Syncrude UE1 9.73 18.4 1.89
Average 16.5 18.1 1.24
Large Community
Athabasca Valley 18.4 13.7 0.74
Cold Lake South 7.93 11.3 1.42
Patricia McInnes 10.1 23.7 2.35
Average 12.1 16.2 1.50
Small Community
Fort McKay 10.6 21.4 2.02
Average 10.6 21.4 2.02
Passive Stations (WBEA)
210 0.94 1.60 1.70
213 0.47 1.00 2.13
AH8 3.10 7.22 2.33
PL8 1.11 0.90 0.81
AL8 2.06 3.80 1.84
AH3 1.93 4.51 2.34
AH7 2.75 7.56 2.75
JP212 6.34 15.1 2.39
JPH2 4.95 12.3 2.49
JPH4 8.15 12.3 1.50
JPL1 1.41 1.87 1.33
PH4 5.70 12.1 2.12
PL1 1.35 1.87 1.39
NE10 0.69 1.39 2.01
NE7 1.69 3.21 1.90
SM7 1.19 1.52 1.28
SM8 1.00 2.69 2.69
WF4 2.51 4.89 1.95
AMS 1 Fort McKay 8.39 21.4 2.55
AMS 6 Patricia Mclnnes 8.85 23.7 2.67
AMS 14 Anzac 2.89 4.86 1.68
MacKay River MK1 (SW) 3.44 5.87 1.71
MacKay River MK2 (NW) 3.10 6.35 2.05
MacKay River MK3 (SE) 3.87 7.13 1.84
May 2012 Page 3D-45

TABLE 3D-12 Cont'd
Annual Average NO2 Concentrations

(µg/m3) Predicted
MacKay River MK4 (NE) 3.74 6.77 1.81
Average 3.26 6.87 2.11
NOTES:
The Measured values represent the average of measurements from each year over the period 1997 to 2010 for
continuous stations, and over the period 2003 to 2010 for passive stations.
The Predicted values are based on the average values over the period 2002 to 2006.
3D.4.4 Sulphur Dioxide Comparisons

The comparison of measured and predicted SO2 concentrations often provides the best indication of
model performance because:
• The emissions originate from a few, well-documented sources.
• Chemical reactions that affect SO2 concentrations are not significant for the associated transport times
between source and monitoring station.
• The SO2 concentrations – being significantly large – can be measured in the ambient air.
• There are a number of locations where ambient measurements are taken.
The model predictions, as previously noted, do not account for upset and abnormal events (e.g., upset
flaring) and hence may appear to underpredict relative to the measurements.
3D.4.4.1 Maximum 1-Hour SO2 Comparison

Table 3D-13 shows the maximum (first highest) predicted SO2 concentrations for each simulation year for
the indicated monitoring stations. The table shows the minimum, the maximum, and the average of the
first highest values for the five-year period.
The ratio of the maximum-to-minimum concentration is a measure of the temporal robustness of the
average maximum to represent typical peak concentrations. Ratios are 1.5 or less for some sites,
indicating that the high concentrations are similar from year-to-year. For other sites, higher ratios indicate
a larger degree of variability from year-to-year. The larger variability for these latter sites may indicate a
greater influence of year to year meteorological variability on emissions from the taller stacks that area
associated with the SO2 emissions. As indicated in Appendix 3B, there can also be a significant year-to-
year variability between the maximum values; with maximum-minimum ratios greater than 4 at some
sites.
Table 3D-14 compares the average maximum 1-hour concentrations measured and predicted at each
monitoring site. The predicted values are based on the average maximum for each site (from Table 3D-
13), and the measured values in the table are based on the average maximum from Table 3B-11 in
Appendix 3B. Table 3D-14 also provides the ratio of the predicted-to-measured concentrations. Values
greater than unity indicate overprediction, while values less than unity indicate underprediction. The
absolute fractional bias (AFB) is also shown; values less than 0.67 indicates the model is predicting
within a factor of two.
May 2012 Page 3D-46

An examination of the information in Table 3D-14 indicates that the model underpredicts SO2
concentrations by 45%, 14%, and 20% at the rural background, conventional, and community sites,
respectively; and overpredicts by 158% at the in-situ sites. The latter overprediction is largely due to the
overprediction at Maskwa station with a predicted/measured ratio of 5.43.
The large overprediction at the Maskwa site was examined in more detail. The measurements are based
on data from the period 2009 to 2010. Imperial Oil installed SO2 emission control technology at two of
their in situ facilities located near the Maskwa site in July 2007 and October 2008. The maximum
approved SO2 emissions for these two facilities decrease by a factor of more than three. The model
predictions are based on the larger SO2 emissions that occurred prior to the installation of the control
technology. Excluding the Maskwa site, the average in-situ station predicted/measured ratio is 1.16
indicating an overprediction of 16%.
3D.4.4.2 Top-25 1-Hour SO2 Comparison

concentrations.
Table 3D-15 shows the predicted concentrations for each simulation year for the monitoring stations
located in the modeling domain. The maximum-to-minimum ratios are generally lower, indicating less
year-to-year variability with the predicted concentrations. As indicated in Appendix 3B, the year-to-year
variability between the maximum values that are measured in each year is lower for the Top-25 values.
Table 3D-15), and the measured values in the table are based on the average Top-25 concentrations from
Table 3B-12 in Appendix 3B. An examination of the information in the table indicates that the model
underpredicts SO2 concentrations by 33% at the rural background sites; and overpredicts by 139% at the
in-situ sites. If the Maskwa comparison is excluded, the model overpredicts by 29% at the in-situ sites.
There are good agreement between predictions and observations at the conventional and community sites
(i.e., the average predicted/measured ratios are near unity).
The Top-25 comparison averages out the extreme SO2 concentrations that are associated with intermittent
high SO2 emission events, providing a more representative indicator of typical peak values. The
comparison between the Top-25 average measured and predicted concentrations indicate reasonable
model performance.
3D.4.4.3 Annual Average SO2 Comparison

Table 3D-17 compares the long-term measured and predicted SO2 concentrations at the monitoring sites.
The measured values in the table are based on the period average concentrations from Table 3B-14 for the
continuous stations and from Table 3B-15 for the passive stations in Appendix 3B.
The information in Table 3D-17 shows that there are good agreement between predictions and
observations at the rural background sites (average predicted/measured ratio 1.06). On average, the model
overpredicts annual SO2 concentrations by 22%, 80%, and 150% at the conventional, community, and in-
situ sites, respectively. If the Maskwa comparison is excluded, the model overpredicts by 25% at the in-
situ sites. The model underpredicts by 25% at the passive sites.
May 2012 Page 3D-47

TABLE 3D-13
MAXIMUM PREDICTED 1-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum Predicted 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations
3
(µg/m )
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 23 31 22 31 29 22 31 27 1.4
Conklin 26 34 44 25 40 25 44 34 1.7
In-situ
Anzac 132 146 94 150 121 94 150 128 1.6
Jackfish 150 118 139 107 169 107 169 137 1.6
Maskwa 384 677 257 411 358 257 677 418 2.6
Conventional
Buffalo Viewpoint 258 415 334 354 318 258 415 336 1.6
CNRL Horizon 101 136 136 188 107 101 188 134 1.9
Lower Camp 676 1103 964 864 612 612 1103 844 1.8
Page 3D-48
Mannix 426 481 453 498 820 426 820 535 1.9
Mildred Lake 400 502 528 453 642 400 642 505 1.6
Millennium 143 180 218 152 169 143 218 172 1.5
Syncrude UE1 208 250 377 227 346 208 377 282 1.8
Large Community
Cold Lake South 41 40 36 37 27 27 41 36 1.5
Small Community
Fort McKay 194 188 193 260 192 188 260 205 1.4
NOTE:
TABLE 3D-14
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations
(µg/m3) Predicted
Rural Background
Conklin 63 34 0.54 0.60
Average 56 31 0.55 0.59
In-situ
Anzac 126 128 1.02 0.02
Jackfish 105 137 1.30 0.26
Maskwa 77 418 5.43 1.38
Average 103 228 2.58 0.55
Conventional
Buffalo Viewpoint 417 336 0.81 0.22
CNRL Horizon 229 134 0.59 0.52
Lower Camp 409 844 2.06 0.69
Mannix 711 535 0.75 0.28
Mildred Lake 469 505 1.08 0.07
Millennium 403 172 0.43 0.80
Syncrude UE1 435 282 0.65 0.43
Average 427 372 0.86 0.46
Large Community
Average 130 93 0.80 0.24
Small Community
Fort McKay 279 205 0.73 0.31
Average 279 205 0.73 0.31
NOTES:
st
The Measured values represent the average of the 1 highest measurements from each year over the period 1997 to
2010.
May 2012 Page 3D-49

TABLE 3D-15
TOP-25 PREDICTED 1-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Average of Top-25 1-Hour Predicted SO2 Concentrations
3
(µg/m )
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 20 22 18 19 22 18 22 20 1.3
Conklin 21 23 22 18 22 18 23 21 1.3
In-situ
Anzac 52 69 59 55 58 52 69 58 1.3
Jackfish 69 68 68 61 78 61 78 69 1.3
Maskwa 199 218 149 172 177 149 218 183 1.5
Conventional
Buffalo Viewpoint 159 198 196 164 189 159 198 181 1.2
CNRL Horizon 66 68 73 75 80 66 80 72 1.2
Lower Camp 350 475 448 391 400 350 475 413 1.4
Page 3D-50
Mannix 328 326 377 333 384 326 384 350 1.2
Mildred Lake 194 197 235 221 213 194 235 212 1.2
Millennium 96 100 103 96 97 96 103 98 1.1
Syncrude UE1 104 137 146 117 126 104 146 126 1.4
Large Community
Cold Lake South 25 29 24 23 22 22 29 25 1.3
Small Community
Fort McKay 85 117 107 113 113 85 117 107 1.4
NOTE: The predicted values are based on existing emission sources only.
TABLE 3D-16
COMPARISON OF TOP-25 MEASURED AND TOP-25 PREDICTED 1-HOUR SO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Top-25 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations
(µg/m3) Predicted
Station AFB
Measured
Measured Predicted
Rural Background
Conklin 33 21 0.64 0.44
Average 31 21 0.67 0.41
In-situ
Anzac 51 58 1.14 0.13
Jackfish 48 69 1.44 0.36
Maskwa 40 183 4.58 1.28
Average 46 103 2.39 0.59
Conventional
Buffalo Viewpoint 170 181 1.06 0.06
CNRL Horizon 134 72 0.54 0.60
Lower Camp 189 413 2.19 0.74
Mannix 265 350 1.32 0.28
Mildred Lake 221 212 0.96 0.04
Millennium 166 98 0.59 0.52
Syncrude UE1 159 126 0.79 0.23
Average 183 191 0.99 0.39
Large Community
Average 62 48 1.09 0.47
Small Community
Fort McKay 131 107 0.82 0.20
Average 131 107 0.82 0.20
NOTES:
The Measured values represent the average of the Top-25 measurements from each year over the period 1997 to
2010.
May 2012 Page 3D-51

TABLE 3D-17
COMPARISON OF THE ANNUAL MEASURED AND PREDICTED SO2 CONCENTRATIONS

Annual Average SO2 Concentrations
(µg/m3) Predicted
Rural Background
Conklin 0.9 1.0 1.11
Average 0.9 0.9 1.06
In-situ
Anzac 1.4 2.1 1.50
Jackfish 3.4 3.4 1.00
Maskwa 1.5 7.5 5.00
Average 2.1 4.3 2.50
Conventional
Buffalo Viewpoint 3.3 5.0 1.52
Lower Camp 5.3 10.5 1.98
Mannix 6.8 9.2 1.35
Mildred Lake 6.2 6.3 1.02
Syncrude UE1 3.2 4.2 1.31
Average 4.5 5.6 1.22
Large Community
Average 2.0 2.6 1.80
Small Community
Fort McKay 3.5 4.2 1.20
Average 3.5 4.2 1.20
Passive Monitoring (WBEA)
210 1.3 1.4 1.08
213 1.4 1.1 0.79
AH8 4.8 2.8 0.58
PL8 0.8 0.8 1.00
AL8 2.4 0.9 0.38
AH3 2.1 1.7 0.81
AH7 4.7 3.1 0.66
JP212 4.0 3.9 0.98
JPH2 4.2 4.1 0.98
JPH4 5.1 3.3 0.65
JPL1 2.2 1.0 0.45
PH4 6.0 3.3 0.55
PL1 2.4 1.0 0.42
NE10 1.0 1.3 1.30
NE7 3.1 2.3 0.74
SM7 1.3 0.7 0.54
May 2012 Page 3D-52

TABLE 3D-17 Cont'd
Annual Average SO2 Concentrations

(µg/m3) Predicted
SM8 1.6 1.9 1.19
WF4 2.5 1.1 0.44
AMS 1 Fort Mckay 3.9 4.2 1.08
AMS 6 Patricia Mclnnes 3.8 3.1 0.82
AMS 14 Anzac 1.8 2.1 1.17
MacKay river MK1 (SW) 1.8 1.4 0.78
MacKay river MK2 (NW) 1.8 1.4 0.78
MacKay river MK3 (SE) 2.0 1.6 0.80
MacKay river MK4 (NE) 2.0 1.5 0.75
Average 2.7 2.0 0.75
NOTES:
The Measured values represent the average of measurements from each year over the period 1997 to 2010 for
continuous stations, and over the period 2003 to 2010 for passive stations.
3D.4.5 PM2.5 Comparison

The measured PM2.5 concentrations include contributions from industrial, traffic and community sources,
as well as contributions from other sources. The latter includes wildfires, agricultural operations, and
windborne dust, which are not included in the modelling. The predicted values include primary PM2.5
(i.e., directly emitted) and secondary PM2.5 (i.e., sulphate formed from SO2 emissions and nitrate formed
from NOX emissions). The ability for the model to predict PM2.5 concentrations is therefore more
demanding than for SO2 and NO2.
3D.4.5.1 Maximum 1-Hour PM2.5 Comparison

Table 3D-18 shows the maximum (first highest) predicted PM2.5 concentrations for each simulation year
for the monitoring stations located in the model domain. The table shows the minimum, the maximum,
and the average of the first highest values for the five-year period.
The ratio of the maximum-to-minimum concentration is a measure of the temporal robustness of the
average maximum to represent typical peak concentrations. These ratios show some year-to-year
variability, but the variability is less than that for the corresponding SO2 predictions. As indicated in
Appendix 3B, the year-to-year variability between the maximum values that are measured in each year is
much larger (with some ratios being greater than 10 for some sites) than those associated with the
predicted values.
Table 3D-19 compares the maximum 1-hour average concentrations measured and predicted at each
monitoring site. The predicted values are based on the average maximum for each site (from Table 3D-
18), and measured values in the table are based on the average maximum from Table 3B-18 in Appendix
3B. Table 3D-19 also provides the ratio of the predicted-to-measured concentrations. Values greater than
unity indicate overprediction, while values less than unity indicate underprediction. The absolute
fractional bias (AFB) is also shown. AFB values less than 0.67 indicates the model is predicting within a
factor of two.
May 2012 Page 3D-53

An examination of the information in Table 3D-19 indicates that, on average, the model underpredicts
maximum PM2.5 concentrations by 90%, 36%, 31%, and 85% at the rural background, conventional,
community, and in-situ sites, respectively. The lower agreement between the maximum measured and
predicted values is likely due to measured values including wildfire emissions while the predicted values
do not consider this type of source. The highest underprediction is associated with the Fort Chipewyan
site and the underprediction may be enhanced due to not including wood residential smoke emissions in
the modelling.
3D.4.5.2 Top-25 1-Hour PM2.5 Comparison

concentrations.
Table 3D-20 shows the predicted concentrations for each simulation year for the indicated monitoring
stations. The maximum-to-minimum ratio is similar to that associated with the maximum 1-hour
concentrations. As indicated in Appendix 3B, the year-to-year variability of the maximum values that are
measured in each year is lower for the Top-25 values. The measured maximum-to-minimum ratio based
on the Top-25 is still high, however, indicating considerable variability.
Table 3D-20), and measured values in the table are based on the average Top-25 concentrations from
Table 3B-19 in Appendix 3B. An examination of the information in the table indicates, on average, the
model underpredicts concentrations by 89% and 83% at the rural background site (Fort Chipewyan) and
in-situ site (Anzac), respectively. There are good agreement between predictions and observations at the
conventional (i.e., the average predicted/measured ratio is 0.94 and the AFB is 0.11) and community sites
(i.e., the average predicted/measured ratio is 0.96 and the AFB is 0.07). The previous comments regarding
the agreement between the measured and predicted PM2.5 concentrations are still valid.
3D.4.5.3 Annual Average PM2.5 Comparison

Table 3D-22 compares the long-term measured and predicted PM2.5 concentrations at the indicated
monitoring sites. The measured values in the table are based on the period average concentrations from
Table 3B-22 in Appendix 3B. An examination of the information in the table indicates, on average, the
model underpredicts concentrations by 89%, 13%, and 77% at the rural background site (Fort
Chipewyan), the conventional sites, and the in-situ site (Anzac), respectively. There is good agreement
between predictions and observations at the community sites (average predicted/measured ratio 0.98). The
previous comments regarding the agreement between the measured and predicted PM2.5 concentrations
are still valid.
May 2012 Page 3D-54

TABLE 3D-18
MAXIMUM PREDICTED 1-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum Predicted 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations
3
(µg/m )
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 7 9 13 12 14 7 14 11 2.1
In-situ
Anzac 14 22 26 22 14 14 26 19 1.9
Conventional
CNRL Horizon 70 117 83 84 120 70 120 95 1.7
Millennium 177 104 144 123 119 104 177 133 1.7
Syncrude UE1 68 76 92 69 70 68 92 75 1.4
Large Community
Cold Lake South 72 81 84 80 67 67 84 77 1.3
Page 3D-55

Small Community
Fort McKay 82 114 108 89 94 82 114 97 1.4
NOTE:
TABLE 3D-19
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM MEASURED AND PREDICTED 1-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

Maximum 1-Hour PM2.5
Concentrations
(µg/m3) Predicted
Rural Background
Average 114 11 0.10 1.65
In-situ
Anzac 131 19 0.15 1.49
Average 131 19 0.15 1.49
Conventional
CNRL Horizon 157 95 0.61 0.49
Millennium 180 133 0.74 0.30
Syncrude UE1 134 75 0.56 0.56
Average 152 98 0.64 0.45
Large Community
Average 142 84 0.61 0.50
Small Community
Fort McKay 100 97 0.97 0.03
Average 100 97 0.97 0.03
NOTES:
st
The Measured values represent the average of the 1 highest measurements from each year over the period 1997
to 2010.
May 2012 Page 3D-56

TABLE 3D-20
TOP-25 PREDICTED 1-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

Annual Average Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations
3
(µg/m )
Rural Background
Fort Chipewyan 5 6 8 8 8 5 8 7 1.8
Fort McKay 64 76 74 63 62 62 76 68 1.2
In-situ
Conventional
CNRL Horizon 44 62 56 52 67 44 67 56 1.5
Millennium 102 82 103 101 91 82 103 96 1.3
Syncrude UE1 49 59 56 51 51 49 59 53 1.2
Large Community
Cold Lake South 45 59 49 53 45 45 59 50 1.3
Page 3D-57

Small Community
Anzac 10 12 15 10 9 9 15 11 1.6
TABLE 3D-21
COMPARISON OF TOP-25 MEASURED AND TOP-25 PREDICTED 1-HOUR PM2.5

CONCENTRATIONS
Average of Top-25 1-Hour PM2.5
3
Concentrations (µg/m ) Predicted
Rural Background
Average 62 7 0.11 1.59
In-situ
Anzac 63 11 0.17 1.41
Average 63 11 0.17 1.41
Conventional
CNRL Horizon 68 56 0.82 0.19
Millennium 89 96 1.08 0.08
Syncrude UE1 56 53 0.95 0.06
Average 71 68 0.94 0.11
Large Community
Average 62 59 0.96 0.07
Small Community
Fort McKay 57 68 1.19 0.18
Average 57 68 1.19 0.18
NOTES:
The Measured values represent the average from each year over the period 1997 to 2010 for continuous stations,
and over the period 2003 to 2009 for passive stations.
May 2012 Page 3D-58

TABLE 3D-22
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL MEASURED AND PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS

Annual Average PM2.5
3
Concentrations (µg/m ) Predicted
Rural Background
Average 2.8 0.3 0.11
In-situ
Anzac 3.9 0.9 0.23
Average 3.9 0.9 0.23
Conventional
Syncrude UE1 3.9 4.7 1.21
Average 5.8 5.0 0.87
Large Community
Average 4.7 4.6 0.98
Small Community
Fort McKay 4.9 5.8 1.18
Average 4.9 5.8 1.18
NOTES:
The Measured values represent the average of the measurements from each year over the
period 1997 to 2010.
3D.5 Summary and Conclusions
3D.5.1 Model Application

The CALPUFF dispersion model (Version 6.262, Level 080725) was selected as the primary air quality
assessment tool to predict ambient concentrations and deposition for the Project assessment. The
following were adopted for the application of the model:
• 13,590 gridded receptor grid points were selected for the 332 km by 700 km Model Domain. An
additional 393 lake, ambient monitoring, and human health receptors from the RSA and LSA were
also selected.
• Five years of meteorological data for the period January 2002 to December 2006 were selected. The
CALMET model (see Appendix 3C) was used to provide the meteorological data for the CALPUFF
model.
• The CALPUFF model was applied to the existing condition and the three assessment cases using the
source and emission inventory information described in Appendix 3A.
• The OLM was selected to estimate ambient NO2 concentrations from the predicted NOX values.
Hourly O3 concentrations from the WBEA Athabasca monitoring station were used for this task.
May 2012 Page 3D-59

• Background PAI, nitrogen, sulphur, and base cation depositions were obtained from Alberta
Environment & Water. The first three parameters are based on the RELAD model.
• The calculation of background PAI and PAI due to Model Domain sources assume that a portion of
the nitrogen deposition is acidifying.
The approach and input parameters were examined to best represent air quality changes due to the
Project. These were examined in conjunction with other emission sources.
3D.5.2 Comparison Conclusions

A comparison between the model predictions of the maximum 1-hour, the Top-25 1-hour, and the annual
average concentrations and ambient measurements was undertaken. The results of this comparison
indicate:
• There are considerable year-to-year variations with the measured concentrations that are due to the
emission variations and meteorological condition variations. This variability can be reduced by using
the Top-25 average concentrations as a more robust indicator of ambient measurements.
• There are year-to-year variations with the predicted concentrations due to meteorological condition
variations. This variability can be reduced by using the Top-25 average concentrations as a more
robust indicator of ambient predictions.
• There is a general tendency to underpredict the maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations by 49% at rural
background sites, and a tendency to overpredict by 25% at conventional and 34% at community sites
(based on comparing the Top-25 averages). The annual average NO2 concentrations tend to be
underpredicted by 31% at rural background sites, overpredicted by 24%, 50%, and 111% at
conventional, community, and passive sites, respectively.
At the in-situ sites, the model, on average, tends to underpredict 1-hour average NO2 concentrations by
8%, and overpredict annual average NO2 concentrations by 10%.
• There was a general tendency for the model to underpredict the maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations
by 33% at the rural background sites (based on comparing the Top-25 averages). On average, the
model reproduces SO2 concentrations at the conventional (to within 1%) and the community (to
within 9%) sites. The annual average SO2 concentrations, are generally overpredicted at the non in
situ continuous sites by about 6 to 80%, and underpredicted at the passive sites by about 25%.
At the in-situ sites, the model, on average, tends to overpredict 1-hour average SO2 concentrations by
29% and overpredict annual average SO2 concentrations by 25%. The in-situ comparison exclude the
Maskwa site values since the SO2 emissions near this site are overstated.
• The model underpredicts maximum 1-hour and annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the rural
background and in situ sites by significant amount (77 to 89%). This is likely due to not including
wildfire and other sources in the modelling (e.g., residential wood burning, slash burning, or fugitive
dust). The underpredictions at the conventional and community sites are much less (i.e., 2 to 13%
range). Notwithstanding these non-modelled contributions, the predicted values provide an indication
of the magnitude and the spatial patterns of PM2.5 concentrations due to industry combustion
emissions.
While the comparison focused on SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 concentrations, the SO2 and NO2 comparison is
seen as providing a representative indication of the model performance. The ability of the model to
predict concentrations for other emissions depends on the level-of-confidence associated with estimating
the other emission rates.
May 2012 Page 3D-60

3D.6 CALPUFF Model Options

For the purposes of organization, the CALPUFF control file defines 18 input groups as identified in Table
3D-23. For many of the options, default values used in the absence of site/project specific data.
Tables 3D-24 to 3D-31 display the input parameters, the default options, and the values used for this
assessment.
TABLE 3D-23
INPUT GROUPS IN THE CALPUFF CONTROL FILE

Input Group Description Applicable to Project?
0 Input and output file names Yes
1 General run control parameters Yes
2 Technical options Yes
3 Species list Yes
4 Grid control parameters Yes
5 Output options Yes
6 Sub grid scale complex terrain inputs No
7 Dry deposition parameters for gases Yes
8 Dry deposition parameters for particles Yes
9 Miscellaneous dry deposition for parameters Yes
10 Wet deposition parameters Yes
11 Chemistry parameters Yes
12 Diffusion and computational parameters Yes
13 Point source parameters Yes
14 Area source parameters Yes
15 Line source parameters Yes
16 Volume source parameters Yes
17 Non-gridded (discrete) receptor informaiton Yes
May 2012 Page 3D-61

TABLE 3D-24
CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS GROUPS 1 AND 2

Parameter Default Project Comments
Input Group 1: General Run Control Parameters
METRUN 0 0 All model periods in met file(s) will be run
IBYR - 2002 Starting year
IBMO - 1 Starting month
IBDY - 1 Starting day
IBHR - 0 Starting hour
XBTZ 7 Base time zone (7 = MST)
NSPEC 5 11 Number of chemical species
NSE 3 8 Number of chemical species to be emitted
ITEST 2 2 Program is executed after SETUP phase
MRESTART 0 0 Do not read or write a restart file during run
NRESPD 0 24 File updated every 24 periods
METFM 1 1 CALMET binary file (CALMET.MET)
AVET 60 60 Averaging time in minutes
PGTIME 60 60 PG Averaging time in minutes
Input Group 2: Technical Options
MGAUSS 1 1 Gaussian distribution used in near field
MCTADJ 3 3 Partial plume path terrain adjustment
MCTSG 0 0 Scale-scale complex terrain not modelled
MSLUG 0 0 Near-field puffs not modelled as elongated
MTRANS 1 1 Transitional plume rise modelled
MTIP 1 1 Stack tip downwash used (may overestimate flare stack concentrations)
MBDW 1 2 PRIME Method is used to simulate building downwash
MSHEAR 0 0 Vertical wind shear (not used)
MSPLIT 0 1 Puffs are split (necessary for a large domain)
MCHEM 1 3 Transformation rates computed internally using (RIVID/ARM3) scheme
MAQCHEM 0 0 Aqueous phase transformation not modelled
MWET 1 1 Wet removal modelled
MDRY 1 1 Dry deposition modelled
MTILT 0 0 Gravitational settling (plume tilt) is not modelled
MDISP 3 2 Dispersion coefficients from internally calculated sigma v, sigma w using
micrometeorological variables (u*, w*, L, etc.)
MTURBVW 3 3 Use both σv and σw from PROFILE.DAT to compute σy and σz (n/a)
MDISP2 3 3 PG dispersion coefficients for rural areas (computed using ISCST3 approximation)
and MP coefficients in urban areas when measured turbulence data is missing
MTAULY 0 0 Draxler default 617.284 (s)
MTAUADV 0 0 No turbulence advection
MCTURB 1 1 Standard CALPUFF subroutines
MROUGH 0 0 PG σy and σz is not adjusted for roughness (not applicable)
MPARTLBA 1 1 Partial plume penetration of elevated inversion modeled for the buoyant area
sources
MPARTL 1 1 Partial plume penetration of elevated inversion
MTINV 0 0 Strength of temperature inversion computed from default gradients
MPDF 0 1 PDF used for dispersion under convective conditions
MSGTIBL 0 0 Sub-grid TIBL module not used for shoreline
MBCON 0 0 Boundary concentration conditions not modelled
MSOURCE 0 0 Individual source contributions not saved
MFOG 0 0 Do not configure for FOG model output
MREG 1 0 Do not test options specified to see if they conform to regulatory values
May 2012 Page 3D-62

TABLE 3D-25
CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS GROUPS 3 AND 4

Output Group
CSPEC Modelled1 Emitted2 Dry Deposition3 Number
Input Group 3: Species List-Chemistry Options
SO2 1 1 1 0
2-
SO4 1 0 2 0
NO 1 1 1 0
NO2 1 1 1 0
HNO3 1 0 1 0
NO3- 1 0 2 0
NOX 1 1 0 0
PM 1 1 0 0
VOC 1 1 0 0
CO 1 1 0 0
RSC 1 1 0 0
NOTES:
1
0=no, 1=yes
2
0=no, 1=yes
3
0=none, 1=computed-gas, 2=computed particle, 3=user-specified
Options are shown for the common air contaminants (CACs).
PMAP UTM UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
FEAST 0 0 False Easting (km) at the projection origin
FNORTH 0 0 False Northing (km) at the projection origin
IUTMZN - 12 UTM zone
UTMHEM N N Northern Hemisphere for UTM projection
DATUM WGS-84 NAR-C NAS-C used for output coordinates
NX - 83 Number of X grid cells in meteorological grid
NY 175 Number of Y grid cells in meteorological grid
NZ - 8 Number of vertical layers in meteorological grid
DGRIDKM - 4 Grid spacing (km) to match CALMET (see Appendix C)
ZFACE - 0, 20, 40, 80, 160, ZFACE
320, 600, 1400, 2600
XORIGKM - 285 Reference X coordinate for SW corner of grid cell (1,1)
of meteorological grid (km)
YORIGKM - 5955 Reference Y coordinate for SW corner of grid cell (1,1)
of meteorological grid (km)
IBCOMP - 1 X index of lower left corner of the computational grid
JBCOMP - 1 Y index of lower left corner of the computational grids
IECOMP - 73 X index of the upper right corner of the computational
grid
JECOMP - 175 Y index of the upper right corner of the computational
grid
LSAMP T F Sampling grid is not used
IBSAMP - 1 X index of lower left corner of the sampling grid
JBSAMP - 1 Y index of lower left corner of the sampling grid
IESAMP - 73 X index of upper right corner of the sampling grid
JESAMP - 175 Y index of upper right corner of the sampling grid
MESHDN 1 1 Nesting factor of the sampling grid
May 2012 Page 3D-63

TABLE 3D-26
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUP 5

Input Group 5: Output Option
ICON 1 1 Output file CONC.DAT containing concentrations is created
IDRY 1 1 Output file DFLX.DAT containing dry fluxes is created
IWET 1 1 Output file WFLX.DAT containing wet fluxes is created
IT2D 0 0 2D Temperature
IRHO 0 0 Density
IVIS 1 0 Output file containing relative humidity data is not created
LCOMPRS T T Do not perform data compression in output file
IQAPLOT 1 1 Create a standard series of output files (e.g., locations of sources,
receptors, grids ...) suitable for plotting
IMFLX 0 0 Do not calculate mass fluxes across specific boundaries
IMBAL 0 0 Mass balances for each species are not reported hourly
ICPRT 0 0 Do not print concentration fields to the output list file
IDPRT 0 0 Do not print dry flux fields to the output list file
IWPRT 0 0 Do not print wet flux fields to the output list file
ICFRQ 1 24 Concentration fields are printed to output list file every 24-hour
IDFRQ 1 24 Dry flux fields are printed to output list file every 24-hour
IWFRQ 1 24 Wet flux fields are printed to output list file every 24-hour
3 2
IPRTU 1 3 Units for line printer output are in µg/m for concentration and µg/m /s for
deposition
IMESG 2 2 Messages tracking the progress of run are written on screen
LDEBUG F F Logical value for debug output
IPFDEB 1 1 First puff to track
NPFDEB 1 1 Number of puffs to track
NN1 1 1 Meteorological period to start output
NN2 10 10 Meteorological period to end output
Species Concentrations Printed Dry Fluxes Printed Wet Fluxes Printed Mass Flux
(0= no, 1 = yes) (0 = no, 1 = yes) (0 = no, 1 = yes)
Saved to Saved to Saved to Saved to
Printed Disk Printed Disk Printed Disk Printed Disk
SO2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
2-
SO4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
NO 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
NO2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
HNO3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
NO3- 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
NOX 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
PM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
VOC 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
CO 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
RSC 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
May 2012 Page 3D-64

TABLE 3D-27
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUPS 6 AND 7

Input Group 6: Sub-Grid Scale Complex Terrain Inputs
NHILL 0 0 Number of terrain features (not applicable)
NCTREC 0 0 Number of special complex terrain receptors (not applicable)
MHILL - 2 Hill data created by OPTHILL & input below in Subgroup
(6b); Receptor data in Subgroup (6c) (not applicable)
XHILL2M 1 1 Conversion factor for changing horizontal dimensions to
metres (not applicable)
ZHILL2M 1 1 Conversion factor for changing vertical dimensions to
metres (not applicable)
XCTDMKM - 0 X origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF coordinate
system (km) (not applicable)
YCTDMKM - 0 Y origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF coordinate
system (km) (not applicable)
Species Default Project Comments

Input Group 7: Dry Deposition Parameters for Gases
SO2 0.1509 0.1372 Diffusivity
1000 1000 Alpha star
8.0 8.0 Reactivity
0.0 0.0 Mesophyll resistance
0.4 0.03311 Henry’s Law coefficient
NO - 0.2203 Diffusivity
- 1.0 Alpha star
- 2.0 Reactivity
- 94 Mesophyll resistance
- 18 Henry’s Law coefficient
NO2 0.1656 0.1585 Diffusivity
1.0 1.0 Alpha star
8.0 8.0 Reactivity
5.0 5.0 Mesophyll resistance
HNO3 0.1628 0.1041 Diffusivity
1.0 1.0 Alpha star
18.0 18 Reactivity
0.0 0 Mesophyll resistance
NOTE:
Project values based on Davies and Prasad (2005) and Lundgren (2008).
May 2012 Page 3D-65

TABLE 3D-28
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUPS 8, 9, 10, AND 11

Input Group 8: Dry Deposition Parameters for Particles
2- 2-
SO4 0.48 0.48 Geometric mass mean diameter of SO4 [µm]
2- 2-
SO4 2.0 2.0 Geometric standard deviation of SO4 [µm]
NO3- 0.48 0.48 Geometric mass mean diameter of NO3-[µm]
-
NO3 2.0 2.0 Geometric standard deviation of NO3- [µm]
-
NO3 2.0 2.0 Geometric standard deviation of NO3- [µm]
Confirmed by Davies and Prasad (2005) and Lundgren (2008).
Parameters Default Project Comments

Input Group 9: Miscellaneous Dry Deposition Parameters
RCUTR 30 30 Reference cuticle resistance (s/cm)
RGR 10 10 Reference ground resistance (s/cm)
REACTR 8 8 Reference pollutant reactivity
NINT 9 9 Number of particle size intervals for effective particle deposition velocity
IVEG 1 1 Vegetation in non-irrigated areas is active and unstressed

Input Group 10: Wet Deposition Parameters
SO2 3.21E-05 3.2E-05 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]
0.0 0.0 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s-1]
2-
SO4 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]
3.0E-05 3.0E-05 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s-1]
NO 2.847E-05 2.9E-05 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]
NO2 5.13E-05 5.1E-05 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]
HNO3 6.0E-05 6.0E-05 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]
-
NO3 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 Scavenging coefficient for liquid precipitation [s-1]
3.0E-05 3.0E-05 Scavenging coefficient for frozen precipitation [s-1]

Input Group 11: Chemistry Parameters
MOZ 1 1 Hourly ozone values from Athabasca Valley Station (2002-2006) were
used
BCKO3 12*80 Not used Background ozone concentration (ppb)
BCKNH3 12*10 1.59, 1.69, Background ammonia concentration (ppb)
1.55, 1.86, (Based on WBEA measurements)
2.16, 2.79,
3.78, 1.90,
2.15, 1.55,
1.37, 1.59
RNITE1 0.2 0.2 Night-time NO2 loss rate in percent/hour
RNITE2 2 2 Night-time NOX loss rate in percent/hour
May 2012 Page 3D-66

TABLE 3D-28 Cont'd

Input Group 11: Chemistry Parameters
RNITE3 2 2 Night-time HNO3 loss rate in percent/hour
MH202 1 1 Read hourly H2O2 concentrations from the H2O2.DAT file (not
applicable)
BCKH202 12*1 12*1 Monthly background H2O2 concentrations (used for aqueous phase
transformations, not applicable)
BCKPMF - Not used Fine particulate concentration for secondary organic aerosol option,
used only for MESOPUFF II scheme for OH
OFRAC - Not used Organic fraction of fine particulate for secondary organic aerosol option,
used only for MESOPUFF II scheme for OH
VCNX - Not used VOC/NOX ratio for secondary organic aerosol option, used only for
MESOPUFF II scheme for OH
TABLE 3D-29
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUP 12

Input Group 12: Diffusion/Computational Parameters
SYTDEP 550 550 Horizontal size of a puff in metres beyond which the time dependant
dispersion equation of Heffter (1965) is used
MHFTSZ 0 0 Do not use Heffter formulas for sigma z
JSUP 5 5 Stability class used to determine dispersion rates for puffs above boundary
layer
CONK1 0.01 0.01 Vertical dispersion constant for stable conditions
CONK2 0.1 0.1 Vertical dispersion constant for neutral/stable conditions
TBD 0.5 0.5 Use ISC transition point for determining the transition point between the
Schulman-Scire (Schulman et al., 1998) to Huber-Snyder Building
Downwash scheme
ISIGMAV 1 1 Sigma-v is read for lateral turbulence data
IMIXCTDM 0 0 Predicted mixing heights are used
XMXLEN 1 1 Maximum length of emitted slug in meteorological grid units
XSAMLEN 1 10 Maximum travel distance of slug or puff in meteorological grid units during
one sampling unit
MXNEW 99 60 Maximum number of puffs or slugs released from one source during one
time step
MXSAM 99 60 Maximum number of sampling steps during one time step for a puff or slug
NCOUNT 2 2 Number of iterations used when computing the transport wind for a
sampling step that includes transitional plume rise
SYMIN 1 1 Minimum sigma y in metres for a new puff or slug
SZMIN 1 1 Minimum sigma z in metres for a new puff or slug
SZCAP_M 5.0E06 5.0E06 Maximum sigma z in metres to avoid numerical problem in calculating time
or distance
May 2012 Page 3D-67

TABLE 3D-29 Cont'd
Input Group 12: Diffusion/Computational Parameters (cont’d)

Parameter
Minimum turbulence velocities sigma-v Minimum turbulence velocities sigma-w
(SVMIN) (SWMIN)
Minimum turbulence Minimum turbulence
Stability (σv) (m/s) (σv) (m/s)
Class Land Water Land Water
A 0.5 0.37 0.2 0.2
B 0.5 0.37 0.12 0.12
C 0.5 0.37 0.08 0.08
D 0.5 0.37 0.06 0.06
E 0.5 0.37 0.03 0.03
F 0.5 0.37 0.016 0.016
CDIV 0.0, 0.0 0.0, 0.0 Divergence criteria for dw/dz in met cells
NLUTBIL 4 4 Search radius for nearest land and water cells used in the subgrid TIBL
module
WSCALM 0.5 0.5 Minimum wind speed allowed for non-calm conditions (m/s)
XMAXZI 3000 3000 Maximum mixing height in metres
XMINZI 50 50 Minimum mixing height in metres
WSCAT 1.54 1.54 wind speed category 1 [m/s]
3.09 3.09 wind speed category 2 [m/s]

PLX0 0.07 0.07 Wind Speed Power Law Exponent (Stability class A)
0.07 0.07 Wind Speed Power Law Exponent (Stability class B)
0.10 0.10 Wind Speed Power Law Exponent (Stability class C)
0.15 0.15 Wind Speed Power Law Exponent (Stability class D)
0.35 0.35 Wind Speed Power Law Exponent (Stability class E)
0.55 0.55 Wind Speed Power Law Exponent (Stability class 5)
PTG0 0.020 0.020 Potential temperature gradient for E stability [K/m]
0.035 0.035 Potential temperature gradient for F stability [K/m]
PPC 0.50 0.80 Plume Path Coefficient (Stability class A)
0.50 0.70 Plume Path Coefficient (Stability class B)
0.50 0.60 Plume Path Coefficient (Stability class C)
0.50 0.50 Plume Path Coefficient (Stability class D)
0.35 0.40 Plume Path Coefficient (Stability class E)
0.35 0.35 Plume Path Coefficient (Stability class 5)
SL2PF 10 10 Slug-to-puff transition criterion factor equal to sigma
y/length of slug
NSPLIT 3 2 Number of puffs that result every time a puff is split
IRESPLIT 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, Time(s) of day when split puffs are eligible to be split once
, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, again
1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
May 2012 Page 3D-68

TABLE 3D-29 Cont'd

ZISPLIT 100 100 Minimum allowable last hour’s mixing height for puff
splitting
ROLDMAX 0.25 0.25 Maximum allowable ratio of last hour’s mixing height and
maximum mixing height experienced by the puff for puff
splitting
NSPLITH 5 5 Number of puffs that result every time a puff is horizontally
split
SYSPLITH 1 1 Minimum sigma-y of puff before it may be horizontally split
SHSPLITH 2 2 Minimum puff elongation rate due to wind shear before it
may be horizontally split
CNSPLITH 1.0E-7 1.0E-7 Minimum concentration of each species in puff before it
may be horizontally split
EPSSLUG 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 Fractional convergence criterion for numerical SLUG
sampling iteration
EPSAREA 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 Fractional convergence criterion for numerical AREA
sampling iteration
DRISE 1.0 1.0 Trajectory step length for numerical rise
HTMINBC 500 500 Minimum height (m) to which BC puffs are mixed as they
are emitted (MBCON=2 ONLY)
RSAMPBC 10 10 Search radius (km) about a receptor for sampling nearest
BC puff.
MDEPBC 1 0 Concentration is NOT adjusted for depletion
TABLE 3D-30
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUPS 13, 14, AND 15

Input Group 13: Point Source Parameters
NPT1 - Varies by Number of point sources with constant stack parameters or variable
scenario emission rate scale factors
IPTU 1 1 Units for point source emission rates are g/s
NSPT1 0 Varies by Number of source-species combinations with variable emissions
scenario scaling factors
NPT2 - 0 Number of point sources with variable emission parameters provided
in external file
NOTES:
Point source (i.e. stacks) parameters are given in Appendix 3A.
‘-‘ symbol indicates that the parameter was not applicable to the Project assessment.
Input Group 14: Area Source Parameters
NAR1 - Varies by Number of polygon area sources
scenario
IARU 1 1 Units for area source emission rates are g/m2/s

NSAR1 0 Varies by Number of source species combinations with variable emissions
scenario scaling factors
NAR2 - 0 Number of buoyant polygon area sources with variable location and
emission parameters
NOTES:
Area source (e.g., mines, tailing ponds) parameters are given in Appendix 3A.
‘-‘ symbol indicates that the parameter was not applicable to the Project assessment.
May 2012 Page 3D-69

TABLE 3D-30 Cont'd

Input Group 15: Line Source Parameters
NLN2 - Varies by Number of buoyant line sources with variable location and emission
scenario parameters. If LN2 > 0, ALL parameter data for these sources are
read from the file: LNEMARB.DAT
NLINES - 0 Number of buoyant line sources
ILNU 1 1 Units for line source emission rates is g/s
NSLN1 0 0 Number of source-species combinations with variable emissions
scaling factors
MXNSEG 7 7 Maximum number of segments used to model each line
NLRISE 6 6 Number of distance at which transitional rise is computed
XL - 0.1 Average line source length (m)
HBL - 0.1 Average height of line source height (m)
WBL - 0.1 Average building width (m)
WML - 25 Average line source width (m)
DXL - 0.1 Average separation between buildings (m)
FPRIMEL - 50 Average buoyancy parameter (m4/s3)
NOTE:
Line source (e.g., highways) parameters are given in Appendix 3A.
‘-’ symbol indicates that the parameter was not applicable to the Project assessment.
TABLE 3D-31
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUPS 16 AND 17

Input Group 16: Volume Source Parameters
NVL1 - Varies by Number of volume sources
scenario
IVLU 1 1 Units for volume source emission rates is grams per second
NSVL1 0 0 Number of source-species combinations with variable emissions scaling
factors
NVL2 0 0 Number of volume sources with variable location and emission
parameters
NOTE:
Volume source (e.g., tanks) parameters are given in Appendix 3A.
‘-‘ symbol indicates that the parameter was not applicable to the Project.
Input Group 17: Discrete Receptor Information
NREC - 13590 Number of non-gridded receptors
NOTE:
Discrete receptors are identified on Figures 3D-1 and 3D-2.
May 2012 Page 3D-70

3D.7 References
ADAG (Acid Deposition Assessment Group). 2007. Review of the Acid Deposition Management
Framework and Its Implementation. January 2007.
AENV (Alberta Environment). 2009a. Air Quality Model Guideline. Climate Change, Air and Land
Policy Branch. Edmonton, Alberta.
AENV. 2009b. Using Ambient Air Quality Objectives in Industrial Plume Dispersion Modelling and
Individual Industrial Site Monitoring. Alberta Environment Air Policy Branch. Edmonton,
Alberta.
Briggs, G. 1973. Diffusion Estimation for Small Emissions. Air Resources Atmospheric Turbulence and
Diffusion Laboratory. NOAA. May 1973.
Cheng, L. 2009. Senior Air Quality Scientist, Air Policy Branch, Alberta Environment. Personal
Communication. May 25, 2009.
Davies, M. and S. Prasad. 2005. NOx Dispersion and Chemistry Assumptions in the CALPUFF Model.
CEMA Contract 2003-0034. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management
Association by RWDI Air Inc.
Draxler, R.R. 1984. Atmospheric Science and Power Production. Chapter 9 - Diffusion and Transport
Experiments., Air Resources Laboratories. 367-422.
ERCB (Energy Resources Conservation Board). 1990. Field Measurement Program. Atmospheric
Dispersion Tracer Study under Stable Conditions and Meteorological Study. Volume 1. ERCB
Report 90-B. Calgary, Alberta.
Heffter, J.L. 1965. The Variation of Horizontal Diffusion Parameters with Time for Travel Periods of One
Hour or Longer. J. Appl. Meteor., 4, 153–156.
Lott, R.A. 1984. Case Study of Plume Dispersion over Elevated Terrain. Atmospheric Environment.
Volume 18.125-134.
Lundgren, J.S. Roberts and D. Chadder. 2008. Development of a Workplan for CALPUFF Modelling in
the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Prepared for AEW by RWDI Air Inc. 68pp.
Morris, R.E., C. Tana and G. Yarwood. 2003. Evaluation of the Sulphate and Nitrate Formation
Mechanism in the CALPUFF Modelling System. Presented at AWMA Conference Guideline on
Air Quality Models: The Path Forward. October 22 to 24 2003. Mystic, CT.
Richards, L.W. 1999. Use of the Deciview Haze Index as an Indicator for Regional Haze. J. Air & Waste
Manage. Assoc. Volume 49: 1230- 1237.
Schulman, L.L., D.G. Strimaitis and J.S. Scire. 1998. Development and Evaluation of the PRIME Plume
Rise and Building Downwash Model. Submitted to Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association.
Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis and R.J. Yamartino. 1999. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Model
(Version5.0). Earth Technologies Inc. Scire, J.S. 2009. Vice President, Atmospheric Studies
Group. TRC Corp. Personal Communication. March 16, 2009.
May 2012 Page 3D-71

Tonnesen, G., A. Wang, M. Omary, and C. J. Chien, 2007. Assessment of Nitrogen Deposition:
Modeling and Habitat Assessment. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related
Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-032.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Protocol for Determining the Best
Performing Model. EPA-454/R-92-025. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research
Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. SCREEN3 Model User’s guide EPA-454/R-95-004. Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models. Volume II
– Description of Model Algorithms. EPA-454/B-95-003b. Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report
and Recommendations of Modeling Long range Transport Impacts. EPA-454/R-98-019. Research
Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze
Program. EPA- 454/B-03-005. Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 2004. AERMOD: Description of Model Formulation. EPA- 454/R-03-004. Research Triangle
Park, NC.
U.S. EPA. 2005. Appendix W to Part 51, Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a
Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions;
Final Rule. (November 9, 2005 Edition). Research Triangle Park, NC.
May 2012 Page 3D-72

BlackPearl Resources Inc. Project-Only Predictions
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Volume 2 - Appendix 3E
APPENDIX 3E
PROJECT-ONLY PREDICTIONS
Page 3E-1
Table of Contents
3E.0 Project-Only Effects ................................................................................................................... 3E-4
3E.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3E-4
3E.2 SCREEN3 Predictions ................................................................................................................ 3E-4
3E.3 CALPUFF Predictions ............................................................................................................... 3E-5
3E.3.1 NO2 Concentrations ................................................................................................... 3E-7
3E.3.2 SO2 Concentrations .................................................................................................. 3E-11
3E.3.3 PM2.5 Concentrations................................................................................................ 3E-15
3E.3.4 Nitrogen Deposition ................................................................................................. 3E-15
3E.3.5 Sulphur Deposition .................................................................................................. 3E-15
3E.3.6 PAI Deposition ......................................................................................................... 3E-15
3E.4 Emergency Generator and Upset Flaring Sources .................................................................... 3E-23
3E.5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 3E-28
List of Tables
Table 3E-1 Maximum Predicted NOX and SO2 Concentrations for the Project Stack Sources
(SCREEN3 Model) without Building Downwash......................................................... 3E-5
Table 3E-2 Maximum Predicted NOX and SO2 Concentrations for the Project Stack Sources
(SCREEN3 Model) with Building Downwash.............................................................. 3E-6
Table 3E-3 Maximum Predicted NO2 Concentrations for the Project Only (CALPUFF
Model) ........................................................................................................................... 3E-7
Table 3E-4 Maximum Predicted SO2 Concentrations for the Project Only (CALPUFF
Model) ......................................................................................................................... 3E-11
Table 3E-5 Maximum Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations for the Project Only (CALPUFF
Model) ......................................................................................................................... 3E-16
Table 3E-6 Maximum Predicted NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) for Emergency Generator
Operation and Intermittent Flaring Events (CALPUFF Model) ................................. 3E-25
Table 3E-7 Maximum Predicted SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) for Emergency Generator
Table 3E-8 Maximum Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3) for Emergency Generator
May 2012 Page 3E-2

List of Figures
Figure 3E-1 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) .................................................... 3E-9
Figure 3E-2 Annual NO2 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) ................................................. 3E-10
Figure 3E-3 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) ................................................... 3E-12
Figure 3E-4 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) ................................................. 3E-13
Figure 3E-5 Annual SO2 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) .................................................. 3E-14
Figure 3E-6 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) ................................................ 3E-17
Figure 3E-7 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) .............................................. 3E-18
Figure 3E-8 Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (Project Only Scenario) ............................................... 3E-19
Figure 3E-9 Nitrogen Deposition (Project Only Scenario) ............................................................. 3E-20
Figure 3E-10 Sulphur Deposition (Project Only Scenario) ............................................................... 3E-21
Figure 3E-11 PAI Deposition (Project Only Scenario) ..................................................................... 3E-22
May 2012 Page 3E-3

3E.0 Project-Only Effects
3E.1 Introduction
This appendix shows the incremental contribution of emissions from the Project on ambient air quality.
To determine the relative contribution from individual stacks, and to determine if building downwash
could potentially influence dispersion, the SCREEN3 model predictions on an individual stack basis were
determined.
The CALPUFF model predictions are based on the meteorological information presented in Appendix 3C
and the model approach presented in Appendix 3D. Stack and emission parameters used in the CALPUFF
and SCREEN3 models are presented in Appendix 3A.
The CALPUFF predicted concentration and deposition contours are superimposed on the 50 km by 50 km
base map centered on the Project Central Processing Facility (CPF). Overlapping effects with other
sources are considered in the Air Quality section (see Section 3.6) of the EIA.
3E.2 SCREEN3 Predictions

The SCREEN3 model can only be applied on an individual stack basis. While the technology in the
SCREEN3 model is dated, the model can be used to determine the relative contribution of individual
stacks and to examine potential building downwash influences on dispersion.
SCREEN3 predictions for the BlackPearl Project continuous combustion sources on an individual source
basis are provided in Tables 3E-1 (without building downwash) and 3E-2 (with building downwash). The
distances provided in the table refer to the locations downwind of each source where the maximum
concentrations are predicted to occur. The Pasquill Gifford stability class (PG class) refers to the
atmospheric stability category (A to F) (see Appendix 3C for a description of the classes) associated with
the maximum predicted concentrations. Wind speed refers to the speed (10 m above ground) associated
with the maximum concentrations (1 m/s = 3.6 km/h). The results indicate:
Based on no building downwash, the maximum associated NOX concentrations for the continuous
Project sources are in the 0.44 to 14.2 µg/m3 range, depending on the source. The maximum
value of 14.2 µg/m3 is associated with each glycol heater stack.
Based on no building downwash, the highest SO2 concentrations for the continuous Project
sources are associated with the sixteen once through steam generator (OTSG) units (i.e., 1.12
µg/m3 per stack). The remaining sources each individually contribute between 0.03 and 0.94
µg/m3 depending on the source.
The model indicates that building downwash can influence the glycol heater and flaring stacks
but not the OTSG stacks. The biggest potential influence is for the OTSG stacks. Flaring stacks
are influenced to a lesser degree.
The individual maxima depicted in Tables 3E-1 and 3E-2 for the BlackPearl Project sources are predicted
to occur at different locations and at different times. The predicted maximum values occur within 1,000 m
of the respective stacks. Based on no building downwash (see Table 3E-1) and assuming the individual
stack maxima are additive, the maximum combined NOX concentration of 266 µg/m3 is less than the 300
µg/m3 AAAQO (Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective) for NO2. The maximum combined SO2
concentration of 21.0 µg/m3 is less than the 450 µg/m3 AAAQO for SO2.
May 2012 Page 3E-4

Assuming building downwash (see Table 3E-2), the maximum NOX concentration of 860 µg/m3 is greater
than the AAAQO for NO2. The maximum combined SO2 concentration of 62.5 µg/m3 is less than the
AAAQO for SO2. The SCREEN3 results, as presented, conservatively assume total conversion of NO to
NO2.
3E.3 CALPUFF Predictions

The CALPUFF model was applied to predict ambient SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 concentrations, and annual
nitrogen, sulphur and PAI deposition contributions from the Project.
The maximum predicted concentrations are shown for each year of the simulation period and for five
locations:
• inside Project CPF fence line,
• on Project CPF fence line,
• outside Project CPF fence line and inside well pad area,
• outside well pad area and inside LSA, and
• outside LSA and inside RSA.
The AAAQO are not applicable within the Project CPF fence line or on the individual well pads since
access is controlled in these areas. Concentration and deposition contours superimposed over the 50 km
by 50 km base map show the spatial concentration patterns for the substances. The SO2, NO2, and PM2.5
figures show the maximum predictions for each of the five years of meteorological data. The nitrogen,
sulphur, and PAI deposition figures show the five year averages.
TABLE 3E-1
MAXIMUM PREDICTED NOX AND SO2 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PROJECT STACK SOURCES
(SCREEN3 MODEL) WITHOUT BUILDING DOWNWASH
Wind
NOX SO2 Distance Speed
Source ID Source Description (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (m) PG Class (m/s)
C1 Phase 1 Glycol Heater (P1GLYH) 14.2 0.94 186 D 20
C2 Phase 1 OTSG (P1OTSG1) 11.3 1.12 949 A 1.0
C6 Phase 1 HP Flare (P1HP) 0.46 0.03 417 C 2.0
C7 Phase 1 LP Flare (P1LP) 0.56 0.03 395 C 2.5
C15 Phase 2 HP Flare (P2HP) 0.44 0.03 279 A 1.5
C16 Phase 2 LP Flare (P2LP) 0.50 0.03 260 A 2.0
May 2012 Page 3E-5

TABLE 3E-1 Cont'd
Wind
C24 Phase 3 HP Flare (P3HP) 0.44 0.03 279 A 1.5
C25 Phase 3 LP Flare (P3LP) 0.50 0.03 260 A 2.0
Stack Sum 226 21.0 - - -
AAAQO 300 450
TABLE 3E-2
MAXIMUM PREDICTED NOX AND SO2 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PROJECT STACK SOURCES
(SCREEN3 MODEL) WITH BUILDING DOWNWASH
Wind
C1 Phase 1 Glycol Heater (P1GLYH) 221 14.6 21.0 D 1.0
C6 Phase 1 HP Flare (P1HP) 2.59 0.15 58.0 F 3.5
C7 Phase 1 LP Flare (P1LP) 4.17 0.24 58.0 F 8.0
Stack Sum 860 62.5 - - -
AAAQO 300 450
May 2012 Page 3E-6

3E.3.1 NO2 Concentrations

For the maximum predicted 1-hour and annual NO2 concentrations for the Project only, see Table 3E-3
and Figures 3E-1 to 3E-2. The highest predicted 1-hour concentrations are located along the CPF fence
line, and concentrations decrease with increasing distance from the CPF area. The highest predicted
annual NO2 concentration is located outside the CPF area but inside the Project well pad area, and
concentrations decrease with increasing distance from the Project well pad area. The maximum predicted
1-hour (9th highest) and annual NO2 concentrations are less than the respective 1-hour AAAQO of 300
µg/m3 and the annual AAAQO of 45 µg/m3.
The 1-hour 30 µg/m3 NO2 contour (which is 1/10 the 1-hour AAAQO) is confined to about 18 km radius
area centered to the CPF area. The annual 4.5 µg/m3 NO2 contour (which is 1/10 the annual AAAQO)
occurs largely within the Project well pad area.
TABLE 3E-3
MAXIMUM PREDICTED NO2 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PROJECT ONLY (CALPUFF MODEL)
Maximum NO2 Concentration (µg/m3)
st
Location Year 1-hour (1 highest) 1-hour (9th highest) Annual
Inside Project CPF 2002 139 118 11.9
Fence Line 2003 137 120 10.6
2004 138 112 12.1
2005 147 113 10.2
2006 147 122 11.6
Maximum 147 122 12.1
On Project CPF 2002 132 116 8.7
Fence Line 2003 137 109 8.5
2004 132 104 9.2
2005 136 107 7.9
2006 144 119 9.5
Maximum 144 119 9.5
Outside Project CPF 2002 127 111 10.1
Fence Line and Inside 2003 138 107 10.4
Well Pad Area
2004 129 104 10.3
2005 135 105 10.0
2006 127 111 10.5
Maximum 138 111 10.5
Outside Well Pad 2002 116 98.4 6.2
Area and Inside LSA 2003 114 95.3 6.6
2004 109 98.6 6.8
2005 104 96.1 6.6
2006 115 99.5 6.8
Maximum 116 99.5 6.8
Outside LSA and 2002 12.0 8.6 0.2
inside RSA 2003 13.4 6.4 0.1
2004 14.8 7.6 0.1
2005 9.2 6.3 0.1
2006 8.7 6.8 0.1
Maximum 14.8 8.6 0.2
May 2012 Page 3E-7

TABLE 3E-3 Cont'd
Maximum NO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

st
Location Year 1-hour (1 highest) 1-hour (9th highest) Annual
Inside Project CPF 2002
Fence Line 139 118 11.9
AAAQO - 300 45
NOTES:
Predicted concentrations are based on a total Project NOX emission rate of 5.32 t/d.
AAAQO = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective.
AAAQOs are not applicable within the CPF fence line or on the individual well pads.
May 2012 Page 3E-8

375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
6185000
6185000
5
6180000
6180000
10
10
10
6175000
6175000
5
10
6170000
6170000
30
10
6165000
6165000
50
5
75 30
At h
aba
50
6160000
6160000
sca
30
10
5
50
30
6155000
6155000
30
10
6150000
6150000
10
5
6145000
6145000
10
5
McMillan
Lake
5
6140000
6140000
5
5
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
0.1
0.1
6185000
6185000
6180000
6180000
0.1
5
0.25
6175000
6175000
0.2
0.5
6170000
6170000
5
0. 2
1
0.2
5
4. 5
0.5
6165000
6165000
0.1
At h
aba
6160000
6160000
0.5
sca
0.2
5 0.5
6155000
6155000
0.1
0.25
0.25
6150000
6150000
6145000
6145000
McMillan
Lake
0.
6140000
6140000
1
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
3E.3.2 SO2 Concentrations

For the maximum predicted 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual SO2 concentrations for the Project only scenario,
see Table 3E-4 and Figures 3E-3 to 3E-5. The highest predicted 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual SO2
concentrations are located along the CPF fence line, and concentrations decrease with increasing distance
from the CPF area. The maximum predicted 1-hour (9th highest), 24-hour (2nd highest), and annual SO2
concentrations are less than the 1/10 of the respective 1-hour, 24-hour and annual AAAQOs for SO2.
TABLE 3E-4
MAXIMUM PREDICTED SO2 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PROJECT ONLY (CALPUFF MODEL)
3
Maximum SO2 Concentration (µg/m )
1-hour 1-hour 24-hour 24-hour
st
Location Year (1 highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (2nd highest) Annual
Inside Project CPF 2002 61.4 25.6 15.7 13.0 1.2
Fence Line 2003 68.0 24.7 17.2 12.3 1.1
2004 38.4 24.2 12.6 8.8 1.2
2005 44.8 22.7 11.0 9.4 0.9
2006 78.8 26.2 19.7 17.1 1.2
Maximum 78.8 26.2 19.7 17.1 1.2
On Project CPF 2002 65.4 18.3 11.8 10.5 0.9
Fence Line 2003 74.6 17.8 10.2 8.0 0.8
2004 45.1 18.0 8.6 7.0 0.8
2005 35.3 16.8 7.8 6.9 0.7
2006 71.1 19.1 11.3 9.4 0.8
Maximum 74.6 19.1 11.8 10.5 0.9
Outside Project CPF 2002 66.0 18.4 10.5 9.2 0.8
Fence Line and Inside 2003 99.1 17.7 8.3 7.1 0.7
Well Pad Area
2004 47.4 20.3 7.6 6.4 0.7
2005 33.9 18.0 6.8 6.2 0.6
2006 68.9 19.5 10.0 7.5 0.8
Maximum 99.1 20.3 10.5 9.2 0.8
Outside Well Pad 2002 59.4 16.6 8.0 7.3 0.7
Area and Inside LSA 2003 51.9 12.6 6.1 5.0 0.6
2004 45.3 18.1 6.1 5.3 0.6
2005 30.5 12.4 5.7 5.0 0.5
2006 62.6 18.7 6.4 5.9 0.6
Maximum 62.6 18.7 8.0 7.3 0.7
Outside LSA and 2002 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.02
inside RSA 2003 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.01
2004 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.01
2005 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.01
2006 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.01
Maximum 1.5 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.02
AAAQO - 450 - 125 20
NOTES:
Predicted concentrations are based on a total Project SO2 emission rate of 0.502 t/d.
AAAQO = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective.
AAAQOs are not applicable within the Project CPF fence line or on the individual well pads.
May 2012 Page 3E-11

375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
6185000 0.5
6185000
1
6180000
6180000
1
6175000
6175000
1 1
0.5
2.5
6170000
6170000
2 .5
1
5
6165000
6165000
1
5
2.
10
5
At h
aba
6160000
6160000
sca
5
0. 5
1
5
2.
5
6155000
6155000
2.5
2.5
1
6150000
6150000
1
6145000
6145000
0.5
McMillan 1
Lake
0.5
0.5
6140000
6140000
0.5
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
0.1
5
6185000
6185000
0.15 5
0.1
0. 1
5
0.
15
6180000
6180000
0.
15
0. 25
6175000
6175000
0.2
5
0.25
6170000
6170000
0.15
0.2
0.5
5 0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
6165000
6165000
5
1
0.25
0.5
At h
aba
6160000
6160000
sca
0.15
0.5
5 1
0.2
6155000
6155000
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.15
6150000
6150000
0.15
5
0.15
0.1 0. 2
5
6145000
6145000
0.15 0.25
McMillan
Lake
5
0.1
6140000
6140000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
0.00
0.0075
75
6185000
6185000
0.01
0.0
1
0.01
6180000
6180000
0.0
075
6175000
6175000
0.01
0.025
6170000
6170000
0.025
0.05
6165000
6165000
5
0.2
0.1
At h
0.
05
aba
6160000
6160000
sca
0 .0
25 0.1
0.01
0.05
0.05
6155000
6155000
0.00
57
0.02
0.025 5
6150000
6150000
0.0
1
6145000
6145000
McMillan
Lake
75
0.0
0.00
0.0
07
1
5
6140000
6140000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
3E.3.3 PM2.5 Concentrations

For the maximum predicted 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual PM2.5 concentrations for the Project only
scenario, see Table 3E-5, and Figures 3E-6 to 3E-8. The highest predicted 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual
average PM2.5 concentrations are located along the CPF fence line, and concentrations decrease with
increasing distance from the CPF area. The maximum predicted 1-hour (9th highest) and 24-hour (2nd
highest) PM2.5 concentrations are less than the respective 1-hour AAAQG of 80 µg/m3 and the 24-hour
AAAQO of 30 µg/m3.
The 1-hour 8 µg/m3 PM2.5 contour (which is 1/10 the 1-hour AAAQG) is confined to about 4.0 km radius
area centered to the CPF area. The 24-hour 3 µg/m3 PM2.5 contour (which is 1/10 the 24-hour AAAQO) is
confined within a 2.0 km radius area centered on the CPF area.
3E.3.4 Nitrogen Deposition

Nitrogen deposition is a result of NOX emissions and is expressed in units of kg N/ha/a. Nitrogen
deposition represents the sum of the nitrogen substance (e.g., NO, NO2, HNO3 and NO3-) wet and dry
deposition contributions. The nitrogen deposition contributions are shown in Figure 3E-9 for the Project
only. The average nitrogen deposition for the 50 km x 50 km area due to the Project only scenario is
0.084 kg N/ha/a. The maximum nitrogen deposition for the Project only scenario is 3.81 kg N/ha/a; this
value occurs on the CPF fence line.
3E.3.5 Sulphur Deposition

Sulphur deposition is a result of SO2 emissions and is expressed in units of kg S/ha/a. Sulphur deposition
represents the sum of the sulphur substance (e.g., SO2 and SO42-) wet and dry deposition contributions.
The sulphur deposition contributions are shown in Figure 3E-10 for the Project only scenario. The
average sulphur deposition contribution for the 50 km x 50 km area due to the Project only scenario is
0.01 kg S/ha/a. The maximum sulphur deposition for the Project only is 0.61 kg S/ha/a; this value occurs
on the CPF fence line.
3E.3.6 PAI Deposition

Acid deposition is expressed as Potential Acid Input (PAI) in units of keq H+/ha/a. PAI represents the sum
of the sulphur substance (e.g., SO2 and SO42-) and the nitrogen substance (e.g., NO, NO2, HNO3 and
NO3-) contributions minus the neutralizing effects of base cation (e.g., Ca2+ and Mg2+) contributions. Not
all nitrogen deposition is acidifying, and the nitrogen was adjusted for this assessment as described in
Appendix 3D. Only the PAI contribution for the Project is presented (i.e., base cations are not
incorporated).
The PAI deposition contributions are shown in Figure 3E-11 for the Project only. The average PAI
deposition for the 50 km x 50 km area due to the Project only is 0.002 keq H+/ha/a. The maximum PAI
deposition for the Project only scenario is 0.11 keq H+/ha/a; this value occurs on the CPF fence line.
May 2012 Page 3E-15

TABLE 3E-5
MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PROJECT ONLY (CALPUFF MODEL)
Maximum PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
1-hour 1-hour 24-hour 24-hour
st
Location Year (1 highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (2nd highest) Annual
Inside Project CPF 2002 52.9 22.0 14.3 12.3 1.50
Fence Line 2003 58.5 21.4 15.2 11.4 1.37
2004 45.0 22.2 11.0 8.23 1.49
2005 38.6 21.2 10.2 8.67 1.24
2006 68.2 22.6 17.2 15.2 1.47
Maximum 68.2 22.6 17.2 15.2 1.50
On Project CPF 2002 56.6 16.8 10.4 9.42 1.04
Fence Line 2003 64.2 16.6 9.17 7.21 0.93
2004 51.2 16.2 7.60 6.42 0.98
2005 30.6 15.4 6.90 6.18 0.88
2006 62.9 19.1 10.1 8.46 1.01
Maximum 64.2 19.1 10.4 9.42 1.04
Outside Project CPF 2002 57.2 16.3 9.20 8.27 0.92
Fence Line and Inside 2003 84.9 16.3 7.50 6.57 0.96
Well Pad Area
2004 54.3 18.5 6.85 6.49 0.88
2005 29.1 16.8 5.97 5.81 0.91
2006 60.2 18.2 8.96 6.71 0.92
Maximum 84.9 18.5 9.20 8.27 0.96
Outside Well Pad 2002 51.8 14.4 6.94 6.50 0.73
Area and Inside LSA 2003 44.8 11.1 5.58 4.37 0.62
2004 52.4 16.1 5.34 4.63 0.69
2005 26.3 10.7 5.07 4.42 0.61
2006 58.1 15.9 5.71 5.24 0.67
Maximum 58.1 16.1 6.94 6.50 0.73
Outside LSA and 2002 1.44 0.99 0.32 0.24 0.02
inside RSA 2003 2.85 1.19 0.47 0.35 0.02
2004 2.23 1.05 0.40 0.30 0.02
2005 2.38 0.80 0.36 0.19 0.02
2006 2.14 0.83 0.56 0.19 0.02
Maximum 2.85 1.19 0.56 0.35 0.02
AAAQO/AAAQG - 80 - 30 -
NOTES:
Predicted concentrations are based on a total BlackPearl Project PM2.5 emission rate of 0.44 t/d.
AAAQO = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective. AAAQG = Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guideline.
AAAQOs and AAAQGs are not applicable within the Project CPF fence line or on the individual well pads.
There are no annual AAAQG or AAAQO for PM2.5.
May 2012 Page 3E-16

375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
6185000
6185000
1
1
6180000
6180000
1
6175000
6175000
1
2
2
6170000
6170000
1
2
2
4
2
6165000
6165000
4
8
At h
2
aba
6160000
6160000
sca
8
2
6155000
6155000
1 4
2 4
2
1
1
6150000
6150000
1
6145000
6145000
McMillan 1
Lake
1
6140000
6140000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
6185000
6185000
0.25
0.
0.
25
25
0. 2
6180000
6180000
5
0.2
5
0.2
0.25
5
0.25
6175000
6175000
0.5
6170000
6170000
0.2
0.5
5
0.5
0.5
6165000
6165000
1
1
0.25
0.5
3
At h
aba
6160000
6160000
sca
1
0.5
0. 2 1
5
6155000
6155000
0.5
6150000
6150000
0 .5
6145000
6145000
0.25
McMillan
0.25
Lake 0.25
0.25
5
0.2
0.25
6140000
6140000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
15
0.0
6185000
6185000
5
0.01
5
0.01
6180000
6180000
0.015
5
02
6175000
6175000
0.
0.0
25
0.05
6170000
6170000
0.1
15 0.05
0 .0
0.5
6165000
6165000
0.025
0.1
At h
aba
6160000
6160000
sca
0.1
0.05
6155000
6155000
0.05
0.
05
0.0
15
0.0
6150000
6150000
25
0.025
6145000
6145000
McMillan
Lake
0.0
15
6140000
6140000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
6185000
6185000
6180000
6180000
5 0.05
0. 0
6175000
6175000
0.0
5
6170000
6170000
0.5
5
0.2
1
6165000
6165000
0.5
At h
aba
0.25
6160000
6160000
sca
0.0
5
6155000
6155000
6150000
6150000
6145000
6145000
0.0
5
McMillan
Lake 0.05
6140000
6140000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
6185000
6185000
05
0.0
6180000
6180000
0.005
0.005
6175000
6175000
0.01
6170000
6170000
0.0
1
0.0 1
6165000
6165000
0.005
0.1
0.
At h
05
aba
6160000
6160000
sca
6155000
6155000
0.01
0.01
6150000
6150000
0.005
0.01
6145000
6145000
McMillan
Lake
0.0
0 5
6140000
6140000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
6185000
6185000
0.
00
1
0.001
6180000
6180000
6175000
6175000
01
0.0
6170000
6170000
0.
01
05
0.0
0 .0
05
6165000
6165000
0.0
3
0.001
0.0
2
At h
aba
6160000
6160000
0.0
sca
0.0
05
6155000
6155000
6150000
6150000
0.001
6145000
6145000
McMillan
Lake
0.0
01
6140000
6140000
0.001
375000 380000 385000 390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000
3E.4 Emergency Generator and Upset Flaring Sources

Abnormal emissions may periodically occur because of the intermittent use of emergency generators and
intermittent flaring events.
Emergency Generator Assumptions
Emergency power generators may run occasionally during certain plant upsets as well as for
routine maintenance. In this scenario, it is conservatively assumed that all backup generators (one
for each phase) are running simultaneously in addition to all other normal emissions at the
project. The emergency generator operation parameters are described in Appendix 3A.
Flaring Assumptions
The Project consists of three independent phases, with each phase being serviced by its own flare
system. It is highly unlikely that intermittent flaring will occur simultaneously for each phase. As
greater volumes of gas can be directed to the flare system for Phase 2 or Phase 3, than for Phase
1, for purpose of assessing effects on air quality associated with intermittent flaring, it is
conservatively assumed that the intermittent flaring events occur at the Phase 2 facilities. In this
case, the Phase 2 flaring is assumed to overlap with the Phase 1 and Phase 3 normal operations.
The intermittent flaring parameters are described in Appendix 3A. The three flaring events that
are examined include:
Inlet fuel gas control failure: Due to a failure with the inlet fuel gas control, it is expected that
the entire CPF will shut down and fuel gas is flared via the high pressure (HP) flare stack. For
purpose of assessing the effect on air quality associated with this scenario, it was assumed that
flaring would occur using the Phase 2 high pressure (HP) flare.
Inlet produced gas to flare: Produced gas will be directed to the Phase 2 HP flare instead of
being directed to the CPF fuel system. It is likely that the other Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3
sources would continue to operate normally when produced gas is being flared. However, the
CPF would be burning natural gas instead of mixed gas (i.e., a mixture of natural gas and
produced gas) when produced gas is flared. This assessment examines the overlap the Phase 2 HP
flare upset with other normal Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 sources (including the ongoing
construction and operation fleet sources) with the following considerations:
• The SO2 emission rates for the Phase 2 OTSGs are reduced as they are burning
only natural gas while the produced gas is flared.
• Phase 1 and Phase 3 OTSGS are assumed to be fired with a mixture of natural
gas and produced gas.
VRU compressor outage: This scenario assumes that one of the two vapour recovery unit
(VRUs) has failed resulting in the flaring of vapours in the Phase 2 low pressure (LP) flare. It is
likely that the other emission sources at the plant would continue to operate normally during this
scenario. This assessment examines the overlap of the Phase 2 LP flare (VRU compressor outage)
with other normal Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 sources (including the ongoing construction and
operation fleet sources).
The CALPUFF model was used to provide an indication of the maximum predicted NO2, SO2,
and PM2.5 concentrations associated with the emergency generator operation and intermittent
flaring events. As the flare and non-flare stacks were evaluated in the same model runs, stack tip
May 2012 Page 3E-23

downwash was assumed for all stacks. This is a conservative assumption as the contribution due
to the flare stacks will be overstated due to the associated use of pseudo stack parameters.
The maximum predicted concentrations for the emergency generator operation and upset flaring
scenarios are shown in Tables 3E-6 to 3E-8. The predicted NO2 and SO2 concentrations do not
exceed the AAAQO anywhere for all scenarios. For PM2.5, the maximum 1-hour concentrations
(1st highest) are greater than AAAQG of 80 μg/m3 in the Project well pad area for three scenarios:
emergency generator operation, inlet produced gas to flare, and VRU compressor outage. The
maximum predicted 1-hour PM2.5 concentrations (9th highest), however, are less than AAAQG of
80 μg/m3 for all scenarios.
May 2012 Page 3E-24

TABLE 3E-6
MAXIMUM PREDICTED NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND INTERMITTENT FLARING EVENTS
(CALPUFF MODEL)
Emergency Generator Inlet Fuel Gas Control Failure Inlet Produced Gas to Flare VRU Compressor Outage
1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour
Location Year (1st highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (9th highest)
Inside Project 2002 158 129 44.8 37.5 139 118 139 118
CPF Fence Line 2003 143 127 48.1 38.7 137 120 137 120
2004 146 127 50.9 40.0 138 112 138 112
2005 160 129 44.8 38.0 147 113 147 113
2006 167 134 48.9 38.7 147 122 147 122
Maximum 167 134 50.9 40.0 147 122 147 122
On Project CPF 2002 139 124 44.1 37.9 132 116 132 116
Fence Line 2003 151 119 48.6 38.5 137 109 137 109
2004 137 114 52.4 40.0 132 104 132 104
2005 151 116 45.2 37.6 136 107 136 107
Page 3E-25
2006 158 125 49.8 38.9 144 119 144 119

Maximum 158 125 52.4 40.0 144 119 144 119
Outside Project 2002 136 118 88.4 63.7 127 111 127 111
CPF Fence Line 2003 148 116 102 59.7 138 107 138 107
and Inside Well
2004 137 112 96.8 68.4 129 104 129 104
Pad Area
2005 149 114 87.8 54.8 135 105 135 105
2006 156 122 112 65.8 127 111 127 111
Maximum 156 122 112 68.4 138 111 138 111
Outside Well 2002 124 108 75.8 57.1 116 98.5 116 98.5
Pad Area and 2003 128 109 85.7 52.7 114 95.3 114 95.3
Inside LSA
2004 126 104 94.8 54.1 109 98.6 109 98.6
2005 118 105 66.8 49.7 104 96.1 104 96.1
2006 131 110 68.4 47.3 115 99.5 115 99.5
Maximum 131 110 94.8 57.1 116 99.5 116 99.5
Outside the LSA 2002 12.9 8.94 1.77 0.38 12.1 8.64 12.1 8.64
and inside RSA 2003 13.8 7.38 1.71 0.40 13.5 6.49 13.5 6.50
2004 15.1 9.00 1.03 0.44 14.9 7.72 14.9 7.72
2005 10.7 7.30 1.28 0.44 9.28 6.27 9.28 6.27
2006 10.0 7.73 0.98 0.41 8.65 6.83 8.65 6.87
Maximum 15.1 9.00 1.77 0.44 14.9 8.64 14.9 8.64
AAAQO - 300 - 300 - 300 - 300
TABLE 3E-7
MAXIMUM PREDICTED SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND INTERMITTENT FLARING EVENTS
(CALPUFF MODEL)
Inside Project 2002 61.5 25.6 0.63 0.21 48.0 20.7 211 193
CPF Fence Line 2003 68.2 24.7 0.49 0.16 53.1 22.5 237 203
2004 38.5 24.2 1.13 0.14 28.8 19.4 235 223
2005 44.8 22.8 0.79 0.18 39.9 20.7 225 176
2006 78.9 26.2 0.26 0.13 62.2 24.5 236 218
Maximum 78.9 26.2 1.13 0.21 62.2 24.5 237 223
On Project CPF 2002 65.6 18.3 0.30 0.21 50.9 14.0 87.3 52.9
Fence Line 2003 74.6 17.8 0.62 0.16 56.8 14.6 83.9 68.8
2004 45.1 18.0 2.46 0.22 33.8 13.4 96.1 59.1
2005 35.4 16.9 0.91 0.13 27.4 13.0 100 72.7
2006 71.3 19.2 0.29 0.15 57.4 15.5 93.3 78.6
Page 3E-26
Maximum 74.6 19.2 2.46 0.22 57.4 15.5 100 78.6

Outside Project 2002 66.1 18.4 0.76 0.17 51.3 14.7 68.8 30.7
CPF Fence Line 2003 99.1 17.8 0.92 0.18 75.3 14.1 99.1 34.5
and Inside Well
2004 47.5 20.3 1.94 0.21 36.6 15.6 50.9 36.6
Pad Area
2005 34.0 18.1 1.16 0.19 26.3 14.1 60.5 29.6
2006 69.0 19.6 0.67 0.20 53.3 15.1 68.9 30.5
Maximum 99.1 20.3 1.94 0.21 75.3 15.6 99.1 36.6
Outside Well Pad 2002 59.5 16.7 0.81 0.14 46.1 13.1 62.1 16.8
Area and Inside 2003 52.0 12.6 0.83 0.15 40.7 10.0 51.9 12.9
LSA
2004 45.4 18.1 1.43 0.16 35.4 14.2 45.3 18.3
2005 30.5 12.4 1.00 0.14 22.5 9.5 30.5 12.7
2006 62.7 18.8 1.05 0.14 49.1 14.6 62.6 18.7
Maximum 62.7 18.8 1.43 0.16 49.1 14.6 62.6 18.7
Outside LSA and 2002 1.20 0.85 0.05 0.02 0.98 0.69 1.33 0.94
inside RSA 2003 1.32 0.64 0.10 0.02 1.08 0.52 1.45 0.71
2004 1.50 0.82 0.06 0.03 1.24 0.66 1.70 0.88
2005 1.07 0.67 0.08 0.03 0.85 0.53 1.15 0.77
2006 0.89 0.69 0.06 0.02 0.72 0.55 1.01 0.74
Maximum 1.50 0.85 0.10 0.03 1.24 0.69 1.70 0.94
AAAQO - 450 - 450 - 450 - 450
TABLE 3E-8
MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND INTERMITTENT FLARING EVENTS
(CALPUFF MODEL)
Inside Project 2002 54.3 22.4 4.15 3.20 53.3 22.0 53.3 33.5
CPF Fence Line 2003 59.4 21.9 4.63 3.60 58.5 21.5 58.5 35.3
2004 49.9 22.6 5.37 3.95 44.9 22.2 45.0 38.9
2005 39.0 21.7 5.01 3.75 38.8 21.2 39.1 30.7
2006 69.5 23.1 6.08 4.04 68.9 22.7 68.7 37.9
Maximum 69.5 23.1 6.08 4.04 68.9 22.7 68.7 38.9
On Project CPF 2002 57.9 17.3 4.12 3.29 56.8 16.8 56.9 16.8
Fence Line 2003 64.2 17.2 4.96 3.64 64.1 16.6 64.2 16.6
2004 56.7 17.2 9.16 3.93 50.9 16.2 51.1 16.2
2005 31.0 16.3 5.01 3.85 30.7 15.4 30.7 15.4
2006 64.2 19.1 6.19 4.18 62.8 19.1 62.8 19.2
Page 3E-27
Maximum 64.2 19.1 9.16 4.18 64.1 19.1 64.2 19.2

Outside Project 2002 58.5 17.4 9.15 6.97 57.3 16.5 57.5 16.3
CPF Fence Line 2003 84.9 17.2 12.6 7.77 84.9 16.3 84.9 16.3
and Inside Well
2004 60.6 19.0 14.6 8.54 54.1 18.5 54.6 18.5
Pad Area
2005 29.7 17.6 11.6 7.24 29.1 16.8 29.1 16.8
2006 61.6 18.3 11.4 8.88 60.2 18.9 60.2 18.8
Maximum 84.9 19.0 14.6 8.88 84.9 18.9 84.9 18.8
Outside Well Pad 2002 52.9 14.9 9.22 5.83 51.8 14.6 52.3 14.6
Area and Inside 2003 45.2 11.7 9.63 5.63 44.8 11.1 44.8 11.1
LSA
2004 58.5 16.4 14.4 6.27 52.2 16.1 52.5 16.1
2005 26.9 11.2 7.9 5.53 26.3 10.6 26.3 10.7
2006 59.3 16.7 11.4 5.69 58.1 15.9 58.1 15.9
Maximum 59.3 16.7 14.4 6.27 58.1 16.1 58.1 16.1
Outside LSA and 2002 1.49 1.03 0.27 0.11 1.46 1.00 1.47 1.00
inside RSA 2003 3.26 1.48 0.44 0.13 2.88 1.19 2.89 1.21
2004 2.28 1.07 0.33 0.14 2.26 1.07 2.27 1.06
2005 3.03 0.86 0.48 0.10 2.40 0.81 2.42 0.81
2006 2.65 0.86 0.44 0.13 2.16 0.83 2.18 0.85
Maximum 3.26 1.48 0.48 0.14 2.88 1.19 2.89 1.21
AAAQG - 80 - 80 - 80 - 80
3E.5 Conclusions
The SCREEN3 model indicates that building downwash has the potential to influence dispersion from the
Project stacks. For this reason, building downwash was rigorously assessed using the CALPUFF model.
The concentration and deposition plots (which represent a 50 km by 50 km area) demonstrate that the air
quality maxima due to Project emissions occur inside the Project well pad area. The maximum 1-hour (9th
highest), 24-hour (2nd highest), and annual average concentrations in the entire domain including inside
and outside the Project well pad area are predicted to be less than the respective AAAQO/AAAQG.
The NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 concentrations associated with combined operation of the emergency generators
and of upset flaring scenarios are predicted to be less than the respective AAAQO/AAAQG.
Ambient NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 concentration maxima outside the Project CPF fence line and inside the
Project well pad area are about 23 to 37%, 4 to 4.5%, and 23 to 28% of the respective AAAQO/AAAQG.
The predicted concentrations outside the Project well pad area are less than those mentioned above.
May 2012 Page 3E-28

HYDROLOGY
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Hydrology
CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was carried out by Dr. C.H. (Ken) Zhao, P. Eng. and Tony Ye, M. Eng. E.I.T, under the
guidance and supervision of Gary Van Der Vinne, M.Sc., P.Eng. Site data was collected by Tony Ye,
E.I.T., James Snyder, E.I.T. and Kerry Paslawski, CET. Climate data used in this report were obtained
from Environment Canada’s National Climate Data and Information Archive. Streamflow data was
obtained from Environment Canada’s Water Survey Canada Archived Hydrometric Data. Mapping
information was obtained from the National Topographic Service’s National Topographic Database
(NTDB) and Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd. (SDW) Alberta AltaLIS digital mapping service. Digital elevation
data was obtained from Geobase.
Page 2-i
DISCLAIMER
This document has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants in accordance with generally
accepted engineering and geoscience practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of the
client for whom it was prepared and for the particular purpose for which it was prepared. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no
responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any party other than the client
for whom the document was prepared. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used,
in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Northwest
Hydraulic Consultants and our client.
Page 2-ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2.0 HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Assessment Method......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3.1 Location and Spatial Boundaries ........................................................................ 2-1
2.3.2 Temporal Boundaries .......................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.3 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................ 2-3
2.4 Regional Climate .............................................................................................................. 2-4
2.4.1 Air Temperature .................................................................................................. 2-4
2.4.2 Precipitation ........................................................................................................ 2-5
2.4.3 Evaporation ......................................................................................................... 2-7
2.5 Regional Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5.1 Flow Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-8
2.5.2 Extreme flows...................................................................................................... 2-9
2.6 Local Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 2-10
2.6.1 Local Hydrography ............................................................................................ 2-10
2.6.2 Local Snow Course Data .................................................................................. 2-10
2.6.3 Local Stream Characteristics ............................................................................ 2-11
2.7 Pre-Development Case .................................................................................................. 2-14
2.8 Baseline Case ................................................................................................................ 2-15
2.8.1 Existing Water Rights ........................................................................................ 2-15
2.8.2 Footprint of Existing Developments .................................................................. 2-15
2.8.3 Hydrologic Impact from Baseline Case ............................................................. 2-17
2.9 Application Case ............................................................................................................ 2-19
2.9.1 Project Area ...................................................................................................... 2-19
2.9.2 Hydrologic Impact ............................................................................................. 2-21
2.10 Planned Development Case .......................................................................................... 2-24
2.10.1 Planned Development Area .............................................................................. 2-24
2.10.2 Hydrologic Impact ............................................................................................. 2-25
2.11 Cumulative Impact Assessment..................................................................................... 2-26
2.12 Mitigation and Monitoring ............................................................................................... 2-26
2.12.1 Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 2-26
2.12.2 Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 2-27
2.13 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2-27
2.13.1 Pre-development Case ..................................................................................... 2-27
2.13.2 Baseline Case ................................................................................................... 2-27
2.13.3 Application Case ............................................................................................... 2-27
2.13.4 Planned Development Case ............................................................................. 2-28
2.13.5 Mitigation and Monitoring .................................................................................. 2-28
2.14 References ..................................................................................................................... 2-29
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 2A Hydrology Assessment Figures .....................................................................................2A-1
Page 2-iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2-1 Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 2-1
Table 2.3-1 Residual Effect Assessment Criteria................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2.4-1 Summary of Monthly Temperature Characteristics for the Climate Normal
Period 1961-1990............................................................................................................. 2-5
Table 2.4-2 Summary of Precipitation Characteristics for the Climate Normal Period
1961-1990 ........................................................................................................................ 2-6
Table 2.4-3 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Statistics for Selected Stations............................ 2-7
Table 2.4-4 Lake Evaporation and Potential Evaporation for Selected Stations ................................ 2-8
Table 2.5-1 Summary of Selected WSC Gauges................................................................................ 2-9
Table 2.5-2 Summary of Extreme Flows for WSC Gauges in the Region ........................................ 2-10
Table 2.6-1 Snow Course Data Measured March 18-20, 2011 ........................................................ 2-11
Table 2.6-2 Summary of Flow Measurements July 2010 – July 2011 .............................................. 2-12
Table 2.7-1 Summary of Estimated Flow Rates for Local Basins ..................................................... 2-14
Table 2.8-1 Summary of Existing Disturbance Areas (Unit: ha) ....................................................... 2-15
Table 2.8-2 Summary of Existing Culverts Along Blackpearl’s Access Road in the RSA ................ 2-17
Table 2.8-3 Summary of Changes in Runoff Volumes Due to Changes in Runoff
Coefficients for Baseline Case ....................................................................................... 2-18
Table 2.9-1 Summary of Application Case Disturbance ................................................................... 2-19
Table 2.9-2 Summary of Stream Crossings ...................................................................................... 2-21
Table 2.9-3 Significance Evaluation of Potential Impact on Surface Water Hydrology-
Application Case ............................................................................................................ 2-22
Table 2.9-4 Summary of Changes in Runoff Volumes and Streamflows for Application
Case ............................................................................................................................... 2-23
Table 2.10-1 Planned Development Case Disturbance Areas ........................................................... 2-24
Table 2.10-2 Summary of Changes in Runoff Volumes and Streamflows for PDC ............................ 2-25
Page 2-iv
2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Introduction
BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) is submitting an Integrated Application to the Alberta Energy
Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment and Water (AEW) for approval to
construct, operate and reclaim an in-situ steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) bitumen recovery
project. A comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been prepared as part of the
Integrated Application. This section addresses surface water hydrology and was prepared by Northwest
Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (NHC).
The proposed Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) is located on Crown land east of the
Athabasca River in Townships 76 and 77, Ranges 17 and 18, W4M, approximately 50 km northwest of
the Hamlet of Wandering River, Alberta (Figure 2.1-1). The Project is expected to be developed in three
phases over an estimated 30 year period with the initial phase producing 20,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) of
crude bitumen and the subsequent phases producing 30,000 bbl/d each, for a final production capacity of
80,000 bbl/d. The proposed development will have a central processing facility (CPF) and is expected to
have up to 69 well pads over the life of the Project. The Project is accessible from Highway 63 using an
existing access road.
2.2 Terms of Reference

This Surface Water Hydrology Assessment was conducted according to the final Terms of Reference
(TOR) issued by AEW. The complete Project TOR Concordance Table is provided in Volume 1. The
specific requirements for surface water hydrology are provided in Table 2.2-1 below. The effects of the
Project on groundwater movement are discussed in Volume 3, Section 1.0. The Surface Water Hydrology
Assessment also considered Sections 8.0 (Mitigation Measures), 9.0 (Residual Impacts) and 10.0
(Monitoring) of the final Project TOR.
TABLE 2.2-1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
3.3.1 Baseline Information
[A] Describe and map the surface hydrology in the Project Area.
[B] Identify any surface water users who have existing approvals, permits or licenses.
3.3.2 Impact Assessment
[A] Describe the extent of hydrological changes that will result from disturbances to groundwater and surface water movement:
a) include changes to the quantity of surface flow, water levels and channel regime in watercourses (during minimum, average and peak
flows) and water levels in waterbodies;
b) assess the potential impact of any alterations in flow on the hydrology and identify all temporary and permanent alterations, channel
realignments, disturbances or surface water withdrawals;
c) discuss the effect of these changes on hydrology (e.g., timing, volume, peak and minimum flow rates, river regime and lake levels),
including the significance of effects for downstream watercourses; and
d) identify any potential erosion problems in watercourses resulting from the Project.
[B] Describe impacts on other surface water users resulting from the Project. Identify any potential water use conflicts.
[C] Discuss the impact of low flow conditions and in-stream flow needs on water supply and water and wastewater management strategies.
2.3 Assessment Method

2.3.1 Location and Spatial Boundaries
The Project lies within an area of Lower Boreal Highlands which drains into the surrounding lower Central
Mixedwood Subregion. Both the Lower Boreal Highlands and Central Mixedwood Subregions are part of
the Boreal Forest Natural Region of Alberta. The bedrock geology in this area consists of shales and
sandstones of the La Biche Group. The soils are composed of grey wooded loams and muskeg. The
vegetation in the well drained areas is predominantly jackpine and white spruce while the vegetation in
the poorly drained muskeg areas consists of sphagnum moss and black spruce.
Page 2-1
Figure 2.3-1 shows the location of the Project relative to the climate and hydrometric stations,
hydrography and other geographic features in northeastern Alberta.
The spatial boundaries considered for the Surface Water Hydrology Assessment include the:
• Regional Study Area (RSA);
• Local Study Area (LSA); and
• Project Area.
2.3.1.1 Regional Study Area

The Hydrology RSA is defined as the area in which flows and water levels could be affected directly or
indirectly by the Project. The boundary of the RSA is shown in Figure 2.3-2. With a total area of
253.7 km2, the RSA consists of five basins draining into the Athabasca River: Basins A, B and C draining
towards the north; Basin D draining to the southwest; and, Basin E draining towards the west. The RSA is
limited to these five basins because potential impacts to the Athabasca River downstream of these basins
are anticipated to be negligible due to the much larger drainage area of the river.
2.3.1.2 Local Study Area

The Hydrology LSA is defined as the Project Area and surrounding areas which would be directly affected
by runoff from the Project. The boundary of the LSA is shown in Figure 2.3-3 along with the boundaries of
the smaller scale basins within the Project Area. It covers an area of about 110.2 km2.
2.3.1.3 Project Area

The Project Area for surface water hydrology is defined as the area of direct disturbance provided by
BlackPearl with a total of 9.66 km2. The Project Area is shown in Figure 2.3-2 and Figure 2.3-3.
Elevations within the Project Area vary from 574 to 731 m.
2.3.2 Temporal Boundaries

The temporal boundary for the surface water hydrology assessment was defined by the life span of the
Project. The Project will be constructed and operated in a series of phases. However, the assessment
considers either that the entire Project is undeveloped or developed. This results in a conservative
evaluation so that effects are not underestimated. Construction is scheduled to commence in 2013 and
operations in 2015. The expected life of the Project (i.e., operation phase) is 30 years. Based on this
scenario, the operational phase of the Project would extend from 2015 to 2045 with final reclamation
estimated to be completed in 2050.
Four assessment scenarios were considered: Pre-development Case; Baseline Case; Application Case;
and Planned Development Case (PDC). Hydrologic conditions described in the Pre-development Case
were used as the basis of comparison for the assessment of the Baseline Case, Application Case and the
PDC. These scenarios are defined as follows:
2.3.2.1 Pre-development Case

The Pre-development Case is defined as the natural conditions with existing disturbances that are typical
and wide spread in northern Alberta, such as cutlines, pipelines, gravel pits and wells for energy
exploration. Hydrologic conditions of the Pre-development Case can be characterized with the regional
historical streamflow data presented in the regional hydrology analysis. The conditions are used as the
basis of comparison for the assessment of disturbances due to local existing and approved projects, the
Project and known future developments.
2.3.2.2 Baseline Case

The temporal scope of the Baseline Case is defined as the current conditions including both existing
typical and site-specific disturbances as of February 2012. Effects of site-specific disturbances and
approved developments are assessed by comparing the Baseline Case to the Pre-development Case.
Page 2-2
2.3.2.3 Application Case

The temporal scope of the Application Case is defined as the conditions including the Project
disturbances in addition to the Baseline Case, assuming that all phases of the Project are constructed
and operational at the same time. Project effects are assessed by comparing the Application Case to the
Pre-development Case.
2.3.2.4 Planned Development Case

Cumulative effects of existing and approved disturbances and activities, the Project and known future
developments are assessed by comparing the PDC to the Pre-development Case. The PDC assessment
is considered conservative since the identified future developments may or may not proceed during the
life span of the Project. Known future developments include those projects or activities which were
publicly disclosed as of February 2012 as summarized in the inclusion list in Volume 2, Section 1.0.
2.3.3 Significance Criteria

The criteria used to assess residual effects on hydrology (Table 2.3-1) are adapted from the general
criteria (Volume 2, Section 1.0). Potential residual effects on hydrology were assessed quantitatively
wherever feasible (e.g., runoff volumes, streamflows, water levels, etc.). Qualitative assessments and
professional judgment were incorporated where necessary. Predicted residual effects are considered to
be significant if they have a high magnitude and are irreversible and likely to occur; otherwise, they are
considered to be not significant.
TABLE 2.3-1
RESIDUAL EFFECT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Assessment Criteria Definition

IMPACT BALANCE – of the residual effect
Positive A positive effect balance is considered to have a net benefit to the hydorologic conditions.
Neutral A neutral balance is defined as no net benefit or loss to the hydorologic conditions.
Negative A negative effect balance is considered to be a net loss or detriment to the hydorologic conditions.
SPATIAL BOUNDARY
Project Area The residual effect is confined to the area directly disturbed by Project activities.
LSA The residual effect extends beyond the area of direct disturbance (Project Area) but is limited to the LSA. The LSA
includes the Project Area as well as the surrounding area where there is a reasonable potential for Project-specific effects
to occur.
RSA The residual effect extends beyond the LSA but is limited to the RSA. The RSA includes the Project Area, LSA and
surrounding area where there is potential for cumulative and/or wider-spread Project effects.
Province The residual effect extends beyond the RSA, but is confined to Alberta.
National The residual effect extends beyond the province but is confined to Canada.
International The residual effect extends beyond Canada.
TEMPORAL CONTEXT
Duration - Short-term The residual effect is less than or equal to one year.
the length of time Medium-term The residual effect is longer than one year but less than or equal to ten years.
over which the Long-term The residual effect is longer than 10 years.
residual effect
extends
Frequency 1 Accidental The residual effect occurs rarely over assessment period.
How often the Isolated The residual effect is confined to specified phase of the assessment period (e.g., construction phase).
residual effect is
Occasional The residual effect occurs intermittently and sporadically over assessment period.
predicted to
occur Periodic The residual effect occurs intermittently but repeatedly over the assessment period.
Continuous The residual effect occurs continually over the assessment period.
Reversibility – Reversible The residual effect is predicted to be reversible.
ability of the Permanent The residual effect is predicted to be irreversible.
indicator to
recover from the
residual effect
MAGNITUDE –the severity or scale of the residual effect
Negligible Potential residual effects are not detectable.
Low Potential residual effects are less than 10% or within the range of variability established from regional analysis.
Page 2-3
TABLE 2.3-1 Cont'd

Assessment Criteria Definition
Medium Potential residual effects are between 10% and 25%, or near the range of variability established from regional analysis.
High Potential residual effects are greater than 25%, or obviously outside of the range of variability established from regional
analysis.
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE - likelihood of the residual effect
High Likely
Low Unlikely
LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE - degree of certainty related to significance evaluation
Low Determination of significance based on incomplete understanding of cause-effect relationships and incomplete data
pertinent to the study area.
Moderate Determination of significance based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships using data from outside the
Project area or incompletely understood cause-effect relationships using data pertinent to the study area.
High Determination of significance based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships and data pertinent to the study
area.
SIGNIFICANCE – of the residual effect
Significant Residual effects are predicted to have a high magnitude and high probability of occurrence and be permanent.
Not Significant Residual effects are predicted to be of low or medium magnitude, reversible, or unlikely to occur.
Notes: 1 The assessment period for the Application Case and PDC includes planning, construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation
phases for the Project as well as equivalent project phases of activities that have previously occurred (Application Case and PDC) and those
that are planned or publicly disclosed (PDC).
2.4 Regional Climate

Climate is a major driver of the hydrologic regime. The magnitude of the winter snow pack and the
severity of summer rain events along with variations in air temperature contribute to the magnitude and
variability of spring and summer runoff events. Climate also influences vegetation characteristics which in
turn affect the runoff coefficients and the evapotranspiration rates of the area.
Three long term climate stations operated by Environment Canada (EC) are selected to represent the
climate condition for the study area (Figure 2.3-1): Fort McMurray Airport station about 130 km northeast
of the Project, Slave Lake Airport station about 140 km west of the Project, and Cold Lake Airport station
about 200 km southeast of the Project. The elevations of the stations are 369 m, 580 m and 541 m,
respectively. These stations provide long term continuous climate records for the area, measuring air
temperatures, precipitation, wind, atmospheric pressure, hours of bright sunshine, and humidity.
Air temperature and precipitation are also available for the May LO station, Wandering River RS station,
and Calling Lake RS station. These stations are located 20 to 60 km from the Project Area. The
elevations of these stations vary from 560 to 890 m, which are representative of elevations within the
Project Area. Data are only available from May to September of each year at the May LO and Wandering
River RS stations, while at the Calling Lake RS station, daily data is available for the entire year.
2.4.1 Air Temperature

Air temperature is an important climatic variable which controls the relative amount of rain and snow
within the total annual precipitation and which affects the rate and timing of snowmelt in the spring. The
monthly maximum, mean, and minimum temperatures for the six selected weather stations for the climate
normal period between 1961 and 1990 are summarized in Table 2.4-1. Their mean temperature variations
are shown in Figure 2.4-1. This period was selected for comparison because the updated EC climate
normals from 1971 to 2000 are not available for the Wandering River RS and May LO stations. The
normal air temperatures for the remaining 4 stations for the 1971 to 2000 period typically vary within 1°C
from that of the 1961 to 1990 temperatures.
Extreme monthly average temperatures at the Fort McMurray Airport range from a maximum of 23°C in
July to a minimum of -25°C in January. The extreme monthly average temperatures at Slave Lake Airport,
Cold Lake Airport and Calling Lake RS fall in similar ranges to the Fort McMurray Airport. The mean daily
air temperature drops below freezing in November and rises above freezing in April.
Page 2-4
Summer air temperatures at the May LO station tend to be lower than at the Wandering River RS and
Calling Lake RS stations. It is likely because the May LO station is located at a higher elevation, and air
temperatures tend to decrease with increasing elevation. Temperatures at Calling Lake RS station are
consistent with those at the Wandering River RS station. Since the Calling Lake RS station provides
longer term records, its air temperature data were used in this study.
TABLE 2.4-1
SUMMARY OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS

FOR THE CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1961-1990
Monthly Average Temperatures

Fort McMurray A Slave Lake A Cold Lake A
(Elevation 369 m) (Elevation 581 m) (Elevation 541 m)
Max. Mean Min Max. Mean Min Max. Mean Min
Month (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Jan -15 -20 -25 -10 -15 -20 -12 -18 -22
Feb -9 -15 -21 -6 -12 -18 -7 -13 -19
Mar -1 -8 -15 1 -5 -11 -1 -7 -12
Apr 9 3 -4 9 3 -3 10 4 -3
May 17 10 3 16 10 3 17 11 4
Jun 22 15 8 20 14 8 21 15 9
Jul 23 17 10 21 16 10 23 17 11
Aug 22 15 9 20 14 9 22 16 10
Sep 15 9 3 15 9 4 16 10 4
Oct 8 3 -2 9 4 -1 10 4 -1
Nov -5 -9 -14 -2 -6 -11 -3 -7 -11
Dec -13 -17 -22 -9 -13 -18 -11 -15 -20
Annual 6 0 -6 7 2 -4 7 1 -4
Monthly Average Temperatures
Calling Lake RS May LO Wandering River RS
(Elevation 598 m) (Elevation 896 m) (Elevation 564 m)
Max. Mean Min Max. Mean Min Max. Mean Min
Month (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Jan -12 -18 -24
Feb -7 -13 -21
Mar 1 -7 -14
Apr 10 3 -4
May 16 9 2 14 3 17 10 3
Jun 20 14 7 18 13 8 21 14 7
Jul 22 16 10 20 15 10 22 16 9
Aug 21 15 8 19 14 9 21 15 8
Sep 15 9 3 13 9 4 15 9 3
Oct 9 4 -2
Nov -2 -7 -12
Dec -9 -15 -20
Annual 7 1 -6
2.4.2 Precipitation
Precipitation is the most important climate variable that affects the hydrologic cycle. Winter snowfall
influences the magnitude and duration of the spring snowmelt flows, while intense summer rainfall events
produce summer peak flows. Antecedent precipitation conditions affect both the degree of saturation in
the near-surface zone of the basins and the subsequent volume of runoff. Regional precipitation produced
from the movement of large air masses can be altered by local topographic effects. Generally greater
precipitation occurs at higher elevations and along the slopes of uplands where air masses are forced
upwards. These higher elevations also generally experience more of the total precipitation as snowfall
rather than rain due to the lower temperatures which occur at higher elevations.
Page 2-5
The monthly mean values of precipitation for the Fort McMurray Airport, Calling Lake RS, Wandering
River RS and May LO stations for the climate normal period from 1961-1990 are shown in Figure 2.4-2
and listed in Table 2.4-2. The precipitation records at Calling Lake RS, Wandering River RS and May LO
were used to describe local precipitation conditions near the Project Area. The long term records at the
Fort McMurray Airport were used for the regional hydrologic assessment. Long term precipitation records
are also available at the Cold Lake Airport and Slave Lake Airport, but they are not considered herein, as
they are located relatively far away from the basins selected for the regional hydrologic assessment.
TABLE 2.4-2
SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATION CHARACTERISTICS

FOR THE CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1961-1990
Monthly Mean Precipitation Daily Extreme Precipitation

Calling Calling
Fort McMurray Wandering River Lake Fort McMurray Wandering River Lake
A RS RS May LO A RS RS May LO
Month (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Jan 20 25 6 5
Feb 16 17 5 2
Mar 17 18 8 5
Apr 23 17 15 30 18 17
May 41 42 41 53 38 39 41 38
Jun 64 81 79 100 46 81 119 102
Jul 79 97 100 123 52 50 68 79
Aug 72 65 65 87 95 50 56 89
Sep 51 44 42 73 61 63 49 63
Oct 32 20 29 10 25 17
Nov 26 18 15 13 7
Dec 23 22 8 3
The monthly mean precipitation at Wandering River RS tends to be between those of Fort McMurray
Airport and Calling Lake RS during the May to August period. May LO station has 20% more precipitation
than the Fort McMurray Airport and Calling Lake RS, likely because it has a higher elevation than the
other three stations. The greatest monthly precipitation occurs in July, averaging about 79 mm at Fort
McMurray Airport (elevation 369 m), 97 mm at Wandering River RS (elevation 564 m), 100 mm at Calling
Lake RS (elevation 598 m), and 123 mm at May LO (elevation 896 m).
Generally, precipitation between November and March falls as snow due to the below freezing air
temperatures during this period. This precipitation accumulates on the ground until April and May, when
the snow melts and runoff is produced. The variations in annual winter snowfall at Fort McMurray Airport
and Calling Lake RS are shown in Figure 2.4-3. The mean winter snowfall is 148 cm at Fort McMurray
Airport and 105 cm at Calling Lake RS.
Table 2.4-2 also contains the extreme daily precipitation values. The extreme daily precipitation of 81 mm,
102 mm and 119 mm occurred in June at Wandering River RS, May LO and Calling Lake RS,
respectively. The daily extreme precipitation for Fort McMurray Airport of 95 mm occurred in August.
There are no signs of elevation effect on these extreme values.
Longer term precipitation records at Calling Lake RS (1967-2008) and Fort McMurray Airport (1944-2011)
are presented in Figure 2.4-3, which shows the variations of annual precipitation at the two stations. The
mean annual precipitation is 436 mm at Fort McMurray and 463 mm at Calling Lake, the maximum annual
precipitation is 683 mm and 660 mm respectively, and the minimum is 242 mm and 257 mm respectively.
Overall, the precipitation records at Calling Lake RS (1967-2008) provide a good description of the
historical variation in precipitation. At the same time, they represent the local topographical effects near
the Project Area better than the records at Fort McMurray Airport. However, the Fort McMurray Airport
records (1944-2011) provide the best description of the historical variation in precipitation, and better
Page 2-6
represent the conditions of the northern gauged basins presented in Section 2.5. As such, both datasets
were used in the hydrologic assessments in this report.
Rainfall intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) values are only available for the Fort McMurray Airport, Slave
Lake Airport and Cold Lake Airport stations. They were obtained from EC and are summarized in
Table 2.4-3. Differences between these values are relatively small – up to 20% for shorter duration events
and 3% for 12- and 24-hour events. The 100-year, 24-hour rainfall for these three stations are
approximately 95 mm. A more frequent 2-year, 24-hour rainfalls are 39.3 mm, 39.4 mm and 40.2 mm for
Fort McMurray, Cold Lake and Slave Lake, respectively. It is believed that the rainfall amounts for the
Project Area fall between the ranges of these three stations. Averages among the IDF values for the three
stations should be applicable to the Project.
TABLE 2.4-3
RAINFALL INTENSITY-DURATION-FREQUENCY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED STATIONS
Rainfall (mm)
Duration 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year
Fort McMurray
10 minutes 7 9.9 11.8 14.1 15.9 17.7
30 minutes 10.6 15.3 18.4 22.4 25.3 28.3
1 hour 12.8 17.6 20.9 24.9 28 30.9
6 hours 25 34.8 41.3 49.6 55.7 61.7
12 hours 31.7 44.8 53.5 64.4 72.5 80.6
24 hours 39.3 53.8 63.4 75.6 84.6 93.5
Cold Lake
10 minutes 8.8 12.8 15.4 18.7 21.2 23.7
30 minutes 13 20 24.7 30.6 34.9 39.2
1 hour 15.8 24.5 30.4 37.7 43.1 48.5
6 hours 19.2 28.6 34.8 42.7 48.5 54.3
12 hours 33.1 46.2 54.8 65.7 73.8 81.9
24 hours 39.4 54.6 64.7 77.5 87 96.4
Slave Lake
10 minutes 7.7 11 13.2 16 18 20.1
30 minutes 12.2 17.6 21.2 25.7 29.1 32.4
1 hour 15 21.4 25.7 31.1 35.1 39
6 hours 27.1 37.2 43.8 52.2 58.4 64.6
12 hours 32.6 46.1 55 66.2 74.6 82.8
24 hours 40.2 55.6 65.8 78.7 88.3 97.8
2.4.3 Evaporation
Evaporation causes lake levels and soil moisture levels to drop during the open water season.
Evaporation can be measured by evaporation pans or estimated by changes in lake levels. Lake
evaporation tends to be about 70% of the measured pan or potential evaporation due to the higher
humidity over the lake, although this percentage varies substantially with location (Linsley et al., 1982).
Evaporation from small ponds may be higher than lake evaporation and may approach the potential
evaporation measured by evaporation pans.
Lake evaporation can be calculated from consideration of air temperatures, solar radiation, atmospheric
pressure, and humidity; however, the first two parameters are most significant, especially in shallow
lakes. Alberta Environment (1999) calculated potential evaporation and lake evaporation for Fort
McMurray, Cold Lake and Slave Lake. The average annual lake evaporation and potential evaporation for
the three stations are shown in Table 2.4-4. The annual lake evaporation is about 70% to 80% of the
average annual potential evaporation for the same station.
Page 2-7
TABLE 2.4-4
LAKE EVAPORATION AND POTENTIAL EVAPORATION FOR SELECTED STATIONS
Monthly Mean Actual

Monthly Mean Lake Evaporation Monthly Mean Potential Evaporation Evapotranspiration
Fort Cold Slave Fort Slave Fort Slave
McMurray Lake Lake McMurray Cold Lake Lake McMurray Cold Lake Lake
(1974- (1969- (1974- (1969- (1974- (1969-
(1972-1994) 1994) 1992) (1972-1994) 1994) 1992) (1972-1994) 1994) 1992)
Month (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Jan -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -3 -3
Feb 0 -2 0 0 -2 0 0 -1 0
Mar 18 3 19 23 4 24 13 3 15
Apr 60 32 66 95 43 91 19 18 33
May 104 73 110 158 109 147 39 29 62
Jun 120 113 126 167 158 154 64 57 90
Jul 128 128 131 169 164 157 79 84 98
Aug 99 127 101 136 158 125 54 88 69
Sep 42 98 45 67 133 66 16 56 21
Oct 15 42 18 17 65 22 10 17 13
Nov -2 16 -1 -2 20 -1 -1 11 -1
Dec -3 -2 -4 -3 -2 -4 -2 -2 -3
Annual 579 625 609 824 847 778 287 356 394
Evapotranspiration, the combination of evaporation and transpiration from vegetated land, tends to be
lower than lake evaporation due to the limitation of soil moisture availability. Alberta Environment (1999)
calculated evapotranspiration for Fort McMurray, Cold Lake and Slave Lake, as shown in Table 2.4-4.
The average annual evapotranspiration for the three stations are 287 mm, 356 mm and 394 mm
respectively. The average annual evapotranspiration for the Project Area can be represented by the
average of these values.
2.5 Regional Hydrology

Evaluating the magnitude and variability of stream flows is a major component of a hydrologic
assessment. The evaluation of streamflow includes an analysis of runoff coefficients and extreme flows in
the region and an assessment of the local hydrography and channel characteristics.
2.5.1 Flow Characteristics

Water Survey of Canada (WSC) maintains a number of streamflow gauges in the region. Data from ten
(10) gauges in proximity to the RSA were compiled to characterize the regional hydrology in this study.
The locations of the selected gauges are shown in Figure 2.3-1 and a summary of their characteristics is
given in Table 2.5-1. These gauges provide a relatively long period of record of discharges for streams
with drainage areas ranging from 54 to 5,570 km2. Nine out of the ten gauges are currently operated
seasonally from March to October with discharge data published to the end of 2010. They have a period
of record from 27 to 40 years. Gauge 07CE004 – Robert Creek near Anzac provides a shorter record of
discharges from 1982 to 1995 for the smallest drainage area of 54 km2. Some historical winter data are
available at four of the gauges as they were previously operated annually.
Mean flows for each of the WSC streamflow gauges are summarized in Table 2.5-1. The mean flows
range from 0.17 m3/s for Robert Creek near Anzac to 13.8 m3/s for Christina River near Chard. The trend
shown in Figure 2.5-1 indicates that mean flow is directly proportional to drainage area.
Page 2-8
TABLE 2.5-1
SUMMARY OF SELECTED WSC GAUGES
Mean Mean Seasonal

Gauge Period of Drainage Seasonal Runoff
Stream Location Number Gauge Type Record Area (km2) Flow1 (m3/s) Coefficient1
Robert Creek Anzac 07CE004 Seasonal 1982-1995 54.1 0.17 0.24
Continuous 1975-1987
Beaver River Syncrude 07DA018 165 0.50 0.17
Seasonal 1988-2010
Pony Creek Chard 07CE003 Seasonal 1982-2010 278 0.80 0.18
Logan River Mouth 07CA012 Seasonal 1984-2010 425 1.35 0.22
House River Hwy 63 07CB002 Seasonal 1982-2010 781 2.78 0.24
Hanging-stone Continuous 1970-1987
Fort McMurray 07CD004 962 3.39 0.20
River Seasonal 1965-2010
Willow River Wabasca 07JA003 Seasonal 1972-2010 1030 3.74 0.25
Wandering Wandering Continuous 1971-1996
07CA006 1120 2.95 0.16
River River Seasonal 1997-2010
Christina River Chard 07CE002 Seasonal 1982-2010 4860 13.81 0.19
Continuous 1972-1987
MacKay River Fort MacKay 07DB001 5570 13.35 0.16
Seasonal 1988-2010
Note: 1 Seasonal data are from March to October.
Seasonal runoff coefficient values were calculated for each of the gauged basins listed in Table 2.5-1.
The seasonal runoff coefficient defines the fraction of annual precipitation which leaves a basin as
streamflow from March to October. This definition provides consistency for the various basins since winter
flow data is only available for portions of the periods of record at most of the gauges. The seasonal runoff
coefficient values were calculated from annual precipitation calculated from November to October to
associate the accumulated winter snowfall with the runoff in the following spring and summer.
When winter streamflow data is available, it is generally about 6% of the total annual flow. Therefore, the
annual runoff coefficient values defined as the ratio of annual runoff against annual precipitation may be
up to 6% greater than the values provided in Table 2.5-1.
As presented in Section 2.4.2, annual precipitation records are available for Fort McMurray Airport and
Calling Lake RS. The Fort McMurray Airport data was used to calculate the seasonal runoff coefficient for
the more northern basins, including the MacKay River (07DB001), Beaver River (07DA018),
Hangingstone River (07CD004) and Robert Creek (07CE004) basins. The runoff coefficients for other
basins listed in Table 2.5-1 were calculated using the Calling Lake RS data with a few months of missing
data filled with the data for Wandering River RS.
As shown in Table 2.5-1, the mean seasonal runoff coefficients for the region range from 0.16 for
Wandering River and MacKay River near Fort McMurray, to 0.25 for Willow River near Wabasca, with an
average of 0.20.
2.5.2 Extreme flows

Extreme flows from the historical records of the ten WSC gauges were evaluated. The mean peak flows
and peak flows for a range of return periods are summarized in Table 2.5-2. The mean annual peak flows
generally increase with drainage area (Figure 2.5-1).
Flow frequency distributions of the annual peak flows from the gauges, normalized by mean annual peak
flow, are shown in Figure 2.5-2. An adopted regional log-normal distribution which fits the general trend of
the regional data is also shown.
Average minimum monthly flows are also listed in Table 2.5-2 for the WSC gauges in the region. These
minimum flows include winter flows when available. Minimum flows typically occur during the winter
months but can also occur during summer dry periods. The relationship of these minimum flows with
drainage area is also shown in Figure 2.5-1.
Page 2-9
TABLE 2.5-2
SUMMARY OF EXTREME FLOWS FOR WSC GAUGES IN THE REGION
Mean Annual 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year Average Minimum

Drainage Area Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Monthly Flow1
Stream Location (km2) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
Robert Creek Anzac 54.1 2.51 4.6 6 8.3 0.015
Beaver
Syncrude 165 9.80 21.9 33.7 57.3 0.044
River
Pony
Chard 278 9.06 16.9 22.9 33.2 0.038
Creek
Logan
mouth 425 14.4 28.4 43.8 74.4 0.47
River
House
Hwy 63 781 18.5 35.0 46.7 66.4 0.53
River
Hanging-
Fort McMurray 959 44.7 84.4 114 166 0.21
stone River
Willow River Wabasca 1030 55.7 111 158 246 0.33
Wandering
Wandering River 1,120 28.0 60.8 89.7 145 0.13
River
Christina
Chard 4,863 81.6 160 219 321 3.0
River
MacKay
Fort McMurray 5,570 122 258 377 598 0.47
River
Note: 1 winter flow records incomplete
2.6 Local Hydrology

2.6.1 Local Hydrography
Figure 2.6-1 shows the hydrography in the vicinity of the LSA. Observations in the LSA and at other sites
in the region indicate that the stream network obtained from 1:50,000 scale National Topographic Service
(NTS) maps provide a reasonable indication of where streams with defined channels occur. The streams
with defined channels shown in Figure 2.6-1 were derived from these NTS maps with some minor
modifications to maintain consistency with aerial and ground observations and with Digital Elevation
Model (DEM) data obtained from the Geobase database and LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data.
Additional hydrography obtained from 1:20,000 scale Alberta Spatial Data Warehouse (SDW) maps are
shown in Figure 2.6-1 as drainages without defined channels.
Basin boundaries were determined from the hydrography, DEM, and LIDAR data. Five major basins were
delineated within the RSA. All these basins are drained into the Athabasca River. Basin A is drained to
the north by two similarly sized streams, A1 and A2, which merge together just before reaching the
Athabasca River. Basin B is drained to the north by four small streams and drainages that flow directly
into the Athabasca River. Basin C includes the central portion of the Project Area and drains north-
westerly. Basin D contains the southern portion of the LSA and drains to the southwest. Basin E consists
of two small streams flowing westerly into the Athabasca River. These major basins were further divided
into a number of smaller scale basins as shown in Figure 2.6-1.
There is one small unnamed lake in the LSA designated UL1. The location of the lake is shown in Figure
2.6-1. The lake surface area is about 5.7 ha. In additional to the Lake UL1, small beaver ponds exist on a
number of the tributaries.
2.6.2 Local Snow Course Data

Snow depths and densities were measured at five sites in the LSA on March 15 to 18, 2011. The
locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2.6-1. Ten snow tube measurements were taken at each site
at 20 m intervals. A summary of the data is given in Table 2.6-1. The snow depth ranged from a minimum
of 50 cm to a maximum of 78 cm. The average snow depth was 65 cm. Snow densities ranged from 52 to
254 kg/m3 and water equivalents ranged from 35 to 150 mm. The average water equivalent was 90 mm.
The water equivalent of the cumulative winter snowfall to March 18 was only 55 mm at Fort McMurray.
This value is only 60% of the average value measured at the five sites in the LSA.
Page 2-10
TABLE 2.6-1
SNOW COURSE DATA MEASURED MARCH 18-20, 2011
Snow Water Water

Snow Depth Density Equivalent Snow Snow Depth Density Equivalent
Survey Near Site (cm) (kg/m3) (mm) Survey Near Site (cm) (kg/m3) (mm)
S1 D1-1 78 141 110 S4 A2-1 65 54 35
64 188 120 59 161 95
70 171 120 75 167 125
71 183 130 60 125 75
61 131 80 58 78 45
62 145 90 68 66 45
64 172 110 73 103 75
69 58 40 65 115 75
74 108 80 53 217 115
66 76 50 58 95 55
average 68 137 93 average 63 118 74
S2 D2-1 75 180 135 S5 Camp 55 255 140
68 154 105 50 200 100
74 101 75 59 254 150
65 115 75 74 162 120
55 64 35 68 191 130
58 164 95 66 182 120
58 95 55 63 206 130
57 132 75 74 135 100
56 98 55 70 114 80
53 85 45 64 125 80
average 62 119 75 average 64 182 115
S3 B4-1 58 69 40
72 97 70
62 97 60
63 159 100
57 175 100
71 183 130
65 185 120
71 183 130
76 53 40
67 209 140
average 66 141 93
2.6.3 Local Stream Characteristics

The streams within the LSA are relatively small in size with channel widths typically ranging from
1 m to 10 m and with the drainage area ranging from 2 km2 for Basin B1 to 37 km2 for Basin A2. Most of
the streams contain numerous beaver dams and deadfalls.
Stream measurements were taken at a total of six sites from July 2010 to July 2011 to quantify the local
flow characteristics. Sites were located on a range of streams from Site B4-1 on a small creek with a
drainage area of 628 ha to Site A1-1 on a major tributary with a drainage area of 9,124 ha. The locations
of these measurement sites are shown in Figure 2.6-1.
Water levels, widths, depths, and velocities were measured at each site. Local elevations were
referenced to temporary benchmarks at each site. Velocity measurements were carried out using an
electromagnetic flow meter mounted on a wading rod. A summary of the flow characteristics observed at
the sites is given in Table 2.6-2.
Page 2-11
Measured discharges (discharges calculated from the measured velocities) for each site are listed
in Table 2.6-2. They range from 0.001 m3/s at Site B4-1 to 0.664 m3/s at Site A1-1. Compared with the
regional relationship of mean annual flow versus drainage area in Figure 2.5-1, the measured discharges
generally fall within the expected range but tend to be lower than average. This is likely due to the lower-
than-average precipitation in 2010 and 2011. The reported annual precipitation for Fort McMurray Airport
was 326 mm in 2010 and 280 mm in 2011, which is lower than the mean annual precipitation of 465 mm.
TABLE 2.6-2
SUMMARY OF FLOW MEASUREMENTS JULY 2010 – JULY 2011
Drainage Wetted Mean Water

Easting Northing area Width Velocity Level Discharge
Site Basin (m) (m) (ha) Date (m) (m/s) (m) (m3/s)
A1-1 A 398588 6175435 9124.3 20/07/2010 2.40 0.32 27.739 0.116
30/08/2010 7.00 0.25 27.877 0.664
26/10/2010 2.40 0.25 27.718 0.070
18/05/2011 5.70 0.42 27.853 0.542
12/07/2011 5.90 0.43 27.878 0.616
A2-1 A 398105 6170706 2699.3 20/07/2010 2.30 0.10 29.705 0.022
30/08/2010 2.50 0.25 29.806 0.140
26/10/2010 2.10 0.07 29.708 0.019
18/05/2011 2.40 0.24 29.795 0.132
12/07/2011 2.30 0.32 29.818 0.146
B4-1 B4 393988 6170879 628.5 21/07/2010 1.30 0.02 27.972 0.003
30/08/2010 1.00 0.04 28.006 0.006
26/10/2010 1.00 0.01 28.000 0.001
18/05/2011 1.30 0.07 28.059 0.017
12/07/2011 1.65 0.13 28.153 0.058
C1-1 C 392855 6170900 2401.4 21/07/2010 1.90 0.05 26.759 0.019
30/08/2010 2.20 0.06 26.797 0.029
26/10/2010 1.80 0.06 26.828 0.017
18/05/2011 2.25 0.13 26.929 0.113
12/07/2011 2.55 0.10 26.955 0.122
D1-1 D 392120 6155240 7447.3 22/07/2010 6.20 0.02 28.090 0.073
31/08/2010 5.50 0.08 28.302 0.217
27/10/2010 4.70 0.03 28.155 0.058
19/05/2011 5.80 0.13 28.233 0.310
13/07/2011 5.45 0.17 28.215 0.376
D2-1 D 394079 6159489 1692.7 22/07/2010 0.80 0.22 29.276 0.043
31/08/2010 0.80 0.11 29.301 0.024
27/10/2010 0.65 0.09 29.214 0.015
19/05/2011 0.80 0.30 29.281 0.079
13/07/2011 0.78 0.40 29.244 0.107
Water level recorders were installed at each of the six sites to record hourly water level fluctuations from
July 2010 to July 2011. Discharges corresponding to the recorded water levels were estimated by using
rating curves developed for each site from the measurements listed in Table 2.6-2. The recorded water
levels and discharges for these six sites are shown in Figure 2.6-2 to Figure 2.6-7 along with cross
sections, longitudinal profile, rating curves and photographs of the sites. The estimated peak discharges
are shown in Figure 2.5-1. They are lower than the expected mean annual (regional) peak discharges.
This is likely due to the lower precipitation of 2010 and 2011.
Page 2-12
Additional information for each site is provided as follows:
Site A1-1
Site A1-1 on Stream A1 is located about 1 km upstream of the confluence with the Athabasca River and
300 m downstream from where Stream A2 joins A1. The drainage area upstream of this site is 9,124 ha.
The channel at this site has a bankfull width of 11.0 m and bankfull depth of about 1.0 m. The stream is
cascaded with small riffles and deep pools at this location, with an average water surface slope at low
flow of 1.1% (Figure 2.6-2).
The variation in water levels recorded at Site A1-1 is shown in Figure 2.6-2. The estimated peak
discharge during 2010 of 0.72 m3/s is similar to the discharge measured on August 30, 2010; however,
the peak discharge during June 2011 of 4.94 m3/s is higher than the measured discharges.
Site A2-1
Site A2-1 is located approximately 4.1 km upstream of the confluence of Streams A1 and A2. The
drainage area upstream of this site is 2,699 ha. The stream runs through a deep narrow valley with steep
valley walls on both sides. The bankfull width at this site is about 5.0 m and depth is about 0.6 m. The
average water surface slope at this site for low flow is 0.8%.
Water levels recorded at Site A2-1 are shown in Figure 2.6-3. The variation is similar to that at Site A1-1.
The estimated peak discharge during June 2011 of 1.17 m3/s is much higher than the maximum
measured discharge of 0.14 m3/s (Table 2.6-2).
Site B4-1
Site B4-1 is located near the upstream end of a small stream in Basin B4. The stream flows
approximately 3 km northerly from the site to the Athabasca River. The drainage area upstream of this
site is 628 ha. There is a small pond over 1.0 m deep with soft bottom upstream of the site. The channel
at the site has a bankfull width of about 2 m and bankfull depth of about 0.6 m. There is a drop of about
0.5 m in channel bed downstream of the site. The average water surface slope is about 1.6%.
The variation in water levels recorded at Site B4-1 is shown in Figure 2.6-4. The estimated peak
discharge is 0.27 m3/s during June 2011, much higher than the maximum measured discharge of
0.058 m3/s.
Site C1-1
Site C1-1 is located on the lower part of the stream in Basin C, approximately 2.6 km upstream of the
Athabasca River. The drainage area upstream of this site is about 2,400 ha. The stream channel at this
site has a bankfull width of 2.7 m and bankfull depth of 0.60 m. The average water surface slope at low
flow is about 0.3%.
The water levels recorded at Site C1-1 is shown in Figure 2.6-5. The estimated peak discharge is 0.42
m3/s during June 2011, much higher than the maximum measured discharge of 0.122 m3/s.
Site D1-1
Site D1-1 is located on the lower part of the stream in Basin D. From this location, the stream flows
approximately 3.5 km westerly into the Athabasca River. This site is located within the RSA but outside of
the LSA (Figure 2.6-1). The drainage area upstream of this site is 7447 ha. The stream channel at the site
has a bankfull width of about 6.2 m and bankfull depth of about 1.3 m. The average water surface slope at
low flow is about 0.3%.
The water levels recorded at Site D1-1 is shown in Figure 2.6-6. The estimated peak discharge is 0.62
m3/s during June 2011, about twice the magnitude of the maximum measured discharge of 0.376 m3/s.
Site D2-1
Site D2-1 is located at about 270 m downstream of an unnamed lake (UL1 in Figure 2.6-1). The drainage
area upstream of the site is about 1,693 ha. The channel at this site has a bankfull width of about 2 m and
bankfull depth of 1.8 m. The average water surface slope is 0.02%. Both banks of the channel at the site
Page 2-13
are very flat with growing grass. The flow measurement was taken at a 0.8 m wide breach in an inactive
beaver dam on the stream as there was no detectable motion of water downstream or upstream. The
rating curve developed for this site does not fit the measurements very well as the discharge and water
level relationship at this site is likely affected by tailwater levels.
Water levels were recorded upstream of the beaver dam and are shown in Figure 2.6-7. The estimated
peak discharge is 0.39 m3/s during June 2011, higher than the maximum measured discharge of
0.107 m3/s.
2.7 Pre-Development Case

The Pre-development Case includes existing disturbances that are typical and wide spread in northern
Alberta, such as cutlines, pipelines, gravel pits and wells for energy exploration. Hydrologic conditions of
the Pre-development Case are described by the regional historical streamflow analysis presented in
Section 2.5.
Based on Table 2.5-1, the runoff coefficient for the basins in the RSA is expected to be 0.2. Table 2.7-1
summarizes the estimated hydrologic characteristics of these local basins. The mean annual and annual
minimum monthly flows were estimated on the basis of the regional relationships shown in Figure 2.5-1.
The log-normal distribution adopted for the regional flood frequency analysis shown in Figure 2.5-2 was
used to estimate the expected flood peaks for each basin.
A Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) model was developed to simulate the Pre-
development Case. The HSPF model simulates basin runoff processes including winter snow
accumulation, snowmelt, summer runoff, evaporation and evapotranspiration on a continuous basis, with
precipitation, potential evaporation, and temperature as the main inputs. At first, the model was calibrated
to simulate the Water Survey Canada recorded flow for Beaver River above Syncrude for years 1975
through 2010, as it represents the typical long term flows in the region with a drainage basin similar to the
Project drainage basins. Precipitation, temperature and potential evaporation inputs were based on the
data from Fort McMurray. The model was configured to run at a one hour time step for the period 1961
through 2010. The first two years were used to initialize basin moisture conditions and the results for
these two years were excluded from subsequent analyses. The model was then adjusted to represent the
characteristics of the basins in the RSA and calibrated to the results of the regional hydrologic analysis.
The model was used in the following sections to perform a more detailed process-based assessment of
the hydrologic effects of the Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC compared to the Pre-development
Case.
TABLE 2.7-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED FLOW RATES FOR LOCAL BASINS
Average
Drainage Mean Annual Mean Annual 10-Year Peak 25-Year 100-Year Minimum
Area Flow Peak Flow Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Monthly Flow
Basin (km2) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
A1 54.9 0.162 3.07 6.17 8.82 13.7 0.016
A2 37.0 0.109 2.25 4.52 6.45 10.0 0.011
A (A1+A2) 91.9 0.271 4.63 9.30 13.3 20.6 0.028
B1 2.2 0.006 0.23 0.47 0.67 1.0 0.001
B2 2.4 0.007 0.25 0.51 0.73 1.1 0.001
B3 8.2 0.024 0.68 1.36 1.94 3.0 0.002
B4 10.4 0.031 0.82 1.65 2.35 3.6 0.003
C 32.3 0.095 2.01 4.05 5.78 9.0 0.010
D (D1+D2) 90.3 0.266 4.57 9.18 13.1 20.3 0.027
D2 17.4 0.051 1.23 2.48 3.54 5.5 0.005
E1 7.0 0.021 0.60 1.20 1.72 2.7 0.002
E2 9.0 0.027 0.73 1.47 2.10 3.2 0.003
Page 2-14
2.8 Baseline Case

This section describes the hydrologic impact of the existing and approved developments in the RSA in
addition to those included in the Pre-development Case.
2.8.1 Existing Water Rights

According to Alberta Water Rights, there are no surface water users who have existing approvals, permits
or licenses within the RSA.
2.8.2 Footprint of Existing Developments

To evaluate the total effects on the basins, all existing disturbances within the RSA were considered
including:
• the existing typical disturbances that were included in the Pre-development Case;
• resource delineation disturbances for the Project completed or approved as of February 2012,
including seismic cutlines (Cutlines 3D), the Blackrod SAGD Pilot Project (Pilot Project), Oil Sands
Exploration (OSE) well pads, and access roads; and
• existing timber harvest disturbances (i.e. cutblocks).
The locations of these developments are shown in Figure 2.8-1.
2.8.2.1 Surface Disturbance

Sizes of the surface disturbances are summarized in Table 2.8-1. Each type of these disturbances is
described in the following paragraphs.
TABLE 2.8-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING DISTURBANCE AREAS (UNIT: HA)
Basin A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 C D1 D2 E1 E2 Total
Existing Pipelines 5.7 32.0 5.2 5.3 14.3 4.1 13.1 0.7 5.1 85.5
Existing Wells 5.1 10.3 0.8 1.2 3.9 10.3 27.0 16.0 9.3 3.9 3.9 91.7
Cutlines 82.3 53.8 3.2 3.7 11.9 15.5 41.2 94.2 21.5 3.9 9.2 340.5
Gravel Pits 0.8 1.2 2.0
BP OSE 0.5 0.5 1.0 3.4 5.3
BP Pilot Project 11.1 11.1
Secondary Roads 8.4 11.6 8.9 28.9
Tertiary Roads 28.2 34.9 2.4 1.5 6.2 15.0 40.3 18.1 18.2 6.2 8.6 179.6
Cutlines 3D 28.1 115.0 6.1 0.1 149.4
Existing Cutblocks 1613.4 1239.7 87.7 99.0 225.7 226.8 300.3 1163.3 317.0 104.9 217.9 5596
Undisturbed area 3751 2323 121 133 565 739 2662 5989 1354 582 656 18875
Basin area 5487 3704 215 238 818 1041 3226 7294 1739 702 901 25365
Basin disturbed 31.6% 37.3% 43.7% 44.3% 30.9% 29.0% 17.5% 17.9% 22.1% 17.1% 27.2% 25.6%
Existing Cutlines, Pipelines, Gravel pits and Wells

Disturbances such as cutlines, pipelines, gravel pits and wells for energy exploration are distributed
throughout the RSA. Any hydrologic effects of such disturbances were included in the Pre-development
Case.
BlackPearl OSE Footprint

BlackPearl has a total of 11 OSE pads within the RSA. The total disturbed area of these pads is 5.3 ha,
distributed sparsely through Basins A, B and C. The well pads are constructed of gravel and their runoff
coefficient is believed to be about 0.60. This is substantially higher than the runoff coefficient value of 0.20
Page 2-15
adopted for the Pre-development Case. The water quality of the runoff from the well pads is not expected
to be substantially different from the runoff from the undisturbed site.
BlackPearl Pilot Plant

The existing Pilot Project plant is 11.1 ha and is located in Basin C. Surface runoff from the plant site is
not managed. The effective runoff coefficient is estimated to be about 0.6.
Secondary Road
The existing secondary road in the RSA is part of the Pilot Project access road. The total disturbance
area is 28.9 ha distributed in Basins C, D1 and A2. The runoff coefficient for the gravelled road surface is
believed to be about 0.60. The remaining 50% of the road (i.e., road ditches) is non-forested vegetation
with a runoff coefficient of about 0.25, slightly higher than the Pre-development value of 0.20. Therefore,
the effective runoff coefficient for the secondary road corridor is estimated to be about 0.40.
Tertiary Roads
There are 179.6 ha of tertiary roads in the RSA, distributed throughout each basin. These tertiary roads
are used for logging and other activities. There is no gravel on the surface of these roads but soil
compaction is expected. The runoff coefficient for this non-forested surface is estimated to be 0.25.
Cutlines for Seismic Exploration (Cutlines 3D)

There are 149.4 ha of Cutlines 3D mainly located in Basins C and B4. These cutlines are temporary only
and will not be maintained after the seismic exploration activity is finished. Soil compaction is not
expected. As such, a runoff coefficient value of 0.22 is adopted for these cutlines to represent the long
term re-vegetating condition.
Cutblocks
Existing logging activity generates numerous cutblocks distributed throughout every basin within the RSA.
The percentage disturbances in individual basins vary from 9.3% to 42%.
The existing cutblocks generated by logging can be categorized into two types of cutblocks: clear
cutblocks and regenerating cutblocks. Clear cutblocks refer to the cutblocks where the forest was logged
within last 10 years or where currently no trees are growing. Regenerating cutblocks refer to the cutblocks
where the forest was logged between 10 and 30 years ago. The existing clear cutblocks and regenerating
cutblocks take about 9.9% and 12.1% of the total RSA, respectively.
The runoff coefficient for clear cutblocks is believed to be 0.25, and the runoff coefficient for regenerating
cutblock is believed to be between the natural forest covered surface condition of 0.20 and 0.25. In this
study, a runoff coefficient value of 0.23 is adopted for all existing and planned cutblocks, based on the
consideration of vegetation regenerating in the long term.
2.8.2.2 Stream Disturbances

The surface disturbances for the existing Pilot Project are located where they do not disturb any identified
streams with defined channels.
The access road to the Pilot Project crosses two streams within the LSA, one in SE-20-76-17-W4 and one
in NE-20-76-17-W4. Culverts have been placed at these crossings to maintain flow pathways. In addition,
a number of culverts have been placed at intervals along the access road to allow runoff to flow from one
side of the road to the other on existing drainage pathways. The culverts placed within the RSA along the
access road to the Pilot Project are listed in Table 2.8-2.
Page 2-16
TABLE 2.8-2
SUMMARY OF EXISTING CULVERTS ALONG BLACKPEARL’S ACCESS ROAD IN THE RSA
Water
Crossing Northing Crossing Length Number of
Number Easting (m) (m) Legal Location Type Size (mm) (m) Culverts
1 400520 6158530 NE-15-4-76-17-W4M culvert 500 25 1
2 400665 6159007 SE-7-9-76-17-W4M culvert 1000 25 1
3 400483 6159257 SE-7-9-76-17-W4M culvert 500 25 1
4 400214 6159922 NW-14-9-76-17-W4M culvert 500 25 1
5 400018 6160287 SW-3-16-76-17-W4M culvert 500 25 1
6 399678 6160872 SW-5-16-76-17-W4M culvert 500 25 1
7 399147 6162344 SE-7-20-76-17-W4M culvert 1000 30 2
8 398918 6163034 NE-15-20-76-17-W4M culvert 1000 25 1
9 398581 6163957 SW-6-29-76-17-W4M culvert 1000 25 1
2.8.2.3 Water Supply

The water currently used by the existing Pilot Project SAGD process is deep groundwater from the Grand
Rapids ‘B’ aquifer. The Pilot Project will also use Grosmont ‘D’ aquifer for process water (Volume 3,
Section 1.0). The use of the deep groundwater is not expected to have a measureable effect on flows
within the local basins.
2.8.3 Hydrologic Impact from Baseline Case

The Baseline Case disturbances can affect the hydrology in the RSA. The effects may include changes in
the following:
• runoff volumes and streamflows;
• water levels and surface areas; and
• channel morphology and sediment concentrations.
2.8.3.1 Runoff Volumes and Streamflows

Surface disturbances of the Baseline Case can cause changes to runoff characteristics of the natural
environment. Specifically, changes in surface drainage patterns and change in runoff coefficients can
affect the runoff volumes, peak flow rates, and timing of the peak flows in local streams. Water levels in
lakes and wetlands may also be affected.
The effect of the Baseline Case disturbances on runoff volumes in each individual drainage basin
depends on the proportions of the basin that have been developed and/or disturbed. Road and utility
corridors, plant site, and well pads will tend to increase both runoff volumes and flood peaks due to the
reduction in vegetation and the addition of less permeable surfaces. Cutblocks and cutlines will tend to
increase runoff volumes and flood peaks in a less intensive way due to the effects of re-vegetation.
Changes in runoff volumes were estimated assuming a worst case condition of the disturbed areas being
directly connected to the drainage networks in the basins. The estimated changes in runoff volumes are
summarized in the Table 2.8-3. The increases range from 2.7% in Basin D to 6.4% in Basin B2, with an
average of 3.8% over the runoff volumes for the Pre-development Case. Cutblocks play a dominant role
in these runoff volume changes.
Page 2-17
TABLE 2.8-3
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RUNOFF VOLUMES DUE TO CHANGES IN RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS

FOR BASELINE CASE
Average Average
Drainage Percentage of Worst case Change in Change in
Area total existing change in runoff Runoff 2-Year Peak Average Change in
Basin (km2) disturbance (%) volume (%) Volume Flow 2-Year Minimum Flow
A1 54.9 31.6% 4.6%
A2 37.0 37.3% 5.5% 5.2% 1.9% 23.6%
A (A1+A2) 91.9 33.9% 4.9%
B1 2.2 43.7% 6.4%
B2 2.4 44.3% 6.4%
B3 8.2 30.9% 4.3% 4.2% 3.2% 9.8%
B4 10.4 29.0% 4.1% 4.1% 3.2% 8.7%
C 32.3 17.5% 3.3% 3.0% 2.3% 7.4%
D (D1+D2) 90.3 18.7% 2.7%
D2 17.4 22.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.4% 4.6%
E1 7.0 17.1% 2.5%
E2 9.0 27.2% 3.9%
Total 253 25.6% 3.8%
HSPF modelling was used to perform a more detailed process-based assessment of the hydrologic
effects of the Baseline Case relative to Pre-development Case. The HSPF model was modified to
represent basin alterations due to the Baseline Case disturbances. For most types of disturbances, the
HSPF runoff parameters were adjusted to reflect the effects of clearing and soil compaction. The effects
of clearing were simulated using a 25% reduction in potential evapotranspiration for cleared-but-
vegetated areas such as ditches of the access road corridor. An additional 75% reduction in soil storage
capacity was assumed to represent soil compaction for gravel roads and well pads. Cutblocks and
Cutlines 3D were simulated using a 10% reduction in potential evapotranspiration, reflecting their re-
vegetating state. The Pilot Plant site runoff was simulated in the same way as the well pads – a 75%
reduction in soil capacity plus a 25% reduction in potential evapotranspiration.
HSPF simulations of the effects of the Baseline Case disturbances were carried out for five local basins,
A2, B3, B4, C, and D2, which would be affected the most by the proposed Project. Runoff volumes, peak
flows and minimum flows for the Baseline Case were compared to the values for the Pre-development
Case. The results of these assessments were also summarized in Table 2.8-3.
The effects of the Baseline Case on runoff volumes were greatest for Basin A2 with an overall average
increase of 5.2% over the Pre-development Case. Runoff volume increases were less apparent in wet
years but more noticeable in dry years.
The change in magnitude in 2-year peak flow due to the Baseline Case disturbances was greatest in
Basin B4, with a predicted increase of 3.2%. There were no perceptible changes in the timing of peak
flows.
Changes in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates appear to be large in some of the basins because
they are relative to very small flows. In most of the basins the net effect will be less years with zero flow.
2.8.3.2 Water Level and Surface area

Annual peak water levels and surface areas in the streams are not anticipated to change due to the
Baseline Case disturbances since snowmelt-dominated annual peak flows are not expected to change.
However, stream minimum water levels and surface areas may be slightly higher due to increased
minimum flows.
Runoff from Basin D2 will go through Lake UL1. The HSPF simulation results indicated that the Baseline
Case may cause summer monthly average water levels to be up to 3 mm higher than those for the Pre-
Page 2-18
development Case. Correspondingly, the simulated annual minimum water levels were up to 8 mm
higher. There were no perceptible effects on maximum water levels, as the lake level is controlled by the
downstream beaver dam.
There is no perceptible change in the annual maximum surface area in Lake UL1 because the annual
maximum water level is not anticipated to change. The annual minimum surface area may be slightly
greater in dry years due to increases in minimum flows.
2.8.3.3 Channel Morphology and sediment concentration

Sediment concentrations in streams have the potential to increase due to increases in streamflow or from
sediment introduced to the stream from disturbances. The changes in the flow regime due to the Baseline
Case disturbances are very small and would not have a perceptible impact on the sediment
concentration.
2.9 Application Case

This section describes the assessment of potential hydrologic impacts of the proposed Project. The
Project Area is described, the potential effects identified and their severity assessed.
2.9.1 Project Area

The Project will produce surface disturbances as well as potential stream disturbances in addition to the
Baseline Case. All three phases of the Project were combined together to evaluate the total impacts of
the Project. Figure 2.9-1 shows the layout of the Project Area.
2.9.1.1 Surface Disturbances

Surface disturbances for the Project include a CPF, 69 well pads, 24 borrow pits, 3 sumps, 8 log decks, 1
camp site and access corridors.
Table 2.9-1 summarizes the extent of the spatial disturbances for the Project Area in addition to the
Baseline Case within individual basins. The total disturbed area due to the Project is 966.3 ha, which is
3.8% of the total basin area (the RSA). The greatest percentage area of disturbance due to the Project
will be 12.3% in Basin B4 and 12.4% in Basin C.
TABLE 2.9-1
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION CASE DISTURBANCE
Land Type A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 C D1 D2 E1 E2 Total

Project Area (ha)
Multi-use Corridor 4.0 57.9 2.4 5.2 20.2 51.9 168.1 33.0 6.6 6.7 356.1
Borrow Pits 6.0 26.9 2.6 11.9 28.2 82.0 6.4 10.4 5.2 179.6
Camp Site 0.4 7.9 8.3
CPF 35.7 18.4 70.2 124.3
Log Decks 0.6 0.7 4.6 0.6 6.5
Sump 10.1 0.2 3.1 13.4
Well Pads 10.8 24.0 4.0 5.9 23.3 47.8 114.9 31.7 7.8 8.0 278.2
Subtotal 20.8 155.7 6.5 13.8 55.5 128.6 399.0 141.9 24.8 19.9 966.3
Baseline Case (ha)
BP OSE 0.5 0.9 2.1 3.5
BP Pilot Project 7.3 7.3
Secondary Roads 7.5 5.9 8.9 22.3
Tertiary Roads 28.2 31.2 2.4 1.4 6.0 14.2 36.6 18.1 17.7 5.9 8.5 170.2
Cutlines 82.1 51.1 3.2 3.7 11.4 14.5 35.8 94.2 19.3 3.9 9.2 328.4
Cutlines 3D 23.9 94.3 6.0 124.2
Pipelines 5.7 31.3 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.1 11.8 4.1 12.7 0.3 4.5 79.2
Wells 5.1 10.3 0.8 1.2 3.9 8.8 22.7 16.0 8.5 3.9 3.5 84.7
Gravel pits 0.8 1.2 2.0
Page 2-19
TABLE 2.9-1 Cont'd

Existing Cutblocks 1597 1193 81.3 85.4 195 191 267 1163 310 102 211 5398
Undisturbed Area 3747 2222 121 132 541 655 2344 5989 1223 561 644 18178
Basin Area 5487 3704 215 238 818 1041 3226 7294 1739 702 901 25365
Percentage of Basin Area
32% 40% 44% 44% 34% 37% 27% 18% 30% 20% 29% 28%
disturbed
Note: all overlapped areas were removed from Baseline Case.
Central Processing Facility

The proposed CPF will be located in Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30 of Township 79, Range 17, W4M
(Figure 2.9-1). The CPF will have a total area of 124.3 ha, of which 70.2 ha is in Basin D2, 35.7 ha is in
Basin A2, and 18.4 ha is in Basin C. A runoff coefficient value of 0.6 is adopted for the CPF. The runoff
from the CPF may be poorer in quality than the runoff from natural areas. It will be collected and stored in
a storm water pond as described in Section 2.8.2.1. The water will be discharged if water quality is within
parameters specified in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act approval. The water will be
tested and released slowly and well after the surrounding natural runoff. As such, much of the water will
be lost to evaporation and infiltration. It was assumed in the assessment that the pond will be discharged
into Basin A2.
Camp
A camp will be located next to the CPF, with most of the area in Basin C and a small portion in Basin A2
(Figure 2.9-1). The camp area will be constructed of gravel. The runoff coefficient for the camp area is
expected to be about 0.60, which is substantially higher than the Pre-development value of 0.20. The
water quality of the runoff from the camps is not expected to be substantially different from the runoff from
the undisturbed land so the water will be allowed to flow freely onto the surrounding undisturbed land.
Well Pads
As shown in Figure 2.9-1, 69 well pads will be distributed over the drainage basins, with most of them in
Basins C and B4. The total area of the well pads will be 278.2 ha. The well pads will be constructed of
gravel. The water quality of the runoff from the well pads is not expected to be substantially different from
the runoff from undisturbed areas. A berm will be constructed around each pad to control the surface
runoff. The runoff will be collected and stored in one corner away from the working area. Most of it will be
lost to evaporation and infiltration. If required, the water can be pumped off slowly after confirming that the
water quality meets standards. The runoff coefficient for the well pads is expected to be about 0.60.
However, as the runoff will be retained, a runoff coefficient value of 0.0 is adopted for these areas.
Log Decks
There will be 8 log decks with the total disturbed area of 6.5 ha in the Project Area (Figure 2.9-1): 4.6 ha
in Basin C, 0.7 ha in Basin B4, 0.6 ha in Basin A2, and 0.6 ha in Basin D2. The log deck areas will have
vegetation cleared but ground level vegetation cover will remain. The runoff coefficient is estimated to be
about 0.25.
Sump Areas
The majority of sump areas will be located in Basins A2 and C, with a disturbance area of 10.1 ha and 3.1
ha, respectively (Figure 2.9-1). Precipitation falling on the sump areas will be contained in the sumps and
will evaporate or be disposed of. No runoff will be generated from these areas (the runoff coefficient
equals 0.0).
Borrow Pits
As shown in Figure 2.9-1, borrow pits will be distributed through Basins A, B, C and D. These borrow pits
will be used for construction material. The total disturbance area for the borrow pits will be 179.6 ha.
Page 2-20
Water collected in the borrow pits will either evaporate or seep into the ground. No runoff will be
generated from these areas.
Multi-use Corridors (Access Corridors)

The multi-use corridors (access corridors) will consist of access roads and utility corridors. The total area
of the corridors is 356.1 ha (Figure 2.9-1). The runoff coefficient from the gravelled road surfaces is
expected to be about 0.60. The runoff from the road surface will be collected by ditches within the
corridor. The remaining area of the access corridor will be non-forested vegetation with a runoff coefficient
of about 0.25. As such, the average runoff coefficient for the corridors is estimated as 0.40.

Four locations have been identified where the access corridors will cross streams which have defined
channels (i.e., bed and banks). The locations are shown in Figure 2.9-1 and summarized in Table 2.9-2.
Crossing 1 will be the widest crossing where the bankfull width of the channel was estimated as 10 m by
TERA Environmental Consultants. A clear span bridge will be constructed for this crossing. All other
crossings will consist of culverts.
There will be at least four crossings of mapped drainages without defined channels where the drainage
pathways will be maintained with adequately sized culverts.
One of the proposed well pads is located on a mapped drainage in the SW ¼ of Section 23- 76- 18, W4M.
The drainage has no defined channels and the surrounding area is quite flat. The drainage will be
directed around the well pad and back to its original pathway.
Construction will be conducted using best management practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation
of watercourses. These practices include the installation of silt fences, seeding of disturbed areas and the
use of sediment traps in road ditches.
TABLE 2.9-2
SUMMARY OF STREAM CROSSINGS
Crossing Basin Location Estimated Channel Width Disturbance Crossing Type

1 A2 NW 8-77-17 10 m Corridor Crossing Bridge
2 D2 SW 19-76-17 2m Corridor Crossing Culvert
3 D2 SW 24-76-18 2m Corridor Crossing Culvert
4 C NE 35-76-18 1.5 m Corridor Crossing Culvert
2.9.1.3 Water Supply

The only water that will be used by the Project for process water is saline water from the Grosmont ‘D’
aquifer. No surface water will be used for process water. As such, the Project operations are not expected
to result in losses of surface water.
2.9.2 Hydrologic Impact

The Project may potentially interact with the following hydrologic indicators in the RSA. These indicators
include:
• runoff volumes and streamflows;
• water levels and surface areas; and
• channel morphology and sediment concentrations.
A summary of the residual effects from the Project on these indicators is provided in Table 2.9-3. These
project effects are evaluated in the following sections.
Page 2-21
TABLE 2.9-3
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY-

APPLICATION CASE
Temporal Context
Spatial Boundary
Impact Balance
Reversibility
Significance
Confidence
Probability
Frequency
Magnitude
Duration
Hydrological Indicator/Potential
Effect
1. Runoff Volume and Streamflows negative RSA long-term Periodic reversible low high high not significant
2. Water Level and Surface Area negative LSA long-term Periodic reversible low high high not significant
3. Channel Morphology and negative RSA long-term Periodic reversible Negligible Low high not significant
Sediment Concentration

Disturbances from the Project have the potential to cause changes to surface runoff characteristics.
Changes in surface drainage patterns or changes in the runoff coefficient may affect the runoff volumes,
flow rates, and timing of peak flows in the local streams. Water levels in the lake may also be affected. If
these changes are significant, they may in turn produce changes in the channel regime of the local
streams.
There will be no significant changes in the surface drainage patterns due to the Project. Existing drainage
paths will be maintained. As shown in Figure 2.9-2, appropriate drainage will be provided at crossings of
defined watercourses and identified drainages and there will be no transfer of water from one drainage
basin to another along ditches and road right-of-ways. The only change to basin boundaries will occur at
the CPF area. The CPF will be spread across three basins: A2, C and D2. Runoff from the CPF will be
stored in a storm water pond first and then discharged to Basin A2, which would increase runoff volumes
of the basin. However, because the pond will only be discharged after a runoff event at a small flow rate
and the CPF will take only 3.5% of the Basin A2 area, no significant impacts are expected.
The effect of the Project on runoff volumes in each individual drainage basin depends on the proportions
of the basin area that are used for the CPF, camp, log decks, multi-use corridors, remote sumps, well
pads, and borrow pits. The remote sumps and borrow pits will reduce runoff volumes and flood peaks
because water will not be released from these areas. Multi-use corridors, log decks, and camp will
increase both runoff volumes and flood peaks due to the reduction in vegetation and the addition of less
permeable surfaces. The CPF and well pads will tend to reduce the flood peaks because of the detention
of runoff.
Runoff from the 124.3 ha CPF area will be collected in a stormwater pond. This pond is required to hold
the runoff from a 10-year 24-hour rainfall of 64.6 mm. The storage requirement for this runoff event of
3
48,200 m was estimated using the adopted runoff coefficient of 0.6 (124.3 ha x 64.6 mm x 0.6 x 10
= 48,178 m3). The 10-year peak runoff rate of 5.4 m3/s was estimated using the Rational Method. Runoff
from off-site areas will be diverted around the CPF.
Changes in runoff volumes due to the Application Case were estimated assuming a worst case condition
of the disturbed areas being directly connected to the drainage network in the basins and that the
estimated runoff coefficients for each disturbance type are applicable for all runoff events. The combined
changes in runoff volumes for the Application Case are summarized in Table 2.9-4. Compared to the Pre-
development Case, the Application Case would generally result in increased runoff volumes, except for
Basin D2. The greatest changes in runoff volume for the Application Case will occur in Basins A2 with
estimated increases of 14.3%, which is primarily due to discharges from the CPF as described. The
Application Case will result in lower increases in runoff volumes than the Baseline Case in all of the
basins except Basin A2.
Page 2-22
TABLE 2.9-4
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RUNOFF VOLUMES AND STREAMFLOWS FOR APPLICATION CASE
Average Average
Percentage of Worst case Change in Change in
Drainage Total Change in Runoff Runoff 2-Year Peak Average Change in
Basin Area (km2) Disturbance (%) Volume (%) Volume Flow 2-Year Minimum Flow
A1 54.9 31.7% 4.3%
A2 37.0 40.0% 14.3% 9.8% 1.8% 11.3%
A (A1+A2) 91.9 35.1% 8.3%
B1 2.2 43.7% 5.2%
B2 2.4 44.4% 4.2%
B3 8.2 33.9% 1.9% 1.5% -0.5% 11.8%
B4 10.4 37.1% 1.2% 0.2% -2.5% 14.0%
C 32.3 27.3% 1.6% -0.1% -2.6% 12.9%
D (D1+D2) 90.3 20.2% 1.8%
D2 17.4 29.7% -1.4% -1.7% -3.4% 3.4%
E1 7.0 20.1% 0.8%
E2 9.0 28.5% 3.0%
Total 253 28.3% 2.7%
HSPF modelling was also used to further assess the hydrologic effects of the Application Case relative to
Pre-development Case. Simulations for the Application Case incorporate the modifications for the Project
disturbances in addition to the Baseline Case, assuming a maximum-impact scenario with full
development of all project phases before any reclamation occurs. For most types of the Project
disturbances, the HSPF runoff parameters were adjusted to reflect the effects of clearing and soil
compaction. The effects of clearing were simulated using a 25% reduction in potential evapotranspiration
in cleared-but-vegetated areas such as utility corridors. An additional 75% reduction in soil storage
capacity was assumed where the land is compacted for gravel roads and well pads. Areas of excavated
pits and sumps were assumed to be non-draining and were removed from the drainage contributing
areas. Bermed well pads were assumed to release water only via groundwater discharge; surface and
shallow subsurface flows from the well pads were assumed to be lost to evaporation. Runoff from the
CPF was assumed to be stored in the storm water pond, and then discharged into Basin A2 after the
runoff event.
Simulations were carried out for five local basins, A2, B3, B4, C, and D2, including flow routing through
Lake UL1. Runoff volumes, peak flows and minimum flows for the Application Case were compared to the
values for Pre-development Case. The results are summarized in Table 2.9-4.
The effects for the Application Case on runoff volumes are greatest for Basin A2 with an overall average
increase of 9.8% over the Pre-development Case. The main contributing factor of this increase is the CPF
runoff released into Basin A2. This flow will only increase baseflow in the stream in Basin A2. It will not
affect the peak flow or minimum flow, nor is it expected to affect the channel morphology or sediment
concentration. Runoff volume increases are less apparent in wet years but more noticeable in dry years.
In the other basins, the increases in runoff volumes for the Application Case will be less than the Baseline
Case.
The changes in magnitude in 2-year peak flow due to the Application Case range from a 1.8% increase in
Basin A2 to a 3.4% decrease in Basin D2, compared to the Pre-development Case. All the predicted
changes in 2-year peak flows are smaller than those for the Baseline Case. There are no perceptible
changes in the timing of peak flows, based on the simulation results.
Increases in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates appear to be large in some of the basins because
they are relative to very small flows; however, in general the changes for the Application Case are smaller
than those for the Baseline Case. In most of the basins the net effect due to the Application Case will be
less years with zero flow.
Page 2-23
2.9.2.2 Water Levels and Surface Areas

Annual peak water levels and surface areas in the streams may change slightly due to changes in annual
peak flow. These changes will be imperceptible compared to natural variability. Minimum water levels and
surface areas may be slightly higher due to increased minimum flows; however, zero flows will still occur
in most of these small basins.
The water level variation of Lake UL1 in Basin D2 was simulated in the HSPF model. The simulation
results suggest that the Application Case may cause summer monthly water levels to be up to 2 mm
higher than those for the Pre-development Case. Annual minimum water levels would be up to 5 mm
higher than the Pre-development Case. There are no perceptible effects on the annual maximum lake
levels. The increase in the lake surface area will not be imperceptible compared to natural variability.
Levels in small waterbodies created by beaver dams are controlled by the height of the beaver dams
rather than by inflow volumes. Therefore, small changes in streamflows are not expected to affect the
water levels and surface areas of these features.
2.9.2.3 Channel Morphology and Sediment Concentrations

The Application Case will generally result in smaller changes in streamflow compared to the Baseline
Case. As such, changes in sediment concentrations would be smaller as well.
2.10 Planned Development Case

This section describes the assessment of potential hydrologic impacts of the known future developments
on the local environment in the RSA. The PDC includes future disturbances from planned developments
in addition to all the Application Case disturbances. The footprint of the PDC is described and the impacts
are identified.
2.10.1 Planned Development Area

The only known future development within the RSA is timber harvest.
2.10.1.1 Surface Disturbance

The only surface disturbance from the PDC is planned cutblocks, as shown in Figure 2.10-1. The planned
cutblocks take about 8% of the RSA. Distributions of the planned cutblocks are summarized
in Table 2.10-1. The greatest percentage of the cutblocks out of basin area is 31% in Basin B3.
TABLE 2.10-1
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE DISTURBANCE AREAS

Planned
Cutblocks (ha) 402.5 132.6 5.7 21.0 251.9 201.1 424.0 133.0 123.2 87.0 231.6 2014
Basin Area (ha) 5487 3704 215 238 818 1041 3226 7294 1739 702 901 25365
Percentage of
basin area as 7% 4% 3% 9% 31% 19% 13% 2% 7% 12% 26% 8%
planned cutblocks
Total Percentage
of Basin Area 39% 44% 46% 53% 65% 56% 40% 20% 37% 32% 54% 36%
disturbed1
Note: 1. Total disturbance includes planned cutblocks plus all disturbances considered in the Application Case.
A runoff coefficient value of 0.23 is adopted for the planned cutblocks based on the consideration of
vegetation regenerating in the long term.
Page 2-24

Based on observations of existing cutblocks, stream disturbances due to future timber harvest are not
expected.
2.10.2 Hydrologic Impact

A PDC assessment is only completed for a potential effect or indicator when the Application Case
assessment indicated the Project is likely to have an effect (i.e., there is a high probability that the Project
will interact with other developments to have a cumulative effect on the indicator). The Application Case
assessment identified that one potential effect, channel morphology and sediment concentrations, is
unlikely to occur and therefore is not carried forward into the PDC assessment. For the PDC assessment,
the hydrologic impact of existing activities, the Project and known future developments is evaluated using
the following hydrologic indicators:
• runoff volumes and streamflows; and
• water levels and surface areas.

Changes in runoff volumes were estimated assuming a worst case condition of the disturbed area being
directly connected to the drainage networks in the basins and that estimated changes in runoff volumes
are summarized in Table 2.10-2. Compared to the Pre-development Case, the PDC would result in
increased runoff volumes. The greatest increase in runoff volume from PDC is 14.8% in Basins A2, which
is primarily due to discharges from the CPF of the Project as described in the Application Case
assessment (Section 2.9). The greatest increase of runoff volumes associated with planned cutblocks
would occur in Basin B3 as 31% of the basin drainage area will be affected by cutblocks.
TABLE 2.10-2
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RUNOFF VOLUMES AND STREAMFLOWS FOR PDC
Average Average
Percentage of Worst case Change in Change in
Drainage Total Change in Runoff Runoff 2-Year Peak Average Change in 2-
Basin Area (km2) Disturbance (%) Volume (%) Volume Flow Year Minimum Flow
A1 54.9 39.1% 5.4%
A2 37.0 43.6% 14.8% 10.3% 2.2% 12.2%
A (A1+A2) 91.9 40.9% 9.2%
B1 2.2 46.4% 5.6%
B2 2.4 53.2% 5.5%
B3 8.2 64.7% 6.5% 5.9% 2.9% 19.8%
B4 10.4 56.4% 4.1% 2.9% -0.4% 19.8%
C 32.3 40.5% 3.5% 1.7% -1.1% 16.3%
D (D1+D2) 90.3 23.0% 2.2%
D2 17.4 36.8% -0.3% 0.8% -2.6% 5.0%
E1 7.0 32.5% 2.6%
E2 9.0 54.2% 6.9%
Total 253 36.3% 3.9%
HSPF modelling results for changes of runoff volumes are also presented in Table 2.10-2. The greatest
increases in runoff volumes are 10.3% in Basin A2 and 5.9% in Basin B3.
The results of peak flow and minimum flow for PDC using HSPF modelling are summarized
in Table 2.10-2. The change in magnitude in 2-year peak flow for PDC was greatest in Basin B3, with a
predicted increase of 2.9%. There were no perceptible changes in the timing of peak flows.
Changes in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates appear to be large in some of the basins because
they are relative to very small flows. In most of the basins, the net effect will be less years with zero flow.
Page 2-25
2.10.2.2 Water Levels and Surface Areas

Annual peak water levels and surface areas in the streams may change slightly due to changes in annual
peak flow. These changes will be imperceptible compared to natural variability. Minimum water levels and
surface areas may be slightly higher due to increased minimum flows; however, zero flows will still occur
in most of these small basins.
The water level variation of Lake UL1 in Basin D2 simulated in the HSPF model suggests that the PDC
may cause summer monthly water levels to be up to 3 mm higher than those for the Pre-development
Case. Annual minimum water levels would be up to 8 mm higher than the Pre-development Case. There
are no perceptible effects on the annual maximum lake levels. The increase in the lake surface area will
not be imperceptible compared to natural variability.
Levels in small waterbodies created by beaver dams are controlled by the height of the beaver dams
rather than by inflow volumes. Therefore, small changes in streamflows are not expected to affect the
water levels and surface areas of these features.
2.11 Cumulative Impact Assessment

The cumulative impact of projects in the hydrology RSA was considered; however, there are no other
activities in the hydrology RSA which were not already included in the assessment.
The oil and gas developments in the RSA are typical of the developments which are distributed
throughout the region. The hydrologic effects of such developments are not believed to be significant and
are already included in the regional flow analysis in the assessment of baseline conditions. No further
evaluation of these developments was carried out.
2.12 Mitigation and Monitoring

Mitigation will be carried out to reduce the impacts of the Project on the identified hydrological indicators
and monitoring will be carried out to confirm that the impacts are within their anticipated ranges. The
indicators identified for surface water hydrology are runoff volumes and streamflows; water levels and
surface areas; and channel morphology and sediment concentrations.
2.12.1 Mitigation
The following practices and procedures will be carried out to reduce the effects of the Project on the
surface water hydrology:
• Water will not be transferred from one drainage basin to another along ditches and road right-of-
ways.
• Appropriate drainage culverts will be provided at crossings of any identifiable drainage courses to
maintain existing drainage patterns.
• Disturbances except multi-use corridors will be kept at least 100 m away from streams with defined
channels. Vegetated buffers will be maintained between channels and any disturbances.
• Sediment control will be utilised for construction activity where runoff may potentially flow directly into
streams with defined channels.
• Runoff from well pads will be controlled and will not be directed toward streams with defined
channels.
• Run-on from upstream of well pads and the CPF will be directed around the disturbances and back
into their original pathways.
• Surface disturbances will be reclaimed after they are no longer required.
The drainage pathways around the Project components shown in Figure 2.9-2 were developed by
applying the above practices and procedures.
Page 2-26
2.12.2 Monitoring
Impacts on runoff volumes and streamflows will be indistinguishable from natural variability so direct
monitoring of streamflows is not necessary. However, the following monitoring should be carried out to
ensure that the impacts on the surface water hydrology are low:
• Routine visual inspections should be carried out to ensure that the access road drainage culverts are
working as intended to maintain the natural surface drainage patterns.
• Sediment monitoring should be carried out during the construction of stream channel crossings to
ensure that sediment from construction sites does not adversely impact the downstream channels.
• Water volumes pumped from the storm water pond at the CPF into the natural environment, if any,
should be recorded.
2.13 Summary
A hydrologic assessment was carried out for the Project which evaluated physiography, climate, and
streamflow characteristics in the vicinity of the Project, assessed the hydrological effects of the Project
Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring strategies.
2.13.1 Pre-development Case

The regional surface water hydrology for Pre-development Case was described and mapped. A regional
analysis of historical climate data was carried out to describe the variation in temperature, precipitation
and evaporation. A regional analysis of historical streamflows was carried out to describe flow regimes
and peak flows in the region. Regional drainage basins were mapped and drainage areas quantified.
Local water levels and streamflows were measured at six stream sites during the 2010-2011 field season.
Snow course measurements were also taken in early spring of 2011. Flow regimes were evaluated from
the regional streamflow analysis and from the HSPF hydrologic model which was validated with the local
streamflow measurements.
2.13.2 Baseline Case

A Baseline Case consisting of existing developments in the RSA was described and the effects of the
developments on the hydrology were quantified. Effects were evaluated for runoff volumes and
streamflows; water levels and surface areas; and channel morphology and sediment concentrations. The
average increases in runoff volumes were predicted to be up to 5.2% over the Pre-development Case.
The increases could be as high as 6.4% in the worst case condition. Increases in 2-year peak flows were
predicted to be up to 3.2% over the Pre-development Case. There is no perceptible change on annual
peak flows or on the timing of runoff hydrographs. Changes in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates
appear to be large in some of the basins because they are relative to very small flows. In most of the
basins the net effect will be less years with zero flow.
The effect of the Baseline Case on water levels and surface areas was also assessed. Peak water levels
and surface areas in streams are not anticipated to change because annual peak flows have no
substantial changes. Changes in lake levels are small but summer water levels may be up to 8 mm higher
during dry years. There is no perceptible change in the annual maximum surface area in Lake UL1.
Channel morphology and sediment concentrations are not expected to change due to the baseline
developments because changes to the flow regime are small.
2.13.3 Application Case

The Application Case was described and the effects of the Project on the hydrology were assessed. All
phases of the Application Case were assumed to take place at the same time to assess the maximum
effect on the hydrology. Effects relative to the Pre-development Case and to the Baseline Case were
evaluated for runoff volumes and streamflows; water levels and surface areas; and channel morphology
and sediment concentrations.
Page 2-27
The effects of the Application Case on runoff volumes were greatest for Basin A2 where the predicted
average increase is 9.8% over the Pre-development Case. This increase is primarily because the CPF
runoff will be discharged into Basin A2. The change in magnitude in 2-year peak flow due to development
was greatest in Basin D2, with a predicted decrease of 3.4%. In general, the Application Case will result
in smaller changes in both runoff volumes and peak flows than the Baseline Case. The simulations
predicted no perceptible changes in the timing of peak flows. Percentage changes in magnitude of annual
minimum flow rates appear to be relatively large in some of the basins because they were computed
relative to very low flows. The predicted changes in runoff volumes, peak flows and minimum flows in
these small streams will be imperceptible compared to natural variability.
The effects of the Application Case on water levels and surface areas are expected to be small or
imperceptible compared to natural variability. Predicted changes in lake levels are small but summer
water levels may be up to 5 mm higher during dry years. There is no perceptible change in the annual
maximum surface area in Lake UL1.
Channel morphology and sediment concentrations will not have adverse changes due to the Application
Case. The access corridor stream crossings will be designed to minimize the disturbance to the channels
so sediment inputs are not anticipated to increase.
2.13.4 Planned Development Case

The PDC was described and the potential effects of existing activities, the Project and known future
developments on the hydrology were assessed. Future timber harvest is the only disturbance considered
in the PDC in addition to the disturbances considered in the Application Case. Effects for the PDC were
evaluated for runoff volumes and streamflows and water levels and surface areas. Channel morphology
and sediment concentrations were not evaluated for the PDC since the residual effect was determined to
be unlikely to occur in the Application Case.
The effects of the PDC on runoff volumes were greatest for Basin A2 where the average increase was
predicted to be 10.3% over the Pre-development Case. This increase is primarily due to discharges from
the CPF of the Project. The predicted changes in 2-year peak flow due to the PDC were greatest in Basin
B3, with an increase of 2.9%. In general, the PDC will increase the changes in both runoff volumes and
peak flows resulting from the Application Case. The predicted changes in runoff volumes and peak flows
in these small streams are considered of low magnitude compared to natural variability.
The effects of the PDC on water levels and surface areas are expected to be small or imperceptible
compared to natural variability. Changes in lake levels would be small but summer water levels may be
up to 8 mm higher during dry years. There would be no perceptible change in the annual maximum
surface area in Lake UL1.
2.13.5 Mitigation and Monitoring

The effects of the Project will be mitigated by design and reclamation. The surface disturbances will be
designed to discharge runoff into the natural landscape rather than directly into the drainage network, as
was assumed in the impact assessment. Infiltration, depression storage and evapotranspiration will tend
to buffer the effects of increased runoff from compacted soils. Stream crossings will be designed to
minimize the impact on stream channels and erosion of channel banks. Construction activities will be
carried out in such a way as to minimize the impacts on the channels. As well, drainage will be provided
around the disturbances so that runoff is not directed from one basin into another. In general impacts are
expected to be less than what are predicted in this report because some areas will likely be reclaimed
before other areas are developed, i.e. the maximum footprint will always be less than that of the total
Project Area. As well, the hydrologic impacts presented in this report will be temporary, since surface
contours and vegetation communities within the Project Area will be reclaimed to conditions similar to the
Baseline Case or prescribed reclamation conditions following decommissioning.
Streamflow monitoring is not required because the effects of the Project on streamflows will be small and
indistinguishable from natural variability. Runoff volumes from the storm water pond at the plant site will
be monitored to determine how much runoff is pumped into the natural environment. Sediment monitoring
will be carried out during the construction of stream channel crossings to ensure that sediment from
construction sites do not adversely impact the downstream channels.
Page 2-28
2.14 References
Alberta Environment, 1999. Evaporation and evapotranspiration in Alberta, Report 1912 to 1985, Data
1912-1996. Water Sciences Branch, Water Management Division, Alberta Environmental
Protection. Edmonton, Alberta.
Linsley, R. K., Kohler, M.A., Paulhus, J.L.H., 1982, Hydrology for Engineers. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Inc.,
New York, New York
Morton. F.I, 1983. Operational estimates of aerial evapotranspiration and their significance to the science
and practice of hydrology.
Page 2-29
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Hydrology Assessment Figures
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Volume 3 – Appendix 2A
APPENDIX 2A
HYDROLOGY ASSESSMENT FIGURES
Page 2A-1
W5M W4M W4M
¯
88
Fort McMurray CLEARWATER
88 175
88 V
U69
87
87
87
86 Grand Willlow
86 Rapids 86 Lake
Wildland
4 3 2 1 26 GREGOIRE
25 24 23 22 21 85 19 18 17 16 LAKE 176
15 14 13 12 11 85 9 8 7 6
Algar
84
84 Lake
84
83 WABASCA HOUSE RIVER INDIAN Stony

83
166C CEMETERY 178 83 Mountain
Godin Wildland
r
Lake 82
ive
82
82
aR
Horsetail
Lake
Athabasc
81
81
Weaver 81
Lake WABASCA Mariana
80 166B Lake
Wabasca 80
80
WABASCA
166D WABASCA
79 166
Sandy 79
79
Lake Pelican Agnes
Long PELICAN Crow
Lake Lake
78 Lake SETTLEMENT Lake
78 78
77
77
77
76
Pelican Mountain
V
U 63 Base
Lake
76 Twin
May Hill 76
Lake
75 25 24 23 22 21 75 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 75 9 8
881 7 6
74 V
U 813
McMillan
Lake
V
U
74
Otter-Orloff Amadou 74
Lakes Wildland Lake
73 73
73
JEAN BAPTISTE
n d e ri ng Riv e r
Calling GAMBLER 183

72 Lake Corrigall Nixon
72 72
Lake Lake
Calling
Lake (
!
71 71 Wandering River
Lemiseau 71
Wa
Lake
70 70
70
HEART LAKE
69
V
U 2
HEART LAKE
167
69 La Biche DND COLD LAKE
Poacher's River Wildland 167A 69
68
Landing V
U
858 AIR WEAPONS RANGE
68 Lac La
68
Biche
Jackfish
67 Lake
67
Plamondon
Dakin LAC LA BICHE
V
U 663
67
Lake SETTLEMENT
Athabasca Lac la Biche Lakeland
66
V
U
812
66
Flat Hope
V
U 855 Missawawi
Lake V
U
36 Beaver
66
3 2 65 27 26
Cross
Lake
25 24 23 22
V
U
827
21 65
Lake
19
Lake
18
V
U663
BEAVER
LAKE 131
Lake
65
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 8 7 6
Hubert Lake
Wildland 64 Boyle
64
BUFFALO LAKE 64
METIS
63 SETTLEMENT
63 Kikino 63
White
Earth Jolie Butte
62 Valley KIKINO METIS
62 Whitefish
SETTLEMENT Lake 62
Project Area City/Town FIGURE 2.1-1
Road Reserve / Settlement PROJECT LOCATION
Watercourse Department of National Defence Land BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Waterbody Park and/or Protected Area COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N SCALE: 1: 1,200,000

Roads: Natural Resources Canada 2011;
City, Town, Village, Summer Village, Hamlet, Urban Service Area, Reserve: AltaLIS 2011; DND Land: IHS Inc. 2011; km
Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004; Park and/or Protected Area: AltaLIS 2011 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 May 2012
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself,
users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. (All Locations Approximate)
t6790_Figure_1.3-1_Regional_Location.mxd
¯
07DB001
07DA018
07CD004
#FORT MCMURRAY A
07CE004
07JA003
07CE003
07CE002
MAY LO 07CB002
#
SLAVE LAKE A
# CALLING LAKE RS
# 07CA006
07CA012
#
WANDERING RIVER RS
COLD LAKE A
#
Legend FIGURE 2.3-1

WSC GAUGE AND
BlackPearl Area of Interest Water Survey Canada (WSC) Stations CLIMATE STATION LOCATIONS
# Local Climate Stations WSC Drainage Basin Boundary
BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
# Regional Climate Stations
PROPOSED BLACKROD
COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
SCALE: 1: 2,000,000
UTM Zone 12N: SOURCING km
0 10 20 30 40 50 May 2012
¯78-20-4 78-19-4 78-18-4 78-17-4 78-16-4 78-15-4
May 2012
FIGURE 2.3-2
REGIONAL STUDY AREA
BLACKPEARL
RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
COMMERCIAL
SAGD PROJECT
r
ive
R
a
77-20-4 sc
77-19-4
a b
77-18-4 77-17-4
Ath a
77-16-4 77-15-4
B
Legend
Project Area
Regional Study Area
drainage_basins
A HWY63
C Access Road
Streams with Defined Channels
Drainages without Defined Channels
E Lakes and Ponds
76-20-4 76-19-4 76-18-4 76-17-4 76-16-4 76-15-4
75-20-4 75-19-4
63
75-18-4 75-17-4 75-16-4
Y
75-15-4
HW
SCALE: 1: 150,000
km
0 2 4 6
(All Locations Approximate)
McMillan Lake
UTM Zone 12N: SOURCING
74-20-4 74-19-4 74-18-4 74-17-4 74-16-4 74-15-4

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with
the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of
these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.
78-17-4 78-16-4
¯ B1
May 2012
FIGURE 2.3-3
LOCAL STUDY AREA
r
e
iv B2 BLACKPEARL
R
RESOURCES INC.
77-19-4 PROPOSED BLACKROD
a
77-18-4 77-17-4 77-16-4 COMMERCIAL
asc
B3 SAGD PROJECT
ab
h
t B4
A
Legend
Project Area
A2 Local Study Area
A1
C Pilot Project
Drainage basins
Access Road
E1
Lakes and Ponds
E2
76-19-4
76-18-4
D2 76-17-4 76-16-4
D1
SCALE: 1: 100,000
km
0 1 2 3 4
75-19-4 75-18-4 75-17-4 75-16-4
25
15
5
Air temperature ( C)
o
-5
Ft. Mc Murray A
Cold Lake A
-15 Slave Lake A
Calling Lake
Wandering River RS
May LO
-25
-35
Month

PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
HYDROLOGY ASSESSMENT
MONTHLY AIR TEMPERATURES

May 2012 Figure 2.4-1
northwest hydraulic consultants ltd.
140
Ft. McMurray
120
Ca lling Lake RS
Wande ring River RS

100
May L O
Precipitation (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
Month
BLACKPEARL RESOURCES Inc.

BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
File 17502-06 May 2012 Figure 2.4-2

%
Fort McMurray annual precipitation
Fort McMurray winter snowfall
Calling Lake annual precipitation
$ Calling Lake winter snowfall
Total precipitation (mm); snowfall (cm)
#
"
!

1944
1948
1950
1954
1956
1960
1966
1970
1972
1976
1978
1982
1984
1988
1990
1994
2000
2004
2006
2010
1946
1952
1958
1962
1964
1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
1996
1998
2002
2008
;A=H

PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
AND SNOWFALL VARIATION
1000
0.795
Q = 0.127A
100
Q = 0.003A
10
Discharge, Q (m /s)
!
Q = 0.00030A
0.1
Mean annual peak flow

Mean annual flow
0.01
Average minimum monthly flow
Estimated local peak flows, 2010-2011
Measured local flows, 2010-2011
0.001
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Drainage Area, A (km )

VARIATION OF FLOW RATES
WITH DRAINAGE AREA

6.0
Beaver River
Pony Creek
Ratio of annual peak flow to mean annual peak flow
5.0 Logan River

House River
Hangingstone River
4.0 W andering River
Christina River
MacKay River Fort McMurray
3.0
W illow River near W abasca
Robert Creek Near Anzac
adopted regional lognormal distribution
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.003 1.05 1.25 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500
Return period (years)

NORMALIZED REGIONAL PEAK FLOW
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
78-17-4 78-16-4
¯
!
(
A1-1
May 2012
FIGURE 2.6-1
B1
LOCAL HYDROGRAPHY
r
ve B2 BLACKPEARL
RESOURCES INC.
i
R
77-19-4 77-18-4 77-17-4 PROPOSED BLACKROD
77-16-4 COMMERCIAL
ca
B4-1 B3 S4
!
( S3 !
(!( !
( SAGD PROJECT
!
(
as
A2-1
C1-1
b
a
h B4
At
Legend
!
( Flow Measurement Site
!
( Snow Survey Site
Access Road
A2 Project Area
A1
C Local Study Area
S5
!
( Pilot Project
Drainage basins
E1
Lakes and Ponds
E2
76-19-4 76-18-4
D2 76-17-4 76-16-4
UL1
S2
!
(!
(
D2-1
D1
S1
!
(
!
( SCALE: 1: 100,000
km
0 1 2 3 4
75-19-4 75-18-4 D1-1 75-17-4 75-16-4
Water Level and Discharge Record
Rating Curve
28.00 28.50 10.00
27.95 28.40 9.00

Surveyed water level
27.90 28.30 Recorded water level 8.00
Assumed elevation (m)

Surveyed discharge
27.85 28.20 7.00
Dischar ge (m3/s)
Calculated discharge
Elevation (m)
27.80 28.10 6.00

27.75 28.00 5.00
27.70 27.90 4.00
27.65
Measured 27.80 3.00
27.60
Rating curve 27.70 2.00
27.55
27.60 1.00
27.50
27.50 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
3 3/7/10 2/8/10 1/9/10 1/10/10 31/10/10 30/11/10 30/12/10 29/1/11 28/2/11 30/3/11 29/4/11 29/5/11 28/6/11
Discharge (m /s) 2010-2011
Longitudinal Profile
29.0
Top of bank
28.8
W ater Level 2010-07-20
28.6
Bed Elevation 2010-07-20
28.4
Elevation (m)
28.2
28.0
Average water surface slope = 0.011
27.8
27.6
27.4
27.2
27.0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from cross section location (m) Cross Section Downstream of Cross Section
Cross Section
31.0
30.5
30.0 W ater level 2010-07-20

Bed elevation 2010-07-20
Elevation (m)
29.5
29.0
28.5
28.0
27.5
27.0 HYDROLOGY ASSESSMENT
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Upstream of the Cross Section HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
Distance from left bank (m) AT SITE A1-1
File 17502-408 May 2012 Figure 2.6-2

Rating Curve
30.0 30.50 3.00
29.9 30.25 2.50
Discharge (m /s)
30.00 2.00
Elevation (m)
29.8
3
29.75 1.50
29.7
29.50 Recorded water level 1.00
29.6 Measured Surveyed discharge
Rating curve Calc ulated discharge
29.25 0.50
29.5
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 29.00 0.00
3
Discharge (m /s) 3/7/10 2/8/10 1/9/10 1/10/10 31/10/10 30/11/10 30/12/10 29/1/11 28/2/11 30/3/11 29/4/11 29/5/11 28/6/11
2010-2011
31.0
30.8
Top of bank
30.6 Water Level 2010-07-20
30.4 Bed Elevation 2010-07-20
Elevation (m)
30.2
30.0
29.8
29.6
29.4
29.2
29.0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from cross section location (m) Cross Section Downstream of Cross Section
Cross Section
32.0
31.8
31.6 Water level 2010-07-20
31.4
31.2
31.0
Elevation (m)
30.8
30.6
30.4
30.2
30.0
29.8
29.6
29.4 BLACKPEARL RESOURCES Inc.
29.2
29.0 BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Distance from left bank (m) Upstream of the Cross Section HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
AT SITE A2-1
File 17502-409 May 2012 Figure 2.6-3

Rating Curve
28.30 28.50 0.500
28.40 0.450
28.25
28.30 0.400

28.20
28.20 0.350
Discharge (m /s)
Elevation (m)
28.15
3
28.10 0.300
28.10 28.00 0.250
27.90 Surveyed water level 0.200

28.05
Recorded water level
27.80 Surveyed discharge 0.150
28.00 Measured
27.70 Calculated discharge 0.100
Rating c urve
27.95
27.60 0.050
27.90
27.50 0.000
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
3 3/7/10 2/8/10 1/9/10 1/10/10 31/10/10 30/11/10 30/12/10 29/1/11 28/2/11 30/3/11 29/4/11 29/5/11 28/6/11 28/7/11
29.0
Top of bank
28.8
Water Level 2010-07-21
28.4
Elevation (m)
28.2
28.0
27.8
27.6
27.4
27.2
27.0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Cross Section Downstream of the Cross Section
Distance from cross section location (m)
Cross Section
30.0
W ater level 2010-07-21
29.5
29.0
Elevation (m)
28.5
28.0
27.5
27.0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
AT SITE B4-1
Distance from left bank (m)
File 17502-405 May 2012 Figure 2.6-4
Rating Curve
27.00 27.50 1.00
26.95 27.40 0.90

26.90 27.30 0.80

26.85 27.20 Surveyed discharge 0.70
Discharge (m /s)
Elevation (m)
26.80 Calculated discharge
3
27.10 0.60
26.75 Measured
27.00 0.50
Rating curve
26.70
26.90 0.40
26.65
26.80 0.30
26.60
26.70 0.20
26.55
26.60 0.10
26.50
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 26.50 0.00
3
Discharge (m /s) 3/7/10 2/8/10 1/9/10 1/10/10 31/10/10 30/11/10 30/12/10 29/1/11 28/2/11 30/3/11 29/4/11 29/5/11 28/6/11 28/7/11
2010-2011
28.5
Top of bank
28.0 Water Level 2010-07-20
Bed Elevation 2010-07-20
27.5
Elevation (m)
27.0 Average water surface slope = 0.003
26.5
26.0
25.5
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from cross section location (m)
Cross Section Upstream Beaver Dam (Inactive)
Cross Section
31.0
30.5 Water level 2010-07-20

30.0 Bed elevation 2010-07-20
29.5
Elevation (m)
29.0
28.5
28.0
27.5
27.0
26.5
26.0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Distance from left bank (m) Upstream of the Cross Section HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
AT SITE C1-1
File 17502-409 May 2012 Figure 2.6-5

Rating Curve
28.50 1.00
28.50
28.40
28.40
28.30 0.80
28.30

28.20 28.20
Dischar ge (m /s)
Elevation (m)
3
28.10 28.10 0.60
28.00 28.00 Surveyed water level

27.90 27.90 0.40
Surveyed discharge
27.80 Measured 27.80 Calculated discharge
27.70 Rating curve 27.70 0.20
27.60 27.60
27.50 27.50 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 3/7/10 2/8/10 1/9/10 1/10/10 31/10/10 30/11/10 30/12/10 29/1/11 28/2/11 30/3/11 29/4/11 29/5/11 28/6/11
3
29.0
Top of bank
28.8
28.4
Elevation (m)
28.2
28.0
27.8
27.6
27.4
27.2
27.0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from cross section location (m) Cross Section Downstream of the Cross Section
Cross Section
32.0
31.5 W ater level 2010-07-22
31.0 Bed elevation 2010-07-22
30.5
Elevation (m)
30.0
29.5
29.0
28.5
28.0
27.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from left bank (m)
AT SITE D1-1
File 17502-406 May 2012 Figure 2.6-6

Rating Curve
29.60 29.50 1.00
29.40 0.90
29.50
29.30 0.80

29.20 0.70
Discharge (m3/s)
29.40
Elevation (m)
29.10 0.60
29.30 29.00 0.50
28.90 Recorded water level 0.40
29.20
28.80 Surveyed discharge 0.30
Meas ured Calc ulated discharge
29.10 28.70 0.20
Rating c urve
28.60 0.10
29.00
28.50 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
3 Jul-03 Aug-02 Sep-01 Oct-01 Oct-31 Nov-30 Dec -30 Jan-29 Feb-28 Mar-30 Apr-29 May-29 Jun-28
32.0
Top of bank
31.5
31.0
Elevation (m)
30.5
30.0 Beaver dam
29.5
29.0
28.5 Average water s urface slope = 0.0002
28.0 Downstream of the Cross Section

Cross Section
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from cross section location (m )
Note:
1. Thalweg (Longitudinal profile) survey was not
Cross Section done due to soft muskeg bed throughout the whole
31.0 channel.
W ater level 2010-07-22 2. The cross section survey and flow measurement
30.5 was done at the inactive beaver dam.
30.0
Elevation (m)
29.5
29.0
28.5
28.0
27.5 BLACKPEARL RESOURCES Inc.

Upstream of the Cross Section
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
Distance from left bank (m) HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
AT SITE D2-1
File 17502-407 May 2012 Figure 2.6-7

78-17-4 78-16-4
¯ r
B1
EXISTING DISTURBANCE
May 2012
FIGURE 2.8-1
ve B2 BLACKPEARL
RESOURCES INC.
i
R
77-19-4 77-18-4 PROPOSED BLACKROD
77-17-4 77-16-4 COMMERCIAL
ca
B3 SAGD PROJECT
as
b
a
h B4
At
Legend
Project Area
Local Study Area
Drainage basins
A2
A1 Drainages without Defined Channels
C Lakes and Ponds
Blackrod Access Road
Existing Disturbance Type

E1 BP 2012 OSE Well Pads
BP Pilot Project Expansion
Secondary Roads
E2 Tertiary Roads
Cutlines
76-19-4 76-18-4 Cutlines 3D
D2 76-17-4 76-16-4 Existing Pipelines
Existing Wells
Gravel Pit / Existing Clearin*
UL1 Cut Blocks
Regenerating Cut Blocks
D1
SCALE: 1: 100,000
km
0 1 2 3 4
75-19-4 75-18-4 75-17-4 75-16-4
25 30 29 28 27 26 25
¯
R18 R17
B1
19 20 21 22 23 24 B2 19 20
May 2012
21 22 23 24
FIGURE 2.9-1
PROJECT LAYOUT
BLACKPEARL
B3 RESOURCES INC.
18 17
PROPOSED BLACKROD
16 15 14 13 18
COMMERCIAL
17 16 15 14 13 SAGD PROJECT
er
iv
R
a
c
s
a
7 b 1
a 8 9
th
10 11 12 7
A 8 9 10
B4 11 12
Legend
6
A2
5 4 Project Area
3 2 1 6 5 4 Local Study Area
3 2 1
Drainage basins
T77 Streams with Defined Channels
A1
T76 Drainages without Defined Channels
T77 Lakes and Ponds
T76
Footprint Crossing
31 32 Stream Crossing
33 34 35
4 36 31 32 33 Drainage Crossing
34
C 35 36
Pilot Project
Pilot Project Footprint
Project Footprint
30 Access Corridor
29 28 E1 27 26 25 30 Borrow Pit
29 28 27 26 25 Camp Site
CPF
Log Deck
Sump
Well Pad
19 20 21 22
E2 23 24 19 SCALE: 1: 50,000
20 21 22 23 km
24
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
3 2 (All Locations Approximate)
D2
18 17 16 UTM Zone 12N: SOURCING
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
D1
R18 R17
25 29 28 27 26 25
¯
R18 R17
B1
19 20 21 22 23 24 May 2012
B2
19 20 21 22
23 24
FIGURE 2.9-2
PROJECT DRAINAGE
BLACKPEARL
RESOURCES INC.
B3 PROPOSED BLACKROD
18 17 16
er
15 14 13
COMMERCIAL
18 17 16 15 14 SAGD PROJECT
Riv
13
a
sc
a
b
a
7 th 8
A 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 Legend
B4 11 12
Project Area
Local Study Area
Drainage basins
6
5 4 3 2
C 1 6 Lakes and Ponds
5 4 3 2 1
Stream Crossing
T77 Drainage Crossing
T76 A1 Culvert
T77 Drainage Direction
T76 Pilot Project
31 32 Pilot Project Footprint
33 34 35 36 32
31 Blackrod Access Road
33
34 35 36
Project Footprint
Access Corridor
Borrow Pit
Camp Site
E1 CPF
30 29 28 27 Log Deck
26 25 30 29 28 27 Sump
26 25
Well Pad
20
19
21 22
E2 23 24 19 SCALE: 1: 50,000
20 21 22 23 24 km
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
D2
18 17 16 15 UTM Zone 12N: SOURCING
14 13 18 17 14
16 15 13
D1
R18 R17
78-17-4 78-16-4
¯ r
B1
PDC DISTURBANCE
May 2012
FIGURE 2.10-1
ve B2 BLACKPEARL
RESOURCES INC.
i
R
77-19-4 77-18-4 PROPOSED BLACKROD
77-17-4 77-16-4 COMMERCIAL
ca
B3 SAGD PROJECT
as
b
a
h B4
At
Legend
Project Area
Local Study Area
Drainage basins
A2
C Lakes and Ponds
Existing Disturbance Type

E1 BP 2012 OSE Well Pads
BP Pilot Project Expansion
Secondary Roads
E2 Tertiary Roads
Cutlines
76-19-4 76-18-4 Cutlines 3D
D2 76-17-4 76-16-4 Existing Pipelines
Existing Wells
Gravel Pit / Existing Clearin*
UL1 Cut Blocks
Regenerating Cut Blocks
Planned Cut Blocks
D1
SCALE: 1: 100,000
km
0 1 2 3 4
75-19-4 75-18-4 75-17-4 75-16-4
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Surface Water Quality Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3A.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY BASELINE REPORT ..................................................................3A-5
3A.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................3A-5
3A.2 Methods .........................................................................................................................3A-5
3A.2.1 Spatial Boundaries ............................................................................................3A-5
3A.2.2 Sampling Locations ...........................................................................................3A-6
3A.2.3 Sampling Schedule ...........................................................................................3A-7
3A.2.4 Sampling Protocol .............................................................................................3A-7
3A.3 Surface Water Quality Parameters ................................................................................3A-7
3A.3.1 Routine Parameters ..........................................................................................3A-8
3A.4 Historical Data ............................................................................................................. 3A-13
3A.5 Water Quality Assessment .......................................................................................... 3A-14
3A.5.1 Water Quality Guidelines ............................................................................... 3A-14
3A.5.2 Trophic Status ................................................................................................ 3A-15
3A.5.3 Acid Deposition .............................................................................................. 3A-16
3A.6 Baseline Water Quality Results and Discussion ......................................................... 3A-17
3A.6.1 A1-1 ................................................................................................................ 3A-17
3A.6.2 A2-1 ................................................................................................................ 3A-23
3A.6.3 B4-1 ................................................................................................................ 3A-28
3A.6.4 C1-1 ............................................................................................................... 3A-35
3A.6.5 D1-1 ............................................................................................................... 3A-41
3A.6.6 D2-1 ............................................................................................................... 3A-47
3A.6.7 A2-2 ................................................................................................................ 3A-53
3A.6.8 Duncan Creek ................................................................................................ 3A-53
3A.7 Historical Data ............................................................................................................. 3A-59
3A.8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................................................... 3A-75
3A.8.1 Trip Blanks ..................................................................................................... 3A-75
3A.8.2 Total and Dissolved Elements ....................................................................... 3A-80
3A.9 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 3A-81
3A.10 References .................................................................................................................. 3A-82
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 3A1 Photoplates............................................................................................................... 3A-84
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3A-1 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations for the 2010-2011 Field Program ..............3A-6
Table 3A-2 Surface Water Quality Sampling Schedule for the 2010-2011 Field Program ..............3A-7
Table 3A-3 Surface Water Quality Parameters Analyzed for the Baseline Case.............................3A-7
Table 3A-4 Table of Guidelines Used to Characterize Water Quality to 2010-2011
Baseline Report........................................................................................................... 3A-14
Table 3A-5 Total Phosphorus Trigger Ranges for Canadian Lakes and Rivers ........................... 3A-16
Table 3A-6 Routine Parameters, Ions and Nutrient Concentrations in Surface Water at
A1-1 During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ................................................................... 3A-17
Table 3A-7 Dissolved Element Concentrations in Surface Water at A1-1 During the
2010-11 Baseline Study .............................................................................................. 3A-19
Table 3A-8 Total Element Concentrations in Surface Water at A1-1 During the 2010-11
Baseline Study ............................................................................................................ 3A-20
Table 3A-9 Organics and Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Surface Water at A1-1 During
the 2010-11 Baseline Study ........................................................................................ 3A-21
Table 3A-10 Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Surface Water at A1-1 During
Page 3A-2
A2-1 During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ................................................................... 3A-23
Table 3A-12 Dissolved Element Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-1 During the
2010-11 Baseline Study .............................................................................................. 3A-24
Table 3A-13 Total Element Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-1 During the 2010-11
Baseline Study ............................................................................................................ 3A-25
Table 3A-14 Organics and Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-1 During
Table 3A-15 Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-1 During
B4-1 During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ................................................................... 3A-29
Table 3A-17 Dissolved Element Concentrations in Surface Water at B4-1 During the
2010-11 Baseline Study .............................................................................................. 3A-30
Table 3A-18 Total Element Concentrations in Surface Water at B4-1 During the 2010-11
Baseline Study ............................................................................................................ 3A-31
Table 3A-19 Organics and Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Surface Water at B4-1 During
Table 3A-20 Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Surface Water at B4-1 During
C1-1 During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ................................................................... 3A-35
Table 3A-22 Dissolved Element Concentrations in Surface Water at C1-1 During the
2010-11 Baseline Study .............................................................................................. 3A-36
Table 3A-23 Total Element Concentrations in Surface Water at C1-1 During the 2010-11
Baseline Study ............................................................................................................ 3A-37
Table 3A-24 Organics and Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Surface Water at C1-1 During
Table 3A-25 Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Surface Water at C1-1 During
D1-1 During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ................................................................... 3A-41
Table 3A-27 Dissolved Element Concentrations in Surface Water at D1-1 During the
2010-11 Baseline Study .............................................................................................. 3A-42
Table 3A-28 Total Element Concentrations in Surface Water at D1-1 During the 2010-11
Baseline Study ............................................................................................................ 3A-43
Table 3A-29 Organics and Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Surface Water at D1-1 During
Table 3A-30 Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Surface Water at D1-1 During
D2-1 During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ................................................................... 3A-47
Table 3A-32 Dissolved Element Concentrations in Surface Water at D2-1 During the
2010-11 Baseline Study .............................................................................................. 3A-48
Table 3A-33 Total Element Concentrations in Surface Water at D2-1 During the 2010-11
Baseline Study ............................................................................................................ 3A-49
Table 3A-34 Organics and Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Surface Water at D2-1 During
Table 3A-35 Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Surface Water at D2-1 During
A2-2 and Duncan Creek During the 2010-11 Baseline Study .................................... 3A-53
Table 3A-37 Dissolved Element Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-2 and Duncan
Creek During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ................................................................. 3A-54
Table 3A-38 Total Element Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-2 and Duncan Creek
During the 2010-11 Baseline Study ............................................................................ 3A-55
Table 3A-39 Organics and Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-2 and
Duncan Creek During the 2010-11 Baseline Study .................................................... 3A-56
Page 3A-3
Table 3A-40 Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Surface Water at A2-2 and
Duncan Creek During the 2010-11 Baseline Study .................................................... 3A-57
Table 3A-41 Historical Data ............................................................................................................. 3A-60
Table 3A-42 Trip Blanks and Detection Limits for Routine, Major Ions and Nutrients for the
Field Sampling Program ............................................................................................. 3A-75
Table 3A-43 Trip Blanks and Detection Limits for Dissolved Elements for the Field
Sampling Program ...................................................................................................... 3A-76
Table 3A-44 Trip Blanks and Detection Limits for Total Elements for the Field Sampling
Program ...................................................................................................................... 3A-77
Table 3A-45 Trip Blanks and Detection Limits for Organics and Hydrocarbon Compounds
for the Field Sampling Program .................................................................................. 3A-78
Table 3A-46 Trip Blanks and Detection Limits for Volatile Organic Compounds for the
Field Sampling Program ............................................................................................. 3A-79
Table 3A-47 Cases From Baseline Study Where Dissolved Element Concentrations Truly
Exceed Total Element Concentrations........................................................................ 3A-80
Page 3A-4
3A.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY BASELINE REPORT

3A.1 Introduction
BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) is proposing an in-situ steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)
bitumen recovery project. the Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) is located on Crown land
east of the Athabasca River in Townships 76 and 77, Ranges 17 and 18, W4M, approximately 50 km
northwest of the Hamlet of Wandering River, Alberta. the Project is expected to be developed in three
80,000 bbl/d. the proposed development will have a central processing facility (CPF) and is expected to
have up to 69 well pads over the life of the Project. the Project is accessible from Highway 63 using an
Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. (Aquality) undertook the surface water baseline sampling program
for the Project from June 2010 to July 2011. For surface water, Aquality delineated the regional and local
study areas and determined the sample locations, sampling schedule and surface water quality
parameters to be analysed.
The specific requirements for the assessment of surface water quality are provided in Section 3.4 of the
final Project Terms of Reference (TOR) and summarized in Section 3.2 of the Surface Water Quality
Assessment (Volume 3).
3A.2 Methods
3A.2.1 Spatial Boundaries
The spatial boundaries considered for the Surface Water Quality Assessment include the:
• Project Area, which is defined as the area directly disturbed by Project activities;
• Local Study Area (LSA); and
• Regional Study Area (RSA).
3A.2.1.1 Project Area

The Project Area includes all lands subject to direct disturbance from the Project and associated
infrastructure. This area includes all lands associated with well pads; borrow pits, log decks, sumps, multi-
use corridors, CPF and an on-site camp.
3A.2.1.2 Local Study Area

The surface water quality LSA was defined as the area where water quality is most likely to be directly
and indirectly affected by Project infrastructure and activities (construction, operations, abandonment and
decommissioning). Water quality and physical characteristics (e.g., temperature) could be affected by the
Project related stream crossings and acid deposition from Project emissions.
The watercourses within the LSA are low order streams (Strahler 1952) and the maximum potential zone
of influence (ZOI) was calculated to include all Project related stream crossings plus 210 m downstream
from these potential sources of direct riparian and instream disturbance. the ZOI is typically the reach of a
watercourse where 90% of the sediment load caused by construction activities is expected to fall out of
suspension (Alberta Environment [AENV] 2000a,b). The ZOI calculation was based on particle settling
velocity of fine silt and determined during desktop study based on the professional experience and
judgement of the Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialist (QAES) who took into account a variety of
factors (e.g., stream gradient, channel width, channel depth, channel morphology, flow velocity and
discharge, and instream cover). This ZOI was calculated at a number of sites on watercourses located in
and near the Project Area.
Aquatic systems and soils within the LSA have been designated as “sensitive” in the Alberta Acid
Deposition Management Framework (AENV 2008). Based on this framework, receptors in sensitive areas
Page 3A-5
should not exceed a potential acid input (PAI) monitoring load of 0.17 keq H+/ha/yr. The monitoring load
is the level of deposition predicted or estimated by a dispersion model and deposition model that trigger
monitoring and/or research (AENV 2008). PAI loadings that exceed this amount are restricted to the
immediate vicinity of the CPF.
The LSA includes all drainages where individual effects of Project crossings and acid deposition could
combine. The boundary of the LSA is shown in Figure 3.3-2 of Volume 3, Section 3.0. The LSA consisted
of five drainage basins draining into the Athabasca River: Drainage Basin A, B and C draining towards
north; Drainage Basin D draining southwards and westwards; and Drainage Basin E draining towards
west.
3A.2.1.3 Regional Study Area

The surface water quality RSA was selected as the area where the direct and indirect influence of other
land uses and activities could overlap with Project-specific effects and cause cumulative effects on water
quality. The RSA includes the five drainages in the LSA plus portions of the Athabasca River 2.5 km
downstream of each drainage mouth. This 2.5 km distance was based on AEW’s “rule of thumb”
calculation for stream mixing zones, which is ten times stream width (AEP 1995).
3A.2.2 Sampling Locations

Eight (8) surface water sampling locations (Table 3A-1) were selected to be included in the baseline
sampling program. Sites were chosen based on drainage basins that could be potentially affected by the
Project. For the Hydrology Baseline Assessment (Volume 3, Section 2.0), Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants (nhc) chose six (6) sites with the same rationale. Since flow data is fundamental in predicting
the impacts that the Project may have on surface water quality, surface water samples were taken at the
same locations and at the same time that nhc gathered their hydrological data. The sample sites are
within unnamed tributaries in four different drainage basins. All sites are within the Local Study Area
(LSA) with the exception of Duncan Creek, which is located outside of the Regional Study Area (RSA).
Sample sites are named according to their drainage basins (A, B, C, and D). the baseline sampling
program has three sites in Basin A (A1-1, A2-1, and A2-2), one site in Basin B (B4-1), one site in Basin C
(C-1), two sites in Basin D (D1-1 and D2-1) and one site at Duncan Creek. Site D2-1 is located at the
outlet of a small waterbody located in Section 11-76-17 W4M.
Sites A2-2 and A1-1 were chosen as unimpacted reference sites at the beginning of the baseline
program. As the Project footprint grew, A2-1 had an increased potential to become impacted by Project
activities. Therefore, Aquality added another reference site in Basin A (A2-2). Site A2-2 along with the
Duncan Creek site was added in May 2011 to serve as reference sites for the remainder of the baseline
program. These sites also have the potential to be reference sites for the future monitoring program. A2-1
remains part of the sampling program, but has the potential to be moderately affected by the Project.
TABLE 3A-1
SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR THE 2010-2011 FIELD PROGRAM
Sample Location* Latitude Longitude Easting Northing

A1-1 55.713900 -112.613110 398656.8 6175417.0
A2-1 55.672020 -112.620020 398113.8 6170766.9
B4-1 55.672090 -112.685550 393993.1 6170872.9
C1-1 55.672260 -112.703740 392849.7 6170919.8
D1-1 55.531440 -112.709030 392131.3 6155258.6
D2-1 55.570030 -112.680050 394064.1 6159508.0
A2-2 55.642852 -112.613399 398454.7 6167511.5
Duncan Creek 55.475362 -112.547224 402204.2 6148779.3
Note: * Coordinates were obtained using a handheld GPS receiver accurate to ± 10m.
Page 3A-6
3A.2.3 Sampling Schedule

Surface water grabs were sampled over six seasonal events from July 2010 to July 2011 (Table 3A-2).
Sites B4-1 and A2-1 were frozen to the bottom during the winter sampling event in March 2011 and
therefore were not sampled. Sites A2-2 and Duncan Creek were added to the baseline program as
additional “reference” sites in May 2011.
TABLE 3A-2
SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR THE 2010-2011 FIELD PROGRAM
Date A1-1 A2-1 B4-1 C1-1 D1-1 D2-1 A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK
July 20-22, 2010 X X X X X X
Aug 30-31, 2010 X X X X X X
Oct 26-27, 2010 X X X X X X
Mar 15-16, 2011 X X X X
May 16-17, 2011 X X X X X X X X
July 13-14, 2011 X X X X X X X X
3A.2.4 Sampling Protocol

Surface water samples were collected, in accordance with Alberta Environment’s (AENV) Aquatic
Ecosystems Field Sampling Protocols (2006) for stream grab sampling. Bottles were clearly labelled with
the site and project name, date and time of sampling, and parameters for analysis before being stored in
a clean plastic bag in a cooler. Coolers were packed with ice to keep sample temperatures as close as
possible to 4°C. Coolers were delivered to Maxxam Analytics Inc. in Edmonton following each sampling
event.
For methyl mercury analysis, Teflon® sample bottles were filled using “clean hands/dirty hands”
technique and were shipped by Maxxam to Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (AITF) (formerly the
Alberta Research Council) in Vegreville, AB for analysis. In-situ measurements were taken using a YSI
556 multi-meter that was calibrated each sampling day.
3A.3 Surface Water Quality Parameters

Table 3A-3 outlines the water quality parameters that were included for analysis in the baseline program.
these parameters were chosen based on those analyzed in baseline reports for similar EIAs, professional
experience, and AENV’s Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta
(February 9, 2011). The parameters selected for baseline water quality analysis included physical and
chemical parameters, total and dissolved elements, and organic compounds.
TABLE 3A-3
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS ANALYZED FOR THE BASELINE CASE
Category Parameters
In situ measurements Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, total dissolved solids (TDS)
Conductivity, pH, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total organic carbon (TOC), total dissolved solids (TDS),
Routine
total suspended solids (TSS),turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Bicarbonate (HCO3), carbonate (CO3), hydroxide (OH), dissolved chloride (Cl), sulphide (S2-), hydrogen
Major Ions
sulphide (H2S), dissolved sulphate (SO4), hardness (as CaCO3), alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), nitrate + nitrite (NO2 + NO3), ammonia (NH3), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrogen
Nutrients
(N), phosphorus (P)
Aluminum (Al), Antimony (Sb), Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Beryllium, (Be), Boron (B), Cadmium (Cd), Calcium
(Ca), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Lithium (Li), Magnesium (Mg),
Dissolved and Total Elements Manganese (Mn), Mercury (Hg), Methyl mercury (Me Hg), Molybdenum (Mo), Nickel (Ni), Phosphorus (P),
Potassium (K), Selenium (Se), Silicon (Si), Silver (Ag), Sodium (Na), Strontium (Sr), Sulphur (S), Thallium
(Th), Tin (Sn), Titanium (Ti), Uranium (U), Vanadium (V), Zinc (Zn)
Organics Naphthenic acids, phenolics
Page 3A-7
TABLE 3A-3 Cont'd

Category Parameters
Extractable Hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16), F3 (C16-C34), F4 (C34-C50)
1-methylnaphthalene, benzo[a]pyrene equivalency, acenaphthene, 2, 6-dimethylnaphthalene,
acenaphthylene, 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene, acridine. 2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, 1-methylphenanthrene, benzo(b&j)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, 9-
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
methylanthracene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(c)phenanthrene, 2,3-dimethylanthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo[e]pyrene, 9,10-dimethylanthracene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene, methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, perylene, pyrene, quinoline
Total trihalomethanes, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene, chlorodibromomethane, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-
dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, dichloromethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, cis-
Volatile Organics 1,3-dichloropropene, trans-1,3-dichloropropene, ethylbenzene, methyl methacrylate, methyl-tert-butylether
(MTBE), styrene, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethene, toluene, 1,2,3-
trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene, trichlorofluoromethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, vinyl chloride, total
xylenes, m & p-xylene, o-xylene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, F1 (C6-C10) BTEX
3A.3.1 Routine Parameters

Routinely monitored parameters provide useful information about changes in surface water quality. These
parameters help describe the natural environment. Long-term monitoring of routine parameters enables
them to act as triggers, giving early warning through the detection of changes or unusual events.
The routine parameters monitored in this study were: Temperature; Conductivity; pH; Dissolved Oxygen
(DO); Total Dissolved Solids (TDS); Total Suspended Solids (TSS); Total Organic Carbon (TOC);
Turbidity; and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The following is a description of some of the major
routine parameters considered when evaluating water quality.
Temperature
Temperature, oxygen and pH are often described as the "master variables" structuring aquatic habitats.
Temperatures of fresh water in the temperate zone range from 0°C (freezing) to 26°C. Water temperature
is a critical parameter for aquatic life and has an impact on other water quality parameters such as
dissolved oxygen and bacterial processes in water (which in turn influence the availability of many ions).
Conductivity
Conductivity is the ability of an aqueous solution to conduct electrical current. Conductivity in water is
affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate
anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations
(ions that carry a positive charge). As conductivity is positively related to water, it is often reported as
conductivity at 25°C. Conductivity is measured in micromhos per centimeter (µmhos/cm) or microsiemens
per centimeter (µS/cm). Throughout the world, surface water ranges from very dilute (conductivity less
than 10 µS/cm) to more saline than seawater (which has a conductivity of about 32,000 µS/cm). Lentic
surface water bodies described in the Atlas of Alberta Lakes range in conductivity from 81 to 60,000
µS/cm (Prepas, 2005).
pH
pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion activity in a solution, specifically the negative logarithm (base 10) of
the molar concentration of dissolved hydronium (H30+) ions on a scale from 1 to 14. A low pH indicates a
high concentration of hydronium ions, while a high pH indicates a low concentration. Pure water has a pH
of 7.0 at 25°C. Solutions with a pH of less than 7 are said to be acidic, and solutions with a pH of greater
than 7 are said to be basic or alkaline. pH is influenced by geology and soils, organic acids (decaying
leaves and other matter), and human-induced acids from acid rain.
All of the lakes described in the Atlas of Alberta Lakes have a lake water pH between 7 and 10 (Prepas,
2005), and the normal pH range for rivers and streams in Alberta is between 7 and 9. Stained brown
Page 3A-8
water bodies in northern Alberta can have a pH of as low as 5, while Alberta lakes surrounded by soils of
a high buffering capacity can have a pH of as high as 10.
Surface water bodies with pH ranging from 6 to 9 provide suitable habitat for most types of aquatic life
(ALMS, 2009), however different organisms flourish within different ranges of pH.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is a measure of the amount of oxygen in water. Saturated DO, represented as
percent saturation (% Sat), is a measure of the amount of oxygen in the water compared to the amount of
oxygen the water can actually hold at full saturation. DO concentration, represented as milligrams per litre
(mg/L), is a measure of the amount of oxygen the water can actually hold at full saturation. It can be
measured in the laboratory, using the Winkler method of collection and analysis, or it can be measured in
the field with a calibrated meter and probe.
Surface water gains oxygen from the atmosphere and plants as a result of photosynthesis. ‘Normal’ levels
of DO are difficult to report, as DO levels fluctuate seasonally, over a 24-hour period, with water
temperature, and with altitude. DO levels typically vary vertically in the water column in lakes, whereas
DO in rivers and streams changes horizontally along the course of the waterway.
DO is one of the most fundamental parameters in water, as it is essential to the metabolism of all aerobic
aquatic organisms. Reduced oxygen levels have been shown to cause lethal and sublethal (physiological
and behavioural) effects in various organisms, especially fish (Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment [CCME], 1999). Specific oxygen requirements of aquatic organisms vary greatly between
species. The CCME has set water quality guidelines for the lowest acceptable DO concentrations at 6
and 5.5 mg/L for the early and other life stages, respectively, in warm-water ecosystems; and 9.5 and 6.5
for the early and other life stages, respectively, in cold-water ecosystems.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Total Dissolved Solids is a measure of the combined content of all inorganic and organic substances
contained in a liquid in molecular, ionized or micro-granular suspended form. Dissolved solids must be
small enough to pass through a two micrometer (0.002cm) sieve. In stream water, dissolved solids
consist of calcium, chlorides, nitrate, phosphorus, iron, sulphur, and other ion particles that can pass
through the two micrometer sieve. TDS is represented in milligrams per litre (mg/L).
TDS is not considered a primary pollutant; however it is commonly monitored in freshwater systems as an
indicator for aesthetic characteristics of drinking water, and as an aggregate indicator of the presence of a
broad array of chemical contaminants. Changes in the TDS of a water body can affect the water balance
in the cells of aquatic organisms, as a very low level of TDS will cause the organism to swell up as water
moves into its cells; and a high concentration of dissolved solids can cause the organism to shrink as
water moves out of its cells. This can affect an organism’s regulation of cell density, which affects the
organism’s ability to maintain its position in the water column.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Total Suspended Solids is a measure of the solids in a liquid (including silt and clay particles, plankton,
algae, fine organic debris, and other particulate matter), which will not pass through a two micrometer
filter. Together, Total Dissolved Solids and Total Suspended Solids are referred to as Total Solids. High
concentrations of suspended solids can serve as carriers of certain molecules (including some toxic
chemicals), which readily sorb to suspended particles. High levels of TSS can also affect water clarity,
make drinking water unpalatable, and reduce the efficiency of wastewater treatment plants.
Sources of suspended solids include industrial discharges, sewage, fertilizers, road runoff, and soil
erosion.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

Total Organic Carbon is a measure of the concentration of all organic carbon atoms bonded in the
organic molecules of a given sample of water, including the particulate and the dissolved organic carbon.
Typical TOC analysis measures the Total Carbon (TC) and Inorganic Carbon (IC) to find the TOC (TC-
Page 3A-9
IC=TOC). TOC can be expressed as Parts per Million (ppm) or milligrams per litre (mg/L). Natural waters
can have concentrations that vary from 1 to 30 mg/L (McNeely et al., 1979).
Total organic carbon has a direct relationship with both biochemical and chemical oxygen demands, and
varies with the composition of organic matter present in the water. Organic matter in soils, aquatic
vegetation and aquatic organisms are major sources of organic carbon.
Turbidity
Turbidity is a measure of water clarity, which is measured by how much the material suspended in water
decreases the passage of light. Suspended materials can include soil particles (clay, silt, and sand),
algae, plankton, microbes, and other substances. Turbidity is presented as Nephelometric Turbidity Units
(NTU), the standard turbidity unit.
High turbidity can increase water temperatures, reduce the concentration of dissolved oxygen, and
reduce the amount of light penetrating water (which reduces photosynthesis and the production of
dissolved oxygen). Suspended materials have the potential to be detrimental to fish populations, as the
material can clog fish gills. This can in turn reduce disease resistance in fish, lower growth rates and
affect egg and larval development. As the particles settle they can blanket stream bottoms, potentially
smothering fish eggs and benthic macro invertebrates.
Turbidity in streams can be caused by in-stream activity which may perturb sediments; rainfall and runoff;
eroding stream banks; excessive algal growth; soil erosion; and waste discharge.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand measures: the amount of oxygen consumed by microorganisms in
decomposing organic matter in stream water; and the chemical oxidation of inorganic matter. The rate of
oxygen consumption in a stream can be caused by a number of variables including temperature, pH, the
presence of certain kinds of microorganisms, and the type of organic and inorganic material in the water.
When BOD is high, there is less oxygen available to higher forms of aquatic life. Aquatic organisms can
become stressed, suffocate, and die.
Sources of BOD can include: an abundance of organic matter (leaves and woody debris, dead plants and
animals, animal manure); effluents from pulp and paper mills, wastewater treatment plants, feedlots, and
food-processing plants; failing septic systems; and urban storm water runoff.
Nutrients
‘Nutrients’ is the classification used for environmental substances (elements or compounds), such as
nitrogen or phosphorus, which are necessary for the growth and development of plants and animals.
Nitrogen and phosphorus exist naturally in many different forms. The specific nutrient parameters
monitored in this study were: nitrate (NO2-); nitrite (NO3-); nitrate + nitrite (NO2- + NO3-); dissolved
ammonia (NH3); total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN); total nitrogen (TN); dissolved phosphorus (DP); and total
phosphorus (TP). The following is a further description of the nutrient parameters considered when
evaluating water quality.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen is a major constituent of all organisms that has the potential to limit primary productivity and
decomposition. Forms of nitrogen in the environment include nitrogen gas (N2), ammonium (NH4+) and
ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and organic nitrogen. In aquatic environments, some species of blue-green
algae can use nitrogen gas directly and incorporate it into organic compounds through a process called
nitrogen fixation. Other algae require inorganic forms of nitrogen that are dissolved in the water: nitrite,
nitrate and ammonium nitrogen. Ammonium, nitrogen in dissolved organic molecules, and nitrogen
contained in the cellular structure of organisms are analyzed together as total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Total
nitrogen is the sum of nitrate, nitrite, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
Natural sources of nitrogen include external inputs (runoff over land), and internal inputs (bacterial
conversion of atmospheric N2 gas to an organic form, and plant and animal decomposition and waste).
Page 3A-10
Anthropogenic sources of nitrogen include agricultural runoff (including fertilizer runoff, runoff from
feedlots), and wastewater discharge.
Phosphorus
Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plants and animals. It is often present in the surface waters of
freshwater lakes in quantities that are smaller than algae need for maximum growth; therefore it is
referred to as a limiting nutrient. In terms of the aquatic environment, phosphorus is discussed as: total
dissolved phosphorus (TDP); soluble reactive phosphorus; particulate phosphorus; and total phosphorus
(TP). Total phosphorus is the sum of particulate and dissolved phosphorus.
Natural sources of phosphorus include external inputs (runoff over land, and dust and precipitation
directly onto the water body), and internal inputs (from sources within the bottom sediments of the water
body). Anthropogenic sources of phosphorus include intense agricultural runoff, improperly managed
sewage/septage and grey water, and industrial effluent.
Phosphorus and nitrogen are important nutrients limiting the growth of algae in Alberta surface water
bodies. As primary productivity in freshwater systems in Alberta is most sensitive to the availability of
phosphorus, even a slight increase of phosphorus in a system can, given the right conditions, promote
algal blooms causing the water to turn green in the summer and impair recreational uses. Decomposition
of the resulting plant and algal material by bacteria can deplete dissolved oxygen, adversely impacting
fish and other aquatic animals.
Ions
Bicarbonate, Carbonate, Hydroxide, and Alkalinity
Carbonate is a salt of carbonic acid (H2CO3), characterized by the presence of the carbonate ion (CO32).
Bicarbonate (HCO3-) is an intermediate form in the deprotonation of carbonic acid. Bicarbonate,
carbonate, and hydroxide are represented in milligrams per litre (mg/L). Alkalinity is a measure of the
capacity of water to neutralize a strong acid. It is measured by determining how much strong acid will
lower the pH of a water sample to a specific level. The units of alkalinity are mg/L equivalent to calcium
carbonate (CaCO3).
Alkaline compounds in aquatic systems such as bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydroxides (OH-) remove H+
ions and lower the acidity of water (increase the pH). They usually do this by combining with the H+ ions
to make new compounds. Without this acid-neutralizing capacity, any acid added to a stream would
cause an immediate change in the pH.
Chloride
Chloride compounds include those containing a chlorine atom as a negatively charged anion (Cl-), such
as sodium chloride (NaCl). Chlorine is never found in free form in nature, and occurs most commonly as
sodium chloride. Chloride compounds are highly soluble in water, in which they persist in dissociated form
as chloride anions with their corresponding positively charged cations (e.g., sodium). Chloride is generally
present at low concentrations in natural surface waters in Canada; concentrations are normally less than
10 mg/L and often less than 1 mg/L.
The application of road salt for winter accident prevention is the primary anthropogenic source of chloride
to the environment. Sodium chloride is also widely used in the production of industrial chemicals, and
potassium chloride is used in the production of fertilizers. Other sources of chloride to the environment
include dissolution of salt deposits, effluents from chemical industries, oil well operations, sewage,
irrigation drainage, and refuse leachates.
Sulphide and Hydrogen Sulphide

Sulphide is an anion of sulphur in its 2- reduction state. Sulphide occurs naturally in mineral ores, oil and
coal deposits. Sulphides may be present in the form of hydrogen sulphide, which exists as a colourless
gas under normal conditions. It is a product of the anaerobic decomposition of sulphur-containing organic
matter, and other sulphur compounds are nearly always present with the hydrogen sulphide in these
Page 3A-11
natural occurrences. Hydrogen sulphide is commonly found in lakes and other aquatic systems, and has
a characteristic rotten-egg smell.
Other sulphides are also generated by sulphate-reducing bacteria through anaerobic decomposition of
sewage, algae, naturally deposited organic matter and the sulphur found in fungicides, pesticides and
fertilizers. Sulphides are also present in industrial wastes from petroleum and petrochemical plants, gas
works, paper mills, heavy water plants and tanneries (Health Canada, 1992). Sulphide concentrations are
quite variable among freshwater systems, and these concentrations are linked to inputs from atmospheric
sources, surface runoff and groundwater, and consumption of sulphide in bottom mud.
Sulphide and hydrogen sulphide are both expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/L).
Hardness
Hardness is represented as mg/L equivalent calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and is a measure of the amount
of calcium, magnesium, and iron in the water. Water hardness is measured by adding up the
concentrations of calcium, magnesium and converting this value to an equivalent concentration of calcium
carbonate (CaCO3) in milligrams per litre (mg/L) of water. The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water
Quality Hardness divide hardness into the following categories: Soft (<60 mg/L CaCO3); Medium Hard (60
to 120 mg/L CaCO3); Hard (120 to180 mg/L CaCO3); Very Hard (180 mg/L CaCO3 or greater).
Total and Dissolved Elements

Total and dissolved elements include metals and non-metal elements. Elements naturally occur in surface
waters in small quantities (usually less than 1 mg/L), and may have toxic effects on aquatic organisms
when in excess of natural levels. ‘Toxicity’ is subjective and may refer to acute or chronic effects. The
toxicity of elements is situational or case based, as the degree of toxicity depends on a variety of
biochemical and environmental factors.
Biochemical factors affecting toxicity include the ability of an element to bioaccumulate. Bioaccumulative
elements are typically lipophilic, persistent pollutants which migrate up the food chain. Environmental
factors affecting toxicity of elements include the hardness of the water (where the toxicity decreasing as
the hardness increases). Usually, most metals are associated with TSS and therefore tend to settle out of
the water column, rendering them biologically unavailable.
the total and dissolved element parameters monitored in this study were: Cadmium; Aluminum; Antimony;
Arsenic; Barium; Beryllium; Boron; Calcium; Chromium; Cobalt; Copper; Iron; Lead; Magnesium;
Manganese; Lithium; Molybdenum; Nickel; Phosphorus; Potassium; Selenium; Silicon; Silver; Sodium;
Strontium; Sulphur; Thallium; Tin; Titanium; Uranium; Vanadium; and Zinc.
Total element concentrations (dissolved elements plus elements associated with suspended particles)
and dissolved elements are both reported. In this report, total element concentrations are discussed
relative to the aquatic life guidelines.
Organics
Organic compounds (organics) include chemicals consisting of chains or rings of carbon atoms, such as
hydrocarbons, phenols, PAHs and naphthenic acids. Organics can be potentially acutely or chronically
toxic chemical substances. Many can be persistent and/or degrade into secondary harmful compounds.
Sources of organics to an aquatic ecosystem include natural sources (runoff following a forest fire), or
may be released from industrial sources (wastewater discharge from manufacturing and oil production,
internal combustion engines). The following sections describe phenols and naphthenic acids in more
detail.
Naphthenic Acids
Naphthenic acids are comprised of a large collection of saturated aliphatic and alicyclic carboxylic acids
found in hydrocarbon deposits (petroleum, oil sands bitumen, and crude oils). Naphthenic acids enter
surface water systems primarily through effluent discharge, but also through groundwater mixing and
erosion of riverbank oil deposits. Ambient levels of naphthenic acids in northern Alberta rivers are
Page 3A-12
generally below 1 mg/L. therefore, they are known to be persistent biomarkers used in identification of oil
source maturation.
Phenolics
Synthetic phenolics arise from coking of coal, gas works and oil refineries, chemical plants, pesticide
plants, wood preserving plants and dye manufacturing plants. Natural phenolics occur from aquatic and
terrestrial vegetation and much of this is released by the pulp and paper industry. The toxicity of phenolics
depends upon a number of physical, chemical, and biological factors. Phenolics may acutely affect the
development of fish and amphibian embryos; and metabolism, survival and growth of fish.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Cumulative concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons commonly are referred to as total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH). TPH’s are divided into groups of petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) that act alike in
the soil or water. These groups are called petroleum hydrocarbon fractions. Each fraction contains many
individual compounds of a certain range of carbon rate. F1 hydrocarbons (BTEX) consist of hydrocarbon
compounds in the carbon number range of C6 to C11. F2 hydrocarbons consist of hydrocarbon
compounds in the carbon number range of C34 to C50. Measuring the hydrocarbon fractions gives a better
idea of the source of the hydrocarbon.
F1 PHCs are the lightest hydrocarbon compounds. Aromatic hydrocarbons, especially BTEX, tend to be
the most water-soluble fraction of crude oil and other petroleum compounds. Benzene (10 times more
soluble than ethylbenzene or xylenes) is the most water soluble of the BTEX compounds. BTEX
compounds also are the most volatile of the aromatic compounds and are considered to be VOCs.
3A.4 Historical Data

AEW maintains a database of surface water quality data collected from stations across the province. To
assess historical background conditions of surface water in the area, we obtained data from watercourses
that extend outside the RSA, including data from the two Long Term River Network (LTRN) sites that
define the upper and lower ends of the historical database (at the Town of Athabasca and upstream of
the Horse River confluence, respectively).
For comparison to the data collected during the baseline study, the parameters of interest were
summarized across all sampling stations from within the historical dataset, based on the following
categories:
1) LTRN upstream: the nearest Long Term River Network station upstream of the Project
(Athabasca River at the Town of Athabasca; AEW station AB07BE0010); data from 1987-
2010.
2) LTRN downstream: the nearest Long Term River Network station downstream of the Project
(Athabasca River 100m upstream of the Horse River confluence and upstream of Fort
McMurray; AEW station AB07CC0030); data from 1960-2010.
3) Other Athabasca River (AR) Sites and Tributaries: other locations on the Athabasca River
excluding the LTRN sites. Among the 82 stations falling within this area, 73 are located on
the Athabasca River mainstem and the remainder are on other tributaries; data from 1960-
1998.
For each parameter of interest, data were summarized seasonally by calculating the mean and range
(minimum and maximum) of values across all stations within each category. For the purposes of this
study, the divisions for the seasons were taken to be the annual solstices and equinoxes:
st th
• Spring: March 21 to June 20
• Summer: June 21st to September 21
Page 3A-13
• Fall: September 22nd to December 20th
• Winter: December 21st to March 20th
3A.5 Water Quality Assessment

To assess and characterize the current setting for baseline surface water quality, baseline field-collected
data were compared to regulatory guidelines (see Water Quality Guidelines 3A.5.1).
To assess and characterize the current setting for surface water quality in the LSA, baseline data were
compared to regulatory guidelines. Mean and range (minimum and maximum) were calculated for the
baseline data and compared seasonally to AENV historical data. In each season, the mean value of each
parameter of the field data was compared to the range of the historical water quality data by season. This
was done to characterize the surface water quality of the baseline tributaries in relation to historical data
in the surrounding area, including the Athabasca River main stem.
3A.5.1 Water Quality Guidelines

Surface water quality data from the eight (8) baseline sampling locations were compared to regulatory
provincial or federal guidelines (Table 3A-4). The data were compared to the Surface Water Quality
Guidelines for Use in Alberta: for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life (AENV PAL) (AENV 1999),
and the most recent guidelines from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment for the
Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life (CCME PAL).
TABLE 3A-4
TABLE OF GUIDELINES USED TO CHARACTERIZE WATER QUALITY IN THE 2010-2011

BASELINE REPORT
AENV Water Quality Guidelines for the CCME Water Quality Guidelines for the
Parameter Units Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life+ Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life++
Routine and Nutrients
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) mg/L 5.0A/6.5C 5.5/9.5
pH -- 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/L -- 13
Nitrite(NO2-N) mg/L -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite (NO3+NO2-N) mg/L -- 13.06
Total Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/L -- 0.01727-189.97441
Total Nitrogen (TKN+NO3+NO2) mg/L 1.0C --
Total Phosphorus (TP) mg/L 0.05 C --
Total Elements
Cadmium (Cd) µg/L -- 0.01-0.097 H
Aluminum (Al) mg/L -- 0.005/0.12
Arsenic (As) mg/L -- 0.005
Chromium (Cr) mg/L -- 0.0013
Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.0007-0.0069AH/0.007C 0.002-0.004H
Iron (Fe) mg/L -- 0.3
Lead (Pb) mg/L -- 0.001-0.007 H
Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L -- 0.073
Nickel (Ni) mg/L -- 0.025-0.150H
Selenium (Se) mg/L -- 0.001
Silver (Ag) mg/L -- 0.0001
Thallium (Tl) mg/L -- 0.0008
Uranium (U) mg/L -- 0.015 C -0.033 A
Zinc (Zn) mg/L -- 0.030
Mercury (Hg) µg/L 0.005 C -0.013 A 0.026
Methyl mercury (Me Hg) ng/L 1.0 C -2.0 A 4.0
Organics
Phenolics mg/L 0.005C --
Acenaphthene µg/L -- 5.8
Page 3A-14
TABLE 3A-4 Cont'd

AENV Water Quality Guidelines for the CCME Water Quality Guidelines for the
Parameter Units Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life+ Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life++
Acridine µg/L -- 4.4
Anthracene µg/L -- 0.012
Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L -- 0.018
Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L -- 0.015
Fluoranthene µg/L -- 0.04
Fluorene µg/L -- 3
Naphthalene µg/L -- 1.1
Phenanthrene µg/L -- 0.4
Pyrene µg/L -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L -- 3.4
Carbon tetrachloride µg/L -- 13.3
Chlorobenzene µg/L -- 1.3
Chloroform µg/L -- 1.8
1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L -- 0.7
1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L -- 150
1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L -- 26
1,2-dichloroethane µg/L -- 100
Dichloromethane µg/L -- 98.1
Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) µg/L -- 10000
Styrene µg/L -- 72
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L -- 8
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L -- 24
Trichloroethene µg/L -- 21
Benzene µg/L -- 370
Toluene µg/L -- 2
Ethylbenzene µg/L -- 90
Notes: -- no guideline specified
+ Alberta Environment Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta (AENV 1999)
++ Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2011)
A acute guideline (see AENV 1999 for more detail)
C chronic guideline (see AENV 1999 for more detail)
1 guideline is dependent on pH and temperature; converted to NH4-N by multiplying guideline by 0.8224 (CCME 2011). pH and temperature of
each sample is applied in the calculation to render a sample-specific guideline.
2 guideline is dependent on pH: 0.005 mg/L if pH<6.5, 0.1 mg/L if pH ≥ 6.5. pH of each sample is considered to render a sample-specific
guideline
3 indicates guideline level for Cr(VI); guideline level for Cr(III) = 0.0089 mg/L
H guideline is dependent on hardness value; range represents guideline applicable to all samples. Hardness (CaCO3) of each sample is applied
in the calculation to render a sample-specific guideline
3A.5.2 Trophic Status

Watercourses in Canada are also characterized based on their trophic status. Trophic status can be
measured by the concentration of total phosphorus (TP) in the water (Table 3A-5). Most uncontaminated
fresh water in Canada have TP concentrations between 0.01 and 0.05 mg/L. Baseline concentrations of
TP in water bodies can be dependent on the geology of the area. Higher TP concentrations are usually
found in water bodies located in lowland waters and areas rich in organic matter (CCME 2004).
Page 3A-15
TABLE 3A-5
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TRIGGER RANGES FOR CANADIAN LAKES AND RIVERS
Trophic Status Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

ultra-oligotrophic (very nutrient-poor) < 0.004
oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) 0.004 - 0.010
mesotrophic (containing a moderate level of nutrients) 0.010 - 0.020
meso-eutrophic (containing a moderate to high level of nutrients 0.020 - 0.035
eutrophic (nutrient-rich) 0.035 - 0.100
hypereutrophic (very nutrient-rich) > 0.100
Source: CCME 2004
3A.5.3 Acid Deposition

Surface water is a primary receptor for acid deposition. the potential acid input (PAI) assessment for the
background conditions (deposition originating from areas outside of the model area [e.g., emissions from
Edmonton or Calgary]), Baseline, Project (includes effects of the project only), and Application Cases
were completed by Stantec and are found in the Air Quality Assessment (Volume 2, Section 3.0) of this
EIA. Aquatic systems and soils within the RSA have been designated as “sensitive” in the Alberta Acid
Deposition Management Framework (AENV 2008). Based on this framework, receptors in sensitive areas
should not exceed a PAI monitoring load of 0.17 keq H+/ha/yr. the monitoring load is the level of
deposition predicted or estimated by a dispersion model (i.e. Stantec’s model) and deposition model that
trigger monitoring and/or research (AENV 2008). PAI loadings that exceed this amount only occur in the
immediate vicinity of the CPF. In the LSA and RSA, PAI loadings are between 0.06 and 0.07 keq H+/ha/yr
(see Volume 3, Section 1).
The sensitivity of the surface waters themselves can also be evaluated to determine if they are able to
neutralize acid deposition. The akalinity of streams sampled in the baseline study range from 320-6200
µeq/L. Alkalinity was converted from mg of CaCO3 to µeq/L using the following formula:
µeq/L = mg CaCO3 * 20 µeq/mg (Alexander and Fairbridge 2001)
Watercourses that are sensitive to acidification usually possess the following characteristics
(Sullivan 2000):
• low concentrations of major ions, and conductivity <25µS/cm;
• low acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) whereby sensitive waters have ANC values <50-100 µeq/L;
2+ 2+ + +
• base cation (Ca , Mg , K , Na ) additive concentrations <50-100 µeq/L;
• dissolved organic carbon (DOC) < 3-5 mg/L;
• pH<6.0-6.5;
• low acid anions (SO4-, NO3-, F-, Cl-); and
• small drainage systems, high elevation areas with high relief, low incidence of weathering.
The surface water in tributaries sampled for the baseline study within the LSA and RSA boundaries have:
• conductivity range = 53-930 µS/cm ; average = 173 µS/cm;
• ANC/Alkalinity range = 320-6,200 µeq/L, average = 1,261 µeq/L. Alkalinity considers the capacity of
solutes in water to neutralize acid, whereby ANC considers both solutes and particulates in acid
neutralization (Rounds 2006). the values are very similar in clear waters, but can be very different in
humic (brown) waters. ANC values incorporate dissolved organics (SEPA 2000, Mason 2002) and
can be higher (thus having a greater ability to neutralize acid) than those calculated for alkalinity.
Page 3A-16
• base cation sum range =700-9,700 µeq/L ; average = 2,100 µeq/L;
• DOC range = 7-73 mg/L; average = 37.6 mg/L;
• pH range = 6.61-7.99; average = 7.23; and
• base anion sum range = 360-1,100 µeq/L ; average = 1,700 µeq/L.
The baseline data suggest that the surface waters in the LSA and RSA have a high capacity for
neutralizing acidifying compounds and will not be significantly impacted by acid deposition as a result of
the Project.
3A.6 Baseline Water Quality Results and Discussion

Water quality parameters were compared to provincial and federal guidelines for the protection of aquatic
life. Common to all sites was that field measured pH values were consistently out of the normal pH range
for surface water and did not match with lab-generated values. Therefore, the lab-measured pH values
were used for guideline comparison and generation of pH-specific guidelines (e.g. ammonia). There are
no guidelines for dissolved elements; therefore a comparison could not be made (Tables 3A-7, 3A-12,
3A-17, 3A-22 and 3A-27).
3A.6.1 A1-1
Dissolved oxygen and pH were within range for the protection of aquatic life in all seasons. Measured
conductivity was highest in fall and winter. Total organic carbon and dissolved organic carbon were both
lowest in the winter and highest in summer. Total suspended solids were highest in spring. Biochemical
oxygen demand was only detected at A1-1 under ice in the winter. Bicarbonate, dissolved sulphate, and
hardness were also all highest during the winter. Nitrate plus nitrite and total phosphorus were highest in
the winter, and total ammonia was only detected in the winter sample. Site A1-1 can be classified as
eutrophic to hypereutrophic, depending on the season. AENV PAL guidelines were exceeded for total
nitrogen at all six sampling events, while total phosphorus exceeded guidelines in the fall, winter and
spring (Table 3A-6). There were no guideline exceedances for total metals in the winter. However, total
concentrations of cadmium, aluminum, and mercury exceeded guidelines at least once during the
baseline study. Total iron concentrations exceeded CCME PAL guidelines at every sampling event. Total
concentrations of arsenic, lead, nickel and zinc exceeded guidelines in August 2010 only. Total Selenium
was detected in July 2010 and July 2011, but both samples were below PAL guidelines (Table 3A-8).
Phenolics were detected in May 2011 and July 2011 and exceeded CCME guidelines in July. F3 (C16-
C34) hydrocarbons were detected in the fall sample (October 2010). Naphthenic acids were detected in
July 2010 only. No guidelines exist for F3 or naphthenic acids (Table 3A-9). No volatile organic
compounds were detected (Table 3A-10).
TABLE 3A-6
ROUTINE PARAMETERS, IONS AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A1-1

DURING THE 2010-11 BASELINE STUDY
July August October March May July AENV CCME

Parameter Units 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 PAL+ PAL++
In situ measurements
Temperature °C 14.48 10.16 0.01 0.02 7.81 12.7 -- --
Conductivity µS/cm 327.0 127.0 383.0 362.0 106.0 153.0 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen % 87.1 94.0 97.1 90.9 97.5 97.0 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 8.86 NA 14.60 13.23 11.58 10.28 5.0A/6.5C 5.5/9.5
pH -- 7.84 5.44 3.67 6.35 7.34 7.66 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L NR NR 249 451 103 NR -- --
Routine Parameters
Conductivity µS/cm 340 150 400 680 140 160 -- --
pH -- 7.99 7.14 7.80 7.91 7.26 7.71 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L 34 31 25 7 NA 40 -- --
Total Organic Carbon mg/L 33 34 23 8.2 28 38 -- --
Page 3A-17
TABLE 3A-6 Cont'd

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 270 140 380 360 130 160 -- --
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 10 69 9 10 100 24 -- --
Turbidity NTU NA 47 9.5 14 120 18 -- --
Biochemical Oxygen
mg/L <3 <2 <2 3 <2 <2 -- --
Demand
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 120 52 150 330 49 55 -- --
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dissolved Chloride mg/L 2 2 2 1 2 1 -- --
Sulphide mg/L 0.012 0.011 0.004 <0.002 0.014 0.013 -- --
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L 0.012 0.011 0.004 <0.002 0.015 0.013 -- --
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L 68 2 79 110 32 31 -- --
Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 152 59.9 180 290 63 80 -- --
Alkalinity (PP as CaCO3) mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Alkalinity (total as
mg/L 99 42 120 NA 41 45 -- --
CaCO3)
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L 0.12 0.061 0.19 0.78 0.020 0.037 -- 13
Nitrite mg/L 0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.12 0.061 0.20 0.78 0.020 0.037 -- 13.06
Dissolved Ammonia mg/L <0.05 0.14 <0.05 -- --
mg/L 0.01727-
Total Ammonia <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.14 <0.05 <0.05 --
189.97441
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.56 1.1 1.2 -- --
Dissolved Total Kjeldahl
mg/L NA NA 1.1 0.58 0.77 NA -- --
Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen mg/L 1.220 1.361 1.300 1.340 1.120 1.237 1.0C --
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.034 0.2 0.033 0.008 0.036 NA -- --
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.035 NA 0.054 0.14 0.12 NA 0.05C --
Notes:
-- no guideline specified
+ Alberta Environment Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (AENV 1999)
each sample is applied in the calculation to render a sample-specific guideline
italics – indicates value exceeds guideline
NA – not analyzed
NR – not recorded
Page 3A-18
TABLE 3A-7
DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A1-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

Dissolved Cadmium µg/L 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.049 0.074 -- --
Dissolved Aluminum mg/L 0.094 0.19 0.061 0.001 0.094 0.16 -- --
Dissolved Antimony mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0006 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.0024 0.0016 0.0022 0.0004 0.0009 0.0013 -- --
Dissolved Barium mg/L NA 0.02 0.04 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Boron mg/L NA 0.03 0.06 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Calcium mg/L 43 16 49 78 17 22 -- --
Dissolved Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0006 0.0004 0.0007 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 -- --
Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.0017 0.0019 0.0036 0.0004 0.0019 0.0016 -- --
Dissolved Iron mg/L 2.8 1.7 2.7 <0.06 1.1 1.5 -- --
Dissolved Lead mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Magnesium mg/L 11 5.1 0.03 22 4.9 5.9 -- --
Dissolved Manganese mg/L 0.12 0.059 0.20 0.19 0.051 0.065 -- --
Dissolved Lithium mg/L NA <0.02 0.20 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Molybdenum mg/L 0.0021 0.0009 <0.0002 0.0041 0.0009 0.0008 -- --
Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.0069 0.0035 0.0052 0.0023 0.0049 0.0064 -- --
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L NA 0.2 0.1 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Potassium mg/L 2.0 0.2 2.3 4.0 1.6 1.0 -- --
Dissolved Selenium mg/L 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Silicon mg/L NA 4.5 5.3 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved Sodium mg/L 11 5.5 16 36 5.6 6.6 -- --
Dissolved Strontium mg/L NA 0.09 0.27 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Sulphur mg/L NA 9.2 25 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.004 0.006 0.002 <0.001 0.006 0.004 -- --
Dissolved Uranium mg/L 0.0007 0.0003 0.0005 0.0010 0.0003 0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Vanadium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Zinc mg/L 0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.004 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-19
TABLE 3A-8
TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A1-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY
July August October March May July CCME

Parameter Units 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 AENV PAL+ PAL++
Total Cadmium µg/L 0.10 0.56 0.14 0.056 0.13 0.11 -- 0.02-0.08H
Total Aluminum mg/L 0.31 2.3 0.17 0.085 0.36 0.35 -- 0.005/0.11
Total Antimony mg/L <0.0002 0.004 <0.0002 0.0004 <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Total Arsenic mg/L 0.0029 0.005 0.0029 0.0027 0.0016 0.0032 -- 0.005
Total Barium mg/L 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 -- --
Total Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Boron mg/L 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.03 0.03 -- --
Total Calcium mg/L 43 22 46 86 18 23 -- --
Total Chromium mg/L 0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 -- 0.0012
Total Cobalt mg/L 0.0009 0.005 0.0010 0.0005 0.0011 0.0011 -- --
mg/L 0.002AH- 0.002-
Total Copper 0.0028 0.010 0.0019 0.0006 0.0033 0.0027
0.0058C 0.004H
Total Iron mg/L 3.5 8.4 3.4 1.7 2.0 2.5 -- 0.3
mg/L 0.001-
Total Lead 0.0003 0.004 0.0003 <0.0002 0.0010 0.0006 --
0.007H
Total Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.05 <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Manganese mg/L 11 6.0 12 22 4.7 6.1 -- --
Total Lithium mg/L 0.17 0.44 0.21 0.21 0.099 0.11 -- --
Total Molybdenum mg/L 0.0026 <0.002 0.0018 0.0059 0.0009 0.0010 -- 0.073
mg/L 0.025-
Total Nickel 0.0081 0.016 0.0068 0.0027 0.0062 0.0080 --
0.150H
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.2 -- --
Total Potassium mg/L 2.0 1.7 2.2 3.7 1.4 1.1 -- --
Total Selenium mg/L 0.0004 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 -- 0.001
Total Silicon mg/L 5.3 7.5 5.3 8.1 3.6 4.3 -- --
Total Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- 0.0001
Total Sodium mg/L 11 5.6 15 34 5.3 6.7 -- --
Total Strontium mg/L 0.23 0.13 0.26 0.50 0.10 0.13 -- --
Total Sulphur mg/L 21 8.5 23 33 8.1 11 -- --
Total Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.0008
Total Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Titanium mg/L 0.007 0.05 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.011 -- --
mg/L 0.015C-
Total Uranium 0.0008 0.001 0.0007 0.0010 0.0005 0.0004 --
0.033A
Total Vanadium mg/L 0.002 0.01 <0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 -- --
Total Zinc mg/L 0.006 0.04 0.007 0.003 0.016 0.007 -- 0.030
µg/L 0.005C-
Total Mercury <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 0.004 0.026
0.013A
Total Methyl ng/L
<0.04 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 1.0C-2.0A 4.0
mercury
Notes:
guideline
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-20
TABLE 3A-9
ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A1-1 DURING THE

2010-11 BASELINE STUDY

Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L 0.004 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- --
Phenolics mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0.005 0.005C --
Extractable Hydrocarbons
F2 (C10-C16)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Hydrocarbons
F3 (C16-C34)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
F4 (C34-C50)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
Polycyclic Aromatics
1-methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene
µg/L NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 --
equivalency
Acenaphthene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- 5.8
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Acenaphthylene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- --
Acridine µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 4.4
2,3,5-
µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Trimethylnaphthalene
Anthracene µg/L NA <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 -- 0.012
Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- 0.018
1-Methylphenanthrene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
9-Methylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(c)phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
2,3-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 -- 0.015
Benzo[e]pyrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
9,10-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 --
Chrysene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 -- --
Fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 -- 0.04
Fluorene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 3
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Methylnaphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- --
Naphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- 1.1
Phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 0.4
Perylene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
Pyrene µg/L NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 3.4
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-21
TABLE 3A-10
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A1-1 DURING THE


Volatiles
Total Trihalomethanes µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
Bromodichloromethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromoform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromomethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
Carbon tetrachloride µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 13.3
Chlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.3
Chlorodibromomethane µg/L <9 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -- --
Chloroethane µg/L <9 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -- --
Chloroform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.8
Chloromethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
1,2-dibromoethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 0.7
1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 150
1,1-dichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 100
1,1-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dichloromethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -- 98.1
1,2-dichloropropane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl methacrylate µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 10000
Styrene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 72
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
Tetrachloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L <9 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -- 8
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Trichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 21
Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Vinyl chloride µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Total xylenes µg/L <7 NA <0.4 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
m & p-xylene µg/L <7 NA <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
o-xylene µg/L <4 NA <0.8 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- --
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 370
Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 2
Ethylbenzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 90
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-22
3A.6.2 A2-1
In March 2011, Site A2-1 was frozen and therefore was not sampled during under-ice conditions. There
was an issue with the dissolved oxygen meter in October, therefore a valid reading was not obtained.
Conductivity was the highest in the fall of 2010, and the lowest in the spring and summer of 2011. pH
values were within AENV and CCME PAL range. Total and dissolved organic carbon and total dissolved
solids showed very little seasonal variability. Total suspended solids and turbidity were all lowest during
the fall sampling event. There was also little seasonal variability in major ions such as bicarbonate,
dissolved chloride and dissolved sulphate. Hardness also remained steady across seasons, ranging from
46-79 mg/L. Nutrients also varied little by season. However, total nitrogen exceeded AENV PAL
guidelines in all seasons, except for the fall. Total phosphorus exceeded the guideline at every sampling
event where it was analyzed. Site A-2 is classified as a eutrophic water body (Table 3A-11). Total
concentrations of cadmium, aluminum, copper and iron exceeded CCME PAL guidelines at all sampling
events. Total mercury exceeded AENV PAL guidelines in August 2010, May 2011 and July 2011. Total
arsenic and total lead exceeded the CCME PAL guideline in August 2010 (Table 3A-13). Phenolics were
detected at A2-1 in July 2010 and July 2011, but were only above AENV PAL guidelines in July 2011
(Table 3A-14). No other organics were detected in any season at A2-1 (Table 3A-15).
TABLE 3A-11


Temperature °C 14.22 9.80 0.01 NS 6.73 11.92 -- --
Conductivity µS/cm 135.2 146.0 90.0 NS 76.0 103.0 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen % 77.3 90.4 error NS 94.1 97.0 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 7.93 NR error NS 11.48 10.47 5.0A/6.5C 5.5/9.5
pH -- 5.85 5.25 7.07 NS 6.59 7.19 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L NR NR 112 NS 77 NR -- --
Routine Parameters
Conductivity µS/cm 170 130 180 NS 110 110 -- --
pH -- 7.62 7.20 7.29 NS 7.22 7.59 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L 37 33 24 NS NA 44 -- --
Total Organic Carbon mg/L 36 36 26 NS 37 43 -- --
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 180 140 170 NS 160 140 -- --
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 45 32 3 NS 31 18 -- --
Turbidity NTU 41 8.5 NS 35 18 -- --
Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L <3 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 84 62 88 NS 46 52 -- --
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dissolved Chloride mg/L 3 2 3 NS 2 1 -- --
Sulphide mg/L 0.013 0.024 0.011 NS 0.016 0.008 -- --
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L 0.013 0.026 0.011 NS 0.017 0.009 -- --
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L 13 3 16 NS 5 10 -- --
Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 79.2 60.4 81 NS 46 55 -- --
Alkalinity (PP as CaCO3) mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Alkalinity (total as CaCO3) mg/L 69 51 72 NS 37 42 -- --
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L 0.034 0.026 0.017 NS 0.015 0.011 -- 13
Nitrite mg/L <0.003 0.003 <0.003 NS <0.003 <0.003 -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.034 0.029 0.017 NS 0.015 0.011 -- 13.06
Dissolved Ammonia mg/L <0.05 NS <0.05 -- --
0.1727-
Total Ammonia mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 NS <0.05 <0.05 --
189.97441
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.2 1.2 0.96 NS 1.0 1.2 -- --
Page 3A-23
TABLE 3A-11 Cont'd

Dissolved Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L NA NA 0.93 NS 0.92 NA -- --
Total Nitrogen mg/L 1.234 1.229 0.977 NS 1.015 1.211 1.0 --
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.034 0.1 0.023 NS 0.015 NA -- --
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.050 NA 0.065 NS 0.063 NA 0.05 --
NA – not analyzed
NR – not recorded
NS – not sampled (frozen)
TABLE 3A-12
DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

Dissolved
µg/L 0.03 <0.05 0.03 NS 0.025 0.032 -- --
Cadmium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.10 0.12 0.081 NS 0.11 0.15 -- --
Aluminum
Dissolved Antimony mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 0.0008 NS <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.0031 <0.002 0.0023 NS 0.0010 0.0017 -- --
Dissolved Barium mg/L NA 0.04 0.04 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Boron mg/L NA 0.03 0.02 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Calcium mg/L 21 15 20 NS 11 14 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Chromium
Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0003 <0.003 0.0004 NS 0.0008 0.0006 -- --
Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.0028 0.007 0.006 NS 0.0023 0.0028 -- --
Dissolved Iron mg/L 3.0 1.8 2.9 NS 1.2 1.6 -- --
Dissolved Lead mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS 0.0002 0.0002 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L 6.8 5.8 <0.02 NS 4.2 4.8 -- --
Magnesium
Dissolved 0.076
mg/L 0.037 0.073 NS 0.086 0.047 -- --
Manganese
Dissolved Lithium mg/L <0.02 0.076 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved
mg/L 0.0007 <0.002 <0.0002 NS 0.0004 0.0002 -- --
Molybdenum
Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.0059 <0.005 0.0042 NS 0.0047 0.0066 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.1 <0.1 NS NA NA -- --
Phosphorus
Dissolved
mg/L 1.3 1.2 1.2 NS 1.4 0.9 -- --
Potassium
Dissolved Selenium mg/L 0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Silicon mg/L NA 3.6 4.0 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved Sodium mg/L 8.0 7.2 10 NS 6.6 7.3 -- --
Page 3A-24
TABLE 3A-12 Cont'd

Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.12 0.16 NS NA NA -- --
Strontium
Dissolved Sulphur mg/L NA 4 5.4 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.006 <0.01 0.003 NS 0.006 0.005 -- --
Dissolved Uranium mg/L 0.0003 <0.001 0.0001 NS 0.0002 0.0002 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L 0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Vanadium
Dissolved Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.03 <0.003 NS <0.003 0.006 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-13
TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

0.017-
Total Cadmium µg/L 0.05 0.22 0.09 NS 0.037 0.043 --
0.028H
0.005/0.11
Total Aluminum mg/L 0.77 2.4 0.16 NS 0.33 0.36 --
Total Antimony mg/L <0.0002 0.003 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --

Total Arsenic mg/L 0.0041 0.006 0.0031 NS 0.0015 0.0033 -- 0.005
Total Barium mg/L 0.06 0.11 0.04 NS 0.05 0.05 -- --
Total Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Boron mg/L 0.04 0.03 0.02 NS 0.03 0.03 -- --
Total Calcium mg/L 21 18 20 NS 12 15 -- --
Total Chromium mg/L 0.002 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 0.001 -- 0.0012
Total Cobalt mg/L 0.0012 0.005 0.0007 NS 0.0012 0.0011 -- --
0.0012AH- 0.002-
Total Copper mg/L 0.0046 0.010 0.0027 NS 0.0030 0.0037
0.00198C 0.004H
Total Iron mg/L 4.6 8.2 3.4 NS 1.9 2.5 -- 0.3
0.001-
Total Lead mg/L 0.0007 0.004 0.0003 NS 0.0006 0.0006 --
0.002H
Total Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 NS <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Manganese mg/L 7.2 6.0 7.2 NS 4.0 4.9 -- --
Total Lithium mg/L 0.13 0.35 0.085 NS 0.12 0.085 -- --
Total Molybdenum mg/L 0.0009 <0.002 <0.0002 NS 0.0003 0.0003 -- 0.073
0.025-
Total Nickel mg/L 0.0082 0.015 0.0053 NS 0.0053 0.0071 --
0.065H
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.3 0.3 0.2 NS <0.1 0.1 -- --
Total Potassium mg/L 1.5 1.6 1.3 NS 1.2 0.9 -- --
Total Selenium mg/L 0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 0.0002 -- 0.001
Total Silicon mg/L 5.5 6.8 4.0 NS 3.2 3.7 -- --
Total Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 <0.0001 -- 0.0001
Total Sodium mg/L 8.3 6.7 10 NS 6.4 7.4 -- --
Total Strontium mg/L 0.17 0.14 0.16 NS 0.09 0.11 -- --
Page 3A-25
TABLE 3A-13 Cont'd

Total Sulphur mg/L 5.3 4.0 5.2 NS 4.0 4.0 -- --
Total Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.0008
Total Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Titanium mg/L 0.014 0.04 0.004 NS 0.005 0.010 -- --
0.015C-
Total Uranium mg/L 0.0004 <0.001 0.0003 NS 0.0002 0.0002 --
0.033A
Total Vanadium mg/L 0.004 0.01 0.001 NS 0.002 0.004 -- --
Total Zinc mg/L 0.006 <0.03 0.005 NS 0.014 0.006 -- 0.030
0.005C-
Total Mercury µg/L <0.005 0.005 <0.005 NS 0.008 0.005 0.026
0.013A
Total Methyl
ng/L <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 NS <0.03 0.08 1.0C-2.0A 4.0
mercury
Notes:
guideline
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-14
ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-1 DURING THE


Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NS <1.0 <1.0 -- --
Phenolics mg/L 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 NS <0.002 0.005 0.005C --
F2 (C10-C16)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NS <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Hydrocarbons
F3 (C16-C34)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NS <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
F4 (C34-C50)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NS <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
1-methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene
µg/L NA <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.01 <0.01 --
equivalency
Acenaphthene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- 5.8
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Acenaphthylene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- --
Acridine µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 NS <0.20 <0.20 -- 4.4
Page 3A-26
TABLE 3A-14 Cont'd

2,3,5-
µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Anthracene µg/L NA <0.010 <0.010 NS <0.010 <0.010 -- 0.012
Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- 0.018
1-Methylphenanthrene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
9-Methylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(c)phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- --
2,3-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 NS <0.0075 <0.0075 -- 0.015
Benzo[e]pyrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- --
9,10-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 --
Chrysene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 NS <0.0075 <0.0075 -- --
Fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.040 <0.040 NS <0.040 <0.040 -- 0.04
Fluorene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- 3
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Methylnaphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- --
Naphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- 1.1
Phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- 0.4
Perylene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- --
Pyrene µg/L NA <0.020 <0.020 NS <0.020 <0.020 -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 NS <0.20 <0.20 -- 3.4
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-15
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-1 DURING THE


Volatiles
Total Trihalomethanes µg/L <2 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
Bromodichloromethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromoform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromomethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
Carbon tetrachloride µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 13.3
Chlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.3
Chlorodibromomethane µg/L <9 <1 <1 NS <1 <1 -- --
Chloroethane µg/L <9 <1 <1 NS <1 <1 -- --
Chloroform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.8
Chloromethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
1,2-dibromoethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 0.7
Page 3A-27
TABLE 3A-15 Cont'd

1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 150
1,1-dichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 100
1,1-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dichloromethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- 98.1
1,2-dichloropropane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,3-
µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
dichloropropene
Methyl methacrylate µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl-tert-butylether
µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 10000
(MTBE)
Styrene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 72
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
Tetrachloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L <9 <1 <1 NS <1 <1 -- 8
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Trichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 21
Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Vinyl chloride µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
NA
Total xylenes µg/L <7 <0.4 NS <0.8 <0.8 -- --
NA
m & p-xylene µg/L <7 <0.8 NS <0.8 <0.8 -- --
NA
o-xylene µg/L <4 <0.8 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- --
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- 370

Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- 2
Ethylbenzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- 90
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 <100 <100 NS <100 <100 -- --
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 <100 <100 NS <100 <100 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
3A.6.3 B4-1
In March 2011, Site B4-1 was frozen and therefore was not sampled during under-ice conditions.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were within CCME and AENV PAL ranges. Conductivity was lowest in
the spring and highest in the summer. pH values were within CCME and AENV PAL range with little
variability across seasons. Total and dissolved organic carbon were lowest in the fall and spring. Total
Page 3A-28
dissolved solid concentrations were slightly higher in July 2010, but otherwise were consistent among
seasons. Total suspended solids concentrations were highest in August 2010, but were below detection
in the fall and spring. Biochemical oxygen demand was also highest in August 2010 and had no
detections at any other sampling time.
Major ion concentrations were consistent among seasons. Hardness was highest in July 2010 and lowest
in the spring. Bicarbonate, dissolved chloride, sulphide, hydrogen sulphide and alkalinity were also lowest
in the spring. AENV PAL guidelines for total nitrogen were exceeded at B4-1 in all samples, with
concentrations being the lowest in the spring. Total phosphorus exceeded guidelines in all samples,
except for in July 2010. Site B4-1 is considered eutrophic. Total ammonia was only detected in July 2010
(Table 3A-16). Total concentrations of cadmium and aluminum exceeded CCME PAL guidelines in most
samples, with the highest concentration in July 2010. Total concentrations of chromium and copper in
July 2010 also exceeded PAL guidelines. Total lead CCME guidelines were exceeded in all samples.
Total mercury concentrations were higher than AENV PAL guidelines on three occasions and were below
detection at the other sampling times. Methyl mercury was detected in all samples and exceeded PAL
guidelines in August 2010 and July 2011 (Table 3A-18). Phenolics were detected in the summer and fall
samples, but were not above PAL guidelines (Table 3A-19). No other organics were detected at B4-1
(Table 3A-20).
TABLE 3A-16
ROUTINE PARAMETERS, IONS AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT B4-1


Temperature °C 14.85 9.99 0.17 NS 8.12 11.82 -- --
Conductivity µS/cm 126.0 106.0 119.0 NS 64.0 92.0 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen % 71.1 79.6 94.9 NS 74.5 58.6 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 7.18 NR 14.41 NS 8.77 6.33 5.0A/6.5C 5.5/9.5
pH -- 8.75 5.23 8.69 NS 5.68 9.37 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L NR NR 77 NS 62 NR -- --
Routine Parameters
Conductivity µS/cm 140 120 120 NS 78 97 -- --
pH -- 7.01 7.01 6.93 NS 6.88 7.08 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L 67 62 48 NS NA 73 -- --
Total Organic Carbon mg/L 67 62 51 NS 50 67 -- --
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 210 180 180 NS 150 180 -- --
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 7 28 <1 NS <1 2 -- --
Turbidity NTU NA 4.4 2.6 NS 0.8 0.4 -- --
Biochemical Oxygen
mg/L <3 3 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
Demand
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 65 49 54 NS 33 44 -- --
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dissolved Chloride mg/L 3 3 4 NS 2 2 -- --
Sulphide mg/L 0.052 0.040 0.044 NS 0.022 0.036 -- --
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L 0.056 0.042 0.047 NS 0.023 0.038 -- --
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L <1 3 7.0 NS 4.0 3.7 -- --
Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 69.2 55.5 53 NS 33 49 -- --
Alkalinity (PP as CaCO3) mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Alkalinity (total as CaCO3) mg/L 53 40 54 NS 27 36 -- --
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L 0.057 0.030 0.081 NS 0.007 0.016 -- 13
Nitrite mg/L 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 NS <0.003 <0.003 -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.060 0.030 0.081 NS 0.007 0.016 -- 13.06
Page 3A-29
TABLE 3A-16 Cont'd

Dissolved Ammonia mg/L NA NA <0.05 NS <0.05 -- --
0.01727-
Total Ammonia mg/L 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 NS <0.05 <0.05 --
189.97441
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 2.7 2.3 2.0 NS 1.8 2.1 -- --
Dissolved Total Kjeldahl NA NA NA
mg/L 2 NS 1.6 -- --
Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen mg/L 2.760 2.330 2.081 NS 1.807 2.116 1.0 --
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.030 0.2 0.029 NS 0.042 NA -- --
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.031 NA 0.068 NS 0.059 NA 0.05 --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
NR – not recorded
TABLE 3A-17
DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT B4-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

Dissolved
µg/L <0.03 <0.05 <0.03 NS 0.010 0.015 -- --
Cadmium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.12 0.09 0.089 NS 0.080 0.10 -- --
Aluminum
Dissolved Antimony mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 0.0008 NS <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.0010 <0.002 0.0006 NS 0.0005 0.0007 -- --
Dissolved Barium mg/L NA 0.01 0.01 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Boron mg/L NA 0.03 <0.02 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Calcium mg/L 21 16 15 NS 9.8 15 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Chromium
Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0008 <0.003 <0.0003 NS <0.0003 <0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.0005 <0.002 0.016 NS 0.0003 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Iron mg/L 2.3 1.6 1.4 NS 0.70 1.1 -- --
Dissolved Lead mg/L 0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L 4.1 3.8 <0.02 NS 2 2.8 -- --
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.27 0.039 0.11 NS 0.023 0.028 -- --
Manganese
Dissolved Lithium mg/L NA <0.02 0.11 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved
mg/L 0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Molybdenum
Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.0029 <0.005 0.0020 NS 0.0016 0.0026 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.2 <0.1 NS NA NA -- --
Phosphorus
Page 3A-30
TABLE 3A-17 Cont'd

Dissolved
mg/L <0.3 0.6 0.8 NS 1.2 <0.3 -- --
Potassium
Dissolved Selenium mg/L 0.0003 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Silicon mg/L NA 4.1 4.0 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved Sodium mg/L 11 9.7 13 NS 8.4 11 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.09 0.08 NS NA NA -- --
Strontium
Dissolved Sulphur mg/L NA 4.9 3.5 NS NA NA -- --
Dissolved Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.002 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Uranium mg/L 0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Vanadium
Dissolved Zinc mg/L 0.005 <0.03 0.004 NS <0.003 0.006 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-18
TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT B4-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

0.013-
Total Cadmium µg/L 0.12 0.08 0.11 NS 0.010 0.018 --
0.024H
Total Aluminum mg/L 0.64 0.19 0.092 NS 0.086 0.11 -- 0.005/0.11
Total Antimony mg/L <0.0002 0.006 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Total Arsenic mg/L 0.0014 <0.002 0.0007 NS 0.0007 0.0020 -- 0.005
Total Barium mg/L 0.04 0.02 0.01 NS 0.01 0.02 -- --
Total Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Boron mg/L 0.04 0.03 <0.02 NS 0.03 0.03 -- --
Total Calcium mg/L 22 20 17 NS 10 15 -- --
Total Chromium mg/L 0.002 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- 0.0012
Total Cobalt mg/L 0.0019 <0.003 0.0005 NS <0.0003 0.0004 -- --
0.0009-
0.002-
Total Copper mg/L 0.0018 <0.002 0.0007 NS 0.0003 0.0005 0.0017AH
0.004H
/0.007C
Total Iron mg/L 4.7 3.5 1.7 NS 0.79 1.2 -- 0.3
0.001-
Total Lead mg/L 0.0004 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 --
0.002H
Total Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 NS <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Manganese mg/L 4.3 3.7 3.6 NS 1.8 2.8 -- --
Total Lithium mg/L 0.44 0.67 0.13 NS 0.034 0.071 -- --
Total Molybdenum mg/L 0.0003 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.073
0.025-
Total Nickel mg/L 0.0049 <0.005 0.0025 NS 0.0016 0.0028 --
0.065H
Page 3A-31
TABLE 3A-18 Cont'd

Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.5 0.3 0.1 NS <0.1 0.1 -- --
Total Potassium mg/L 0.4 0.7 0.8 NS 1.0 <0.3 -- --
Total Selenium mg/L 0.0004 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 0.0002 -- 0.001
Total Silicon mg/L 4.5 4.5 4.2 NS 0.8 2.3 -- --
Total Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 <0.0001 -- 0.0001
Total Sodium mg/L 11 9.6 13 NS 8.1 11 -- --
Total Strontium mg/L 0.13 0.10 0.09 NS 0.05 0.08 -- --
Total Sulphur mg/L 4.8 4.8 3.7 NS 2.2 2.5 -- --
Total Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 NS <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.0008
Total Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 NS <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Titanium mg/L 0.009 <0.01 0.001 NS <0.001 0.001 -- --
0.015C-
Total Uranium mg/L 0.0003 <0.001 0.0001 NS <0.0001 <0.0001 --
0.033A
Total Vanadium mg/L 0.002 <0.01 <0.001 NS 0.001 0.002 -- --
Total Zinc mg/L 0.013 <0.03 0.005 NS 0.010 0.004 -- 0.030
0.005C-
Total Mercury µg/L <0.005 0.006 <0.005 NS 0.006 0.007 0.026
0.013A
Total Methyl
ng/L 0.09 1.1 0.23 NS 0.3 1.03 1.0C-2.0A 4.0
mercury
Notes:
guideline
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-19
ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT B4-1 DURING THE


Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NS <1.0 <1.0 -- --
Phenolics mg/L 0.003 <0.002 0.002 NS <0.002 0.004 0.005C
F2 (C10-C16)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NS <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Hydrocarbons
F3 (C16-C34)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NS <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
F4 (C34-C50)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NS <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
1-methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Page 3A-32
TABLE 3A-19 Cont'd

Benzo[a]pyrene
µg/L NA <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.01 <0.01 --
equivalency
Acenaphthene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- 5.8
Acenaphthylene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- --
Acridine µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 NS <0.20 <0.20 -- 4.4
2,3,5-
µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Anthracene µg/L NA <0.010 <0.010 NS <0.010 <0.010 -- 0.012
Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- 0.018
1-Methylphenanthrene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
9-Methylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(c)phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- --
2,3-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 NS <0.0075 <0.0075 -- 0.015
Benzo[e]pyrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- --
9,10-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NS <0.05 <0.05 --
Chrysene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 NS <0.0075 <0.0075 -- --
Fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.040 <0.040 NS <0.040 <0.040 -- 0.04
Fluorene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- 3
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 NS <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Methylnaphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- --
Naphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 NS <0.10 <0.10 -- 1.1
Phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- 0.4
Perylene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 NS <0.050 <0.050 -- --
Pyrene µg/L NA <0.020 <0.020 NS <0.020 <0.020 -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 NS <0.20 <0.20 -- 3.4
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-33
TABLE 3A-20
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT B4-1 DURING THE


Volatiles
Total Trihalomethanes µg/L <2 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
Bromodichloromethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromoform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromomethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
Carbon tetrachloride µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 13.3
Chlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.3
Chlorodibromomethane µg/L <9 <1 <1 NS <1 <1 -- --
Chloroethane µg/L <9 <1 <1 NS <1 <1 -- --
Chloroform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.8
Chloromethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- --
1,2-dibromoethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 0.7
1,1-dichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichloroethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 100
1,1-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dichloromethane µg/L <20 <2 <2 NS <2 <2 -- 98.1
1,2-dichloropropane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl methacrylate µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 10000
Styrene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 72
Tetrachloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Trichloroethene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- 21
Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Vinyl chloride µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 NS <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Total xylenes µg/L <7 NA <0.4 NS <0.8 <0.8 -- --
m & p-xylene µg/L <7 NA <0.8 NS <0.8 <0.8 -- --
o-xylene µg/L <4 NA <0.8 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- --
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- 370
Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- 2
Ethylbenzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 NS <0.4 <0.4 -- 90
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 <100 <100 NS <100 <100 -- --
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 <100 <100 NS <100 <100 -- --
Notes:
-- - no guideline specified
+ - Alberta Environment Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (AENV 1999)
++ - Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2011)
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-34
3A.6.4 C1-1
In the winter, (March 2011), dissolved oxygen concentrations were below the minimum value
recommended by CCME and AENV to protect aquatic life. the under-ice water temperature in March was
higher than the open water conditions in the fall. pH values were within the CCME and AENV PAL range
in all samples. There was little variation in total or dissolved organic carbon concentrations between
seasons. Conductivity, total dissolved and suspended solids, turbidity and biochemical oxygen demand
were the highest in the winter than in any other month. Turbidity was two orders of magnitude higher in
the winter sample than in any other month. As observed with routine parameters, bicarbonate, dissolved
chloride, dissolved sulphate, hardness and alkalinity were all much higher in the winter than in any other
season, although sulphide and hydrogen sulphide were not detected in the winter. Total nitrogen
exceeded AENV PAL guidelines in all samples. The highest nitrogen concentration was in the winter
during under-ice conditions, where it was four times the guideline for the protection of aquatic life and at
least double the value of any other sample. Total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the AENV PAL
guideline in the winter sample only. This site varied in TP concentrations and is classified as mesotrophic
to hypereutrophic (Table 3A-21). Total ammonia was detected in the winter under-ice sample only. Total
concentrations of aluminum exceeded CCME PAL guidelines in July 2010 and again in the winter (March
2011) (Table 3A-23). Total concentrations of arsenic, chromium and mercury exceeded PAL guidelines in
the winter sample only. Total iron concentrations were higher than CCME PAL guidelines in all samples,
but the sample in the winter (67 mg/L) was over 200 times higher than the guideline (0.3 mg/L). Overall,
there was a noticeable trend of higher concentrations in the winter than at any other sample time for all
elements (except for antimony) (Table 3A-23). Phenolics were detected and exceeded guidelines in the
winter and summer of 2011. Naphthalene (Table 3A-24) and toluene (Table 3A-25) were detected under-
ice in March 2011, although it did not exceed CCME PAL guidelines.
TABLE 3A-21
ROUTINE PARAMETERS, IONS AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT C1-1


Temperature °C 17.54 11.66 0.66 1.13 13.08 15.41 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 8.18 NR 8.65 4.23 9.28 8.74 5.0A/6.5C 5.5/9.5
pH -- 4.97 6.44 9.10 6.43 6.70 7.08 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Routine Parameters
pH -- 7.76 7.63 7.26 7.12 7.25 7.72 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L 37 33 26 30 NA 43 -- --
Total Organic Carbon mg/L 39 33 25 43 31 44 -- --
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 27 4 <1 220 <1 2 -- --
Turbidity NTU NA 6.9 2.9 590 1.2 1.7 -- --
Biochemical Oxygen
mg/L <3 <2 <2 10 <2 <2 -- --
Demand
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 110 120 85 380 54 80 -- --
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Sulphide mg/L 0.021 0.018 <0.002 <0.002 0.014 0.030 -- --
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L 0.023 0.020 <0.002 <0.002 0.015 0.032 -- --
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L <1 1 3.3 220 <1 3.0 -- --
Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 79.5 79.7 50 350 33 57 -- --
Page 3A-35
TABLE 3A-21 Cont'd

Alkalinity (PP as CaCO3) mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Alkalinity (total as CaCO3) mg/L 91 100 70 310 44 65 -- --
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L 0.026 0.004 0.010 0.004 <0.003 0.008 -- 13
Nitrite mg/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.026 0.004 0.010 0.004 <0.003 0.008 -- 13.06
Dissolved Ammonia mg/L NA NA <0.05 0.97 <0.05 NA -- --
0.01727-
Total Ammonia mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.0 <0.05 <0.05 --
189.97441
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.8 1.3 1.1 4.2 1.1 1.6 -- --
mg/L NA NA 1.1 3.2 1.0 NA -- --
Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen mg/L 1.826 1.304 1.110 4.204 1.100 1.608 1.0 --
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.035 NA 0.030 0.15 0.022 NA 0.05 --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
NR – not recorded
TABLE 3A-22
DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT C1-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

Dissolved
µg/L <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 -- --
Cadmium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.025 0.006 0.013 0.003 0.021 0.021 -- --
Aluminum
Dissolved Boron mg/L NA 0.03 <0.02 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Calcium mg/L 20 19 13 92 8.1 15 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Chromium
Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0005 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0068 <0.0003 <0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.0003 0.0004 0.0056 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Iron mg/L 4.4 1.5 0.93 6.6 0.46 1.1 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L 6.9 7.8 <0.02 29 3.1 5.0 -- --
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.22 0.039 0.057 9.5 0.014 0.052 -- --
Manganese
Page 3A-36
TABLE 3A-22 Cont'd

Dissolved
mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0009 <0.0002 0.0004 -- --
Molybdenum
Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.0012 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0033 0.0007 0.0012 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA -- --
Phosphorus
Dissolved
mg/L 0.3 0.8 1.6 3.3 1.3 0.3 -- --
Potassium
Dissolved Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0004 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Sodium mg/L 16 18 17 46 13 16 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.14 0.09 NA NA NA -- --
Strontium
Dissolved Sulphur mg/L NA 2 1.5 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Titanium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 -- --
Dissolved Uranium mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0015 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Vanadium
Dissolved Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-23
TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT C1-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

0.013-
Total Cadmium µg/L <0.03 <0.05 0.07 0.072 <0.005 0.005 --
0.098H
0.005/0.11
Total Aluminum mg/L 0.20 0.03 0.013 0.40 0.029 0.030 --
Total Antimony mg/L <0.0002 0.024 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --

Total Arsenic mg/L 0.0026 <0.002 0.0007 0.0099 0.0008 0.0024 -- 0.005
Total Barium mg/L 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.02 -- --
Total Boron mg/L 0.03 0.03 <0.02 0.12 0.03 0.04 -- --
Total Calcium mg/L 22 22 12 110 8.2 15 -- --
Total Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- 0.0012
Total Cobalt mg/L 0.0010 <0.003 <0.0003 0.0093 <0.0003 0.0003 -- --
0.00092- 0.002-
Total Copper mg/L 0.0015 <0.002 0.0006 0.0022 <0.0002 0.0003
0.0069AH/0.007C 0.004H
Total Iron mg/L 6.0 2.7 1.2 67 0.59 1.4 -- 0.3
0.001-
Total Lead mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 0.0011 <0.0002 <0.0002 --
0.007H
Total Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.05 <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Manganese mg/L 7.1 7.1 4.2 31 2.8 5.0 -- --
Total Lithium mg/L 0.38 0.11 0.066 12 0.025 0.082 -- --
Page 3A-37
TABLE 3A-23 Cont'd

Total
mg/L 0.0003 0.005 <0.0002 0.0010 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.073
Molybdenum
0.025-
Total Nickel mg/L 0.0021 <0.005 0.0007 0.0054 0.0007 0.0013 --
0.150H
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 0.1 -- --
Total Potassium mg/L 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.5 1.1 0.3 -- --
Total Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 0.0007 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.001
Total Silicon mg/L 5.0 4.8 4.1 10 0.5 3.6 -- --
Total Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- 0.0001
Total Sodium mg/L 16 17 16 48 12 16 -- --
Total Sulphur mg/L 2.2 1.9 1.4 68 2.1 1.9 -- --
Total Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Titanium mg/L 0.003 <0.01 <0.001 0.016 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
0.015C-
Total Uranium mg/L 0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.0018 <0.0001 <0.0001 --
0.033A
Total Vanadium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 0.004 0.001 0.002 -- --
Total Zinc mg/L 0.004 <0.03 <0.003 0.013 0.008 <0.003 -- 0.030
Total Mercury µg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.002 0.005C-0.013A 0.026
Total Methyl
ng/L <0.05 0.07 <0.03 <0.03 0.11 0.27 1.0C-2.0A 4.0
mercury
Notes:
guideline
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-24
ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT C1-1 DURING THE


Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- --
Phenolics mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.004 <0.002 0.005 0.005C --
F2 (C10-C16)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Hydrocarbons
F3 (C16-C34)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
F4 (C34-C50)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
Page 3A-38
TABLE 3A-24 Cont'd

Benzo[a]pyrene
µg/L NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 --
equivalency
Acridine µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 4.4
2,3,5-
µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Chrysene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Fluorene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 3
Naphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 0.14 <0.10 <0.10 -- 1.1
Perylene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
Pyrene µg/L NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 3.4
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-39
TABLE 3A-25
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT C1-1 DURING THE


Volatiles
Bromoform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Chloroform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.8
trans-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 10000
Styrene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 72
m & p-xylene µg/L <7 NA <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
o-xylene µg/L <4 NA <0.8 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- --
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 370
Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 1.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 2
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-40
3A.6.5 D1-1
In the fall (October 2011), dissolved oxygen concentrations were below the AENV and CCME minimum
concentration established to protect aquatic life. Conductivity, total dissolved solids, turbidity and
biochemical oxygen demand were all highest during the winter, under ice. pH values were within AENV
and CCME PAL ranges. Bicarbonate, dissolved chloride, sulphide, hydrogen sulphide, hardness and
alkalinity were all highest during the winter sampling event. Like ions, nutrient concentrations were all
higher in the winter (except for nitrite) than in any other sampling month. Total nitrogen concentrations
exceeded AENV PAL guidelines at all sampling events except for in the spring sample (May 2011). Total
phosphorus concentrations were equivalent to the AENV PAL guidelines in July 2010, but exceeded it in
March 2011. TP concentrations classify D1-1 as mesotrophic to hypereutrophic (under ice in winter)
(Table 3A-26). There were few metals that exceeded the CCME PAL guideline at D1-1. Total
concentrations of cadmium exceeded the CCME PAL guideline in the fall (October 2010), aluminum
exceeded the guideline in July 2010 and copper exceeded it in the spring (May 2011). The CCME PAL
guideline for lead was exceeded in all seasons (Table 3A-28). Many organic compounds were detected at
D1-1 throughout the baseline program including, phenolics, extractable hydrocarbons, benzo[a]pyrene
equivalency, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) and pyrene (Table 3A-29).
For these detected organics, either no guideline exists for the compound, or none exceeded CCME
guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. All organics were detected in the fall sample only (October
2010), except for naphthenic acids, that were detected in the winter (March 2011). No volatile organic
compounds were detected at D1-1 (Table 3A-30).
TABLE 3A-26
ROUTINE PARAMETERS, IONS AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D1-1


Temperature °C 16.82 11.41 0.47 0.07 12.64 14.82 -- --
pH -- 6.00 4.26 6.18 6.64 6.19 6.52 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Routine Parameters
pH -- 7.58 7.28 7.10 7.26 7.24 7.54 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Dissolved Organic NA
mg/L 37 31 26 31 40 -- --
Carbon
Total Suspended Solids mg/L <1 2 <1 <3 2 <1 -- --
Turbidity NTU NA 1.7 1.1 39 0.6 0.6 -- --
Biochemical Oxygen
mg/L <3 <2 <2 3 <2 <2 -- --
Demand
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 71 77 65 150 43 57 -- --
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Sulphide mg/L 0.018 0.015 0.012 0.02 0.007 0.016 -- --
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L 0.020 0.016 0.013 0.021 0.008 0.017 -- --
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L <1 1 0.5 0.85 2.0 <0.5 -- --
Alkalinity (PP as
mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
CaCO3)
Page 3A-41
TABLE 3A-26 Cont'd

mg/L 58 63 54 130 36 47 -- --
CaCO3)
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L 0.011 0.008 0.013 0.091 <0.003 0.083 -- 13
Nitrite mg/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.020 -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.011 0.008 0.013 0.091 <0.003 0.10 -- 13.06
0.01727-
Total Ammonia mg/L 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 0.91 <0.05 <0.05 --
189.97441
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.5 1.2 1.1 3 0.98 1.3 -- --
mg/L NA NA 1.0 3.1 0.85 NA -- --
Nitrogen
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
NR – not recorded
TABLE 3A-27
DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D1-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

Dissolved
µg/L <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.005 <0.005 -- --
Cadmium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.046 0.021 0.002 0.032 0.019 0.030 -- --
Aluminum
Dissolved Boron mg/L NA <0.02 <0.02 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Calcium mg/L 18 17 13 31 11 15 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Chromium
Dissolved Cobalt mg/L <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0030 <0.0003 <0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.0005 0.0008 0.0053 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L 5.2 6.2 <0.02 9.8 3.3 4.4 -- --
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.065 0.029 0.040 2.9 <0.004 0.013 -- --
Manganese
Page 3A-42
TABLE 3A-27 Cont'd

Dissolved
mg/L 0.0003 0.0011 <0.0002 0.0007 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Molybdenum
Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.0014 <0.0005 0.0005 0.0018 0.0008 0.0011 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA -- --
Phosphorus
Dissolved
mg/L <0.3 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.3 <0.3 -- --
Potassium
Dissolved Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Sodium mg/L 4.5 5.4 5.8 9.1 3.7 5.0 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.10 0.07 NA NA NA -- --
Strontium
Dissolved Sulphur mg/L NA 1 0.6 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.014 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Titanium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Uranium mg/L <0.0001 0.0012 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Vanadium
Dissolved Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 0.003 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-28
TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D1-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

0.015-
Total Cadmium µg/L <0.03 <0.05 0.10 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 --
0.039H
Total Antimony mg/L <0.0002 0.005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Total Barium mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.02 -- --
Total Boron mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0.02 -- --
Total Calcium mg/L 18 18 13 32 11 15 -- --
Total Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- 0.0012
Total Cobalt mg/L 0.0003 <0.003 <0.0003 0.0032 <0.0003 <0.0003 -- --
0.0011- 0.002-
Total Copper mg/L 0.0012 <0.002 0.0009 0.00025 0.0037 0.0004
0.0028AH/0.007C 0.004H
Total Iron mg/L 1.1 0.87 0.55 6.5 0.32 0.66 -- 0.3
0.001-
Total Lead mg/L 0.0003 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 --
0.002H
Total Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Manganese mg/L 5.2 5.3 4.4 9.1 3.1 4.5 -- --
Total Lithium mg/L 0.094 0.058 0.043 3 0.021 0.045 -- --
Page 3A-43
TABLE 3A-28 Cont'd

Total
mg/L 0.0006 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.073
Molybdenum
0.025-
Total Nickel mg/L 0.0019 <0.005 0.0010 0.0021 0.0008 0.0013 --
0.065H
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Total Potassium mg/L <0.3 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.0 <0.3 -- --
Total Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.001
Total Silicon mg/L 3.7 5.3 4.1 9.0 0.6 2.9 -- --
Total Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- 0.0001
Total Sodium mg/L 4.5 4.7 5.7 8.5 3.6 5.1 -- --
Total Sulphur mg/L 0.7 0.8 0.6 1 1.0 0.7 -- --
Total Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Titanium mg/L 0.002 <0.01 <0.001 0.0015 <0.001 0.001 -- --
0.015C-
Total Uranium mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 0.0003 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 --
0.033A
Total Vanadium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.002 -- --
Total Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.03 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.005 -- 0.030
Total Mercury µg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.002 0.005C-0.013A 0.026
Total Methyl
ng/L 0.24 0.22 0.14 <0.03 0.17 0.08 1.0C-2.0A 4.0
mercury
Notes:
guideline
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-29
ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D1-1 DURING THE


Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 -- --
Phenolics mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 0.005C --
F2 (C10-C16)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Hydrocarbons
F3 (C16-C34)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
F4 (C34-C50)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
Page 3A-44
TABLE 3A-29 Cont'd

1-methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene
µg/L NA <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 --
equivalency
Acridine µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 4.4
2,3,5-
µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 0.011 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L NA <0.0085 0.013 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Chrysene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0075 0.016 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 -- --
Fluorene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 3
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0085 0.015 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Naphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 0.11 <0.10 <0.10 -- 1.1
Phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 0.4
Perylene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
Pyrene µg/L NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 3.4
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-45
TABLE 3A-30
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D1-1 DURING THE


Volatiles
Bromoform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Chloroform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.8
trans-1,3-
µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
dichloropropene
µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 10000
(MTBE)
Styrene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 72
Total xylenes µg/L NA NA <0.4 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
m & p-xylene µg/L NA NA <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
o-xylene µg/L NA NA <0.8 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- --
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 370
Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 2
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-46
3A.6.6 D2-1
Dissolved oxygen concentrations fell within the range for protection of aquatic life in all seasons, except
during the winter, where the value was well below guidelines at 1.76 mg/L. Conductivity, total suspended
solids, turbidity and biochemical oxygen demand were all higher in the winter than in any other season.
Furthermore, winter suspended solid concentrations and turbidity readings under ice were three orders of
magnitude higher than at any other time. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) was measurable only in the
winter (23 mg/L) where it was 10 times the detection limit. The high BOD concentration coincides with the
low dissolved oxygen levels. Waters with BOD levels higher than 20 are usually associated with municipal
sewage. There was little variability in total and dissolved organic carbon among seasons. Bicarbonate,
sulphides, hardness and alkalinity were highest in the winter sample, but all other ions remained relatively
steady over the baseline study. Nutrients, like most water quality parameters at D2-1 were noticeably
higher in the winter. Total ammonia was only detected in the winter, although it was below the CCME PAL
guideline. Total nitrogen in the winter sample was 17 times higher than the AENV PAL guideline. This
guideline was exceeded in all other months for nitrogen, but only by a fraction (≤0.5 mg/L). Total
phosphorus concentrations were below AENV PAL guidelines in all samples, except for in winter, at
which time it was 11 times higher (Table 3A-31). TP concentrations classify D2-1 as mesotrophic to
hypereutrophic (under ice in winter). Like nutrients and ions, the winter seasonal sample had more total
metals that exceeded CCME or AENV PAL guidelines (Table 3A-33). Total cadmium exceeded CCME
PAL guidelines in the fall and in the winter. Total chromium was detected only in July 2010, where it
exceeded PAL guidelines. Total aluminum and total zinc concentrations were only over guidelines in the
winter and not during any other time. Total copper concentrations exceeded guidelines in both the winter
sample and in the July of 2010 and 2011. Iron guidelines were exceeded in every sample, but the winter
sample was over 16 times higher than the next highest concentration. Total mercury was detected only in
July 2011, where it exceeded PAL guidelines. Phenolics were detected at D2-1 in the October 2010,
March 2011 and July 2011, but only the winter sample exceeded CCME guidelines (Table 3A-34). 2,6-
dimethylnaphthalene and toluene (Table 3A-35) were detected in the winter only, but were either below
CCME PAL guidelines (e.g. toluene) or no guideline exists (e.g. 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene).
TABLE 3A-31
ROUTINE PARAMETERS, IONS AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D2-1


Temperature °C 18.52 11.18 0.96 0.16 12.95 16.64 -- --
pH -- 5.74 4.20 5.74 5.16 6.32 5.44 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Routine Parameters
pH -- 6.90 6.98 6.83 6.61 7.02 7.19 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Dissolved Organic
mg/L 42 33 33 37 NA 45 -- --
Carbon
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 2 2 3 670 2 <1 -- --
Turbidity NTU NA 0.9 0.8 180 0.7 0.1 -- --
Biochemical Oxygen
mg/L <3 <2 <2 23 <2 <2 -- --
Demand
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 37 55 40 110 35 39 -- --
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Page 3A-47
TABLE 3A-31 Cont'd

Sulphide mg/L 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.029 0.010 0.013 -- --
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L 0.016 0.014 0.013 0.031 0.011 0.013 -- --
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L <1 2 1.0 1.4 1.1 0.5 -- --
Alkalinity (PP as
mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
CaCO3)
mg/L 30 45 40 89 29 32 -- --
CaCO3)
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L 0.006 0.017 0.018 0.006 0.018 <0.003 -- 13
Nitrite mg/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.006 0.017 0.018 0.006 0.018 <0.003 -- 13.06
0.01727-
Total Ammonia mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.3 <0.05 <0.05 --
189.97441
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.5 1.4 1.3 17 1.3 1.5 -- --
mg/L NA NA 1.5 3.5 1.5 NA -- --
Nitrogen
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.023 <0.1 0.010 0.083 0.010 NA -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
NR – not recorded
TABLE 3A-32
DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D2-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

Dissolved
µg/L <0.03 <0.05 <0.03 <0.03 <0.005 <0.005 -- --
Cadmium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.024 <0.01 0.021 0.030 0.015 0.020 -- --
Aluminum
Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.0005 <0.002 0.0003 0.0006 0.0003 0.0004 -- --
Dissolved Barium mg/L NA 0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Boron mg/L NA 0.03 <0.02 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Calcium mg/L 8.6 11 8.8 17 7.7 9.9 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Chromium
Dissolved Cobalt mg/L <0.0003 <0.003 <0.0003 0.0007 <0.0003 <0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.0003 <0.002 0.0066 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Page 3A-48
TABLE 3A-32 Cont'd

Dissolved
mg/L 2.9 4.3 <0.02 5.9 2.8 3.3 -- --
Magnesium
Dissolved
mg/L 0.040 0.022 0.019 0.62 0.009 0.018 -- --
Manganese
Dissolved
mg/L 0.0002 0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Molybdenum
Dissolved Nickel mg/L <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0006 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA <0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA -- --
Phosphorus
Dissolved
mg/L <0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 1.7 <0.3 -- --
Potassium
Dissolved Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Sodium mg/L 6.2 7.0 8.4 11 5.2 7.3 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L NA 0.07 0.05 NA NA NA -- --
Strontium
Dissolved Sulphur mg/L NA 1.4 0.9 NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Titanium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Uranium mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved
mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Vanadium
Dissolved Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.03 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.003 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-33
TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D2-1 DURING THE 2010-11

BASELINE STUDY

0.012-
Total Cadmium µg/L <0.03 <0.05 0.09 0.23 0.005 <0.005 --
0.023H
Total Antimony mg/L <0.0002 0.015 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Total Barium mg/L 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 <0.01 0.01 -- --
Total Boron mg/L <0.02 0.02 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 0.02 -- --
Total Calcium mg/L 9.0 13 8.5 29 8.0 9.7 -- --
Total Chromium mg/L 0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- 0.0012
Total Cobalt mg/L <0.0003 <0.003 <0.0003 0.0021 <0.0003 <0.0003 -- --
0.0009-
0.002-
Total Copper mg/L 0.0010 <0.002 0.0006 0.0024 0.0004 0.0002 0.0017AH-
0.004H
/0.007C
Page 3A-49
TABLE 3A-33 Cont'd

Total Iron mg/L 0.46 0.47 0.41 7.8 0.32 0.37 -- 0.3
0.001-
Total Lead mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 0.0017 <0.0002 <0.0002 --
0.002H
Total Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Manganese mg/L 2.9 4.2 3.1 7.6 2.6 3.3 -- --
Total Lithium mg/L 0.078 0.039 0.028 1.0 0.026 0.027 -- --
Total Molybdenum mg/L 0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.073
0.025-
Total Nickel mg/L 0.0016 <0.005 <0.0005 0.0037 <0.0005 0.0006 --
0.065H
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Total Potassium mg/L <0.3 0.8 0.3 0.8 1.5 <0.3 -- --
Total Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.002 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.001
Total Silicon mg/L 1.9 3.3 2.5 11 0.9 1.9 -- --
Total Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- 0.0001
Total Sodium mg/L 6.2 7.0 8.3 11 5.0 7.4 -- --
Total Sulphur mg/L 0.6 1.3 0.8 3.1 0.8 0.7 -- --
Total Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Titanium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 0.010 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
0.015C-
Total Uranium mg/L <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 --
0.033A
Total Vanadium mg/L <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 -- --
Total Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.03 0.004 0.046 0.007 <0.003 -- 0.030
0.005C-
Total Mercury µg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 <0.005 0.003 0.026
0.013A
Total Methyl
ng/L 0.22 0.38 0.22 <0.03 0.24 0.21 1.0C-2.0A 4.0
mercury
Notes:
guideline
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-50
TABLE 3A-34
ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D2-1 DURING THE


Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- --
Phenolics mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0.004 <0.002 0.003 0.005C --
F2 (C10-C16)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Hydrocarbons
F3 (C16-C34)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
F4 (C34-C50)
mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA -- --
Hydrocarbons
Benzo[a]pyrene
µg/L NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 --
equivalency
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Acridine µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 4.4
2,3,5-
µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Chrysene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Fluorene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 3
Naphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- 1.1
Perylene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
Pyrene µg/L NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 3.4
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-51
TABLE 3A-35
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT D2-1 DURING THE


Volatiles
Bromoform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Chloroform µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.8
trans-1,3-
µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
dichloropropene
µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 10000
(MTBE)
Styrene µg/L <4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 72
m & p-xylene µg/L <7 NA <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
o-xylene µg/L <4 NA <0.8 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- --
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 370
Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 1.0 <0.4 <0.4 -- 2
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-52
3A.6.7 A2-2
Site A2-2 was sampled only in the spring and summer of 2011. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were
high in both seasons, well above the minimum value required for the protection of aquatic life. There was
little variability in conductivity and pH between the spring and summer sample. However, total organic
carbon concentrations were higher in the summer and total dissolved solids and turbidity were higher in
the spring. Biochemical oxygen demand was not detected in either season. Major ion concentrations
were similar in the spring and summer samples, except for dissolved sulphate, which was much higher in
the summer than in the spring. Nitrate and nitrite, ammonia and total nitrogen concentrations were all
higher in the spring than in the summer at A2-2. Total nitrogen concentrations exceeded the AENV PAL
guideline in both spring and summer. Total phosphorus was not analyzed in the summer, but was over
the AENV PAL guideline in the spring, where the site would be considered eutrophic (Table 3A-36). Also
in the spring, total cadmium and total mercury exceeded freshwater PAL guidelines. Total aluminum, total
chromium and total iron exceeded guidelines in both seasons (Table 3A-38). Phenolics were the only
organic compound to be detected, and in the summer, it exceeded the AENV PAL guideline
(Table 3A-39). No volatile organic compounds were detected (Table 3A-40).
3A.6.8 Duncan Creek

Unlike all other baseline sampling locations, the Duncan Creek site is located outside of the RSA.
However, like A2-2, Duncan Creek was sampled only in the spring and summer of 2011. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations were high in both seasons, and were above the minimum required value for the
protection of aquatic life. Conductivity, total dissolved solids and turbidity were low and showed little
variability between the spring and summer sample. No biochemical oxygen demand was detected in
either season. Sulphides and sulphates, hardness and alkalinity were slightly higher in the summer than
in the spring. All other ions (e.g. carbonates) were very similar between seasons. Nitrate + nitrite was only
detected in the summer, but was well below CCME PAL guidelines. Like ions, the nutrient concentrations
at Duncan Creek were also low, although slightly higher in the summer than in the spring. Total nitrogen
concentrations exceeded the AENV PAL guideline in the summer, and were only 10% higher than the
guideline. Total phosphorus was only analyzed in the spring, where it was below the PAL guideline and is
classified as eutrophic (Table 3A-36). Total concentrations of cadmium, aluminum and iron exceeded
CCME PAL guidelines in both the spring and summer samples. Chromium exceeded the guideline in the
summer only (Table 3A-38). Phenolics were the only organic compound to be detected, and in the
summer, it exceeded the AENV PAL guideline (Table 3A-39). No volatile organic compounds were
detected in Duncan Creek (Table 3A-40).
TABLE 3A-36

AND DUNCAN CREEK DURING THE 2010-11 BASELINE STUDY
A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK

Parameter Units May 2011 July 2011 May 2011 July 2011 AENV PAL+ CCME PAL++
Temperature °C 5.64 10.62 6.73 13.98 -- --
Conductivity µS/cm 81.0 93.0 13.0 52.0 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen % 90.8 94.3 90.7 95.3 -- --
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 11.39 10.49 11.06 9.82 5.0A/6.5C 5.5/9.5
pH -- 6.58 6.18 5.86 6.16 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 84 NR 13 NR -- --
Routine Parameters
Conductivity µS/cm 110 100 53 59 -- --
pH -- 7.23 7.52 6.92 7.29 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L NA 43 NA 38 -- --
Total Organic Carbon mg/L 31 41 26 38 -- --
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 150 120 100 96 -- --
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 68 33 6 4 -- --
Page 3A-53
TABLE 3A-36 Cont'd

A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK
Turbidity NTU 50 25 4.1 2.5 -- --
Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 51 48 20 28 -- --
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dissolved Chloride mg/L 1 2 1 1 -- --
Sulphide mg/L 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.016 -- --
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L 0.012 0.011 0.003 0.017 -- --
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L <1 7.9 <1 2.0 -- --
Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L 48 52 25 35 -- --
Alkalinity (PP as CaCO3) mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Alkalinity (total as CaCO3) mg/L 41 39 16 23 -- --
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L 0.028 0.005 <0.003 0.003 -- 13
Nitrite mg/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.028 0.005 <0.003 0.003 -- 13.06
Dissolved Ammonia mg/L 0.14 NA 0.10 -- --
0.01727-
Total Ammonia mg/L 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 --
189.97441
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.1 1.1 0.79 1.1 -- --
Dissolved Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.70 NA 0.65 NA -- --
Total Nitrogen mg/L 1.128 1.105 0.790 1.103 1.0 --
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.031 NA 0.022 NA -- --
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.099 NA 0.036 NA 0.05 --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
NR – not recorded
TABLE 3A-37
DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-2 AND DUNCAN CREEK

A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK

Dissolved Cadmium µg/L 0.012 0.009 0.013 0.013 -- --
Dissolved Aluminum mg/L 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.23 -- --
Dissolved Antimony mg/L <0.0002 <0.0006 <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.0008 0.0010 0.0007 0.0012 -- --
Dissolved Barium mg/L NA NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Boron mg/L NA NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Calcium mg/L 12 13 6.6 9.4 -- --
Dissolved Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0008 0.0003 0.0003 <0.0003 -- --
Page 3A-54
TABLE 3A-37 Cont'd

A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK
Dissolved Cadmium µg/L 0.012 0.009 0.013 0.013 -- --
Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.0022 0.0025 0.0006 0.0005 -- --
Dissolved Iron mg/L 1.0 1.1 0.99 1.4 -- --
Dissolved Lead mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Magnesium mg/L 4.4 4.4 2.1 2.7 -- --
Dissolved Manganese mg/L 0.075 0.025 0.030 0.013 -- --
Dissolved Lithium mg/L NA NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Molybdenum mg/L 0.0003 <0.0002 0.0007 0.0003 -- --
Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.0035 0.0038 0.0016 0.0027 -- --
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L NA NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Potassium mg/L 1.1 0.8 0.9 <0.3 -- --
Dissolved Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Silicon mg/L NA NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- --
Dissolved Sodium mg/L 6.5 6.1 2.2 2.8 -- --
Dissolved Strontium mg/L NA NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Sulphur mg/L NA NA NA NA -- --
Dissolved Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- --
Dissolved Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.003 -- --
Dissolved Uranium mg/L 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 -- --
Dissolved Vanadium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Dissolved Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.003 0.003 0.004 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-38
TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-2 AND DUNCAN CREEK

A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK

Total Cadmium µg/L 0.030 0.014 0.019 0.022 -- 0.010-0.019H
Total Aluminum mg/L 0.60 0.31 0.26 0.25 -- 0.005/0.11
Total Antimony mg/L <0.0002 <0.0006 <0.0002 <0.0006 -- --
Total Arsenic mg/L 0.0015 0.0025 0.0009 0.0026 -- 0.005
Total Barium mg/L 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.03 -- --
Total Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Boron mg/L 0.03 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Calcium mg/L 13 13 6.7 9.1 -- --
Total Chromium mg/L 0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001 -- 0.0012
Total Cobalt mg/L 0.0015 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 -- --
0.0007-
Total Copper mg/L 0.0035 0.0033 0.0006 0.0009 0.002-0.004H
0.0014AH-0.007C
Total Iron mg/L 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.8 -- 0.3
Total Lead mg/L 0.0009 0.0004 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.001H
Total Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 -- --
Total Manganese mg/L 4.4 4.5 1.9 2.6 -- --
Total Lithium mg/L 0.16 0.043 0.045 0.057 -- --
Page 3A-55
TABLE 3A-38 Cont'd

A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK
Total Cadmium µg/L 0.030 0.014 0.019 0.022 -- 0.010-0.019H
Total Molybdenum mg/L 0.0004 <0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 -- 0.073
Total Nickel mg/L 0.0047 0.0047 0.0016 0.0030 -- 0.025H
Total Phosphorus mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
Total Potassium mg/L 1.1 0.8 0.7 <0.3 -- --
Total Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.001
Total Silicon mg/L 4.0 3.4 2.6 3.1 -- --
Total Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 -- 0.0001
Total Sodium mg/L 6.2 6.1 2.0 2.7 -- --
Total Strontium mg/L 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.06 -- --
Total Sulphur mg/L 3.4 3.0 1.5 1.1 -- --
Total Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 -- 0.0008
Total Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 -- --
Total Titanium mg/L 0.009 0.008 0.002 0.003 -- --
Total Uranium mg/L 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 -- 0.015C-0.033A
Total Vanadium mg/L 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.002 -- --
Total Zinc mg/L 0.014 0.004 0.008 0.004 -- 0.030
Total Mercury µg/L 0.008 0.003 <0.005 <0.002 0.005C-0.01A 0.026
Total Methyl mercury ng/L <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.08 1.0C-2.0A 4.0
Notes:
guideline
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-39
ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-2 AND

DUNCAN CREEK DURING THE 2010-11 BASELINE STUDY
A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK

Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- --
Phenolics mg/L <0.002 0.005 <0.002 0.005 0.005C --
F2 (C10-C16) Hydrocarbons mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- --
F3 (C16-C34) Hydrocarbons mg/L <0.1 NA <0.1 NA -- --
F4 (C34-C50) Hydrocarbons mg/L <0.1 NA <0.1 NA -- --
1-methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalency µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 --
Acenaphthene µg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- 5.8
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Acenaphthylene µg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- --
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Page 3A-56
TABLE 3A-39 Cont'd

A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK
Organics
Acridine µg/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 4.4
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Anthracene µg/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 -- 0.012
Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- 0.018
1-Methylphenanthrene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
9-Methylanthracene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Benzo(c)phenanthrene µg/L <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
2,3-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -- --
Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 -- 0.015
Benzo[e]pyrene µg/L <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
9,10-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 --
Chrysene µg/L <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 -- --
Fluoranthene µg/L <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 -- 0.04
Fluorene µg/L <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 3
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 -- --
Methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- --
Naphthalene µg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 -- 1.1
Phenanthrene µg/L <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- 0.4
Perylene µg/L <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 -- --
Pyrene µg/L <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 -- 0.025
Quinoline µg/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 -- 3.4
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
TABLE 3A-40
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT A2-2 AND

DUNCAN CREEK DURING THE 2010-11 BASELINE STUDY
A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK

Volatiles
Total Trihalomethanes µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
Bromodichloromethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromoform µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Bromomethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
Carbon tetrachloride µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 13.3
Chlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.3
Chlorodibromomethane µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 -- --
Chloroethane µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 -- --
Chloroform µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 1.8
Chloromethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
1,2-dibromoethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 0.7
Page 3A-57
TABLE 3A-40 Cont'd

A2-2 DUNCAN CREEK
Volatiles
1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 150
1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 26
1,1-dichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2-dichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 100
1,1-dichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Dichloromethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 -- 98.1
1,2-dichloropropane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
cis-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
trans-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl methacrylate µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 10000
Styrene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 72
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 -- --
Tetrachloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 -- 8
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 -- 24
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,1,2-trichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Trichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- 21
Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Vinyl chloride µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- --
Total xylenes µg/L <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
m & p-xylene µg/L <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 -- --
o-xylene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- --
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 370
Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 2
Ethylbenzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 -- 90
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 -- --
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-58
3A.7 Historical Data

Comparisons were made between the baseline data and historical data (Table 3A-41) for routine
parameters, major ions, nutrients, dissolved and total elements and organic compounds. The average
value for each water quality parameter sampled during the baseline study was compared to the range of
other historical locations to determine if the baseline means were within the range of the historical values.
This was done on a seasonal basis.
Dissolved oxygen and temperature of the baseline sites were comparable to historical values on the
Athabasca River. Conductivity and pH were historically lower than baseline samples and total dissolved
solids and turbidity values were higher in the baseline field data. Biochemical oxygen demand was also
lower in the baseline sites than in the historical data, with the exception of the winter sample, where it was
much higher.
Carbonate and hydroxide concentrations were comparable between the baseline and historical data.
Dissolved and total organic carbon, and dissolved sulphide were all higher in the baseline than in the
historical dataset; but dissolved chloride, hardness and dissolved sulphate were lower.
Nitrite and nitrate + nitrite were comparable between the baseline and historical data. Total ammonia,
dissolved and total kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen concentrations were all frequently higher in the
baseline field data than in the historical dataset. Nitrate and total and dissolved phosphorus were only
occasionally higher in the field data.
The vast majority of dissolved element concentrations in the baseline field data were either higher (12 of
31) or were comparable (11 of 31) to those in the historical dataset. the dissolved component of
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cobalt, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, nickel, silicon, sodium and tin
were higher in the baseline field data at least one seasonal event when compared to the historical
concentrations. There were also dissolved elements (7 of 31) that had lower concentrations in the
baseline data than in the historical dataset (barium, calcium, magnesium, strontium, sulphur, uranium and
zinc.). Dissolved molybdenum concentrations were higher in the field-collected baseline data than in the
historical data in the winter, but lower in the fall. However, some historical AENV sites had very low
sample numbers (e.g. n=1 or n=2) which decreases the strength of the comparison.
the majority (13 of 32) of total element concentrations were similar between the baseline sites and the
historical AENV data. 10 of 32 elements had higher concentrations in the baseline dataset than in the
historical dataset during at least one season (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, iron, lithium,
manganese, selenium, silicon and zinc). There were also dissolved elements (7 of 31) that had lower
concentrations in the field-collected baseline data than in the historical AENV data (barium, calcium,
magnesium, potassium, sodium, strontium and sulphur). Total boron and total titanium concentrations
were higher at baseline sites than the historical data in the winter, but were lower in the fall.
Concentrations of naphthenic acids and phenolics were higher in the baseline field data than in the LTRN
downstream site in the winter and fall, respectively. No other organic compounds had higher
concentrations in the baseline watercourses. All historical AENV detections for polycyclic aromatics were
at the downstream LTRN downstream location. Dichloromethane was also detected at the Athabasca
River sites that were not part of the LTRN dataset.
Page 3A-59
TABLE 3A-41
HISTORICAL DATA
OTHER AR SITES AND TRIBUTARIES1 LTRN UPSTREAM2 LTRN DOWNSTREAM3 BASELINE FIELD DATA4
PARAMETER units spring summer fall winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall winter
Routine parameters
9.44 9.24 11.01 9.67 10.35 8.97 12.28 9.73 11.27 9.21 12.91 12.36 9.77 8.48 10.18 7.28
Dissolved (4.30 - (2.50 - (8.22 - (2.20 - (8.47 - (7.60 - (9.70 - (7.72 - (7.97 - (8.29 - (9.50 - (10.41 - (5.58 - (5.87 - (2.18 – (1.76 -
mg/L
Oxygen 11.60) 16.00) 14.70) 14.44) 15.80) 10.76) 14.31) 13.54) 15.03) 10.87) 14.58) 15.07) 11.58) 10.49) 14.60) 13.23)
N = 24 N = 86 N = 45 N = 140 N = 59 N = 63 N = 63 N = 58 N = 36 N = 39 N = 28 N = 54 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
7.81 8.02 7.92 7.76 7.87 7.97 8.03 7.85 8.01 8.09 8.10 7.99 7.13 7.39 7.20 7.23
(6.68 - (6.62 - (7.10 - (7.07 - (6.82 - (6.89 - (7.40 - (7.32 - (7.46 - (7.07 - (7.76 - (7.43 - (6.88 - (6.90 - (6.83 - (6.61 -
pH --
8.40) 8.90) 8.50) 8.55) 8.32) 8.44) 8.37) 8.41) 8.40) 8.50) 8.40) 8.53) 7.26) 7.99) 7.80) 7.91)
227.3 215.5 258.6 434.7 268.4 231.4 356.0 424.6 288.9 242.0 359.6 454.7 94.3 136.6 173.3 512.5
(100.0 - (106.0 - (124.0 - (200.0 - (187.0 - (186.0 - (236.0 - (285.0 - (183.0 - (200.0 - (226.0 - (267.0 - (53.0 - (59.0 - (80.0 - (190.0 -
Conductivity µS/cm
579.0) 313.0) 454.0) 946.0) 499.0) 296.0) 485.0) 528.0) 522.0) 290.0) 560.0) 670.0) 140.0) 340.0) 400.0) 930.0)
12.95 17.04 7.07 -0.01 9.69 17.01 3.05 -0.05 8.46 18.57 3.45 -0.01 9.21 13.43 0.38 0.35
(0.00 - (9.50 - (0.00 - (-0.50 - (-0.29 - (8.18 - (-0.31 - (-0.40 - (-0.30 - (11.20 - (-0.23 - (-0.40 - (5.64 - (9.80 - (0.01 - (0.02 -
Temperature °C
18.99) 26.00) 13.00) 1.00) 18.82) 20.99) 13.82) 0.50) 19.50) 25.40) 10.90) 0.46) 13.08) 18.52) 0.96) 1.13)
Page 3A-60
116.1 119.3 129.4 247.6 156.4 133.6 209.9 253.0 171.0 139.8 206.6 269.6 125.3 146.5 226.7 362.5
Total
(52.6 - (54.2 - (75.9 - (107.0 - (100.0 - (107.0 - (134.0 - (160.0 - (110.0 - (114.0 - (125.0 - (189.0 - (92.0 - (72.0 - (170.0 - (180.0 -
Dissolved mg/L
176.5) 134.0) 168.0) 592.0) 281.0) 176.0) 302.0) 310.0) 317.0) 170.0) 330.0) 414.0) 160.0) 270.0) 380.0) 670.0)
Solids
51.7 86.1 79.5 67.8 89.8 88.0 14.9 8.4 26.6 205.8
8.7 5.6 6.2 2.9 12.0 4.2
(4.5 - (7.0 - (0.4 - (3.0 - (2.7 - (3.0 - (1.7 - (0.4 - (0.6 - (14.0 -
Turbidity NTU (0.5 - 23.0) (1.3 - 22.0) (1.2 - 55.0) (0.7 - 20.4) (0.1 - 47.0) (0.8 - 9.5)
250.0) 330.0) 346.0) 440.0) 856.0) 471.0) 188.0) 161.0) 120.0) 590.0)
N = 15 N = 90 N = 74 N = 70 N = 20 N=6
N = 10 N = 16 N = 65 N = 70 N = 42 N = 42 N = 36 N = 55 N=8 N=4
1.383 1.500 1.300 0.647 1.767 1.100 0.748 0.888 0.100 0.616 0.000 0.150 0.000 9.750
Biochemical
(1.100 - (1.500 - (1.300 - (0.000 - (1.300 - (0.800 - (0.000 - (0.300 - (0.100 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (3.000 -
Oxygen mg/L - -
1.800) 1.500) 1.300) 10.100) 2.500) 1.400) 3.900) 1.350) 0.100) 3.000) 0.000) 3.000) 0.000) 23.000)
Demand
N=6 N=1 N=1 N = 166 N=3 N=2 N = 52 N=4 N=1 N = 44 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
Major Ions
113.2 120.1 133.8 221.0 138.4 119.0 184.7 210.6 142.0 120.9 174.3 220.9 41.4 65.3 80.3 242.5
(35.8 - (42.1 - (55.2 - (104.0 - (95.3 - (0.0 - (127.0 - (144.0 - (94.6 - (0.0 - (118.0 - (165.0 - (20.0 - (28.0 - (40.0 - (110.0 -
Bicarbonate mg/L
189.0) 197.5) 194.0) 511.0) 237.0) 159.0) 271.0) 269.0) 247.0) 143.8) 270.0) 329.0) 54.0) 120.0) 150.0) 380.0)
42.2 30.3
Dissolved 13.5 13.7 11.4 12.9 7.6 5.8 5.9 6.3 9.7 7.9 8.0 7.5 26.3
(31.0 - (24.0 -
Organic mg/L (2.0 - 43.0) (2.0 - 30.3) (2.4 - 39.5) (5.0 - 77.4) (3.2 - 16.8) (1.3 - 25.1) (3.1 - 10.5) (3.7 - 11.4) (3.9 - 18.1) (1.0 - 18.5) (4.8 - 17.9) (5.3 - 11.9) - (7.0 - 37.0)
73.0) 48.0)
Carbon N = 39 N = 47 N = 43 N = 120 N = 65 N = 69 N = 74 N = 70 N = 42 N = 43 N = 36 N = 60 N=4
N = 20 N=6
33.5 42.0 31.3
14.4 14.0 14.4 12.8 8.6 6.2 6.2 6.6 11.8 8.9 8.0 7.5 34.3
Total Organic (26.0 - (30.0 - (23.0 -
mg/L (2.0 - 44.0) (2.0 - 32.0) (3.5 - 41.0) (5.6 - 75.0) (3.6 - 17.0) (1.4 - 19.0) (3.2 - 11.6) (4.7 - 11.4) (7.1 - 19.6) (3.2 - 21.1) (5.1 - 11.1) (5.7 - 9.0) (8.2 - 45.0)
Carbon 50.0) 67.0) 51.0)
N = 21 N = 33 N = 25 N = 43 N = 46 N = 49 N = 48 N = 51 N = 19 N = 21 N = 18 N = 28 N=4
N=8 N = 20 N=6
0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Carbonate mg/L (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 8.4) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 1.4) (0.0 - 2.5) (0.0 - 2.0) (0.0 - 4.6) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 2.4) (0.0 - 3.5) (0.0 - 10.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0)
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
Routine parameters
2.4 1.2 4.1 5.0 2.8 1.4 2.8 4.5 3.8 2.5 4.5 6.4 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.5
Dissolved
mg/L (0.0 - 19.0) (0.0 - 5.7) (0.0 - 38.0) (0.0 - 25.9) (0.8 - 11.3) (0.0 - 3.8) (0.0 - 5.9) (1.8 - 8.4) (0.0 - 8.8) (0.0 - 11.0) (1.4 - 8.0) (2.7 - 14.0) (1.0 - 2.0) (1.0 - 3.0) (2.0 - 4.0) (1.0 - 3.0)
Chloride
96.6 103.1 123.2 189.2 121.4 112.9 166.6 192.7 123.2 112.1 155.3 195.6 39.9 63.4 75.2 206.8
Hardness (as (31.0 - (42.0 - (47.0 - (87.0 - (85.0 - (88.3 - (115.0 - (120.0 - (80.0 - (91.0 - (106.0 - (140.0 - (25.0 - (33.7 - (35.0 - (67.0 -
mg/L
CaCO3) 226.4) 170.6) 203.2) 339.0) 230.0) 150.0) 240.0) 243.9) 220.0) 130.0) 230.0) 300.0) 63.0) 152.0) 180.0) 350.0)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hydroxide mg/L (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0) (0.0 - 0.0)
N=1 N=2 N=2 N=4 N = 40 N = 42 N = 42 N = 44 N = 30 N = 31 N = 28 N = 26 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
44.2 21.3 38.6 50.3 30.7 23.8 39.8 55.0 83.1
18.1 14.3 21.6 25.8 5.5 7.6 17.8
Dissolved (0.0 - (10.0 - (16.9 - (23.5 - (12.0 - (13.6 - (18.0 - (33.3 - (0.9 -
mg/L (0.0 - 53.0) (0.0 - 36.9) (0.0 - 46.8) (3.5 - 62.4) (0.0 - 32.0) (0.0 - 68.0) (0.5 - 79.0)
Sulphate 115.0) 35.2) 61.9) 71.1) 71.1) 43.0) 77.0) 93.5) 220.0)
N = 48 N = 103 N = 38 N = 65 N=8 N = 20 N=6
N = 129 N = 69 N = 70 N = 70 N = 42 N = 42 N = 36 N = 46 N=4
0.000 0.010 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.012 0.020 0.014 0.012
Dissolved (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.003 - (0.008 - (0.000 - (0.000 -
mg/L
Sulphide 0.002) 0.200) 0.000) 0.010) 0.003) 0.001) 0.003) 0.011) 0.000) 0.002) 0.040) 0.006) 0.022) 0.052) 0.044) 0.029)
Page 3A-61
N = 15 N = 21 N = 22 N = 64 N=9 N=9 N = 20 N = 33 N=6 N=3 N = 13 N = 28 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4

Nutrients
0.038 0.037 0.036 0.096 0.033 0.019 0.002 0.035 0.015 0.011 0.011 0.033 0.030 0.000 0.833
Dissolved (0.003 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.033 - (0.019 - (0.002 - (0.035 - (0.006 - (0.005 - (0.003 - (0.004 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.140 -
mg/L -
Ammonia 0.180) 1.400) 0.600) 1.070) 0.033) 0.019) 0.002) 0.035) 0.028) 0.021) 0.018) 0.063) 0.140) 0.000) 1.300)
N = 28 N = 93 N = 35 N = 62 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=3 N=4 N=2 N=5 N=8 N=6 N=4
0.035 0.031 0.022 0.110 0.030 0.017 0.019 0.056 0.024 0.025 0.024 0.045 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.838
Total (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.140 -
mg/L
Ammonia 0.100) 0.110) 0.120) 1.980) 0.370) 0.100) 0.180) 0.320) 0.110) 0.140) 0.100) 0.140) 0.070) 0.060) 0.000) 1.300)
0.151 0.309 0.227 0.290 0.310 0.330 0.367 0.415 0.930 1.272 2.595
Dissolved
(0.100 - (0.040 - (0.000 - (0.160 - (0.120 - (0.260 - (0.300 - (0.340 - (0.650 - (0.930 - (0.580 -
Total Kjeldahl mg/L - - - - -
0.620) 0.800) 0.480) 0.560) 0.570) 0.400) 0.440) 0.460) 1.600) 2.000) 3.500)
Nitrogen
N = 31 N = 25 N = 28 N = 27 N = 27 N=2 N=3 N=4 N=8 N=6 N=4
0.083 0.017 0.003 0.187 0.055 0.013 0.027 0.179 0.074 0.015 0.051 0.203 0.009 0.028 0.055 0.220
(0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.088 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.078 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.109 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.010 - (0.004 -
Nitrate mg/L
0.396) 0.071) 0.007) 0.350) 0.230) 0.060) 0.129) 0.264) 0.291) 0.074) 0.835) 0.315) 0.028) 0.120) 0.190) 0.780)
N = 17 N = 20 N=6 N = 14 N = 34 N = 34 N = 38 N = 32 N = 25 N = 28 N = 26 N = 28 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.004 0.003 0.002 0.011 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000
(0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 -
Nitrite mg/L
0.024) 0.023) 0.009) 0.518) 0.008) 0.004) 0.018) 0.014) 0.006) 0.006) 0.008) 0.014) 0.000) 0.020) 0.003) 0.000)
0.049 0.025 0.022 0.207 0.064 0.017 0.027 0.155 0.064 0.014 0.039 0.185 0.009 0.029 0.057 0.220
Nitrate + (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.006 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.066 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.010 - (0.004 -
mg/L
Nitrite 0.420) 0.660) 0.150) 0.723) 0.383) 0.086) 0.136) 0.274) 0.297) 0.080) 0.843) 0.327) 0.028) 0.120) 0.200) 0.780)
0.890 0.356 0.370 0.499 0.640 0.460 0.403 0.530 1.155 1.509 1.317 6.410
(0.202 - (0.025 - (0.220 - (0.146 - (0.530 - (0.300 - (0.330 - (0.400 - (0.790 - (1.103 - (0.977 - (1.340 -
Total Nitrogen mg/L - - - -
1.950) 0.840) 0.570) 0.750) 0.750) 0.600) 0.550) 0.770) 1.807) 2.760) 2.081) 17.006)
N=9 N = 12 N = 11 N = 15 N=2 N=4 N=3 N=3 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.893 0.597 0.508 0.654 0.570 0.355 0.314 0.361 0.601 0.500 0.397 0.398 1.146 1.480 1.260 6.190
Total Kjeldahl (0.240 - (0.080 - (0.120 - (0.040 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.110 - (0.050 - (0.220 - (0.150 - (0.130 - (0.180 - (0.790 - (1.100 - (0.960 - (0.560 -
mg/L
Nitrogen 2.600) 3.190) 1.650) 5.600) 1.900) 1.380) 1.040) 1.430) 1.790) 1.200) 1.900) 0.950) 1.800) 2.700) 2.000) 17.000)
0.025 0.008 0.014 0.016 0.010 0.004
Dissolved (0.004 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.003 - (0.004 -
mg/L - - - - - - - - - -
Orthophosphate 0.100) 0.037) 0.065) 0.047) 0.017) 0.004)
N = 28 N = 73 N = 25 N = 22 N=2 N=1
0.193 0.110 0.041 0.043 0.121 0.087 0.015 0.028 0.107 0.106 0.021 0.029 0.057 0.038 0.043 0.240
Total (0.022 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.009 - (0.007 - (0.006 - (0.005 - (0.006 - (0.019 - (0.011 - (0.005 - (0.000 - (0.022 - (0.027 - (0.018 - (0.110 -
mg/L
Phosphorus 2.500) 1.300) 0.230) 0.186) 0.682) 0.532) 0.037) 0.261) 0.380) 0.585) 0.090) 0.157) 0.120) 0.050) 0.068) 0.560)
0.019 0.012 0.012 0.021 0.016 0.007 0.006 0.020 0.025 0.014 0.007 0.018 0.024 0.073 0.022 0.067
Total
(0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.003 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.004 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.000 - (0.012 - (0.000 - (0.010 - (0.008 -
Dissolved mg/L
0.056) 0.104) 0.056) 0.115) 0.270) 0.089) 0.019) 0.133) 0.267) 0.199) 0.025) 0.113) 0.042) 0.200) 0.033) 0.130)
Phosphorus
Dissolved Elements
0.0252 0.0349 0.0097 0.0117 0.0500 0.0265 0.0102 0.0061 0.0761 0.0854 0.0445 0.0165
Page 3A-62
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0186 - (0.0000 - (0.0040 - (0.0000 - (0.0150 - (0.0000 - (0.0020 - (0.0010 -
mg/L - - - -
Aluminum 0.2100) 0.7000) 0.0400) 0.2330) 0.0977) 0.0949) 0.0149) 0.0200) 0.1600) 0.2300) 0.0890) 0.0320)
N = 31 N = 35 N = 31 N = 32 N = 11 N = 10 N=9 N = 11 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0005 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Antimony 0.0003) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0002) 0.0002) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0009) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0005 0.0021 0.0016 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0011 0.0011 0.0007
Dissolved (0.0002 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0003 - (0.0000 - (0.0003 - (0.0004 -
mg/L - - - -
Arsenic 0.0014) 0.0013) 0.0008) 0.0023) 0.0210) 0.0100) 0.0016) 0.0014) 0.0010) 0.0031) 0.0023) 0.0012)
N = 35 N = 38 N = 34 N = 33 N = 25 N = 29 N = 25 N = 25 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0631 0.0574 0.0619 0.0850 0.0527 0.0501 0.0559 0.0860 0.0200 0.0183
Dissolved (0.0396 - (0.0453 - (0.0467 - (0.0658 - (0.0384 - (0.0397 - (0.0487 - (0.0800 - (0.0100 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - -
Barium 0.0959) 0.1030) 0.0884) 0.1050) 0.0754) 0.0579) 0.0632) 0.1030) 0.0400) 0.0400)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 10 N=7 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L
Beryllium 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0003) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=2 N=6 N=4 N = 49 N = 13 N = 12 N = 13 N = 13 N = 15 N = 13 N = 14 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - -
Bismuth 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=8 N=8 N=8 N=8 N=7 N=6 N=8 N=7
0.0131 0.0070 0.0132 0.0149 0.0428 0.0536 0.0485 0.0384 0.0250 0.0133
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0200 - (0.0000 - (0.0100 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - -
Boron 0.0900) 0.0300) 0.0700) 0.0700) 0.0900) 0.1700) 0.1400) 0.1100) 0.0300) 0.0600)
N = 33 N = 36 N = 34 N = 34 N = 19 N = 23 N = 21 N = 25 N = 20 N=6
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Cadmium 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0002) 0.0060) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 13 N=8 N = 10 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
32.2875 29.7625 38.8375 48.4125 29.4000 30.2000 37.2125 46.9000 10.4000 16.9450 19.8000 54.5000
Dissolved (21.000 - (22.700 - (32.800 - (44.200 - (20.400 - (27.700 - (33.100 - (44.700 - (6.6000 - (8.6000 - (8.8000 - (17.000 -
mg/L - - - -
Calcium 47.8000) 41.8000) 50.5000) 54.7000) 43.5000) 38.9000) 40.7000) 48.2000) 17.0000) 43.0000) 49.0000) 92.0000)
N=8 N=8 N=8 N=8 N=7 N=6 N=8 N=7 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0009 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0003 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Chromium 0.0070) 0.0020) 0.0010) 0.0020) 0.0020) 0.0005) 0.0003) 0.0004) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 11 N = 10 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0007 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0027
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0003 -
mg/L - - - -
Cobalt 0.0005) 0.0020) 0.0023) 0.0008) 0.0040) 0.0003) 0.0020) 0.0000) 0.0008) 0.0008) 0.0007) 0.0068)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 13 N=8 N = 10 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0015 0.0011 0.0007 0.0045 0.0017 0.0019 0.0006 0.0007 0.0009 0.0012 0.0072 0.0002
Dissolved (0.0007 - (0.0000 - (0.0003 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0011 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0036 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Copper 0.0024) 0.0024) 0.0016) 0.0500) 0.0030) 0.0034) 0.0009) 0.0009) 0.0023) 0.0070) 0.0160) 0.0004)
Page 3A-63
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 13 N = 13 N=8 N = 10 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4

0.1108 0.0714 0.0649 0.0502 0.1374 0.1011 0.1073 0.0822 0.7363 1.4940 1.4500 3.4500
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.2000 - (0.3000 - (0.3500 - (0.0000 -
Dissolved Iron mg/L - - - -
0.5500) 1.5900) 0.2500) 0.2300) 0.4800) 0.5500) 0.2200) 0.1600) 1.2000) 4.4000) 2.9000) 6.6000)
N = 57 N = 59 N = 56 N = 53 N = 33 N = 32 N = 27 N = 28 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Lead 0.0016) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0007) 0.0050) 0.0004) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0002) 0.0002) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N = 14 N = 13 N = 13 N = 13 N = 15 N=9 N = 11 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0046 0.0028 0.0051 0.0064 0.0083 0.0056 0.0065 0.0080 0.0000 0.0837
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0050 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0190 -
mg/L - - - - - -
Lithium 0.0085) 0.0050) 0.0109) 0.0090) 0.0127) 0.0135) 0.0108) 0.0103) 0.0000) 0.2000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6
6.6172 7.5856 8.7813 14.4805 9.0455 8.3462 12.4950 14.4652 8.7210 7.9890 11.3496 14.2645 3.3500 5.1600 0.0050 16.6750
Dissolved (2.0000 - (3.0000 - (3.0000 - (7.0000 - (5.6000 - (5.6000 - (8.0000 - (8.3000 - (5.6000 - (5.8000 - (5.4000 - (10.0000 - (2.0000 - (2.7000 - (0.0000 - (5.9000 -
mg/L
Magnesium 14.8000) 11.5000) 12.3000) 29.0000) 17.7000) 11.6000) 18.3000) 18.0000) 16.9000) 11.0000) 17.0000) 22.9000) 4.9000) 11.0000) 0.0300) 29.0000)
0.0049 0.0025 0.0040 0.0032 0.0063 0.0024 0.0030 0.0028 0.0360 0.0637 5.9833 3.3025
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0130 - (3.2000 - (0.1900 -
mg/L - - - -
Manganese 0.0540) 0.0520) 0.0220) 0.0190) 0.0470) 0.0181) 0.0170) 0.0400) 0.0860) 0.2700) 13.0000) 9.5000)
N = 55 N = 58 N = 56 N = 55 N = 33 N = 33 N = 28 N = 30 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mercury 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=1 N=1 N=3 N=2
0.0006 0.0004 0.0008 0.0010 0.0008 0.0005 0.0007 0.0009 0.0003 0.0005 0.0000 0.0014
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0002 - (0.0008 - (0.0003 - (0.0003 - (0.0007 - (0.0008 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Molybdenum 0.0011) 0.0007) 0.0010) 0.0013) 0.0020) 0.0006) 0.0008) 0.0010) 0.0009) 0.0021) 0.0000) 0.0041)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 10 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0016 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0028 0.0017 0.0010 0.0005 0.0022 0.0023 0.0020 0.0019
Dissolved (0.0002 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0006 - (0.0002 - (0.0001 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Nickel 0.0052) 0.0034) 0.0099) 0.0051) 0.0090) 0.0050) 0.0050) 0.0012) 0.0049) 0.0069) 0.0052) 0.0033)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 13 N=8 N = 10 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
1.3940 0.9978 1.1693 2.0361 1.5511 0.8767 1.3479 2.0288 1.6889 0.8886 1.2643 2.0040 1.3125 0.5450 1.1833 2.3750
Dissolved (0.7000 - (0.5000 - (0.7000 - (1.1000 - (0.6000 - (0.4000 - (0.7000 - (1.0000 - (0.1000 - (0.0000 - (0.1000 - (0.1000 - (0.9000 - (0.0000 - (0.3000 - (0.7000 -
mg/L
Potassium 2.8900) 3.8000) 1.9100) 3.6000) 6.3000) 1.9000) 2.7000) 18.0000) 4.5000) 1.8000) 2.4000) 4.9000) 1.7000) 2.0000) 2.3000) 4.0000)
0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Selenium 0.0005) 0.0008) 0.0035) 0.0006) 0.0018) 0.0007) 0.0011) 0.0005) 0.0003) 0.0003) 0.0000) 0.0004)
N = 35 N = 38 N = 34 N = 33 N = 21 N = 23 N = 21 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
2.2625 2.0425 1.4100 2.7125 2.0200 1.2400 0.3800 2.7700 4.1333 4.0500
Dissolved (1.3400 - (1.3200 - (0.9100 - (2.6000 - (2.0200 - (1.2400 - (0.3800 - (2.7700 - (3.0000 - (2.5000 -
mg/L - - - - - -
Silicon 2.9000) 3.1700) 1.7800) 2.9500) 2.0200) 1.2400) 0.3800) 2.7700) 5.1000) 5.3000)
N=4 N=4 N=4 N=4 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1 N = 20 N=6
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Silver 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
Page 3A-64
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4

6.9692 4.6850 7.1900 19.5821 9.5620 5.4949 12.3827 17.5159 12.1203 7.0556 13.6777 19.6710 6.4000 8.5800 11.7000 25.5250
Dissolved (3.4000 - (2.0000 - (5.0000 - (6.0000 - (3.0000 - (2.7000 - (5.4700 - (11.0000 - (4.0000 - (3.5000 - (5.6000 - (11.7000 - (2.2000 - (2.8000 - (5.8000 - (9.1000 -
mg/L
Sodium 19.0000) 7.5000) 11.0000) 126.0000) 25.3000) 9.3000) 21.4000) 31.5000) 35.3000) 19.0000) 28.0000) 39.6000) 13.0000) 18.0000) 17.0000) 46.0000)
0.2247 0.2018 0.3027 0.4426 0.2050 0.2017 0.2737 0.3960 0.1017 0.1200
Dissolved (0.1110 - (0.1590 - (0.2370 - (0.3450 - (0.1280 - (0.1840 - (0.2230 - (0.3160 - (0.0700 - (0.0500 -
mg/L - - - - - -
Strontium 0.4260) 0.2370) 0.4770) 0.5490) 0.3620) 0.2370) 0.3010) 0.4420) 0.1400) 0.2700)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6
6.1000 6.6500 13.4500 22.3750 6.9000 11.1000 13.4000 26.1000 3.7500 6.1500
Dissolved (4.4000 - (5.4000 - (12.300 - (19.200 - (6.9000 - (11.100 - (13.400 - (26.100 - (1.0000 - (0.6000 -
mg/L - - - - - -
Sulphur 8.2000) 8.3000) 15.8000) 25.5000) 6.9000) 11.1000) 13.4000) 26.1000) 9.2000) 25.0000)
N=4 N=4 N=4 N=4 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1 N = 20 N=6
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Thallium 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - -
Thorium 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=9 N=8 N=8 N=8 N=7 N=6 N=8 N=7
0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0068
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Dissolved Tin mg/L - - - -
0.0020) 0.0020) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0140)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0024 0.0010 0.0009 0.0011 0.0044 0.0029 0.0007 0.0009 0.0026 0.0019 0.0008 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Titanium 0.0086) 0.0037) 0.0050) 0.0060) 0.0098) 0.0080) 0.0011) 0.0012) 0.0070) 0.0060) 0.0030) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0004 0.0002 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0003 0.0004 0.0006 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0007
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0004 - (0.0000 - (0.0003 - (0.0000 - (0.0004 - (0.0005 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Uranium 0.0007) 0.0004) 0.0006) 0.0009) 0.0006) 0.0004) 0.0005) 0.0008) 0.0003) 0.0012) 0.0005) 0.0015)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=7 N=9 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0008 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Vanadium 0.0060) 0.0010) 0.0002) 0.0003) 0.0006) 0.0007) 0.0002) 0.0003) 0.0000) 0.0010) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 13 N=8 N = 10 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0030 0.0037 0.0026 0.0036 0.0024 0.0012 0.0017 0.0036 0.0004 0.0017 0.0012 0.0015
(0.0007 - (0.0005 - (0.0011 - (0.0026 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0011 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Dissolved Zinc mg/L - - - -
0.0065) 0.0091) 0.0072) 0.0048) 0.0084) 0.0022) 0.0034) 0.0073) 0.0030) 0.0060) 0.0040) 0.0030)
N = 11 N = 12 N = 12 N = 11 N = 11 N=7 N = 10 N=8 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0014 0.0001 0.0005 0.0006 0.0000 0.0008 0.0014 0.0000
Dissolved (0.0004 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0008 - (0.0014 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - -
Zirconium 0.0036) 0.0002) 0.0007) 0.0010) 0.0000) 0.0008) 0.0014) 0.0000)
N=4 N=4 N=4 N=4 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1
Total Elements
0.9007 0.4162 0.1029 0.0345 1.1431 1.5043 0.0901 0.0505 2.0887 1.5967 0.2770 0.0720 0.2154 0.4274 0.0813 0.2396
Page 3A-65
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0090 - (0.0300 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0800 - (0.1110 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0290 - (0.0230 - (0.0130 - (0.0435 -
mg/L
Aluminum 9.0700) 4.2700) 0.3700) 0.2100) 7.4300) 8.4800) 0.8020) 0.7740) 11.4000) 11.6000) 1.2900) 0.3300) 0.6000) 2.4000) 0.1700) 0.4300)
0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0029 0.0000 0.0002
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
Antimony 0.0004) 0.0006) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0002) 0.0002) 0.0002) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0240) 0.0000) 0.0004)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N = 10 N=9 N = 13 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0044 0.0015 0.0009 0.0008 0.0014 0.0013 0.0005 0.0004 0.0019 0.0014 0.0006 0.0004 0.0010 0.0022 0.0015 0.0043
(0.0003 - (0.0003 - (0.0003 - (0.0002 - (0.0003 - (0.0000 - (0.0002 - (0.0000 - (0.0005 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0006 - (0.0000 - (0.0006 - (0.0020 -
Total Arsenic mg/L
0.0300) 0.0062) 0.0029) 0.0027) 0.0066) 0.0050) 0.0016) 0.0006) 0.0125) 0.0060) 0.0013) 0.0007) 0.0016) 0.0060) 0.0031) 0.0099)
0.0375 0.0517 0.0481 0.0807 0.1038 0.0938 0.0647 0.0939 0.0929 0.0967 0.0639 0.0845 0.0263 0.0385 0.0200 0.1050
(0.0300 - (0.0300 - (0.0030 - (0.0370 - (0.0600 - (0.0450 - (0.0070 - (0.0773 - (0.0550 - (0.0500 - (0.0500 - (0.0500 - (0.0000 - (0.0100 - (0.0100 - (0.0400 -
Total Barium mg/L
0.0500) 0.2140) 0.0660) 0.1450) 0.1940) 0.2350) 0.0929) 0.1160) 0.2480) 0.3120) 0.0800) 0.1220) 0.0600) 0.1100) 0.0400) 0.2500)
N=4 N = 16 N = 10 N = 62 N = 23 N = 21 N = 22 N = 27 N = 21 N = 21 N = 16 N = 28 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0002 0.0005 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L
Beryllium 0.0000) 0.0020) 0.0050) 0.0020) 0.0003) 0.0005) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0010) 0.0030) 0.0000) 0.0040) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N = 14 N = 19 N = 10 N=9 N = 15 N = 13 N = 15 N = 16 N = 23 N = 20 N = 17 N = 19 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Bismuth mg/L - - - - - - - -
0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=8 N=8 N=8 N=8 N=7 N=8 N=8 N=8
0.0550 0.0300 0.0200 0.0172 0.0176 0.0278 0.0252 0.0392 0.0307 0.0244 0.0447 0.0213 0.0250 0.0117 0.0750
(0.0200 - (0.0000 - (0.0100 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0147 - (0.0296 - (0.0167 - (0.0100 - (0.0100 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Boron mg/L -
0.0900) 0.0500) 0.0300) 0.0300) 0.0500) 0.1800) 0.0500) 0.0479) 0.0746) 0.0395) 0.1100) 0.0300) 0.0600) 0.0500) 0.1500)
N=4 N=6 N=2 N = 13 N = 14 N = 14 N = 13 N=9 N = 11 N=9 N = 14 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0006 0.0003 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0001 - (0.0000 -
mg/L
Cadmium 0.0030) 0.0020) 0.0000) 0.0050) 0.0001) 0.0002) 0.0002) 0.0018) 0.0020) 0.0020) 0.0004) 0.0070) 0.0001) 0.0006) 0.0001) 0.0002)
34.9500 38.1667 41.1091 54.4083 30.2250 35.9444 38.3444 50.9333 10.8625 18.1400 19.4167 64.2500
(21.400 - (28.400 - (34.800 - (45.400 - (20.900 - (28.400 - (34.300 - (46.600 - (6.7000 - (9.0000 - (8.5000 - (29.000 -
Total Calcium mg/L - - - -
47.9000) 76.3000) 51.9000) 66.5000) 44.2000) 74.6000) 42.1000) 63.4000) 18.0000) 43.0000) 46.0000) 110.000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 11 N = 12 N=8 N=9 N=9 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0068 0.0030 0.0034 0.0026 0.0041 0.0050 0.0014 0.0025 0.0048 0.0063 0.0014 0.0015 0.0001 0.0005 0.0000 0.0003
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L
Chromium 0.0240) 0.0140) 0.0180) 0.0150) 0.0120) 0.0183) 0.0100) 0.0120) 0.0170) 0.0320) 0.0060) 0.0060) 0.0010) 0.0020) 0.0000) 0.0010)
0.0024 0.0012 0.0010 0.0008 0.0012 0.0015 0.0003 0.0003 0.0030 0.0016 0.0004 0.0006 0.0005 0.0010 0.0004 0.0038
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0005 -
Total Cobalt mg/L
0.0140) 0.0080) 0.0040) 0.0040) 0.0039) 0.0075) 0.0024) 0.0065) 0.0300) 0.0121) 0.0030) 0.0130) 0.0015) 0.0050) 0.0010) 0.0093)
0.0065 0.0050 0.0010 0.0018 0.0036 0.0049 0.0015 0.0019 0.0059 0.0056 0.0016 0.0031 0.0019 0.0022 0.0012 0.0014
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0006 - (0.0003 -
Total Copper mg/L
0.0320) 0.0460) 0.0050) 0.0180) 0.0097) 0.0164) 0.0142) 0.0112) 0.0400) 0.0278) 0.0080) 0.0230) 0.0037) 0.0100) 0.0027) 0.0024)
Page 3A-66

0.9648 1.0843 1.0898 0.7463 2.5857 3.4245 0.2836 0.1380 3.7995 3.2839 0.7057 0.2622 1.2025 2.8315 1.7767 20.7500
(0.0900 - (0.0400 - (0.0900 - (0.0900 - (0.0400 - (0.1900 - (0.0000 - (0.0500 - (0.3400 - (0.2500 - (0.1400 - (0.1010 - (0.3200 - (0.3700 - (0.4100 - (1.7000 -
Total Iron mg/L
2.6500) 15.7000) 7.0700) 3.4910) 16.3000) 16.6000) 0.6690) 0.4400) 28.0000) 15.8000) 4.3500) 1.2100) 2.4000) 8.4000) 3.4000) 67.0000)
0.0085 0.0008 0.0005 0.0018 0.0024 0.0026 0.0007 0.0017 0.0045 0.0034 0.0006 0.0020 0.0003 0.0006 0.0001 0.0007
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Lead mg/L
0.0680) 0.0080) 0.0020) 0.0882) 0.0150) 0.0130) 0.0070) 0.0149) 0.0340) 0.0170) 0.0080) 0.0560) 0.0010) 0.0040) 0.0003) 0.0017)
0.0066 0.0051 0.0060 0.0070 0.0103 0.0102 0.0073 0.0089 0.0000 0.0000 0.0050 0.0250
(0.0033 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0040 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Lithium mg/L - - - -
0.0090) 0.0129) 0.0117) 0.0090) 0.0171) 0.0212) 0.0108) 0.0200) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0300) 0.0500)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=9 N = 11 N=9 N = 11 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
8.5200 9.6800 12.2000 17.4500 7.7500 9.3000 10.6000 17.6000 3.1625 5.1850 5.7500 17.4250
Total (7.0000 - (8.1000 - (10.900 - (16.600 - (7.5000 - (8.8000 - (10.600 - (17.600 - (1.8000 - (2.6000 - (3.1000 - (7.6000 -
mg/L - - - -
Magnesium 10.0000) 13.0000) 13.4000) 18.2000) 8.0000) 9.8000) 10.6000) 17.6000) 4.7000) 11.0000) 12.0000) 31.0000)
N=5 N=5 N=3 N=4 N=2 N=2 N=1 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.1421 0.1257 0.0431 0.3573 0.0688 0.1209 0.0113 0.0065 0.1329 0.1180 0.0232 0.0110 0.0663 0.1740 0.0937 4.0525
Total (0.0120 - (0.0300 - (0.0080 - (0.0000 - (0.0041 - (0.0120 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0160 - (0.0090 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0210 - (0.0270 - (0.0280 - (0.2100 -
mg/L
Manganese 0.4860) 0.3940) 0.1620) 6.4800) 0.2340) 0.4170) 0.0312) 0.0210) 0.7400) 0.5980) 0.1160) 0.1200) 0.1600) 0.6700) 0.2100) 12.0000)
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Mercury mg/L
0.0000) 0.0003) 0.0000) 0.0002) 0.0000) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0010) 0.0002) 0.0001) 0.0005) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
0.0061 0.0017 0.0019 0.0011 0.0006 0.0005 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0062 0.0011 0.0011 0.0002 0.0006 0.0003 0.0018
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L
Molybdenum 0.0330) 0.0120) 0.0100) 0.0050) 0.0011) 0.0011) 0.0077) 0.0040) 0.0100) 0.1000) 0.0060) 0.0070) 0.0009) 0.0050) 0.0018) 0.0059)
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0073 0.0051 0.0158 0.0058 0.0045 0.0054 0.0014 0.0026 0.0075 0.0068 0.0027 0.0037 0.0026 0.0043 0.0027 0.0035
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0021 -
Total Nickel mg/L
0.0280) 0.0200) 0.2010) 0.0290) 0.0134) 0.0226) 0.0112) 0.0180) 0.0340) 0.0330) 0.0163) 0.0350) 0.0062) 0.0160) 0.0068) 0.0054)
4.0667 1.1500 1.4333 1.9000 4.7000 0.0000 1.1000 2.7000 1.1250 0.6900 1.1833 2.3500
Total (2.0000 - (0.7000 - (1.0000 - (1.7000 - (4.7000 - (0.0000 - (1.1000 - (2.7000 - (0.7000 - (0.0000 - (0.3000 - (0.8000 -
mg/L - - - -
Potassium 6.8000) 1.8000) 1.8000) 2.1000) 4.7000) 0.0000) 1.1000) 2.7000) 1.5000) 2.0000) 2.2000) 3.7000)
N=3 N=4 N=3 N=4 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0003
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L
Selenium 0.0002) 0.0004) 0.0005) 0.0002) 0.0007) 0.0013) 0.0004) 0.0004) 0.0005) 0.0026) 0.0011) 0.0004) 0.0002) 0.0004) 0.0000) 0.0007)
4.4900 3.5475 1.4825 2.8500 4.8800 2.2000 0.8200 2.9300 2.0250 4.1650 4.0333 9.5250
(1.6300 - (2.2000 - (1.0000 - (2.6500 - (4.8800 - (2.2000 - (0.8200 - (2.9300 - (0.5000 - (1.9000 - (2.5000 - (8.1000 -
Total Silicon mg/L - - - -
7.4000) 6.4600) 1.9200) 2.9600) 4.8800) 2.2000) 0.8200) 2.9300) 4.0000) 7.5000) 5.3000) 11.0000)
N=4 N=4 N=4 N=4 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Silver mg/L -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0001) 0.0002) 0.0030) 0.0007) 0.0010) 0.0010) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
Page 3A-67
N=4 N=8 N=4 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 23 N = 13 N = 19 N = 17 N = 21 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4

8.9000 5.7000 12.6333 24.8000 12.6000 8.0500 13.3000 34.2000 6.0750 8.5000 11.3333 25.3750
(8.0000 - (2.7000 - (9.0000 - (22.2000 - (10.2000 - (6.6000 - (13.3000 - (34.2000 - (2.0000 - (2.7000 - (5.7000 - (8.5000 -
Total Sodium mg/L - - - -
10.5000) 9.0000) 16.2000) 27.2000) 15.0000) 9.5000) 13.3000) 34.2000) 12.0000) 17.0000) 16.0000) 48.0000)
N=4 N=5 N=3 N=4 N=2 N=2 N=1 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.2325 0.2218 0.3132 0.4658 0.2173 0.2149 0.2850 0.3944 0.0663 0.1140 0.1183 0.3563
Total (0.1410 - (0.1750 - (0.2180 - (0.2830 - (0.1300 - (0.1880 - (0.2350 - (0.3200 - (0.0400 - (0.0500 - (0.0500 - (0.1700 -
mg/L - - - -
Strontium 0.4280) 0.3030) 0.4960) 0.5890) 0.3790) 0.2700) 0.3140) 0.4910) 0.1000) 0.2300) 0.2600) 0.5800)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 13 N = 13 N = 12 N = 12 N = 10 N = 14 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
6.1333 6.8250 13.5500 22.7250 7.0000 12.0000 13.7000 27.6000 2.8875 4.0400 5.7833 26.2750
(4.6000 - (5.4000 - (12.6000 - (19.4000 - (7.0000 - (12.0000 - (13.7000 - (27.6000 - (0.8000 - (0.6000 - (0.6000 - (1.0000 -
Total Sulphur mg/L - - - -
7.9000) 8.9000) 15.9000) 26.2000) 7.0000) 12.0000) 13.7000) 27.6000) 8.1000) 21.0000) 23.0000) 68.0000)
N=3 N=4 N=4 N=4 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Thallium mg/L - - - -
0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0014) 0.0002) 0.0002) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N=9 N=9 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0006 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0009 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0001 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0001 - (0.0001 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Thorium mg/L - - - - - - - -
0.0015) 0.0014) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0023) 0.0026) 0.0001) 0.0000)
N=9 N=8 N=8 N=8 N=7 N=8 N=8 N=8
0.0002 0.0003 0.0007 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total Tin mg/L - - - -
0.0020) 0.0030) 0.0050) 0.0030) 0.0001) 0.0001) 0.0020) 0.0010) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 11 N=8 N=9 N=9 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0454 0.0477 0.0049 0.0028 0.0752 0.0618 0.0055 0.0017 0.0026 0.0080 0.0015 0.0079
(0.0010 - (0.0010 - (0.0000 - (0.0012 - (0.0111 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0015 -
Total Titanium mg/L - - - -
0.1260) 0.1510) 0.0173) 0.0090) 0.1240) 0.1940) 0.0271) 0.0030) 0.0090) 0.0500) 0.0040) 0.0160)
N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N = 12 N=8 N = 11 N = 11 N = 10 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0008
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0004 - (0.0005 - (0.0005 - (0.0004 - (0.0004 - (0.0006 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0001 -
Total Uranium mg/L - - - -
0.0009) 0.0008) 0.0009) 0.0009) 0.0012) 0.0013) 0.0007) 0.0009) 0.0005) 0.0010) 0.0007) 0.0018)
N = 14 N = 14 N = 15 N = 14 N=8 N=9 N=9 N=9 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0094 0.0049 0.0031 0.0015 0.0046 0.0054 0.0008 0.0003 0.0063 0.0049 0.0009 0.0013 0.0016 0.0025 0.0002 0.0018
Total (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0010 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L
Vanadium 0.0370) 0.0240) 0.0180) 0.0060) 0.0159) 0.0320) 0.0079) 0.0040) 0.0290) 0.0501) 0.0050) 0.0220) 0.0030) 0.0100) 0.0010) 0.0040)
0.0171 0.0117 0.0065 0.0068 0.0143 0.0178 0.0059 0.0056 0.0200 0.0172 0.0093 0.0106 0.0101 0.0050 0.0042 0.0168
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0020 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0016 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0040 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0030 -
Total Zinc mg/L
0.0960) 0.0720) 0.0280) 0.0300) 0.0660) 0.0521) 0.0240) 0.0150) 0.1200) 0.0839) 0.0650) 0.0710) 0.0160) 0.0400) 0.0070) 0.0460)
0.0022 0.0009 0.0028 0.0022 0.0014 0.0008 0.0026 0.0008
Total (0.0007 - (0.0000 - (0.0005 - (0.0010 - (0.0014 - (0.0008 - (0.0026 - (0.0008 -
mg/L - - - - - - - -
Zirconium 0.0048) 0.0024) 0.0062) 0.0042) 0.0014) 0.0008) 0.0026) 0.0008)
N=4 N=4 N=4 N=3 N=1 N=1 N=1 N=1
Organics
0.1010 0.0200 0.0320 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2750
Page 3A-68
Naphthenic (0.1010 - (0.0000 - (0.0320 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -

mg/L - - - - - - - - -
Acids 0.1010) 0.0400) 0.0320) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 1.1000)
N=1 N=2 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0050 0.0033 0.0040 0.0055 0.0009 0.0005 0.0007 0.0008 0.0024 0.0011 0.0002 0.0027 0.0003 0.0021 0.0010 0.0020
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Phenolics mg/L
0.0410) 0.0330) 0.0270) 0.0370) 0.0060) 0.0040) 0.0070) 0.0060) 0.0070) 0.0040) 0.0020) 0.0070) 0.0020) 0.0050) 0.0020) 0.0040)
N = 42 N = 59 N = 37 N = 118 N = 32 N = 36 N = 35 N = 37 N=9 N=9 N = 10 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000
F2 (C10-C16) (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - - -
Hydrocarbons 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.3000) 0.0000)
N=1 N=1 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
130.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0667 0.0000
F3 (C16-C34) (130.00 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - - -
Hydrocarbons 130.000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.3000) 0.0000)
N=1 N=1 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1-
(0.0050 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
methylnaphthal mg/L - - - - - - - - - - -
0.0050) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ene
N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Acenaphthene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0060) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Acenaphthylene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Anthracene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(a)anthr (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - -
acene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(a)pyren (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - -
e 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(c)phen (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - -
anthrene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0004) 0.0006) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=1 N=5 N=6 N = 10 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo[e]pyren (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - -
e 0.0000) 0.0027) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
Page 3A-69
N=1 N=5 N=6 N = 10 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0025 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(g,h,i)pe (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - -
rylene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0100) 0.0031) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(k)fluora (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - -
nthene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=3 N=1 N=5 N = 22 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Chrysene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0080) 0.0076) 0.0002) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dibenz(a,h)ant (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - -
hracene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0038 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Fluoranthene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0150) 0.0046) 0.0001) 0.0045) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Fluorene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0001) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0025 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Indeno(1,2,3- (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - -
cd)pyrene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0100) 0.0033) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0030 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Perylene mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0060) 0.0060) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=3 N=6 N=5 N=4 N=2 N=3 N=7 N = 15 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0013 0.0047 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Phenanthrene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0050) 0.0130) 0.0001) 0.0050) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Pyrene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0080) 0.0036) 0.0000) 0.0010) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=4 N=6 N = 11 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
Volatiles
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,1,1,2-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
tetrachloroeth mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ane
N=4 N=6 N=2 N=4 N = 15 N=1 N=4 N = 15 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,1,1-
Page 3A-70
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
trichloroethan mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
e
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,1,2,2-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
tetrachloroeth mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ane
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,1,2-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
trichloroethan mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
e
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,1- (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
dichloroethane 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,1- (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
dichloroethene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,2,3-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
trichlorobenze mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=6 N=2 N=4 N = 15 N=1 N=4 N = 15 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,2,4-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
trichlorobenze mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=6 N = 17 N=3 N=1 N=7 N = 23 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,2,4-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.1000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
trimethylbenze mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.1000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=6 N=2 N=4 N = 15 N=1 N=4 N = 15 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,2-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
dibromoethan mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
e
N=4 N=6 N=2 N=4 N = 15 N=1 N=4 N = 15 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,2-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
dichlorobenze mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,2- (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
dichloroethane 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,2-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
dichloropropa mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
Page 3A-71
ne
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,3,5-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
trimethylbenze mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=6 N=2 N=4 N = 15 N=1 N=4 N = 15 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,3-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1,4-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Benzene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=2 N=2 N=5 N = 21 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Bromodichloro (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
methane 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Bromoform mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Bromomethan (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
e 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Carbon (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
tetrachloride 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Chlorobenzen (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
e 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Chlorodibromo (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
methane 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Chloroethane mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0093 0.0000 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Chloroform mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.1400) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0400) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
Page 3A-72
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Chloromethan (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - -
e 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=2 N=1 N=2 N=3 N=2 N=4 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
cis-1,2- (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
dichloroethene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=6 N=2 N=4 N = 15 N=1 N=4 N = 15 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
cis-1,3-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
dichloroprope mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dichlorodifluor (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - - - - -
omethane 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=2 N=1 N=2 N=2 N=1
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Ethylbenzene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=2 N=2 N=5 N = 21 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
F1 (C6-C10) (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - - - - - - -
BTEX 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=1 N=2 N=1 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
m & p-xylene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.1000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=2 N=2 N=5 N = 21 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0000 1.6667 0.0000 0.0000 0.0107 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dichlorometha (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
ne 0.0000) 12.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.1600) 0.0000) 0.0000) 8.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Methyl-tert-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
butylether mg/L - - - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
(MTBE))
N=1 N=2 N=1 N = 12 N=1 N = 10 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
o-xylene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=2 N=2 N=5 N = 21 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Styrene mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Tetrachloroeth (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
ene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
Page 3A-73
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0066 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Toluene mg/L - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.1000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0980) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 1.4000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=2 N=2 N=5 N = 21 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
trans-1,2- (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
dichloroethene 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
trans-1,3-
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
dichloroprope mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
ne
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 14 N=1 N=5 N = 18 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Trichloroethen (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
e 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=4 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0213 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Trichlorofluoro (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
mg/L - - - -
methane 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.3200) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0175 0.0043 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Trihalomethan mg/L - - - - - - - - - -
0.1400) 0.0300) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
es
N=8 N=7 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Vinyl chloride mg/L - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=4 N=9 N=2 N=5 N = 15 N=1 N=5 N = 20 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
TABLE 3A-41 Cont'd
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
(0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 - (0.0000 -
Total xylenes mg/L - - - - - - - - - -
0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000) 0.0000)
N=8 N=7 N=8 N = 20 N=6 N=4
Notes:
1 – Historical Alberta Environment data for sites on the Athabasca River (that are not LTRN sites) and its tributaries
2 – Long Term River Network (LTRN) site upstream of the Project at the Town of Athabasca (AEW station AB07BE0010)
3 – Long Term River Network (LTRN) site downstream of the Project, south of Ft. McMurray at the confluence of the Horse River (AEW station AB07CC0030)
4 – Field-collected data from the 2010-2011 baseline program
Page 3A-74
3A.8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

3A.8.1 Trip Blanks
Trip blanks were prepared by the laboratory (Maxxam Analytics Inc.) in Edmonton, Alberta for every
sampling event. The trip blanks are a quality control measure that checks for contamination from bottles,
caps, and preservatives. Trip blanks were analyzed for routine parameters, major ions and nutrients
(Table 3A-42), dissolved elements (Table 3A-43), total elements (Table 3A-44), organic (Table 3A-45)
and volatile (Table 3A-46) compounds.
Parameters which had trip blanks exceed detection limits less than 20% of the time include: dissolved
organic carbon; total suspended solids; bicarbonate; alkalinity; nitrate; nitrate+nitrite; calcium; iron;
lithium; molybdenum; nickel; vanadium; zinc; mercury; and methyl tert-butylether.
Parameters which had trip blanks exceed detection limits between 20-49% of the time include: total
organic carbon; cadmium; aluminum; arsenic; phenolics; and F3 hydrocarbons.
Parameters which had trip blanks exceed detection limits over 50% of the time were total dissolved and
total phosphorus, antimony and copper.
TABLE 3A-42
TRIP BLANKS AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR ROUTINE, MAJOR IONS AND NUTRIENTS FOR THE
FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM
% above
July August October March May July Detection Detection
Parameter Units 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 Limit Limit
Routine Parameters
Conductivity µS/cm <1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 0
pH -- 6.06 5.63 5.87 5.58 5.37 5.21 -- --
Dissolved Organic
mg/L 1.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA <0.5 0.5 16.67
Carbon
Total Organic Carbon mg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 33.33
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 0
Total Suspended Solids mg/L <1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 16.67
Turbidity NTU NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0
Biochemical Oxygen
mg/L <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2/3* 0
Demand
Major Ions
Bicarbonate mg/L 1.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 16.67
Carbonate mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Hydroxide mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Dissolved Chloride mg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 0
Sulphide mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0
Hydrogen Sulphide mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0
Dissolved Sulphate mg/L <1 <1 <0.5 <1 <1 <1 0.5/1* 0
Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Alkalinity (PP as CaCO3) mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
mg/L 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 16.67
CaCO3)
Nutrients
Nitrate mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 16.67
Nitrite mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L <0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.003 16.67
Dissolved Ammonia mg/L NA NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 NA 0.05 0
Total Ammonia mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 0
Page 3A-75
TABLE 3A-42 Cont'd

% above
mg/L NA NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 NA 0.05 0
Nitrogen
Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.005 0.1 0.004 <0.003 <0.003 NA 0.003 60
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.006 NA 0.004 <0.003 <0.003 NA 0.003 50
Notes:
italics – indicates value exceeds detection limit
NA – not analyzed
* - detection limit varied between sampling events
TABLE 3A-43
TRIP BLANKS AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR DISSOLVED ELEMENTS FOR THE FIELD SAMPLING
PROGRAM
July August October March May July Detection % above
Parameter Units 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 Limit Detection Limit
Cadmium µg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 0
Aluminum mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Antimony mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0006 0.0002 0
Arsenic mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Barium mg/L NA <0.01 <0.01 NA NA NA 0.01 0
Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Boron mg/L NA <0.02 <0.02 NA NA NA 0.02 0
Calcium mg/L <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.3 0
Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Cobalt mg/L <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0003 0
Copper mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Iron mg/L <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.06 0
Lead mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Magnesium mg/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.02 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2/0.002* 0
Manganese mg/L <0.004 <0.004 <0.2 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.004/0.2* 0
Lithium mg/L NA <0.02 <0.004 NA NA NA 0.004/0.02* 0
Molybdenum mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Nickel mg/L <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0005 0
Phosphorus mg/L NA 0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA 0.1 50
Potassium mg/L <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.3 0
Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Silicon mg/L NA <0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA 0.1 0
Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 0
Sodium mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Strontium mg/L NA <0.02 <0.02 NA NA NA 0.02 0
Sulphur mg/L NA <0.2 <0.2 NA NA NA 0.2 0
Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Titanium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Uranium mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 0
Vanadium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Zinc mg/L <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.003 0
Notes:
-- no detection limit
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-76
TABLE 3A-44
TRIP BLANKS AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR TOTAL ELEMENTS FOR THE FIELD SAMPLING
PROGRAM
% above
Cadmium µg/L <0.005 0.012 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 33.33
Aluminum mg/L <0.001 0.023 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.001 33.33
Antimony mg/L <0.0002 0.0014 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0011 0.0002 50
Arsenic mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 33.33
Barium mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0
Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Boron mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0
Calcium mg/L <0.3 0.7 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.3 16.67
Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Cobalt mg/L <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0003 0
Copper mg/L <0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 50
Iron mg/L <0.06 0.15 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.06 16.67
Lead mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Magnesium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0
Manganese mg/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 0
Lithium mg/L <0.004 0.005 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.004 16.67
Molybdenum mg/L <0.0002 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 16.67
Nickel mg/L <0.0005 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0005 16.67
Phosphorus mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0
Potassium mg/L <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.3 0
Selenium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Silicon mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0
Silver mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 0
Sodium mg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Strontium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 0
Sulphur mg/L <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 0
Thallium mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0
Tin mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Titanium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0
Uranium mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 0
Vanadium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001 16.67
Zinc mg/L <0.003 0.004 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.003 16.67
Mercury µg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.003 0.005 16.67
Methyl mercury ng/L NA <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 NA NA 0.03 0
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-77
TABLE 3A-45
TRIP BLANKS AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR ORGANICS AND HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS
FOR THE FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM
% above
Organics
Naphthenic Acids mg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NA <1.0 <1.0 1 0
Phenolics mg/L <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 0.002 33.33
F2 (C10-C16) Hydrocarbons mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0
F3 (C16-C34) Hydrocarbons mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 NA 0.1 20
F4 (C34-C50) Hydrocarbons mg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA 0.1 0
1-methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Benzo[a]pyrene equivalency µg/L NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0
Acenaphthene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.10 0
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Acenaphthylene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.1 0
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Acridine µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.2 0
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Anthracene µg/L NA <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.01 0
Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 0.0085 0
1-Methylphenanthrene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 0.0085 0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 0.0085 0
9-Methylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 0.085 0
Benzo(c)phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.05 0
2,3-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 0.0075 0
Benzo[e]pyrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.05 0
9,10-Dimethylanthracene µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 0.01/0.05* 0
Chrysene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 0.0085 0
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L NA <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.0075 0.0075 0
Fluoranthene µg/L NA <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 0.04 0
Fluorene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.05 0
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L NA <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.0085 0.0085 0
Methylnaphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.1 0
Naphthalene µg/L NA <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.1 0
Phenanthrene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.05 0
Perylene µg/L NA <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.05 0
Pyrene µg/L NA <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.02 0
Quinoline µg/L NA <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.2 0
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-78
TABLE 3A-46
TRIP BLANKS AND DETECTION LIMITS FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOR THE FIELD
SAMPLING PROGRAM
% above
Volatiles
Total Trihalomethanes µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 0
Bromodichloromethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Bromoform µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Bromomethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 0
Carbon tetrachloride µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Chlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Chlorodibromomethane µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 0
Chloroethane µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 0
Chloroform µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Chloromethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 0
1,2-dibromoethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,1-dichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,2-dichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,1-dichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Dichloromethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 0
1,2-dichloropropane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
cis-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
trans-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Methyl methacrylate µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE) µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.9 0.5 16.67
Styrene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 0
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 2 0
Tetrachloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 0
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 0
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,1,2-trichloroethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Trichloroethene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Vinyl chloride µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0
Total xylenes µg/L <0.8 <0.8 <0.4 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 0.4/0.8* 0
m & p-xylene µg/L <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 0.8 0
o-xylene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.8 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.4/0.8* 0
Benzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.4 0
Toluene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.4 0
Ethylbenzene µg/L <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.4 0
F1 (C6-C10) BTEX µg/L <100 N/A <100 <100 <100 <100 100 0
(C6-C10) µg/L <100 N/A <100 <100 <100 <100 100 0
Notes:
NA – not analyzed
Page 3A-79
3A.8.2 Total and Dissolved Elements

When dissolved element concentrations exceed total element concentrations, the results are considered
outside of the laboratory’s (Maxxam Analytics Inc.) measurement of uncertainty and therefore considered
a true dissolved>total result when:
a) the results of both dissolved and total are greater than 5 times the detection limit and the relative
percent difference (RPD) is ≤20%; OR
b) the results of both dissolved and total are less than 5 times the detection limit and the relative
percent difference (RPD) is ≥100%.
Relative percent difference (RPD) between total and dissolved elements was calculated using the
following formula:
RPD = 100* Absolute Value (X1-X2) / ((X1+X2)/2)
where X1 and X2 are the two measurements being compared
For the baseline study, there were several cases of dissolved element concentrations truly exceeding
total element concentrations by fulfilling either condition a) or b) above (Table 3A-47). These elements
were:
• Copper in October 2010 at all sampling locations;
• Lithium in October 2010 at A1-1; and
• Uranium in March 2011 at D1-1.

TABLE 3A-47
CASES FROM BASELINE STUDY WHERE DISSOLVED ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS TRULY

EXCEED TOTAL ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Total concentration Dissolved concentration

Date Location Detection Limit (mg/L) (mg/L) RPD
26-Oct 2010 A1-1 0.0019 0.0036 61.82
26-Oct 2010 A2-1 0.0027 0.006 75.86
26-Oct 2010 B4-1 0.0007 0.016 183.23
Copper 0.0002
26-Oct 2010 C1-1 0.0006 0.0056 161.29
27-Oct 2010 D1-1 0.0009 0.0053 141.94
27-Oct 2010 D2-1 0.0006 0.0066 166.67
Lithium 26-Oct-2010 A1-1 0.004 0.03 0.20 147.82
Uranium 16-Mar 2010 D1-1 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 100
Dissolved element concentrations that truly exceed total element concentrations, can be a result of:
• discrepancy between dissolved and total element samples (i.e. collected at different
times);
• mislabelling in field or laboratory;
• improper acidification (HNO3);
• metal stability (i.e. oxidization);
• hysical Change;
• interference; or
• contamination
Page 3A-80
3A.9 Summary and Conclusions

Overall, watercourses in the LSA can be classified as eutrophic to hypereutrophic. Therefore, the waters
have high concentrations of nutrients and are considered very productive. the overall trend for routine
parameters, major ions, nutrients and total elements is that concentrations are usually highest in the
winter, under ice. This is especially true at site D2-1, where concentrations of nutrients and biochemical
oxygen demand were at least 10 times higher than guidelines. These results indicate that winter activities
should be monitored closely at D2-1. Dissolved oxygen concentrations fell below the concentration that
ensures the protection of aquatic life in the fall or winter at C1-1, D1-1 and D2-1. All three sites are fish-
bearing, therefore, aquatic life may be at risk during the winter months and that winterkills may occur.
Nutrient concentrations, especially total nitrogen and total phosphorus, frequently exceeded the AENV
guideline for the protection of aquatic life. Element concentrations were also usually higher in the winter.
Total aluminum concentrations exceeded CCME PAL guidelines at every LSA site. Other elements that
consistently exceeded guidelines were total lead, cadmium, arsenic, copper, iron, mercury, chromium,
and zinc. Most of the guideline exceedances occurred in winter. Guideline exceedances for routine
parameters, major ions, nutrients and elements occurred on several occasions during the baseline study.
Site D1-1 had the highest number of organic compound detection over the baseline program. Phenolics,
extractable hydrocarbons, 1 methylnaphthalene, benzo[a]pyrene equivalency, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) and pyrene were all detected at that site. C1-1 and D2-1 were
the only sites to have detections of volatile hydrocarbons. Toluene was detected at both sites and 2,6-
dimethylnaphthalene were detected at D2-1. Phenolics were detected at 7 of 8 sites (with the exception of
B4-1) and exceeded CCME PAL guidelines at six of them. Therefore, there have been detections for
several organic compounds in watercourses within the LSA during the baseline assessment, prior to the
commencement of the Project.
Most of the values for surface water quality parameters in the baseline field program were comparable to
historical values. However, some parameters (e.g. nitrogen, dissolved and total metals) were higher in the
LSA. The comparison shows that watercourses in the LSA are similar to others in the area, or have
slightly higher concentrations of nutrients and elements.
Page 3A-81
3A.10 References
Alberta Environment. 1999. Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta. Environmental
Assurance Division. Science and Standards Branch. Edmonton, Alberta.
Bond, R.G. and Straub, C.P. 1973. Handbook of environmental control. Vol. 3. Chemical Rubber Co.,
Cleveland, OH.
Buikema, A.L., McGinniss, M.J., Cairns, J. 1979. Phenolics in aquatic ecosystems: A selected review of
recent literature. Marine Environmental Research 2(2): 87-181.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2004. Canadian water quality guidelines for the
protection of aquatic life: Phosphorus: Canadian Guidance Framework for the Management of
Freshwater Systems. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 2004, Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the
Protection of Aquatic Life: Dissolved Oxygen (Freshwater).
EPA Factsheet 5.10 Total Alkalinity. [Accessed from http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms510.cfm

on November 8, 2011].
EPA Factsheet 5.2 Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand. [Accessed from
http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms52.cfm on November 7, 2011].
EPA Factsheet 5.5 Turbidity. [Accessed from http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm on

November 8, 2011].
EPA Factsheet 5.8 Total Solids. [Accessed from http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms58.cfm on

November 7, 2011].
Headley, J.V., McMartin, D.W. 2010. A review of the occurrence and fate of naphthenic acids in aquatic
environments. 2004. Journal of environmental science and health. Part A Toxic hazardous
substances environmental engineering: 39 (8): 1989-2010.
Health Canada. 1992. Environmental and Workplace Health: Sulphide as H2S. [Accessed from
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/sulphide-sulfure/index-eng.php on Nov 8,
2011].
Mason,R.P. 2002. An investigation of the influence of water quality on the mercury, methylmercury,
arsenic, selenium and cadmium concentrations in fish of representative Maryland streams,
Maryland Department Natural Resource, Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs, Annapolis
(USA), Report CBWP-MANTA-AD-02-1.
McNeely, R.N., V.P. Neimanis and L. Dwyer. 1979. Water Quality Sourcebook – A Guide to Water Quality
Parameters. Inland Waters Directorate, Water Quality Branch, Minister of Supply and Services
Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Nagpal, N.K., D.A. Levy, and D.D. MacDonald. 2003. Water Quality – Ambient Water Quality Guidelines
for Chloride (Overview Report). [Accessed from
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/chloride/chloride.html on Nov 8, 2011].
Payment, P., Waite, M. & Dufour, A. 2003 Introducing parameters for the assessment of drinking water
quality. In Assessing Microbial Safety of Drinking Water Improving Methods and Approaches.
OECD, Paris, pp. 47–78.
Prepas, E.E. 2005. Atlas of Alberta Lakes – Characteristics of Lakes. [Accessed from
http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/Projects/Alberta-Lakes/characteristics3.php on November 7, 2011.]
Saha, N.C., Bhunia, F., Kaviraj, 1999. A. Toxicity of Phenol to Fish and Aquatic Ecosystem. Bulletin of.
Environmental. Contamination and Toxicology. 63: 195-202.
Page 3A-82
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). 2000. Lakes and Watercourses. Environmental
Quality Criteria. Report 5050. Stockholm, Sweden.
US Geological Survey. 2002-2003. Fate and Transport of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Ground
Water at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee and Kentucky.
[Accessed from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5104/PDF/SIR20055104.pdf on December 1,
2011].
Page 3A-83
ATTACHMENT 3A1
PHOTOPLATES
Page 3A-84
Plate 3A1-1 A1-1 surface water quality sampling site (20 July 2010).
Page 3A-85
Plate 3A1-3 A2-1 surface water quality sampling site (20 July 2010)
Page 3A-86
Plate 3A1-5 B4-1 surface water quality sampling site (21 July 2010).
Plate 3A1-6 B4-1 surface water quality sampling site (13 July 2011).
Page 3A-87
Plate 3A-7 C1-1 surface water quality sampling site (21 July 2010)
Plate 3A1-8 C1-1 surface water quality sampling site (14 July 2011).
Page 3A-88
Plate 3A1-9 D1-1 surface water quality sampling site (22 July 2010).
Page 3A-89
Page 3A-90
Plate 3A1-13 A2-2 surface water quality sampling site, upstream of crossing (16 May 2011).
Page 3A-91
Plate 3A1-14 A2-2 surface water quality sampling site, upstream of crossing (13 July 2011).
Plate 3A1-15 Duncan Creek surface water quality sampling site, upstream of bridge (16 May 2011).
Page 3A-92
Plate 3A1-16 Duncan Creek surface water quality sampling site, upstream of bridge (13 July 2011).
Page 3A-93
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Aquatic Ecology Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4A.0 AQUATIC ECOLOGY BASELINE REPORT...............................................................................4A-3
4A.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................4A-3
4A.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................4A-3
4A.3 Methods .........................................................................................................................4A-4
4A.3.1 Study Area Boundaries .....................................................................................4A-4
4A.4 Literature/Desktop Review .............................................................................................4A-8
4A.4.1 Species with Conservation Status ....................................................................4A-8
4A.4.2 Fishing Resources ............................................................................................4A-8
4A.5 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge .............................................................4A-9
4A.6 Field Surveys .................................................................................................................4A-9
4A.6.1 Aquatic Habitat Investigations...........................................................................4A-9
4A.6.2 Fish Inventories and Investigations................................................................ 4A-11
4A.6.3 Habitat Rating ................................................................................................ 4A-11
4A.7 Results ........................................................................................................................ 4A-12
4A.7.1 Literature/Desktop Review ............................................................................. 4A-12
4A.7.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Results ..................................................... 4A-17
4A.7.3 Field Surveys ................................................................................................. 4A-17
4A.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 4A-33
4A.9 References .................................................................................................................. 4A-34
4A.9.1 Personal Communications ............................................................................. 4A-34
4A.9.2 Literature Cited............................................................................................... 4A-34
4A.9.3 GIS References.............................................................................................. 4A-36
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 4A1 Site Records ............................................................................................................. 4A-37
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4A-1 Local and Regional Study Areas....................................................................................4A-5
Figure 4A-2 Drainage Basins and Aquatic Sampling Sites ...............................................................4A-7
Figure 4A-3 High and Low Quality Fish Habitat.............................................................................. 4A-19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4A-1 Basins Within the Aquatic Ecology LSA and RSA .........................................................4A-6
Table 4A-2 Fish Species That May Occur in the Athabasca River Basin Within the
Aquatic Ecology RSA .................................................................................................. 4A-13
Table 4A-3 TEK for Aquatic Ecology Recorded in the Vicinity of the Project ................................ 4A-17
Table 4A-4 Summary of Water Quality Parameters and Mean Channel Characteristics
for Sites Within the Aquatic Ecology LSA ................................................................... 4A-27
Table 4A-5 Summary of Fish Sampling Results for Sites Within the Aquatic Ecology LSA.......... 4A-29
Table 4A-6 Summary of Fish Habitat Potential Ratings for Sites Within the Aquatic
Ecology LSA................................................................................................................ 4A-31
Page 4A-2
4A.0 AQUATIC ECOLOGY BASELINE REPORT
4A.1 Introduction
bitumen recovery project. The Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) is located on Crown land
northwest of the Hamlet of Wandering River, Alberta. The Project is expected to be developed in three
To support the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Project, baseline environmental studies
were conducted within the Aquatic Ecology Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA), and
the Project Area. Baseline environmental information on fish and fish habitat and benthic invertebrates
was collected. This Aquatic Ecology report presents the methods and results of a desktop/literature
review and the baseline field studies conducted in the LSA and RSA in 2010 and 2011. The results of the
baseline field studies related to benthic invertebrates is provided in Appendix 4B of the Aquatic Ecology
Assessment (Volume 3, Section 4.0).
The specific requirements for aquatic ecology are provided in Section 3.5 of the final Project Terms of
Reference (TOR) and are provided in Section 4.2 of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Volume 3).
4A.2 Study Objectives

The main objectives of the baseline fish and fish habitat inventory and investigations were to:
• collect baseline fisheries data to document fish use and fish habitat for the waterbodies and
watercourses in the RSA;
• collect baseline information to assess potential effects of the development of the Project on fish and
fish habitat; and
• collect baseline data to support future regulatory and permitting requirements.
The description of fish and fish habitat include:
• a literature review and assessment of existing information in the LSA and RSA;
• fish communities and key indicator species;
• fish use, seasonal aquatic habitat conditions and fish habitat potential in the LSA and RSA; and
• current and potential use of the fish resource in the RSA by local Aboriginal communities and sport
and commercial fisheries.
The purpose of Aboriginal participation during the field surveys was to document the Traditional
Ecological Knowledge (TEK) that has accumulated over generations and been passed down to Elders to
inform the baseline environmental conditions and to identify potential opportunities for mitigation. The
overall objectives of Aboriginal participation were to:
• document Aboriginal TEK shared during the field work;
• provide TEK input into Project development;
• determine baseline environmental and socio-economic conditions informed by TEK; and
Page 4A-3
• identify potential mitigation opportunities.
4A.3 Methods
4A.3.1 Study Area Boundaries

The spatial boundaries considered for the fish and fish habitat inventory and investigations include the
following (Figure 4A-1):
• Project Area, which is the area directly disturbed by Project activities;
• Aquatic Ecology LSA which is defined as the areas surrounding and including the Project Area where
riparian and instream habitat and benthic and fish resources are most likely to be directly and
indirectly affected by Project infrastructure and activities (planning, construction, operations,
abandonment, and decommissioning). Potential effects on aquatic habitat and resources could result
from direct alteration and loss, changes in water quality and physical characteristics (e.g.,
temperature), and direct and indirect mortality. The LSA boundary was based on the area where
Project-specific effects are most likely to occur, and then extended to the boundary of all affected
drainages where effects could combine.
• Aquatic Ecology RSA which is selected as the area where the direct and indirect influence of other
land uses and activities could overlap with Project-specific effects and result in cumulative effects on
aquatic habitat and resources. The RSA includes drainages of the LSA as well as those portions of
the Athabasca River immediately downstream of the mouth of drainages A and D. The 2.5 km zone-
of-influence (ZOI) below drainage A and D discharges was based on Alberta Environment (AENV)
“rule of thumb” calculation for stream mixing zones, which is ten times stream width (Alberta
Environmental Protection [AEP] 1995).
Further descriptions of the Aquatic Ecology LSA and RSA are provided in the Aquatic Ecology
Assessment (Volume 3, Section 4.0).
Page 4A-4
RGE.18 RGE.17 RGE.16 W4M
¯
Atha b as ca River
TWP.77
TWP.76
TWP.75
Project Area Existing Blackrod Road FIGURE 4A-1

LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS
t6790_Fig_4A-1_AQ_RSA_LSA_Rev05.mxd
Aquatic Ecology Regional Study Area Watercourse

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Aquatic Ecology Local Study Area Waterbody COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N: SCALE: 1: 120,000
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; km
Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011c. 0 1 2 3
May 2012
users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.
Aquatic Ecology LSA Basin and Waterbody Nomenclature

In order to simplify the discussion of hydrology, water quality and fisheries and aquatic resources, the
LSA was divided into five separate basins and each was assigned a letter code (Table 4A-1). In addition
to these five basins, there are other small drainages along the Athabasca River, however, these did not
extend into the upland areas of the LSA and, therefore, were not considered part of the LSA. The
drainage basins are shown in Figure 4A-2.
TABLE 4A-1
BASINS WITHIN THE AQUATIC ECOLOGY LSA AND RSA
Basin Basin Code Area (km2)

Unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River Basin A 91.9
Unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River Basin B 23.1
Unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River Basin C 32.3
Unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River Basin D 90.3
Unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River Basin E 16.0
All five drainage basins include unnamed tributaries to the Athabasca River. Basin A is one of the largest
drainage basins and flows north into the Athabasca River. The headwaters for this drainage basin
originate southeast of the LSA and the main tributary flows north along the eastern boundary of the LSA.
It’s confluence with the Athabasca River is downstream from a large meander bend on the Athabasca
River. Basin B is located west of Basin A and is the second smallest drainage in comparison to the other
basins. It also flows north into the Athabasca River upstream from the confluence with Basin A. The
headwaters for this drainage basin originate near the north end of the LSA. Basin C is located southwest
of Basin B and flows northwest into the Athabasca River upstream of Basin B. Basin C originates near the
southwest end of the Project Area travelling across to the northwest. Basin D is comparable to Basin A in
size and is located in the southwest portion of the LSA flowing southwest into the Athabasca River. The
headwaters originate at the south end of a large fen encompassing the southeast end of the Project Area.
Basin E is the smallest basin and is located west the upstream reaches of Basins C and D and flows west
to the Athabasca River.
The five basins have been further divided into sub-basins and these sub-basins have been assigned a
number (i.e., A1 and A2 refer to different sub-basins of Basin A).
Aquatic field investigations were conducted at sites located within four of the basins. Sampling sites have
been labelled with the sub-basin code as a prefix, followed by the site number (i.e. Site A1-1 is located
within sub–basin A1). Sites located on connecting tributaries within the sub-basin are assigned a lower
case letter following the sub-basin prefix (i.e., A1b-1). Figure 4A-2 shows the location of the sample sites
for the fish and fish habitat investigations. No sample sites were established within Basin E since the field
reconnaissance during spring 2011 determined that there was no fish habitat present in the ephemeral
drainages accessible west of the Project Area.
Page 4A-6
¯ A1-1
(
!
Atha bas ca River
A2a-1!
(
TWP.77 ( A1-2
!
C1-1 B4-1 A2a-2

(
! (
! (
!
( A2-1
!
C1-2
(
! (
! ( A1-3
!
A1b-1
(
!
C1a-1! A1c-1
(
A2-2
(
!
( A1-4
!
C1-3
(
!
TWP.76
A1-5 !
(
D2-1!
(
D1-1 !
(
TWP.75
Aquatic Sampling Sites Drainage Basin Watercourse FIGURE 4A-2

Waterbody
t6790_Fig_4A-2_Drainage_Fish_Sites_Rev05.m xd
(
! Fall (2010) A D DRAINAGE BASINS AND AQUATIC SAMPLING SITES
Existing Blackrod Road
(
! Fall (2010), Winter and Spring (2011) B E Aquatic Ecology BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Local Study Area PROPOSED BLACKROD
(
! Winter and Spring (2011) C Project Area COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
May 2012
4A.4 Literature/Desktop Review

A literature / desktop review of historical fish and fish habitat was conducted for the both the RSA and
LSA. Several information sources were consulted prior to field work and used in the preparation of this
report, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information
System (FWMIS) fisheries occurrence data (FWMIS 2012);
• The Fishes of Alberta (Nelson and Paetz 1992);
• Fish of Alberta (Joynt and Sullivan 2003);
• 2012 Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations (Government of Alberta [GOA] 2012);
• AENV Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (AENV
2000a);
• AENV Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (AENV 2000b);
• AENV Lac La Biche Management Area. Water Act Code of Practice Management Area Maps (AENV
2006);
• previously completed survey data and information for the surrounding area (i.e., Regional Aquatic
Monitoring Program, other EIAs); and
• consultation with ASRD fisheries biologists.
4A.4.1 Species with Conservation Status

Fish species with special conservation status were defined to include those listed:
• as ‘at Risk’, ‘May Be At Risk’ and ‘Sensitive’ in The Status of Alberta Species (ASRD 2010);
• under the Alberta Fisheries Act as ‘Endangered’, ‘Threatened’ or ‘Special Concern’;
• under Schedule 1 of the federal Species At Risk Act; or
• as ‘at risk’ by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2012a) (i.e.,
species designated ‘Endangered’, ‘Threatened’ or ‘Special Concern’).
4A.4.2 Fishing Resources
4A.4.2.1 Commercial Fishing

Consultation with the ASRD Fisheries Biologist provided information on commercial fisheries near the
Project Area. Refer to the Public Consultation and Aboriginal Engagement Program (Volume 1,
Section 2.0) for details of this consultation.
4A.4.2.2 Sportfishing
A qualitative study of potential angling near the Project Area was conducted. Information on the potential
sportfishing locations and target species was obtained from the ASRD Fisheries Biologist, FWMIS (2012)
and the 2012 Alberta Sportfishing Regulations (GOA 2012). In addition, a voluntary survey was
conducted among workers at the BlackPearl SAGD Pilot Project (Pilot Project) to determine if sportfishing
on the Athabasca River and smaller tributaries in proximity to the Project Area would be of interest. The
survey included questions regarding target species and travel preferences.
Page 4A-8
4A.5 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge

BlackPearl continues to facilitate the TEK program with potentially-affected Aboriginal communities for the
Project. The TEK program focuses on Aboriginal communities' experiential knowledge of the land. TEK
was gathered and recorded during the aquatic ecology field work from May 26 to June 4, 2011 with
members of Fort McMurray First Nation.
During the 2011 biophysical field programs, TEK facilitators accompanied the participants to: discuss the
Project and its potential effects on resources; collect and synthesize information related to TEK; and to
ensure proprietary information was kept in confidence. Mitigation measures to reduce any potential
Project-related effects on a resource were also discussed during the biophysical field programs. This
information was recorded as spoken and reviewed at the end of each field day with the participants to
ensure the information was accurately documented. Open discussions occurred regularly between
participants and the discipline crew leads regarding the resources present and available to Aboriginal
communities. These discussions were an important method to help build relationships among the field
crew. Aspects of the environment that were important to Aboriginal participants and the importance of the
resource from a western science perspective were also discussed.
TEK relevant to aquatic resources that was collected during the biophysical field programs for the Project
has been incorporated into this report. More information on the collection and results of TEK is provided
in the TEK and Land Use Report in Volume 5, Section 3.0 of this EIA.
4A.6 Field Surveys

Baseline fisheries information was collected by open water and winter aquatic habitat investigations and
fish inventories and investigations conducted in 2010 and 2011 within the RSA and LSA.
4A.6.1 Aquatic Habitat Investigations

The field crew, consisting of two Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialists (QAES), conducted a field
reconnaissance to select representative sites at watercourses and undefined drainages to provide the
baseline for fish and fish habitat conditions within the Project Area, LSA and RSA. Detailed fish and fish
habitat investigations were conducted at the pre-selected sites during open water and frozen conditions.
4A.6.1.1 Site Selection

Sites were selected to provide a representative aquatics baseline for the LSA. These sites were generally
located at representative reaches having different channel morphology, dimension and gradient (British
Columbia Ministry of Forests [BC MOF], 1998) and a number of these sites are the same as those studied
and presented in the Hydrology (Volume 3, Section 2.0) and Surface Water Quality Assessments
(Volume 3 Section 3.0). Sites were also selected based on proximity to access points within the RSA.
Most of the sites are on watercourses and a few of the sites also include adjacent beaver ponds.
Undefined drainages were also visited during the field studies; however, most were not used as baseline
sampling sites given the absence of fish habitat potential.
Sites were selected on tributaries at least 1,000 m upstream from the confluence of the Athabasca River
to determine fish utilization of the tributary and not to confuse the results with fish only utilizing the mouth
of the tributary along the Athabasca River. The RSA includes a section of the Athabasca River that drains
the low order tributaries of the LSA and the downstream mixing zone. Field investigations were not
conducted on the Athabasca River and assumptions were made that this section of river had suitable fish
habitat for all historically documented species.
4A.6.1.2 Open Water Aquatic Habitat Investigation

An aerial survey of the RSA was conducted on September 28, 2010 to identify watercourses and
drainages potentially impacted by the proposed Project. Open water baseline fish habitat investigations
were conducted at 10 sites in the fall from September 29 to October 17, 2010 and at 8 sites during the
Page 4A-9
spring from May 26 to June 4, 2011. The field work involved an aquatic habitat investigation and fish
inventories. The sampling protocol for habitat and fish investigations were developed by a QAES and
adapted from BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE 2008) and Alberta Transportation (2001).
Data was recorded at five transects and each study reach was a minimum of 100 m in length. The length
of the study reach was determined on the professional experience and judgement of the QAES, who took
into account a variety of factors (e.g., stream gradient, channel width, channel depth, channel
morphology, flow velocity and discharge, and instream cover).
At each transect, physical channel characteristics were recorded. Dominant and subdominant substrate
types were assessed visually based on substrate sizes listed in Bain and Stevenson (1999).
Measurements of bankfull width, wetted width and bank height were recorded to the nearest 0.1 m. Water
depth was recorded to the nearest 0.01 m. Some sites included beaver ponds and dimensions were
measured to the nearest metre with a laser range finder and water depths greater than 2.5 m were
estimated. Bank shape and texture were assessed qualitatively at each transect. Banks were referred to
as left and right when facing downstream. Time, date and location (UTM co-ordinates) were recorded.
Morphological and riparian vegetation characteristics that contribute to fish habitat potential within the
study section were described and photo documented. These included channel pattern and
characteristics, evidence of springs and flooding, and dominant cover types. Macro habitat units
throughout the study reach were identified according to Bisson et al. (1981) and Alberta Transportation
(2001) and were enumerated and measured for length.
Water quality data was recorded at each watercourse study site within the LSA. Dissolved oxygen,
conductivity, pH and water temperature were measured with a YSI Multiple Parameter System digital
water quality meter. Turbidity was assessed visually. Where sufficient laminar flow was encountered,
water velocity was measured using a Swoffer 2100 current meter, or the floating chip method as
described in Johnston and Slaney (1996), and used to calculate discharge. When water depth precluded
the use of the current meter or safety hazards were encountered, discharge was not measured.
The classifications and accompanying instream restricted activity periods (RAPs) for the watercourses of
each site were determined according to the Code of Practice Lac LaBiche Management Area Map (AENV
2006).
4A.6.1.3 Winter Aquatic Habitat Investigation

Winter fish habitat investigations were conducted at 16 sample sites within the LSA in February 2011
(Figure 4A-2). Winter surveys involved investigations to document winter conditions of aquatic habitat at
each site. The study reach on each stream was a minimum of 100 m in length and data was recorded at
five transects.
At each transect, physical channel characteristics were recorded. Measurements of snow, ice, and water
depth were recorded to the nearest 0.01 m. Channel and ice widths were estimated as deep snow cover
prevented accurate measurements. Dominant and subdominant substrate types were assessed visually
through holes in the ice. Time, date and location (UTM co-ordinates) were also recorded.
Where sufficient water was encountered, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH and water temperature were
measured with a YSI 556 Multiple Parameter System digital water quality meter. Turbidity was assessed
visually.
Fish habitat was rated according to its potential to support overwintering fish. Sites were also rated for the
potential for winter migration based on presence or absence of visible barriers. Potential spawning and
incubation habitat was rated for fall and winter spawning species. Fish habitat was rated hierarchically in
decreasing order as 'optimal', 'suboptimal', 'marginal', 'poor', or 'unsuitable'.
No fish sampling was conducted during the winter investigations.
Page 4A-10
4A.6.1.4 Undefined Drainages

Undefined drainages (i.e., drainages without defined bed or banks) were identified within the LSA. Each
of these drainages were visited at various access points to determine if naturally defined bed and banks
existed and to determine if fish habitat was present. The transition points between defined and undefined
bed and banks were located where accessible. If the site did not meet AENV's (2000a,c) definition of a
watercourse, the crossing site was identified as an undefined drainage. Examples of undefined drainages
include ephemeral draws (i.e., draw bottoms that only have streamflow following rainfall or snowmelt
events, and that generally do not have a defined channel with evidence of annual scour or deposition)
and non-classified drainages (NCD) (i.e., a drainage without continuous bed and bank definition,
regardless of flow presence, or connection to a defined watercourse). The drainage was also evaluated
for the potential for fish habitat as determined by the QAES.
4A.6.2 Fish Inventories and Investigations

Fish sampling was conducted at 10 sample sites from September 1 to Oct 17, 2010 and at 17 sample
sites from May 26 to June 5, 2011. Second season fish sampling was conducted at 9 of the original 10
sample sites during summer 2011 to confirm fish-bearing status at these locations. One site was not
sampled a second time since it was not located in proximity to the Project Area. Fish communities were
sampled, where water levels permitted, using a Smith Root Model LR-24 backpack electrofisher, baited
Gee-type minnow traps, angling and/or kick nets. Both fish capture and processing were conducted in a
manner that ensured maximum survival of fish. When processing was complete, fish were released back
into the habitat from which they were captured. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) was calculated based on the
number of fish captured during the time spent actively electrofishing or trapping (i.e., number of fish
captured per 100 seconds of electrofishing or per one hour of minnow trapping effort). Fish sampling was
conducted in accordance with Fish Research Licence 10-1816FRL and 11-1812FRL and Alberta
Fisheries Management Division Electrofishing Policy Respecting Injuries to Fish (ASRD 2004).
Fish sampling was not conducted on the Athabasca River since it was assumed to be fish-bearing and
existing fish inventory data for this river was available. It is assumed that the fish species previously
documented for this reach would also occur near the confluences of the tributaries.
Supplemental information on fish communities were obtained through the FWIMIS (2012) database, and
review of other relevant literature.
4A.6.3 Habitat Rating

Habitat ratings were made for four species at each site. The four species were selected to reflect
important spawning, rearing and feeding habitats utilized within the LSA. These include Arctic grayling,
northern pike, mountain whitefish and longnose sucker. Considerations for selection included: species
distribution; documented presence in the RSA; unique habitat requirements; and listings on provincial or
regional priority lists or importance by various user groups, including traditional, subsistence and
recreational users.
Rating fish habitat involves assessing a number of habitat parameters specific to each of the selected fish
species. Habitat requirements of a given fish species is dependent on various life cycle stages and
seasonal temperature and hydrological regimes.
Suitability matrices for a number of fish species have been developed based on past knowledge and
various literature sources. These matrixes have descriptions of the following physical habitat parameters
rated on a scale (unsuitable, poor, marginal, suboptimal, optimal) for spawning, rearing, feeding/foraging,
overwintering and migration requirements of the four selected species:
• substrate type (fines, gravel, cobble, vegetation, etc);
• substrate size (mm);
• depth (m);
Page 4A-11
• embeddedness (extent to which rocks [gravel, cobble and boulders] and snags are
covered or sunken into the silt, sand, or mud of the stream bottom);
• velocity (m/s);
• cover (type and amount); and
• habitat type (presence of channel geomorphic units such as runs, riffles and pools).
Water quality was also considered in the habitat potential rating as parameters such as temperature,
dissolved oxygen and pH are also important for fish habitat. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME) (2007) guideline for dissolved oxygen for coldwater species (e.g., salmonids) is
9.5 mg/L in early life stages and 6.5 mg/L in other life stages, while for coolwater species (e.g., esocids
and percids), the guideline is 6.0 mg/L in early life stages and 5.5 mg/L in other life stages (CCME 2007).
However, some species (e.g., cyprinid and stickleback species) found in northern climates can tolerate
and survive even lower dissolved oxygen levels (Barton and Taylor 1996). Dissolved oxygen is crucial for
overwintering fish as conditions under the ice can become anoxic especially in low flow areas.
The CCME (2007) also provides a guideline for the protection of aquatic life for pH which ranges from 6.5
to 9.0. Bank stability and riparian characteristics are also important for fish habitat as many species are
sensitive to sedimentation. The CCME has guidelines in place that indicate that an average increase in
total suspended solids (TSS) concentration over a short-term period (i.e., 24 h) of 25 mg/L above the
background level can be detrimental to fish (CCME 2002). These CCME guidelines were considered in
fish habitat ratings.
In addition to determining habitat ratings for different species, general ratings of ‘high’ and ‘low’ were
determined to characterize the overall habitat quality at each site. A high quality habitat ranking describes
habitat conditions considered ‘optimal’ or ‘suboptimal’ for any life stage of Arctic grayling, northern pike,
mountain whitefish or longnose sucker. Sites were determined to be low quality habitat when habitat
potential for Arctic grayling, northern pike or mountain whitefish for all life stages were rated as ‘marginal’,
‘poor’ or ‘unsuitable’.
The ratings for high and low quality habitat were extended to represent each of the tributaries within the
LSA. As a conservative approach, the entire tributary would take on the rating of high quality when at
least one site on that tributary was rated as high quality. A transition from high to low quality habitat was
imposed only when that location was ground truthed during the field investigations.
4A.7 Results
4A.7.1 Literature/Desktop Review

The RSA is approximately 313 km² and is located along the east side of the Athabasca River north of the
Hamlet of Wandering River. The RSA includes those portions of the Athabasca River immediately
downstream from the drainage basins within the LSA. Historical data was limited within the RSA and the
desktop review was expanded to include a larger segment of the Athabasca River, McMillan Lake and its
tributaries and a portion of Duncan Creek and its tributaries.
The fish community in the Athabasca River sub-basin is represented by mixed assemblages containing
both coldwater (e.g., salmonids) and coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species. Table 4A-2 provides a
list of the fish species that could or are known to occur in the RSA.
The Athabasca River drainage is a large system containing many fish species. Other species that may
occur but have not been previously documented on FWMIS within the proximity of the RSA include lake
whitefish, goldeye, yellow perch, cisco, finescale dace, longnose dace, northern redbelly dace, slimy
sculpin and spoonhead sculpin (Nelson and Paetz 1992, FWMIS 2012).
The species list provided in Table 4A-2 was obtained using online ASRD databases through FWMIS
(2012). Access is limited along the Athabasca River within the vicinity of the RSA and this is reflected by
the low number of recorded occurrences. The database search was extended to include the two larger
Page 4A-12
tributaries to the Athabasca River upstream and downstream of the RSA: the unnamed tributary located
downstream of the RSA and Duncan Creek located upstream of the RSA.
TABLE 4A-2
FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE ATHABASCA RIVER BASIN WITHIN THE AQUATIC
ECOLOGY RSA
Common Name1 Spawning COSEWIC

(Alberta Species Code) Scientific Name Season2 Provincial Listing3 Listed Species4
SPORTFISH
Arctic grayling (ARGR) Thymallus arcticus spring sensitive not listed
mountain whitefish (MNWH) Prosopium williamsoni fall secure not listed
burbot (BURB) Lota lota winter secure not listed
northern pike (NRPK) Esox lucius spring secure not listed
walleye (WALL) Sander vitreus spring secure not listed
NON-SPORTFISH
longnose sucker (LNSC) Catostomus catostomus spring secure not listed
white sucker (WHSC) Catostomus commersoni spring secure not listed
lake chub (LKCH) Couesius plumbeus spring secure not listed
flathead chub (FLCH) Platygobio gracilis summer secure not listed
fathead minnow (FTMN) Pimephales promelas summer secure not listed
pearl dace (PRDC) Margariscus margarita spring undetermined not listed
trout-perch (TRPR) Percopsis omiscomaycus spring - summer secure not listed
emerald shiner (EMSH) Notropis atherinoides summer secure not listed
brook stickleback (BRST) Culaea inconstans spring secure not listed
Sources: 1 FWMIS 2012
2 Nelson and Paetz 1992
3 ASRD 2010
4 COSEWIC 2012a
The following four fish species, found in the Athabasca River Basin, were used to rate habitat potential at
the aquatic sample sites:
• northern pike;
• Arctic grayling;
• mountain whitefish; and
• longnose sucker.
Northern pike and Arctic grayling were selected as species from the predatory fish guild. Northern pike
are a preferred subsistence and sportfish (Park 2007), and are listed as Priority 1 indicator species by the
Cumulative Effects Management Association Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group (CEMA SEWG)
(CEMA 2002). Arctic grayling are an important sportfish and are considered a ‘sensitive’ species in
Alberta (ASRD 2010). They are spring spawners utilizing clean gravels in riffle habitat and are sensitive to
sedimentation. Listed as Priority 2 species (CEMA 2002), Arctic grayling are also susceptible to over
harvest (McPhail 2007). Mountain whitefish were selected to represent fall spawners (Nelson and Paetz
1992). Longnose suckers represent large bodied forage fish since they are relatively abundant and widely
distributed in the habitats found in the RSA.
All four species were recorded in the proximity of the RSA although historical records were limited and
primarily restricted to the Athabasca River. Records of the large bodied fish were mostly found in the
Athabasca River. The only species not captured within the LSA was northern pike. More detailed
descriptions of each species are listed below. A habitat rating for each species was based on specific
habitat preferences for each species.
Page 4A-13
Northern Pike
Northern pike are a predatory fish with well developed teeth and jaws. They are typically brown or
greenish with irregular white spots arranged in rows but some variation in this colour pattern exists
(Nelson and Paetz 1992). In Alberta, northern pike mature at about three to six years of age at about 50-
60 cm in length with males maturing a year earlier than females (Berry 1999).
Northern pike are restricted to waters east of the Continental Divide. This species is common throughout
the Athabasca River watershed (Nelson and Paetz 1992). They prefer shallow, weedy lakes and marshes
as well as slow moving rivers and streams.
Northern pike typically spawn in April, often before complete ice-out, when water temperature is between
4°C and 11°C. Preferred spawning habitat is shallow marshes and backwaters connected to rivers and
lakes or flooded vegetation in shallow bays. Fertilized eggs are scattered and stick to underwater plants,
dead vegetation and other organic debris where they hatch about two weeks after fertilization (Scott and
Crossman 1973, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Joynt and Sullivan 2003). Optimum incubation temperature is
6.4°C (Ford et al. 1995). Dissolved oxygen concentration should be greater than 3 mg/L (Ford et al. 1995)
and the recommended 7-day mean is 6.0 mg/L to maintain long-term population production (Barton and
Taylor 1996). Fry remain attached to vegetation for about one more week after hatching until yolk sacs
are absorbed and they can swim freely. Shallow bays and backwaters are used as nursery areas by
juveniles. Northern pike prefer shallow, slow to moderate current, weedy, clear waters where they can
see and ambush their prey. Juvenile northern pike feed on aquatic insects and zooplankton until they are
about 5 cm long, at which time, they become piscivorous and feed on small fishes such as small minnows
and suckers. Principle food organisms of adults are other fishes, although they also prey on other aquatic
animals such as muskrats or ducklings if available (Scott and Crossman 1973, Nelson and Paetz 1992,
Joynt and Sullivan 2003).
Northern pike are very popular as sportfish in Alberta. No commercial fishery exists in the province that
specifically targets northern pike, though some regulations are in place for incidental catches (Bumstead
pers. comm.). Several pike fisheries have exhibited declines and collapses likely due to overharvest and
habitat degradation (Berry 1999). Alberta has implemented a management and recovery plan for northern
pike (Berry 1999). Although populations are “secure” (ASRD 2010), severe population declines are
experienced across most of their range and the province has implemented a management and recovery
plan for northern pike (Berry 1999). Angler overharvest and habitat degradation are commonly cited in the
provincial management plan as key factors that have led to the decline of these species.
Arctic Grayling
Arctic grayling are a coldwater salmonid species with deeply forked caudal fins, relatively large scales
and small mouths with teeth in both jaws (Nelson and Paetz 1992, Berry 1998). Adults, particularly males,
have long, large dorsal fins edged with red or orange, and rows of colorful spots. Arctic grayling scales
are iridescent silver on the body with anterior black spots. Adults typically reach full maturity at age four
and around 33 cm in length (Berry 1998).
Arctic grayling occupy boreal and foothill rivers and streams, and occasionally small lakes. They are
found in the Hay, Peace and Athabasca River basins in Alberta. A small population also exists in the Belly
River, a tributary of the Oldman River in southern Alberta. It is not clear whether this population is native
or a result of stocking of Elizabeth Lake in Glacier National Park (Berry 1998).
Arctic grayling are confined to coldwater and coolwater waterbodies and are relatively intolerant of warm
temperatures and low dissolved oxygen. Due to their sensitivity to sediment loads (Behnke 2002), they
are seldom found in waters that are frequently subjected to high levels of suspended sediments.
Spawning occurs in the spring once water temperatures reach 5-10°C (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Unlike
many other salmonids, Arctic grayling are broadcast spawners and do not construct redds. Embryos
develop rapidly with hatching occurring about 15 days post-spawning at temperatures between 7°C and
11°C (Behnke 2002, Berry 1998). Adults and juveniles are visual, opportunistic feeders feeding on
aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (Nelson and Paetz 1992, Berry 1998). They seldom are piscivorous
or feed on terrestrial vertebrates such as voles or shrews (Nelson and Paetz 1992).
Page 4A-14
Arctic grayling are a favoured sportfish among many anglers because they are relatively easy to catch.
Population declines, particularly in the southern portions of their range in Alberta, are often attributed to
pollution, habitat degradation, fragmentation, increasing water temperatures and overharvest by anglers
(Berry 1998, ASRD 2005). Alberta has implemented a management and recovery plan for Arctic grayling
(Berry 1998) and Alberta’s Endangered Species Conservation Committee (ESCC) has identified Arctic
grayling as a ‘species of special concern’ (ASRD 2010). Arctic grayling populations in Alberta are also
mid priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2012b).
Mountain Whitefish
Mountain whitefish are a coldwater sportfish with large silver scales and a subterminal mouth (Nelson and
Paetz 1992). Most individuals are mature by age six (McPhail and Troffe 1998) and the largest recorded
specimen was 58.5 cm in length (Nelson and Paetz 1992).
Mountain whitefish are widely distributed throughout Alberta, particularly in the western part of the
province (Nelson and Paetz 1992). With the exception of the Hay River basin, they are found in most
major watersheds in Alberta. They are often common in medium and large, clear, cold rivers. It is not
unusual for mountain whitefish to be the dominant sportfish species in the rivers where they occur with
many other trout, char and salmon species.
Mountain whitefish are known for their extensive spring feeding, summer feeding, pre-spawning and post-
spawning migrations. During the fall, they form large spawning schools (e.g., several thousand fish) in
deep pools and high quality runs within moderate and large rivers with large gravel and cobble
substrates. Unlike many of their salmonid cousins, mountain whitefish are broadcast spawners. Females
release their eggs directly into the current, after which they are fertilized and the eggs then float
downstream before they settle on to the substrate where the young are hatched. They are primarily
benthic feeders and aquatic invertebrate larvae make up a large portion of their diet (Nelson and Paetz
1992).
They are a popular sportfish, particularly in the east slopes, and are often angled in the fall when they
congregate in large numbers. Populations at this time appear to be “secure” (ASRD 2010).
Longnose Sucker
Longnose suckers are an abundant catostomid, and their snouts project well over their subterminal
mouths (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Longnose suckers have fleshy lips with a papillae covered lower lip and
are well adapted for benthic feeding. Spawning males often develop a black and a red lateral band.
Maturity is typically reached between ages four and six and the largest recorded specimen was 65 cm
long.
Longnose suckers occur in much of North America as well as Eastern Siberia (Nelson and Paetz 1992).
They inhabitant a wide variety of habitat types including small headwater streams, large rivers, both
oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes, beaver ponds and muskeg areas. In Alberta, they occur in every major
watershed.
Spawning occurs in the spring in creeks or along lake shores over gravel substrates (Nelson and Paetz
1992, McPhail 2007). Similar to Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish, they are broadcast spawners. The
onset of spawning appears to be linked to increased spring flows from snowmelt (Barton 1980). The eggs
are sticky and adhere to gravel surfaces and crevices (McPhail 2007).
Longnose suckers are not considered sportfish and maybe be captured while targeting sportfish.
Populations at this time appear to be “secure” (ASRD 2010).
4A.7.1.1 Species with Conservation Status

No fish species listed by the COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2012a) or SARA Schedule 2 and 3 (Species at Risk
Public Registry 2011) are known to occur in or near the RSA. However, Arctic grayling are listed as a mid-
priority candidate for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2012b). Provincially, Arctic
grayling are considered ‘sensitive’ species (ASRD 2010) and Alberta has implemented a management
Page 4A-15
and recovery plan for Arctic grayling (Berry 1998). No other species listed by ASRD (2010) are known to
occur in or near the RSA.
Arctic grayling are a favoured sportfish among many anglers since they are easy to catch, and this
combined with increased road access, has led to many overharvested populations. Habitat fragmentation
(e.g., culverts causing upstream fish migration barriers), sensitivity to warm water temperatures, drought,
and a high natural mortality, are also believed to be key limiting factors (ASRD 2005). Arctic grayling were
found in the LSA, outside of the Project Area, in tributary A1 within Basin A at Sites A1-1, A1-2 and A1-3.
Aquatic investigations determined this tributary to be a potential spawning stream for Arctic grayling.
4A.7.1.2 Fishing Resources
Commercial Fisheries
Consultation with the ASRD Fisheries Biologist confirmed that the only known commercial fishery
occurring within the vicinity of the RSA was at Base Lake located outside of the RSA on the east side of
Highway 63.
Sportfisheries
A qualitative study of potential angling locations within one hour travel distance from the Project Area was
conducted. Information regarding potential sportfishing locations and target species was obtained from
the ASRD Fisheries Biologist, FWMIS (2012) and 2012 Alberta Sportfishing Regulations (GOA 2012). In
addition, a voluntary survey was conducted amongst workers at the BlackPearl Pilot Project to determine
if sportfishing on the Athabasca River and the smaller tributaries would be of interest. The survey
included questions regarding target species and travel preferences.
The qualitative study on potential angling of sportfish included sites within the RSA, as well as accessible
locations approximately one hour’s drive from the Project Area. Locations within the RSA include the
Athabasca River, and high quality tributaries within drainage Basin A and D. The Athabasca River and
smaller tributaries with sportfishing opportunities located near the Project Area were accessible during the
time of baseline fish and fish habitat investigations with an all-terrain vehicle. Existing fisheries
information (FWMIS 2012) was limited near the Project Area. However, based on documented species
composition (Arctic grayling, northern pike, mountain whitefish, walleye and burbot) found upstream and
downstream in the Athabasca River; it is assumed that sportfishing occurs. Encounters with local
trappers, as well as fishing and hunting groups occurred during the fish and fish habitat investigations and
it is assumed that trappers and outfitters utilize the Athabasca River for fishing.
Sportfishing locations within approximately a 1 hour drive from the Project Area include crossings of
Highway 63 and the House River (77-14 W4M), and two crossings of Wandering River (73-17 W4M and
72-17 W4M). Incremental effects of sportfishing are generally assumed to be highest within 800 m of a
highway/road stream crossing since angler effort is assumed to decline with distance from easy access
points. Supplemental records (FWMIS 2012, Davis pers. comm.) found northern pike, walleye and burbot
to be potentially favored sportfish in the Wandering River. FWMIS (2012) records on the House River,
East, West and Middle Bear Creek document Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish for potential target
sportfish. The ASRD Fisheries Biologist noted that angling occurs at the Highway 63 intersection with the
House River and Wandering River (Davis pers. comm.).
Angling pressures are managed by ASRD and regulations for the different Fish Management Zone and
Watershed Unit can be found in the 2012 Alberta Sportfishing Regulations (GOA 2012). The RSA is
located in the Northern Boreal Region Watershed Unit 1. Holders of recreational fishing licenses are
permitted to fish the Athabasca River within the RSA between June 1 and October 31. Catch limits for
Arctic grayling are 2 fish over 35 cm; mountain whitefish limit of 5 fish over 30 cm; walleye limit of 3 fish
over 50 cm; northern pike limit of 3 fish over 63 cm; burbot limit of 10 fish; and goldeye limit of 10 fish. No
fishing is permitted between November 1 to May 31 and fishing for Arctic grayling is not permitted
between September 1 and October 31 (GOA 2012).
Page 4A-16
Similar to the Athabasca River, fishing is permitted from June 1 to October 31 on the unnamed streams
and tributaries within the RSA. Catch limits for walleye are a limit of 3 fish over 50 cm; northern pike limit
of 3 fish over 63 cm; where present, mountain whitefish limit 5 over 30 cm; perch limit 15; lake whitefish
limit 10; burbot limit 10; and Arctic grayling limit 2 over 35 cm. Fishing for Arctic grayling is not permitted
from September 1 to October 31 (GOA 2012).
The BlackPearl survey included nine workers currently working at the BlackPearl Pilot Project located
within the Project Area. The results indicate that 4 out of 9 workers would potentially fish in the Athabasca
River and nearby tributaries, two workers were undetermined and three workers were not interested in
sportfishing. Main target species for the potential anglers include walleye, Arctic grayling and northern
pike. Potential anglers were willing to travel but distances were not determined.
A report prepared for the Athabasca Regional Issues Working Group (RIWG) on mobile workers in
northern Alberta found that 80% of mobile workers indicate that they did not participate in any
backcountry activities throughout the year of the survey. Of those who did participate in backcountry
activities, 42% indicated that they went off-road exploring and 22% went fishing. On average, the
backcountry use of mobile workers in camps is estimated to be 0.1 time per year (Athabasca RIWG
2007).
4A.7.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Results

The locations of navigable watercourses, techniques for fishing and for locating fish habitat, and the
changes to aquatic resources over time were discussed with Fort McMurray First Nation participants
during the field work conducted from May 26 to June 4, 2011 with members of Fort McMurray First Nation
(Table 4A-3).
Participants of the biophysical field program reported that Arctic grayling is of traditional economic value
for food and cultural well-being; however, participants were not aware of any fishing activities conducted
by community members at any of the sites visited in the Project Area. Sucker and minnow species are
known to inhabit watercourses within the Aquatic Ecology RSA. Participants reported that most
individuals no longer fish the Athabasca River due to increasing water pollution. Refer to Volume 5,
Section 3.0 for additional detail on the results of the TEK program.
TABLE 4A-3
TEK FOR AQUATIC ECOLOGY RECORDED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT
Legal Location (W4M) Distance from Project Area Site Description

Township 77-18 2.5 km northwest Athabasca River: old fishing area, water polluted
Township 86-7 130 km northeast Anzac Lake: fishing areas, northeast of Aquatic Ecology RSA
Township 73-17 36 km south Wandering River: fishing areas, south of Project Area
Township 80-13 27 km northeast Marianna Lake: fishing areas, northeast of Aquatic Ecology RSA
Township 86-8 122 km northeast Gregoire Lake: ice fishing area for whitefish, suckers, jackfish , northeast of Aquatic Ecology RSA
Township 75-4 125 km east Winifred Lake: fishing area, northeast of Aquatic Ecology RSA
4A.7.3 Field Surveys

The LSA includes five drainage basins and the watercourse Class and instream restricted activity period
(RAP) for the tributaries within the basins are based on the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings
(AENV 2000b) and Code of Practice map for the Lac La Biche Management Area (AENV 2006). The
section of the Athabasca River within the RSA is a Class C and the RAP is from September 16 to July 15.
The LSA includes one unnamed mapped Class C watercourse (A1) (AENV 2006) with a RAP from
April 16 to July 15. The other tributaries within the LSA are unmapped and take on the RAP of the nearest
mapped watercourse beyond 2 km upstream from the Athabasca River. The RAP for the portion of the
unmapped watercourse upstream from the mouth of the Athabasca River is the same as the Athabasca
River from September 16 to July 15. The RAP for the unmapped tributaries greater than 2 km upstream
from the Athabasca River is April 16 to July 15, therefore, the RAP for all the sample sites is April 16 to
July 15.
Page 4A-17
Basin A is located in the northeast portion of the LSA and includes the one unnamed mapped Class C
watercourse that flows north into the Athabasca River. This unnamed watercourse is comprised of 2 main
tributaries and associated smaller tributaries and was sampled at 11 sites. The first site (A1-1) is located
between the confluence with the Athabasca River and the confluence of the two tributaries. The two main
tributaries are listed as sub-basin A1 and A2 as shown in Figure 4A-2. The mainstem tributary (A1) is
located outside the Project Area and is the east tributary. There are four additional sites on this tributary,
A1-2, A1-3, A1-4 and A1-5. Two tributaries join the mainstem (A1) upstream from the confluence of A1
and A2 and each tributary was sampled at one site listed as A1b-1 and A1c-1.
The secondary sub-basin (A2) was sampled at four sites. Two sites (A2-1 and A2-2) are located on A2
and two sites (A2a-1 and A2-2) are located on a smaller tributary.
Basin B is the second drainage basin flowing into the Athabasca River upstream from Basin A and
includes four small tributaries. Aquatics investigations involved one site located on one tributary within
this basin.
Basin C is the third drainage basin that flows north into the Athabasca River upstream (west) of Basin B.
This basin includes four sites: three sites (C1-1, C1-2, C1-3) are located on the main tributary; and one
site (C1a-1) is located on a secondary tributary. The headwaters for this drainage basin are located within
the Project Area and include ephemeral draws crossing the Project Area to the west edge, where defined
bed and banks were observed at these drainages.
Basin D flows south into the Athabasca River and drains the south end of the LSA. It includes two sites
located outside of the Project Area. One site D1-1, is located 3.5 km upstream from the Athabasca River.
The second site, D2-1, is located 7.2 km upstream from D1-1 where the tributary drains a small open
water wetland. Channel definition upstream of this wetland extends only a few hundred metres where it
drains a large fen that is located within the Project Area. It transitions from having defined bed and banks
to becoming indiscernible. It transitions back to a defined watercourse where it is unlikely that fish are
present in the headwater stream due to migration limitations in the low lying area.
Basin E is located west of the Project Area and tributaries within this basin flow west into the Athabasca
River. Aquatic field investigations were not conducted within Basin E based on the results of the field
reconnaissance where only small drainages were found at access points outside the Project Area.
4A.7.3.1 Site Descriptions

The fish and fish habitat baseline information includes field investigations conducted at 18 sites located
on 8 different unnamed tributaries to the Athabasca River. Of the 18 sample sites used to determine the
baseline conditions of the LSA, 5 sites were rated as high quality habitat and 13 sites were rated as low
quality habitat.
High quality habitat was defined based on habitat suitability ratings of ‘optimal’ or ‘suboptimal’ for any one
of the life stages (spawning, rearing or feeding) of Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish and northern pike.
Habitat requirements vary for different species; however; general characteristics of the high quality habitat
include adequate cover for fish, stable banks and fish passage. The sites also provide suitable
depth/velocity regime, suitable substrate for one of the life stages of the selected sportfish. Low quality
habitat can be generally characterized by poor water quality, obstacles to upstream migration, low flows
and limited depth, limited suitable substrate and cover, and high suspended sediments.
Habitat quality ratings were applied to the tributaries as shown in Figure 4A-3. An entire tributary was
considered high quality habitat if there was one or more sites determined to be high quality habitat. One
exception includes tributary D2 where a transition between high and low quality habitat was observed
during field investigations. The transition between high and low quality habitat was observed where
surface drainage from a bog/fen drains to the open water wetland upstream from D2-1.
Site descriptions include information on channel characteristics, water quality, fish inventory and
abundance. Habitat potential ratings and details for each site is provided in Tables 4A-3, 4A-4 and 4A-5.
Attachment 4A-1 includes the Site Records for fish and fish habitat data and photographs from the open
water field investigations for each sample site.
Page 4A-18
¯ A1-1
Ð(
!
Atha bas ca River
A2a-1!
(
TWP.77 Ð A1-2
(
!
C1-1 B4-1 A2a-2

(
! (
! (
!
Ð A2-1
(
!
C1-2
(
! (
! ( A1-3
!
A1b-1
(
!
C1a-1! A1c-1
(
A2-2
(
!
( A1-4
!
C1-3
(
!
TWP.76
(
!
A1-5
D2-1!
( Ð
D1-1 !
( Ð
TWP.75
Aquatic Sampling Sites Watercourse FIGURE 4A-3

t6790_Fig_4A-3_High_Low_Habitat_Quality_Rev05.mxd
Ð
( High Quality Fish Habitat
!
( Fish Caught
!
Waterbody
HIGH AND LOW QUALITY FISH HABITAT
Existing Blackrod Road
( No Fish Caught
! BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
High Quality Habitat Aquatic Local Study Area
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Low Quality Habitat Project Area COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
May 2012
4A.7.3.2 Site Descriptions within High Quality Habitat
Site A1-1
Site A1-1 is located approximately 1.1 km upstream of the Athabasca River confluence and 1.1 km
downstream from the confluence of A1 and A2. The site is located downstream from the Project Area and
may be accessed year-round by all-terrain vehicles on a ford crossing located at the south end of the site,
or an ice bridge during the winter.
This perennial watercourse is occasionally confined, with mean bankfull and wetted widths of 11.2 m and
10 m, respectively. The mean depth of the watercourse was 0.17 m and discharge was recorded at
0.23 m³/s, dissolved oxygen was 12 mg/L and pH was 8.0 during fall 2010. During the winter habitat
assessment, the ice and water depths were 0.36 m and 0.19 m, respectively. The dissolved oxygen was
9.4 mg/L during winter 2011 and discharge was negligible (Table 4A-4). The substrate was composed of
boulders and cobbles as well as large gravel and fines. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by
shrubs and mixed forest and spread 10-20 m on both sides of the watercourse. Habitat units at Site A1-1
include riffle with pool, step pool, run and riffle/boulder garden. Total cover available at the site was rated
as moderate.
Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish were captured in fall 2010 and spring 2011 and longnose sucker
was captured at the site during the spring 2011 assessment (Table 4A-5). In addition, both mountain
whitefish and longnose sucker were observed in spring 2011. Spawning habitat for Arctic grayling and
rearing habitat for mountain whitefish was rated as ‘suboptimal’. See Table 4A-6 for habitat potential
ratings. The spawning, rearing, feeding and overwintering habitat potential ranged from ‘marginal’ to
‘subpotimal’ for Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish and was considered ‘unsuitable’ for northern pike.
Potential for migration was rated as ‘suboptimal’ due to seasonal low water barriers throughout the site.
Site A1-2
Site A1-2 is located approximately 5.2 km upstream from Site A1-1 on the east tributary. This site is
located east of the Project Area and current access is along an all-terrain vehicle trail.
A1-2 has a perennial flow regime, confined channel and the mean bankfull and wetted widths are 6.4 m
and 5.1 m, respectively. The mean depth was 0.24 m and the discharge was measured at 0.15 m³/s.
Dissolved oxygen was 11.9 mg/L and pH was 8.3 during the spring 2011 assessment. Dissolved oxygen
was recorded as 13.5 mg/L during the winter habitat assessment and discharge was 0.04 m³/s. The mean
ice and water depths were 0.39 m and 0.07 m, respectively (Table 4A-4). Riparian vegetation in the area
was dominated by shrubs and extended 10-20 m on both sides of the watercourse. The channel
substrate was composed of boulders, cobble and large gravel with a large amount of fines. Pool, run, flat
and riffle habitat types were observed at Site A1-2 and the total cover was abundant.
Arctic grayling were captured at the site in spring 2011 with minimal effort before electrofishing was
stopped due to potential spawning of Arctic grayling in accordance with the FRL (Table 4A-5). The fish
habitat potential ratings for Site A1-2 were determined to be ‘optimal’ for the spawning of Arctic grayling
and longnose sucker as well as ‘suboptimal’ for rearing of these two species and mountain whitefish.
Feeding habitat potential was ‘suboptimal’ for Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish. The habitat potential
rating for northern pike was ‘unsuitable’ for spawning and feeding and ‘poor’ for rearing. Overwintering
habitat was rated as ‘marginal’. Potential for migration was rated as ‘suboptimal’. See Table 4A-6 for
habitat potential ratings.
Site A2-1
The Site A2-1 is a tributary to the mapped Class C tributary of the Athabasca River (A1). The confluence
is located 1.1 km upstream from Site A1-1 and the site is located 4.7 km up the tributary north of a
proposed Project crossing. The mean bankfull and wetted widths were 4.3 m and 3.9 m, respectively.
Mean depth of the watercourse at Site A2-1 was 0.19 m. Dissolved oxygen was 11.4 mg/L and the pH
level was 8.5 during fall 2010. The dissolved oxygen concentration during the winter 2011 habitat
Page 4A-20
assessment was 3.8 mg/L and discharge was negligible. The mean ice and water depths for the winter
2011 assessment were 0.49 m and 0.04 m, respectively (Table 4A-4).
The channel substrate was composed of boulder, cobble, gravel and fines. Riparian vegetation extended
10-20 m on either side of the watercourse and was dominated by shrubs. Habitat types observed at
Site A2-1 included pool, run, riffle and riffle/boulder garden and moderate total cover was present at the
site.
No fish were captured or observed at the site (Table 4A-5). The fish habitat potential ratings for spawning
were ‘suboptimal’ for Arctic grayling and longnose sucker. Habitat potential for rearing was ‘suboptimal’
for mountain whitefish and longnose sucker. The habitat potential rating for all species was ‘poor’ for
overwintering and ‘marginal’ for migration due to very minimal flows during frozen conditions. See
Table 4A-6 for habitat potential ratings.
Site D1-1
Site D1-1 is located approximately 4.3 km upstream from the Athabasca River south of the Project Area.
A cutline from both the north and south side provides access to the site. The mean bankfull and wetted
widths were 7.5 m and 3.7 m, respectively. The mean depth of the watercourse was 0.3 m and the
discharge was 0.24 m³/s. Dissolved oxygen was 10.1 mg/L and the pH level was 7.2 during fall 2010.
Dissolved oxygen was 9.4 mg/L during the winter 2011 habitat assessment and discharge was negligible.
The mean ice and water depths during winter 2011 were 0.31 m and 0.17 m, respectively (Table 4A-4).
The substrate was predominantly composed of boulders and cobbles with some gravels. Riparian
vegetation in the area was dominated by shrubs and extended 5-10 m on both sides of the watercourse.
Habitat units at Site D1-1 consisted of pools, run and riffle and flat habitat types. Total cover at the site
was abundant and primarily comprised of boulder and woody debris.
Longnose sucker, brook stickleback and pearl dace were captured at the site. Longnose sucker were
captured both in fall 2010 and spring 2011 whereas brook stickleback were only captured in fall 2010.
Pearl dace were captured in spring 2011 (Table 4A-5). Fish spawning habitat potential ratings were
determined to be ‘optimal’ for Arctic grayling and longnose sucker and ‘suboptimal’ for mountain whitefish.
Rearing potential was considered ‘suboptimal’ for Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish and ‘optimal’ for
longnose sucker and feeding habitat potential was rated ‘suboptimal’ for Arctic grayling. Overwintering
habitat conditions were ‘marginal’ for all species. Migration was rated as ‘suboptimal’ for all species. See
Table 4A-6 for habitat potential ratings.
Site D2-1
Site D2-1 is located approximately 7.2 km upstream from Site D1-1 on an unmapped Class C
watercourse south of the Project Area. The watercourse had a wetland flow regime and the site includes
a small open water wetland approximately 250 m upstream. A cutline on the west side of the open water
wetland is used for access during the winter, and the site can be accessed year-round by all terrain
vehicles. The open water wetland present at the site is used as a winter water sources for other existing
construction activities. The watercourse was confined and the mean wetted width and depth were 3.0 m
and 0.71 m, respectively. Discharge was 0.05 m³/s, dissolved oxygen was 8.1 mg/L, and pH level was 6.8
during the fall 2010. Dissolved oxygen was 4.4 mg/L during the winter 2011 habitat assessment and
discharge was negligible. The mean ice and water depth during the winter assessment were 0.37 m and
0.42 m, respectively (Table 4A-4).
The substrate was predominantly composed of organics. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated
by wetland type and extended greater than 50 m on both sides of the watercourse. Only flat habitat type
was observed at the site and total cover was abundant.
Brook stickleback were captured and observed at the site in fall 2010 and were also captured in spring
2011 (Table 4A-5). Habitat potential ratings for spawning, rearing and feeding were ‘unsuitable’ for Arctic
grayling mountain whitefish and longnose sucker and ‘marginal’ to ‘suboptimal’ for northern pike.
Overwintering habitat conditions were ‘poor’ and the potential for migration was rated ‘marginal’.
See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Page 4A-21
Field investigations included an open water wetland located approximately 250 m upstream from the site.
The open water portion of the wetland was approximately 250 m by 300 m. Average depth was 1.1 m
during open water conditions and 0.45 m during frozen conditions. The inlet for the wetland is located on
the north end and appears to drain a large fen located within the Project Area. The transition from high to
low quality habitat occurs 150 m upstream from the wetland where only surface drainage from a large fen
was observed. Channel definition is regained in the steeper headwaters inside the Project Area east of
the fen. At approximately 100 m downstream from the site the drainage transitions into a channel with
defined bed and banks.
The wetland provides the upstream limit to potential fish habitat located south of the Project Area. A
cutline provides access to the open water wetland which is used as a winter water source for other
construction operations in the area.
Site Descriptions within Low Quality Habitat
Site A1-3
Site A1-3 is located approximately 4.4 km upstream from Site A1-2. This site is located east of the Project
area and current access is an all-terrain vehicle trail that travels down the valley slope to the downstream
end of the site.
The channel was frequently confined and the mean bankfull and wetted widths were 5.8 m and 3.3 m,
respectively. The mean depth was 0.27 m and the discharge was 0.12 m³/s. Dissolved oxygen was
9.5 mg/L and the pH was 7.5 during the spring 2011 assessment. Dissolved oxygen was 10.3 mg/L
during the winter 2011 habitat assessment and discharge was 0.01 m³/s. The mean ice and water depths
during the winter assessment were 0.20 m and 0.10 m, respectively (Table 4A-4). The substrate of the
watercourse was dominated by fines with some cobbles and gravel. Riparian vegetation extended 10–
20 m on either side of the watercourse and was dominated by shrubs. Dominate habitat types were pool,
run and flat and total cover was abundant.
One juvenile Arctic grayling was captured in spring 2011 at Site A1-3 (Table 4A-5), despite the habitat
suitability, which was not rated as ‘optimal’ or ‘suboptimal’ for Arctic grayling. The habitat potential rating
for spawning at Site A1-3 was determined to be ‘poor’ for Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish and
longnose sucker. The habitat potential rating for rearing was determined to be ‘marginal’ for Arctic
grayling and mountain whitefish and ‘suboptimal’ for longnose sucker. Feeding habitat was rated as
‘marginal’ for Arctic grayling and longnose sucker and ‘poor’ for mountain whitefish. The fish habitat
potential rating of all habitat functions for northern pike was determined to be ‘poor’ to ‘unsuitable’. See
Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Overwintering habitat was rated as ‘poor’ and the potential for migration was rated as ‘suboptimal’ for all
species due to seasonal low water barriers.
Site A1-4
Site A1-4 is located approximately 4.3 km upstream of Site A1-3. A cutline used as a winter road was
used to access the site. The perennial watercourse at Site A1-4 had mean bankfull and wetted widths of
4.8 m and 3.7 m, respectively. The mean depth was 0.29 m and the discharge was 0.07 m³/s. Dissolved
oxygen was 11.1 mg/L and the pH level was 6.9 during the spring 2011 assessment. Dissolved oxygen
was 3.5 mg/L in winter 2011 and discharge was negligible. The mean ice and water depth during the
winter assessment were 0.55 m and 0.25 m, respectively (Table 4A-4). The substrate was dominated by
fines and gravel. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by shrubs and extended 10-20 m on both
sides of the watercourse. Pool, run and riffle habitat types were observed and there was moderate total
cover at Site A1-4.
No fish were captured or observed at Site A1-4 (Table 4A-5). The fish habitat potential rating for
spawning was ‘suboptimal’ for longnose sucker, ‘marginal’ for Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish, and
‘unsuitable’ for northern pike. The rearing habitat potential rating for longnose sucker was ‘suboptimal’
and ‘marginal’ for Arctic grayling, northern pike and mountain whitefish. Feeding habitat potential was
rated ‘poor’ for northern pike, Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish and longnose sucker.
Page 4A-22
Overwintering habitat was rated as ‘marginal’ for Arctic grayling, northern pike, mountain whitefish and
longnose sucker. Potential for migration was rated as ‘marginal’. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat
potential ratings.
Site A1-5
Site A1-5 is located within a beaver dam complex 7.44 km upstream of Site A1-4. An old logging trail
provides access approximately 200 m west of the site, and is used by all-terrain vehicles. The wetted
width of the impounded area was 8.6 m. The mean depth was 0.67 m and the discharge was negligible.
Dissolved oxygen was 5.7 mg/L and the pH level was 6.9 during fall 2010 (Table 4A-4). The substrate
was comprised of fines and the impounded beaver pond had moderate total cover. Riparian vegetation in
the area was dominated by shrubs and extended 20-30 m on both sides of the watercourse. A winter
habitat assessment was not conducted for this site.
No fish were captured or observed at Site A1-5 (Table 4A-5). The fish habitat potential rating was ‘poor’ to
‘unsuitable’ for all species at all life stages. Overwintering habitat was rated as ‘unsuitable’ and migration
was considered ‘marginal’. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Site A1b-1
Site A1b-1 is located on a secondary tributary that flows into A1 approximately 0.9 km upstream from
Site A1-2. The site is located 2.1 km up the tributary and includes a ponded area within a beaver dam
complex. A riser site is located on the south side of the site and can be accessed by a winter road that is
used by all-terrain vehicles. The pond was measured to be approximately 70 m by 85 m and is located
75 m upstream from a historically used beaver dam. The small channel that flows between the two
beaver dams was only defined for approximately 25 m where the bankfull and wetted widths were 0.4 m
(single measurement). No flow was detected to measure discharge. Dissolved oxygen was 4.2 mg/L and
the pH level was 6.4 during the spring 2011 assessment. Dissolved oxygen was 4.6 mg/L during the
winter 2011 habitat assessment and discharge was negligible. The substrate was composed of fines and
organics. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by grasses and extended 20-30 m on both sides
of the watercourse. The mean ice and water depths during the winter assessment were 0.4 m and
0.62 m, respectively (Table 4A-4).
No fish were captured or observed at the site (Table 4A-5). Electrofishing was not used; however, angling
and minnow-traps yielded no fish. Habitat potential ratings for spawning, rearing and feeding were
‘unsuitable’ for Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish, ‘marginal’ for northern pike, ‘poor’ to ‘unsuitable’ for
longnose sucker. Overwintering habitat was rated as ‘poor’ for all species. Migration was rated as
‘unsuitable’ for all species. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Site A1c-1
Site A1c-1 is located on another secondary tributary that flows into A1 upstream from A1b. The
confluence is located 1.8 km upstream of Site A1-3 at 1 km up the tributary. The site can be accessed
year-round by a winter logging road from either side using an all-terrain vehicle. The site is located
amongst a historic beaver dam complex and flows through the breached beaver dam. The mean bankfull
and wetted widths were 1 m and 0.6 m, respectively. Discharge at Site A1c-1 was 0.01 m³/s. Dissolved
oxygen was 8.1 mg/L and the pH level was 6.32 during the spring 2011 assessment. The site was frozen
to bottom during the winter, with a mean ice depth of 0.50 m (Table 4A-4). The substrate was composed
of fines. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by grasses and extended 20-30 m on both sides
of the watercourse. Shallow run and flat habitat types were observed and trace amounts of total cover
and beaver dams were present on the watercourse.
No fish were captured or observed at Site A1c-1 (Table 4A-5). Fish habitat potential was rated as
‘unsuitable’ to ‘poor’ for all habitat functions of reference fish species, and the migration potential was
considered ‘marginal’. Habitat potential for overwintering at Site A1c-1 was ‘unsuitable’ since the channel
was found to be frozen to bottom and no pools were established. Migration was rated as ‘marginal’ for all
species due to season barriers. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Page 4A-23
Site A2-2
Site A2-2 is located 4.2 km upstream from Site A2-1 upstream from a proposed Project crossing. Access
was obtained from a cutline at the upstream end of this site that is used a winter road during frozen
conditions. The mean bankfull and wetted widths were 2.8 m and 2.0 m, respectively. The mean depth
was 0.15 m and the discharge was 0.03 m³/s. Dissolved oxygen was 11.5 mg/L and the pH level was 7.9
during spring 2011. The site was frozen to bottom in several areas during the winter 2011 assessment;
the mean ice and water depths were 0.13 m and 0.10 m, respectively (Table 4A-4). The substrate was
predominantly fines with small gravel. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by grasses and
shrubs and extended 5-10 m on both sides of the watercourse. Beaver dams were present on the
watercourse and it appeared to have high spring flows that drop rapidly. Habitat type at Site A2-2 was run
with a small percentage of riffle habitat and there was only a trace amount of total cover.
No fish were captured or observed at Site A2-2 (Table 4A-5). Fish habitat potential for spawning, rearing
and feeding was rated as ‘unsuitable’ or ‘poor’ for all species. Overwintering habitat was rated ‘unsuitable’
and migration potential was rated as ‘marginal’ for all reference fish species. See Table 4A-6 for detailed
Site A2a-1
Site A2a-1 is located on a secondary tributary to Site A2 the confluence is located 1.9 km upstream from
the confluence of Site A1 and Site A2 and 2.8 km downstream from Site A2-1. The southwest side of the
site can be accessed by a trap line trail and cutlines that are used year round by all-terrain vehicles. The
site is located within a historic beaver dam complex. The mean bankfull width was 4.4 m, the mean
wetted width was 1.6 m and discharge was 0.24 m³/s. Dissolved oxygen was 9.7 mg/L and the pH level
was 6.1 during spring 2011. The site was frozen to bottom in several areas during the winter 2011
assessment; the mean ice and water depths were 0.19 m and 0.07 m, respectively (Table 4A-4).
The channel substrate was composed of fines. Riparian area was dominated by grasses and extended
30–40 m on both sides of the watercourse. Only flat habitat type was observed at Site A2a-1 and there
was only a trace amount of total cover present.
No fish were captured at Site A2a-1 (Table 4A-5). The fish habitat potential for all habitat functions was
rated ‘poor’ to ‘unsuitable’ for all fish species. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Approximately 100 m downstream from the site, the channel flows into an active beaver dam complex
and no definition of bed and banks was observed. Multiple channels were present upstream that drain low
lying wet areas with no defined bed and banks. Multiple large beaver ponds are present approximately
400 m south of Site A2a-1 with no obvious flow downstream.
Site A2a-2
Site A2a-2 is located in a beaver dam complex approximately 1.6 km south of Site A2a-1. No obvious
watercourse connection was observed between Sites A2a-1 and A2a-2. The site included a pond and a
small channel downstream from the pond located southwest of the channel. The pond was approximately
100 m by 90 m. The mean bankfull and wetted widths of the channel were 5.2 m and 4.9 m, respectively.
Dissolved oxygen was 5.7 mg/L and the pH level was 6.5 in the channel during spring 2011. The
substrate consisted predominately of fines with gravels, cobble and boulders. Discharge at the channel
was 0.09 m³/s (Table 4A-4). Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by conifers and extended 5-
10 m on both sides of the watercourse. Trace amounts of cover was documented and only flat habitat
was observed at the site. A winter habitat assessment was not conducted.
No fish were captured or observed at Site A2a-2 in either the channel or the pond (Table 4A-5). Fish
habitat potentials were rated ‘unsuitable’ to ‘poor’ for all reference fish species. Migration was rated as
‘unsuitable’ for all species. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
A breached beaver dam was located 50 m downstream from the beaver pond where the narrowed
channel flowed into a cutblock.
Page 4A-24
Site B4-1
The watercourse at Site B4-1 is located 2.8 km upstream from the Athabasca River. The mean bankfull
and wetted widths were 1.2 m and 2.1 m, respectively. The mean depth for the channel was 0.21 m and
the discharge was 0.02 m³/s. Dissolved oxygen was 4.8 mg/L and the pH level was 8.0 during fall 2010.
The substrate was composed of fines and the habitat types were flats with a small percentage of pools.
Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by shrubs and extended 10-20 m on both sides of the
watercourse. Total cover on the channel was abundant with instream vegetation and woody debris. The
site was frozen to bottom during the winter 2011 assessment and the mean ice depth was 2.3 m
(Table 4A-4).
No fish were captured or observed at Site B4-1 (Table 4A-5). The spawning habitat potential (Table 4A-6)
was rated ‘unsuitable’ for Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish and longnose sucker, ‘marginal’ for northern
pike. The fish habitat potential rating for rearing was ‘poor’ for Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish and
‘marginal’ for longnose sucker and northern pike. The feeding potential was rated ‘poor’ and the migration
potential was rated ‘marginal’ for all reference fish species. The overwintering habitat potential was
‘unsuitable’ for all species as the site was found to be frozen to bottom during winter conditions. See
Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Site C1-1
Site C1-1 is located approximately 3 km from the confluence of the Athabasca River. The mean bankfull
and wetted widths were 3.6 m and 2.2 m, respectively. The mean depth of the stream was 0.24 m and
discharge was 0.021 m³/s. Dissolved oxygen was 9.4 mg/L and the pH level was 6.6 during fall 2010.
Dissolved oxygen was 7.0 mg/L during the winter 2011 and discharge was negligible. The mean ice and
water depths were 0.45 m and 0.43 m, respectively (Table 4A-4). The substrate was predominantly fines
with some gravel, cobble and boulders. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by shrubs and
extended 10-20 m on both sides of the watercourse. The habitat types varied from pool, run and riffle with
a small percentage of flats. Moderate cover was available in instream vegetation and wood debris.
Brook stickleback were captured at the site in fall 2010 and spring 2011 (Table 4A-5). Fish habitat
potential ratings for spawning, rearing and feeding/foraging ranged from ‘poor’ to ‘suboptimal’ all species.
Overwintering habitat potential was rated ‘unsuitable’ and migration was rated as ‘marginal’ for all
species. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Site C1-2
Site C1-2 is located within a beaver dam complex approximately 1.7 km upstream from Site C1-1.The site
is located between beaver dams and defined bed and banks were not present. A cutline provides access
from both the east and west side. The mean wetted width was 3.2 m and the mean depth was 0.57 m.
Discharge was 0.01 m³/s. Dissolved oxygen was 5.2 mg/L and the pH level was 6.8 during fall 2010.
Dissolved oxygen was 2.4 mg/L during the winter 2011 assessment and discharge was negligible. The
mean ice and water depth during the winter assessment were 0.33 m and 0.21 m, respectively (Table 4A-
4). The channel substrate was composed of fines and moderate total cover was present. Riparian
vegetation in the area was dominated by grasses and extended greater than 50 m on both sides of the
watercourse. Habitat units present at Site C1-2 were flats.
Brook stickleback were captured and observed at Site C1-2 in fall 2010 but no fish were captured or
observed in spring 2011 (Table 4A-5). Habitat potential ratings were ‘marginal’ for northern pike and
‘poor’ to ‘unsuitable’ for Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish and longnose sucker. Overwintering habitat
was rated as ‘poor’ for all species and migration was rated as ‘marginal’. See Table 4A-6 for detailed
Site C1-3
Site C1-3 is located upstream from a beaver dam complex approximately 3.8 km upstream from Site C1-
2. A proposed Project crossing is located upstream from this site. Defined bed and banks were not
present along most of the site and discharge was negligible. A single bankfull width was 1.5 m and the
mean wetted width was 2 m. The mean depth was 0.65 m and the substrate was composed of fines.
Page 4A-25
Dissolved oxygen was 8.8 mg/L and the pH level was 6.7 during fall 2010. During winter 2011, dissolved
oxygen was 1.1 mg/L and discharge was negligible. The mean ice and water depths were 0.62 m and
0.08 m, respectively (Table 4A-4). Flat habitat types were present at the site and total cover was
abundant including instream vegetation and depth. Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by
grasses and shrubs and extended 40-50 m on both sides of the watercourse.
Brook stickleback were captured and observed at the site in fall 2010 and were captured in spring 2011
(Table 4A-5). Habitat potential ratings for spawning, rearing and feeding were ‘marginal’ for northern pike
and ‘poor’ to ‘unsuitable’ for Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish and longnose sucker. Overwintering
habitat was rated as ‘poor’ and migration was rated as ‘marginal’ for all species. See Table 4A-6 for
detailed habitat potential ratings.
Two small ponds located northeast of the site were also sampled during winter and spring conditions.
Brook stickleback were captured and observed in the ponds. The ponds only provide ‘marginal’
overwintering habitat for brook stickleback due to low dissolved oxygen and shallow depths. Defined
channel bed and banks were observed upstream from this site.
Site C1a-1
Site C1a-1 is located on a secondary tributary approximately 1.9 km from the confluence with Site C1-1.
A cutline provides access to both sides of this site. The mean bankfull and wetted widths were both
1.4 m. The mean depth of the channel was 0.22 m and the discharge was negligible. Dissolved oxygen
was 10.0 mg/L and the pH level was 7.5 during fall 2010. During winter 2011, the dissolved oxygen was
2.5 mg/L and discharge was negligible. The mean ice and water depths were 0.54 m and 0.01 m,
respectively (Table 4A-4). The channel substrate was composed of fines with some (17%) organics.
Riparian vegetation in the area was dominated by shrubs and extended 20-30 m on both sides of the
watercourse. Habitat units at Site C1a-1 include flats and runs and moderate total cover was present in
the form of overhanging vegetation and woody debris.
No fish were captured or observed at Site C1a-1 in fall 2010 or spring 2011 (Table 4A-5). The fish habitat
ratings for Arctic grayling, longnose sucker and northern pike were ‘unsuitable’ for spawning, ‘poor’ for
rearing and ‘unsuitable’ for feeding. Overwintering habitat was rated as ‘unsuitable’ for all species and
migration was rated as ‘marginal’ for all species. See Table 4A-6 for detailed habitat potential ratings.
Channel definition disappears upstream from Site C1a-1 and the upstream drainage traverses across the
Project Area. Two proposed Project crossings are located on the upstream drainage. Site C1a-1 provides
the upstream limit to potential fish habitat.
Page 4A-26
TABLE 4A-4
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND MEAN CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SITES WITHIN THE AQUATIC ECOLOGY LSA
Water Dissolved Mean Bankfull Mean Wetted Mean Water Dominant Bank
Site No. Name, Legal Location (W4M) Assessment Date (season) Temp. (°C) pH Oxygen (mg/L) Flow (m³/s) Width (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Substrate Mean Bank Height (m) Bank Shape Texture Riparian Width (m)
A1-1 Unnamed tributary to October 3, 2010 6.8 8.0 12.0 0.23 11.2 10.0 0.23 Cobble Left: 1.3 Both sloping Both Left: 10-20; Right: 10-20
Athabasca River (fall) Right: 0.8 fines
5-32-77-17 February 12, 2011 0.0 n/r 9.4 Negligible Ice: 0.36
(winter) Water: 0.19
A1-2 Unnamed tributary to June 1, 2011 11.2 8.3 11.9 0.15 6.4 5.1 0.24 Fines Left: 3.4 Both sloping Both Left: 10-20; Right: 10-20
Athabasca River (spring) Right: 2.3 fines
7-21-77-17 February 13, 2011 0 7.8 13.5 0.04 Ice: 0.39
A1-3 Unnamed tributary to June 1, 2011 12.0 7.5 9.5 0.12 5.8 3.3 0.27 Fines Left: 1.2 Left: vertical Both Left: 10-20; Right: 10-20
Athabasca River (spring) Right: 3.2 Right: sloping fines
16-10-77-17 February 12, 2011 0.0 n/r 10.3 0.01 Ice: 0.20
A1-4 Unnamed tributary to May 29, 2011 8.0 6.9 11.1 0.01 4.8 3.7 0.29 Fines Left: 1.5 Both vertical Both Left: 10-20; Right: 10-20
Athabasca River (spring) Right:1.4 fines
A1-5 Unnamed tributary to October 1, 2010 7.0 6.9 5.7 Negligible n/a2 8.6 0.67 Fines n/a2 Both Both Left: 20-30
Athabasca River (fall) sloping fines Right:
15-13-76-17 No winter assessment n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 20-30
A1b-1 Unnamed tributary to May 28, 2011 13.0 6.4 4.2 Negligible 0.4 0.4 0.37 Organics Left: 0.4 Both sloping Both Left: 20-30; Right: 20-30
Athabasca River (spring) Right: 0.4 fines
A1c-1 Unnamed tributary to May 30, 2011 11.9 6.3 8.1 0.01 1.0 0.6 0.28 Fines Left: 0.4 Both sloping Both Left: 20-30; Right: 20-30
Athabasca River8-11-77-17 (spring) Right: 0.4 fines
February 12, 2011 Frozen to bottom Frozen to bottom Frozen to bottom Frozen to bottom Ice: 0.50
(winter)
A2-1 Unnamed tributary to October 6, 2010 7.7 8.5 11.4 0.07 4.3 3.9 0.19 Boulders Left: 1.1 Variable Both Left: 10-20; Right: 10-20
8-18-77-17 February 12, 2011 0.0 4.5 3.8 Negligible Ice: 0.49
A2-2 Unnamed tributary to June 4, 2011 9.3 7.7 11.5 0.03 2.8 2.0 0.15 Fines Left: 1.1 Left: vertical Fines Left: 5-10; Right: 5-10
Athabasca River (spring) Right: 1.5 Right: sloping
12-5-77-17 February 13, 2011 Frozen to bottom Frozen to bottom Frozen to bottom Frozen to bottom Ice: 0.13
A2a-1 Unnamed tributary to May 26, 2011 11.3 6.1 9.7 0.05 4.4 1.6 0.13 Fines Left: 0.5 Both sloping Both Left: 30-40; Right: 30-40
Athabasca River (spring) Right:0.4 fines
A2a-2 Unnamed tributary to May 26, 2011 13.5/9.6 6.4/6.5 2.8/5.7 0.09 5.2 4.9 0.55 Fines Left: 0.5 Both sloping Fines Left: 5-10; Right: 5-10
Athabasca River (spring)4 Right:0.5
9-17-77-17 No winter assessment n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
B4-1 Unnamed tributary to October 4, 2010 6.9 8.0 4.8 0.02 1.2 2.1 0.21 Fines Left: 0.5 Both sloping Both Left: 10-20; Right: 10-20
(winter)
C1-1 Unnamed tributary to October 4, 2010 7.5 6.6 9.4 0.02 3.6 2.2 0.24 Fines Left: 1.0 Both sloping Both Left: 10-20; Right: 10-20
C1-2 Unnamed tributary to October 11, 2010 6.3 6.8 5.2 0.01 3.2 0.57 Fines n/a2 n/a2 n/a2 Left: ≥ 50; Right: : ≥ 50
Athabasca River (fall) n/a2
C1-3 Unnamed tributary to October 13, 2010 6.1 6.7 8.8 Negligible No defined channel 2.0 0.7 Fines single upstream measurement Both Both Left: 40-50; Right: 40-50
Athabasca River (fall) (single upstream bankfull Left: 1.0 vertical fines
10-35-76-18 February 10, 2011 0.2 6.2 1.1 Negligible width1.5 m)5 Ice: 0.62 Right: 1.0
Page 4A-27
TABLE 4A-4 Cont’d

Water Dissolved Mean Bankfull Mean Wetted Mean Water Dominant Bank
Site No. Name, Legal Location (W4M) Assessment Date (season) Temp. (°C) pH Oxygen (mg/L) Flow (m³/s) Width (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Substrate Mean Bank Height (m) Bank Shape Texture Riparian Width
C1a-1 Unnamed tributary to October 13, 2010 5.1 7.5 10.0 Negligible 1.4 1.4 0.22 Fines Left: 0.9 Both vertical Both Left:20-30; Right: 20-30
D1-1 Unnamed tributary to October 8, 2010 7.4 7.2 10.1 0.24 7.5 3.7 0.30 Boulder Left: 2.2 Both sloping Both Left: 5-10; Right: 5-10
11-27-75-18 February 11,2011 0.1 6.9 9.4 Negligible Ice: 0.31
D2-1 Unnamed tributary to October 9, 2010 7.6 6.8 8.1 0.05 No defined channel 3.0 0.71 Organics n/a n/a n/a Left: ≥ 50; Right: : ≥ 50
Athabasca River (fall)
7-11-76-18 February 11,2011 1.2 n/r 4.4 Negligible Ice: 0.37
Notes: n/a not applicable, n/r not recorded
1 pH was not recorded due to an equipment malfunction.
2 Inundated system, channel parameters could not be determined.
3 Water depth was taken from residual pools. The watercourse was frozen to bottom in several areas.
4 Water quality parameters are reported as pond/channel respectively. Site includes pond and small channel northeast of the pond.
5 Bankfull width was measured 100 m upstream.
Page 4A-28
TABLE 4A-5
SUMMARY OF FISH SAMPLING RESULTS FOR SITES WITHIN THE AQUATIC ECOLOGY LSA
Fork Length
No. Mean, Range No.
Site No. Name, Legal Location (W4M) Open Water Sampling Efforts CPUE1 Fish Species Captured (mm) Observed
A1-1 Unnamed tributary to October 3, 2010 (fall) BEF:0.4 Arctic grayling 1 185 0
Athabasca River BEF:492 s for 200 m MT: 0 mountain whitefish 1 105
5-32-77-17
MT: 4 traps for a total of 84 hours
June 3, 2011 (spring) AG: 0 Arctic grayling 3 239, 205-263 0
AG: 2 spinners for 1.0 hours BEF: 1.3 mountain whitefish 5 129, 119-145 1
BEF:777 s for 200 m
longnose sucker 2 133, 115-144 1
A1-2 Unnamed tributary to June 1, 2011 (spring) 3.6 Arctic grayling 2 158, 145-170 3
Athabasca River BEF: 56 s for 200 m
7-21-77-17
A1-3 Unnamed tributary to June 1, 2011 (spring) AG: 0 Arctic grayling 1 136 0
Athabasca River AG: 2 spinners for 0.5 hours BEF: 0.18
16-10-77-17 BEF: 551 s for 200 m
A1-4 Unnamed tributary to May 29, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
Athabasca River AG: 1 jig, 1 spoon, and 1 spinner for 0.75 hours observed
Page 4A-29
10-02-77-17 MT: 8 traps for a total of 156 hours

BEF: 673 s for 100 m
A1-5 Unnamed tributary to October 1, 2010 (fall) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
Athabasca River MT: 6 traps for a total of 150 hours observed
15-13-76-17
A1b-1 Unnamed tributary to May 28, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
A1c-1 Unnamed tributary to May 30, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
Athabasca River MT: 7 traps for a total of 155.75 hours observed
8-11-77-17 BEF: 441 s for 200 m
A2-1 Unnamed tributary to October 6, 2010 (fall) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
8-18-77-17 BEF:602 s for 200 m
June 3, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
BEF: 845 s for 200 m observed
A2-2 Unnamed tributary to June 4, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
Athabasca River BEF: 495 s for 400 m observed
12-5-77-17
A2a-1 Unnamed tributary to May 26, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
Athabasca River MT: 7 traps for a total of 163.9 hours observed
11-20-77-17 MT: 3 traps for a total of 64.7 hours (pond 400m away)
A2a-2 Unnamed tributary to May 26, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
9-17-77-17 MT: 9 traps for a total of 184.5 hours
TABLE 4A-5 Cont’d
Fork Length
No. Mean, Range No.
Site No. Name, Legal Location (W4M) Open Water Sampling Efforts CPUE1 Fish Species Captured (mm) Observed
B4-1 Unnamed tributary to October 4, 2010 (fall) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
11-14-77-18 BEF:529 s for 200 m
May 31, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
MT: 6 traps for a total of 18 hours observed
BEF:512 s for 200 m
C1-1 Unnamed tributary to October 4, 2010 (fall) 0.33 brook stickleback 5 47, 44-50 0
Athabasca River MT: 5 traps for a total of 15 hours
10-15-77-18 May 31, 2011 (spring) 0.12 brook stickleback 1 45 0
C1-2 Unnamed tributary to October 11, 2010 (fall) 4.6 brook stickleback 12 30-60 20
Athabasca River BEF: 261 s for 200 m
9-10-77-18 May 31, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
C1-3 Unnamed tributary to October 13, 2010 (fall) 0.2 brook stickleback 35 Not recorded 1
Athabasca River MT: 5 traps for a total of 230 hours
10-35-76-18 June 5, 2011 (spring) AG: 0 brook stickleback 19 25-45 0
Page 4A-30
AG: 2 spoons for 0.5 hours BEF: 0

BEF: 545 s for 200 m MT: 0.15
MT: 5 traps for a total of 125 hours (T24)
C1a-1 Unnamed tributary to October 13, 2010 (fall) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
Athabasca River BEF:712 s for 200 m observed
16-2-77-18
May 31, 2011 (spring) 0 no fish captured or 0 n/a 0
D1-1 Unnamed tributary to October 8, 2010 (fall) BEF:1.2 longnose sucker 11 59, 32-194 0
Athabasca River BEF:1044 s for 200 m brook stickleback 2 58, 45-71 0
MT: 0.2 longnose sucker 1 50 0
brook stickleback 3 58, 45-71 0
June 2, 2011 (spring) AG: 0 longnose sucker 10 96, 37-219 1
AG: 2 spinners for 0.5 hours BEF: 1.3
BEF: 1057 s for 200 m pearl dace 4 66, 61-72 0
D2-1 Unnamed tributary to October 9, 2010 (fall) BEF: 2.2 brook stickleback 15 49, 30-63 1
Athabasca River BEF:694 s for 200 m
7-11-76-18 June 2, 2011 (spring) AG: 0 brook stickleback 3 53, 47-61 0
AG: 2 spinners for 0.5 hours BEF: 0.74
BEF:408 s for 200 m
Notes: MT: minnow trapping, BEF: backpack electrofishing, AG: sample angling
1 CPUE is the number of fish captured per 100 seconds of electrofishing effort or the number of fish captured per one hour of minnow trapping effort.
TABLE 4A-6
SUMMARY OF FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL RATINGS FOR SITES WITHIN THE AQUATIC ECOLOGY LSA
Newer Name, Legal Location Fish Habitat Potential Ratings

site No. (W4M) Fish Species Spawning Rearing Feeding Wintering 1 Migration
A1-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling suboptimal marginal marginal marginal suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable suboptimal
5-32-77-17
mountain whitefish marginal suboptimal marginal marginal suboptimal
longnose sucker optimal optimal poor poor suboptimal
A1-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling optimal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor unsuitable marginal suboptimal
7-21-77-17
mountain whitefish marginal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
longnose sucker optimal suboptimal marginal marginal suboptimal
A1-3 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling poor marginal marginal poor suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor poor suboptimal
16-10-77-17 mountain whitefish poor marginal poor poor suboptimal
longnose sucker poor suboptimal marginal poor suboptimal
A1-4 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling marginal marginal poor marginal marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable marginal poor marginal marginal
Page 4A-31
10-02-77-17 mountain whitefish marginal marginal poor marginal marginal

longnose sucker suboptimal suboptimal poor marginal marginal
A1-5 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
15-13-76-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
A1b-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal marginal poor unsuitable
16-9-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor poor unsuitable
A1c-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
8-11-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
A2-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling suboptimal marginal marginal poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
8-18-77-17 mountain whitefish marginal suboptimal poor poor marginal
longnose sucker suboptimal suboptimal poor poor marginal
A2-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
12-5-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
TABLE 4A-6 Cont’d
Newer Name, Legal Location Fish Habitat Potential Ratings

site No. (W4M) Fish Species Spawning Rearing Feeding Wintering 1 Migration
A2a-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
Athabasca River northern pike poor unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
11-20-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
longnose sucker unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
A2a-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
9-17-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
longnose sucker unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
B4-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal poor unsuitable marginal
11-14-77-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable marginal poor unsuitable marginal
C1-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike poor poor poor unsuitable marginal
10-15-77-18
mountain whitefish poor marginal poor unsuitable marginal
Page 4A-32
longnose sucker poor suboptimal poor unsuitable marginal

C1-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal marginal poor marginal
9-10-77-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
C1-3 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal marginal poor marginal
10-35-76-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
C1a-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
16-2-77-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
D1-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling optimal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor marginal suboptimal
11-27-75-18
mountain whitefish suboptimal suboptimal marginal marginal suboptimal
longnose sucker optimal optimal marginal marginal suboptimal
D2-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal suboptimal suboptimal poor marginal
7-11-76-18 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor marginal
Notes:
1 Wintering habitat potential ratings from winter habitat investigations.
4A.8 Summary
Limited historical aquatic and fisheries studies have been conducted within the RSA including the
Athabasca River and its tributaries. Although field investigations were not conducted on the Athabasca
River, it is assumed the portion of the Athabasca River within the RSA includes the species listed in
Table 4A-2 and provides fish habitat for these species including overwintering habitat.
There are no fish species listed by COSEWIC known to occur near the RSA (COSEWIC 2012a). One
species, Arctic grayling, were found in the RSA and are listed as a mid-priority candidate for a detailed
status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2012b). Provincially, Arctic grayling are considered a
‘sensitive’ species (ASRD 2010).
The fish and fish habitat field investigations were conducted at 18 sites located on 8 different unnamed
tributaries to the Athabasca River. Of the 18 sample sites used to determine the baseline conditions of
the LSA, 5 sites were rated as high quality habitat and 13 sites were rated as low quality habitat. High
quality fish habitat was mostly found in the outer limits of the LSA outside the Project Area. These
waterbodies provide fish habitat for sportfish including Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish as well as
other large forage fish. Results from the baseline fish and fish habitat investigations found Arctic grayling
and mountain whitefish utilizing one tributary (A1). Arctic grayling were observed to potentially spawn in
the lower and mid reaches of A1 and utilize this stream for approximately 9.6 km upstream from the
Athabasca River confluence. There is potential for Arctic grayling to utilize the lower reaches of A2 and
D1 although no fish were found at the sample sites. Juvenile mountain whitefish were observed at the
sample site in the lower reach of A1 and the potential for them to utilize the upper reaches is low since
this species prefers channel widths that range from 10 m to 15 m (Meyer et al. 2009). The lower reach of
A1 was the only tributary in the LSA with a channel width greater than 10 m. The only high quality habitat
found that intersects the Project Area was tributary A2, however no fish were captured or observed in this
tributary.
The tributaries located within the Project Area were determined to be low quality habitat and are small
first and second order streams, dominated by beaver complexes. Brook stickleback was the only species
found in C1 and was captured at all three sites on this tributary. Resident populations of brook stickleback
may be present in this basin due to the low seasonal flows and overwintering habitat provided in the
multiple beaver ponds along the tributary.
There are no known fish resources for commercial fishing in the RSA. Target species for sportfishing are
known to occur in the RSA including the Athabasca River and tributary A1. Target species for sportfishing
are also known to occur outside the RSA at access points within an hour’s travel from the Project Area,
including the House River and Wandering River.
Page 4A-33
4A.9 References
4A.9.1 Personal Communications

Bumstead, S. Fish Biologist, Formerly serving the Fort McMurray area, Fish and Wildlife Division of
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Fort McMurray, Alberta.
Davis, C. Fish Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Lac La
Biche, Alberta.

Alberta Environment. 2000a. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a
Water Body. Includes Amendments to February 2007. 26 pp. Website:
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/codes/PIPELINE.pdf.
Alberta Environment. 2000b. Environmental Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Includes
Amendments to February 2007. 26 pp. Website:
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/codes/CROSSING.pdf.
Alberta Environment. 2000c. Guide to the Code of Practice for Pipeline and Telecommunication Lines,
Including Guidelines for Complying with the Code of Practice. 16pp. Revised April 2001.
Government of Alberta. Website: http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/PipelineGuide.pdf.
Alberta Environment. 2006. Lac La Biche Management Area. Water Act Code of Practice Management
Area Maps. Prepared by Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development,
Finance and Administration Division, Resource Information Management Branch, Government of
Alberta.
Alberta Environmental Protection. 1995. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits Procedures Manual.
Available at: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7255.pdf. Accessed: October 2011.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2004. Alberta Fisheries Management Division Electrofishing
Policy Respecting Injuries to Fish, Alberta Fisheries Management Division. Website:
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/ResearchLicencesPermits/documents/injurytofish.pdf.
Accessed: April 2012.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2005. Status of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in
Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division and the Alberta
Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 57. 41 pp. Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species. Fish and
Wildlife Division. Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Transportation. 2001. Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines & Procedures for Watercourse Crossings
in Alberta. Revised August 2009.
Athabasca Regional Issues Working Group. 2007. Final Report: Mobile Workers in the Wood Buffalo
Region. Nichols Applied Management and Economic Consultants.
Bain, M. and N. Stevenson. 1999. Aquatic Habitat Assessment: Common Methods. American Fisheries
Society. Bethesda, Maryland.
Barton, B.A. 1980. Spawning migrations, age and growth, and summer feeding of white and longnose
suckers in an irrigation reservoir. The Canadian Field Naturalist 94: 300-304.
Barton, B.A. and B.R. Taylor. 1996. Oxygen requirements of fishes in northern Alberta rivers with a
general review of the adverse effects of low dissolved oxygen. Water Quality Research Journal
Canada 31(2): 361-409.
Page 4A-34
Behnke R.J. 2002. Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press, New York, NY.
Berry, D.K. 1998. Alberta’s Arctic grayling Management and Recovery Plan. Alberta Environmental
Protection, Natural Resources Service, Fisheries Management Division. Edmonton, Alberta.
27 pp.
Berry, D.K. 1999. Alberta’s Northern Pike Management and Recovery Plan. Alberta Environment
Protection, Natural Resources Service, Number T/459, Edmonton, Alberta. 22 pp.
Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielson and R.A. Palmason. 1981. A system of naming habitat types in small streams,
with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflow. 62-73 pp in Armantrout,
New Brunswick (ed.). Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2008. British Columbia Fisheries Information Services Branch
for the Resources Information Standards Committee Reconnaissance (1:20 000) Fish and Fish
Habitat Inventory: Site Card Field Guide - Version 2.0. Government of British Columbia.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1998. Fish-stream Identification Guidebook Second Edition, Forest
Practices Code Guidebook. Victoria, BC.
Protection of Aquatic Life: Total Particulate Matter. Updated 2002. In: Canadian Environmental
Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.
Protection of Aquatic Life: Summary Table. Updated December, 2007. In: Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
Winnipeg.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012a. The COSEWIC Species List.
Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm. Accessed: April 2012.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012b. The COSEWIC Candidate List.
Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm#p3. Accessed: April 2012.
Cumulative Environmental Management Association. 2002. A Review and Assessment of Existing

Information for Key Wildlife and Fish Species in the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy
Study Area – Volume 2: Fish prepared by Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Edmonton,
Alberta.
Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System. 2012. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development. Area-specific search request and website:
http://xnet.env.gov.ab.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=fw_mis_pub. Accessed: March 2012.
Ford, B.S., P.S. Higgins, A.F. Lewis, K.L Cooper, T.A. Watson, M.C. Gee, G.L. Ennis and R.L Sweeting.
1995. Literature Reviews of the Life History, Habitat Requirements and Mitigation/Compensation
Strategies for Thirteen Sport Fish Species in the Peace, Liard and Columbia River Drainages of
British Columbia. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2321.
Government of Alberta. 2012. 2012 Alberta Sportfishing Regulations. Website:

http://albertaregulations.ca/Fishing-Regs-2012.pdf. Accessed: March 2012.
Johnston, N.T. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Fish habitat assessment procedures. British Columbia Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests Watershed Restoration Program
Technical Circle. Victoria, British Columbia. No. 8 (rev. Apr. 1996).
Joynt, A. and M. Sullivan. 2003. Fish of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta. 176 pp.
McPhail J.D. and P. Troffe. 1998. The Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) a Potential Indicator
Species for the Fraser System. Environment Canada, Vancouver, BC. DOE FRAP 1988-16.
Page 4A-35
McPhail, J.D. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press. Edmonton,
Alberta. 620 pp. 1st Edition.
Meyer, K.A., F.S. Elle and J.A. Lamansky. 2009. Environmental factors related to the distribution,
abundance, and life history characteristics of mountain whitefish in Idaho. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 29:753-767.
Nelson, J.S. and M.J. Paetz. 1992. The Fishes of Alberta. University of Alberta Press and University of
Calgary Press. 2nd Edition.
Park, D. 2007. Sport Fishing in Alberta: Summary Report from the Seventh Survey of Recreational
Fishing in Canada. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Branch.
Edmonton, Alberta.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Ottawa. 966 pp.
Species at Risk Public Registry. 2011. Species List, Schedule 2 and Schedule 3. Available at:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm. Accessed: April 2012.
4A.9.3 GIS References

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2011. Parks and Protected Areas (including Crown
Reservations). 1:1,000,000 map. Parks Division. Website:
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/landreferencemanual/docs/pasites_2011sept.pdf. Accessed: March
2012.
AltaLIS Ltd. 2011c. Alberta 1:20,000 Base Features. Hydrography (digital file). Calgary, Alberta.
Available: http://altalis.com/prod_base_base.html. Acquired: June 23, 2011. Minor modifications
made by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (2012).
Altus Geomatics. 2012. BlackRod SAGD Project Area (digital file). Final Acquired January 2012.
IHS Inc. 2004. Alberta City Town (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Acquired: December, 2010.
IHS Inc. 2011c. IHS Road Segments (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Available:
http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: December, 2011.
Natural Resources Canada. 2011. National Road Network – Alberta (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC.
Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nrn/index.html. Acquired: June 2011. Last
Update Check: March 2012.
Page 4A-36
ATTACHMENT 4A1
SITE RECORDS
Page 4A-37
Black Pearl Resources Inc Aquatic Ecology Baseline Report
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A1-1 Watercourse Class: Mapped Class C
Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 200 m (5) Survey Date: October 3, 2010 / June 3, 2011
Restricted Activity Period: April 16 to July 15 Legal Location (W4M): 5-32-77-17
Field Crew: G. Todd, S. Bigelow UTM (Zone 12): 398630 E, 6175435 N
CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CONTINUED

Flow Regime Perennial Riparian Area Width (m) Left: 10-20, Right: 10-20
Channel Pattern Irregular Riparian Vegetation Type Shrubs/Mixed wood
Confinement Occasionally confined Beaver Dams None
Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 11.2, 7.0-13.5 Native Channel Width (m) n/a
Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 10.0, 6.0-12.0
Depth (m): Mean, Range 0.17, 0.05-0.32 BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream Gradient (%) 2.5 Bank Shape Sloping Sloping
Discharge (m³/s) 0.23 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A1-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A1-1 looking upstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: high, Right: high Bank Height (m) 1.3 0.8
SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT

Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.00 m) 0 0 Crown Closure (%) 1-20
Fines (<2 mm) 19 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.00 m) 29 15 Boulders (m2) 400
Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 5 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks (m2) 0
2
Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 16 Run 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation (m ) 40
Cobble (66-250 mm) 32 Run 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Woody Debris (m2) 21
2
Boulder (>250 mm) 28 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 15 8 Depth (m ) 0
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation (m2) 0
Water Temperature (oC) 6.8 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Other (m2) 0
2
pH 8.0 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 12.0 Riffle 119 62.3 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A1-1 looking downstream. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A1-1 looking downstream of
Turbidity (visual) Stained Step Pool 12 6.3 2
Other (m ) 0 ford crossing.
Conductivity (µS/cm) 198 Riffle/Boulder Garden 16 8.4 TOTAL COVER Moderate
FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL RATINGS

Species Spawning Rearing Feeding/Foraging Wintering Migration
Arctic grayling Suboptimal Marginal Marginal Marginal Suboptimal
northern pike Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Suboptimal
mountain whitefish Marginal Suboptimal Marginal Marginal Suboptimal
longnose sucker Optimal Optimal Poor Poor Suboptimal
FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length (mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT (fall 2010 / spring 2011)
(fall 2010 / (fall 2010 / (fall 2010 / spring
spring 2011) spring 2011) 2011)
Arctic grayling 1/3 0/0 185 / 205-263 Technique EF MT
mountain whitefish 1/5 0/1 105 / 119-145 Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 / 200 4 / n/a
Time (seconds/hours)
longnose sucker 0/2 0/1 n/a / 115-144 492 / 777 84 / n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
No. Captured 2 / 10 0 / n/a
CPUE (No. Fish per 100
Project
0.4 / 1.3 0 / n/a
sec/No. Fish per 1 hour)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Habitat data was collected in fall 2010, a second season of fish sampling was conducted in spring 2011. Also conducted sample angling with 2
spinners for 1.0 hours in spring 2011.
Page 4A-38
Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 100 m (5) Survey Date: June 1, 2011

Channel Pattern Sinuous Riparian Vegetation Type Shrubs
Confinement Confined Beaver Dams None
Discharge (m³/s) 0.15 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A1-2 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at A1-2 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Both banks: moderate - Bank Height (m) 3.4 2.3
high

2
Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 6 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks (m ) 3
Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 18 Run 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation (m2) 13.5
Cobble (66-250 mm) 12 Run 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Woody Debris (m2) 9.5
Boulder (>250 mm) 19 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 45 45 Depth (m2) 8
o 2
Water Temperature ( C) 11.2 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
pH 8.3 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 10 10 Other (m2) 0
2
Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A1-2 of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A1-2 of right bank.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 11.9 Riffle 12 12 Other (m ) 0
Turbidity (visual) Stained Other 0 0 Other (m2) 0
Conductivity (µS/cm) 198 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Abundant

Arctic grayling Optimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Marginal Suboptimal
northern pike Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Marginal Suboptimal
mountain whitefish Marginal Suboptimal Suboptimal Marginal Suboptimal
longnose sucker Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Marginal Suboptimal
FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length (mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT
Arctic grayling 2 3 145-250 Technique EF MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 n/a
Time (seconds/hours) 56 n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
No. Captured 2 n/a
Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 3.6 n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Site was included on spring visit. Electrofishing stopped due to potential spawning of Arctic grayling.
Page 4A-39
Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 100m (5) Survey Date: June 1, 2011

Flow Regime Perennial Riparian Area Width (m) Left: 10-20 , Right: 10-20
Confinement Frequently confined Beaver Dams None
Stream Gradient (%) Sinuous Bank Shape Vertical Sloping
Discharge (m³/s) 0.12 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A1-3 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at A1-3 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Both banks: high Bank Height (m) 1.2 3.2

2
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 0 Flat 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation (m2) 0
2
pH 7.5 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 15 16 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 9.5 Riffle 5 5 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A1-3 looking downstream. Plate 4 Photograph taken site A1-3 looking upstream.
2
Turbidity (visual) Stained Other 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Conductivity (µS/cm) 57.1 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Abundant

Arctic grayling Poor Marginal Marginal Poor Suboptimal
northern pike Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Suboptimal
mountain whitefish Poor Marginal Poor Poor Suboptimal
longnose sucker Poor Suboptimal Marginal Poor Suboptimal
Arctic grayling 1 0 136 Technique EF MT
Time (seconds/hours) 551 n/a
No. Captured 1 n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 0.18 n/a Project
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Site was included on spring visit. 0.5 hour angling with a spinner rod was also conducted with nothing captured or observed.
Page 4A-40
Habitat Survey Length (# Transects): 150 m (5) Survey Date: May 29, 2011

Channel Pattern Irregular meandering Riparian Vegetation Type Shrubs
Confinement Frequently confined Beaver Dams None
Stream Gradient (%) 1-2 Bank Shape Vertical Vertical
Discharge (m³/S) 0.01 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A1-4 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A1-4 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: low, Right: low Bank Height (m) 1.5 1.4
SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (M) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT

Organics 0 Pool 1 (Depth >1.00 m) 4 3 Crown Closure (%) 21-40
Fines (<2 mm) 34 Pool 2 (Depth 0.5-1.00 m) 21 18 Boulders (m2) 13.25
Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 22 Pool 3 (Depth <0.5 m) 26 22 Undercut Banks (m2) 12.5
2
2
Water Temperature (OC) 8.0 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Other (m2) 0
2
pH 6.9 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 11.1 Riffle 43 36 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A1-4 of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A1-4 of right bank.
2
Turbidity (Visual) Stained Other 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Conductivity (µS/cm) 29.7 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Moderate

Arctic grayling Marginal Marginal Poor Marginal Marginal
northern pike Unsuitable Marginal Poor Marginal Marginal
mountain whitefish Marginal Marginal Poor Marginal Marginal
longnose sucker Suboptimal Suboptimal Poor Marginal Marginal
FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length (Mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT
No fish captured 0 0 n/a Technique EF MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 100 8
Time (Seconds/Hours) 673 156
No. Captured 0 0
CPUE (No. Fish Per 100 0 0 Project
Sec/No. Fish Per 1 Hour)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
0.75 hour angling with a spinner, jig, and spoon rod was also conducted with nothing captured or observed
Page 4A-41
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A1-5 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C
Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 100 m (5) Survey Date: October 1, 2010

Flow Regime Beaver dam complex Riparian Area Width (m) Left: 20-30 Right: 20-30
Channel Pattern n/r Riparian Vegetation Type Shrubs
Confinement n/a Beaver Dams Yes
Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range n/a Native Channel Width (m) n/r
Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 8.6, 6-10
Stream Gradient (%) 2 Bank Shape Sloping Sloping
Discharge (m³/s) Negligible Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A1-5 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A1-5 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: medium Right: Bank Height (m) n/a n/a
medium

2
Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 0 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks (m ) 0
Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 0 Run 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation (m2) 5
2
Cobble (66-250 mm) 0 Run 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Woody Debris (m ) 0.5
o 2
pH 6.9 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m2) 0
2
Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A1-5 looking at right bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A1-5 looking at left bank.
Turbidity (visual) Stained Step Pool 0 0 Other (m2) 0
Conductivity (µS/cm) 125.5 Riffle/Boulder Garden 0 0 TOTAL COVER Moderate

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal
northern pike Unsuitable Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal
spring 2011) spring 2011) 2011)
No fish captured 0 0 0 Technique MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 6
Time (seconds/hours) 150
Project
No. Captured 0
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 0
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
One season of sampling conducted.
Page 4A-42
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A1b-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped class C
Restricted activity Period: April 16 to July 15 Legal Location (W4M): 16-9-77-17
Field Crew: G. Todd, S. Bigelow UTM (Zone 12): 401169E, 6169379N

Flow Regime Beaver dam complex Riparian Area Width (m) Left: 20-30 , Right: 20-30
Channel Pattern n/a Riparian Vegetation Type Grass
Confinement n/a Beaver Dams Yes
Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 0.4 Native Channel Width (m) n/a
Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 0.4
Stream Gradient (%) n/a Bank Shape Sloping Sloping
Discharge (m³/s) Negligible Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A1b-1 from south side of Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A1b-1 from east side of pond
Grade Of Approach Slopes n/a Bank Height (m) 0.4 0.4 pond facing north. facing west.
SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length % COVER TYPES AMOUNT

(m)
Organics 60 Pool 1 (Depth >1.00 m) 0 0 Crown Closure (%) 0
Fines (<2 mm) 40 Pool 2 (Depth 0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Boulders (m2) 0
2
Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 0 Pool 3 (Depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks (m ) 0
2
Cobble (66-250 mm) 0 Run 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Woody Debris (m ) 0
O 2
Water Temperature ( C) 13 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Other (m ) n/a
pH 6.4 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m2) n/a
2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 4.2 Riffle 0 0 Other (m ) n/a Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A1b-1 downstream of the Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A1b-1 downstream of the
Turbidity (Visual) Stained Impoundment 100 100 Other (m2) n/a beaver dam on the north side of the pond facing beaver dam on the north side of the pond facing
downstream. upstream.
Conductivity (µS/cm) 54 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Moderate

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable
northern pike Marginal Marginal Marginal Poor Unsuitable
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable
longnose sucker Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Unsuitable
Distance (m)/ No. of traps n/a 8
Time (Seconds/Hours) n/a 164
No. Captured n/a 0
CPUE (No. Fish Per 100 n/a 0 Blackrod Commercial SAGD
Project
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Isolated ponded area. Angling for approximately 50 minutes yielded no fish.
Page 4A-43
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A1c-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C
Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 100 m (5) Survey Date: May 30, 2011

Channel Pattern Sinuous Riparian Vegetation Type Grass
Confinement Unconfined Beaver Dams Present
Discharge (m³/s) 0.01 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A1c-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A1c-1 looking downstream.

Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.00 m) 0 0 Crown Closure (%) 0
2
2
2
pH 6.3 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) /Run 3 100 100 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.1 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A1c-1 of right bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken 100 m downstream of site A1c-1
Turbidity (visual) Stained Other 0 0 2
Other (m ) 0 looking upstream.
Conductivity (µS/cm) 39.2 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Trace

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
northern pike Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 7
Time (seconds/hours) 441 155.75
No. Captured 0 0
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 0 0
sec/No. Fish per 1 hour) Project
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Breached dam downstream of the site therefore no overwintering
Page 4A-44
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A2-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C

Channel Pattern Straight Riparian Vegetation Type Shrubs
Confinement Confined Beaver Dams None
Stream Gradient (%) 2 Bank Shape Variable Variable
Discharge (m³/s) 0.07 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A2-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A2-1 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: high, Right: high Bank Height (m) 1.1 1.0

Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 6 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 28 29 Undercut Banks (m2) 2.5
2
2
Water Temperature (oC) 7.7 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Stain (m2) 100
pH 8.5 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m2) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 11.4 Riffle 17 18 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A2-1 of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A2-1 of right bank.
2
Turbidity (visual) Stained Riffle/Boulder Garden 25 26 Other (m ) 0

Arctic grayling Suboptimal Marginal Marginal Poor Marginal
northern pike Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Marginal
mountain whitefish Marginal Suboptimal Poor Poor Marginal
longnose sucker Suboptimal Suboptimal Poor Poor Marginal
FISH SPECIES No. Captured (fall No. Observed (fall Fork Length (mm) (fall FISH SAMPLING EFFORT (fall 2010 / spring 2011)
PRESENT 2010/spring 2011) 2010/spring 2011) 2010 / spring 2011)
No fish 0/0 0/0 n/a Technique EF MT
captured
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 / 200 4 / n/a
602 / 845 376 / n/a
No. Captured 0/0 0 / n/a
Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 0/0 0 / n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Habitat data was collected in fall 2010, a second season of fish sampling was conducted in spring 2011.
Page 4A-45
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A2-2 Watercourse Class: Unmapped class C
Habitat Survey Length (# Transects): 100 m (5) Survey Date: June 4, 2011
Field Crew: G. Todd, S. Bigelow UTM (Zone 12): 398465E, 6167558N

Flow Regime Perennial Riparian area Width (m) Left: 5-10, Right: 5-10
Channel Pattern Sinuous Riparian Vegetation Type Grass and shrubs
Confinement Occasionally confined Beaver Dams Yes
Stream Gradient (%) 2.0 Bank Shape Vertical Sloping
Discharge (m³/s) 0.03 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A2-2 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A2-2 looking downstream.
Grade Of approach Slopes Left: moderate, Right: Bank Height (m) 1.1 1.5
moderate

Organics 0 Pool 1 (Depth >1.00 m) 0 0 Crown Closure (%) 1-20
Fines (<2 mm) 80 Pool 2 (Depth 0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Boulders (m2) 0.5
2
Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 15 Pool 3 (Depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks (m ) 0
Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 5 Run 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation (m2) 0.5
O 2
pH 7.7 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m2) 0
2
Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A2-2 of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A2-2 of right bank.
Turbidity (Visual) Stained Other 0 0 Other (m2) 0
Conductivity (µS/cm) 142 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Trace

northern Pike Unsuitable Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal
Time (Seconds/Hours) 495 n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
No. Captured 0 n/a Project
CPUE (No. Fish Per 100 0 n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Appears to have high flows in spring that drop rapidly
Page 4A-46
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A2a-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C
Habitat Survey Length (# Transects): 100 m (5) Survey Date: May 26, 2011 / May 27, 2011

Flow Regime Intermittent Riparian Area Width (m) Left:30-40, Right:30-40
Channel Pattern Sinuous Riparian Vegetation Type Grass
Confinement Unconfined Beaver Dams Yes
Discharge (m³/s) 0.05 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at A2a-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at A2a-1 looking downstream.
Grade Of approach Slopes Left: low, Right: low Bank Height (m) 0.5 0.4

Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 0 Pool 3 (Depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks (m2) 0
2
2
Water Temperature (OC) 11.3/13.0 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Other (m2) 0
2
pH 6.1 Flat 3 (<0.5 m)/Run 3 100 100 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 9.7 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at A2a-1 of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at A2a-1 of right bank.
2
Turbidity (Visual) Stained Other 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Conductivity (µS/cm) 48.9 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Trace

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
northern pike Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
longnose sucker Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
Distance (m)/ No. of Traps 200 7
Time (Seconds/Hours) 463 163.9
No. Captured 0 0
CPUE (No. Fish Per 100 0 0 Project
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Within the 100 m study site, 50 m is located within a breached beaver pond. It is comprised of multiple channels. The other 50 m is located downstream
of the beaver dam and the channel disappears 200 m downstream into a series of beaver ponds. No obvious channel was found upstream of the
beaver pond however another pond was found approximately 400 m upstream (399022 E, 6171788 N). Fishing effort included 3 MT for a total of 64.5
hours with nothing caught or observed. Low wet areas found throughout.
.
Page 4A-47
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River A2a-2 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C

Flow Regime Beaver dam complex Riparian Area Width (m) Left: 5-10, Right: 5-10
Channel Pattern Straight Riparian Vegetation Type Conifers
Confinement Occasionally confined Beaver Dams Yes
Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 5.2, 0.9-13.0 Native Channel Width (m) undetermined
Discharge (m³/s) 0.09 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site A2a-2 of pond from the Plate 2 Photograph taken at site A2a-2 of pond from the access
Grade Of approach Slopes n/r Bank Height (m) 0.5 0.5 access on the west side facing east. on the west side facing southeast.

Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 11 Pool 3 (Depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks (m2) 0
2
Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 11 Run 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation (m ) 2.5
2
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1 Flat 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation (m2) 2.0
Water Temperature (OC) 13.5/9.6 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 0 0 Other (m2) 0
2
pH 6.4/6.5 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 100 100 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 2.8/5.7 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0
Turbidity (Visual) Lightly turbid Other 0 0 2
Other (m ) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site A2a-2 downstream from Plate 4 Photograph taken at site A2a-2 downstream from
beaver dam and pond facing southeast. beaver dam and pond, view downstream facing
Conductivity (µS/cm) 77.5/70.5 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Trace northwest.

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable
northern pike Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable
longnose sucker Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable
Distance (m)/ No. of traps n/a 9
Time (Seconds/Hours) n/a 184.5
No. Captured n/a 0
CPUE (No. Fish Per 100 n/a 0
Sec/No. Fish Per 1 Hour) Blackrod Commercial SAGD
Project
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The 150 m study site includes a beaver pond approximately 100 m x 90 m, 50 m of historically flooded channel upstream from a breached beaver dam
and 75 m of channel downstream from the beaver activity. The channel flows in a northwest direction. Angling for approximately 1 hour, no fish
captured or observed.
Page 4A-48
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River B4-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C
Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 100 m (5) Survey Date: October 4, 2010 / May 31, 2011

Confinement Unconfined Beaver Dams None
Discharge (m³/s) 0.02 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site B4-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site B4-1 looking downstream.

2
2
pH 8.0 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 83 84 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 4.8 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site B4-1 of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site B4-1 of right bank.
2

northern pike Marginal Marginal Poor Unsuitable Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Marginal Poor Unsuitable Marginal
FISH SPECIES No. Captured (fall No. Observed (fall Fork Length (mm) (fall FISH SAMPLING EFFORT (fall 2010 / spring 2011)
PRESENT 2010 / spring 2011) 2010 / spring 2011) 2010 / spring 2011)
No fish captured 0/0 0/0 n/a Technique EF MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 / 200 4/6
Time (seconds/hours) 529 / 512 179 / 18
No. Captured 0/0 0/0 Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 0/0 0/0
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Page 4A-49
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River C1-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C

Flow Regime Perennial/beaver dam complex Riparian Area Width (m) Left: 10-20, Right: 10-20
Channel Pattern Meandering Riparian Vegetation Type Shrubs
Confinement Occasionally confined Beaver Dams Present
Discharge (m³/s) 0.02 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site C1-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at C1-1 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: moderate, Right: moderate Bank Height (m) 1.0 0.8

Fines (<2 mm) 70 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.00 m) 17 17 Boulders (m2) 2.5
2
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 1 (>1.00 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation (m2) 39.5
2
pH 6.6 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 5 5 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 9.4 Riffle 23 23 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site C1-1 looking downstream. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site C1-1 looking upstream
2
Conductivity (µS/cm) 114 Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Trace

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
northern pike Poor Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal
mountain whitefish Poor Marginal Poor Unsuitable Marginal
longnose sucker Poor Suboptimal Poor Unsuitable Marginal
FISH SPECIES No. Captured (fall No. Observed (fall Fork Length (mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT (fall 2010 / spring 2011)
PRESENT 2010 / spring 2011) 2010 / spring 2011) (fall 2010/spring
2011)
brook stickleback 5/1 0/0 44-50 / 45 Technique EF MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps n/a / 200 5 / n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
Time (seconds/hours) n/a / 825 15 / n/a
No. Captured n/a / 1 5 / n/a
Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 n/a / 0.12 0.33 / n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Page 4A-50

Flow Regime Beaver dam complex Riparian Area Width (m) Left: ≥50, Right: ≥50
Channel Pattern Straight/sinuous Riparian Vegetation Type Grass
Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range n/a Native Channel Width (m) n/a
Stream Gradient (%) 0-0.5 Bank Shape n/a n/a
Discharge (m³/s) 0.01 Bank Texture n/a n/a Plate 1 Photograph taken at site C1-2 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at C1-2 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: low, Right: low Bank Height (m) n/a n/a

2
2
2
pH 6.8 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 5.2 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site C1-2 looking downstream. Plate 4 Photograph taken 75 m downstream of site C1-2 of
Turbidity (visual) Stained Impoundment 120 100 2
Other (m ) 0 beaver pond

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Marginal
northern pike Marginal Marginal Marginal Poor Marginal
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Marginal
spring 2011) spring 2011) 2011)
brook stickleback 12/ 0 20 / 0 30-60 / n/a Technique EF MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 / 200 n/a
Time (seconds/hours) 261 / 514 n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
No. Captured 12 / 0 n/a Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 4.6 / 0 n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Page 4A-51

Flow Regime Wetland/beaver dam Riparian Area Width (m) Left: 40-50, Right: 40-50
complex
Channel Pattern Straight/sinuous Riparian Vegetation Type Grass, shrubs
Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 1.5 (single measurement) Native Channel Width (m) n/a
Stream Gradient (%) 0-0.5 Bank Shape Vertical Vertical
Plate 1 Photograph taken at site C1-3 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at C1-3 looking downstream.
Discharge (m³/s) Negligible Bank Texture Fines Fines
Grade Oof Approach Slopes Left: low, Right: low Bank Height (m) 1.0 1.0

2
o
Water Temperature ( C) 6.1 Flat 2 (0.5-1.00 m) 90 90 Other (m2) 0
2
pH 6.7 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Plate 3 Photograph taken at C1-3 looking upstream. Plate 4 Photograph taken at C1-3 looking upstream.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.8 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0
2

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Marginal
northern pike Marginal Marginal Marginal Poor Marginal
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Marginal
spring 2011) spring 2011) 2011)
brook stickleback 35 / 19 1/0 Not recorded / 25- Technique EF MT1
45 Blackrod Commercial SAGD
Distance (m)/ No. of traps n/a / 200 5/5
Project
n/a / 545 230 / 125
No. Captured n/a / 0 35 / 19
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 n/a / 0 0.2 / 0.15
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Fish sampling in spring 2011 also included a beaver pond downstream. Site transitions from defined channel to wetland drainage to beaver pond and
includes multiple beaver ponds downstream. Habitat data was collected in fall 2010 and a second season of fish sampling was conducted in spring
2011. Sample angling was conducted during the spring 2011 fish inventory. No fish were captured.
Page 4A-52
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River C1a-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C

Channel Pattern Irregular Riparian Vegetation Type Shrubs
Confinement Unconfined Beaver Dams None
Stream Gradient (%) 0.5-1 Bank Shape Vertical Vertical
Discharge (m³/s) Negligible Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at C1a-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at C1a-1 looking downstream.

2
2
pH 7.5 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 10 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site C1a-1 of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site C1a-1 looking downstream.
2
Turbidity (visual) Stained Flat 3/Run 3 100 100 Other (m ) 0

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
northern pike Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable Marginal
spring 2011) spring 2011) 2011)
No fish captured 0/0 0/0 n/a Technique EF MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 / 200 n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
Time (seconds/hours) 712 / 428 n/a
No. Captured 0/0 n/a
Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 0/0 n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Habitat data was collected in fall 2010, a second season of fish sampling was conducted in spring 2011. Site becomes non-defined channel further
upstream.
Page 4A-53
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River D1-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C
Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 200 m (5) Survey Date: October 8, 2010/ June 2, 2011

Confinement Occasionally confined Beaver Dams Present
Discharge (m³/s) 0.24 Bank Texture Fines Fines Plate 1 Photograph taken at site D1-1 looking upstream. Plate 2 Photograph taken at site D1-1 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: moderate, Right: high Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 2.2 1.2

2
2
pH 7.2 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 10.1 Riffle 45 31 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken at site D1-1 looking upstream. Plate 4 Photograph taken at site D1-1 looking downstream.
2

Arctic grayling Optimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Marginal Suboptimal
northern pike Unsuitable Poor Poor Marginal Suboptimal
mountain whitefish Suboptimal Suboptimal Marginal Marginal Suboptimal
longnose sucker Optimal Optimal Marginal Marginal Suboptimal
FISH SPECIES No. Captured (fall No. Observed Fork Length (mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT (fall 2010 / spring 2011)
PRESENT 2010 / spring (fall 2010 / (fall 2010 / spring
2011) spring 2011) 2011)
longnose sucker 12 / 10 0/1 32-194 / 34-219 Technique EF MT
brook stickleback 5/0 0/0 45-71 / n/a Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 / 200 5 / n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
pearl dace 0/4 0/0 n/a / 61-72 Time (seconds/hours) 1044 / 1057 25 / n/a
No. Captured 13 / 14 4 / n/a
Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 1.2 / 1.3 0.2 / n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Habitat data was collected in fall 2010, a second season of fish sampling was conducted in spring 2011. Also conducted sample angling with 2
spinners for 0.5 hours in spring 2011.
Page 4A-54
Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Athabasca River D2-1 Watercourse Class: Unmapped Class C

Flow Regime Wetland Riparian Area Width (m) Left: ≥50, Right: ≥50
Channel Pattern Sinuous Riparian Vegetation Type Wetland
Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range n/a Native Channel Width (m) n/a
Stream Gradient (%) 0.5 Bank Shape n/a n/a
Discharge (m³/s) 0.05 Bank Texture n/a n/a Plate 1 Photograph taken at D2-2 looking upstream Plate 2 Photograph taken at D2-2 looking downstream.
Grade Of Approach Slopes Left: low, Right: low Bank Height (m) n/a n/a

2
2
2
pH 6.8 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other (m ) 0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.1 Riffle 0 0 Other (m2) 0 Plate 3 Photograph taken of a beaver dam at D2-2 looking Plate 4 Photograph taken near wetland outlet at D2-2
Turbidity (visual) Stained Other 0 0 2
Other (m ) 0 upstream. looking upstream.

Arctic grayling Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Marginal
northern pike Marginal Suboptimal Suboptimal Poor Marginal
mountain whitefish Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Marginal
longnose sucker Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Marginal
spring 2011) spring 2011) 2011)
brook stickleback 15 / 3 1/0 30-63 / 47-61 Technique EF MT
Distance (m)/ No. of traps 200 / 200 n/a
Time (seconds/hours) 694 / 408 n/a Blackrod Commercial SAGD
No. Captured 15 / 3 n/a Project
CPUE (No. Fish per 100 2.2 / 0.74 n/a
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Habitat data was collected in fall 2010, a second season of fish sampling was conducted in spring 2011 including sample angling with 2 spinners for
0.5 hours. Channel not defined at the crossing however a channel width of 1.5 m was measured 100 m upstream of the crossing. Site includes a lake
approximately 250 m upstream which provides the over wintering habitat.
Page 4A-55
BlackPearl Resources Inc. Vegetation Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1A.0 VEGETATION BASELINE REPORT ..........................................................................................1A-4
1A.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1A-4
1A.1.1 Study Objectives ...............................................................................................1A-4
1A.2 Methods .........................................................................................................................1A-5
1A.2.1 Study Area Boundaries .....................................................................................1A-5
1A.2.2 Desktop / Literature Review ..............................................................................1A-6
1A.2.3 Vegetation Community Classification ...............................................................1A-7
1A.2.4 Habitat Fragmentation ................................................................................... 1A-18
1A.2.5 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge ............................................. 1A-19
1A.2.6 Field Surveys ................................................................................................. 1A-19
1A.3 Results ........................................................................................................................ 1A-25
1A.3.1 Vegetation Community Classification ............................................................ 1A-25
1A.3.2 Habitat Fragmentation ................................................................................... 1A-52
1A.3.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge .................................................................. 1A-56
1A.3.4 Field Surveys ................................................................................................. 1A-57
1A.4 References .................................................................................................................. 1A-69
1A.4.1 Personal Communications ............................................................................. 1A-69
1A.4.2 Literature Cited............................................................................................... 1A-69
1A.4.3 GIS and Mapping ........................................................................................... 1A-74
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1A1 Potential Rare Ecological Communities in the Central Mixedwood and
Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregions ........................................................... 1A-75
Attachment 1A2 Potential Rare Vascular Plants in the Central Mixedwood and Lower Boreal
Highlands Natural Subregions.................................................................................. 1A-77
Attachment 1A3 Priority Habitats for Bryophytes and Lichens ........................................................... 1A-84
Attachment 1A4 Habitat Fragmentation Metrics Summary ................................................................. 1A-85
Attachment 1A5 Observed Plant Species – by Type and Common Name ........................................ 1A-86
Attachment 1A6 ELC Site Cards ......................................................................................................... 1A-97
Attachment 1A7 Observed Rare Plant Species Descriptions ........................................................... 1A-127
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1A-1 Edatope (moisture/nutrient grid) Showing the Location of Ecosites for the
Boreal Mixedwood..........................................................................................................1A-9
Figure 1A-2 Vegetation Survey Locations ...................................................................................... 1A-21
Figure 1A-3 Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plant Survey Locations .................................. 1A-24
Figure 1A-4 Baseline ELC .............................................................................................................. 1A-26
Figure 1A-5 Baseline AWI............................................................................................................... 1A-32
Figure 1A-6 Baseline LCC .............................................................................................................. 1A-35
Figure 1A-7 Baseline Old Growth Ecosite Phases ......................................................................... 1A-37
Figure 1A-8 LSA Baseline Riparian Areas...................................................................................... 1A-39
Figure 1A-9 RSA Baseline Riparian Areas ..................................................................................... 1A-41
Figure 1A-10 LSA Baseline ELC Communities of Limited Distribution............................................. 1A-43
Figure 1A-11 LSA Baseline AWI Communities of Limited Distribution ............................................. 1A-45
Figure 1A-12 RSA Baseline LCC Communities of Limited Distribution ............................................ 1A-46
Figure 1A-13 Previously Recorded Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plant
Occurrences Within the LSA ....................................................................................... 1A-48
Figure 1A-14 LSA Baseline ELC Potential to Support Rare Ecological Communities ..................... 1A-50
Figure 1A-15 LSA Baseline ELC Potential to Support Rare Vascular Plants ................................... 1A-51
Page 1A-2
Figure 1A-16 Rare and Uncommon Ecological Communities Observed.......................................... 1A-58

Figure 1A-17 Rare Vascular Plants Observed.................................................................................. 1A-60
Figure 1A-18 Rare Nonvascular Plants Observed............................................................................ 1A-63
Figure 1A-19 Non-Native and Invasive Plants Observed ................................................................. 1A-68
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1A-1 LSA Preliminary Land Cover Classifications .............................................................. 1A-10
Table 1A-2 LSA Ecological Land Classifications ........................................................................... 1A-11
Table 1A-3 Wetland Classification Scheme .................................................................................. 1A-12
Table 1A-4 Concordance Between Alberta Wetland Inventory and Ecosite Phase
Classifications ............................................................................................................. 1A-12
Table 1A-5 LSA Alberta Wetland Inventory Classifications........................................................... 1A-13
Table 1A-6 RSA Land Cover Classes ........................................................................................... 1A-14
Table 1A-7 Minimum Ages for Old Growth Forests ....................................................................... 1A-15
Table 1A-8 LSA Baseline ELC Communities’ Potential to Support Rare Ecological
Communities ............................................................................................................... 1A-16
Table 1A-9 LSA Baseline ELC Communities’ Potential to Support Rare Vascular Plants ............ 1A-17
Table 1A-10 LSA and RSA Scale Habitat Fragmentation Metrics .................................................. 1A-19
Table 1A-11 LSA Baseline ELC Distribution ................................................................................... 1A-25
Table 1A-12 LSA Baseline AWI Distribution.................................................................................... 1A-31
Table 1A-13 RSA Land Cover Classes ........................................................................................... 1A-34
Table 1A-14 LSA Baseline Old Growth Forest Distribution ............................................................. 1A-36
Table 1A-15 LSA Baseline Riparian Areas Distribution .................................................................. 1A-38
Table 1A-16 RSA Baseline Riparian Areas Distribution .................................................................. 1A-40
Table 1A-17 LSA Baseline ELC Communities of Limited Distribution............................................. 1A-42
Table 1A-18 LSA Baseline AWI Communities of Limited Distribution ............................................. 1A-44
Table 1A-19 RSA Baseline LCC Communities of Limited Distribution ............................................ 1A-44
Table 1A-20 Previously Recorded Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plant
Occurrences Within the RSA ...................................................................................... 1A-47
Table 1A-21 LSA Baseline ELC With Potential to Support Rare Ecological Communities
Distribution .................................................................................................................. 1A-49
Table 1A-22 LSA Baseline ELC With Potential to Support Rare Vascular Plants
Distribution .................................................................................................................. 1A-49
Table 1A-23 LSA ELC Mean Patch Size and Mean Percentage Anthropogenic Edge
Distribution Habitat Fragmentation Metrics ................................................................. 1A-52
Table 1A-24 LSA AWI Mean Patch Size and Mean Percentage Anthropogenic Edge
Table 1A-25 LSA Ripairan Areas Mean Patch Size and Mean Percentage Anthropogenic
Edge Distribution Habitat Fragmentation Metrics ....................................................... 1A-54
Table 1A-26 RSA LLC Mean Patch Size and Mean Percentage Anthropogenic Edge
Table 1A-27 RSA Riparian Areas Mean Patch Size and Mean Percentage Anthropogenic
Edge Distribution Habitat Fragmentation Metrics ....................................................... 1A-56
Table 1A-28 TEK Plant Species Identified ...................................................................................... 1A-57
Table 1A-29 Rare Ecological Communitiy and Uncommon Ecological Communities
Observed..................................................................................................................... 1A-57
Table 1A-30 Rare Vascular Plants Observed.................................................................................. 1A-61
Table 1A-31 Rare Nonvascular Plants Observed............................................................................ 1A-64
Page 1A-3
1A.0 VEGETATION BASELINE REPORT
1A.1 Introduction
bitumen recovery project. The Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) is located on Crown land
northwest of the Hamlet of Wandering River, Alberta. The Project is expected to be developed in three
To support the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Project, baseline studies were conducted.
This Vegetation Baseline Report presents the methods and results of a desktop/literature review and the
vegetation baseline field surveys conducted from July 27 to July 31, 2010, June 24 to July 1, 2011, July
23 to July 25, 2011, and July 26 to August 2, 2011.
1A.1.1 Study Objectives

The objectives of the vegetation surveys were to:
• describe and map current vegetation communities, wetlands, old growth forests and communities of
limited distribution at both a local and regional scale;
• describe and quantify the current extent of habitat fragmentation at both a local and regional scale;
• identify and map at a local scale any rare plant species and rare ecological communities as defined
by the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC), the Alberta Wildlife Act; The General Status of Alberta Wild Species (Alberta
Sustainable Resource and Development [ASRD] 2011a), and the Alberta Conservation Information
Management System (ACIMS);
• record the abundance and distribution at a local scale of non-native invasive species; and
The purpose of Aboriginal participation during the vegetation baseline studies was to document the
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) that has accumulated over generations and been passed down
to Elders to inform the baseline environmental conditions and to identify potential opportunities for
mitigation. The overall objectives of Aboriginal participation were to:
• document Aboriginal TEK shared during the field work;
• provide TEK input into Project development;
• determine baseline environmental and socio-economic conditions informed by TEK; and
• identify potential mitigation opportunities.
Page 1A-4
1A.2 Methods
1A.2.1 Study Area Boundaries

The spatial boundaries considered for the vegetation assessment include the:
• Project Area, which is the area directly disturbed by Project activities;
• Vegetation Local Study Area (LSA) described in Section 1A.2.1.1; and
• Vegetation Regional Study Area (RSA) described in Section 1A.2.1.2.
1A.2.1.1 Local Study Area

The LSA is the area surrounding and including the Project Area, where there is a reasonable potential for
immediate environmental impacts due to ongoing project activities. The LSA is defined as a 450 m wide
buffer around the edge of the Project Area and is located in Townships 77 and 78, Ranges 18 and 17
W4M, and is 6,136 ha in area (Figure 1.3-1 in Section 1.3).
Key considerations used to establish the spatial boundaries of the LSA for the Project were the expected
distance that changes in light regime, microclimate, dust effects, other edge effects and hydrology are
expected to extend from a disturbed area. Although existing vegetation will only be altered in the Project
Area, vegetation composition in areas adjacent to the Project Area will be affected by indirect effects
resulting from clearing. These changes are often referred to as edge effects. The spatial extent of
changes in vegetation composition may be affected by a number of factors. In one study, increased light
was shown to allow the invasion of shade-intolerant vegetation up to 30 m (Ranney et al. 1981).
Microclimate changes are known to extend from 10-50 m from the edge of a road surface (Forman et al.
2003). Additionally, sand and silt effects from road dust may extend 5-40 m from a road surface (Forman
et al. 2003). Although, some roadway effects are not applicable to all components of the Project, such as
the well pads, the clearing of native vegetation will result in similar effects in many instances. In addition,
previous studies have observed edge effects ranging from 20-150 m (where edge effects do not relate to
sensitive wildlife species) from the disturbance (Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group [SEWG] 2002).
Therefore, the distances that the effects described above are expected to extend would be up to 150 m.
Wetlands could be affected by changes to local hydrology and topography in addition to the above
mentioned edge effects. A Qualified Wetland Aquatic Environment Specialist (QWAES) takes into
account a variety of factors, such as wetland types and distribution and hydrologic and topographical
connectivity between wetlands based on field work results to further define the LSA. In consultation with a
QWAES, a LSA larger than 150 m from the edge of the Project Area was established in order to ensure
data was analyzed for a sufficient area adjacent to the Project Area. All of the considerations discussed
above resulted in a Vegetation LSA delineated to include the area within a buffer of 450 m from the
Project Area was established as the LSA to ensure a conservative estimate of the area in which
vegetation resources are most likely to be affected by the Project.
1A.2.1.2 Regional Study Area

The RSA is the area within which there is the potential for cumulative and socio-economic effects, and
that will be relevant to the assessment of any wider-spread effects of the Project. The RSA consists of a
broader area extending beyond the LSA boundary and is defined by the Athabasca River to the west,
Duncan Creek to the south and southeast and unnamed creeks to the north and east. The RSA is located
in Townships 73 through 78, Ranges 16, 17 and 18 W4M, and is 74,488 ha in area with a 165 km
perimeter (Figure 1.3-1 in Section 1.3).
Key considerations in defining the RSA were the separation distance typically used to distinguish one rare
plant population from another, the distance at which wind effects (as a result of clearing) may extend into
an area of native vegetation and the interrelationship of vegetation resources with other elements such as
soils, hydrology and wildlife. Element Occurrences (EO) are the area in which a species or community is
or was present. According to the NatureServe methodology, an EO generally refers to a local population
Page 1A-5
or a stand/patch of a community (NatureServe 2002). A Principle EO is defined as the occupied habitat

that contributes to the persistence of a species at that location. Although there are many factors which
may be taken into account, in general, the minimum separation distance for species EOs is 1 km
(NatureServe 2002). The NatureServe methodology is used by provincial conservation data centres
(including ACIMS) to define records of rare species and communities, and rank species rarity (Kemper
2009). Changes in wind patterns as a result of clearing can affect weed dispersal. Although weed
dispersal distances depend on a number of factors including the weed species, primary mode of
reproduction, propagule dispersal vector and context of the infestation, many weed species produce large
numbers of seeds which are wind dispersed. For example, approximately one third of the species listed in
the Alberta Weed Regulation belong to the sunflower family (Asteraceae) which is adapted for wind
dispersal. It has been noted that changes in wind currents may be detected at a distance (from the edge)
of 100 times the height of the vegetation (Saunders et al. 1991). Based on Alberta Vegetation Inventory
(AVI) data available for the Project, the taller trees in the LSA are 36 m tall (Alberta Pacific Forest
Products Limited [Al-Pac] 2010). Therefore, meteorological edge effects have the potential to influence
vegetation up to 3.6 km away (Saunders et al. 1991). The RSA focuses on encompassing expansive
wetlands, waterbodies and riparian zones that are associated with the hydrology of wetland complexes in
the Project Area. The watercourses that border the RSA make up the hydrological regime of wetlands
within the RSA, including a large fen that originates to the south of the Project. Numerous wetlands in the
LSA are minerogenous hydrological systems. Since the existence and condition of these types of
wetlands depends on linkage with the regional water system (i.e. channelized overland or channelized
flow) (National Wetland Working Group [NWWG] 1997), it is important that the RSA includes these
features. Unnamed tributaries (i.e. drainages) to the Athabasca River are encompassed within the RSA.
1A.2.2 Desktop / Literature Review
1A.2.2.1 Ecological Setting

The LSA primarily occurs in the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion while approximately 10% occurs in
the Lower Boreal Highlands (Natural Regions Committee [NRC] 2006) (Figure 1.3-2 in Section 1.3). The
RSA spans these two Natural Subregions (Figure 1.3-2 in Section 1.3). The LSA and RSA are located in
the Continental High Boreal Wetland Region (Government of Canada 1986).
The Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion is the largest Natural Subregion in Alberta and is
characterized by upland forests and wetlands on level to gently undulating plains. Upland forests are a
mosaic of aspen, mixedwood and white spruce. Common understory species include low-bush cranberry,
prickly rose, green alder, Canada buffaloberry, hairy wild rye, bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla and dewberry.
Jack pine stands occur on coarser materials. Wetlands are often extensive and are dominated by black
spruce fens and bogs (NRC 2006).
Landscapes in the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion are characterized by diverse mixedwood
forests on moist lower slopes of northern hill systems and extensive wetlands at slope bases and on
adjacent lowlands. Forests are a mix of aspen, balsam poplar, black spruce, white spruce, white birch
with hybrids of lodgepole pine and jack pine occurring specifically on slopes. Treed, shrubby or graminoid
fens occur in depressions, seepage zones or level areas. This Subregion has slightly colder winters and
warmer summers than the higher-elevation Upper Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion and is moister and
cooler than the adjacent Central Mixedwood and Dry Mixedwood Natural Subregions (NRC 2006).
In the Continental High Boreal Wetland Region, characteristic wetlands are peat plateau bogs, palsa bogs
and veneer bogs. Collapse scars and/or collapse scar bogs can be associated with or occur within
plateau and palsa bogs. Continuous permafrost occurs in peat plateau and palsa bogs, and the amount of
collapsing decreases in northern areas. The active layer (i.e., the surficial layer above permafrost which
thaws during summer) ranges from 40-60 cm in the north, to 1-2 m on the southern fringe. Veneer bogs,
common in the northern areas, are characterized by active layers of varying depths and permafrost.
Stream swamps are locally common. The average peat thickness is 2-3 m (Government of
Canada 1986).
Page 1A-6
1A.2.2.2 Wetlands Literature Review

A literature review was conducted using various wetland focused resources at the RSA scale. These
resources include Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance and Ducks Unlimited Canada Wetland
Conservation Priority Areas. The results of the literature review are provided below.
Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance

Currently, Canada has 37 Ramsar Convention designated wetlands that have international importance
related to ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology (Ramsar 1987). These sites support the
Ramsar vision "to develop and maintain an international network of wetlands which are important for the
conservation of global biological diversity and for sustaining human life through the ecological and
hydrological functions they perform" (Ramsar 1987).
The Ramsar Convention is recognized within the Canadian federal government policy on wetland
conservation. The objective with respect to wetlands is to promote the conservation of Canada's wetlands
to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions now and in the future and is to be met with the
maintenance of wetland functions through the no net loss of wetland function concept combined with
sound sustainable management practices and resource planning (Environment Canada 1991, 1996,
Lynch-Stewart 1992, Lynch-Stewart et al. 1996).
There are no Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance in the RSA (Bureau of the Convention on
Wetlands 2012).
Ducks Unlimited Canada Wetland Conservation Priority Areas

Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) is conserving wetlands and associated habitats across Canada. DUC
has designated 24 Conservation Priority Areas (areas of national ecological significance due to its unique
habitat and diversity of plant and animal species) in Alberta (DUC 2012).
The RSA is located in the DUC Western Boreal Forest Conservation Program Region although it does not
traverse any DUC Conservation Priority Areas (DUC 2012).
1A.2.3 Vegetation Community Classification

Vegetation communities were mapped using a variety of established classification systems at the LSA
scale using AVI data (Al-Pac 2010). The ecological land classification (ELC) system outlined in the Field
Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) was used to classify upland
forested areas, peatlands and marshes. The Alberta Wetland Inventory Classification (AWI) system
(Halsey et al. 2004) was used to classify wetlands. Some classifications for disturbed and non-forested
land were also assigned that do not fall within these classifications systems. Land cover classifications
(LCC) at the RSA scale were assigned based on Alberta Ground Cover Characterization (AGCC) strata
(Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2004) and derived from Landsat5 TM Level 1T reflectance data (United States
Geological Survey 2011).
In addition to mapping vegetation communities using established classification systems, vegetation

communities with specific characteristics of interest for the vegetation impact assessment were also
mapped. Vegetation communities with the potential to be old growth forests, riparian areas, communities
of limited distribution, or to support rare ecological communities or rare plants, were mapped.
1A.2.3.1 Ecological Land Classification

AVI polygons were classified to Ecosite Phase using the ELC system as described in the Field Guide to
Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). This classification system organizes
ecological information by classifying, identifying and naming distinct ecological units. The aim of this
system is to increase understanding of ecological function and inform ecologically based management
and planning.
Page 1A-7
The organization within this classification system is a hierarchical system, starting with ecosite as the
largest unit. Ecosites are functional ecological units that develop under similar conditions such as
moisture and nutrient regime. Each ecosite is represented by a lowercase letter with "a" being the driest
and nutrient poor and each subsequent letter denotes a progressively wetter and/or nutrient richer unit.
Within each ecosite there are often several Ecosite Phases. Ecosite Phases are defined based on the
dominant canopy species (or tallest vegetation layer where trees are not present). Ecosite Phases are
identified by a letter, representing the ecosite and a number representing each distinct phase. Numerous
plant community types are defined within each Ecosite Phase. Unique plant communities within an
Ecosite Phase are defined based on understory species composition and abundance. Plant communities
are represented by the alphanumeric code which identifies the Ecosite Phase followed by a period and
another number which represents the plant community type. For example, d1.1 Aw/Canada buffalo-berry
is one of many plant communities within the d1 low-bush cranberry Aw Ecosite Phase (where Aw refers to
aspen). It is not possible to determine plant community types from AVI data or imagery interpretation,
therefore polygons have been classified to Ecosite Phase.
The LSA is located within the Boreal Mixedwood Ecological Area as described in the Field Guide to
Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). This Ecological Area corresponds to the
Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion from the 1994 Alberta Natural Regions and Subregions (Alberta
Environmental Protection 1994). In 2006, the Natural Subregion boundaries were updated using a finer
level of detail due to improved ecological knowledge throughout the province (NRC 2006). During this
update, the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion was newly recognized. Approximately 10% of the
LSA is located within the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion, which transitions between the lower
elevation Central Mixedwood Natural Region and the higher elevation Upper Boreal Highlands in the
Stony Mountains (NRC 2006). The vegetation of the Lower Boreal Highlands is not well documented, and
where it is addressed, vegetation descriptions are very similar to those for the Central Mixedwood Natural
Subregion (NRC 2006). Since the Boreal Highlands Ecological Area, noted in the Ecosites of Northern
Alberta, does not span the LSA (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) and due to the similarities in vegetation
between the Central Mixedwood and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregions, Ecosite Phases have
been classified using the Boreal Mixedwood Ecological Area classifications within the LSA (Figure 1A-1).
Page 1A-8
NUTRIENT REGIME
Very Very
Poor Poor Med. Rich Rich
A B C D D
Xeric 2
Subxeric 3
a
Submesic 4 b
MOISTURE REGIME
c
Mesic 5
d
e
Subhygric 6
Hygric 7
g h f
Subhydric 8 i j k
Hydric 9 l
Ecosites: a = lichen e = dogwood i = bog
subxeric/poor subhygric/rich subhydric/very poor
b = blueberry f = horsetail j = poor fen
submesic/medium hygric/rich subhydric/medium
c = Labrador tea - mesic g = Labrador tea - subhygric k = rich fen
mesic/poor subhygric/poor subhydric/rich
d = low - bush cranberry h = Labrador tea/horsetail l = marsh
mesic/medium hygric/medium hydric/rich
Figure 1A-1. Edatope (moisture/nutrient grid) showing the location of ecosites for the Boreal Mixedwood.
A preliminary land cover classification map of the LSA was created using AVI data (Al-Pac 2010). The
classification resulted in 21 preliminary land cover classifications based on dominant cover and date of
origin for forested lands (Table 1A-1).
TABLE 1A-1
LSA PRELIMINARY LAND COVER CLASSIFICATIONS
Type Preliminary Land Cover Classification

Forested Upland Young deciduous
Mature deciduous
Old deciduous
Young mixedwood
Mature mixedwood
Old mixedwood
Young pine
Mature pine
Old pine
Young coniferous (non-pine)
Coniferous (non-pine)
Coniferous (non-pine)
Wetland Young bog
Mature bog
Old bog
Disturbance / Non-Forested Cutblock
Dense shrub
Open shrub
Sparse shrub
Grassland
Herbaceous
The preliminary land cover classifications are broad classifications that allow for multiple Ecosite Phase
classifications. The preliminary land cover classification map was used to select areas for the preliminary
vegetation field survey conducted from July 27 to July 31, 2010, so that a diversity of potential Ecosite
Phases could be sampled. At visual check plots in 2010, data was collected which included slope, meso
slope position, soil moisture and soil nutrient regime, and percent foliar cover of dominant plant species.
Percent foliar cover is the vertical projection of the foliage on to the ground surface of each layer (tree,
shrub, herb, moss). Therefore, it would be possible to have more than 100% total foliar cover due to
overlap. An Ecosite Phase classification was assigned to each visual check plot and the data collected at
these locations was used to create a model to predict Ecosite Phase based on AVI polygon attributes.
ELCs were assigned to AVI polygons in the LSA using the data that was collected during the preliminary
vegetation field survey. In addition to field survey data, forestry data from Millar Western Forest Products
Ltd. (Millar Western) was used to more accurately classify the baseline forestry disturbance (Millar
Western 2011). Historic wildfire data from ASRD (2011b) was also used to more accurately classify the
baseline natural disturbance. This mapping resulted in 27 ELCs which include 21 Ecosite Phases for
forested upland and wetland land cover (Table 1A-2).
Page 1A-10
TABLE 1A-2
LSA ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
Type Ecological Land Classification1

Forested Upland b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
e3 - dogwood Sw
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw
f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
Wetland i1 - treed bog
i2 - shrubby bog
j1 - treed poor fen
j2 - shrubby poor fen
k1 - treed rich fen
k2 - shrubby rich fen
k3 - graminoid rich fen
l1 - marsh
Shrubby Wetland* (non-peat forming wetland dominated by shrubs)
Non-Forested / Natural Meadow* (upland dominated by graminoid vegetation)
Disturbance Regenerating Burn* (wildfire within last 30 years)
Anthropogenic Disturbance Regenerating Cutblock* (logged within last 30 years but older than 10 years)
Cutblock* (logged within last 10 years or no trees regenerating)
Anthropogenic* (rights-of-way, well sites, roads, etc.)
Notes: 1. Two letter codes refer to tree species (i.e., Aw is aspen, Sw is white spruce, Pj is Jack pine and Sb is black spruce).
* ELCs are classified according to the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). Additional classifications
were created where this Guide did not outline an equivalent vegetation community.
The final vegetation field surveys were conducted from June 24 to July 1, 2011 and from July 26 to
August 2, 2011. Final vegetation field survey locations, within and near the LSA, were selected to sample
each ELC predicted with a total of 259 vegetation survey plots. Final vegetation field surveys included
detailed plots, ground plots and visual check plots. Details of the vegetation field surveys are included in
Section 1A.2.6 of this report.
Final revisions to the ELC map were made following the final vegetation field surveys.
1A.2.3.2 Alberta Wetland Inventory Classification

Wetlands within the LSA were classified using the AWI classification system (Halsey et al. 2004). The
AWI classification system categorizes wetlands based on four levels of characters that are visible from
aerial photographs:
• wetland class;
• vegetation modifier;
• wetland complex landform modifier; and
• local landform/vegetation modifier.
Page 1A-11
Peatlands are subdivided into the wetland class fen or bog. Non-peat forming wetlands are subdivided
into the wetland class shallow open water, marsh or swamp. Fen, bog and swamp wetland classes can
have the vegetation modifier forested (>70% tree cover), wooded (>6 to 70% tree cover) or open (<6%
tree cover), while marsh and shallow open water wetland classes can only have the vegetation modifier
open. The complex landform modifier for patterning is restricted to fen wetland classes while the modifier
for permafrost is almost exclusively restricted to bog wetland classes. All non-peat forming wetlands will
not have patterning or permafrost. The local landform/vegetation modifiers that could be applied to open
wetlands are shrub cover (>25% cover) or graminoid dominated (shrub cover <25%). Forested to wooded
peatland classes could have a local landform/vegetation modifier related to permafrost applied such as
collapse scar, internal lawns with islands of forested peat plateau, internal lawns or no internal lawns
present. Wooded to forested non-peat forming wetlands will only have the local landform/vegetation
modifier of no internal lawns present applied. Table 1A-3 outlines the AWI wetland classification scheme
employed in the LSA. Table 1A-4 illustrates the concordance between wetland Ecosite Phases and all
possible AWI classifications.
TABLE 1A-3
WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
Modifier Classification Symbol

Bog B
Fen F
Swamp S
Wetland Class
Marsh M
Shallow Open Water W
Non-wetland Z
Forested: closed canopy > 70% tree coverage F
Vegetation Modifier Wooded: open canopy >6 – 70 % tree coverage T
Open: shrubs, sedges, graminoids, herbs, etc., < 6 % tree cover O
Permafrost present X
Wetland Complex
Patterning present P
Landform Modifier
Permafrost or patterning not present N
Collapse scar C
Internal lawn with islands of forested peat plateau R
Internal lawns I
Local Landform Modifier
No internal lawns are present N
Shrub cover > 25 % when tree cover < 6 % S
Graminoid dominated with shrub cover < 25 % and tree cover < 6 % G
Source: Halsey et al. (2004).
TABLE 1A-4
CONCORDANCE BETWEEN ALBERTA WETLAND INVENTORY AND

ECOSITE PHASE CLASSIFICATIONS
Alberta Wetland Inventory Ecosite Phase

Bogs (B___) i1 and i2 (Treed and shrubby bogs)
- permafrost or internal lawns may or may not be present
- > 40 cm organics
- forested exclusively with black spruce
Wooded Fens (FT__) j1 (Treed poor fen)
- > 40 cm organics k1 (Treed rich fen)
- forested with some combination of black spruce and
tamarack
Shrubby Fens (FONS) j2 (Shrubby poor fen) with > 40 cm organics
- > 40 cm organics k2 (Shrubby poor fen) with > 40 cm organics
- shrub layer generally < 2 m
- bryophytes common in ground layer
Page 1A-12
TABLE 1A-4 Cont'd

Alberta Wetland Inventory Ecosite Phase
Graminoid Fens (FONG and FOPN) k3 (Graminiod rich fen)
- >40 cm organics
- bryophytes common in ground layer
Wooded Swamps (STNN) f1 (Horsetail Pb-Aw); f2 (Horsetail Pb-Sw); f3 (Horsetail Sw)
- < 40 cm organics - Defined vegetation community not in concordance; however, dominance of
- dominated by some combination of black spruce and some combination of black spruce and tamarack with white spruce and balsam
tamarack poplar and other species is suggestive of this Ecosite Phase.
g1 (Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj)
- most of these polygons in the LSA have < 40 cm organics
h1(Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb)
- most of these polygons in the LSA have < 40 cm organics
Shrubby swamps j2 (Shrubby poor fen) with < 40 cm organics
- < 40 cm organics k2 (Shrubby poor fen) with < 40 cm organics
Marsh l1 (Marsh)
- <40 cm organics
- bryophytes not typically abundant
Source: Halsey et al. (2004).
The process for mapping wetlands within the LSA classified using the AWI classification system (Halsey
et al. 2004) was similar to the process for mapping ELC. The preliminary land cover classification map
created using AVI data (Al-Pac 2010) was used to select areas for the preliminary vegetation field survey
conducted from July 27 to July 31, 2010, so that a diversity of potential AWI classifications could be
sampled. The field data collection process was similar to the process for ELC. An AWI classification was
assigned to each visual check wetland plot.
AWI classifications were assigned to AVI polygons in the LSA using a combination of the data that was
collected during preliminary vegetation field survey and satellite imagery interpretation. In addition to field
survey data, forestry data from Millar Western was used to more accurately classify the baseline forestry
disturbance (Millar Western 2011). Historic wildfire data from ASRD (2011b) was also used to more
accurately classify the baseline natural disturbance. This mapping resulted in nine AWI classifications
(Table 1A-5)
TABLE 1A-5
LSA ALBERTA WETLAND INVENTORY CLASSIFICATIONS
Type Alberta Wetland Inventory Classification

Bog BONS – Shrub dominated bog with no permafrost
BTNN – Wooded bog with no permafrost nor internal lawns
Fen FONG – Graminoid dominated fen with no patterning
FONS – Shrub dominated fen with no patterning
FTNN – Wooded fen with no patterning nor internal lawns
Swamp SONS – Shrub dominated swamp
STNN – Wooded swamp
Marsh MONG – Graminoid dominated marsh
Shallow Open Water WONN – Open water zones of wetlands
The final vegetation field surveys were conducted June 24 to July 1, 2011 and July 26 to August 2, 2011.
Final vegetation field survey locations, within and near the LSA, were selected to sample each AWI
classification predicted with a total of 259 vegetation survey plots, 122 of which were within wetlands.
Final vegetation field surveys included detailed plots, ground plots and visual check plots. Details of the
vegetation field surveys are included in Section 1A.2.6 of this report. In addition to vegetation field
surveys, a helicopter overflight and ground-based field-work to confirm AWI classifications was conducted
July 23-25, 2011. Details of the helicopter reconnaissance and associated ground-based field-work are
included in Section 1A.2.6 of this report.
Page 1A-13
Final revisions to the AWI map were made following the final vegetation field surveys and helicopter
reconnaissance.
1A.2.3.3 Land Cover Classification

AVI data was not available for the entire RSA. Satellite imagery was available for the entire RSA and was
used to predict land cover. A LCC was assigned to each raster of the satellite imagery within the RSA
following the AGCC strata (Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2004). The broad categories that LCC are organized
into are Forested Upland, Wetland and Water (graminoid wetlands, shrub dominated wetlands, forested
wetlands and water), Natural Disturbance (due to wildfire [ASRD 2011b]), Anthropogenic Disturbance
(non-vegetated, grassland and shrubland) and Unclassifiable (due to shadow, cloud or no data).Forested
uplands and wetlands, where tree cover was estimated to be greater than 6%, were further classified by
the predicted dominant tree species. Areas with less than 6% tree cover and greater than 25% shrub
cover were classified as shrub dominated uplands or wetlands. Areas with less than 6% tree cover and
less than 25% shrub cover were classified as grass dominated uplands or wetlands. Areas of open water,
whether standing water as in a lake or running water as in a river, were classified as water. Table 1A-6
details the ELC and AWI map units that are comparable to the LCC within the RSA.
The LCC map of the RSA was created using image classification. Unsupervised image classification was
conducted using a geographic information system (GIS) and the resulting unique spectral signatures were
categorized as LCC by referencing a subset of the 259 vegetation survey locations. The imagery source
was Landsat5 TM Level 1T reflectance data (United States Geological Survey 2011) at a resolution of
30 m x 30 m pixels. Additional LCC based on satellite imagery interpretation were also assigned. For
instance, since no vegetation survey locations were located in open water, the spectral signature of
locations along the Athabasca River and McMillan Lake were used to train the model to recognize open
water. Due to the unsupervised classification technique, all vegetation field locations were available to be
used to assess the accuracy of the RSA LCC map. The resulting map predicted land cover with greater
accuracy than AGCC for the RSA and was updated with recent disturbances and approved projects
(TERA 2012, ASRD 2011b).
TABLE 1A-6
RSA LAND COVER CLASSES
LLC* Corresponding ELC Corresponding AWI Notes

Forested Upland (>6% tree cover)
Black spruce c1, g1, h1 ---
Closed pine a1, b4, c1 ---
Closed white spruce b4, d3, e3, f3, h1 ---
Closed aspen, balsam poplar and/or birch b2, d1, e1, f1 ---
Closed coniferous and deciduous cover (40-60%) b1, b3, d2, e2, f2, h1 --- Mixedwood
Wetland and Water
Graminoid wetlands l1, k3 FONG, MONG, WONN
Shrubby wetlands Shrubby Wetland, k2 SONS, FONS
Black spruce bog g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2 BTNN, BONS, FTNN, sphagnum understory
FONS, STNN
Wooded fen j1, j2, k1 FTNN, FONS
Lake, pond, river, stream l1 MONG, WONN
Natural Disturbance
Burn grassland Regenerating Burn --- Wildfire within the last 30
years.
<25% shrub cover and <6%
tree cover
Burn upland shrub Regenerating Burn --- Wildfire within the last 30
years.
>25% shrub cover and <6%
tree cover
Anthropogenic Disturbance
Anthropogenic non-vegetated Anthropogenic --- Primary and secondary
roads, oil and gas facilities
Page 1A-14
TABLE 1A-6 Cont'd

LLC* Corresponding ELC Corresponding AWI Notes
Mixed grassland Meadow, Anthropogenic, --- <25% shrub cover and <6%
Cutblock tree cover
Closed upland shrub Cutblock, Regenerating --- >25% shrub cover and <6%
Cutblock, tree cover
Unclassifiable
Cloud / shadow --- ---
No data --- ---
Note: * LCC are based on the AGCC strata listed in Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. (2004).
Since Landsat 5 data is raster–based, and AVI data (the LSA scale ELC and AWI mapping are derived
from AVI) is vector-based, area calculations of comparable map units at the RSA and LSA scale may not
be equal. In addition, 3D-seismic was not included in the LCC map due to large pixel sizes in relation to
the width of the disturbance (i.e., 30 m wide pixels compared to <4 m wide disturbance). The LCC
scheme is broader in scope than the ELC or AWI classification systems and, therefore, there is often no
direct comparison between classification systems.
1A.2.3.4 Old Growth Forests

A clear, universally accepted definition for old growth forest does not exist (Geowest Environmental
Consultants Ltd. [Geowest] 1996, Hilbert and Wiensczyk 2007, Hunter 1989, Spies 2004). In general,
definitions of old growth forest within the scientific literature focus on the presence of structural
characteristics such as large old living trees, large standing dead trees or snags (dead trees broken off at
the top), complex canopy structure, and coarse woody material (i.e., logs) in both the terrestrial and
aquatic environment (Franklin and Spies 1991, Geowest 1996, as reviewed in Braumandl and Holt 2000,
Hilbert and Wiensczyk 2007). This concept of old growth forest is from an ecological perspective and
considers the composition and function of old growth forests to generally be a result of underlying
structural characteristics (Franklin and Spies 1991, as reviewed in Braumandl and Holt 2000).
AVI polygons included 'date of origin' data (i.e., when the trees were planted) (Al-Pac 2010) and stand
age data for the LSA was inferred from the 'date of origin'. No such data exists for the RSA and, therefore,
old growth forest was not mapped for the RSA scale. Although documentation of ecological conditions
and structural characteristics are necessary for verification of successional status and habitat, potential,
old growth forests are mainly differentiated from immature stands based upon the date of origin (i.e.,
stand age). Minimum age for mature and old growth stands in the boreal forest may be generalized
according to canopy forming species composition (Schneider 2002, Timoney 2001) (Table 1A-7).
TABLE 1A-7
MINIMUM AGES FOR OLD GROWTH FORESTS
Canopy Composition Corresponding ELC Mature Old Growth

Deciduous b2, d1, e1, f1 80 - 100 >100
Mixed Deciduous - Coniferous b1, b3, d2, e2, f2 80 - 100 >100
Coniferous - Pine Dominant a1, b4, c1, g1 80 - 120 >120
Coniferous - Spruce Dominant d3, e3, f3, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2 100 - 140 >140
Sources: adapted based on Schneider (2002), Timoney (2001)
1A.2.3.5 Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are “…interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. As ecotones, they
encompass sharp gradients of environmental factors, ecological processes, and plant communities.
Riparian zones are not easily delineated but are comprised of mosaics of landforms, communities, and
environments within the larger landscapes...” (Gregory et al., 1991). In addition to contributing to
landscape-level diversity, riparian areas contribute to species-level diversity since they support a relatively
Page 1A-15
high diversity of nonvascular and vascular plants due to a wide variety of growing conditions within a
limited area and the complex interaction of disturbance and succession (Lee and Smyth 2003).
Riparian areas were determined by applying a 50 m wide buffer to waterbodies. A 50 m buffer was
chosen as a conservative estimate of riparian area, as discussed in the Aquatic Ecology Assessment
(Volume 3, Section 4.0). Within the LSA, the amount of each ELC classified as riparian area was
determined. Within the RSA, the amount of each LCC classified as riparian area was determined.
1A.2.3.6 Communities of Limited Distribution

Communities of limited distribution are ELC and AWI classified wetlands that cover 1% or less of the LSA.
At the RSA scale, LCCs that cover 1% or less of the RSA are considered communities of limited
distribution. These communities contribute to landscape level diversity and have the potential to support
plant species that do not occur elsewhere within the LSA or RSA.
1A.2.3.7 Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plant Potential

Information regarding records of known rare ecological community or rare plant occurrences within the
RSA was requested from ACIMS.
A literature review was conducted prior to the vegetation baseline surveys to identify rare ecological
communities and rare vascular plant species with potential to occur in the Central Mixedwood and Lower
Boreal Highland Natural Subregions. Using data available from ASRD, ACIMS, COSEWIC and
Environment Canada, tables of potential rare ecological communities (Attachment 1A1) and rare vascular
plant species (Attachment 1A2) were compiled.
ACIMS rare ecological community data are available by Natural Subregion (Allen 2011). Attachment 1A1
was modified to include whether the known range of the community occurs within the RSA. This was
accomplished using distribution maps of the component species and, if necessary, through personal
communication with ACIMS. Rare ecological communities were then related to Project Ecosite Phases in
which the community may occur (Beckingham and Archibald 1996).
Ecosite Phases were assigned a rare ecological community potential of low, moderate or high based
upon the number of rare ecological communities that had the potential to occur within them (Table 1A-8
based on Attachment 1A1). Categorical rankings of low, moderate or high were applied to each ELC
according to patterns of modality in the respective rank-order distribution where qualitatively apparent.
TABLE 1A-8
LSA BASELINE ELC COMMUNITIES’ POTENTIAL TO SUPPORT RARE ECOLOGICAL

COMMUNITIES
ELC Number of Potential Rare Ecological Communities Ranked Potential1

Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 6 high
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 1 low
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 6 high
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 1 low
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 2 low
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 6 high
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 4 moderate
e3 - dogwood Sw 2 low
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 6 high
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 6 high
f3 - horsetail Sw 2 low
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 0 low
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 4 moderate
Page 1A-16
TABLE 1A-8 Cont'd

ELC Number of Potential Rare Ecological Communities Ranked Potential1
Wetland
i1 - treed bog 2 low
i2 - shrubby bog 2 low
j1 - treed poor fen 4 moderate
j2 - shrubby poor fen 5 moderate
k1 - treed rich fen 2 low
k2 - shrubby rich fen 7 high
k3 - graminoid rich fen 9 high
l1 - marsh 11 high
Shrubby Wetland* 7 high
Non-Forested / Natural Disturbance
Meadow* 0 low
Regenerating Burn* 0 low
Regenerating Cutblock* 0 low
Cutblock* 0 low
Anthropogenic* 0 low
Notes: 1. Ranked Potential categories are as follows: low = 0 to 2 potential rare ecological communities, moderate = 3 to 5 potential rare ecological
communities, high = 6 or greater potential rare ecological communities.
* Additional classifications were created where the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) did not outline
an equivalent vegetation community.
The List of Tracked and Watched Elements is made available by Natural Subregion and the latest edition
was provided in 2011 (ACIMS 2011a). Additional rare vascular plant species were added to
Attachment 1A2 from the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2011a). Habitats for rare
vascular plants were added to Attachment 1A2 using Kershaw et al. (2001) and Moss (1983) and were
related to Project Ecosite Phases in which the habitats may occur (Beckingham and Archibald 1996).
Whether the individual species' habitats were present within the LSA was determined based on ELC
expected to occur in the LSA and were later confirmed based on ELC observed during the vegetation
surveys. Nonvascular plants are not included in Attachment 1A2 since a modified Alberta Biodiversity
Monitoring Program (ABMP) (Doubt and Belland 2000, ABMP 2006a,b, ABMI 2010) list of priority habitats
for nonvascular species (Attachment 1A3) was used as opposed to Ecosite Phases.
Ecosite Phases were assigned a rare plant potential of low, moderate or high based upon the number of
rare vascular plants that had the potential to occur within them (Table 1A-9 based on Attachment 1A2).
Categorical rankings of low, moderate or high were applied to each ELC according to patterns of modality
in the respective rank-order distribution where qualitatively apparent.
TABLE 1A-9
LSA BASELINE ELC COMMUNITIES’ POTENTIAL TO SUPPORT RARE VASCULAR PLANTS
ELC Number of Potential Rare Vascular Plants Ranked Potential1

Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 28 moderate
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 21 low
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 46 moderate
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 47 moderate
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 50 moderate
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 74 high
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 75 high
e3 - dogwood Sw 78 high
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 75 high
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 77 high
f3 - horsetail Sw 79 high
Page 1A-17
TABLE 1A-9 Cont'd

ELC Number of Potential Rare Vascular Plants Ranked Potential1
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 77 high
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 78 high
Wetland
i1 - treed bog 23 low
i2 - shrubby bog 23 low
j1 - treed poor fen 25 low
j2 - shrubby poor fen 25 low
k1 - treed rich fen 22 low
k2 - shrubby rich fen 22 low
k3 - graminoid rich fen 38 moderate
l1 - marsh 67 high
Shrubby Wetland* 67 high
Meadow* 33 moderate
Regenerating Burn* 20 low
Regenerating Cutblock* 16 low
Cutblock* 22 low
Anthropogenic* 18 low
Notes: 1 Ranked Potential categories are as follows: low = 0 to 27 potential rare vascular plants, moderate = 28 to 50 potential rare vascular plants,
high = 51 or greater potential rare vascular plants.
1A.2.4 Habitat Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation is a landscape-scale process involving both habitat loss and the breaking apart of
habitat (Fahrig 2003). Habitat fragmentation due to the Project has the potential to impact the vegetation
communities noted above. In order to determine whether the Project will result in significant negative
residual effects related to habitat fragmentation, the baseline extent of habitat fragmentation was
identified for the LSA and the RSA. For the purposes of this EIA, metrics that measure fragmentation in
terms of habitat loss as well as breaking apart of habitat were employed. There are many metrics of
habitat fragmentation and experts have not yet reached an agreement on how to measure patterns of
fragmented landscapes (Bogaert 2003). Most research of fragmented landscapes is based on
observational or theoretical studies and little experimental data exist on the long-term consequences of
habitat fragmentation (Debinski and Holt 2000). Of the few experimental studies of habitat fragmentation,
only a few focused on plant population and community dynamics (Debinski and Holt 2000). Agreement
exists that a suite of metrics is necessary to cover the complexity of landscape patterns (Bogaert 2003).
Effort has been made to avoid applying redundant metrics.
FRAGSTATS (McGarigal et al. 2002) is a spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps and was
used to apply the metrics of habitat fragmentation summarized in Table 1A-10 at both the LSA and RSA
scale. Details of how FRAGSTATS metrics were applied are included in Attachment 1A4. The LSA
rasterized maps were created using the vector maps derived from AVI (Al-Pac 2010) at a resolution of
4 m x 4 m pixels. Due to differences between raster and vector data models, area calculations of
comparable map units at the LSA scale will not be equivalent. Additionally, 3D-seismic was not included
in the raster data models for FRAGSTATS since the width of seismic lines is less than 4 m and was not
consistently captured as a result. The RSA scale maps were already in a raster data model and did not
require modification.
Page 1A-18
TABLE 1A-10
LSA AND RSA SCALE HABITAT FRAGMENTATION METRICS
Vegetation Community Classification System

FRAGSTATS Metric1 Measurable Parameter Level LSA RSA
Patch Area Distribution • Mean patch size class, ELC, AWI, Riparian LCC, Riparian
• Standard deviation of patch size landscape
• Range of patch size
Edge Contrast Index • Mean percentage of patch edge adjacent to class, ELC, AWI, Riparian LCC, Riparian
Distribution anthropogenic disturbance landscape
• Standard deviation of percentage of patch edge
adjacent to anthropogenic disturbance
• Range of percentage of patch edge adjacent to
anthropogenic disturbance
Note: 1. FRAGSTATS metric from McGarigal et al. (2002).
1A.2.5 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge

BlackPearl continues to facilitate the TEK program with potentially-affected Aboriginal communities for the
Project. The TEK program focuses on Aboriginal communities' experiential knowledge of the land. TEK
was gathered and recorded during the vegetation field work from June 24 to July 1, 2011 and July 26 to
August 2, 2011 with a participant from Fort McMurray First Nation.
During the 2011 biophysical field programs, TEK facilitators accompanied the participants to: discuss the
Project and its potential effects on resources; collect and synthesize information related to TEK; and to
ensure proprietary information was kept in confidence. Mitigation measures to reduce any potential
Project-related effects on a resource were also discussed during the biophysical field programs. This
information was recorded as spoken and reviewed at the end of each field day with the participants to
ensure the information was accurately documented. Open discussions occurred regularly between
participants and the discipline crew leads regarding the resources present and available to Aboriginal
communities. Aspects of the environment that were important to Aboriginal participants and the
importance of the resource from a western science perspective were also discussed.
TEK relevant to vegetation resources that was collected during the biophysical field programs for the
Project has been incorporated into this report. More information on the collection and results of TEK is
provided in the TEK and Land Use Report in Volume 5, Section 3.0 of this EIA.
1A.2.6.1 Vegetation Field Surveys

Vegetation field surveys included detailed plots, ground plots and visual check plots where data was
collected within and near the LSA to confirm and refine vegetation community mapping. The preliminary
vegetation field survey occurred from July 27 to July 31, 2010. Final vegetation field surveys to confirm
Ecosite Phase and AWI classifications occurred June 24 to July 1, 2011 and July 26 to August 2, 2011.
Both detailed and ground plot locations were selected in a location that was considered to be
representative of the entire polygon and an effort was made to sample each Ecosite Phase within the
LSA. Plot size was 400 m2 (plot shape varied between plots to ensure that each plot encompassed a
homogeneous unit) and data collected at these plots included:
• soil moisture regime and soil nutrient regime;
• structural stage;
• crown closure;
Page 1A-19
• site disturbance;
• elevation;
• slope;
• aspect;
• slope position;
• surface topography;
• surface substrates;
• complete plant species list;
• percent foliar cover by layer; and
• percent foliar cover for each species by layer.
At detailed plots, additional data was collected including mensurations of the three largest diameter trees
of the dominant tree species (diameter at breast height [dbh], height to dbh, breast height age).
Additional data was collected at both detailed and ground plots in relation to wildlife habitat such as
number of snags, percent cover of coarse woody debris, average diameter of coarse woody debris and
decay class of coarse woody debris. An ELC was assigned to each detailed and ground plot. If the ELC
assigned was a wetland, further data was collected including depth of peat and an AWI classification was
assigned.
Visual checks are intended to be quick inspections for mapping purposes to confirm ELC and data
collected at these locations briefly describe vegetation, soil attributes and terrain attributes. Additional
data was collected in relation to wildlife habitat such as presence of snags, and presence and decay class
of coarse woody debris. An ELC was assigned to each visual check plot. If the ELC assigned was a
wetland, further data was collected including depth of peat and an AWI classification was assigned.
Figure 1A-2 shows the locations of detailed, ground and visual check plots surveyed in both 2010 and
2011.
Page 1A-20
33 34
RGE.18 35 36 31 32 33 RGE.17
¯
34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 !
((
!
(
! 19
(
! 20 21 22
(
!
TWP.77 (
!
(
!
!
(
(!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
! (
!
(!
! (
!
16 15 !!
(( ( !
(
14 (!
!
13 (
(
! (!
!( 18 17 16 15
( !
! ((
!
(
!
!!
(( !
(
(
!
9 10 !!
( (!
( (
!
!
( (
! (
! (
!
11 (
! 12 (
!
7
(!
! (
(
!
8 (9
!
(
! 10
!
(
(
!
(
! (
!
(
!
(
!
(
! (!
! ( (
! (!
! (
(
! (
! !
(
!
(
(
! !!
(
(!
!(
(!
! ( !!
( (!
(!(
( (
!
( !
! (
!
4 ( (
!
3 (
!
2
!
( 1 (
! !!
((
6 (!
! (
(
! (5
! (
!
(
! (
! (
! (
!
4 3
(
!
(
! (
!
(
!
(
! (
!
!!
((
! (
( !
((
!! !
((
( !
!
(
! (
!
(
! (
!
33 !
( (
! ( (
! (
! (
! (
!
((
! (34
! ! 35!
(
(!
(!
! ( !
! (
36
(
! 31 32 33
(
! ! (
( ((
!! 34
(
!
(
! ( ! (
! ! (
!
(!
! (
! ((
!
(
(
! (
! (
! !!
(
(
!
(
! !
( (!
!
!
( (
(
! (
! (
!
(
!
!!
(( (
!
(
! (
!
28 !
( (
!
27
(!
! ( 26 25 30 29 28 27
(
! !
( !!
(( (
!
(
! (!
! ( !
( !
(
! (
( ! !
(
(
! ( !
! ( (
!
( !
! ( (
! (
!
(
! ( !
! ( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
! !!
((
(
!
( !
! ( !
( ( (
! !
!
(
21 22 23 24 (
!
(
! 19 20 21
(
! 22
(
! (!
!(
(
! ( !
! (
TWP.76 (
!
(
!
(
!
(!
! (
(
! (!
! ( !
! ( ! ( (
!
!!
((
!
( (
! !!
( (( ( !
! (!( ( !
! (
(
! (
!
( !
! (
16 !!
( ( (
!
15
(14 !
! ( (
! 13 18 17 16 15
(
!
9 10 11 12
Project Area Areas Surveyed Existing Blackrod Road FIGURE 1A-2

t6790_VEG_Fig1A-2_Community_Classification.mxd
Vegetation Local (
! Detailed V
U63 Road VEGETATION SURVEY LOCATIONS
Study Area (450 m) (
! Ground Hydrography BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
(
! Visual Check Waterbody COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N:

SCALE: 1: 70,000
Date of Imagery: July 2011 SPOT5 ©2012 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com km
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011c. 0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
1A.2.6.2 Wetland Helicopter Overflight

The 2011 wetland survey was conducted as a high level reconnaissance with the goal of understanding
wetland distribution and generalized classifications and to obtain representative information on wetland
types in the LSA. Three days of helicopter overflight and associated ground-based wetland surveys were
conducted from July 23 to July 25, 2011 to confirm and refine AWI mapping. The helicopter overflight
included the Project Area, as well as the boundaries of the LSA and RSA. Ground-based wetland survey
sites were chosen at locations that displayed representative wetland types within the LSA. A baseline
photo record of select wetlands within the LSA was captured. Additional wetland information was
collected during the vegetation field surveys as described in Section 1A.2.6.1 of this report.
Within the LSA, wetlands were classified according to the AWI Classification System Version 2.0 (Halsey
et al., 2004) and supported by the Canadian Wetland Classification System (NWWG 1997) where key
indicators such as hydrologic setting (i.e., geomorphology, hydroperiod), vegetation, soils, habitat and
existing anthropogenic impacts (i.e., roads, structures) were used in the characterization of wetland type
and overall function.
At representative wetland types within the LSA, the following information was collected during the ground-
based wetland survey.
General Information and Classification

• Wetlands were geo-referenced using GPS (UTM), identified by legal location, and a site sketch was
prepared.
• Wetlands were photo documented and any existing disturbances either on or adjacent to the site
were noted.
• Wetlands were classified according to vegetation, hydrology and soils present, and signs of
modification (e.g., beaver, human) were documented.
Vegetation Function
• Dominant vegetation was recorded (e.g., tree, shrub, herbaceous, emergent species, moss and/or
weed species).
Habitat Function
• Habitat features were identified (e.g., snags present, browsing evident, sufficient cover and access to
open water) and any wildlife observations or wildlife sign were recorded.
Hydrological Function
• Comments were made regarding surface water presence, movement; depth and sign of groundwater
influence.
Substrate Function
• Substrate composition was documented as being mineral, woody-peat or mossy-peat.
• Where peat was present, peat was probed to a depth of approximately 0.4 m to confirm sufficient
peat accumulation for "peatland" wetland classification.
These data collection methods are adapted from Wisconsin Rapid Assessment Methodology (Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources 2001) and are part of an Environment Canada recommended approach
(Hanson et al. 2008). These methods provide sufficient information to detail baseline
(i.e., preconstruction) conditions of wetlands and wetland function.
Page 1A-22
Due to the expansive nature of peatlands, it is difficult to definitively identify a wetland boundary between
upland and lowland areas. Peatland boundaries can be transitional in nature and often encompass
upland areas within their perimeters. Therefore, they are better defined as being a "wetland complex"
than one distinct feature and often represent several wetland classes in one complex (i.e., fen, swamp
and marsh). The presence/absence of peatland wetlands is based on moisture regimes, which vary in
space and time. Transitions between upland and lowland areas or even wetland type (i.e., fen vs. marsh)
are determined by a moisture gradient where transitions commonly occur over several hundred metres
with no distinct start or finish. The 2011 wetland delineations are based on a combination of satellite
imagery interpretation (1:10,000 scale), overflight and select ground-based observations of hydrology,
vegetation and substrate.
1A.2.6.3 Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plant Survey

Information collected during vegetation community mapping identified areas of high to moderate rare
ecological community potential, areas of high to moderate rare plant potential, potential rare ecological
communities and potential rare plant species.
Rare plant surveys were conducted within and near the LSA in conjunction with the previously described
vegetation field surveys (Figure 1A-3). The rare plant survey methods were based on survey guidelines
developed by the Alberta Native Plant Council (ANPC [2000]). Rare plant specialists, including the TEK
participant, traversed each selected transect within the LSA, noted the dominant plant communities,
recorded all identifiable species (Attachment 1A5), and searched for rare vascular plants, rare ecological
communities and uncommon habitat. A purposeful meander technique was used to survey each transect.
At locations where potentially important microsites were observed, more detailed searches were
performed.
Where rare ecological communities were observed, the communities were mapped and photographed
and their locations were recorded. Full species lists were recorded and percent cover for each species
was estimated. Descriptions of the sites and vegetation were documented on detailed reporting forms for
future submission to ACIMS.
Where rare vascular plant species were observed, thorough searches were conducted to determine the
extent of the populations. The populations were mapped and photographed, UTM co-ordinates were
recorded and detailed reporting forms were completed for future submission to ACIMS. Voucher
specimens of rare vascular plant species were generally collected. Species identification was confirmed
by other established botanists and/or by comparison with specimens at an appropriate herbarium.
While surveying for vascular plants, TERA botanists chose locations along transects and within sample
plots were selected based on a modified ABMP (Doubt and Belland 2000, ABMP 2006a,b, ABMI 2010)
list of priority habitats for nonvascular species. There are eight Priority 1 habitats and eight Priority 2
habitats for each group (bryophytes and lichens) (Attachment 1A3). One search was conducted in each
Priority 1 habitat seen along transects and within sample plots. In each Priority 1 habitat, the botanists
spent 5-30 minutes surveying for rare nonvascular species and collected those they deemed to have the
most potential for rarity. When time allowed, and if the botanists deemed it necessary, surveying and
collecting was also conducted in Priority 2 habitats and in additional areas of Priority 1 habitats that the
botanists considered important.
Nonvascular collections were made following the directions given in the ABMP (Doubt and Belland 2000).
Specimens were sent to bryologists and lichenologists for identification.
1A.2.6.4 Non-native and Invasive Plant Observations

All listed weeds and non-listed introduced species were recorded at all locations where they were
observed during the vegetation field surveys.
Page 1A-23
33 34 35 36
¯
31 32 33 34
RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
Athabasca River
21 22 (
!
23 24 !
(
(
! 19
(
! 20 21 22
(
!
TWP.77 (
!
(
!
!
(
(!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
! (
!
(!
! (
!
16 15 14 !!
(( ( !
(
(!
!
13 (
(
! (!
!( 18 17 16 15
(
!
( (
! !
!!
(( !
(
9 10 !!
((!(!
( (
!
!
( (
! (
! (
!
11 (
! 12 (
!
7
(!
! (
(
!
8
(
!(9
! 10
!
(
(
!
(
! (
!
(
!
(
!
(
! (!
! ( (
! (!
! (
(
! (
! !
(
!
(
(
! !!
(
(!
!(
(!
! ( !!
( (!
(!(
( (
!
( !
! (
!
4 ( (
!
3 (
!
2
!
( 1 (
! !!
((
6 (!
! (
(
! (5
! (
!
(
! (
! (
! (
!
4 3
(
!
(
! (
!
(
!
(
! (
!
!!
((
! (
( !
!!
(( !
((
( !
!
(
! (
!
(
! (
!
33 (
! (34
! (
! ( (
! (
! (
! (
!
!(
( ! 35!
( 36
!(!
(! ( !
! ( (
! 31 32
(
! ! (
( !!
(( 33 34
(
!
(
! ( ! (
! ! (
!
(!
! (
! !(
(
(
! ( (!
!
(
! (
! (
!
(
! !
( (!
!
!
( (
(
! (
! (
!
(
!
!!
( ( (
!
(
! (
!
28 !
( (
!
27
!!
( ( 26 25 30 29 28 27
( !
! !
( !!
(( (
!
( (!
! ( !
( (
!
! (
( ! (
!
(
! ( !
! ( !
(
( !
! ( (
! (
!
(
! ( !
! ( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
! !!
((
(
!
( (
! ! (
! ( (
! !
!
(
21 22 (
!
23 24
(
! 19 20
(
! 21 22
(
! (!
!(
(
! ( !
! (
TWP.76 (
! !
(
(!
!
(!
! (!
!( ( (
(
! ! ! ( (
!
!!
((
!
( (
! !!
( (( ! !
( (!( ( !
! (
(
! (
!
( !
! (
16 !!
( ( (
!
15
(14 !
! ((! 13 18 17 16 15
(
!
9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
FIGURE 1A-3
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-3_Rare_Ecological_Community.mxd
Project Area Areas Surveyed Existing Blackrod Road

RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND
Vegetation Local (
! Detailed RARE PLANT SURVEY LOCATIONS
Watercourse
Study Area (450 m) (
! Ground
Transect (
! Visual Check Waterbody PROPOSED BLACKROD
Date of Imagery: July 2011 SPOT5 ©2012 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com km
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011c.
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
1A.3 Results
1A.3.1 Vegetation Community Classification

The following sections provide the results of the baseline vegetation community classification at both the
LSA (using the ELC and AWI classification systems) and RSA (using the LCC system) scales.
1A.3.1.1 Ecological Land Classification

ELCs that occur within the LSA have been grouped into forested upland, wetland, non-forested / natural
disturbance and anthropogenic disturbance categories for ease of comparison and each classification
observed is detailed below.
Table 1A-11 details the ELCs and distribution of each ELC within the LSA. Figure 1A-4 shows the
distribution of ELCs within the LSA. Attachment 1A6 provides site cards that summarize baseline data
collected for each ELC.
TABLE 1A-11
LSA BASELINE ELC DISTRIBUTION
ELC Total Area in LSA (ha)1 Percent Cover in LSA2

Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 4.2 0.1
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 3.9 0.1
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 527.8 8.6
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 155.9 2.5
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 130.8 2.1
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 183.2 3.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 265.2 4.3
e3 - dogwood Sw 224.9 3.7
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 27.5 0.5
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 38.7 0.6
f3 - horsetail Sw 117.1 1.9
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 365.1 6.0
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 391.0 6.4
Wetland
i1 - treed bog 345.9 5.6
i2 - shrubby bog 66.2 1.1
j1 - treed poor fen 465.9 7.6
j2 - shrubby poor fen 19.8 0.3
k1 - treed rich fen 206.6 3.4
k2 - shrubby rich fen 16.6 0.3
k3 - graminoid rich fen 39.3 0.6
l1 - marsh 12.1 0.2
Shrubby Wetland* 236.0 3.9
Meadow* 2.0 <0.1
Regenerating Burn* 123.4 2.0
Regenerating Cutblock* 1,086.9 17.7
Cutblock* 634.8 10.3
Anthropogenic* 445.6 7.3
Total 6,136.2 100.0
Notes: 1. Total area may not add up to 6,316.4 ha due to rounding error.
2. Percent cover may not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
Page 1A-25
27 26 25 30 29 28
RGE. 18 W4M RGE. 17 W4M
¯ 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
Ecological Land Classification
Anthropogenic
Disturbance
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw
Cutblock (logged within
last 10 years or no trees
regenerating)
c1 - Labrador
33 34 tea-mesic Pj-Sb
35 36 31 32 33 d1 - low-bush 34
cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush
cranberry Aw-Sw
d3 - low-bush
cranberry Sw
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
28
e3 - dogwood Sw
27 26 25 30 29 f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw
28 27
f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
h1 - Labrador
TWP. 76 tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
i1 - treed bog
21 22 i2 - shrubby bog
23 24 19 20 j1 - treed poor fen
21 22
k1 - treed rich fen
l1 - marsh
Meadow (upland with
<6% tree cover and
16 15 <25% shrub cover)
14 13 18 17 Regenerating Burn
16 15
(wildfire within last
30 years)
Regenerating Cutblock
(logged within last 30 years
but older than 10 years)
Shrubby Wetland
FIGURE 1A-4
Project Area Existing Blackrod Road
Vegetation Local BASELINE ELC
Watercourse
Study Area (450 m) BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Waterbody PROPOSED BLACKROD
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; Ecological Land Classification: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012c;
km
Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011c.
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, (All Locations Approximate)
t6790_VEG_Fig3.1_1_Jan2012.mxd
Forested Upland
The following descriptions of forested upland Ecosite Phases that occur within the LSA include dominant
species present in each layer, most likely topographic positions and general soil characteristics.
b3 common blueberry Aw-Sw

In the b3 Ecosite Phase, aspen and white spruce are the dominant tree species, with occasional white
birch. Shrub species include common bearberry, common Labrador tea, common blueberry and green
alder. Bunchberry is the most common forb. The soil moisture regime ranges from subxeric to submesic
and the soil nutrient regime ranges from poor to rich. This Ecosite Phase can occur on level ground or at
lower to upper slope and crest topographic positions on gentle slopes at any aspect.
c1 Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb

In the c1 Ecosite Phase, jack pine and black spruce are the dominant tree species. The shrub layer
includes common Labrador tea, bog cranberry, black spruce and common blueberry. Forbs and grasses
are uncommon, while the ground cover is dominated by Schreber’s moss, with some stair-step moss,
knight’s plume moss and reindeer lichen. The soil moisture regime ranges from subxeric to subhygric with
a poor to very poor soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur on gently sloping or level ground,
facing all aspects.
d1 low-bush cranberry Aw
In the d1 Ecosite Phase, aspen is the dominant tree species, with occasional balsam poplar. Shrub
species include prickly rose, low-bush cranberry, Canada buffaloberry and twinflower. Ground cover is
composed of wild sarsaparilla, bunchberry, common fireweed, bluejoint and hairy wild rye. The soil
moisture regime ranges from submesic to subhygric with a medium to rich soil nutrient regime. This
Ecosite Phase can occur on level or gently sloping ground from mid to upper slope or crest topographic
positions facing all aspects but westerly.
d2 low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw

In the d2 Ecosite Phase, aspen and white spruce are co-dominant tree species. Shrub species include
low-bush cranberry, prickly rose and twinflower. Ground cover consists of bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla,
bluejoint, stair-step moss and Schreber’s moss. The soil moisture regime ranges from submesic to
subhygric with a poor to rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur on level or gently sloping
ground from mid to upper slope or crest topographic positions facing all aspects.
d3 low-bush cranberry Sw
In the d3 Ecosite Phase, white spruce is the dominant tree species, with occasional balsam fir. The shrub
layer includes twinflower, low-bush cranberry, balsam fir and prickly rose. Ground cover is comprised
mostly of stair-step moss, with some bunchberry, Schreber’s moss and knight’s plume moss. The soil
moisture regime ranges from mesic to subhygric with a poor to rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite
Phase can occur on level or gently sloping ground from mid to upper slope topographic positions facing
all aspects but westerly.
e1 dogwood Pb-Aw
In the e1 Ecosite Phase, aspen and balsam poplar are co-dominate tree species. Shrub species include
prickly rose, red-osier dogwood, low-bush cranberry, bracted honeysuckle, green alder and river alder.
Ground cover is diverse and consists mostly of wild sarsaparilla and marsh reed grass. The soil moisture
regime ranges from mesic to subhygric with a medium to rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can
occur on level to gently sloping ground from lower to upper slope topographic positions facing all aspects
but southerly.
Page 1A-27
e2 dogwood Pb-Aw
In the e2 Ecosite Phase, white spruce is the dominant tree species, with occasional aspen, balsam poplar
and white birch. Shrub species include red-osier dogwood, low-bush cranberry, prickly rose, bracted
honeysuckle and twinflower. Ground cover includes wild sarsaparilla, dewberry, bunchberry, bluejoint,
stair-step moss and Schreber’s moss. The soil moisture regime ranges from mesic to hygric with a
medium to rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur on level to gently sloping ground from
lower to upper slope topographic positions facing all aspects but westerly.
e3 dogwood Sw
In the e3 Ecosite Phase, white spruce is the dominant tree species, with the occasional balsam fir. The
shrub layer includes balsam fir, low-bush cranberry, prickly rose, green alder, river alder, twinflower and
bracted honeysuckle. Ground cover includes woodland horsetail, wild sarsaparilla, bishop’s-cap,
dewberry, bluejoint, stair-step moss, Schreber’s moss and knight’s plume moss. The soil moisture regime
ranges from mesic to hygric with a medium to rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur on
level to gently sloping ground from lower to upper slope topographic positions facing northerly and
westerly aspects.
f1 horsetail Pb-Aw
In the f1 Ecosite Phase, aspen and balsam poplar are co-dominate tree species, with occasional white
birch. Shrub species include willow species, prickly rose, green alder, river alder and red-osier dogwood.
Ground cover is usually dominated by common horsetail, woodland horsetail and bluejoint. The soil
moisture regime ranges from mesic to hygric with a medium to very rich nutrient regime. This Ecosite
Phase can occur on level to gently sloping ground from lower to mid-slope topographic positions facing
northerly and easterly aspects.
f2 horsetail Pb-Sw
In the f2 Ecosite Phase, white spruce is the dominant tree species, with occasional white birch, balsam
poplar and aspen. Shrub species include low-bush cranberry and willow species. Ground cover includes
meadow horsetail, common horsetail, wild sarsaparilla, stair-step moss, Schreber’s moss and knight’s
plume moss. The soil moisture regime ranges from mesic to hygric with a medium to rich nutrient regime.
This Ecosite Phase can occur in depressions or on level to gently sloping ground from toe- to mid-slope
topographic positions facing all aspects but westerly.
f3 horsetail Sw
In the f3 Ecosite Phase, white spruce is the dominant tree species. Shrub species include twinflower and
prickly rose. Stair-step moss is the dominant ground cover, with meadow horsetail, common horsetail,
bunchberry, dewberry, bluejoint, Schreber’s moss and knight’s plume moss in lesser amounts. The soil
moisture regime ranges from mesic to subhydric with a medium to rich nutrient regime. This Ecosite
Phase can occur in depressions or on level to gently sloping ground from toe to lower-slope topographic
positions facing northerly aspects.
g1 Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj

In the g1 Ecosite Phase, black spruce and jack pine are the dominant tree species. The shrub layer
includes common Labrador tea, black spruce and bog cranberry. Ground cover includes Schreber’s
moss, stair-step moss, knight’s plume moss and reindeer lichen. The soil moisture regime ranges from
subhygric to subhydric with a poor to medium soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur in
depressions or on level to gently sloping ground from toe to mid-slope topographic positions facing all
aspects but northerly.
h1 Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb

In the h1 Ecosite Phase, white spruce is the dominant tree species with some black spruce. Shrub
species include common Labrador tea, bog cranberry and willow species. Ground cover includes
Page 1A-28
common horsetail, meadow horsetail, stair-step moss and Schreber’s moss. The soil moisture regime
ranges from subhygric to subhydric with a poor to rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur
on level to gently sloping ground at lower slope topographic positions facing northerly aspects.
Wetland
The following descriptions of wetland Ecosite Phases that occur within the LSA include dominant species
present in each layer, most likely topographic positions and general soil characteristics.
i1 treed bog
In the i1 Ecosite Phase, black spruce is the dominant tree species. The shrub layer includes common
Labrador tea, bog cranberry and black spruce. Ground cover includes cloudberry, peat moss species and
Schreber’s moss. The soil moisture regime ranges from hygric to hydric with a very poor to poor soil
nutrient regime. Treed bogs are found on level or depressional ground.
i2 shrubby bog
In the i2 Ecosite Phase, trees are absent or shrub height and the shrub layer includes common Labrador
tea, black spruce, bog cranberry and leatherleaf. Ground cover is dominated by peat moss species with
occasional cloudberry, Schreber’s moss and reindeer lichen. The soil moisture regime ranges from hygric
to hydric with a very poor to poor soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase is found on level or
depressional ground.
j1 treed poor fen

In the j1 Ecosite Phase, black spruce is the dominant tree species, with some tamarack. The shrub layer
includes common Labrador tea, black spruce, bog cranberry, willow species and tamarack. Ground cover
is dominated by peat moss species, with occasional common horsetail, sedge species, golden moss,
stair-step moss, Schreber’s moss, tufted moss and reindeer lichen. The soil moisture regime ranges from
hygric to hydric with a very poor to rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur on level or
depressional ground.
j2 shrubby poor fen

In the j2 Ecosite Phase, trees are absent or shrub height and the shrub layer includes common Labrador
tea, black spruce, dwarf birch, bog cranberry and willow species. Ground cover is dominated by peat
moss species, with some sedge species, golden moss and tufted moss. The soil moisture regime ranges
from hygric to hydric with a very poor to medium soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur on
level or depressional ground.
k1 treed rich fen

In the k1 Ecosite Phase, tamarack is the dominant tree species, with some black spruce. The shrub layer
includes dwarf birch, tamarack, willow species and common Labrador tea. Ground cover is co-dominated
by tufted moss and golden moss, with some sedge species, bluejoint and peat moss species. The soil
moisture regime ranges from hygric to hydric with a very rich to medium soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite
Phase can occur on level or depressional ground.
k2 shrubby rich fen

In the k2 Ecosite Phase, trees are absent or shrub height and shrub species include willow species, dwarf
birch, and river alder. Ground cover is co-dominated by sedge species and bluejoint with some brown
moss species. The soil moisture regime ranges from hygric to hydric with a medium to very rich soil
nutrient regime. This Ecosite Phase can occur on level or depressional ground.
Page 1A-29
k3 graminoid rich fen

In the k3 Ecosite Phase, tree and shrub layers are absent. Sedge species are the dominant plant species,
with some bluejoint, northern reed grass, Brachythecium moss species and brown moss species. The soil
moisture regime ranges from hygric to hydric with a medium to very rich soil nutrient regime. This Ecosite
Phase can occur on level or depressional ground.
l1 marsh
In the l1 Ecosite Phase, tree and shrub layers are trace. Common cattail and sedge species are the
dominant plant species, with some northern willowherb, bluejoint and creeping spike-rush. Brown moss
species are the dominant moss species, although mosses are a minor component of this Ecosite Phase.
The soil moisture regime ranges from subhydric to hydric with a medium to very rich soil nutrient regime.
This Ecosite Phase can occur on level ground.
Shrubby Wetland
Beckingham and Archibald (1996) do not address non-peat forming wetlands dominated by shrubs.
Shrubby wetlands are dominated by willow species, alder species, red-osier dogwood, currants and wild
red raspberry with less than 6% cover of trees. Ground cover is dominated by bluejoint. Moss cover is
typically very low. The soil moisture ranges from hygric to hydric with a medium to very rich soil nutrient
regime. This vegetation community occurs in depressional, toe and level topographic positions.

The following section offers descriptions of non-forest and natural disturbance ELCs that occur within the
LSA.
Meadow
Upland areas where shrub cover is less than 25% and tree cover is less than 6% have been classified as
Meadows. Anthropogenic disturbance is not evident.
Regenerating Burn
Areas that have been disturbed by wildfire within the last 11 to 30 years have been classified as
Regenerating Burns. These areas are dominated by saplings and self-thinning and vertical structure is
not yet evident in the canopy. There are no areas that have been disturbed by wildfire within the last 10
years in the LSA.
The following section offers descriptions of anthropogenic disturbance ELCs that occur within the LSA.
Areas that have been logged within the last 11 to 30 years have been classified as Regenerating
Cutblocks. These areas are dominated by saplings and self-thinning and vertical structure is not yet
evident in the canopy.
Cutblock
Areas that have been logged within the last 10 years have been classified as cutblocks. These areas are
dominated by either an herb layer or shrub layer. There are some locations that are not yet dominated by
saplings, yet were logged more than 10 years ago and these locations have also been classified as
cutblocks.
Page 1A-30
Anthropogenic
Areas that have been cleared for human use, other than logging, such as well sites, rights-of-way, 3D
seismic lines and linear corridors (e.g., pipelines, roads and trails).
1A.3.1.2 Alberta Wetland Inventory Classification

AWI classified wetlands that occur within the LSA include bog, fen, swamp, marsh and shallow open
water, each AWI classification observed is detailed below. Overall, 2,314.7 ha of wetland habitat was
delineated within the LSA, comprising approximately 37.7% of the LSA.
Table 1A-12 details the distribution of each AWI classification within the LSA. Figure 1A-5 shows the
distribution AWI classifications within the LSA.
TABLE 1A-12
LSA BASELINE AWI DISTRIBUTION
AWI Total Area in LSA (ha) Percent Cover in LSA

Bog
BONS 155.0 2.5
BTNN 345.9 5.6
Fen
FONG 39.3 0.6
FONS 46.6 0.8
FTNN 672.7 11.0
Swamp
SONS 258.7 4.2
STNN 784.3 12.8
Marsh
MONG 7.2 0.1
Shallow Open Water
WONN 5.0 0.1
Total 2,314.7 37.7
Note: Wetlands are classified according to the AWI (Halsey et al. 2004).
Page 1A-31
27 26 25 30 29 28
¯ 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
TWP. 76 Alberta Wetland Inventory

BONS - Shrub bog
no permafrost
21 22 23 24 BTNN - Wooded Bog
19 20 21 no permafrost nor 22
internal lawns
FONG - Graminoid fen
no patterning
FONS - Shrub fen
no patterning
FTNN - Wooded fen
no patterning nor
internal lawns
16 15 SONS - Shrub swamp
14 13 18 17 16 STNN - Wooded swamp 15
MONG - Graminoid marsh
WONN - Open water
Upland
Project Area Watercourse FIGURE 1A-5

Vegetation Local BASELINE AWI
Waterbody
Study Area (450 m)
Existing Blackrod Road Anthopogenic Disturbance PROPOSED BLACKROD
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; Alberta Wetland Inventory: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012d;
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
BONS
Bog: open (i.e. wetland vegetated with shrubs, graminoid species, herbaceous species etc.), tree cover
less than 6% of wetland vegetative cover, shrub cover greater than 25%, no permafrost or patterning
present
BTNN
Bog: wooded (i.e. open canopy with between 6 and 75% tree cover), no internal lawns, no permafrost or
patterning present.
FONG
Fen: open (i.e. wetland vegetated with shrubs, graminoid species, herbaceous species etc.), graminoid
species provide dominant wetland vegetative cover, tree cover less than 6%, shrub cover less than 25%,
no permafrost or patterning present.
FONS
Fen: open (i.e. wetland vegetated with shrubs, graminoid species, herbaceous species etc.), tree cover
less than 6% of wetland vegetative cover, shrub cover greater than 25%; no permafrost or patterning
present.
FTNN
Fen: wooded (i.e. open canopy with between 6 and 75% tree cover), no internal lawns, no permafrost or
patterning present.
SONS
Swamp: open (i.e. wetland vegetated with shrubs, graminoid species, herbaceous species etc.), tree
cover less than 6% of wetland vegetative cover, shrub cover greater than 25%; no permafrost or
patterning present.
STNN
Swamp: wooded (i.e. open canopy with between 6 and 75% tree cover), no internal lawns, no permafrost
or patterning present.
MONG
Marsh: open (i.e. wetland vegetated with shrubs, graminoid species, herbaceous species etc.), graminoid
species provide dominant wetland vegetative cover, tree cover less than 6%, shrub cover less than 25%,
no permafrost or patterning present.
WONN
Shallow Open Water: Associated with other wetland forms such as marshes, small pools of water that can
also include emergent and submergent vegetation.
1A.3.1.3 Wetland Function

Wetlands observed in the LSA during field surveys exhibited proper functionality. Characteristics of
properly functioning wetlands include: adequate vegetation, landform, hydrology and regionally suitable
habitat features; features in appropriate combination to reduce erosion and improve water quality;
features in appropriate combination to be able to provide sediment infiltration, suitable water residence
time; and have healthy micro-habitats to support a high diversity of wildlife. Disturbances observed
include existing oil and gas infrastructure and forestry practices. It was observed that when numerous
Page 1A-33
growing seasons occurred in wetlands subsequent to existing disturbances, wetlands were functioning
properly.
1A.3.1.4 Land Cover Classification

LCCs that occur within the RSA have been grouped into forested upland, wetland and water, natural
disturbance, anthropogenic disturbance and unclassifiable categories for ease of comparison and each
LCC predicted within the RSA is detailed below.
Table 1A-13 details the LCC and distribution of each LCC within the RSA. Figure 1A-6 shows the
distribution of LLC within the RSA.
TABLE 1A-13
RSA LAND COVER CLASSES
LLC* Total Area in RSA (ha) Percent Cover in RSA1

Closed black spruce 706.7 0.9
Closed pine 250.4 0.3
Closed white spruce 27,640.8 37.1
Closed aspen, balsam poplar and/or birch 6,832.9 9.2
Closed coniferous and deciduous cover (40-60%) 17,189.1 23.1
Wetland and Water
Graminoid wetlands 437.9 0.6
Shrubby wetlands 2,081.8 2.8
Black spruce bog 1,087.6 1.5
Wooded fen 8,439.8 11.3
Lake, pond, river and stream 999.7 1.3
Natural Disturbance
Burn grassland 173.8 0.2
Burn upland shrub 35.8 <0.1
Anthropogenic non-vegetated 136.1 0.2
Mixed grassland 4,382.0 5.9
Closed upland shrub 3,785.5 5.1
Unclassifiable
Cloud / shadow 222.9 0.3
No data 64.9 0.1
Total 74,467.6 100
Notes: 1. Percent cover may not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
* LCC are based on the AGCC strata listed in Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. (2004).
Page 1A-34
RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M RGE.16 W4M RGE.15 W4M
Ho
TWP.78 us
¯
e Ri ver
er
iv
TWP.77
aR
a sc
ab
h
At
TWP.76
r e ek
C
llel
Para
TWP.75
V
U
63
McMillan
Land Cover Classification
Lake
TWP.74 Burn Grassland
Burn Upland Shrub
Close Black Spruce
Close Pine
Amadou Closed White Spruce
Lake Closed Aspen, Balsam Poplar and/or Birch
Closed Coniferous and Deciduous Cover (20-60%)
k
Closed Upland Shrub
C re e
Mixed Grassland
Graminoid Wetlands
E r ic
Shrubby Wetlands
Black Spruce Bog
k
ee
Wooded Fen
TWP.73 Cr Lake, pond, river, stream
n ca
n
Du Anthropogenic Non-Vegetated
Cloud / Shadow
No Data

V
U 63 Road BASELINE LCC
Vegetation Local Study Area (450 m)
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-6_Baseline_LCC.mxd
Watercourse BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Vegetation Regional Study Area Waterbody COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N SCALE: 1: 225,000
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; Land Cover Classification: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012b;
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011c; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011c. km
0 1 2 3 4 5
May 2012
1A.3.1.5 Old Growth Forests

Ecosite Phases within the LSA with the potential to be old growth forest were determined based upon
‘date of origin’ data from AVI (Al-Pac 2010). Ecosite Phases have been grouped into forested upland and
wetland for ease of comparison and each old growth Ecosite Phase mapped is detailed below.
Table 1A-14 details the old growth Ecosite Phases and distribution of each within the LSA. Figure 1A-7
shows the distribution of old growth Ecosite Phases within the LSA.
TABLE 1A-14
LSA BASELINE OLD GROWTH FOREST DISTRIBUTION
Old Growth Area Percentage of Total

Old Growth Ecosite Phase in LSA (ha) Percentage of LSA Percentage of ELC Old Growth Area
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 2.6 <0.1 60.7 0.3
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 3.9 0.1 100.0 0.4
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 8.0 0.1 1.5 0.8
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 46.3 0.8 29.7 4.5
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 38.5 0.6 29.4 3.8
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 4.6 0.1 2.5 0.5
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 118.4 1.9 44.6 11.6
e3 - dogwood Sw 139.4 2.3 52.6 13.7
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 4.8 0.1 12.4 0.5
f3 - horsetail Sw 45.5 0.7 38.9 4.5
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 223.8 3.7 61.3 21.9
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 167.5 2.7 42.9 16.4
Wetland
i1 - treed bog 49.2 0.8 14.2 4.8
i2 - shrubby bog 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
j1 - treed poor fen 146.8 2.4 31.5 14.4
j2 - shrubby poor fen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
k1 - treed rich fen 21.6 0.4 10.5 2.1
k2 - shrubby rich fen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1,020.8 16.6
Note: Old growth is derived from ‘date of origin’ from AVI (Al-Pac 2010).
Page 1A-36
27 26 25 30 29 28
¯ 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 Ecological
28 Land Classification
27
c1 - Labrador
tea-mesic Pj-Sb
d1 - low-bush
cranberry Aw
TWP. 76 d2 - low-bush
cranberry Aw-Sw
21 22 d3 - low-bush
23 24 cranberry Sw
19 20 21
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw22
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
e3 - dogwood Sw
f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador
16 15
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
14 13 18 17 h1 - Labrador
16 15
tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
i1 - treed bog
j1 - treed poor fen
k1 - treed rich fen
Vegetation Local BASELINE OLD GROWTH ECOSITE PHASES

Waterbody
Study Area (450 m)
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
1A.3.1.6 Riparian Areas

Riparian areas that occur within the LSA and RSA were determined by applying a 50 m wide buffer to
waterbodies.
Table 1A-15 details the riparian areas and distribution of each within the LSA. Figure 1A-8 shows the
distribution of riparian areas within the LSA. Table 1A-16 summarizes the riparian areas and distribution
of each within the RSA. Figure 1A-9 shows the distribution of riparian areas within the RSA.
TABLE 1A-15
LSA BASELINE RIPARIAN AREAS DISTRIBUTION
Riparian Area in Percentage of Total

ELC LSA (ha) Percentage of LSA Percentage of ELC Riparian Area
Forested Upland Riparian Areas
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 11.6 0.2 2.2 5.1
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 13.6 0.2 8.7 5.9
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 6.8 0.1 5.2 3.0
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 22.9 0.4 12.5 10.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 15.7 0.3 5.9 6.8
e3 - dogwood Sw 40.4 0.7 18.0 17.6
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 1.3 0.0 4.7 0.6
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
f3 - horsetail Sw 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 2.9 0.0 0.8 1.3
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 10.4 0.2 2.6 4.5
Wetland Riparian Areas
i1 - treed bog 6.6 0.1 1.9 2.9
i2 - shrubby bog 3.9 0.1 6.0 1.7
j1 - treed poor fen 5.9 0.1 1.3 2.6
j2 - shrubby poor fen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
k1 - treed rich fen 3.9 0.1 1.9 1.7
k2 - shrubby rich fen 12.8 0.2 77.3 5.6
k3 - graminoid rich fen 5.9 0.1 15.1 2.6
l1 - marsh 7.9 0.1 65.0 3.4
Shrubby Wetland* 11.6 0.2 4.9 5.0
Non-Forested / Natural Disturbance Riparian Areas
Meadow* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regenerating Burn* 1.5 0.0 1.2 0.7
Anthropogenic Disturbance Riparian Areas
Regenerating Cutblock* 24.6 0.4 2.3 10.7
Cutblock* 7.1 0.1 1.1 3.1
Anthropogenic* 12.1 0.2 2.7 5.3
Total Riparian Area 230.0 3.7
Note: * Additional classifications were created where the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) did not outline
Page 1A-38
27 26 25 30 29 28
¯ 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
Anthropogenic
Disturbance
Cutblock (logged within
last 10 years or no trees
regenerating)
c1 - Labrador
33 34 tea-mesic Pj-Sb
35 36 31 32 33 d1 - low-bush 34
cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush
cranberry Aw-Sw
d3 - low-bush
cranberry Sw
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
28
e3 - dogwood Sw
27 26 25 30 29 f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw
28 27
f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
h1 - Labrador
TWP. 76 tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
i1 - treed bog
21 22 i2 - shrubby bog
23 24 19 20 j1 - treed poor fen
21 22
k1 - treed rich fen
l1 - marsh
Meadow (upland with
<6% tree cover and
16 15 <25% shrub cover)
14 13 18 17 Regenerating Burn
16 15
(wildfire within last
30 years)
(logged within last 30 years
but older than 10 years)
Shrubby Wetland
Vegetation Local LSA BASELINE RIPARIAN AREAS

Study Area (450 m) Waterbody
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
TABLE 1A-16
RSA BASELINE RIPARIAN AREAS DISTRIBUTION
Riparian Area in Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Total

LLC* RSA (ha) RSA LLC Riparian Area
Forested Upland (>6% tree cover) Riparian Areas
Closed black spruce 98.8 0.1 14.0 1.3
Closed pine 36.5 <0.1 14.6 0.5
Closed white spruce 2,636.8 3.5 9.5 33.6
Closed aspen, balsam poplar and/or birch 478.4 0.6 7.0 6.1
Closed coniferous and deciduous cover (40-60%) 1,690.5 2.3 9.8 21.5
Wetland and Water Riparian Areas
Graminoid wetlands 116.1 0.2 26.5 1.5
Shrubby wetlands 251.4 0.3 12.1 3.2
Black spruce bog 132.3 0.2 12.2 1.7
Wooded fen 879.4 1.2 10.4 11.2
Lake, pond, river and stream 932.8 1.3 93.3 11.9
Natural Disturbance Riparian Areas
Burn grassland 2.6 <0.1 1.5 <0.1
Burn upland shrub 1.4 <0.1 3.8 <0.1
Anthropogenic non-vegetated 7.4 <0.1 5.4 0.1
Mixed grassland 200.3 0.3 4.6 2.5
Closed upland shrub 343.0 0.5 9.1 4.4
Unclassifiable Riparian Areas
Cloud / shadow 37.7 0.1 16.9 0.5
No data 10.3 <0.1 15.8 0.1
Total Riparian Areas 7,855.6 10.5
Page 1A-40
Ho
TWP.78 us
¯
e Ri ver
er
iv
TWP.77
aR
a sc
ab
h
At
TWP.76
r e ek
C
llel
Para
TWP.75
V
U
63
McMillan
Lake
TWP.74
Amadou
Lake
k
C re e
E r ic
k
ee
TWP.73 Cr
n ca
n
Du
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-9 _RSA_Baseline_Riparian_Areas.mxd
Project Area V
U 63 Road FIGURE 1A-9
Vegetation Local Study Area (450 m) Watercourse RSA BASELINE RIPARIAN AREAS
Vegetation Regional Study Area Waterbody BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Existing Blackrod Road Riparian Area with 50 m Buffer COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012;
km
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011c; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011c.
0 1 2 3 4 5
May 2012
1A.3.1.7 Communities of Limited Distribution

Communities of limited distribution within the LSA are ELC and AWI that cover 1% or less of the LSA.
ELC communities of limited distribution have been grouped into a forested upland, wetland or non-
forested / natural disturbance category for ease of comparison. AWI communities of limited distribution
have been grouped into the wetland types bog, fen, marsh, swamp and shallow open water for ease of
comparison.
Table 1A-17 summarizes the ELC communities of limited distribution and the distribution of each within
the LSA. Figure 1A-10 shows the distribution of ELC communities of limited distribution within the LSA.
Table 1A-18 summarizes the AWI communities of limited distribution and the distribution of each within
the LSA. Figure 1A-11 shows the distribution of AWI communities of limited distribution within the LSA.
Communities of limited distribution within the RSA are LCC that cover 1% or less of the RSA. LCC
communities of limited distribution have been grouped into forested upland and wetland and water
categories for ease of comparison.
Table 1A-19 summarizes the LCC communities of limited distribution and distribution of each within the
RSA. Figure 1A-12 shows the LCC communities of limited distribution within the RSA.
TABLE 1A-17
LSA BASELINE ELC COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
ELC Total Area in LSA (ha) Percent Cover in LSA

Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 4.2 0.1
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 3.9 0.1
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 27.5 0.5
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 38.7 0.6
Wetland
j2 - shrubby poor fen 19.8 0.3
k2 - shrubby rich fen 16.6 0.3
k3 - graminoid rich fen 39.3 0.6
l1 - marsh 12.1 0.2
Meadow* 2.0 <0.1
Total 164.1 2.7
Page 1A-42
27 26 25 30 29 28
¯ 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
TWP. 76
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22

c1 - Labrador
tea-mesic Pj-Sb
16 15 14
13 18 17 16 k2 - shrubby rich fen 15
l1 - marsh
Meadow (upland with
<6% tree cover and
<25% shrub cover)
FIGURE 1A-10
Project Area Watercourse
Vegetation Local LSA BASELINE ELC COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
Waterbody
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
TABLE 1A-18
LSA BASELINE AWI COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
Communities of Limited
Distribution - AWI Total Area in LSA (ha) Percentage of LSA
Fen
FONG 39.3 0.6
FONS 46.6 0.8
Marsh
MONG 7.2 0.3
Shallow Open Water
WONN 5.0 0.2
Total 98.1 1.9
Note: Wetlands are classified according to the AWI (Halsey et al. 2004).
TABLE 1A-19
RSA BASELINE LCC COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
LLC* Total Area in RSA (ha) Percent Cover in RSA

Closed black spruce 706.7 0.9
Closed pine 250.4 0.3
Natural Disturbance
Burn grassland 173.8 0.2
Burn upland shrub 35.8 <0.1
Wetland and Water
Graminoid wetlands 437.9 0.6
Total 1,604.6 2.1
Page 1A-44
27 26 25 30 29 28
¯ 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
TWP. 76
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22
Alberta Wetland Inventory

16 15 14 13 FONG - Graminoid fen
18 17 no patterning
16 15
FONS - Shrub fen
no patterning
MONG - Graminoid marsh
WONN - Open water
Vegetation Local LSA BASELINE AWI COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

Study Area (450 m) Waterbody
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; Alberta Wetland Inventory: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012d;
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
Ho
TWP.78 us
¯
e Ri ver
er
iv
TWP.77
aR
a sc
ab
h
At
TWP.76
r e ek
C
llel
Para
TWP.75
V
U
63
McMillan
Lake
TWP.74
Amadou
Lake
Land Cover Classification

k
ee
Burn Upland Shrub

TWP.73 Cr Burn Grassland
n ca
n
Du Closed Black Spruce

Closed Pine
Graminoid Wetlands
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-12 _Baseline_LCC_Comm_Limited_Dist.mxd

V
U 63 Road RSA BASELINE LCC COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
Vegetation Local Study Area (450 m)
Watercourse BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Vegetation Regional Study Area Waterbody COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012; Land Cover Classification: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012b;
0 1 2 3 4 5
May 2012
1A.3.1.8 Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plant Potential

Information regarding records of known rare ecological community and rare plant occurrences within the
RSA was requested from ACIMS. ACIMS provided records of a rare ecological community, river alder /
ostrich fern shrubland, known from two locations within the LSA (ACIMS 2011b). In addition to these
ACIMS’ records, one rare liverwort, snakeskin liverwort, was previously observed in five locations within
the LSA (TERA 2008, 2009). No records of known rare ecological community and rare plant occurrences
from outside of the LSA were provided by ACIMS. Details of the previously recorded occurrences are
summarised in Table 1A-20 and displayed on Figure 1A-13.
There are no potential species listed for the Central Mixedwood and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural
Subregions that are designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act. There are no potential species listed for
the Central Mixedwood and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregions that have a SARA or COSEWIC
designation. No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with an Alberta Wildlife Act, SARA or
COSEWIC designation are known from within the RSA (ACIMS 2011b).
TABLE 1A-20
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND

RARE PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN THE RSA
Approximate General
Distance to ACIMS Status
Location (W4M) Project Area (m)1 Type Scientific Name Common Name Rank2 Rank2
7-30-76-17 0.0 Community Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia / river alder / ostrich fern S2? n/a
Matteuccia struthiopteris shrubland
6-30-76-17 0.0 Community Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia / river alder / ostrich fern S2? n/a
Matteuccia struthiopteris shrubland
7-25-76-18 79.8 Nonvascular Conocephalum conicum snakeskin liverwort S2 ---
Sources: ACIMS 2011b, TERA 2008 and TERA 2009
Notes: 1 ACIMS may buffer the location of an occurrence when mapping precision is low due to the age of the data, or the detail submitted, or the
desire by a landowner to withhold the specific location from the public. The occurrence may be located anywhere within the buffer. Distances
in this Table were measured from the Project Area to the nearest edge of each buffer. When the Project Area intersects a buffer, distances
are noted as "within buffer".
2 Definitions of rarity ranks are included in the footnotes of Attachments 1A1 and Attachment 1A2. Species on the List of Tracked and Watched
Elements (ACIMS 2011a) have S ranks in bold text. Communities on the Ecological Community Tracking List (Allen 2011) have S ranks in
bold text.
Ecosite phases with moderate or high potential to support rare ecological communities are summarized in
Table 1A-21 and shown on Figure 1A-14 and those with moderate or high potential to support rare plants
are summarized in Table 1A-22 and shown on Figure 1A-15.
Page 1A-47
¯ 31
6 5
32
RGE.18 W4M
33
4 3 2 1 6 5
RGE.17 W4M
4 3 2
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
Athabasca R iver
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
river alder /
ostrich fern shrubland
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

)
28 27 26

)
)

)

)
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.76
snakeskin liverwort
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
Project Area ACIMS Existing Blackrod Road FIGURE 1A-13
Previously Recorded
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-13_Previously_Recorded.m xd
Vegetation Local PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

) Rare Plant / Rare Ecological Watercourse AND RARE PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN THE LSA
Study Area (450 m)
Vegetation Regional Community Occurence BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Study Area COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
0 1 2
May 2012
TABLE 1A-21
LSA BASELINE ELC WITH POTENTIAL TO SUPPORT

RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES DISTRIBUTION
Total Area in Percentage

ELC Ranked Potential LSA (ha) of LSA
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw high 4.2 0.1
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw high 527.8 8.6
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw high 183.2 3.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw moderate 265.2 4.3
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw high 27.5 0.5
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw high 38.7 0.6
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb moderate 391.0 6.4
Wetland
j1 - treed poor fen moderate 465.9 7.6
j2 - shrubby poor fen moderate 19.8 0.3
k2 - shrubby rich fen high 16.6 0.3
k3 - graminoid rich fen high 39.3 0.6
l1 - marsh high 12.1 0.2
Shrubby Wetland* high 236.0 3.9
Total 2,227.3 36.3
TABLE 1A-22
LSA BASELINE ELC WITH POTENTIAL TO SUPPORT RARE VASCULAR PLANTS DISTRIBUTION
Total Area in Percentage of

ELC Ranked Potential LSA (ha) LSA
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw moderate 4.2 0.1
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw moderate 527.8 8.6
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw moderate 155.9 2.5
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw moderate 130.8 2.1
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw high 183.2 3.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw high 265.2 4.3
e3 - dogwood Sw high 224.9 3.7
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw high 27.5 0.5
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw high 38.7 0.6
f3 - horsetail Sw high 117.1 1.9
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj high 365.1 6.0
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb high 391.0 6.4
Wetland
k3 - graminoid rich fen moderate 39.3 0.6
l1 - marsh high 12.1 0.2
Shrubby Wetland* high 236.0 3.9
Meadow* moderate 2.0 <0.1
Total 2,720.8 44.3
Page 1A-49
27 26 25 30 29 28
¯ 21 22
Athabasca River
23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

d1 - low-bush
cranberry Aw
TWP. 76
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
21 22 e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
23 24 19 20 21 22
h1 - Labrador
tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
j1 - treed poor fen
16 j2 - shrubby poor fen

15 14 13 18 17 16 k2 - shrubby rich fen 15
l1 - marsh
Shrubby Wetland
FIGURE 1A-14
LSA BASELINE ELC POTENTIAL TO
Vegetation Local SUPPORT RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Watercourse
Study Area (450 m)
km
Ecological Land Classification: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012c; Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011c.
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
27 26 25 30 29 28
¯ 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 Ecological Land Classification

28 27
d1 - low-bush
cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush
cranberry Aw-Sw
TWP. 76 d3 - low-bush
cranberry Sw
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
21 22 23 24 e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
19 20 21
e3 - dogwood Sw 22
f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
h1 - Labrador
16 15 tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
14 13 18 17 k3 - graminoid rich fen15
16
l1 - marsh
Meadow (upland with
<6% tree cover and
<25% shrub cover)
Shrubby Wetland
FIGURE 1A-15
LSA BASELINE ELC POTENTIAL TO
Vegetation Local SUPPORT RARE VASCULAR PLANTS
Watercourse
Study Area (450 m)
km
Ecological Land Classification: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012c; Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011c.
0 0.5 1 1.5
May 2012
1A.3.2 Habitat Fragmentation

The current extent of habitat fragmentation was quantified at both the LSA and RSA scales using
FRAGSTATS (McGarigal et al. 2002). At the LSA scale, habitat fragmentation was quantified for
vegetation communities using ELC, AWI and riparian area vegetation community classification systems.
At the RSA scale, habitat fragmentation was quantified for vegetation communities using LCC and
riparian area vegetation classification systems. A variety of metrics were applied to each vegetation
community and outputs are summarized for Patch Area Distribution and Edge Contrast Index Distribution.
The Patch Area Distribution metrics measure the size and number of patches within a landscape.
Increased habitat fragmentation is expected to result in an increase in the number of patches and a
decrease in mean patch size.
The Edge Contrast Index Distribution metrics illustrate the differences between adjacent patches.
Increased habitat fragmentation due to anthropogenic disturbance is expected to result in an increase in
mean percentage of patch edge adjacent to anthropogenic disturbance.
At the LSA scale, the baseline mean, standard deviation and range of patch size as well as the baseline
mean, standard deviation and range of percentage of patch edge adjacent to anthropogenic disturbance
are summarized in Table 1A-23 for ELC, Table 1A-24 for AWI and Table 1A-25 for riparian areas. At the
RSA scale, the baseline mean, standard deviation and range of patch size as well as the baseline mean,
standard deviation and range of percentage of patch edge adjacent to anthropogenic disturbance are
summarized in Table 1A-26 for LCC and Table 1A-27.
Effects of habitat loss on fragmentation metrics were considered in the assessment of changes from
Baseline Case to Application Case to Closure Phase to Planned Development Case. For example,
habitat loss could result in a decrease in patch number and an increase in mean patch size if some
smaller patches are removed from the landscape.
TABLE 1A-23
LSA ELC MEAN PATCH SIZE AND MEAN PERCENTAGE ANTHROPOGENIC EDGE DISTRIBUTION
HABITAT FRAGMENTATION METRICS
Patch Area Distribution Edge Contrast Index Distribution

Mean Standard Deviation Range of Mean % Standard Deviation Range of %
ELC Area (ha) of Area (ha) Area (ha) Anth. Edge of % Anth. Edge Anth. Edge
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 2.1 0.5 0.9 37.7 26.5 53.0
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 1.0 0.7 1.8 20.8 15.4 38.1
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 2.8 5.9 51.1 66.0 30.2 100.0
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 1.6 2.1 9.7 49.3 30.5 100.0
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 1.9 2.8 14.8 49.0 25.5 100.0
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 3.9 6.0 25.2 49.0 26.7 100.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 2.9 5.4 44.6 47.1 28.5 100.0
e3 - dogwood Sw 2.3 4.4 26.3 48.5 28.1 100.0
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 2.1 2.6 12.4 41.4 22.0 94.9
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 1.2 1.6 6.3 36.2 18.6 76.9
f3 - horsetail Sw 2.5 4.9 29.2 42.7 20.4 100.0
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 2.3 4.1 28.8 41.0 30.1 100.0
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 2.4 5.7 54.7 42.7 28.4 100.0
Wetland
i1 - treed bog 4.0 8.0 45.3 40.4 29.7 100.0
i2 - shrubby bog 6.2 7.4 24.0 48.6 20.3 87.3
j1 - treed poor fen 4.6 10.8 78.9 33.9 23.5 100.0
j2 - shrubby poor fen 3.5 2.9 8.8 10.9 8.1 22.4
k1 - treed rich fen 6.5 9.8 36.1 31.9 21.3 85.7
k2 - shrubby rich fen 6.1 7.7 17.0 20.7 17.2 41.1
k3 - graminoid rich fen 2.8 3.7 12.8 25.9 22.1 65.0
Page 1A-52
TABLE 1A-23 Cont'd

Mean Standard Deviation Range of Mean % Standard Deviation Range of %
ELC Area (ha) of Area (ha) Area (ha) Anth. Edge of % Anth. Edge Anth. Edge
l1 - marsh 0.6 0.6 2.2 60.7 40.9 100.0
Shrubby Wetland* 1.8 4.3 33.7 47.2 32.9 100.0
Meadow* 0.6 0.2 0.7 33.3 19.6 49.6
Regenerating Burn* 10.9 12.3 35.3 32.6 15.5 54.6
Regenerating Cutblock* 8.1 22.5 167.5 96.1 10.6 47.8
Cutblock* 4.0 8.2 64.7 97.2 8.7 40.5
Anthropogenic* 7.2 43.4 281.4 96.0 10.8 50.0
Landscape
Totals 3.4 10.7 281.4 55.3 33.5 100.0
Notes: * Additional classifications were created where the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) did not outline
Communities of limited distribution are in bold text.
TABLE 1A-24
LSA AWI MEAN PATCH SIZE AND MEAN PERCENTAGE ANTHROPOGENIC EDGE DISTRIBUTION

Mean Area Standard Deviation Range of Mean % Anth. Standard Deviation Range of %
AWI (ha) of Area (ha) Area (ha) Edge of % Anth. Edge Anth. Edge
Bog
BONS 7.4 9.1 29.3 41.6 18.3 87.0
BTNN 3.8 7.4 44.2 40.2 29.6 100.0
Fen
FONG 3.0 3.8 12.8 24.3 22.1 65.0
FONS 3.2 4.3 17.0 16.0 15.6 50.0
FTNN 6.5 14.3 79.0 34.5 21.7 100.0
Swamp
SONS 2.0 4.7 33.7 47.9 33.1 100.0
STNN 3.1 6.3 0.0 44.8 28.6 100.0
Marsh
MONG 1.1 0.6 2.1 41.4 36.8 89.2
Shallow Open Water
WONN 0.4 0.4 1.1 69.5 41.3 100.0
Non-Wetland
Upland 5.1 10.7 87.4 66.2 33.6 100.0
Regenerating Cutblock 8.1 22.5 167.6 36.0 26.1 100.0
Cutblock 4.0 8.2 64.7 52.2 27.4 100.0
Anthropogenic 7.2 43.3 281.1 78.1 30. 100.0
Landscape
Totals 4.6 13.3 281.1 50.4 32.4 100.0
Notes: Wetlands are classified according to the AWI (Halsey et al. 2004).
Page 1A-53
TABLE 1A-25
LSA RIPAIRAN AREAS MEAN PATCH SIZE AND MEAN PERCENTAGE ANTHROPOGENIC EDGE
DISTRIBUTION HABITAT FRAGMENTATION METRICS

Standard
Mean Deviation of Range of Mean % Standard Deviation Range of %
ELC Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Anth. Edge of % Anth. Edge Anth. Edge
Forested Upland Riparian Areas
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 0.9 1.3 4.7 13.8 20.2 66.1
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 1.5 1.4 4.4 38.2 31.7 100.0
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 0.7 0.9 3.0 40.1 30.1 93.7
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 2.3 2.1 6.1 27.6 22.6 75.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 0.7 1.3 5.3 15.9 17.7 50.0
e3 - dogwood Sw 1.5 3.6 19.1 27.5 22.4 63.6
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
f3 - horsetail Sw 0.2 0.0 0.0 13.9 13.9 27.8
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 0.4 0.5 1.4 4.7 10.7 32.6
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 0.5 0.9 4.4 42.3 21.3 85.0
Wetland Riparian Areas
i1 - treed bog 0.8 1.1 3.4 14.2 25.6 83.3
i2 - shrubby bog 2.0 0.2 0.3 11.6 0.4 0.7
j1 - treed poor fen 0.4 0.6 2.0 17.2 20.5 50.0
k1 - treed rich fen 1.3 1.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
k2 - shrubby rich fen 4.7 5.8 12.8 20.4 17.4 41.9
k3 - graminoid rich fen 1.1 0.9 2.6 14.3 15.4 39.7
l1 - marsh 0.7 0.7 2.2 58.4 44.3 100.0
Shrubby Wetland* 0.5 0.7 3.4 10.6 15.9 50.0
Non-Forested / Natural Disturbance Riparian Areas
Regenerating Burn* 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regenerating Cutblock* 0.5 0.9 4.8 81.2 21.6 68.2
Cutblock* 0.6 0.8 2.7 91.6 14.2 50.0
Anthropogenic* 0.2 0.2 1.0 87.8 21.6 76.8
Non-Riparian Areas
Not Riparian* 1,476.6 2,170.0 5,202.1 12.3 18.1 43.3
Landscape
Totals 19.9 298.0 5,202.1 44.2 38.5 100.0
Notes: * Additional classifications were created where the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) did not outline
Page 1A-54
TABLE 1A-26
RSA LLC MEAN PATCH SIZE AND MEAN PERCENTAGE ANTHROPOGENIC EDGE DISTRIBUTION

Mean Standard Mean % Standard
Area Deviation of Range of Anth. Deviation of % Range of %
LLC (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Edge Anth. Edge Anth. Edge
Closed black spruce 0.3 1.4 72.8 12.5 19.5 100.0
Closed pine 0.4 1.3 20.8 28.5 26.7 100.0
Closed white spruce 7.2 119.1 5,076.7 1.9 6.5 50.0
Closed aspen, balsam poplar and/or birch 0.9 5.5 239.7 36.2 31.6 100.0
Closed coniferous and deciduous cover (20-60%) 1.5 12.8 777.5 4.6 10.7 100.0
Wetland and Water
Graminoid Wetlands 1.3 7.2 80.4 17.5 27.4 100.0
Shrubby wetlands 0.3 1.2 58.3 23.6 24.3 100.0
Black spruce bog 0.4 2.5 109.2 18.9 23.0 100.0
Wooded fen 0.9 17.2 1,229.9 8.1 14.4 87.5
Lake, pond, river, stream 4.4 56.0 846.0 0.3 2.7 30.0
Natural Disturbance
Burn grassland 1.9 8.9 65.1 2.9 9.0 50.0
Burn upland shrub 0.5 0.7 4.0 4.2 13.3 75.0
Anthropogenic non-vegetated 1.1 1.4 10.7 73.6 26.7 100
Mixed grassland 1.4 5.6 120.3 68.5 35.6 100.0
Closed upland shrub 0.8 3.8 106.3 81.0 23.5 100.0
Unclassifiable
Cloud / shadow 1.7 12.8 145.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
No data 2.2 3.3 74.1 84.9 15.0 62.5
Landscape
Totals 1.4 33.4 5,076.7 23.6 32.4 100
Notes: * LCC are based on the AGCC strata listed in Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2004.
Page 1A-55
TABLE 1A-27
RSA RIPARIAN AREAS MEAN PATCH SIZE AND MEAN PERCENTAGE ANTHROPOGENIC EDGE
DISTRIBUTION HABITAT FRAGMENTATION METRICS

Standard Mean % Standard
Mean Area Deviation of Range of Anth. Deviation of % Range of %
LLC (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Edge Anth. Edge Anth. Edge
Forested Upland (>6% tree cover) Riparian Areas
Closed black spruce 0.2 0.5 9.6 6.6 13.5 75.0
Closed pine 0.2 0.3 2.6 10.1 17.1 75.0
Closed white spruce 1.4 4.4 94.6 1.1 4.5 50.0
Closed aspen, balsam poplar and/or birch 0.3 0.4 3.9 19.7 22.0 100.0
Closed coniferous and deciduous cover (20-60%) 0.5 0.9 12.6 3.4 8.9 75.0
Wetland and Water Riparian Areas
Graminoid Wetlands 1.7 8.5 68.0 3.1 9.3 50.0
Shrubby wetlands 0.2 0.4 5.4 14.1 19.7 100.0
Black spruce bog 0.2 0.4 5.0 9.5 16.5 100.0
Wooded fen 0.5 2.1 61.7 5.4 11.8 75.0
Lake, pond, river, stream 6.5 70.5 846.0 0.4 2.7 25.0
Natural Disturbance Riparian Areas
Burn grassland 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.3 3.8 12.5
Burn upland shrub 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Anthropogenic non-vegetated 0.3 0.1 0.6 85.9 17.2 50.0
Mixed grassland 0.4 0.6 7.2 79.6 25.7 100.0
Closed upland shrub 0.4 0.8 8.1 88.9 17.6 100.0
Unclassifiable Riparian Areas
Cloud / shadow 0.4 1.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
No data 1.1 1.4 4.7 43.4 22.6 65.0
Non-Riparian Areas
Not Riparian 2,297.0 12,005.5 65,821.1 4.4 8.9 40.0
Landscape
Totals 5.8 580.5 65,821.1 16.3 29.5 100.0
Notes: * LCC are based on the AGCC strata listed in Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2004.
1A.3.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TEK participants reported that wetland areas in the RSA could support beaver, muskrat and waterfowl
and that the vegetation surrounding wetland areas provides food for game, specifically moose. During the
field survey, it was reported by the TEK participant that the plants of traditional economic value for food
and cultural well-being include a variety of medicinal and berry species, as well as roots and bark of
specific trees (e.g., birch) and are known to occur within the LSA. Medicines for diabetes, cuts, sores,
colds, rashes and vitamins were identified during the TEK study.
In addition to the medicinal species discussed during the TEK study, the participant also identified several
utilitarian plant species with traditional purposes and uses that included moose callers, paper, roofing
material, bowls, baskets and tea. Table 1A-28 for a list of plants identified by the TEK participant.
Page 1A-56
TABLE 1A-28
TEK PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED
Community Name Scientific Name Common Name

alder Alnus sp. alder species
aspen Populus tremuloides aspen
birch Betula papyrifera white birch
blueberry Vaccinium myrtilloides common blueberry
cattail Typha latifolia common cattail
cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus cloudberry
coltsfoot Petasites frigidus var. sagittatus arrow-leaved coltsfoot
gooseberry Ribes sp. gooseberry species
Labrador tea Ledum groenlandicum common Labrador tea
larch Larix laricina tamarack
low-bush cranberry Viburnum edule low-bush cranberry
mint Mentha arvensis wild mint
pineappleweed Matricaria matricarioides pineappleweed
raspberry Rubus idaeus wild red raspberry
white spruce Picea glauca white spruce
The TEK participant harvested wild mint, diamond willow fungus, common Labrador tea and various
raspberry species during the vegetation field surveys. The locations and names of medicinal plants is
knowledge held by the TEK participant and is proprietary to the community.
1A.3.4.1 Rare Ecological Communities Observed

One rare ecological community and two uncommon ecological communities were observed during the
2010 and 2011 rare ecological community and rare plant surveys (Figure 1A-16). Table 1A-29
summarizes the rare ecological community and two uncommon ecological communities observed.
TABLE 1A-29
RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIY AND UNCOMMON ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVED
# of
Common Name Scientific Name ACIMS Rank1 Locations Site ID ELC / AWI Observed
river alder / ostrich fern Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia S2? 3 77 e3
shrubland / Matteuccia struthiopteris 102 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
103 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
awl-fruited sedge – water Carex stipata – Carex Not tracked 1 143 k2/FONS
sedge marly fen aquatilis
mud sedge - scheuchzeria / Carex limosa – Not tracked 1 109 k3/FONG
peat moss fen Scheuchzeria palustris /
Sphagnum angustifolium
Notes: 1 Definitions of rarity ranks are included in the footnotes of Attachment 1A1. Communities on the Ecological Community Tracking List (Allen 2011)
have S ranks in bold text.
Page 1A-57
31
6 5
32
RGE.18 W4M
4 3 2 1 6 5
RGE.17 W4M
4 3 2
¯
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
Athab a sc a R ive r
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
awl-fruited
sedge - water
sedge marly fen
6 5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
mud sedge - scheuchzeria /

peat moss fen
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22
)
23
TWP.76
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15
river alder / ostrich 14
fern shrubland
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
) 10 11
river alder / ostrich

fern shrubland )

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
FIGURE 1A-16
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-16_Rare_Eco_Communities .mxd
Vegetation Local RARE AND UNCOMMON ECOLOGICAL

Watercourse COMMUNITIES OBSERVED
Study Area (450 m)
Rare and Uncommon Ecological BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
)
Communities Observed COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011c. km
0 1 2
May 2012
The rare ecological community, river alder / ostrich fern shrubland (Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia /
Matteuccia struthiopteris), was observed in three locations during 2010 field surveys. Two of the locations
were within 1 km of each other and will be treated as a single EO. The river alder / ostrich fern shrubland
is a rare ecological community that is frequently associated with rich, moist riparian areas with continuous
water supply from springs, creeks or runoff. Sites are subject to intermittent flooding. River alder
dominates a dense, tall shrub layer with up to 80% cover, wild red raspberry may be present in a second,
lower shrub layer, and ostrich fern dominates a lush forb layer with up to 80% cover. Cow parsnip and
bluejoint may also be prominent. This community is known from the Central Mixedwood, Lower Boreal
Highlands and Athabasca Plain subregions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region, and is ranked S2? in
Alberta (Allen 2011).
Two uncommon ecological communities were observed during the 2011 field surveys: awl-fruited sedge –
water sedge marly fen (Carex stipata – Carex aquatilis) and mud sedge - scheuchzeria / peat moss fen
(Carex limosa – Scheuchzeria palustris / Sphagnum angustifolium). Neither of these communities is on
the Ecological Community Tracking List (Allen 2011) but can be considered uncommon (Allen pers.
comm.).
The awl-fruited sedge – water sedge marly fen was dominated by hummocks of awl-fruited sedge with
water sedge being common. Additional species observed included marsh-marigold, shrub height
tamarack and smooth willow. Marly fens are uncommon and the dominant species, awl-fruited sedge, is
ranked S3 by ACIMS and not on the List of Tracked and Watched Elements (ACIMS 2011a), so a
community with awl-fruited sedge as a dominant species would be at least ranked S3 (Allen pers.
comm.).
The mud sedge - scheuchzeria / peat moss fen occurred within the lowest points of an overall graminoid
fen mosaic. The dominant species was Sphagnum angustifolium, with mud sedge and small bog
cranberry being common. There are a number of mud sedge ecological community types reported for
Alberta and several of them are on the Ecological Community Tracking List (Allen 2011). Communities
with Sphagnum angustifolium are probably the most common of the group and are not tracked, but are
still uncommon and would at least be ranked S3 (Allen pers. comm.).
1A.3.4.2 Rare Vascular Plants Observed

No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species were observed during the 2010 and 2011 rare ecological
community and rare plant surveys. No species designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act were observed
during the 2010 and 2011 rare ecological community and rare plant surveys.
Of the 15 rare vascular plants observed during the 2010 and 2011 rare ecological community and rare
plant surveys, 7 are listed as rare by the List of Tracked and Watched Elements (ACIMS 2011a) and 14
are listed as rare by the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2011a) (Table 1A-30). For ease of
comparison, species are categorized in Figure 1A-17 by the list on which they are ranked as rare (i.e., the
General Status of Alberta Wild Species, and the List of Tracked and Watched Elements or both).
Descriptions of each rare vascular plant species observed are provided in Attachment 1A7.
Page 1A-59
RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M
¯
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77
18 17 16 15 (
! 14 (
!
)
13 18 17
(
! 16 15
(
! !!
((!
(
14
!
( (!
! (!
(
7 8 9 !
(
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
!
(
(
!
)

(
!
6 5 4 3 !
(
2 1 6 )
5
(
!
(
! 4 3 2
#
!
(
(
! (
!
(
!
31 32 33 (
!
34 35
!!
( 36 31 32
( 33 34 35
(!
! (
( (
! !!
(
(
!
!
( #!
(!
(
(
!
(
!
)

)
)

!
(
(
!
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
TWP.76 )

(
! !
( ((
) !
!
)

!
( (
!
(!
!(
!
( (
!
)

)!
(
19 20
General Status of Alberta Wild 21 22 23 24 19
!!
( 20 21
( )
) 22 23
Species and List of Tracked (
! (
!
(
! )

!
(
and Watched Elements Species (
! (
!
( bog adder's-mouth )!
()
!
(
(
!
(!
! (
! )
!
(
)
) !

(!
(!
! ( (
( bur-reed
!
( fox sedge
18 ! 17 16 15 #
( golden saxifrage
! 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
( northern beech fern
!
( small butterwort
!
( tall blue lettuce
! #
General Status of Alberta Wild Species
) arctic starflower

7 8
) alder-leaved buckthorn 9
10 11 12 7 8 9
) 10
) bristly buttercup
11
) broad-fruited sedge

) coralroot species

) ostrich fern
)

) spotted coralroot
#
6 5
) white wintergreen
4 3 2 1 6 5 4
List of Tracked and 3 2
Watched Elements Species

# goldthread
FIGURE 1A-17
Project Area Watercourse
Vegetation Local RARE VASCULAR PLANTS OBSERVED
Waterbody
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-17_Rare_Vascular.mxd

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Existing Blackrod Road COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
0 1 2
May 2012
TABLE 1A-30
RARE VASCULAR PLANTS OBSERVED
Common Name Scientific Name ACIMS Rank1 General Status Rank1 # of Populations2 Site ID ELC / AWI Observed
alder-leaved Rhamnus alnifolia S3 Sensitive 3 9 f3/STNN
buckthorn 34 k1/FTNN
37* h1/STNN
43 h1/STNN
79 j1/FTNN
Arctic starflower Trientalis europaea S3 Sensitive 3 5 e2
45 e2
46 e3
bog adder’s- Malaxis paludosa S1 May Be at Risk 2 15 j1/FTNN
mouth orchid 75* j1/FTNN
105 j1/FTNN
bristly buttercup Ranunculus S3 Sensitive 2 90 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
pensylvanicus 108 d2
broad-fruited Carex tenera S3 Sensitive 1 16 j1/FTNN
sedge
bur-reed Sparganium S1 May Be at Risk 1 120 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
glomeratum
coralroot species Corallorhiza sp. S3 Sensitive 1 58 j1/FTNN
fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea S2 May Be at Risk 2 60 d1
82 Cutblock
golden saxifrage Chrysosplenium S3? Sensitive 15 3 f3/STNN
iowense 22 h1/STNN
56 f1/STNN
74 e3
80 h1/STNN
94 f2/STNN
95 h1/STNN
100 e3
113 k1/FTNN
114 l1
117 f3/STNN
119 f1/STNN
124 j1/FTNN
126 j2/FONS
128 Cutblock
129 k1/FTNN
132* f3/STNN
133 f3/STNN
goldthread Coptis trifolia S3 W Secure 5 19 g1
81 f2/STNN
91 f3
139 e2
140 d2
northern beech Phegopteris S2 May Be at Risk 2 98 f3/STNN
fern connectilis 111* e2
ostrich fern Matteuccia S3 Sensitive 3 77 e3
struthiopteris 86 Cutblock
93 e2
110 e2
small butterwort Pinguicula villosa S2 Sensitive 2 121 j1/FTNN
131 j1/FTNN
spotted coralroot Corallorhiza S3 Sensitive 1 107 e2
maculate
Page 1A-61
TABLE 1A-30 Cont'd

tall blue lettuce Lactuca biennis S2 May Be at Risk 2 6* Meadow
104 Anthropogenic
137 Anthropogenic
white Pyrola elliptica S3 Sensitive 1 89 e2
wintergreen
Notes: 1 Definitions of rarity ranks are included in the footnotes of Attachment 1A2. Species on the List of Tracked and Watched Elements
(ACIMS 2011a) have S ranks in bold text.
2 Populations may be made up of multiple sub-populations, all within 1 km of each other.
* Location on Project Area.
1A.3.4.3 Rare Nonvascular Plants Observed

No COSEWIC or SARA-listed rare nonvascular plants were observed during the 2010 and 2011 rare
ecological community and rare plant surveys. No nonvascular species designated under the Alberta
Wildlife Act were observed during the 2010 and 2011 rare ecological community and rare plant surveys.
Of the 47 rare nonvascular plants observed during the 2010 and 2011 rare ecological community and rare
plant surveys, 36 are listed as rare by the List of Tracked and Watched Elements (ACIMS 2011a) and 17
are listed as rare by the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2011a) (Table 1A-31). Five rare
nonvascular plants are not included within the List of all Species and Ecological Communities within the
ACIMS Database (ACIMS 2011c) or the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2011a) and
therefore, are not ranked (Table 1A-31). The locations where rare nonvascular plants were observed are
shown on Figure 1A-18 by Site ID (see Table 1A-31). Descriptions of each rare nonvascular plant species
observed are provided in Attachment 1A7.
Page 1A-62
¯
6 5 RGE.18 W4M 3 RGE.17 W4M
4 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77 125 )

39 )

18 17 16 15 14 13 ) 143
18 17 16

)) 15 14
38 )

144 10
56 )
31
36
7 8 9 10
116 )
11
35 )
12 7 8
)
33 9 10 11
27 )

26 )

23 )

115 30
6 5 4 3 )

)
)

)
11
2 1 6
53 )
)
975 4 3 2
)

28 72
142 55 52 )
24 )
)

31 )

32 33 130 2534 )
35 36
)
)

)

) ) 50 31
20 32 33 34
141 )) 2 22
) ) 3 85 32 35
)
)
)
100
48 83
51 )
132 74 106
)
9 )

30 29 28 27 26 7125 87 7 13430 28
17 54 29 27 26
)

47
) ) ) 8
) )
)
44 )
) 18 )
49 37 ) 127 88
)

45 )

)
21 )
57
59
19 20 21 22 16 )
29 24) 78 4619
70 23
20 21 22 23
43 ) 147
)

TWP.76 138
)) )
) )

42 )

)
) 73 )
))

)) )
)
99
)
1
) 14 )
40 ))

41 96
18 17 16
92 4 12 13 145 118
76 14 34 13 9418 17 16 15
15 122 14
146
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
)
103
101 )

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
FIGURE 1A-18
Vegetation Local RARE NONVASCULAR PLANTS OBSERVED
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-18_Rare_Nonvascular.mxd
Watercourse
)
Rare Nonvascular Plants Observed Waterbody PROPOSED BLACKROD
0 1 2
May 2012
TABLE 1A-31
RARE NONVASCULAR PLANTS OBSERVED
Anastrophyllum Anastrophyllum S2 -- 5 13 h1/STNN
liverwort helleranum 26 f3/STNN
27* f3
29 e2
31 e3
35* h1/STNN
40 d3
52 j1/FTNN
118 d3
Atrichum moss Atrichum selwynii S2 Secure 1 31 e3
dot lichen Biatora vernalis SU -- 1 59 e2
Blasia liverwort Blasia pusilla S1 -- 5 31 e3
92 Anthropogenic
97 f3
99 Anthropogenic
116 Anthropogenic
Calicium lichen Calicium SNR -- 8 1 h1/STNN
adaequatum 4 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
22 h1/STNN
29 e2
31 e3
34 k1/FTNN
37* h1/STNN
43 h1/STNN
44 j1/FTNN
45 e2
46 e3
Calicium lichen Calicium S1 -- 1 55 d1
salicinum
Calypogeia Calypogeia S3 W -- 2 47 g1/STNN
liverwort neesiana 48 i1/BTNN
Calypogeia Calypogeia S1 -- 1 37* h1/STNN
liverwort suecica
Chaenotheca Chaenotheca SNR -- 1 57 d3
lichen laevigata
Cladonia lichen Cladonia S1? Undetermined 1 21 i1/BTNN
acuminata
Cladonia lichen Cladonia S3 Sensitive 1 21 i1/BTNN
bacilliformis
finger pixie-cup Cladonia digitata S2 May Be at Risk 1 26 f3/STNN
Cladonia lichen Cladonia S2 May Be at Risk 3 9 f3/STNN
merochlorophaea 48 i1/BTNN
56 f1/STNN
wand lichen Cladonia rei S2 May Be at Risk 1 7 d2
Cladonia lichen Cladonia stygia S2 Secure 2 24 i1/BTNN
144 g1
peg lichen Cladonia S1? Not Assessed 1 147* e3
subcariosa
Page 1A-64
TABLE 1A-31 Cont'd

snakeskin Conocephalum S2 -- 8 4 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
liverwort conicum 22 e2
46 e3
71 d3
74 e3
85* Shrubby Wetland/SONS
88 Cutblock
94 d3
97 f3
100 e3
106 f3/STNN
118 d3
132* f3/STNN
134 e1
146 e3, e2, Shrubby Wetland/SONS
soot lichen Cyphelium S2 -- 1 17 k2/FONS
tigillare
powdered fringed Heterodermia S2 May Be at Risk 3 8* d2
lichen speciosa 12 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
59 e2
142 d1
jellyskin Leptogium SU Undetermined 2 42 b3
teretiusculum 59 e2
Lichenomphalia Lichenomphalia S2S4 May Be at Risk 2 1 h1/STNN
lichen umbellifera 36 e2
92 Anthropogenic
many-spored Melanohalea S2S4 Undetermined 2 31 e3
camofalge lichen multispora 37* e3
Mnium moss Mnium thomsonii S3 Sensitive 1 26 f3/STNN
naked kidney Nephroma bellum S2 Secure 5 31 e3
lichen 35* h1/STNN
40 d3
57 d3
142 d1
fringed kidney Nephroma S1S2 Sensitive 1 31 e3
lichen helveticum
Pellia liverwort Pellia neesiana S2 -- 4 31 e3
46 e3
Peltigera lichen Peltigera collina S2 Sensitive 1 31 e3
alternating dog- Peltigera S2 -- 3 31 e3
lichen polydactyla 41 h1/STNN
54 d1
shadow lichen Phaeophyscia S3 Sensitive 1 55 d1
ciliata
Platygyrium moss Platygyrium S3 Sensitive 1 87 e2
repens
rock ramalina Ramalina S2 May Be at Risk 2 35* h1/STNN
intermedia 39 d2
hooded ramalina Ramalina S2 Secure 1 55 d1
obtusata
Page 1A-65
TABLE 1A-31 Cont'd

Riccardia liverwort Riccardia S1 -- 8 2 d2
palmata 3 f3/STNN
26 f3/STNN
27* f3
28 e2
35* h1/STNN
41 h1/STNN
44 j1/FTNN
96 j2/FONS
118 d3
Riccardia liverwort Riccardia sp. S1-S2S3 -- 1 72 h1/STNN
species
pepper-spore Rinodina freyi S1 -- 8 22 h1/STNN
lichen 25 e2
29 e2
33 k1/FTNN
34 k1/FTNN
37* h1/STNN
44 j1/FTNN
45 e2
46 e3
Scapania liverwort Scapania S1 -- 1 38 d3
apiculata
Scapania liverwort Scapania S2 -- 6 2 d2
glaucocephala 20 d3
32 d1
36 e2
38 d3
39 d2
42 b3
Sclerophora Sclerophora sp. SNR -- 1 29 e2
lichen
Sclerophora Sclerophora SNR -- 1 54 d1
lichen amabilis
Sphinctrina lichen Sphinctrina SNR -- 1 9 f3/STNN
anglica
flagon-fruited Splachnum S2 Secure 1 53 j1/FTNN
splachnum ampullaceum 115 j1/FTNN
yellow collar moss Splachnum S3 T Sensitive 2 30 i1/BTNN
luteum 125 g1
red collar moss Splachnum S3 T Sensitive 1 70 h1/STNN
rubrum 73 i1/BTNN
76 f3
138 h1/STNN
collar moss Splachnum sp. S2-S3 Sensitive - Secure 2 44 j1/FTNN
species 50 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
Stenocybe lichen Stenocybe S2S4 -- 10 4 Shrubby Wetland/SONS
pullatula 23 j1/FTNN
25 e2
28 e2
29 e2
33 k1/FTNN
34 k1/FTNN
37* h1/STNN
43 h1/STNN
44 j1/FTNN
45 e2
Usnea lichen Usnea SNR -- 1 18 j1/FTNN
chaetophora
fishbone beard Usnea filipendula S3 Sensitive 2 8* d2
lichen 48 i1/BTNN
Page 1A-66
TABLE 1A-31 Cont'd

lustrous beard Usnea glabrata S3 Sensitive 7 8* d2
lichen 10 i1/BTNN
11 j1/FTNN
13 h1/STNN
14 k1/FTNN
16 j1/FTNN
17 k2/FONS
18 j1/FTNN
22 h1/STNN
30 i1/BTNN
36 e2
49 j2/FONS
51 k1/FTNN
141 h1
145 e2
Notes: 1 Definitions of rarity ranks are included in the footnotes of Attachment 1A2. Species on the List of Tracked and Watched Elements
(ACIMS 2011a) have S ranks in bold text.
2 Populations may be made up of multiple sub-populations, all within 1 km of each other.
* Location on Project Area.
1A.3.4.4 Non-native and Invasive Species Observed

No Prohibited Noxious weeds were observed within the LSA during 2010 and 2011 field surveys. Four
Noxious weeds (common tansy, common toadflax, creeping [Canada] thistle and sow-thistle species),
were observed in a few locations within the LSA. Some sow-thistle species are designated as Noxious
under the Alberta Weed Control Act. Since the floral characteristics required to differentiate sow-thistle
species were not present at the time of survey, the occurrence of sow-thistle will be considered Noxious.
The following non-native introduced or invasive species also occur within the LSA: alsike clover; annual
hawk's-beard; awnless brome; caraway; common dandelion; common knotweed; common plantain;
curled dock; hemp nettle; lady’s-thumb; low cudweed; pineappleweed; red fescue; and timothy.
Figure 1A-19 shows the location of each non-native and invasive species observation.
Page 1A-67
31
6
32
5
RGE.18 W4M
4 3 2 1 6 5
RGE.17 W4M
4 3 2
¯
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
annual hawk’s-beard
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77 ##
**
common dandelion
timothy
18 17 16 15 *
# 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
common dandelion
7 8 9 *
#
10 11 12 7 *
# 8
common tansy
9 10 11
common dandelion *
# creeping thistle
red fescue
6 *
#
5 4 3 2 aliske clover
1 6 *
# 5 4 timothy 3 2
cleavers creeping thistle common dandelion
creeping thistle hemp-nettle common plantain
*
# pineappleweed
hemp-nettle *
#
31 common dandelion
32 *
# 34
32 timothy
33 35 36 31 33 34 35
common knotweed *
#
*
# *#
# * common dandelion
*
#
common dandelion ##
** alsike clover
*
# annual hawk's-beard
alsike clover common chickweed creeping thistle
30 29 28 27 26
alsike clover
25
annual hawk's-beard 30 29 28 annual 27hawk's-beard 26
*
#
*
#
#
* annual hawk’s-beard
#
* common dandelion
*
# *
#
common plantain
*
# hemp-nettle
19 curled dock
##*
20 21 22 23 24 * 19
20
common dandelion *
# creeping21thistle 22 23
TWP.76 *
#
alsike clover *#
#
*
#*#* #
* creeping thistle
common dandelion * #
# * #
* # * *
#
*
#
annual hawk’s-beard common toadflax
18 common17dandelion hemp-nettle *
# sow-thistle species
16 15 14 13
creeping thistle
18
hemp-nettle alsike clover 17 16 15 14
creeping thistle alsike clover
creeping thistle alsike clover creeping thistle
awnless brome
clover species caraway
7
common dandelion common plantain
8 9 10 11 12 7 creeping thistle
8 9
hemp-nettle lady’s-thumb
10 11
creeping thistle low cudweed

low cudweed pineappleweed
timothy
6 5 4 3
common dandelion
2 creeping thistle1 6 5 4 3 2
creeping thistle
FIGURE 1A-19
t6790_VEG_Fig1A-19_Non_native_Invasive.m xd
Vegetation Local NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE PLANTS OBSERVED

Watercourse
*
# Non-native and Invasive Plant Location Waterbody PROPOSED BLACKROD
0 1 2
May 2012
1A.4 References
1A.4.1 Personal Communications

Allen, L. Senior Community Ecologist. Alberta Conservation Information Management System. Edmonton,
Alberta.
Williston, P. Lichenologist. Gentian Botanical Research. Smithers, BC.

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program. 2006a. Laboratory Protocols for Processing Bryophytes, Version
2.0. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program, Alberta, Canada. Report available at:
http://www.abmp.arc.ab.ca.
Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program. 2006b. Laboratory Protocols for Processing Lichens, Version
2.0. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program, Alberta, Canada. Report available at:
http://www.abmp.arc.ab.ca.
Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2010. Terrestrial Field Data Collection Protocols (Abridged),
Version 2010-08-25. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Alberta, Canada. Report available
at: http://www.abmi.ca.
Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2011a. Tracked Elements Listed by Natural
Subregion. May 2011. Government of Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Edmonton,
Alberta. Website: http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/datarequests/default.aspx.
Accessed: March 2012.
Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2011b. ACIMS Data File Download - Non-
Sensitive Element Occurrences and Sensitive Element Occurrences. May 2011. Government of
Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Edmonton, Alberta. Website:
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/datarequests/default.aspx. Accessed: January 2012.
Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2011c. List of all Species and Ecological
Communities Within the Alberta Conservation Information Management System Database. May
2011. Government of Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Edmonton, Alberta. Website:
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/DataRequests/docs/List_of_All_Elements_MAY_201
1.xls. Accessed: March 2012.
Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2011d. Frequently Asked Questions. Website:
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/datarequests/faqs.aspx.
Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2011e. List of Tracked and Watched Elements –
May 2011. Website:
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/plants/vascularbryophytes/default.aspx.
Accessed: March 2012.
Alberta Environmental Protection. 1991. Alberta Vegetation Inventory Standards Manual. Version 2.1.
Alberta Environmental Protection, Resource Data Division, Data Acquisition Branch, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Alberta Environmental Protection. 1994. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta: Summary. Alberta
Environmental Protection. Pub. No. I/531.
Alberta Native Plant Council. 2000. ANPC Guidelines for Rare Plant Surveys in Alberta. Website:
http://www.anpc.ab.ca/assets/rareplant.pdf.
Alberta Pacific Forest Products Limited. 2010. Alberta Vegetation Index (digital file). Acquired: June 16 &
June 29, 2010.
Page 1A-69
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. Species Assessed by Alberta's Endangered Species
Conservation Committee: Short List. Updated June 3, 2010. 2 pp.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2011a. Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing – 2010.
Fish and Wildlife Division, Sustainable Resource Development. Website:
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/Genera
lStatusofAlbertaWildSpecies2010/Default.aspx. Accessed: March 2012
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Wildfire Management Branch, Forestry Division. 2011b.
Alberta Wildfire Perimeters: 1931 to 2010 (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Website:
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/Wildfire/WildfireStatus/HistoricalWildfireInformation/SpatialWildfireData.
aspx. Accessed: April 2011. Update Interval: Annually.
Allen, L. 2011. Alberta Conservation Information Management System. Ecological Community Tracking
List. Government of Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Edmonton, Alberta. Website:
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/ecocommunities/docs/CommunityTrackingList.pdf.
Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2002. Year 2001 Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the
Alliance Pipeline Project. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.
Argus, G.W. and K.M. Pryer. 1990. Rare Vascular Plants in Canada. Canadian Museum of Nature,
Ottawa.
Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Canadian Forest
Service Northwest Region Northern Forestry Centre, Special Report 5. Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Belland, R.J. 1998. The Rare Mosses of Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada.
Bogaert, J. 2003. Lack of Agreement on Fragmentation Metrics Blurs Correspondence between

Fragmentation Experiments and Predicted Effects.Conservation Ecology 7(1): r6. [oonline] URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/resp6/.
Braumandl, T. and R. Holt. 2000. Refining definitions of old growth to aid in location old-growth forest
reserves. Pages 41-44 in C. Hollstedt, K. Sutherland, and T. Innes (editors). Proceedings, From
science to management and back: a science forum for southern interior ecosystem of British
Columbia. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, BC.
British Bryological Society. 2010. British Mosses and Liverworts: A Field Guide. Compiled by I. Atherton,
S. Bosanquet and M. Lawley. Website: http://www.bbsfieldguide.org.uk. Accessed: November
2011.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks and British Columbia Ministry of Forests.
1998. Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. Crown Publications Inc. Victoria, B.C.
Brodo, I.M. and A. Aptroot, 2005. Corticolus species of Protoparmelia (lichenized Ascomycotina) in North
America. Canadian Journal of Botany 83: 1075-1081.
Brodo, I.M., S.D. Sharnoff and S. Sharnoff. 2001. Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, New
Haven, Connecticut.
Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands. 2012. The Ramsar List: The List of Wetlands of International
Importance. Website:
http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/RamsarSitesinGoogleEarth/tabid/944/Default.aspx.
Accessed: January 2012.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012. Canadian Species at Risk. Website:
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm.
Page 1A-70
Crum, H. and Anderson, L. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America. Columbia University Press. 1328 pp.
Damsholt, K. 2002. The Illustrated Flora of Nordic Liverworts and Hornworts. Nordic Bryological Society,
Lund.
Debinski, D. M. and R. D. Holt. 2000. A Survey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation Experiments.
Conservation Biology 14(2).
Doubt. J., and R. Belland. 2000. Monitoring protocols for elements of nonvascular plant diversity in
Alberta’s forested zones. Alberta Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Program (AFBMP).
Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger and J.L. Penny. 2002. Rare Native Vascular Plants of British Columbia. 2nd
Edition. Province of British Columbia.
Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2012. Conservation Priorities: Boreal Forest Conservation Programs. Available
at: http://www.ducks.ca/conserve/programs/boreal/projects.htmlAccessed: January 2012.
Environment Canada. 1991. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Available from the Canadian
Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.
Environment Canada. 1996. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Implementation Guide for
Federal Land Managers. Available from the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution
and Systematics 34(1).
Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R.
France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine and T.C. Winter.
2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press. Covelo CA.
Franklin, J.F. and T.A. Spies. 1991. Composition, function and structure of old-growth Douglas-fir forests.
In Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. K.B. Aubry and M.H. Brookes
(editors). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Portland, Oregon, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285.
Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. 1996. Environmentally Significant Areas Inventory of Selected
Portions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region, Alberta. 143 pp.
Government of Canada. 2011. Species at Risk Public Registry. Website:

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm.
Government of Canada. 1986. Canada: Wetland Regions. National Atlas of Canada 5th Edition. Map.
Goward, T. 1994. The Lichens of British Columbia, Illustrated Keys. Part 1 — Foliose and Squamulose
Species. BC Ministry of Forests Research Branch, Victoria, BC.
Website:http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/srs/Srs08.htm
Goward, T. 1999. The Lichens of British Columbia, Illustrated Keys. Part 2 - Fruticose Species. BC
Ministry of Forests Research Branch, Victoria, BC.
Gregory, S. V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, K. W. Cummins. 1991. An Ecosystem Perspective of
Riparian Zones. BioScience. Vol. 1, No. 8, pp 540.
Halsey, L. A., D.H. Vitt, D. Beilman, S. Crow, S. Mehelcic and R. Wells. 2004. Alberta Wetland Inventory
Classification System Version 2.0, Alberta. 116 pp.
Hanson, A., L. Swanson, D. Ewing, G. Grabas, S. Meyer, L. Ross, M. Watmough, and J. Kirkby. 2008.
Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches. Canadian Wildlife
Service Technical Report Series No. 497. Atlantic Region. 59pp.
Page 1A-71
Hilbert, J. and A. Wiensczyk. 2007. Old growth definitions and management - a literature review. BC
Journal of Ecosystems and Management 8(1): 15-31.
Hunter, M.L. Jr. 1989. What constitutes an old-growth stand? Journal of Forestry 87:33-35. Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007. Canadian Species at Risk. Website:
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/rpt/rpt_csar_e.pdf.
Kemper, J.T. 2009. Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre Vascular and Nonvascular Plant Tracking
and Watch Lists. Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Parks Division, Edmonton, Alberta.
Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/docs/2009_ANHIC_TL_Sept2009.pdf.
Kershaw, L., J. Gould, D. Johnson and J. Lancaster. 2001. Rare Vascular Plants of Alberta. University of
Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta. 484 pp.
Lee, P., and Smyth, C. 2003. Riparian forest management: paradigms for ecological management and
practices in Alberta. Report produced by the Alberta Research Council (Vegreville, Alberta) and
the Alberta Conservation Association (Edmonton, Alberta) for the Northern Watershed Project
Stakeholder Committee. Northern Watershed Project Final Report No. 117 pp.
Lynch-Stewart, P. 1992. No Net Loss: Implementing “No Net Loss” Goals to Conserve Wetlands in
Canada. Sustaining Wetlands Issues Paper, No. 1992-2. North American Wetlands Conservation
Council (Canada). Ottawa, Ontario.
Lynch-Stewart, P., P. Neice, C. Rubec and I. Kessel-Taylor (Environment Canada). 1996. Federal Policy
on Wetland Conservation: Implementation Guide for Federal Land Managers. Available from the
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Martin, E., B.. McCune and J. Hutchinson. 2002. Distribution and morphological variation of Leptogium
cellulosum and L. teretiusculum in the Pacific Northwest. The Bryologist 105 (3): 358-362.
McGarigal K., Cushman S. A., Neel M. C., Ene E., 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program
for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html/
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. 2011. Forest Harvest Maps (digital file). Acquired: March 11, 2011.
Missouri Botanical Garden. 1993. Bryophyte Flora of North America, Provisional Publication. Website:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/BFNA/bfnamenu.htm. Accessed: October 2011.
Moss, E.H. 1983. Flora of Alberta. Second Edition. Revised by J.G. Packer. University of Toronto Press.
Toronto, Ontario. 687 pp.
National Wetland Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System. Edited by B.G.
Warner and C.D.A. Rubec. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario.
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J.
Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852. 254 pages, 1 map.
Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/naturalregions/default.aspx.
NatureServe. 2002. Element Occurrence Data Standard. Website:

http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/eodraft/all.pdf.
NatureServe. 2011a. NatureServe Explorer - An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Website:

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm.
NatureServe. 2011b. Heritage Status: Global, National and Subnational Conservation Status Ranks.
Website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm.
Paton, J.A. 1999. The Liverwort Flora of the British Isles. Harley Books, Essex, England.
Page 1A-72
Pembina Institute. 2001. Peatlands – The State of Alberta’s Peatlands. Pembina Institute for Appropriate
Development, April 2001.
Porsild, A. and W. Cody. 1980. Vascular Plants of Continental Northwest Territories, Canada. National
Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museum of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 667 pp.
Ramsar. 1987. Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Iran. 1971), as amended in 1982 and 1987. Ramsar
Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.
Ranney, J.W., M.C. Bruner and J.B. Levenson. 1981. The importance of edge in the structure and
dynamics of forest islands. In R.L. Burgess and D.M. Shape (eds). Forest Island Dynamics in
Man-Dominated Landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 67-95.
Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A., M. Chong, J. Sinkwich and S. Mamet. 2004. Alberta Ground Cover
Characterization (AGCC) Training and Procedures Manual. Earth Observation Systems
Laboratory, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB. Website: http://abmi.biology.ualberta.ca/Documents/Protocols/AGCC-manual-final.pdf.
Accessed: November 2011.
Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological Consequences of ecosystem
fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology. 5:18-32.
Schneider, R. 2002. Alternative Futures: Alberta’s Boreal Forest at the Crossroads. The Alberta Centre
for Boreal Research and The Federation of Alberta Naturalists. Edmonton, Alberta.
Schofield, W.B. 2002. Field Guide to Liverwort Genera of Pacific North America. University of Washington
Press, Seattle, Washington.
Schuster, R.M. 1992. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America east of the Hundredth Meridian,
Volume V. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.
Schuster, R.M. 1966-1992. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America East of the Hundredth
Meridian, Volumes 1-6. Columbia University Press, New York.
Sheard, J.W. 2010. The Lichen Genus Rinodina (Ach.) Gray (Lecanoromycelida, Physciaceae) in North
America, North of Mexico. NRC Research press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 246 pp.
Spies, T.A. 1998. Forest Structure: A Key to the Ecosystem. In Proceedings of a workshop on Structure,
Process and Diversity in Successional Forests of Coastal British Columbia. J.A. Trofymow and A.
MacKinnon (editors). February 17-19, 1998, Victoria, British Columbia, Northwest Science,
Vol. 72 (special issue No. 2).
Spies, T.A. 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of old-growth forests. Journal of Forestry 102(3):
14-20.
Steere, W.C., and H. Inoue. 1978. The Hepaticae of Arctic Alaska. Journ. Hattori Bot. Lab. 44:251-345.
Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group. 2006. Ratified Indicator List. Fort McMurray, AB. 1 pp.
Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group. 2002. Landscape, Biodiversity and Watershed Indicator Review
and Assessment: Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Prepared by Olson and Olson Planning
& Design Consultants Inc. in association with Watertight Solutions Ltd. and Bandaloop
Landscape-Ecosystem Services
Szweykowski, J., K. Buczkowska, and I.J. Odrzkoski. 2005. Conocephalum salebrosum

(Marchantiopsida, Conocephalaceae) – a new Holarctic liverwort species. Plant Systematics and
Evolution 253: 133–158.
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008. Rare Plant Survey for the Proposed Serrano Energy Ltd. 7-25-
76-18 W4M Well Site and Access. Calgary, Alberta.
Page 1A-73
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2009. Rare Plant Survey for the Proposed Pearl E&P Canada Ltd. 2-
36-76-18 W4M SAGD Pilot Facility and Access Road. Calgary, Alberta.
TERA Environmental Consultants 2012. Baseline Disturbance Layer. Minor modifications to disturbance
features. File digitized by TERA based on SPOT5 2.5m Panchromatic Satellite Imagery.
Thomson, J.W. 1997. American Arctic Lichens: Part 2 - The Microlichens. The University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison Wisconsin. 675 p.
Tibell, L. 1999. Caliciales. Nordic Lichen Flora 1: 20-71.
Timoney, K. 2001. Types and attributes of old-growth forests in Alberta, Canada. Natural Areas Journal.
Volume 21, pp 282 – 300.
United States Geological Survey. 2011. Landsat 5 TM Level1T 30 m Multispectral Satellite Imagery
Path42 Row21, image date: July 2011 (digital file). Sioux Falls, SD. Available:
http://eros.usgs.gov/. Acquired: December 3, 2011.
Vitt, D., J. Marsh and R. Bovey. 1988. Mosses, Lichens and Ferns of Northwest North America. Lone
Pine Publishing. Edmonton, Alberta. 296 pp.
Williston, P. 2001. The Botrychiaceae of Alberta. Mnium Ecological Research and the Alberta Natural
Heritage Information Centre. Edmonton, AB.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Rapid Assessment Methodology for Evaluating
Wetland Functional Values. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison WI.
1A.4.3 GIS and Mapping

AltaLIS Ltd 2011c. Alberta 1:20,000 Base Features. Hydrography (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Available:
http://altalis.com/prod_base_base.html. Acquired: June 23, 2011. Minor modifications made by
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (2012).
Altus Geomatics. 2012. BlackRod SAGD Project Area (digital file). Final Acquired January 2012.
BlackBridge Geomatics. 2010. SPOT5 2.5m Panchromatic Satellite Imagery (digital file). Lethbridge,
Alberta. Available: www.blackbridge.com. Imagery: July 2011 for Twp. 75, 76 Rge. 18,17 W4M;
Oct./July 2010 and August 2008 for other areas of coverage.
IHS Inc. 2011c. IHS Road Segments (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Available:
http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: December, 2011.
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012b. Land Cover Classification. 2012. Data layer derived by TERA
Environmental Consultants for BlackPearl Resources Inc’s proposed BlackRod Commercial
SAGD Project. 2012.
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012c. Ecological Land Classification. 2012. Data layer derived by
TERA Environmental Consultants for BlackPearl Resources Inc’s proposed BlackRod
Commercial SAGD Project. 2012
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012d. Alberta Wetland Inventory. 2012. Data layer derived by TERA
Environmental Consultants for BlackPearl Resources Inc’s proposed BlackRod Commercial
SAGD Project. 2012
Page 1A-74
ATTACHMENT 1A1
POTENTIAL RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES IN THE CENTRAL MIXEDWOOD AND LOWER BOREAL HIGHLANDS NATURAL SUBREGIONS
LSA within
Community ELC with Potential to Support
Scientific Names Common Names Range Community Provincial and Global Ranks1
Forest / Woodland
Betula neoalaskana / Ledum groenlandicum Alaska birch / common Labrador tea Yes f2, h1, i1, j1, Shrubby Wetland S1S2
Larix laricina - Picea mariana / Cornus stolonifera - Rubus idaeus tamarack - black spruce / red-osier dogwood - wild Yes h1, i1, j1, Shrubby Wetland S1S2
red raspberry
Larix laricina / Carex prairea tamarack / prairie sedge Yes h1, j1, k1 S1
Picea glauca / Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia - Betula neoalaskana / Equisetum white spruce / river alder - Alaska birch / meadow Yes f2, f3 S3
pratense / Hylocomium splendens horsetail / stair-step moss
Picea glauca / Cetraria islandica white spruce / lichen Yes b3, d3 S1?
Picea glauca / Equisetum scirpoides white spruce / dwarf scouring-rush forest Yes b3, d3, e3 SU
Picea mariana / Cornus stolonifera / feathermoss black spruce / red-osier dogwood / feathermoss Yes j1, k1, k2 S1S2
Populus balsamifera / Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia -Cornus stolonifera / balsam poplar / river alder - red-osier dogwood / Yes e1, e2, f1, f2 S3
Equisetum pratense meadow horsetail
Populus balsamifera / Rhamnus alnifolia / Equisetum arvense balsam poplar / alder-leaved buckthorn / common Yes e1, e2, f1, f2 S1
horsetail
Page 1A-75
Populus balsamifera / Viburnum opulus / Matteuccia struthiopteris balsam poplar / high-bush cranberry / ostrich fern Yes e1, e2, f1, f2 S1S2
Populus tremuloides / Rosa acicularis / Apocynum androsaemifolium aspen / prickly rose / spreading dogbane Yes b3, d1 S1S2
Populus tremuloides / Rubus parviflorus / Aralia nudicaulis aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla Yes d1, e1, f1 S2S3
Populus tremuloides / Salix bebbiana - Corylus cornuta / Calamagrostis aspen / beaked willow - beaked hazelnut / bluejoint - Yes d1, e1, f1 S1
canadensis - Matteuccia struthiopteris ostrich fern
Populus tremuloides / Vaccinium myrtilloides aspen / common blueberry woodland Yes b3, d1 S2?
Shrubland
Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia / Matteuccia struthiopteris shrubland river alder / ostrich fern shrubland Yes e1, e2, f1, f2, f3, h1 S2?
Amelanchier alnifolia /Arctostaphylos uva-ursi / Oryzopsis pungens saskatoon / common bearberry / northern rice grass Yes b3, c1, d1 S2S3
Andromeda polifolia / Sarracenia purpurea / Sphagnum angustifolium bog rosemary / pitcher-plant / peat moss Yes i2, j2, k2, k3 S1S2
Chamaedaphne calyculata - Kalmia polifolia / Cladina mitis leatherleaf - northern laurel / green reindeer lichen Yes i2, j2, k2, k3 S1S2
Salix drummondiana / Scirpus microcarpus - Calamagrostis canadensis Drummond's willow / small-fruited bulrush - bluejoint Yes l1, Shrubby Wetland S1
Salix pedicellaris / Potentilla palustris bog willow / marsh cinquefoil rich fen Yes k1, k2 S2?
Symphoricarpos albus – Amelanchier alnifolia snowberry – saskatoon shrubby slope Yes b3, d1, d2 S2?
Herbaceous
Atriplex subspicata - Puccinellia nuttalliana - Triglochin palustris string fen spearscale saltbrush - Nuttall’s salt-meadow grass - Yes k3 S1S3
slender arrow grass
Calamagrostis stricta - Triglochin maritima narrow reed grass - seaside arrow-grass string fen Yes k3 S1S3
Carex limosa - Menyanthes trifoliata - Cardamine pratensis mud sedge - buck-bean - meadow bitter cress Yes j2, k2, k3 S1S2
Carex limosa - Scheuchzeria palustris / Sphagnum teres - S. subsecundum mud sedge - scheuchzeria / peat moss Yes j2, k2, k3 S1
Carex oligosperma / Sphagnum subsecundum few-fruited sedge / twisted bog moss Yes j2, k2, k3 S1S2
Carex pseudocyperus - Calla palustris cyperus-like sedge - water arum Yes l1, Shrubby Wetland S2
Carex retrorsa turned sedge marsh Yes l1, Shrubby Wetland S1S2
Carex rostrata beaked sedge marsh Yes l1, Shrubby Wetland S2
Elymus trachycaulus - Distichlis stricta slender wheatgrass - salt grass Yes l1 S1
Elymus trachycaulus - Hierochloe hirta ssp. arctica slender wheatgrass - sweet grass Yes l1 SU
LSA within
Community ELC with Potential to Support
Scientific Names Common Names Range Community Provincial and Global Ranks1
Triglochin maritima - Carex praegracilis seaside arrow-grass - graceful sedge spring fen Yes k3 S1S2
Sparsely Vegetated
Puccinellia nuttalliana - Suaeda calceoliformis - Spergularia marina Nuttall's salt-meadow grass - western sea-blite - salt- Yes l1 S2
marsh sand spurry barren
Salicornia rubra samphire emergent marsh Yes l1 S2, G2G3
Aquatic
Cymbella pusilla - Mastogloia smithii - Nitzschia palea diatom ponds Yes l1 S1S3
Isoetes echinospora northern quillwort aquatic community Yes l1 S1
Sparganium eurycarpum giant bur-reed emergent aquatic vegetation Yes l1 S1S2
Source: Allen 2011
Notes:
1. Provincial (S) and Global (G) ratings range from S1 (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining hectares) to S5 (demonstrably secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery). Ranks
may be combined (e.g., S1S2). This indicates a larger margin of error than ranks assigned a "?" qualifier. Ratings that are not of concern (4-5) are not included.
S1 = 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining hectares.
S2 = 6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining hectares.
S3 = 21 to 80 occurrences, or may be rare and local throughout its range or found locally, even abundantly, in a restricted range.
Page 1A-76
? = Element is not yet ranked (i.e., S?), or has an inexact numerical rank (e.g., S1?).
U = Unrankable: currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends.
ATTACHMENT 1A2
POTENTIAL RARE VASCULAR PLANTS IN THE CENTRAL MIXEDWOOD AND

LOWER BOREAL HIGHLANDS NATURAL SUBREGIONS
LSA within
Known Preferred
ELC with Potential to Support Rare Species Habitat within Provincial Federal/Global
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Vascular Plant Species Range Project Area Designations1 General Status2 Designations3
Agrostis exarata spike redtop Moist slopes, open areas; usually Cutblock, Regenerating Cutblock, -- Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
areas that hold snow late in the Regenerating Burn, Anthropogenic
growing season.
Anemone quinquefolia wood anemone Moist woods. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 -- Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Arabidopsis salsuginea mouse-ear cress Moist, saline shores and flats by k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow Yes -- S1 May Be At Risk --
springs and lakes. Also in open,
sandy alkaline soils in dry lakes and
in salt plains and meadows.
Arctagrostis arundinacea polar grass Marshy ground, moist meadows, a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes Yes S2S3 Sensitive --
(Arctagrostis latifolia) 2 damp turfy tunda, heathland and f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, k3, l1, Shrubby
open woodland. Wetland, Meadow, Cutblock,
Regenerating Cutblock, Regenerating
Burn, Anthropogenic
Page 1A-77
Artemisia tilesii Herriot's sagewort Open woods and river flats. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes Yes S3 (W) Sensitive --
f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Asclepias ovalifolia low milkweed Open woods and slopes, moist a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
prairie. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Shrubby Wetland,
Meadow
Aster engelmannii elegant aster Open montane woods a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, -- Yes S3S4 (W)1 -- --
f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Aster umbellatus flat-topped white aster Moist woods, thickets, meadows d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
(Doellingeria umbellata) 2 and swampy sites. l1, Regenerating Cutblock, Meadow,
Shrubby Wetland
Aster x maccallae aster hybrid Moist woods, river flats. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S1S2 Not Assessed --
l1, Shrubby Wetland
Astragalus bodinii Bodin's milk vetch Moist meadows, gravel banks, Meadow, Cutblock, Regenerating Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
thickets and disturbed ground along Cutblock, Regenerating Burn,
roads. Anthropogenic
Barbarea orthoceras American winter cress Streambanks, wet meadows, moist d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
woods, sand bars and rocky cliffs. l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow
Blysmus rufus (Blysmopsis red bulrush Saline fens and poorly drained iron- k1, k2, k3, l1 Yes Yes S1 Sensitive --
rufa) 2 rich ponds.
Boschniakia rossica ground-cone Open woodland and scrub; parasitic b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
on alder. f1, f2, f3
Botrychium crenulatum scalloped grape fern Wet areas. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk G3
Wetland
Botrychium hesperium western grape fern Wooded areas, often with other a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes SU Undetermined G3G4
moonworts. e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Botrychium lanceolatum lance-leaved grape fern Wet rocky slopes, meadows and a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S2 Sensitive --
woods. e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Meadow
LSA within
Known Preferred
Botrychium multifidum var. leather grape fern Moist sandy areas, fields. e1, e2, e3, g1, Meadow Yes Yes S3 (W) May Be At Risk --
intermedium (Botrychium
multifidum) 2
Botrychium oneidense blunt-lobed grape fern Moist, shady, acidic woods and d3, e3, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S1 Not Assessed --
swamps.
Botrychium pinnatum northwestern grape fern Moist or wet, open places. l1, Meadow, Cutblock, Regenerating Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Burn, Anthropogenic
Campanula aparinoides marsh bellflower Wet meadows and marshes. l1, Meadow, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Cardamine pratensis meadow bitter cress Bogs and swamps. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Shrubby Yes Yes S3 (W) May Be At Risk --
Wetland
Carex adusta browned sedge Dry acid soil; moist sandy ground a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, g1 Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
under pine; stony ground.
Carex arcta narrow sedge Moist woods, wet meadows and d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
streambanks. l1, Meadow, Shrubby Wetland
Carex backii Back's sedge Dry (to moist) shady woods, a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S3 May Be At Risk --
riparian woodland. e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Carex capitata capitate sedge Wet sites, often calcareous fens; d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S3 (W) Sensitive --
moist meadows and shrubby open Meadow, Shrubby Wetland, k1, k2, k3
Page 1A-78
woods, often above treeline.

Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge Often calcareous bogs and i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S2 Sensitive --
marshes. Wetland
Carex houghtoniana sand sedge Dry, acidic, sandy or gravelly places a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 Yes Yes S3S4 May Be At Risk --
in the boreal forest, often in pine
woods.
Carex hystericina porcupine sedge Shady marshes. l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Carex lacustris lakeshore sedge Marshes and swampy woods. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1 Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Carex oligosperma few-fruited sedge Wet meadows and bogs. i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Meadow, Yes Yes S3? Sensitive --
Shrubby Wetland
Carex pedunculata stalked sedge Rich, relatively dry woods, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, Shrubbly Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
frequently with poplars. Also in Wetland
alder swamps and white spruce-
balsam fir forest.
Carex pseudocyperus cyperus-like sedge Swamps and marshes. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Carex retrorsa turned sedge Swampy woods and wet meadows. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Meadow Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Carex rostrata beaked sedge Floating fens at the edges of ponds k3, l1 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
and lakes.
Carex scoparia broom sedge Moist open woodlands, moderate d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes -- S1 May Be At Risk --
elevations.
Carex tenera broad-fruited sedge Moist meadows and open a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
woodland. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Meadow
Carex umbellata umbellate sedge Dry open areas, often sandy. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, Cutblock, Yes Yes S2 Undetermined --
Regenerating Burn, Anthropogenic
Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge Swampy ground. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Carex xerantica white-scaled sedge Prairies and plains. Meadow Yes -- S3 Sensitive --
Chenopodium berlandieri Berlandier goosefoot Grassland and disturbed areas. Meadow, Cutblock, Regenerating Burn, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Anthropogenic
LSA within
Known Preferred
Chrysosplenium iowense golden saxifrage Streambanks and marshy ground in e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S3? Sensitive G3?
shade. Wetland
Cirsium foliosum leafy thistle Moist woods, deciduous woods and d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
clearings. Meadow, Cutblock, Regenerating Burn,
Anthropogenic
Corallorhiza maculata spotted coralroot Woods. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Corallorhiza striata striped coralroot Woods. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Coptis trifolia goldthread Damp, mossy woods, muskeg, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, Yes Yes S3 (W) Secure --
willow scrub and tundra i2, j1, j2, Shrubby Wetland
Cypripedium acaule stemless lady's-slipper Wetlands, woods, sand dunes, a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
sphagnum bogs. e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2,
k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Cypripedium parviflorum American yellow lady's- Moist woodlands and banks. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes SNR Sensitive --
slipper l1, Shrubby Wetland
Cystopteris montana mountain bladder fern Springy or damp calcareous places. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, k1, k2, k3, l1, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
shrubby wetland
Page 1A-79
Danthonia spicata poverty oat grass Dry to moist open areas and open a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
woodland. e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Shrubby Wetland,
Meadow, Cutblock, Regenerating Burn,
Anthropogenic
Diphasiastrum sitchense ground-fir Open woods and barrens. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Drosera linearis slenderleaf sundew Marly bogs, wet calcareous shores. i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1 Yes Yes S3 (W) Sensitive --
Dryopteris cristata crested shield fern Moist woods and marshes. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
l1, Shrubby Wetland
Dryopteris filix-mas male fern Wooded slopes. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Elatine triandra (Elatine waterwort Muddy shores and shallow water. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby -- Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
americana) 2 Wetland
Eleocharis elliptica slender spikerush Neutral to calcareous wet places. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, -- Yes S2? Undetermined --
k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Elodea bifoliata two-leaved waterweed Sloughs, ponds and lakes, in quiet e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby -- Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
or running water. Wetland
Epilobium halleanum Hall's willowherb Moist ground. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 -- Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Epilobium lactiflorum white willowherb Moist streambanks and moist e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby -- -- S2 May Be At Risk --
slopes to alpine elevations. Wetland
Eupatorium maculatum spotted joe-pye weed Marshy ground and moist open d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S1S2 May Be At Risk --
(Eutrochium maculatum) woods. l1, Shrubby Wetland
Gentianopsis detonsa ssp. northern fringed gentian Moist banks and meadows. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S1 Sensitive G3G5T3T5
raupii (Gentianopsis Wetland, Meadow
detonsa) 2
Geranium carolinianum Carolina wild geranium Dry rocky woods, disturbed sites. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, Cutblock, -- Yes S1 Sensitive --
Burn, Anthropogenic
LSA within
Known Preferred
Hedyotis longifolia long-leaved bluets Open sandy woods and montane a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 -- Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
(Houstonia longifolia) 2 slopes.
Hypericum majus large Canada St. John's- Moist depressions in sand dunes, e1, e2, e3, g1, l1 Yes -- S2 Sensitive --
wort sandy shores.
Isoetes echinospora northern quillwort Ponds and lakes; shallow water. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Juncus brevicaudatus short-tail rush Shores and marshes; pioneer on k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland,Cutblock, Yes Yes S2 Sensitive --
wet ground. Regenerating Cutblock, Regenerating
Burn, Anthropogenic
Juncus filiformis thread rush Fens, marshes, streambanks and e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, j2, k1, k2, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
lakeshores k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Juncus nevadensis Nevada rush Wet areas. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Juncus stygius var. marsh rush Fens, mossy areas around springs e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, j2, k1, k2, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
americanus (Juncus and seepages. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
stygius) 2
Lactuca biennis tall blue lettuce Moist open woods. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Liparis loeselii loesel's twayblade Cool, moist ravines, bogs, or fens; i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
wet, peaty or sandy meadows; Wetland, Meadow, Cutblock,
Page 1A-80
exposed sand along edges of lakes; Regenerating Cutblock, Regenerating

colonizes previously open and Burn, Anthropogenic
disturbed habitats during early and
middle stages of reforestation.
Lobelia kalmii Kalm's lobelia Calcareous bogs and meadows. i1, i2, j1, j2, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Meadow
Luzula acuminata sharp-pointed wood-rush Moist woodland, clearings. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Meadow, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock,
Burn, Anthropogenic
Luzula rufescens reddish wood-rush Damp, grassy slopes, bog and e1, e2, e3, g1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Yes Yes S1 Sensitive --
marsh edges, moist sand and Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Shrubby
gravel bars. Wetland, Cutblock, Regenerating
Cutblock, Regenerating Burn,
Anthropogenic
Malaxis monophylla white adder's-mouth Damp woods, banks and bogs. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
(Malaxis monophyllos) 2 k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Malaxis paludosa bog adder's-mouth Black spruce bogs, in sphagnum i1, i2, j1, j2 Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
moss.
Matteuccia struthiopteris ostrich fern Damp woods. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Mimulus guttatus yellow monkeyflower Stream margins, meadows, springs. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S2S3? Secure --
Wetland, Meadow
Monotropa hypopithys pinesap Rich, shady coniferous forests, on d3, e3, f3, h1 Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
humus.
Monotropa uniflora Indian-pipe Rich woods. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Muhlenbergia racemosa marsh muhly Sandhills and dry slopes. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1, Cutblock, Yes -- S2 May Be At Risk --
Anthropogenic
Najas flexilis slender naiad Ponds and streams. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, k3, l1, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Shrubby Wetland
LSA within
Known Preferred
Nymphaea leibergii pygmy water-lily Ponds and quiet waters. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S1S2 May Be At Risk --
Nymphaea tetragona white water-lily Lakes, ponds and slow-moving e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, k3, l1, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
streams; likes deep and acidic Shrubby Wetland
water.
Oplopanax horridus devil's-club Moist to wet, shady sites. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Pellaea glabella smooth cliff-brake Dry limestone rocks. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Pellaea glabella ssp. smooth cliff-brake Calcareous cliffs and ledges. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
simplex f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Phegopteris connectilis northern beech fern Moist woodlands. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Physostegia ledinghamii false dragonhead Moist woods and streambanks. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S3 (W) May Be At Risk --
l1, Shrubby Wetland
Pinguicula villosa small butterwort Sphagnum bogs. i1, i2, j1, j2 Yes Yes S2 Sensitive --
Plantago maritima seaside plantain Saline marshes. l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Platanthera dilatata tall white bog orchid Wet woods, thickets and bogs. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating
Cutblock, Regenerating Burn
Polygala paucifolia fringed milkwort Moist coniferous or mixed woods d2, d3, e2, e3, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Polygala senega seneca snakeroot Open woods and moist prairies. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Page 1A-81
e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Meadow

Polypodium sibiricum Siberian polypody Cracks and ledges on rock a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, -- -- S3 (W) Sensitive --
outcrops. Shaded, sheltered slopes. e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Polypodium virginianum rock polypody Moist cliffs and rocky sites. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, c1 d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, Yes -- SNR May Be At Risk --
e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1
Potamogeton foliosus leafy pondweed Shallow standing water. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S2 Secure --
j3, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Potamogeton obtusifolius blunt-leaved pondweed Lakes and ponds; cold springs, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S2 Sensitive --
streams. j3, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Potamogeton robbinsii Robbins' pondweed Shallow water. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S1 Sensitive --
Potamogeton strictifolius linear-leaved pondweed Wet places, submerged in water. e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S2 Sensitive --
Potentilla multifida branched cinquefoil Gravel bars and open slopes; on e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
(Potentilla bimundorum) 2 scree slopes and open gravelly or Wetland, Meadow, Cutblock,
sandy ground, often near streams Regenerating Cutblock, Regenerating
and lakes or on roadsides. Burn, Anthropogenic
Prenanthes racemosa glaucous white lettuce Moist meadows and thin thickets. l1, Meadow, Shrubby Wetland, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Burn
Puccinellia distans slender salt-meadow Moist, alkaline areas. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1 Yes -- SNA May Be At Risk --
grass
Pyrola elliptica white wintergreen Rich woods. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Ranunculus pensylvanicus bristly buttercup Marshy ground, wet thickets and l1, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
ditches. Regenerating Cutblock, Regenerating
Burn, Anthropogenic
Rhamnus alnifolia alder-leaved buckthorn Moist, shady woods. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Rhynchospora capillacea slender beak-rush Calcareous fens and bogs. i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3 Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
LSA within
Known Preferred
Sagittaria latifolia broad-leaved arrowhead Ponds, lakes and ditches. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Burn, Anthropogenic
Salix athabascensis Athabasca willow Marl bogs, fens and muskegs. i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Salix sitchensis Sitka willow Alluvial soil (Athabasca River). e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Wetland
Sarracenia purpurea pitcher-plant Wetlands, usually with peat moss. i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Scirpus pallidus pale bulrush Marshy areas. l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Sisyrinchium pale blue-eyed grass Moist grassy areas. Meadow, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive G3G4
septentrionale Regenerating Cutblock, Regenerating
Burn, Anthropogenic
Sparganium glomeratum bur-reed Ponds. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Sparganium hyperboreum northern bur-reed Aquatic plants in shallow l1, Shrubby Wetland -- Yes S1 Sensitive --
alpine/subalpine lakes and lower
elevations.
Spartina pectinata prairie cord grass Saline shores and marshes. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
Spergularia salina salt-marsh sand spurry Brackish or saline muds and sands. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland Yes Yes S2S3 May Be At Risk --
Sphenopholis obtusata Moist meadows, shores and open a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
Page 1A-82
woods. f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, k3, l1, Shrubby

Wetland, Meadow
Spiraea alba narrow-leaved Wet meadows and shores. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
meadowsweet
Spiranthes lacera northern slender ladies'- Dry, rocky, open woods and grassy Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
tresses areas in or near jack pine-lichen a1, , b1, b2, b3, b4, c1
forest, often with common blueberry
Stellaria crispa wavy-leaved chickweed Moist woods, damp meadows, on d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S2 May Be At Risk --
lake shores and streamsides. k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow
Streptopus roseus rose mandarin Moist coniferous woods and d3, e3, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
(Streptopus lanceolatus)2 streambanks.
Thalictrum sparsiflorum flat-fruited meadow rue Moist woods and meadows. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Meadow
Trichophorum clintonii Clinton's bulrush Open woodland and turfy shores. a1, b1, b2, b3, b4, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, Yes Yes S1 May Be At Risk --
f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Trientalis europaea Arctic starflower Moist woods. d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1 Yes Yes S3 Sensitive --
Viola pallens (Viola Macloskey's violet Boggy or wet ground and wet e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, Yes Yes S2S3 Sensitive --
macloskeyi)2 thickets. k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland,
Burn
Wolffia columbiana watermeal Floating or just beneath surface in e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, l1, Shrubby Yes Yes S2 Sensitive --
beaver ponds. Wetland
Sources: ACIMS 2011a, ACIMS 2011d, ACIMS 2011e, ASRD 2010, ASRD 2011a, Argus and Pryer 1990, COSEWIC 2012, Douglas et al. 2002, Government of Canada 2011, Kershaw et al. 2001, Moss 1983, NatureServe
2011a, NatureServe 2011b, Porsild and Cody 1980, Williston 2001
Notes:
1. Provincial (S) ranks are assigned by the provincial and federal Conservation Data Centre(s); in cases of conflict or missing data, the provincial CDC will have preference. Ranks range from 1 (five or fewer occurrences)
to 5 (demonstrably secure under present conditions); all definitions below are from NatureServe 2011b.
S1 = Critically Imperilled: because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation. Typically five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals (<1,000).
S2 = Imperilled: because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation. Typically 6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals (1,000-3,000).
S3 = Vulnerable: because rare and uncommon, or found in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Typically 21-100 occurrences
or between 3,000 and 10,000 individuals.
S4 = Apparently Secure: uncommon but --t rare, and usually widespread in the province. Possible cause of long-term concern. Usually more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 individuals.
S#S# = Range Rank: a numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the element.
SU = Unrankable: currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends.
? = Inexact numeric rank: denotes inexact numeric rank.
SNR = Unranked: conservation status not yet assessed.
SNA = Not Applicable: a conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities.
(W) = Watch List: elements that are not currently considered as high conservation concern, but there is some information to suggest
that they may become rare should there be significant alterations to the element’s habitats or population. Data for watch listed
elements are collected by ACIMS (ACIMS 2011d).
2. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species. General status determination is the first step in a continuing process of evaluating and reporting the biological status of Alberta’s wild species. All definitions below are from
ASRD 2011a. When the scientific name for a species differs between The General Status of Alberta Wild Species and the List of Tracked and Watched Elements (ACIMS 2011a), the General Status scientific name is
included in brackets.
At Risk: Any species known to be at risk after formal detailed status assessment and legal designation as Endangered or Threatened in Alberta.
May be at Risk: Any species that may be at risk of extinction or extirpation, and is therefore a candidate for detailed risk assessment.
Sensitive: Any species that is not at risk of extinction or extirpation but may require special attention or protection to prevent it from becoming at risk.
Secure: A species that is not At Risk, May be at Risk or Sensitive.
Undetermined: Any species for which insufficient information, knowledge or data is available to reliably evaluate its general status.
Not Assessed: Any species that has not been examined during the exercise.
Page 1A-83
3. Global (G) ranks are based on species status world-wide and follow a system parallel to that for Provincial Ranks (0 to 1), ranging from 1 (5 or fewer occurrences) to 5 (demonstrably secure under present conditions)
(NatureServe 2011b). Only Global Ranks of concern (G1 to G3) or questionable ranks are displayed.
ATTACHMENT 1A3
PRIORITY HABITATS FOR BRYOPHYTES AND LICHENS
Priority for
Habitats Bryophytes Priority for Lichens Code
Forest
Hard stumps, logs, snags or tip-ups (with bark) 1 1 FLH
Soft stumps, logs or tip-ups (without bark) 1 1 FLS
Deciduous trees (live or dead; roots, bases, trunks, or 2 1 FTD
branches within reach)
Coniferous trees (live or dead; roots, bases, trunks, or 2 1 FTC
branches within reach)
Shrubs (live or dead; roots, bases, stems or branches) 2 2 FTS
Soil (under trees/shrubs, shaded by canopy), Litter or 2 2 FSL
Dung
Wet Areas
Wetlands: marshes, fens, swamps or bogs (under or 1 2 WMF
away from trees, in standing or flowing water or on
vegetation hummocks )
Shores/banks of wetlands, ponds, lakes or streams 1 2 WSB
(organic or mineral soil adjacent the water’s edge)
Moist depressions/seasonal wetlands (edges or bottom 1 2 WDS
of the area influenced by water)
Sparsely Vegetated Areas
Boulders (>50 cm diam.) (top, sides or base) 1 1 SB
Rocks (<50 cm diam.) (top, sides or base) 1 1 SR
Cliffs (steep high rock face) (faces, ledges, or crevices) 1 1 SC
Soil (without trees/shrubs, open to sunlight) 2 2 SS
Disturbed Areas
Agriculturally cultivated soils 2 2 DC
Mineral soil in upland areas from any causes 2 2 DM
Human structures (vertical or horizontal parts) 2 1 DH
Source: Adapted from ABMI 2009
Page 1A-84
ATTACHMENT 1A4
HABITAT FRAGMENTATION METRICS SUMMARY
Each vegetation community classification within FRAGSTATS is a class. Pixels of the same class that are
adjacent to each other make up a patch. The size of a patch can be calculated by multiplying the area of
a single pixel by the number of pixels within a patch. The landscape is composed of all patches within a
defined area (i.e., all patches within the LSA or within the RSA).
The Patch Area Distribution metric includes various statistics for patch area within a class and within the
landscape. Mean patch size is calculated by dividing the total area of a class or landscape by the number
of patches of a class or landscape. The range of patch size is calculated by subtracting the smallest patch
size from the largest patch size within a class or landscape. The standard deviation of patch size equals
the square root of the sum of standard deviations of each patch size of a class or landscape from the
mean patch size of the class or landscape divided by the number of patches within the class or
landscape.
The Edge Contrast Index Distribution metric includes various statistics for edge contrast within a class
and within the landscape. Edge Contrast is calculated by summing a patch’s perimeter segment lengths
multiplied by their corresponding contrast weights, divided by total patch perimeter, multiplied by 100 (so
that the final value is a percentage). For the purpose of measuring changes in vegetation community’s
anthropogenic edge, classes due to anthropogenic disturbance (i.e., at the LSA scale: Regenerating
Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic and at the RSA scale: Closed Upland Shrub, Mixed Grassland,
Anthropogenic Non-Vegetated) were given a contrast weight of 1 when along the edge of other classes.
Non-anthropogenic classes were given a contrast weight of 0 when along the edge of other non-
anthropogenic classes. Mean of percentage of patch edge adjacent to anthropogenic disturbance is
calculated by dividing the sum of patch Edge Contrast values of a class or landscape by the number of
patches of a class or landscape. Range of percentage of patch edge adjacent to anthropogenic
disturbance is calculated by subtracting the smallest patch Edge Contrast from the largest patch Edge
Contrast within a class or landscape. Standard deviation of percentage of patch edge adjacent to
anthropogenic disturbance equals the square root of the sum of standard deviations of each patch Edge
Contrast of a class or landscape from the Mean of percentage of patch edge adjacent to anthropogenic
disturbance of the class or landscape divided by the number of patches of the class or landscape.
Page 1A-85
ATTACHMENT 1A5
OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES – BY TYPE AND COMMON NAME

Common Name Scientific Name Ecological Land Classification
TREES
Alaska birch Betula neoalaskana d1, e2, e3, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, k2, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock,
aspen Populus tremuloides Cutblock
balsam fir Abies balsamea b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock
d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock,
balsam poplar Populus balsamifera Anthropogenic
c1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn,
black spruce Picea mariana Cutblock
jack pine Pinus banksiana c1
c1, d2, e1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating
tamarack Larix laricina Cutblock
c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn,
white birch Betula papyrifera Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
b3, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, j1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Regenerating
white spruce Picea glauca Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
SHRUBS
Alaska birch Betula neoalaskana d1, e2, e3, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, k2, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock
alder-leaved buckthorn Rhamnus alnifolia f3, h1, k1
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock,
aspen Populus tremuloides Cutblock
autumn willow Salix serissima c1, g1, h1, j1, k1, k2, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Cutblock
balsam fir Abies balsamea b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock
d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock,
balsam poplar Populus balsamifera Anthropogenic
balsam willow Salix pyrifolia f3, h1, j1, l1, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
basket willow Salix petiolaris e1, j1, k1
beaked hazelnut Corylus cornuta e3
d1, e2, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock,
beaked willow Salix bebbiana Anthropogenic
c1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn,
black spruce Picea mariana Cutblock
bog birch Betula glandulosa j1, j2, k1, k2, k3
bog willow Salix pedicellaris j1, k1
bracted honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
bristly black currant Ribes lacustre d1, d2, d3, e2, f2, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
common Labrador tea Ledum groenlandicum b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e2, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, Regenerating Burn, Cutblock
common wild rose Rosa woodsii c1, d1, e3, f2, g1
currant species Ribes sp. e1, g1, Shrubby Wetland
dwarf birch Betula pumila j1, j2, k1, Shrubby Wetland
false mountain willow Salix pseudomonticola g1, h1, Regenerating Burn, Anthropogenic
flat-leaved willow Salix planifolia g1, j1, j2, l1, Cutblock
fly honeysuckle Lonicera caerulea h1, Regenerating Burn
green alder Alnus viridis ssp. crispa c1, d2, e3, Regenerating Cutblock
hoary willow Salix candida j1
jack pine Pinus banksiana c1
leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyculata i1, i2, j1, k1, k3
lodgepole pine Pinus contorta g1
low-bush cranberry Viburnum edule b3, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f3, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock
myrtle-leaved willow Salix myrtillifolia c1
northern black currant Ribes hudsonianum e2, f3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
northern gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating
prickly rose Rosa acicularis Cutblock, Cutblock
pussy willow Salix discolor Transect
red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera d1, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, h1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
b3, c1, d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating
river alder Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia Burn, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Regenerating Cutblock
Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana d1, e2, e3, j1, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow
Page 1A-86

shining willow Salix lucida k1
shrubby willow Salix arbusculoides f3, j1
skunk currant Ribes glandulosum d2, f1, f3, j1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
smooth willow Salix glauca k3
snowberry Symphoricarpos albus d1, Regenerating Cutblock
sweet gale Myrica gale Transect
tall bilberry Vaccinium membranaceum c1
c1, d2, e1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating
tamarack Larix laricina Cutblock
thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus e3, h1
twining honeysuckle Lonicera dioica d2
velvet-fruited willow Salix maccalliana Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
water birch Betula occidentalis k3, Anthropogenic
c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn,
white birch Betula papyrifera Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
white meadowsweet Spiraea betulifolia d1
b3, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, j1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Regenerating
white spruce Picea glauca Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
wild black currant Ribes americanum e3, j1, Shrubby Wetland
wild red currant Ribes triste d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, j1, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Regenerating Cutblock,
wild red raspberry Rubus idaeus Cutblock, Anthropogenic
d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, j1, k1, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock,
willow species Salix sp. Anthropogenic
yellow willow Salix lutea e1
FORBS, DWARF SHRUBS
American brooklime Veronica americana h1
American dragonhead Dracocephalum parviflorum Transect
Arctic starflower Trientalis europaea e2, e3
Petasites frigidus var.
arrow-leaved coltsfoot sagittatus e2, f3, h1, j1, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
aster species Aster sp. d2, e3
balsam groundsel Senecio pauperculus Transect
Bicknell's geranium Geranium bicknellii Cutblock
bishop's-cap Mitella nuda d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
bitter cress Cardamine pensylvanica f1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
blueberry species Vaccinium sp. Transect
blunt-leaved sandwort Moehringia lateriflora d2, e1
bog adder's-mouth Malaxis paludosa j1
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k3, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating
bog cranberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea Cutblock, Cutblock
bog rosemary Andromeda polifolia i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3
bog violet Viola nephrophylla d2, e1,
bristly buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus Transect
buck-bean Menyanthes trifoliata h1, k1, k2, k3
bulb-bearing water-
hemlock Cicuta bulbifera Transect
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, k3, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating
bunchberry Cornus canadensis Cutblock, Cutblock
bur-reed Sparganium glomeratum Transect
buttercup species Ranunculus sp. l1, Shrubby Wetland
Canada anemone Anemone canadensis Transect
Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis d1, d2, f1, j1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Cutblock
celery-leaved buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus Transect
chickweed species Cerastium sp. e3
clasping-leaf pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii Transect
clasping-leaved twisted-
stalk Streptopus amplexifolius e3
cloudberry Rubus chamaemorus f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k3, Regenerating Burn
columbine species Aquilegia sp. e3
common bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi c1
common blueberry Vaccinium myrtilloides b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2
common cattail Typha latifolia l1, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
common duckweed Lemna minor l1, Regenerating Cutblock
Page 1A-87

common fireweed Epilobium angustifolium b3, c1, d1, f1, h1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock,
common horsetail Equisetum arvense Cutblock, Anthropogenic
common mare's-tail Hippuris vulgaris Transect
common nettle Urtica dioica e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, k1, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Regenerating Cutblock
common pink wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia c1, d1, d2, e2, j1, k1, Regenerating Cutblock
common scouring-rush Equisetum hyemale j2, k1, k2
common yarrow Achillea millefolium c1, d1, d2, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
coralroot species Corallorhiza sp. j1
cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum e1, f1, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow
cream-colored vetchling Lathyrus ochroleucus b3, c1, d2, d3, e2, f3, Regenerating Cutblock, Anthropogenic
creeping snowberry Gaultheria hispidula d2, d3, g1, h1, j1
cress species Cardamine sp. k2
crowberry Empetrum nigrum d2
cut-leaved ragwort Senecio eremophilus Transect
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn,
dewberry Rubus pubescens Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
drooping wood-reed Cinna latifolia d2, e2, e3, g1, Shrubby Wetland
dwarf bilberry Vaccinium caespitosum Transect
dwarf bramble Rubus pedatus Transect
dwarf raspberry Rubus arcticus e2, f1, f3, h1, j1, k1, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Cutblock
dwarf scouring-rush Equisetum scirpoides h1, j1
early blue violet Viola adunca d1
elephant's-head Pedicularis groenlandica Transect
eyebright Euphrasia arctica Transect
fairybells Disporum trachycarpum g1
felwort Gentianella amarella Regenerating Cutblock
flat-leaved bladderwort Utricularia intermedia Transect
fleshy stitchwort Stellaria crassifolia h1
fragile bladder fern Cystopteris fragilis Cutblock
golden corydalis Corydalis aurea Transect
golden saxifrage Chrysosplenium iowense f1, f3, j1, Shrubby Wetland
goldthread Coptis trifolia d2, e2, g1
green saxifrage Chrysosplenium tetrandrum f1, h1, Shrubby Wetland
greenish-flowered
wintergreen Pyrola chlorantha d2, e2
ground-cedar Diphasiastrum complanatum Transect
ground-pine Lycopodium obscurum d1
hairy speedwell Veronica peregrina Transect
hairy wild rye Leymus innovatus d2
heart-leaved buttercup Ranunculus cardiophyllus Transect
heart-leaved twayblade Listera cordata f3, g1, i1, j1, k1
hooded ladies'-tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana Transect
hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum Transect
horsetail species Equisetum sp. e1, j1
ivy-leaved duckweed Lemna trisulca Transect
jewelweed species Impatiens sp. e2, e3, f1, f3, k2, Shrubby Wetland
kidney-leaved violet Viola renifolia d1, d2, d3, e3, f3
kneeling angelica Angelica genuflexa Transect
Labrador bedstraw Galium labradoricum f3, h1, j1, k3, Shrubby Wetland
lady fern Athyrium filix-femina d2, e2, e3, f1, h1, k3, Shrubby Wetland
Lapland buttercup Ranunculus lapponicus f3, g1, h1, j1, Regenerating Burn
large bog cranberry Oxycoccus quadripetalus i2, j1, k1, k2, k3
large-leaved white water
crowfoot Ranunculus aquatilis l1
large-leaved yellow avens Geum macrophyllum e1, e2, f2, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
leafy arnica Arnica chamissonis Transect
lesser rattlesnake plantain Goodyera repens d2, d3, e2
lesser wintergreen Pyrola minor Transect
Lindley's aster Aster ciliolatus d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f3, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
long-leaved chickweed Stellaria longifolia e2, f1, f3, h1, j1, k1, k3, Shrubby Wetland
long-stalked chickweed Stellaria longipes d2, e2, f3, h1, j1, k1, Cutblock
Page 1A-88

long-stalked mouse-ear
chickweed Cerastium nutans k1
many-flowered yarrow Achillea sibirica Cutblock
marsh cinquefoil Potentilla palustris f1, f3, h1, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
marsh cudweed Gnaphalium palustre Transect
marsh hedge-nettle Stachys palustris e3, Meadow
marsh ragwort Senecio congestus Transect
marsh skullcap Scutellaria galericulata e1, e2, f1, f3, h1, k1, l1, Shrubby Wetland
marsh violet Viola palustris Transect
marsh willowherb Epilobium palustre h1, j1, k1
marsh yellow cress Rorippa palustris Transect
marsh-marigold Caltha palustris e1, e3, f1, f3, h1, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn
meadow horsetail Equisetum pratense e1, e2, f3, g1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
moschatel Adoxa moschatellina Transect
narrow spinulose shield
fern Dryopteris carthusiana d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
narrow-leaved bur-reed Sparganium angustifolium Transect
narrow-leaved collomia Collomia linearis Transect
narrow-leaved dock Rumex triangulivalvis Transect
narrow-leaved hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum Transect
narrow-leaved water-
hemlock Cicuta virosa k2, Cutblock
narrow-leaved willowherb Epilobium leptophyllum j1, k1
nodding beggarticks Bidens cernua l1
northern bastard toadflax Geocaulon lividum b3, c1, d2, g1, h1, i1, j1
northern bedstraw Galium boreale d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, Meadow, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
northern beech fern Phegopteris connectilis Transect
northern grass-of-
parnassus Parnassia palustris Transect
northern green bog orchid Platanthera hyperborea f3, h1, j1, k1
northern laurel Kalmia polifolia i2, j1
northern starflower Trientalis borealis b3, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f3, h1, k1, k3, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
northern stitchwort Stellaria calycantha e3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
northern water-horehound Lycopus uniflorus Transect
northern willowherb Epilobium ciliatum e1, e2, f1, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
oak fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f3, g1, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
one-flowered wintergreen Moneses uniflora d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f3, j1
one-sided wintergreen Orthilia secunda d2, d3, e3, f3, h1, j1, Regenerating Burn
ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris Transect
pale coralroot Corallorhiza trifida d2, j1
Petasites frigidus var.
palmate-leaved coltsfoot palmatus b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f2, f3, g1, h1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
pink corydalis Corydalis sempervirens Transect
purple avens Geum rivale e3, Regenerating Cutblock
purple-stemmed aster Aster puniceus e1, e2, f1, f3, h1, j1, k1, k2, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
rayless ragwort Senecio indecorus Transect
red and white baneberry Actaea rubra d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f1
rough cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica f1, f2, g1, l1, Cutblock
round-leaved bog orchid Platanthera orbiculata d2, e2
round-leaved orchid Amerorchis rotundifolia j1
round-leaved sundew Drosera rotundifolia i1, i2, j1, k1, Regenerating Burn
running club-moss Lycopodium clavatum Transect
saxifrage species Chrysosplenium sp. Shrubby Wetland
scapose hawk's-beard Crepis runcinata Transect
scheuchzeria Scheuchzeria palustris k3
Scouler's allocarya Plagiobothrys scouleri Transect
seaside arrow-grass Triglochin maritima k1
seaside buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria Transect
shield fern species Dryopteris sp. c1, e1, f1
showy aster Eurybia conspicua e1, e2
slender arrow-grass Triglochin palustris Transect
slender bur-reed Sparganium minimum Transect
small bedstraw Galium trifidum e1, e2, e3, f3, h1, j1, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock
Page 1A-89

small bog cranberry Oxycoccus microcarpus g1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, Regenerating Burn
small butterwort Pinguicula villosa Transect
small enchanter's
nightshade Circaea alpina d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
small-flowered buttercup Ranunculus abortivus Transect
smooth aster Aster laevis d1, d2, e3, f2, Anthropogenic
spotted coralroot Corallorhiza maculata Transect
spotted touch-me-not Impatiens capensis e2, e3, h1, k1, Cutblock
spreading sweet cicely Osmorhiza depauperata Transect
spurred gentian Halenia deflexa Transect
star-flowered Solomon's-
seal Smilacina stellata e3, h1, i1, j1
stiff club-moss Lycopodium annotinum b3, d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f3, g1, h1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock
stitchwort species Stellaria sp. j1, l1
striate knotweed Polygonum erectum Transect
swamp horsetail Equisetum fluviatile f3, h1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Anthropogenic
swamp lousewort Pedicularis parviflora k1
sweet coltsfoot Petasites frigidus var. frigidus g1
sweet-cicely species Osmorhiza sp. d2
sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
tall blue lettuce Lactuca biennis Meadow
tall Jacob's-ladder Polemonium acutiflorum Transect
tall larkspur Delphinium glaucum e3, f1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow
tall lungwort Mertensia paniculata d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
three-leaved Solomon's-
seal Smilacina trifolia e2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Cutblock
three-toothed cinquefoil Potentilla tridentata Transect
tufted loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora f3, h1, j1, k1, l1
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, h1, j1, k1, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock,
twinflower Linnaea borealis Cutblock
various-leaved pondweed Potamogeton gramineus Transect
veiny meadow rue Thalictrum venulosum d2, e1, e2, e3, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow
Venus'-slipper Calypso bulbosa Transect
vernal water-starwort Callitriche verna Transect
Petasites frigidus var. x
vine-leaved coltsfoot vitifolius Cutblock
d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, h1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock,
violet species Viola sp. Anthropogenic
Virginia grape fern Botrychium virginianum e1
water arum Calla palustris f3, h1, j1, k1, l1
water parsnip Sium suave j1
water smartweed Polygonum amphibium l1
water-hemlock Cicuta maculata f1, f3, h1, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland
water-starwort species Callitriche sp. l1
western Canada violet Viola canadensis d2, e1, e2
western dock Rumex occidentalis k3, l1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
western jewelweed Impatiens noli-tangere e1
white wintergreen Pyrola elliptica Transect
white-grained mountain
rice grass Oryzopsis asperifolia c1
wild lily-of-the-valley Maianthemum canadense b3, d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f3, h1, Regenerating Cutblock
wild mint Mentha arvensis Transect
wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, h1, k3, Regenerating Cutblock
wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana b3, c1, d1, d2, e3, f3, h1, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
wild vetch Vicia americana c1, d1, d2, e3, f1, h1, Meadow, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
wild white geranium Geranium richardsonii Transect
willowherb species Epilobium sp. Transect
wintergreen species Pyrola sp. f3, h1, j1
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow,
woodland horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
woodland strawberry Fragaria vesca d1, e3
wormseed mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides Transect
yellow avens Geum aleppicum e2, f3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
yellow rattle Rhinanthus minor Cutblock, Anthropogenic
Page 1A-90

yellow water crowfoot Ranunculus gmelinii e2, f3, h1, j1, k1, l1, Cutblock
GRASSES, SEDGES, RUSHES
awl-fruited sedge Carex stipata k3
awned sedge Carex atherodes k3
beautiful sedge Carex concinna d2
Bebb's sedge Carex bebbii l1
big-head rush Juncus vaseyi Transect
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Meadow,
bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
bog sedge Carex paupercula f3, h1, i1, j1, j2, k1, k3, Regenerating Burn
bristle-stalked sedge Carex leptalea k1
broad-fruited sedge Carex tenera j1
brownish sedge Carex brunnescens Cutblock
Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis Transect
chestnut rush Juncus castaneus Transect
close-sheathed cotton
grass Eriophorum brachyantherum Transect
common tall manna grass Glyceria grandis e2, e3, f3, h1, l1, Shrubby Wetland
Crawford's sedge Carex crawfordii Transect
creeping spike-rush Eleocharis palustris l1
Dewey's sedge Carex deweyana e2, f3, i1, j1
few-flowered sedge Carex pauciflora Transect
fowl bluegrass Poa palustris Cutblock
fowl manna grass Glyceria striata e3, g1, h1, j1
fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea Transect
fringed brome Bromus ciliatus d1
golden sedge Carex aurea Transect
hair-like sedge Carex capillaris h1, k1
hairy wild rye Leymus innovatus d2
hay sedge Carex siccata Cutblock
inland bluegrass Poa interior Transect
inland sedge Carex interior f2, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn
Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis e1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
long-styled rush Juncus longistylis Transect
manna grass species Glyceria sp. e3
mud sedge Carex limosa f3, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3
narrowleaf cotton-grass Eriophorum angustifolium j1, k1
nodding brome Bromus anomalus Cutblock
northern bog sedge Carex gynocrates h1, i1, j1, k2
Norway sedge Carex norvegica Cutblock
prairie bulrush Scirpus paludosus Transect
purple oat grass Schizachne purpurascens d1, d2
reed grass species Calamagrostis sp. e3
rough hair grass Agrostis scabra l1, Anthropogenic
rush species Juncus sp. Anthropogenic
russett cotton grass Eriophorum chamissonis k2, k3
rye-grass sedge Carex loliacea Transect
Sartwell's sedge Carex sartwellii Transect
sedge Carex canescens f3, g1, h1, i1, j1, k1, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
sedge species Carex sp. c1, e2, e3, f3, h1, i1, j1, j2, k1, Regenerating Cutblock
sheathed cotton grass Eriophorum vaginatum i1, i2, j1, k1, k2, k3
sheathed sedge Carex vaginata Transect
short-awned foxtail Alopecurus aequalis l1
silvery-flowered sedge Carex aenea Transect
slender cotton grass Eriophorum gracile k2
Elymus trachycaulus ssp.
slender wheatgrass subsecundus Transect
Elymus trachycaulus ssp.
slender wheatgrass trachycaulus e2
slough grass Beckmannia syzigachne e3, l1
small bottle sedge Carex utriculata e2, j1, k3, l1
small-flowered wood-rush Luzula parviflora Transect
small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus l1, Regenerating Cutblock, Anthropogenic
Page 1A-91

sweet grass Hierochloe hirta ssp. arctica Transect
thin-flowered sedge Carex tenuiflora f3, h1, j1, k1
thin-leaved cotton grass Eriophorum viridi-carinatum k1
three-seeded sedge Carex trisperma g1, h1, i1, j1, k1
toad rush Juncus bufonius Transect
tufted hair grass Deschampsia cespitosa Anthropogenic
d2, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating
two-seeded sedge Carex disperma Cutblock, Cutblock
two-stamened sedge Carex diandra h1, j1, k1, k3, l1
water sedge Carex aquatilis f3, i1, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, l1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Anthropogenic
white-grained mountain
rice grass Oryzopsis asperifolia c1
wire rush Juncus balticus Transect
MOSSES, LICHENS, LIVERWORTS
abraded camouflage
lichen Melanelixia subaurifera f3, Shrubby Wetland
acute-leaved peat moss Sphagnum capillifolium i1, i2
alternating dog-lichen Peltigera polydactyla d1, e3, h1
Anastrophyllum liverwort Anastrophyllum helleranum d3, e2, e3, f3, h1, j1
antlered powderhorn Cladonia subulata c1
Atrichum moss Atrichum selwynii e3
Aulacomnium moss
species Aulacomnium sp. e2, h1, k1
awned hair-cap Polytrichum piliferum d2, Regenerating Cutblock
beard lichen Usnea chaetophora j1
beard lichen Usnea substerilis e2
bearded jellyskin Leptogium saturninum d3
bighorn cladonia Cladonia cornuta d1, g1, j1
Blasia liverwort Blasia pusilla e3
Blepharostoma liverwort Blepharostoma trichophyllum e2, e3, f3, g1, j1
blue-gray rosette lichen Physcia caesia d2, e3
boreal pixie-cup Cladonia borealis c1, g1, Regenerating Cutblock
bottlebrush frost lichen Physconia detersa Shrubby Wetland
Brachythecium moss Brachythecium salebrosum d1, d3, e2, h1, Shrubby Wetland
Brachythecium species Brachythecium sp. d1, d2, d3, e2, h1, k1, Shrubby Wetland
bristly beard lichen Usnea hirta e2, f1, h1, i2, j1, Shrubby Wetland
British soliders Cladonia cristatella Cutblock
broom moss Dicranum scoparium d2, f3
brown moss Drepanocladus aduncus k1
brown moss Sanionia uncinata d2, d3, e2, e3, f3, g1, Regenerating Cutblock
Bryoria moss species Bryoria sp. i1, j1, k1
Bryum moss Bryum argenteum b3
Bryum species Bryum sp. e3, i1
Calicium lichen Calicium adaequatum e2, e3, h1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland
Calicium lichen Calicium salicinum d1
Calliergon moss Calliergon cordifolium Transect
Calliergon moss Calliergon giganteum e2, h1, j1, k1, k2, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Cutblock
Calliergon moss Calliergon stramineum e2, e3, f2, j1
Calliergon moss species Calliergon sp. e2, f2, f3, g1, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
Calypogeia liverwort Calypogeia neesiana g1, i1
Calypogeia liverwort Calypogeia suecica h1
candy lichen Icmadophila ericetorum g1, i1
Cephalozia liverwort Cephalozia lunulifolia d3, e2, g1, h1
Cephalozia liverwort
species Cephalozia sp. d1, h1, i1
Chaenotheca lichen Chaenotheca laevigata d3
chalky ramalina Ramalina pollinaria e2
chestnut wrinkle-lichen Tuckermannopsis sepincola i1
Cladonia lichen Cladonia acuminata i1
Cladonia lichen Cladonia bacilliformis i1
Cladonia lichen Cladonia botrytes c1, i1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
Cladonia lichen Cladonia carneola d2
Cladonia lichen Cladonia cenotea f1, h1, i1, j1, k1
Page 1A-92

Cladonia lichen Cladonia chlorophaea d1, d2, e3, f2, g1, h1, i1
Cladonia lichen Cladonia coniocraea c1, d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f2, h1, i1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Anthropogenic
Cladonia lichen Cladonia deformis g1, i1
Cladonia lichen Cladonia merochlorophaea f1, f3, i1
Cladonia lichen Cladonia phyllophora d1, d2, f3
Cladonia lichen Cladonia stygia g1, i1
Cladonia lichen species Cladonia sp. c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e3, f1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
common hair-cap Polytrichum commune d1, d2, e3, f2, h1, Cutblock
concentric pelt lichen Peltigera elisabethae d3, e3
copper wire moss Pohlia nutans d1, d2, e2, e3, f3, g1, h1, j1, k1, Regenerating Cutblock, Anthropogenic
cushion moss Dicranum acutifolium e3
cushion moss Dicranum fragilifolium f3
Dicranum moss species Dicranum sp. c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
dog lichen Peltigera canina c1, d1, d3, e2, e3, f3
dot lichen Biatora vernalis e2
Drepanocladus moss
species Drepanocladus sp. g1, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock
Eurhynchium moss Eurhynchium pulchellum e2
Evernia lichen Evernia mesomorpha d1, d2, e2, f1, f3, h1, i1, j1, j2, k1, k2
finger pixie-cup Cladonia digitata f3
fishbone beard lichen Usnea filipendula d2, i1
flagon-fruited splachnum Splachnum ampullaceum j1
fringed kidney lichen Nephroma helveticum e3
fringed wrinkle lichen Tuckermannopsis americana e2, f3, h1, i1, k1
frosted cladonia Cladonia ecmocyna c1, d2, e2, e3, h1, i1, j1
fuscous moss Dicranum fuscescens d3, e2, f3
Girgensohn's moss Sphagnum girgensohnii e3, g1, h1, j1
golden moss Tomentypnum nitens j1, k1, k3
green starburst lichen Parmeliopsis ambigua h1, i1, k1
grey starburst lichen Parmeliopsis hyperopta i1, k1
hammered shield lichen Parmelia sulcata c1, d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f1, f3, h1, i1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock
Helodium moss Helodium blandowii e2, f3, j1, k1
hooded ramalina Ramalina obtusata d1
hooded tube lichen Hypogymnia physodes d1, d2, e2, f3, h1, i1, j1, k1
Hypnum moss Hypnum lindbergii e3
Jamesoniella liverwort Jamesoniella autumnalis d1, d3, e2, e3, f1, h1, j1
jellyskin Leptogium teretiusculum b3, e2
juniper hair-cap Polytrichum juniperinum b3, c1, d1, e2, h1, Anthropogenic
knight's plume moss Ptilium crista-castrensis c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock
Lepidozia liverwort Lepidozia reptans e2, f1, f3, g1, i1, j1
Leptobryum moss Leptobryum pyriforme e2, h1
Lichenomphalia lichen Lichenomphalia umbellifera e2, h1
little tree moss Climacium dendroides e1, e2, f3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
Lobaria lichen Lobaria linita Transect
long forked moss Dicranum elongatum h1
Lophocolea liverwort Lophocolea heterophylla d1, d3, e2, e3, f3, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
Lophozia liverwort Lophozia ventricosa d2, d3, e3, f3, i1, j1
lustrous beard lichen Usnea glabrata d2, e2, h1, i1, j1, j2, k1, k2, Shrubby Wetland
lustrous camouflage
lichen Melanohalea exasperatula Shrubby Wetland
many-spored camoflage
lichen Melanohalea multispora e3, h1
Marchantia liverwort Marchantia polymorpha e1, e2, f1, h1, j1, k3, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Cutblock
mealy forked cladonia Cladonia scabriuscula d3, e2
mealy shadow lichen Phaeophyscia orbicularis Shrubby Wetland
Melanelia lichen species Melanelia sp. Shrubby Wetland
midway peat moss Sphagnum magellanicum f3, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3
Mnium moss Mnium spinulosum d2, e2
Mnium moss Mnium thomsonii f3
Mnium moss species Mnium sp. d2, e1, e2, e3, h1, k1
mountain curved-back
moss Oncophorus wahlenbergii b3, d1, d3, e2, e3, h1
Mylia liverwort Mylia anomala e2, i1, i2
Page 1A-93

naked kidney lichen Nephroma bellum d1, d3, e3, h1
nit beard lichen Usnea subfloridana f3
northern camouflage
lichen Melanohalea septentrionalis h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
old man's beard Bryoria furcellata i2
old man's beard Bryoria lanestris d2, h1, i1, j1, k1
organ-pipe lichen Cladonia crispata e3, Regenerating Cutblock
Orthotrichum moss Orthotrichum obtusifolium d2, e2
Orthotrichum moss Orthotrichum speciosum h1, Shrubby Wetland
Orthotrichum moss
species Orthotrichum sp. d3
peat moss Sphagnum angustifolium e2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k2, k3, Regenerating Burn, Cutblock
peat moss Sphagnum centrale j1
peat moss Sphagnum warnstorfii e2, f2, f3, h1, j1, k1
peat moss Sphagnum wulfianum i1, j1
peat moss species Sphagnum sp. c1, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k2, k3, Regenerating Burn, Anthropogenic
pebbled pixie-cup Cladonia pyxidata d2, e3
peg lichen Cladonia subcariosa e3
Pellia liverwort Pellia neesiana e3
Peltigera lichen Peltigera collina e3
Peltigera lichen Peltigera didactyla d2, e2
Peltigera lichen Peltigera lepidophora d1, e3, Shrubby Wetland
Peltigera lichen Peltigera leucophlebia Regenerating Burn
Peltigera lichen Peltigera membranacea e3
Peltigera lichen Peltigera neopolydactyla d2, e3, Regenerating Cutblock
Peltigera lichen Peltigera rufescens e3
Peltigera lichen species Peltigera sp. c1, d1, d2, e1, e2, e3, f3, Regenerating Cutblock
pepper-spore lichen Rinodina freyi e2, e3, h1, j1, k1
pimpled kidney lichen Nephroma resupinatum d2, d3, h1
pitted beard lichen Usnea cavernosa e2
Plagiochila liverwort Plagiochila asplenioides e2, f3, h1, j1
Plagiomnium moss Plagiomnium ciliare e3
Plagiomnium moss Plagiomnium cuspidatum d1, d2, d3, e2, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
Plagiomnium moss Plagiomnium drummondii d1, d2, e2
Plagiomnium moss Plagiomnium medium e3
Plagiomnium moss
species Plagiomnium sp. d2, e2, e3, f3, h1, k1, k2, k3, Shrubby Wetland
Plagiothecium moss Plagiothecium denticulatum e2
Plagiothecium moss Plagiothecium laetum e2, e3, f1, g1, k1
Platismatia lichen Platismatia glauca d2
Platygyrium moss Platygyrium repens Transect
Pohlia moss Pohlia cruda e3
Pohlia moss Pohlia sphagnicola e2, e3, f3, h1, i1, j1, k1, Regenerating Burn, Cutblock
Pohlia moss species Pohlia sp. e2, i1
Polytrichum moss species Polytrichum sp. c1, d3, e2, e3, f1, h1
powdered fringed lichen Heterodermia speciosa d1, d2, e2, Shrubby Wetland
powder-headed tube
lichen Hypogymnia tubulosa e3
Ptilidium liverwort Ptilidium ciliare c1, d3, e2, h1
Ptilidium liverwort Ptilidium pulcherrimum c1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f3, g1, h1, i1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
punctured ramalina Ramalina dilacerata e2, e3, h1, k1
purple horn-toothed moss Ceratodon purpureus b3, d2, e2, e3, h1
red collar moss Splachnum rubrum Transect
reindeer lichen Cladina mitis c1, d1, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, k1, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating Cutblock
reindeer lichen Cladina rangiferina c1, d3, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1
reindeer lichen Cladonia mitis c1, d2, e3, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, k1
Rhizomnium moss Rhizomnium gracile j1
Rhizomnium
Rhizomnium moss pseudopunctatum e2, f3, j1
Rhizomnium moss
species Rhizomnium sp. d1, e3, f3, j1, Shrubby Wetland
Riccardia liverwort Riccardia palmata d2, e2, f3, h1, j1
Riccardia liverwort
species Riccardia sp. e2
Page 1A-94

rock ramalina Ramalina intermedia d2, h1
rusty peat moss Sphagnum fuscum g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, k3, Regenerating Burn
salted starburst lichen Imshaugia aleurites h1, i1
scaly pelt lichen Peltigera praetextata c1, d3, h1, Cutblock
Scapania liverwort Scapania apiculata d3
Scapania liverwort Scapania glaucocephala b3, d1, d2, d3, e2
Scapania liverwort Scapania irrigua j1
b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating
Schreber's moss Pleurozium schreberi Burn, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock, Anthropogenic
Sclerophora lichen Sclerophora amabilis d1
Sclerophora lichen
species Sclerophora sp. e2, k1
shadow lichen Phaeophyscia ciliata d1
shore-growing peat moss Sphagnum riparium i1, j2
slender hair-cap Polytrichum strictum h1, j1, j2
smooth cladonia Cladonia gracilis d1
Cladonia gracilis ssp.
smooth cladonia turbinata b3, d1, f1, i1, j1, k1
snakeskin liverwort Conocephalum conicum e2, e3
soot lichen Cyphelium tigillare k2
speckled greenshield
lichen Flavopunctelia flaventior k2
speckled shield lichen Punctelia subrudecta k2
Sphinctrina lichen Sphinctrina anglica f3
Splachnum moss species Splachnum sp. j1, Shrubby Wetland
squarrose peat moss Sphagnum squarrosum e2, f2, f3, g1, h1, i2, j1, j2, k1, Shrubby Wetland
stair-step moss Hylocomium splendens b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, f1, f3, g1, h1, i1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock
star-tipped reindeer lichen Cladina stellaris c1, g1, i1
star-tipped reindeer lichen Cladonia stellaris i1, j1
Stenocybe lichen Stenocybe pullatula e2, h1, j1, k1, Shrubby Wetland
stiff club-moss Lycopodium annotinum b3, d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f3, g1, h1, j1, Regenerating Cutblock
stocking moss Pylaisiella polyantha d1, d2, e2, f3, h1, Shrubby Wetland
straw beard lichen Usnea scabrata g1, h1, j1, k1
studded leather lichen Peltigera aphthosa c1, d2, e2, f1, f3, h1, Regenerating Cutblock
sulphur stubble lichen Chaenotheca furfuracea Transect
Tetraphis moss Tetraphis pellucida d1, e2, f1, f3, g1, h1, j1
thin-leafed peat moss Sphagnum teres h1, j1, j2, k1
Thuidium moss Thuidium recognitum e2, f3
Thuidium moss species Thuidium sp. d1
Tritomaria liverwort Tritomaria exsectiformis e2, e3, f3
trumpet lichen Cladonia fimbriata b3, h1
c1, e2, f2, f3, g1, h1, i1, i2, j1, j2, k1, Shrubby Wetland, Regenerating Burn, Regenerating
tufted moss Aulacomnium palustre Cutblock
Usnea species Usnea sp. c1, d2, d3, e3, h1, i1, j1, k1, Regenerating Cutblock
Vulpicida lichen Vulpicida pinastri d2, e2, i1, i2, j1, k1, Regenerating Cutblock
wand lichen Cladonia rei d2
wavy dicranum Dicranum polysetum d1, h1, j1, Shrubby Wetland
wavy dicranum Dicranum undulatum c1, e2, i1, i2, j1, k1
whip fork moss Dicranum flagellare f1
wide-tongued peat moss Sphagnum russowii h1, j1, j2
wiry fern moss Abietinella abietina d1, d2, Regenerating Cutblock
yellow collar moss Splachnum luteum Transect
WEEDS, AGRONOMICS
alsike clover Trifolium hybridum Transect
annual hawk's-beard Crepis tectorum Transect
awnless brome Bromus inermis Transect
caraway Carum carvi Transect
cleavers Galium aparine Transect
clover species Trifolium sp. Regenerating Cutblock
common chickweed Stellaria media d2
common dandelion Taraxacum officinale e2, f2, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
common knotweed Polygonum arenastrum Transect
common plantain Plantago major e3
Page 1A-95

common tansy Tanacetum vulgare Transect
common toadflax Linaria vulgaris Transect
creeping thistle Cirsium arvense e1, Regenerating Cutblock, Cutblock
curled dock Rumex crispus Transect
hemp-nettle Galeopsis tetrahit d2, e1, e3, f2, Shrubby Wetland
lady’s-thumb Polygonum persicaria Transect
low cudweed Gnaphalium uliginosum Transect
pineappleweed Matricaria matricarioides Transect
red fescue Festuca rubra Anthropogenic
sow-thistle species Sonchus sp. Transect
timothy Phleum pratense Anthropogenic
Page 1A-96
ATTACHMENT 1A6
ELC SITE CARDS
Page 1A-97
1. Index sheet
2. b3 common blueberry Aw-Sw
3. c1 Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb
4. d1 low-bush cranberry Aw
5. d2 low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw
6. d3 low-bush cranberry Sw
7. e1 dogwood Pb-Aw
8. e2 dogwood Pb-Sw
9. e3 dogwood Sw
10. f1 horsetail Pb-Aw
11. f2 horsetail Pb-Sw
12. f3 horsetail Sw
13. g1 Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
14. h1 Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
15. i1 treed bog
16. i2 shrubby bog
17. j1 treed poor fen
18. j2 shrubby poor fen
19. k1 treed rich fen
20. k2 shrubby rich fen
21. k3 graminoid rich fen
22. l1 marsh
23. Shrubby Wetland
24. Meadow
25. Regenerating Burn
26. Regenerating Cutblock
27. Cutblock
28. Anthropogenic Disturbance
Page 1A-98
INDEX SHEET
ecosite phase code name
n=1 total number of plots designated as ecosite phase
b3 blueberry Aw-Sw
Percent
Layer Species1 Cover1
common name* of
characteristic species with
average
TREE
prominence value > 20 or

range
observed in a minimum of
CHARACTERISTIC SPECIES

Blackrod Baseline Discipline Reports Secure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Blackrod Baseline Discipline Reports Secure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blackrod Baseline Discipline Reports Secure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reference EIA Baseline

Submitted as part of:

3.0 AIR QUALITY

3.2 Scoping the Assessment

2.5 Air Emissions Management

3.1.1 Baseline Information

3.1.2 Impact Assessment

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting

3.2.3 Emission Criteria

3.2.4 Ambient Air Quality Criteria

3.2.4.1 Ambient Concentration Criteria

• Level 4, ambient NO2 or SO2 exceeds air quality limits;

• Level 2, ambient NO2 or SO2 below air quality limits; and

• Level 1, ambient NO2 or SO2 well below air quality limits.

3.2.4.2 Potential Acid Input (PAI) Deposition Criteria

3.2.4.3 Nitrogen Deposition Criteria

3.2.4.4 Visibility Criteria

• Excellent: The haze index is less than 14 dv.

• Good: The haze index is between 15 and 20 dv.

• Fair: The haze index is between 21 and 24 dv.

• Poor: The haze index is between 25 and 28 dv.

• Very Poor: The haze index is greater than 29 dv.

A change of 1 dv is often assumed to correspond to a “just-noticeable” visibility change. As there are no

PROVINCIAL AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTS

Agency Act, Regulation, Guideline Relevance to the Project

FEDERAL AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTS

Agency Act, Regulation, Guideline Relevance to the Project

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTS

Agency Frameworks Relevance to the Project

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY CRITERIA

TABLE 3.2-5 Cont’d

AEW CRITICAL, TARGET, AND MONITORING PAI DEPOSITION LOAD CRITERIA

Receptor Sensitivity Deposition Load Potential Acid Input (keq H+/ha/a)

3.2.5 Key Issues

• Human Health Assessment (multi-media exposure) – Volume 5, Section 4.0

• Terrain and Soils Assessment (acid deposition) – Volume 4, Section 4.0

KEY ISSUES – AIR QUALITY

Key Issue Relevance to Project

3.3.1.1 Model Domain

3.3.1.2 Local Study Area

3.3.1.3 Regional Study Area

3.3.2 Temporal Considerations

3.3.2.1 Model Considerations

3.3.2.2 Reference Conditions

3.3.2.3 Assessment Cases

3.3.3 Substance Selection

POTENTIAL SUBSTANCE GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT

TABLE 3.3-1 Cont'd

TABLE 3.3-1 Cont'd

3.3.4 Air Quality Assessment Method

3.3.4.1 Model Output Analysis

3.3.4.2 Model Uncertainty

Comparison of Predictions and Measurements

3.3.4.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

3.4 Project Mitigation and Regional Emissions

3.4.2 Project Emissions

A summary of Project emissions is provided in the following sections, including:

• normal combustion emissions;