ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF A SOUR GAS PROCESSiNG DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRAZEAU RTGION OF ALBTRTA

Prepared by: Gordon L. Brown

Presented to: The Natural Resource Institute University of Manitoba

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of llatural Resource l4anagement

February, 1977 ENV]RONMENTAL TMPACT ASSESSMENT

OF A SOUR GAS PROCESS]NG DEVELOPMENT

IN THE BRAZEAU REGION OF A],BERTA

by

GORDON L. BROT¡N

A practicum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Manitoba ín partial fulfillrnent of the requirements of the degree of

MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

@" ß77

Permíssion has been granted to the LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA to lend or serll copies of this practicum, to the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA to microfilrn this pracricum and to lend or se1l copies of Ëhe fi1m, and IINIVERSITY MICROFILMS to publish an abstract of this practicum.

The author reserves other publícatíon ríghts, and neither the practicum nor extensive extracts from Ít may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the authorrs rnrritten permÍssion. This report deals with a sour gas process'ing p'lant that was be'ing '1976. considered by lnlestern Decal ta Petrol eum Limi ted, as of July To facilitate the comp'letion of the detailed environmental impact assessment to be used for my practìcum at the l'latural Resource Institute, terms of reference were established based on the project as proposed at that time. However, the report does not necessarily reflect the final development proposal of Western Decalta Petroleum Limited. They may, in fact, choose a d'ifferent plant location, capacity, and confjguration.

February, 1977

Gordon L. Brown ABSTRACT

'ly Potenti a'l sÍ gn'i fi cant envi ronmental effects were i denti f j ed and evaluated pertaining to the construction and operat'ion of a sour gas processing facility being considered for development within the Lower Brazeau region of Alberta. The study examined adverse and beneficial impacts associated with the physical , biological o soc'ia'l and economic envi ronments .

The Lower Brazeau region is a relatíve'ly natural forested area within the lower foothjlls of the Boreal Forest. Major existing land uses include gas processing and hydro-electric power generat'ion. There are no occupied resÍdences withjn 20 mjles of the proposed development site. .l5.5 The plant under consideration would process approximately million standard cubic feet per day (MNSCFD) of raw gas containing 1.5 percent HrS, w'ith a production of 14.0 MMSCFD sales gas,8.4 long tons per day su]phur, and 195 barrels per day condensate. Raw gas would be collected from three wells through four miles of gathering system. The project would result in the direct disturbance of approximate'ly 40 acres of 'land, consjsting of gathering system rights-of-way (17 acres) and pìant site (23 acres).

The study revealed that the major adverse effects would be: (a) Direct loss of approximateìy 40 acres of vegetation related wi I dl i fe habi tat, and potenti a'l t'imberl and as wel I as the exposure of soils highly susceptible to erosÍon. (b) Production and release of low concentrations of S0, to the atmos phere . (c) Increased noise levels and general activity in the vicinity of the project site leading to a reduction in land capab'i1ity as ungu'late range adjacent to the site. (d) Land development opportunity costs, including reductions jn recreation capability and fur-harvest potentia'1. The primary positjve impacts that would be assocjated with the deve'lop- ment i ncl ude: (a) Approximately 292 nan-years of direct employment opportunities for Alberta residents over the 20 year life of the project. (b) Natural gas and condensate royalties paid to the government of Alberta would approximate 1.7 milljon dollars per year for each of the 20 years of the project. M'itigating measures to ameliorate adverse effects are recommended. l

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

AC KNOt,llEDGEFITNTS

I NTRODUCTION

] . O SUMIVIARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I I The project and the existing environment I I 2 Potentially significant environmental effects J I 3 Unavoidable adverse effects 5 I 4 Positive effects 6 I 5 Recommendations 7

2.0 THE PROJTCT 9

2.1 Natural gas characteristics 9 2.2 Gathering system l3 2.3 Gas processing and sulphur recovery plant l3

2.3.1 Capac'ity and production I 4 2.3.2 Gas processìng sulphur recovery facilities I 4 2.3.2.1 Inl et separator l4 2.3.2.2 Amine contactor 14 2.3.2.3 Amìne regenerator l6 2.3.2.4 Sulphur plant and incinerator l6 2.3.2.5 Chilling unit l6 2.3.2.6 Stabilizer tourer l6 2.3.2.7 Sour water stripper 17

2.4 Atmospheric emission sources 17

2.4.1 Suìphur plant incinerator stack 17 2.4.2 Flare stack l9 2.4.3 Fuel gas fired heaters l9

2.5 Aqueous effl uents l9 2.6 Sources of noíse, dust, and odour 21

?.6.1 Noi se 21 2.6.2 Dust 22 2.6.3 Odour 22

2.7 Serv'i cì ng requi rements 22 2.8 Construct'ion schedul e 23

3.0 EXISTING TNVIRONMENTAL CHARACTTRIST]CS 24

3.1 Physica'l environment 24

l.l Topographical features ?4 3 1.2 Geol ogical characterjstics 26 11.

TABLE 0F C0NTENTS (Continued) PAGE

3.1.2. I Bedrock formations 26 3.1.2.2 Surf i ci al depos'i ts 27

3 1.3 Soils 28 3 I .4 hJater resources 29

3.1.4.1 Surface water system 29 3.1.4.2 Groundwater system 3t

3. i.5 Cl imatic features 33

3.1 .5.1 Surface winds 33 3.'1.5.2 Temperature 34 3. I .5.3 Preci pi tati on 3B 3.1.5.4 Solar radiation and cloud cover 38 3..l.5.5 Hum'idi ty 4l 3.1.5.6 Fog 41

3.2 Bìo'logical environment 41

3.2.1 Vegetation communi ties 46 3.2.2 bl'i I d1 i fe popul ati ons 48

3.3 Social and economic environment 57 3.3. I txisting land use 57

3.3..l.1 Timber removal 59 3.3.1.2 Hydro-electric power development 59 3.3. I .3 Natural gas productiort 60 3.3.1.4 Fur trapping 60 3.3..l.5 Recreat'ion 64

3.3.2 Popul ati on 64 3.3.3 llatural resource capab'i I 'ity 67

4.0 TNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 76 4.1 Effects on air quality 76 4.1.1 Su'lphur dioxide emissions from incinerator stack 77 4.1.2 Sulphur dioxide emissions from the flare stack 84 4.1,2.1 Flaring raw gas B4 4.1 .2.2 Fl ari ng ac'id gas 84 4..l.3 Sour gas release from pipeline failures oto'7 iii.

TABLE 0F CONTENTS (Continued) PAGT

4.2 Effect on water resources 90 4.2.1 Process water requirements '90 4.2.2 l,laste water d'isposal 90 9l 4 "2.3 Process area runoff 4.3 Physical land changes 9l

4.3. I Proposed p'ìant site 9l 4.3.2 Proposed gathering system 92

92 4 .4 Effects on vegetation, soil, and wildlife 4.4.1 Effects on vegetation 93 4.4.1.1 Direct el'iminat'ion of vegetation commun'iti es 9 J 4.4.1.2 Changes in soil moisture 9 4 4.4.1.3 Possible effects to vegetat'ion from sulphur djoxide 94 4.4.2 Effects on so'il 97 98 4.4.3 Effects on wi 1 dl i fe

4.4.3 . 1 Ungul ates 99 [.L7, .2 Carnivores 100 4.4.3 .3 Smal I mammal s l0l 4.4.3 .4 l.Jaterfowl 102 4.4.3 .5 Other birds 102 4.5 Social and economic imPact 103 4.5..| Economic characterjstics of the proposed development 103 'l03 4.5..l ..l D'irect emp'l oyment 4.5.1 .2 Natural gâS, sulphur, and condensate .ì05 producti on 4.5. I .3 Effects on' existìng land use 106 4.5.1.3..| Timber production 106 4.5.1.3.2 Hydro-eiectric power development .l08107 4.5..l.3.3 Natural gas productjon 4.5.1.3.4 Fur trappjng 108 4.5.1.3.5 Recreatjon I 0g

4.5.1 .4 Effects on PoPul at'ion 109 't v.

TABLE 0F CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE

4.5.2 Changes i n natural resource capab'i 1 i ty ll0

4 .5 .2.1 Land capabi 1 ì ty for ungu'late range ll0 4.5.2.2 Land capab'il i ty for outdoor recreation ll0 4.5.2.3 Land capabi 1 i ty for I oggi ng lll ¿.q2 L Land capabi 1 i ty for graz'ing llr 4.5.2.5 Land capabi ì i ty for agri cu1 ture lll 4.5.2.6 Land capabi I i ty for sportfi sh ill 4.5.3 Aesthetic impact 112

REFERENCES r15

APPENDICES A - Water quality data - Brazeau River B - Vegetat'ion specìes common to the Brazeau study area C - The Gaussian model for predicting diffusion from a continuous point source D - Bosanquet, Carey, Ha'lton plume rise formula for stable atmospheres E - The 2/3 plume rise formula for neutral atmospheres v

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

2 .l Plant feed gas composit'ion. (on a water free basis) ll

2 .2 Sales gas specification. 12 2.3 Mass balance at design rate. i8

2.4 Potential sources and treatment of aqueous effluents. 20

3.1 Monthly maximum, minimum, and mean daily discharges in cubic feet per second for the Brazeau River below Big Bend Plant 1965 to 1974 and for the Brazeau River below Cardinal River 1971-197 5 . e.t

3.2 Cloud cover at Rocky ltlountain House. 43

3.3 Incidence of fog formation bas ed on ho urly ohservations over a l0-year period (1957-1966) at Rocky llountain House. 45 3.4 Typicaì forest vegetation types and edaphic factors l'ikely to occur within the study area. 49 3.5 Stand characteristics of typical forest vegetation types likely to occur within the study area. 50 3.6 Productivity rating of typìca1 forest vegetation types likely to occur within the study area. 5l

3. 7a Mammals common to the vicinity of the Brazeau study area. 53

3.7b Birds typica'l of the Brazeau study area. 54 3.8 Results of Brazeau River and surrounding reg'ion animal survey, January 6-9, 1976. 58

3.9 Fur-harvest history in the vicinity of the proposed Western Decalta gas p1ant. 62 '1974 3.l0 Average fur pelt value to 1976. 63

3 l1 Annual value of fur harvest in the vicinity of the proposed Ì,rlestern Decal ta gas p1ant. 65 3.,l2 Location and size of closest population centers to the proposed blestern Decalta gas p1ant. 66

3.13 Foothills Resource Allocation Study: suppliers of nesource i nventori es. 74 v] .

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

4.1 Itlaximum permissible level of sulphur d'iox'ide in the ambient ai r. 7B

L2 Incinerator stack emissìon parameters. 79

4.3 l4aximum elevations above plant base in the vicinity of the proposed plant site. 8l 4.4 Emission parameters and details of neighbouring gas processing pl ants. B5

46 Flare stack raw gas emission parameters. 86

4.6 Flare stack acid gas emission parameters. 88

4.7 l4inïmum average concentration of su'lphur dioxide at which injury to vegetation has occured 96

4.8 Summary of social and econornic effects related to the proposed devel opment. 104 vlr.

LIST OF FiGURIS PAGE

I . Locatìon of proposed Western Decalta Petroleum Ltd. gas processing development.

.1 Summary of potentia'l1y significant environmental effects resulting from construct'ion and operation of gas processing plant and gathering system. 4

2 .l Location of wells, we]'l access roads, proposed plant site, and proposed pipelines. l0

2 .2 Proposed process schemat'ic flowsheet. l5

3 I General outiine of study area. 25

3 .2 Major drainage districts in the vicinity of the study area. 30

3 .3 Mean annual wind speed and direction frequency chart based on l0 years of data gathered at Rocky Mountain House from 1957 to 1966. 35 3.4 The frequency of occurence of varíous wind speeds based on l0 years of data gathered at Rocky Mountaín House (1957 to 1e66). 36

3.5 Mean dai'ly temperature data as a function of time of year based on data gathered at Rocky Mountain House from l94l-'l970. 37 3.6 Mean total precipitation as a function of time of year based on data gathered at Rocky Mountain House from l94l-.l970. 39

3.7 Thunderstorm frequency and mean ra'infall intensity as a function of time'of year based on a l0 year period (1957-1966) and a 30 year period ('1941-1970) respective'ly of data gathered at Rocky Mountain House. 40 3.8 The number of hours of bright sunsh'ine as a function of time of year based on 30 years of data gathered at the Lacombe Experimental Farm (.l931-1960). 42

3.9 Mean relative humidity as a function of time of year based on l0 years of data gâthered at Rocky Mountain House ('1959- 1e66). 44 3.10 Major tree associations of study area. 47 3.ll Ungulate winter range 'in vicinìty of study area. 56 v]11.

L iST 0F F IGURES (Cont'i nued ) PAGE

3.12 General plan of Calgary Power Ltd. Brazeau storage and power deve I opmen t. 6l

3. l3 Land capab'i I i ty for ungu'late range. 6B

'l 3. l4 Land capabi i ty for outdoor recreat'ion . 69

3.15 Water capabi'lity for sportf ish. 70

3.16 Land capability for agriculture. 71

3.17 Forestry capabi I 'ity for l oggi ng. 72

3.lB Land capabi I 'ity for grazi ng. 73

4.1 Maximum calculated sulphur dioXide concentration as a function of wind speed. 82

4.2 Maximum calculated sulphur dioxide concentration as a function of downw'ind distance from the plant site. 83 ix.

AC KNOT{L TDGIMTNTS

I should l'ike to express my sincere thanks to those persons t^rho assisted me in the preparation of this report.

I am especial'ly grateful to Mr. J. Lukacs, President, [.lestern Research & Development Ltd. for the financial support and encouragement wh'ich enabled me to successfully complete the proiect.

Special acknowledgement is made to Mr. Jack Harper and Dr. J.P. Higgins of Western Decalta Petroleum Ltd. for permission to use thìs report for a practicum at the Natural Resource Institute; and to their staff members' Mr. Greg Hay and lvlr. Ken Basaraba who assisted'in gathering and supplying important data related to the study.

I am particularly grateful to the members of my practicum committee for their he'lp and encouragement: Mr. t.M. Berl ie, Mr. D.G. Colley and Dr' D.M. Leahey of Western Research & Development Ltd., and Mr. Dav'id Young of the Lombard t'lorth GrouP Ltd.

I would like to acknowledge with spec'ia'l thanks the technical assistance' interest, and support rendered by l4essrs. Chris Harvey and Mervyn Davjes, Mrs. Linda Sa'ad and Ms. Debbie Vekeman of l^lestern Research & Development Ltd., and Miss Pamela E. l'lcIntosh.

peopl F'i nal ly, I apprec'iate the ass'i stance f rom the f ol 1 ow'i ng e who supplied important information related to the study: Mr. R.H. Brown' Petrofina Canada; Mr. Ed Brushet, Energy Resources Conservation Board, Env'ironmental Protecti on Sect'ion; Mr. C. Miol sness , Spray Lakes Saw Mil1s; Mr. Frank Nuspel, Alberta Forest Service; and l4r. Guy Bouchen' Calgary Power Ltd. X

INTRODUCTION hlestern Decal ta Petrol eum Limi ted, Cal gary, Al berta , i s propos'ing to build a sour gas gathering system and gas process'ing/sulphur recovery plant about 35 miles southwest of Drayton Valley, Alberta. The development .l4.0 would faci'litate the production and sale of million standard cubic feet per day (Ì'4MSCFD) of natural gas from three gas wells in the Brazeau Shunda East Gas Field.

The location of the proposed development is shown in Figure 1.

Under Chapter 34 of the Alberta Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act (19i3), the Minister of the Env'ironment may, before approving the development proposed by l^lestern Decalta Petroleum Limited, request that a report conta'ining an assessment of the environmental impact be submitted. Th'is report was accordingly prepared for l¡lestern Decalta Petroleum Limited, who anticipate such a request, and who wish to avoid deìay to the greatest extent possible.

The objective of this environmental impact assessment report is to provide l.Jestern Decalta Petroleum Limited with comprehensive information concerning any potential env'ironmental effects associated with the proposed development. The scope and format of this study is consistent with the Alberta Environmental Impact Assessment System Interim Guidelines (re75).

The report 'is organized in the following manner: Chapter 1 sunmarizes the report and contains recommendations intended to reduce or ameliorate the extent of anticipated adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed development. Chapter 2 contains a descrjpt'ion of the proposed development, Chapter 3 describes the existjng physÍcal, biological and cultural environments that may be affected and Chapter 4 contajns a comprehensive discussion of the anticipated environmental ìmpacts that would be associated with the development. x'|.

A L B ERTA

Éß ß ù.1

EDîUIONTON

PEMBINA (r ORAYTON VAUEY ER I

SAS EWAN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT SITE

È CALGARY

Figure I LOCATION OF PROPOSED WESTERN DECALTA PETROLEUM LTD, GAS PROCESS ING DEVELOPM ENT. xll

The following terms or abbreviations used throughout the report are defined as they may not be familiar to all readers.

Natural qas: a naturall y occurrìng complex mixture of hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon constituents which is obtajned from a natural under- ground reservoir. It exìSts as a Vapour at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.

Raw (feed) gas: untreated natural gas

Sales gas: gas that has the qualìty to be used as a domestic fuel. It meets the specìfications set by a pipe'line transmission company and/or a distributing company.

Sweet qas: gas in which the hydrogen suìphide content is less than I gra i n per 'l 00 cubi c feet.

Sour gas: gas 'in which the hydrogen su'lphide content is greater than I gra'in per 100 cubic feet.

Acid qas: concentrated H ,S and C0, gas stream off a desulphurization unit which becomes the feed to the sulphur recovery plant.

l¡let gas: gas that contains more than 0..| U.S.gallons per thousand cubic feet of condensate.

Condensate: hydrocarbon ljquid fract'ion obtained from a gas stream containing essentially pentanes and heavier hydrocarbons.

Lean gas: gas which contains less than 0.7 U.S. gallons per thousand cubic feet of propane and heav'ier hydrocarbons.

Ri ch qas: gas which contains more than 0.7 U.S. ga1'lons per thousand cubic feet of propane and heavíer hydrocarbons x] 1l .

Gathering gy$-q!1: the system of p'ipef ines transmitting gas from the wellheads to the processing plant.

MMSCFD: million standard cubic feet per day bpd: barrels per daY

LTD: 1 ong tons per day igpm: Imperial galIons Per minute ppm: parts per mì I I i on

Lsd: legal subdivisìon, the smallest un'it in the land survey system' approximately 40 acres. I

I. O SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS l.l The proiect and the ex'istinq env'ironment l^lestern Decalta Petroleum Limited is proposing to build a sour gas gathering system and gas processing/sulphur recovery plant in the eastern portion of the Brazeau Gas Field, approxímateìy 35 miles southwest of Drayton Valley, Alberta. The proposed plant would occupy an area of approx'imately 23 acres in the southeast quarter of Section 33, Township 45, Range 12, I.lest of the Fifth Meridian. Raw gas would be collected from three wells located as follows:

(a) Lsd 6, Section 3, TownshiP 46, Range 12, West Fifth Meridian; (b) Lsd ll, Section 27, Township 45, Range 12, West Fifth Meridian; (c) Lsd 'l5, Section 35, Townshìp 45, Range 12, West Fifth Meridian.

The total length of the gathering system would be about four miles (6.4 km) and it would occupy a total right-of-way area of approximately'17 acres.

Normal operating throughput for the system would be approximately 15.5 MMSCFD of raw gas conta'ining 1.5 percent hydrogen sulphìde, with a production of 14.0 MMSCFD sweet gas, 8.4 LTD sulphur and 195 bpd condensate. Sa'les gas would be pipelined by Alberta Gas Trunk Line to the main gas transmission line l0 miles (.l6 km) west of the plant site. As sulphur market'ing wou'ld be uneconomical , sulphur would be stored in block form on the site. Condensate would be stored in a 5000 barrel storage tank on the site and trucked out on a routine basis.

Process'ing plant units would consist of an inlet separator, a conventional diethanolamine (DEA) sweetening plant and a two stage Claus sulphur recovery plant. Tai'l gas would be 'inc'inerated and discharged through a 200 foot (61 meter) stack desìgned to ma'intain su'lphur dìoxìde concentrations at treetop-1eve'l below the 0.2 ppm half-hourly average required by 2

Alberta Environment. In the event of a gas processing plant or sulphur plant shutdown, the raw feed gas or suiphur plant acid gas would be flared from a 160 foot (49 meter) stack. Should the raw gas be flared, treetop-level su'lphur dioxide concentrations would be maintaìned below 0.2 ppm at all times. In order to maintain treetop-level sulphur dioxide concentrations below the 0.2 ppm half-hourly average when acid gas'is flared, e'ither the flarìng time would be limited to ten minutes, or, as an ajternAtive, the acjd gas would be supplemented by 1.5 MMSCFD fuel gas.

Water requirements would be approximately five Igpm which would be obtained from a well drilled on the piant site. All process plant liquid effluents would be stored jn a storage tank on site and would be periodically disposed of in a waste watelinjection weli. No liquid wastes would be discharged to the surface or ground water system at any time.

Topography'in the vic'in'ity of the proposed development is gently ro1ì'ing. Elevatjons vary from 3150 feet above sea level in the valley of the Brazeau River to 4000 feet above sea level approxíinately 13 mjles (21 km) west of the plant s'ite. The elevation at the proposed plant sjte js 3250 feet above sea I evel .

The area is underlain by Paskapoo formation bedrock. Surficial deposits include glac'ial till, lake and river clays and sand and grave'l . Major soil types of the region are of the gray wooded variety and the organic vari ety.

Climate of the area is continental, having short warm summers and long cold winters; the warmest month is July with an average temperature of 15.5'C, and the coldest is January with an average temperature of -13'C. l,linds are predominantly from the northwest with a mean annual speed of about 9 km/hr. Annual precip'itation is about 500 mm, with approximately .l00 mm falling in June. 3

Heavy forests of 'lodgepo'l e p'ine, bl ack spruce , tamarack, and trembf ing aspen, provide good habitat for a varìety of birds and manmals. Land uses in the region include hydro-electric power generation, natural gas processingr occasional timber removal, and fur trapping. 0nly occasional human recreational act'ivitjes are supported in the area' in the form of bjg game hunting and sport fishing. There are no occupied res'idences within 20 miles (:Z tm) of the proposed gas processing pl ant.

1 .2 Potential I y siqnificant env'ironmental effects

A summary of the anti ci pated potenti al 1y si gn'if i cant env'ironmental eff ects that would result from the construction and operation of the proposed gas processing plant and gathering system is given jn F'igure l.l. It is intended to indicate possible areas of concern that may exist between the development and various components of the existing environment. Although F'igure 1.1 summarizes potential impacts as having e'ither adverse or beneficial effects, it should not be cons'idered as a comprehens'ive end product since it is useful only to identify possìb1e genera'l effects.

Adverse effects are categorized into three levels; minor, moderate, and major. Minor effects are intended to represent potentially mìn'imal or reJative'ly ins'ignificant effects. Moderate effects are potential ly significant although the degree of impact may be short term or would not be considered serious if mit'igat'ing measures were emp'loyed. l'1aior effects are potentially signifjcant effects that generally would be unavoidable even though m'itìgating measures would lessen the degree of impact to a certain extent.

For example in Figure l.l, the potential adverse effect upon soi'ls sìtuated along the pipe'line route and on the plant site during constructìon 'is considered to be major. This'is due to the high potent'ial for soil erosion resulting from the clearìng of protectìve vegetat'ion cover, and the di strubance of top soi'l for gradÌ ng and pi pel i ne buri al . M'it'igati ng 4

POTENTIALLY SIG N IF ICANT EFFECTS DURING

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT OPERATION * a AREA S OF IMPACT I Zlr* 2'* SOILS c e e € LAND LAND FORMS e e Þ WATER SURFACE WATER o o Jul.z QUAL ITY GROUND WATER É= o 0 >GØo WATER SURFACE WATER 0 e o o r> F LOW O.2 REG IME GROUND WATER o o l¡J AIR QUALITY o o o ATMOSPHERE NOISE o c o ODOUR 0 o o

, t-- TREES c o o o VEGETATION fñY> SHRUBS c G o + a)z BIRDS o o o Y+ o>38 ûã WILDLIFE SMALL MAMMALS o o o yi LARGE MAMMALS e e e % LAND RECREATION o o o % ,zl-- HYDRO POWER tYãu Z. ?6 USE TIMBER PRODUCTION o o o o !E FUR TRAPPING o o o2=t SCEN IC VIEWS e e o o t-rJ SOCIAL EMPLOYMENT + + + + EC0N0 M I C POPULAT ION

POTENTIAL EFFECT SYMBOLS

o MINOR ADVERSE EFFECT e MODERATE ADVERSE EFFECT o MAJOR ADVERSE EFFECT + BENEFICIAL EFFECT NO EFFECT MIXED EFFECT

Figure r.l SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF GAS PROCESSING PLANT AND GATHERING SYSTEM. * I - LAND INFLUENCED BY THE PROPOSED PLANÏ +N 2 _ LAND INFLUENCED BY THE PROPOSED GAS GATHERING SYSTEM 5

measures wou'ld lessen the degree of impact to a certain extent, however, soil erosion during construction could be significant. During operation, after revegetation has taken place along the pipeline rights-of-wôY, the potential adverse effects upon soijs is considered to be moderate.

It is stressed that Figure 1.1 s'imp1y serves to outline potent'ia1 areas of concern. For more detailed discussion of specifjc environmental effects and poss.ible interactions the reader should refer to Chapter 5.

1.3 Unavoidable adverse effects

Major unavoidable adverse effects that are anticipated to be associated with the constructjon and operation of the llJestern Decaita Petroleum Limited gathering system and gas processing plant are:

(a) Adverse effects associated with clearìng and grading operations, i nc1 udi ng:

a loss of approximate'ly 40 acres of potential tjmberland; a major disturbance to approximate'ly 23 acres of landform due to grading operations on the plant site; a removal of al'l vegetation and related wìldlife habitat within the proposed development area of approx'imately 40 acres; o exposure of approximately 40 acres of so'ils duning construct'ion of the plant and gathering system which would be highly suscept'ib1e to erosion due to the loss of protective forest cover.

(b) Sulphur dioxide would be released to the atmosphere a'lthough treetop- level concentrations would be maintained w'ithin the Alberta Environment half-hourly average sulphur dioxide concentration of 0.2 ppm at all times.

(c) No'ise levels and general activity jn the vicjnjty of the plant site and gathering system would increase during the construct'ion period. 6

(d) Land capability as ungulate range along the northern shore of the Brazeau River south of the proposed development may be permanent'ly reduced due to the general no'ise and activ'ity assocìated with gas p1 ant operat'ion.

(e) Plant and well access roads would be upgraded al'lowing better access for big game hunters, which would result in increased hunting pressure.

(f) The fur harvest capabilìty of the lanä in the immedìate vic'inity of the proposed development would be reduced.

(g) An aesthetic impact on the forest sett'ing would be assoc'iated with the erection of permanent plant structures. The only structures that would be visible at any distance would be the 200 foot (61 meter) ,l60 incinerator stack and the foot (49 meter) f]are stack.

1.4 Positive effects

A number of posìtive effects would be associated with the proposed development; the most sign'ificant of which are:

(a) Construction and operation would provide djrect employment opportunitìes for Alberta residents. Approximately 292 nan years of emp'loyment would be made avaìlable over the 20 year'life of the proiect.

(b) Natural gas and condensate royaìties paìd to the province of Alberta would be in the order of 1.7 million dollars for each year of productì on.

(c) Thick forest presentìy unsu'itable as ungulate grazing land would be cleared along the pipelìne corrjdors resuìting in a new food source of colonizing vegetat'ion types preferred by ungulates. A favourable edge effect would develop around the plant site and a'long the pipe'lìne corridors creatìng new habjtat for birds and small mammalS. 7

(d) Slightly improved access (an addit'ional four miles) would be made available to big game hunters and fishermen.

I .5 Recommendations

A wel'l planned and organized program that would mìn'im'ize the potential adverse effects on the environment is an essential element of the design' construction, and operation of any industrial development. Modern po1'lut'ion control technology, conservatidn practices and other mìtigating measures would serve to ameliorate the possible negative ìmpact on the local atmosphere, soil, and water regimes and also to associated vegetation, wildlife and human components.

The fol'lowing mitigating measures are recommended to ensure that the potentiaì adverse envìronmental effects resulting from the proposed Western Decalta Petroleum Lìmited gas processing operatjons may be minimized.

(a) During construct'ion, activity should be restricted to w'ithin the plant site boundaries and pipe'line rights-of-way. Disturbance of natura'l vegetation, water bod'ies, denning s'ites and other wildlife habi tat shoul d be avoi ded i f poss'ibl e.

(b) An archaeolog'ica'l or h'istoric s'ite field investigation should precede or coincide with clearing and construction for those areas where land would be disturbed.

(c) Areas of severe topograph'ic relief shouid be avoided in the selection of the final pipeline routes. Gathering system corridors should paraì1eì, to the extent practical, the existìng we1'l access roads. B

(d) The perimeter of the plant site should be revegetated to reduce rain water runoff and soil erosion outside the process area.

(e) Revegetation should be conducted aìong the p'ipef ine rights-of-way immediately after construction to minimize soil eros'ion along the corridors and to provide future wildlife grazing and refuge areas.

(f) tquipment specifications and location should be planned to minimize noise during p1ant, operation.

(g) Strict control of food waste d'isposa'l should be emp'loyed to protect wildljfe and to prevent conflicts with black bears.

(h) blith the exception of the upper portÍon of the flare and'incinerator stacks, low visibility colours should be used on all structures to reduce vìsual impact to recreationists.

(i) All merchantable timber should be removed for sawlog purposes prìor to Iand clearing operatjons.

(j) All process waste fluids should be disposed of in a deep'iniection well. All process area water runoff should be directed to an impermeable hold'ing pond and tested for water quality before being released to the surface water system.

(k) If Calgary Power Ltd. should raise the level of the Brazeau Reservoir to 3200 feet above sea I evel from the present 3l 70 feet above sea level, the 6-3-46-12 wellhead should be elevated to 4 feet above the maximum water level. A pad should be built around the wellhead for access purposes and the access road should be upgraded accordjngly 9

2.0 THE PROJECT

Western Decalta Petroleum Ltd. is proposing to construct a sour gas gathering system and gas processing plant about 35 miles southwest of Drayton Valìey, Alberta to collect and process sour natural gas from three gas we'lls located within the Brazeau East Gas Field. The proposed locations of the gathering system and processing plant jn relation to the gas wells are shown in Figure 2.1.

This chapter of the report outlines the maior characteristics of the proposed development and the associated potential sources of environmental impact. The majority of the process and design details and characteristics have been supplied by hlestern Decalta Petroleum Ltd.

2.1 Natural g as characteri st'ics

The combined raw gas composition is gìven in Table 2.1. The major components of the gas are hydrocarbons (totalling 93.85 Mol %), nitrogen, (O.iS t'lol %), carbon dioxide (4.50 Mol %), and hydrogen su'lphide (1.50 Mol %). The raw rich sour gas is saturated with water vapour at formatjon temperature and pressure.

Before the gas can be sold for domestic or commercial use it must meet certain market and transport specifications. The acjd gas components (hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide), water vapour, the maiority of butane, and all of the pentanes and heavier hydrocarbons must be removed.

The sales gas would be delivered to the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Ltd. (AGTL). The required sales gas spec'ification is given in Tabl e ?.2.

The gathering system and processing plant are specified and designed primarily on the basis of the raw gas characteristics. Local environmental features are a major cons'ideration in the design of certajn equipment. j For exampl e, the prevai'l 'ing meteorol og'ical condi t ons and the I ocal topography are ìmportant in the determinatjon of the incinerator and 10.

Tp.46 Tp.46

6-3

r5-35

¡{4-e-st '#$-33 / -- y' \ Progosed \ Plont Silc Tp. 45 n-27 Tp.45

Ronge lZ

WESTERN OECALTA PETROLEUM LTD. ACCESS ROAOS. ...-.-- PROPOSEO PIPELINE ROUTE

+ wESTERN DEcALTA PETRoLEuM LTo. wELLs åF HUDsoN's BAY otL AND GAs LTD wELLS

FIGUR E 2.1 LOCATION OF WELLS, WELL ACCESS ROADS' PROPOSED PLANT SITE, AND PROPOSED PIPELINES. ll.

Tabl e 2. I

PLANT FEED GAS COMPOSITION (ON A WATER FREE BASIS)

Component Mole %

N2 0.15 coz 4.50

HzS I .50 Cl (methane) 87.28 CZ (ethane) 3.72 cs (propane) 0. 96 iC4 (iso-butane) 0.27 nC4 (normal butane) 0.31 iCs (iso-pentane) 0.15 nCb (normal pentane) 0.12 Co (hexane) 0. l6 CZ* (heptanes plus) 0. 88 Total 100.00 12

Table 2.2

SALES GAS SPECIFTCATION

Characteri sti c Speci fi cati on

Gross heatjng value 975 BTU per SCF (minimum) Hydrocarbon dew point I5oF (max'imum) 'lb Water content 4 per MMSCF (max'imum) HrS content 0.25 grai ns per 100 SCF (max'imum) Mercaptans 0.2 grains per 100 SCF (maximum) 'l .l00 Total suì phur .0 grain per SCF (max'imum) (maximum) C0, Mo'l % 2. 0

Source: Berlie (197]) 13. flare stack heights. The design must incorporate features that would enable the sales gas specifications to be met while maintainìng aì1 atmospheric and aqueous emissions below the limits establ'ished by the Alberta Department of the Envìronment. The max'imum perm'issible concentrations of air and water emiss'ions are discussed in Sections 4..l and 4.2.

2.2 Gathering system

The raw gas wou'ld be collected from three wells and transported to the processing plant by means of small diameter (three-inch) two-phase f'low pipelines. The wells are located as follows:

.|2, (a) Lsd. 6, Sectjon 3, Townshjp 46, Range l,Jest Fifth Meridian. .|2, (b) Lsd. ll, Sectjon 27, Townsh'ip 45, Range West Fifth Meridian

(c) Lsd. 15, Section 35, Townsh'ip 45, Range 12, Ì¡lest Fifth Merjdian

As shown jn F'igure 2.1, the maiority of the gathering system would be constructed adjacent to the existing well access roads'in which case an additional 33-foot right-of'way would be employed. Otherwise, a 50-foot right-of -way wou.ld be requi red.

All line heat'ing or dehydration equ'ipment to prevent hydrate formatìon in the gathering system would be located at the wellheads. The heaters wou'ld be fired by fue'l gas supplied by the process'ing plant through a small (approximately one-inch) diameter fuel line.

2.3 Gas processinq and sulphur rec overv pl ant

The proposed plant site would occupy approx'imateìy 23 acres' on an elevated piece of land between the three wells, in the southeast quarter .l2, of Section 33, Township 45, Range l¡lest of the Fifth Meridian' 14.

2.3.1 Capacity and Product'ion

The plant would have a design in'let capacity of 19.4.l million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCFD) of raw gas, although the normal operat'ing inlet rate would be 15.53 MMSCFD raw gas. The design rate is 125% of normal operatìng capacity. At the desìgn rate, 17.50 I4MSCFD sales gas, 243 barrels per day (bpd) of condensate and 10.50 long tons per day (LTD) of elemental sulphur would be produced. At the normal operating rate of 14.00 MMSCFD sales gas, 195 bpd of condensate and 8.40 LTD of elemental sulphur would be produced.

The design rates are used jn th'is report as they represent the maximun throughput, and therefore the maxjmum emission rates.

2.3.2 Gas processing and sulphur recovery fac'ilities

A simpì'ified diagram of the major process units'is given in Fìgure 2.2. A non-comprehensive discuss'ion of the maior facilities and the basic process'is given below.

2.3.2.1 Inl et seParator

The combined raw gas from the three wells would enter the inlet separator where sour formation water and condensate would be separated from the gas. Sour water would be fed to the sour water strjpper (not shown) and condensate would be fed to the stabilizer tower.

2,3.2.2 Amine contactor

The raw gas would then enter a diethanolamine (DEA) sweetenìng p'lant where hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxìde would be absorbed by contact w'ith DEA solution (22.5%) in a hÍgh pressure tower. The sweetened gas would then flow to the ch'illing un'it and the rich DEA solution would be fed to the amjne regenerator. FUE L FLUE rAl Éi oa3 0a3 VAPOR

REFRIGERATION lALE! G^' swEEÌ 0^3 CHILLINO UNIT lt7.5Lx ic¡o)

coN0Exs,rfÉ

R^W oa 3 II.ILE T S E PARÀTOR FUÉL FUEL ( 10.41 ur¡ AM¡NE ea3 0as I r¡CtH ERAYOT ¡cF0 ) 3T^cK CONTACTOR fÂt L ora0EHSaTE SULPHUR 0^3 INCINÉ,RATOR 0 GAS^cr O^9 PLÀN f SOUR WAÍER FUEL IO SfRIPPÉR fO SCRUSSER

AMINE

REGENERÀTOR STABILIZER 3UL'I{UR PRODUCT TO sroRAef SLOCK TOWE R ( lo.ô LTD rtxll¡ut¡ )

sîÀ 3r Lti :c CONJÉNSATE ( 2+J Þrd )

FIGURE 2.2 PROPOSED PROCESS SCHEMATIC FLOWSHEET

J (tl 16.

2,3.2.3 Amine regenerator

The rich DEA solutìon would be stripped jn the amine regenerator, and the resulting'lean DEA solution would be recycled to the amine contactor. Ac.id gas, composed of hydrogen sulphíde, carbon d'ioxide and water vapour' would be directed to the sulphur plant.

2.3.2.4 Suìphur p'lant and incinerator

At des'ign rate approx'imately 1.2 MMSCFD acid gas would enter a two stage Claus sulphur recovery plant des'igned to operate with a 95% recovery effjciency. At thjs rate 10.5 LTD of elemental sulphur would be produced and stored in block form on the site, as marketing would not be economical' Tail gas from the sulphur plant would be incinerated with fuel gas and the combustion products would be emitted through the incinerator stack. The proposed incinerator stack height is 6l meters (2OO feet).

2.3.2.5 Chilling un'it

Sweetened gas from the amine contactor would enter the chilfing unit where it would be cooled by heat exchange and propane refrigerat'ion. Glycol would be injected'into the ch'illed gas which would subsequently enter a separation vessel (not shown). Glycol-water solution and un- stabi I i zed condensate woul d be removed, I eav'i ng I 7. 5 MMSCFD sal es gas for delivery to AGTL at the boundary of the plant site. The glycol solution would be regenerated by means of a fuel gas fired reboiler and recycled, and condensate would be fed to the stab'ilizer tower.

2.3.2.6 Stabi I izer tower

At the design rate a total of 294 bpd of unstabilized condensate from the in'let separator and the chilling unìt would enter the low pressure stabilizer tower produc'ing 243 bpd of stabiljzed condensate and 80,000 SCFD of fuel gas. Stabilized condensate would be retajned'in a 5'000 ga1lon storage tank to be trucked out period'ically. Fuel gas would be used for normal process operations. 17.

2.3.2.7 Sour water stripper

Sour format'ion water from the inlet separator would be stripped with sales gas to remove the majorìty of the hydrogen sulphide. The formation water would then be stored in a closed holding tank and trucked out periodica]]y to be injected into a disposal well.

2.4 Atmospheric emission sources

There would be three sources of atmospheric emissions: the su'lphur plant incinerator stack, the flare stack, and the fuel gas fired heaters.

The mass balance at des'ign rate for the raw gas, the sweet gas from the amine contactor, the ac'id gas, and the sales gas are g'iven in Table 2.3.

2.4.1 Sulphur plant incinerator stack

At the design rate, 1.2 MMSCFD of acid gas would be fed to the sulphur plant which would convert 95% of the hydrogen sulph'ide content to elemental sulphur. The remain'ing su'lphur equÌvalent would be:

Flow rate (raw gas) = 2132.44 moles/hr Flow rate (HZS) = 31.86 moles/hr Acid gas not converted = 31.86 moles/hr x 5/100 = 1.593 moles/hr = 1.593 moles/hr x 32 I b/mole x 24 hours/dav '¿240 \bllong ton = 0.55 LTD sul phur equ'iva'lent

The unconverted sulphur would be incinerated with fuel gas and emitted through the incinerator stack. 0n combustion, hydrogen su'lphide forms sulphur dioxjde on a mole for mole basis. Thus the correspondìng sulphur dioxide emission rate would be:

1"593 moles/hr (HzS) 386 SCF/mole x = 0.17 SCF/second of S0, 3600 seconds/hr l8

Tabl e 2. 3

MASS BALANCE AT DESIGN RATE

component Raw gas Sweet gas* Acid gas saìes gas

N2 3.20 3.06 0.13 3.06 coz 45. 59 0.00 93.80 0. 00

HeS 31.86 0. 00 30. 75 0.00 cr l86l .68 1 847.80 2.53 I Bl 7.41 cz 79.33 77.30 0. 30 72.7 4 .l6.00 c3 20.47 19.29 0.10 ic+ 5.76 5.21 0.0'l 3. 6l nc4 6.61 5. B0 0. 00 3. 59 ìcs 3.20 2.55 0. 00 1 .21 nC- 2.56 1.92 0.00 0.79 5 co 3.41 I .95 0. 00 0. 49 c7* 18.77 3.79 0. 00 1.29

Total s Mol es/hr 2132.44 I 968.83 127 .63 1920.20

MMSCFD 19.41 18.24 l.r9 17.47

* from amine contactor 19.

2.4.?- Fl are stack

If the gas processing p'lant should experìence a shutdown the raw gas wou'ìd be directed to the flare stack where jt would be ignited by the flare p'iiot burners. The proposed flare stack he'ight is 49 meters (.l60 feet).

In the event of a sulphur plant shutdown the acid gas would be flared. At the des'ign rate, the raw gas flare rate would be 19.41 MMSCFD and the acid gas flare rate 1.2 MMSCFD. In each case 31.86 moles per hour of hydrogen sulphide would be released. The corresponding sulphur dìoxìde emission rate would be:

(HrS) 3l .86 moles/hr x 386 SCF/mol e = 3.42 SCF/second of S0, 3600 seconds/hour

2.4.3 Fuel gas fired heaters

Fuel gas would be used on a continuous basjs in the sulphur p'ìant reactjon furnace, the suìphur plant ìncinerator, the glycol regeneration heaters' and in the flare stack pilot burners. The fuel gas wou'ld be obtained from normal pl ant operat'ions i ncl udi ng am'ine f I ash'ing and condensate stabil ization.

The fuel gas emissions would in all cases conta'in only low concentratjons of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. The combustion products from fuel gas burnt'in the sulphur plant would be emitted from the incjnerator stack. The flare pilot burner emissions would be emitted through the flare stack. The other heaters would emit their combust'ion products through small 'individual stacks, approximately l0 meters (32 feet) ìn hei ght.

2.5 Aqueous effl uents

There would be a number of sources of aqueous effluents resulting from the norma'l operation. These are listed in Table 2.4 together with the flow rate of each, the contamjnants present, the treatments that would be empì oyed, and the dì sposa'l methods . Tabl e 2.4

POTENTIAL SOURCES AND TREATMENT OF AQUEOUS EFFLUENTS

Fl owrate Source (g.p.m.) Contami nant Treatment Di sposal

Inl et separator 2.0 H2S formation water and Sour water stripper Storage tank and disposal hydrocarbons wel I

I 0.5 H S, hydrocarbons Sour water stripper Storage tank and disposal Condensate stab'i izer 2 feed drum wel I

Sulphur plant inlet 0.5 H2S, DtA, hydrocarbons Recycl ed to am'ine knockout drum surge tank

Fl oor washings 1.0 Oil and grease, DEA none Di sposa'l we'l 1 treatment chemical s

Sanitary waste 1.0 Sewage Septic tank Field

N) O 21.

The sour water from the'inlet separator and stabilizer feed drum would be treated to reduce the hydrogen su'lphide content, then retained in a sealed storage tank prior to d'isposa'l .

The process area and storage area at the plant site would occupy approxÍmate'ly '160,000 square feet. Surface rainwater runoff would be collected in ditches and directed to a 250,000 Imperia'l gaì1on capacìty holding pond. The runoff water would be retained jn this pond and would be tested before release to the surface dra'inage to ensure that the wastewater l'imits contained w'ithin the Alberta Clean Water Act were not being exceeded.

2.6 Sources of noìse dust, and odour

The primary disturbance resulting from excessive noise levels, dust and odours would be assocìated with the construct'ion of the plant and facilities. Disturbance would be caused by the operations of heavy earth moving equ'ipment, fabrication no'ise, and construction veh'icle traffi c.

The potential sources of noise, dust, and odour durìng normal plant operations are as follows.

2.6.1 Noise

The most significant sources of noise associated with plant operatìons would be (a) exhaust and mechanical no'ise from the reciprocating compressors' (b) fan noise resulting from the operat'ion of air blowers at the inlets to the sulphur p]ant and tail gas incinerator, and (c) fan noise associated with the aerial coolers.

The noise levels assocjated with the operat'ion of all equipment would comply with existing Energy Resources Conservatjon Board guìde1ìnes which state the noise levels may not exceed 65 dB(A) by day as measured at the closest residence, and 50 dB(A) bV nìght. Where possìble noise 22

levels would comply wjth Alberta Department of Labour requirements for workplace nojse levels. If not possible workers would be required to wear noise protect'ion in areas where the noise levels exceeded 85 dBA' or limjt their exposure (Alberta Board of Health Regu'lation 30/71).

2.6.2 Dust

Due to market condjtions, liquid sulphur product'ion will be poured on a sul phur bl ock for long term storage 'in sol'id form.

When the sulphur is shipped in the future, it would be melted and recovered from the storage block'in a way that would substantially eliminate the dust problem.

2.6.3 Odour

The most significant sources of odour assoc'iated with the process would be the hydrogen sulph'ide and su'lphur dioxide from the sulphur plant operation, liquìd sulphur pourìng on the sulphur b1ock, and inc'inerator stack emiss'ions.

'in The only major chemicals used the process, diethanolam'ine and g1yco1 ' are well contaìned and give off little obiectionable odour. Condensate is another possible source of odour, although careful handling techniques w'ithin the process would effectively contajn thjs potentìa1 source of odour.

2.7 Servicin re u'irements

The estimated maxjmum electrical power requirements of approx'imately 100 kw would be supp'lied by Calgary Power Ltd. The closest transmission I ine, orig'inat'ing at the Calgary Power Brazeau power station (ìocated in the south half of Township 46, Range 1l) runs south along the eastern side of the Brazeau Reservoir, then swings west and terminates at the 23.

,l0, Tennaco gas p'ìant (Section Township 44, Range l2). The Western Decalta transmission l'ine would likely run north from the Tennaco plant along the west side of the Brazeau Reservojr, then east to the p'lant.

The estimated water requirement of 5 lgpm would be obtained from a well drilled on the plant site. Approximately half of this water would be used for process pìant requ'irements and half for floor washing and san'itary purposes.

2.8 Construction schedul e

The estimated construction time for the gathering system and processìng p'lant is eight months. Subject to the necessary approvals construction would begin in the sprìng of 1977 with plant completion and start up about a year later. 24

3. EXISTING ENViRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

Thìs chapter summarizes the major features of the physical and b'io'logica'l environment, land use, land resource capab'il'ities, and the social and economic env'ironments that would be affected by the development. In Chapter 4 the antjc'ipated jnteractjons between the proposed development and the exi sti ng envi ronmental characteri st'ics w'i I I be described.

The study area, as shown in Figure 3.1, refers spec'ifically to the southern half of Township 46, Range 12, west of the Fifth l4eridìan, and the northern half of Township 45, Range 12, west of the Fifth Meridian.

3.1 Physical env'ironment

The physical environment refers to the existing topographica'l features, geologìca1 featureso water resources, soils and climate. The various characteristics of the physica'l env'ironment that are described do not necessari'ly refer to areas that would be directly affected. However' certajn characteristjcs are included which are sjgnifìcant in the determinatìon of potent'iaì1y s'ignìficant interactions. For example, the topographìcal features sumound'ing the proposed development that are included are important jn calculating the maximum suìphur diox'ide concentrations that would occur at varjous distances from the gas processing plant. Climatìc features are also important in determ'ining sulphur dioxide concentrations.

3.1.1 Topograph'icaì features

The study area is situated within the Western Alberta High Pìains (Toharsky, 1971) and is characterized by ro11ìng to hjlly topography. Relief varies from less than 3.|50 feet above sea level (ASL) in the Brazeau River valley to over 3400 feet ASL at the western boundary of the stud.v area. Ì^lith the exceptìon of the Brazeau River valley, relief is relatively gen¡e'in the eastern half of the study area, with elevat'ions averaging about 3200 feet ASL. A number of ranges of hills surround the area 0n all sjdes, with maximum elevations rang'ing from 3250 to greater than 3700 feet ASL. 25.

0

Tp. 46

6.3

15 -35

6-3t 33

ro pos ed Plont Site

6-?9 il-27 Tn \ 45 O Õ

â

, Rge l2

FIGURE 3.I GENERAL OUTLINE OF STUDY AREA 26.

Outside the study area the topography rises steadily'in elevation to the west and southwest, reachi ng e'l evati ons 'in the footh'i I I s bel t 'in excess of 5000 feet at the western boundary of the Lower Brazeau drainage di stri ct.

The average elevation east of the study area drops to about 2700 feet at the junction of the Brazeau and North Saskatchewan rivers. The mean slope of the Lower Brazeau drainage distrjct is about 7.5 percent.

3.1.2 Geological characteristics

The primary geolog'ical characteristics are described in terms of bedrock formations and surficial deposits.

3. I . 2. 1 Bedrock formati ons

Qn'ly one bedrock format'ion'is exposed'in this portìon of the Western Alberta High P'lajns. This is the continental, Upper Cretaceous-Tertìary Paskapoo formation, which js correlative to the upper part of the Brazeau formation of the foothills. The Paskapoo 'is underlain by the Upper Cretaceous Edmonton group and the Belly River formatjon which are correlative to the lower part of the Brazeau formation (Toharsky, l97l).

The Paskapoo consists of non-marine sandstones and shales, with a few thin coal Seams. In a Survey conducted north of the study area, the formation varies in thickness from a maximum of about 500 feet in the valley of the North Saskatchewan River in Township 49, Range 7 to a maximum of about 2000 feet in the upland areas in Townships 48,49, Range l0 (Farvolden, l96l).

The foothills belt jn the western portion of the Lower Brazeau dra'inage district js underlain by the Upper Cretaceous Brazeau formation, a non- marine shale sandstone sequence. 27.

3.1 .2.2 Surf i ci a j deposi ts

Between the t'ime of depositjon of the Paskapoo formation and the beginn'ing of glaciation there was a long period of erosiort, which formed rounded hills and southeast trendìng ridges w'ith intervening broad valleys. Alluvial deposits were laid down jn all the ancient channels.

During the Pleistocene the study area and surrounding region was subiected to the activity of glaciers which origìnated in two separate areas. The first of these, called the Continental or Eastern glac'ier, moved in a southwesterly d'irection from the Canadian Shield area. The Cordilleran or Western g'lacìer orjginated'in the mountains of Britjsh Columbia and spread eastward.

R'ivers flowing down from the Cordilleran g'lacier deposited coarser materials as eastward trending eskers and carried fjner detritus further east. Drainage was hampered in the vicin'ity of the study area where the Cordjlleran gjacier met the Continental g'lacier and formed extensive networks of lakes. As the glaciers melted and receded, the area was covered with glacial drift, including till, lake clays, and sand and gravel deposits. Extensive sand and grave'l depos'its are present along the floodpla'in of the Brazeau R'iver. Alluvjal deposits of sand and c'lay were formed as sjlt-carrying riVers ran jnto lakes, and today muskegs are common. Some U-shaped sand dunes (aeolian formatiorts) are present in the area where wind has shifted the fine sands of dry lake basins.

The erosion potential of most of the till deposits is low because of the coarseness of the material and because of calcjum carbonate cementation. Alluv'ial fans and outwash deposits have high infiltration capac'ities and are not easi]y eroded. Fine tills and residual soils over shale bedrock, however, are highly erodable (FRAS, 1973). ¿u.co

3.1 .3 Soi l s

Soils characteristic of the study area and surrounding regìon fall jnto two main orders. These are (l) soils of the Luvisolic order, wh'ich are composed of the gray wooded group, and (2) so'ils of the 0rganic order, which are composed of the Mesisol group.

Luv'isolic so'ils are well to 'imperfect'ly drained sojls that have developed under forest or forest-grassland transitìon zones in moderate to cool climates. These slightly'acid so'ils are moderately to highly leached 'in wi th I 'ight col oured , ashy surface hor j zons. They are I ow ferti I ì ty since the leaching process has carried much of the soluble mineral nutrients, especíal'ly sulphur and phosphorous, from the upper honizons to subsoìl horizons. Lime is encountered 30 to 40 inches below the surface. In the native forested state the leaf mat decomposed and leached out quite rapidly w'ith the result that the surface horizon is low jn organic matter and nitrogen (Alberta Soil Survey, No.l9).

The fine textured subso'il associated with gray wooded soils has a low permeability and therefore takes water slowly and drainage is poor. Consequently on sloping land severe eros'ion may result if the stabilizing vegetation is removed.

Gray wooded soils of the area will respond to good agricu'ltural pract'ices as they are located in a favourable rainfall area. The'ir agricultural capabilìty can be upgraded by the addition of organ'ic matter and the application of mineral fertilizers. It is essential to'include legumes in the crop rotatìon to add nitrogen and organic fibre. Wheat grown on these soils js usually low'in prote'in content and hence of poor quaìity. However, good malting barley and'legumes for hay and seed may be grown successfully (Alberta Soil Survey, No.l9).

Qrganic so'ils are poorly drained and are characterjzed by an accumulation of peat or moss and 30 percent or more organic matter. These soils are restrjcted to muskeg areas and are normal'ly quite erodable because they 29. are low in calcium carbonate. The muskeg, however, is general]y found on flat ground where there is little waterflow, so that the hazard of erosion'is not great (FRAS,1973). These soils are normally located on level to depress'ional landscapes where surface waters accumulate. In their natural state they are of litt'le agricultural value. If drained, they are generally Suitabje only for pasture and woodland. However, since they are excellent reservo'irs for surface water that help contro'l spring flooding and provide for a steady stream dìscharge throughout the summer, the larger areas of these soils should never be drained (Alberta Soil Survey No. 28).

Frozen conditions persist'longer in the spring in organ'ic soils. In addition they are subject to earlier fall frosts than the better drajned mineral soils. Drajned organic soils are subiect to serious ground fire, and uncontrolled burning can result'in complete loss of the organ'ic layer, uneveness of land surface, aggravation of dra'inage problems, and exposure of poor'ly structured mineral soils (Alberta So'i'l Survey No. 28).

3. I .4 l,Jater resources

lrlater resources that may be affected jnclude standing and flowing surface water systems and the ground water system.

3. I .4. I Surface water sYstem

The study area is within the Lower Brazeau drainage distrjct, which dra'ins an area of 2190 square mjles above the Big Bend Power Plant (Water Survey of Canada). Surrounding the Lower Brazeau drairrage district are the Nordegg-Baptìste drainage to the south, the Blackstone to the southwest, the North Saskatchewan to the east, and the Pemb'ina drainage to the north. These draìnage distrjcts are shown in Figure 3.2. With the exception of the Pembina River, which flows into the Athabasca River and ultimately into the Arctic Ocean, al'l these drainage systems are part of the Nelson River drainage system and discharge into the Hudson Bay. W5l¡ R0. 13 Rga l? Rg. ll Fc. lO Rgt 9 Rg8 l8 Rgr l7 Rg. 16 Rgr 15 Rg. l¿l

1l' 48 TrP ¿t8

frD.lt ftp 1l

lr9 46 ftp ¡to

IF frp +á Tre 45

lrp4a Tr P '14

Irp 45 Trp 43

l2 Rg. ll Rg. lO R9.9 w3¡l Rqe l8 Re. l7 R0. l6 Rqê l5 Ro6 Rqr 13 R9.

NOROEGG - BAPTISTE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN BLACK STONE PEMEINA DRAINAGE OISTRICT BRAZEAU DRAINAGE DISTRICT ORAINAGE DISTRICT ORAINAGE DISTRICT ORAINAGE DISfRICT

o(¡) FIGURE 3.2 MAJOR DRAINAGE DISTRICTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA 31 .

The main watercourses within the study area are the Brazeau River and the Elk R'iver. The Brazeau Rìver, which is a tributary of the North Saskatchewan River, flows in a northerly d'irect'ion through the eastern portion of the study area. The Elk River flows eastward into the Brazeau River in the northern portion of the study area.

Under an agreement between the province of Alberta and Calgary Power Ltd., the Brazeau Dam and Big Bend Power Plant were constructed at the Big Bend site on the Brazeau Ríver between l96l and 1969. The resulting reservojr noþ/ covers a'large part of the northern half and'southeast quarter of the study area. The dam regulates the flow of the North Saskatchewan River and the power pìant produces up to 350,000 kw of hydro-electric power. The maximum level of the reservoir is 3,.ì70 feet ASL since the construction of a spillway at the main dam in 1970 and the low water level 'is 3.l02 feet ASL. The ult'imate high water level ìs proposed to be 3,200 feet ASL.

The reservoir has an area of 10,600 acres and conta'ins up to 425'000 acre feet of water (FRAS, 1973). Flow data and water qua'l'ity data have been monitored for the Brazeau R'iver by Calgary Power Ltd. and Envjronment Canada (Water Quality Branch, llJater Survey of Canada). Monthly max'imum, minimum and mean discharges for the Brazeau Rjver below Big Bend plant .1964 durìng the years to 1974, and below Cardinal River for the years .l975 1971 to are given in Table 3.1. Brazeau River water qualjty data monitored by tnvironment Canada ìs given in Appendìx A.

3.1.4.2 Groundwater sYstem

Groundwater occurence and y'ield data were estimated for the study area and surrounding region by the Alberta Research Council (.]971, 1972). S'ince l'imìted well data was available in the immediate vicin'ity of the study area, probable y'ie'lds were based on est'imates from quaf itatjve information such as aquifer lithology and flow regime, and typical yields from surrounding we'lls with s'imilar features. Tabl e 3. l MONTHLY MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, AND MEAN DAILY DISCHARGIS IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FOR THE BRAZEAU RIVER BELOLJ BIG BEND PLANT ]965 Io 1974 AND FOR THE BRAZEAU RIVER BELOI^Í CARDINAL RIVER 1971-1975

J FM A M J JA SON D

Maximum 5830 6120 4500 4940 7370 18,100 20,300 16,200 7010 6430 4390 8270 Day-year 05-71 12-73 I 3-73 I 3-73 08-73 27-72 05-66 06-66 10-68 2-72 0B-73 4-70 Mi nimum 4ll 331 382 5 532 B 5 5 15 34 ]60 Day-Year 08-74 20-23 08-74 3l -66 I -66 30-08 ll-68 lB-65 l3-65 29-67 16-74 15-74 Mean I 965-1974 1617 1642 1822.3 I135 217? 4lBl 4256 2516 1033 l2l0 1 573 l62l

BRAZEAU RIVER BELOI{ CARDINAL RIVER 197I-I975

Maximum 5070 12,400 451 0 3220 1570 1?90 Day-year 31-72 25-72 08-7? 10-72 1-74 1-72 Mi nimum 500 I 000 1470 l0B0 649 385 Day-year I -75 9-75 24-75 14-75 30-75 3l-75 Mean I 971-1975 I 753 4728 3254 2242 ll49 921

Source: Env'ironment Canada, llater Surveys of Canada

(^) f\) 1a JJ.

The Research Council's estjmated 2O-year safe yield (the constant rate at which a well could be cont'inuously pumped so that at the end of 20 years the water level will be drawn down to the top of the producing aquifer) was 25 to j00 Imperial ga'l'lons per m'inute (Igpm) 'in the study area. These yields are typìcal of most of the region underlaìn by the Paskapoo Formation, where water would normally be taken from a sìng'le sandstone aquìfer at depths of less than 300 feet below the surface.

'layers, Where sandstones are more abundant in th'ick, more porous the expected yields are 'l00 to 500 lgpm. These higher yields are estimated for a large area south of Chip Lake, which is about 50 miles north of the study area, and also east in the vicinity of the North Saskatchewan River. Yields west and south of the study area are estimated at 5 to 25 Igpm for some parts of the Paskapoo Formation that contajn an abundance of shale, and where aqu'ifers exist as thin sandstone layers or fractured shale.

The groundwater in the region generally contains less than 1000 ppm of total dissolved solìds. In the Paskapoo formation the water is generalìy hard (calcium and magnesium cations dominant) in up'land areas and soft (sodium and potassium cations domjnant) ìn topographical'ly lower areas. In up]and areas the hard water in'itial'ìy encountered gives way to soft water in lower aquifers.

3. I .5 Cl imatic features*

Long-tenm meteorolog'ica1 records have been kept at Rocky Mountain House, which is located approxìmately 65 kilometers southeast of Brazeau Dam.

3..l.5..l Surface winds

Qbservations of wind velocìty are made at Rocky Mountain House, where the wind instrument js situated 16 meters above ground level. The sur- rounding country'is rolling plateau and the mountaíns are situated 50 kilometers to the west. The data consìdered here are based on the l0- year perì od I 957 to 1 966 i ncl us'ive.

*Sectìon 3.15 was compiled by Mrs. L. Sa'ad, l^lestern Research & Development Ltd. 34.

F'igure 3.3 is a wind rose showing the mean annual wind speed as a funct'ion of wind djrection and the w'ind direction frequency. Predominant winds (33 percent) are from the northwest quarter. Winds from the southeast quarter occur nearly as frequently (30 percent of the t'ime). The mean annual wind speed at Rocky Mounta'in House'is 9..l kilometers per hour. The average annual w'ind speed at 60 meters (the recommended incinerator .l0.6 stack he'ight) is expected to be kilometers per hour, based on neutral atmospheric conditions (Haltiner and Martin, 1957).

A histogram present'ing the mean annual wind speed frequency of occurrence is shown in Figure 3.4. These data show that the most probable wjnd speed js between 6 and ll kilometres per hour (44.9 percent of the time).

3. I .5.2 Temperature

The annual mean da'ily temperature data based on observations made at Rocky Mountain House are presented in Fìgure 3.5. The mean da'i1y temperature i s 2. 5'C.

The summers are short and warm, the warmest month being July w'ith an .l5.5'C. average temperature of The winters are long and cold and the average temperature for the coldest month (January) js -.|3.0'C. The mean annual temperature range is 28.5oC.

For the tdson area, (about 97 kilometers northwest of the study area) the frost-free period 'is approximate'ly 75 days (Alberta Soi'l Survey No 28). The last spring frost usually occurs between June I and June l5' and the first fall frost after August 15.

Growing degree-days are defined by the Atmospheric Environment Service as: Ð(ru - 5.5) celsius 35. N

/2.8

9.O

6.9

8.O

CA LM 8.3 W E 6.8 "/" O7" 2o/o 6o/o B"/o lO"/"

/o.4

/o.9

72

S Direction >29 Speed Figure 3. 3 MEAN ANNUAL WIND SPEED ond DIRECTION (kilometers FREQUENCY CHART BASED ON IO YEARS Der to 29 hbur ) OF DATA GATHERED AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE FROM 1957 1O 1966. THE MEAN ltoll ANNUAL WIND SPEEDS ARE SHOWN IN Frequency /TALICS, (%) ù/o Calm

i{ EY 50

44 c 4 ()c, L d) o. trj ()z IJ fr 30 :) (J (J o tLo 20. I 2 t.4 () 2 z L¡J o:l td É. L

6.8 5.t

o.9 o CALM t-5 6 -ll r2 -r9 20-29 29

WIND SPEED ( kilometers per hour)

Figure 3'4 THE FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE OF VARIOUS WIND SPEEDS (, O) BASED ON IO YEARS OF DATA GATHERED AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE ( 1957 to 1966). THE FREQUENCIES ARE SHOWN IN lTAL/C5 30

Meon DoilY Moxtmum .n--={ 20 / Meon DoilY ta / \ / \ i \ \ I \ () I ,,Meon Daiþ Minrmum o ro I \ / \ \ lra\ ----\ / ìr \ \ IlJ / *a \ r' tt É.:f / \ F- þ -\1, - - \ ---7 lr n, \ É. o 1uuo, Annuol \ l! ¿ \ \ ô_ \ \ / t t¡J r' \ F / / t \

\ -ro \ \

-20 S Nov' D ec' Jon. Feb. Mor. Ap r. Moy June Ju ly Aug ept' Oct' TIME OF YEAR ( month)

DATA AS A FUNCTION OF TIME FIGURE 35 MEAN DAILY TEMPERATURE \(¡) OF YEAR BASED ON DATA GATHERED AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE FROM l94l - 1970' 38. where: Ta = mean ajr temperature for the day I = ind'icates that successive da'i1y values are summed.

The concept assumes that growth begìns (or becomes significant) as ajr temperature rjses to a threshold value of 5.soC. It ìs then assumed that subsequent growth is related to the accumulation of degree-days above the threshold. Hence accumulated temperatures, expressed in grow'ing degree-days, are a crude indicator of net radiative energy income durìng .|974). the growing season (Hare and Thomas, The area around Rocky Mountain House can expect approximately 1100 Celsius growing degree-days. The average for the Calgary region 'is approx'imately 1400 degree-days.

3.1.5.3 Precip'itation

The mean annual total precìpìtation as recorded at Rocky Mountajn House is 543.0 mjllimetres, most of which falls during the grow'ing season (May to September inciusive). These five months account for 68 percent of the annual total precip'itation. Figure 3.6 ìs a line graph showing the mean total precipìtation as a function of the time of year. The most precipitation occuns during June and the least in November.

Mean totaì precip'itat'ion peaks jn June (F'igure 3.6), a'lthough much of the summer precip'itation is associated with thunderstorm activity which peaks in July (Figure 3.7). However the fact that thunderstorm act'ivity peaks one month after the peak total precipitation suggests that much of the June precipitation js associated with synoptic djsturbances rather than with localjzed thunderstorms. The most'intense rainfall (millimeters per day of measurable rain) can be expected during May, June and July. Consequent'ly th'is period would be critjcal w'ith respect to soil erosion and reclamat'ion of land disturbed during constructjon.

3.1.5.4 Solar radiation and cloud cover

The meteoroìogical station closest to the proposed plant site for whjch there are records of hours of bright sunshine and hours of cloudiness, too

9

3t L d) c) E 7 5= Iz. 60 t-- L I 5 () UJ E. o_ 40 J l--o t- z. bJ 2

ro

o Jon. Feb. Mor Ap¡: Moy June July Aug. Sept. Oct Nov. Dec.

TIME OF YEAR ( month )

(¡) Figure 3.6 MEAN TOTAL PRECIPITATION AS A FUNCTION OF TIME OF (O YEAR BASED ON DATA GATHERED AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN I.IOUSE FROM r94¡ - r970 40

4.O I

3.5 7

.5 c' 30 6 q, ã o 3 oan (u E ç o 3 2.s 5 E L (t) tn L o- (u

o,, E

() E z 20 t! of IJ t\ L c /I Ø tr- z /t trl /t F E= Ê /t 3 o /1 = 1-- J Ø J È lì oLtj ti LL z lì z f ti a :c É. r.0 ti 2 F- titi z /i L¡J ti = titi Iti i\tt /i\ t, / o o Jon. Feb. Mon' Apr. Moy June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov' Dec,

TIM E OF YEAR ( monlh ) Figure 3,7 THUNDERSTORM FREQUENCY ONd MEAN RAINFALL INTENSITY AS A FUNCTION OF TIME OF YEAR BASED ON A IO YEAR PE RIOD ( 19 57 - 1966 ) ond A 30 YEAR PERIOD ( l94l - I97O ) NNSPECTIVELY OF DATA GATHERED AT ROCKY MOUNT AIN HOUS E. 41.

is at Lacombe Experìmental Farm. The mean annual bright sunshine for Lacombe totals 2094 hours. Fjgure 3.8 shows the mean number of hours of .l960, bright sunshine for a 3O-year perìod (193.l - ìnclusive).

Table 3.2 presents the cloud normals for the Rocky Mountain House area .l960, based on 20 years of data (.ì941 - inclusive). Cons'idering the month of January, for example, 'it may be expected that from zero to two- tenths of the sky will be covered by cloud 34 percent of the time.

3.1.5.5 Hum'idity

The mean relatjve humid'ity as a function of time of year is shown ìn Figure 3.9. These data are based on l0 years of observatjons (lgSZ - 1966, 'inclus'ive) at Rocky Mountain House. The mean annual relatjve hum'idjty is 69 percent.

During the winter, the relative humidjty remaìns fa'iriy constant at approx'imately 75 percent throughout a 24-hour period. During the summer, the relatìve hum'idjty drops from approximately 84 percent at night to 55 percent during the daY.

3.1 .5.6 Fog

Table 3.3 l'ists the monthly percentage frequency of fog occurrence observed at Rocky Mountain House 1957-1966. These data serve as a guìde to the minimum amount of fog occurrence expected in the Brazeau area, since the Brazeau Reservo'ir and the large amount of surface water in the area would likely increase the jncjdence of fog formatjon.

3.2 B'ioloqical Environment

The biological features that would be affected include the existìng vegetation communjtjes and wildlife populations. 42

250

t'lj 7 :tr U)z (nf F. IT É, m LL o t5 U) E o:tr :E

too

50

o Jon Feb Mor Apr Moy June Ju ly Aug Se pt Ocl Nov Dec

TIME OF YE AR ( month)

Figure 3.8 THE NUMBER OF HOURS OF BRIGHT SUNSHIN¡E AS A FUNCTION OF TIME OF YEAR BASED ON 30 YEARS OF DATA GATHERED AT THE LACOMBE ËXPERIMENTAL FARM (I93I - 1960). Tab'le 3.2

CLOUD COVTR AT ROCKY t'4OUNTAÏN HOUSE

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. l'1ay June July Aug. Sept. 0ct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Mean Cloud cover (%) 59 61 63 60 61 6B 54 56 57 56 56 57 59 q7 Frequency B-10/10 cover sl 53 57 51 5¿ 39 43 47 46 47 48 49 of occur- 3-7 /10 cover '15 l9 l5 l9 20 24 30 26 22 21 20 19 21 ')', )') rence 0-2/10 cover 34 28 28 30 28 19 31 3l 3l JJ JJ 33 30

Þ ÜJ 80 c at e c, o-

70 IL f, I

IJ 60 z t-- -J Ld 0l 50 Jon. Feb. Mor: Apr. Moy June Juiy fuq. Sept Oct. Nov. Dec.

TIME OF YEAR ( monlh )

Figure 3.9 M EAN RELATIVE HUM IDITY AS A FUNCTION OF TIME OF YEAR BASE D ON IOYEARS OF DATA GAT H ERE D AT RCCKY MOUNTATN HOUSE (1957 - 1966). èÞ ¿.E

Table 3.3

INCIDENCT OF FOG FORMATION BASED ON HOURLY 0BSERVATiONS 0VER A l0-YEAR PtRI0D ('1957-'l966) AT ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUST

0bservat'ion |\4onth Fog (% frequency)

January 1.4 February 2.8 March 2.8 Apri ì 2.3 May 1.7

J une 2.6 Jul y 1.6 Augus t 2.9 Sep tember 2.2 0ctober 0.9 November 5.1 December 1.7 Annua'l 2.3 46.

3.2.1 Vegetation communj ti es

Although the study area lies wjthin the lower foothills of the Boreal Forest Reg.ion, the forest vegetat'ion of the area is transitional between the Boreal Forest Region and the Sub-Alpine Reg'ion (Rowe, 1959)'

F'igure 3..|0 shows the major tree associatjons of the study area' A comprehensive lìst of vegetation species common to the area is given'in

Append'ix B .

The anea is dominated by conifers, primarìly'lodgepoìe pìne, whìch have regenerated after fires, and black spruce and white spruce whìch are predominant in the older stands. Aspen is the most abundant of the decìduous trees, and occurs over a large port'ion of the area ejther as isolated stands or m'ixed with black spruce and lodgepoìe pine' The tallest of these trees range up to 26 meters (85 feet) in he'ight'

A ìarge portìon of the study area is covered by muskeg and wet, low lying grass'land areas. Black spruce (sometimes dwarfed) and tamarack are the most abundant trees in these areas, while the understory'is composed primarì'ly of swamp b'irch, willow, alder, labrador tea, and horsetajl. The he'ight of the trees in these areas ranges between three and ten meters (lO to 30 feet).

The most abundant understory vegetation specìes within the drier portions 'incl dogwood ck'ly rose of the study area ude raspberry , chokecherry ' , Pri ' hazelnut, gooseberry, buffaloberry, bearberry, b.lueberry, low bush cranberry, and sììverberry. Grasses and herbs in the area prov'ide native pastures for wi'ld ungulates and'include hairy wild rye grass, blue grass, and wild vetch.

A detailed study of forest-soil relatìonships was undertaken by Lesko and Ljndsay (1973) on a'large area of land north of the study area. In the study the researchers ident'ified fjfteen forest types whìch they 47

B RAZEAU

Tp 46 RESERVO IR

rj.'\

Tp 45

__:- -¡,-=-:_

Rge. l2

e DECIDUOUS FOREST MIXED ASPEN CON IFEROUS o -

¡::::::i:::::::::::::::::i:i:::l l:::::::::::ir:::::::!::::::r::! CONIFEROUS FOR EST MUSKEG SPRUCE - TAMARACK

FIGURE 3.IO MAJOR TREE ASSOCIATIONS OF STUDY AREA 48

cl ass i f i ed accord'ing to the vegetati on associ at'ions of each . 0f the fifteen forest types identified by Lesko and Ljndsay, ten forest types are cons'idered typical of forest types that are likely to occur within or in the vìcinity of the study area, based on similar patterns in parent material, soil type, and drainage between the two areas. The typica'l forest types and related edaphic factors are l'isted in Table )ll

The major stand characteristics of each of these typical forest types'is given in Table 3.5.

Based on a measure of site index, Lesko and Lìndsay grouped each forest type accord'ing to white spruce and lodgepole pine productìv'ity. Four groups were recognìzed and arranged 'in decreasing order of productiv'ity. Table 3.6 lists the productivity rating of aì1 forest types'ì'ikely to occur with'in the study area.

3.2.2 t,Ji l dl 'if e popul ati ons

The study area lies wìthin a transitional wildlife zone between the grass'lands and aspen forest of the drier, low-ly'ing elevations and the cooler and mo"ister coniferous forest of the alpine regìon.

The environment of the study area affords good habitat for a wide range 'l of wi I dl i fe, i ncl udi ng vari ous speci es of unguì ates , carn'ivores , smal mammals and birds. Recent human intervention has apparently depleted the abundance of some species, as reported by the Footh'ills Resource

Al I ocation Study ( I gzS) :

"The val]ey of the Brazeau and nearby lands Were once home to many b'ig game animals, espec'ially el k. The rol'ling terrain choked with dense forest and muskeg perm'itted little access by hunters to the isolated meadows and river breaks where game Table 3.4

TYPICAL FOREST VTGETATION TYPES AND EDAPHIC FACTORS LIKTLY TO OCCUR I^JITHIN THE STUDY ARIA

Parent Soi l Drai nage Major Forest Materi al Type Characteri st'ics Vegetation Types

Till Gray wooded Imperfect to well drained Bl ack spruce - aspen - bl ueberry Whi te spruce - feather moss - b'irch l,Jhi te spruce - feather moss - fir hjhi te spruce - club moss I^lh i te spruce - sarsaparilla

Al I uvi al - aeol i an Gray wooded Moderately weìl drained Lodgepole p'ine - black spruce - bearberry Lodgepole pine - white spruce - bearberry I^lhìte spruce - sarsaparjl'la - dogwood Al I uvial compì ex

0utwas h Gray wooded l^lel I drained Lodgepole p'ine - black spruce - bearberry Lodgepo'le pine - white spruce - bearberry Al I uvìal compìex

0rgani c Organic soi I Very poor'ly drained Black spruce - peat moss bog

Source: Data modifjed from Lesko and Lindsay (.l973)

(oè Table 3.5

STAND CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL FOREST VTGETATION TYPES LIKELY TO OCCUR I,IITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Si te Index * Basal Area (square feet per acre) Number of Trees (per acre) V etati n

c, AJ G, 0'' 0J O (J o (J (J cc J ãL fL 3Ì -o L L L o, L C,,, L.r L.r oo ã -ô o, c, o- o o- tL '-oO-æ o- tL L'- 5 à U1 () u)o Ø u)o t/) (-) (-) .c L iÚ ,t o- È A,'L o- O'L U) t J J 0) 0.., 0J o) -:¿ÊÊrõ.c 0J0'J oJccrõ-c LL L U1 +) g¡o + otcj Lt.Fô-Ord +) t,Gt (J.ec,r(J(, c., 0J 0J c 6 'ct c !c rdo-6Jô-'-{r .- -oç rdO-êO-L+r ô-> B ('l t- Õ'r ! o.É ØOO -C O.r Øoo Êõ o (u ódd^mþ ñddññç

Bl ack Spruce-Aspen- Bl ueberry 70 0 74 39 0 l2 I 1127 0280392 0 49 6 9736 46 32 2t54370

White Spruce-Feather Moss- Paper B'i rch 87 160 0 0 0 0 20 5185 460 0 0 0 0 20 48528 87 5 0 ì0 50.80 l,Jhi te Spruce-Feather Moss- Alpine Fir 67 53 0 0 ll t3 6 184 177 0 0 70 20 l0 7 284 56 l5 0 18 46 9l l^lh ite Spruce-Cl ub l'4oss 70 65 23 7300 l9 2 2 119 52 233 0 0 655 17 372 56 27 6 21 80 44 l.lhi te Spruce-Sarsapari ì 1 a 7B 75 4t 4l 6 39 3 4 134 91 92 0 12 606 23 284 52 9 23 21 77 14 Lodgepoìe Pine-Black Sp ruce- Bea rberry 59 0.36 l0 0 I 0 0 47 0109137 0 I 0 0254 38 29 2205058 Lodgepole Pine-White Spruce-Bea rberry. 73 65 8330050046 30289 0 0 25 0 0344 40 2 2407065

Whi te Spruce-Sarsapari I ìa Dogwood 79 790004120 7 147 170 0 0 0 62 37 36305 64 7 24977,l8

Al I uv'ial Compì ex 70 68 109 7 0 I 6 3 1 127 290 7 6 4 l0 4 6327 5l 12 573045

Black Spruce-Peat Moss 1t Bog Cornpìex 0048Q00048 0 0580 0 0 0 0580 0 2641296

Source: Lesko and Lindsay (.l973) * Height in feet of 70-year age

('r O Table 3.6

PRODUCTiVITY RATING OF TYPICAL FORTST VEGETATION TYPES LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN THT STUDY AREA

Idhi te Spruce Lodqepole Pine

Site Index Forest Type Site Index Forest Type

'l Group I 79+rcz l^lhite Spruce-Feather Moss-Paper Birch 72 + 9 Wh'i te Spruce-Sarsapari I a Inlhite Spruce-Sarsapari 1 1a-Dogwood Bl ack Spruce-Aspen-Bl ueberry lrJhi te Spruce-Sarsapari'l 1a White Spruce-Bìack Spruce-Blueberry

Group I I 75+4 65+6 White Spruce-Cìub Moss Lodgepo'le Pi ne-lnJhi te Spruce-Bearberry Al I uvial Compì ex

Group III 70 + B Lodgepole Pine-I,lhite Spruce-Bearberry 60+B Lodgepole Pine-Black Spruce-Bearberry Alluvial Complex l^Ihite Spruce-C1ub Moss l.lhite Spruce-Feather Moss-Alpine Fir

Group IV Non- Black Spruce-Peat Moss Bog Complex Non- t,Jhite Spruce-Feather Moss-Alpine Fir producti ve Lodgepol e Pine-Black Spruce-Bearberry producti ve White Spruce-Feather Moss-Paper B'irch Bl ack Spruce-Aspen-Bl ueberry Black Spruce-Peat Moss Bog Comp'lex lRll groups are significantly different from each other at the 95 percent probabil'ity level ZM.un w'ith standard dev'iation

(-'r J 52.

.l950's was abundant. As recently as the later the twenty-mi'le journey from Lodgepole to the present dam site took seven hours by jeep. Since then dam construction and geophys'icaì exploration have opened up the country considerably, leadjng to increased hunting each fal l . "

Table 3.7 is a non-comprehensive l'ist of some of the more common mammal and bird specìes that are expected to occur in the study area. The l'ist is based on available literature that indicates the presence of these species some time in the past; other than th'is, little is known about the actual existing relative djstribution and abundance of these species in and around the study area. Field observations were of lim'ited assistance as the study area contaÌns very dense forest, bush and swamp areas that would requìre many days of exhaustive field observations'in order to document the existence of the wild'life and bìrd species ljsted.

Nearly a'l1 of the land of the study area'is capable of support'ing unguìates, main'ly elk, mule deer, and moose. The area provides a variety of con'iferous and aspen forest, river flats, grassy s'lopes and wet meadows whjch provide excellent all around habjtat for supporting ungu'lates. Key ungulate range, which'is critical wìnter range vital for the survival of existing herds of elk, has been identified in the area by Alberta Fish and Wildlife, and ìs shown jn Figure 3.1'1. Key ungulate range also exists along the tlk Rjver, and along the Brazeau River between the Brazeau Reservojr and the Forestry Trunk Road.

.l960's When the Brazeau Dam was built in the early the resulting reservoir flooded 17-1/2 square miles of prime moose, eik and mule deer winter range. The winter range camying capacìty of the Brazeau Val'ley was consequently reduced by 229 ungulates: 193 elk, lB moose, and lB mule deer (Stelfox in FRAS, 1973).

There have been two recent limited aerial surveys of big game populations jn the vicinity of the study area by Alberta Fish and hJildljfe. An aerial survey was conducted in ear'ly January 1976 during which time the 53.

Tabl e 3.7a

MAMMALS COMMON TO THE ViCINITY OF THT BRAZEAU STUDY AREA

Common Name Scientific Name* Rel ative Abundance

I . Ungul ates

Elk Cervus canadensi s Regul ar Mule deer Odocoi I eus hemionus Regul ar l^lhite-tailed deer 0docoi I eus v'i rqi njanus Sporadi c Moose Alces alces Regul ar 2. Carnivores

Coyote Cani s I atrans Regu'lar Timber wol f eanîî Iq[tr- Sporad'i c Red fox Vulpes fulva Sporadi c Black bear Euarctos americanus Regu'lar Rocky Mountain Grizzly bear rsus arctos dusorqus Sporadì c Canada lynx nx canadens IS Sporadi c Bobcat Lynx rufus Sporadi c

3. Small mammals

Shrew Sorex spp. Regul ar VaryÌng hare Lepus amerìcanus Regul ar llloodchuck Marmota monax canadensis Sporadt'c Chi pmunk Eutami as m] nlmus Regul ar Red squirrel Tami asci u ruFTuã'soni cus Regu'lar Fìying squirrel G'laucomy s sab r1 nus Sporad i c Beaver Castor canadensi s Regul ar t¡Jhite-footed mouse Þãrornyscus rnañìî[l atus Regul ar Lemming vol e Synaptomys borgal i s Regu'lar Red-backed vol e Clethrionomys gapperi Regul ar Meadow vol e Microtus pennsyl vanicus Regul ar Mus krat 0ndatra zibethicus Regul ar Jumping mouse Regu'lar Porcupi ne m Sporadìc Badger Taxìdea taxus Sporadi c trmine (weasel ) frGtelã êrmîi-ea Reguì ar Mi nk Mustel a vison lacustris Regu'ìar

* Taxonomy based on Soper (1964), The Manmals of Alberta 54

Tabl e 3.7b

BIRDS TYPICAL OF THI BRAZEAU STUDY AREA

.ic Common Name Sci enti f Name* Resi dent Status** l. Waterfowl and shorebirds

Common I oon Gavi a irnmer SR Grebe Þõãi-ceps spp. SR American b'ittern Botaurus I enti l n0sus SR Whìstl ing swan 0l or co anus M Canada goose Branta canadensi s M Snow goose Chen hyperborea M l,.Jh i te- f ronted goose Anser al b'ifrons M Surface feedìng and dìvìng ducks (varjous) Famì'ly Anat j dae SR Coot Ful i ca ameri cana SR Ki I I deer I US v0c i feras SR Sni pe Capella gallinago SR Sandp'iper Actjtis macularia SR Ye1 ì owl eg s Tõtãrurs tpp SR Phal arope Steqanopus trjcolbr SR Frankl i n' s Gul I Larus pì pi xcan SR Common tern Sterna hi rundo SR Bl ack tern Chl i donì as ni ger SR j Sandhi I I crane Grus canadens s M Sora Porzana carol i na SR 2. Predatory birds

Go s hawk Acc i pì ter ent'il i s R Sharp-shi nned hawk Accip'iter str atus SR Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensjs SR Broad-wi nged hawk Buteo plãïyptêrus SR Golden eagìe Aquì I a chrysaetos M Ba'ld eagìe Hal i aeetus I eucocephul us M 0sprey Fandion hal iaetus SR Sparrow hawk Fal co sparveri us SR Great horned owl Bubo v 'irqinianus R Long-eared owl mlõ otu s SR Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SR N'ighthawk Chordeiles minor SR

3. Grouse

Spruce grouse Canachites canadensis R Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbe us R 55. Tabl e 3.7b (Conti nued)

Common Name Scientific Name Resident Status

4. Perching birds

Mournìng dove Zenaidura macroura SR Woodpeckers, Fl i ckers, Sapsuckers (various) Fami ly Picìdae V F1 ycatchers Famì ly Tyrann'idae SR Swal I ows Family Hirund'inidae SR Gray Jay Peri soreus canadensi s I R Bl ue Jay c.ya noc'itta cri stata R Magp i e Pica pica R Crow Corvus brachyr h yncho s SR Ch'i ckadee Parus spp R Nutha tches Fami'ly S'ittidae SR hjrens Fam'i I y Trogl odyti dae SR Thru s hes Fami ly Turdidae SR Cedar waxwing Bombyci I I a cedrorum SR Bohemi an waxw'ing Bombyci ì I a garrul us D V'i reo s Vj reo spp SR Wood warbl ers Fam'ily Parul idae SR Bl ackb'irds tuphagus spp SR Grosbeaks, buntj ngs, finches, sparro\^/s Fam'i1y Fningillidae \/

* Taxonomy based on Robb'ins et al. (.l966)' Birds of North America **ResidentStatus R=resident SR = summer resident M = m'igrant V = varies between species Rge. I 2 Rge ll Rge. lO

BRAZ EA Tp.46 Tp'46

EL.3l70'

RE SERVIOR

@ PROPOSED W PLANT SlTE

Tp.4 5 Tp.45

Rge. I 2 Rqe, I I Rqe. lO

UNGULATE WINTER RANGE SOURCE ALBERTA FISH B WILDLIFE, HABITAT - LAND USE SECTION.

('l Ol FIGURE 3.II UNGULATE WINTER RANGE IN VICINITY OF STUDY AREA 57.

following draìnages, among others, were flown in order to estimate big game numbers: Baptìste River, Nordegg R'iver, Brazeau River, tlk River, Pembina River, Blackstone River, Card'inal River. The results of this particular survey are summarized in Table 3.8.

A survey was conducted in a one day fl'ight in March 1974 during which time straight ìjne transects were flown north and south at one mile intervals throughout the study area and surroundjng region. The results of this survey were as follows (Wingert, 1974):

"The nineteen lines were flown for a total of 270 miles, wìth a total of 2l moose, six elk, and one deer being observed. Also, the Nordegg and Brazeau Rivers were flown, but on'ly two elk were seen on the Brazeau and none on the Nordegg. Observing condìtions were poor due to a bright sun and many shadows."

Due to the time of year these surveys were undertaken no bears were observed. Local drillìng and majntenance workers report, however, that black bears are often observed along the roads and in the vìcinity of the dri I'l ì ng camps.

3.3 Social and economic env'ironment

The descript'ion of the socjal and economjc environment includes:

(a) the existing land uses'in the vjcinity of the proposed development; (b) the human populations in the region; (c) the capabjlity of the land jn terms of human-orjented natural resources.

3. 3. 1 Exi st'ing l and use

The primary land uses in the vjcjnity of the proposed development are petro'leum extraction, hydro-electric power generation, and occas'ional timber removal. In addl'tion to these primary uses' there is human activity'in the form of fur trapp'ing, b'ig game hunting and sport fìshÍng. Tabl e 3.8

RESULTS OF BRAZTAU RIVER AND SURROUNDING REGION ANIMAL SURVIY, JANUARY 6-9, 1976

Moose ilk Ri ver Bulls Cows Cal ves U/Cx Bulls Cows Cal ves U/C 0ther

Baptìste River 9 21 l4 J il 2 2 Mu le deer does 3 ho rSCS

I'lordegg Ri ver 5 12 93 5 5225 I U/C deer 3 wol ves

Brazeau River ? J B l3 20 horses tl k Ri ver 4 I 14

Pembi na Rr'ver 2 9 J l3

Blackstone River 2 2 I 3 25 Bighorn sheep

Cardinal River 6

(Drainage) Fish Source: Region III Mountain Moose .l976 Survey. Alberta Recreation, Parks and Wildlife, and l,li I dl i fe Di vi s'ion. January * Unidentified calves

('r oo 59.

3.3..l..l T'imben remova'l

Aìthough forestry actìvity in the vicìnity of the proposed development ìs only sporadic, some large stands of merchantable timber have been removed from the ar^ea. The most recent activity includes the removal, in 196.l, of merchantable timber from the site of the Brazeau Reservo'ir .l969 before jt was flooded. Additional t'imber was removed in when the level of the reservoir was raised six feet. Christmas trees are occasÍonally harvested in the area.

The present market value of tjmber in the area is difficult to establish without a detailed tjmber census and market survey. The majority of the timber in the region has been classjfied by the Alberta Forest Service as .l5,000 medium density stands that typìcal1y y'ield between 8,000 and board- .ì976 feet per acre. The wholesale value for saw'ìogs cut from lodgepole pine and white spruce is approximately $l+O to $150 per thousand board feet. Manufacturìng costs including transportation to the mill generally average about half of the wholesale value. Black spruce is generally of ljttle or no value as it is not of suffjcient size for saw log productjon.

Based on the above data, the t'imber va'lue per acre in the Brazeau area varies between $lleO (8,000 board-feet per acre x $140 per thousand board-feet) and $2250 (15,000 board-feet as per acre x $lSO per thousand board-feet) for a stand of pure merchantable lodgepole pìne on whjte spruce. Pure stands of black spruce would generally have no commercial timber val ue.

3,3.1.2 Hydro-electric power deve'lopment

In'itial constructjon of the Calgary Power Ltd. Brazeau Storage and Power Deyelopment project was undertaken in 'l961. The first generating unit with a capacity of 165,000 kw was in service by 1965. A second 190,000 kw unit was'installed in 1967, bringing the pìants tota'ì power output to 350,000 kw, the largest hydro-electrjc development in the provìnce. 60

Additional information on the power development was given in Sectjon 3.1.4..|. Figure 3.12 is a general plan of the Brazeau Storage and Power Devel opment.

3.3.1.3 Natural gas production

The study area is w'ithin the Brazeau Gas Field, which consists of the Brazeau-Elk-Shunda pools A and B. Geophysical exploration for oil and gas began along the Brazeau thrust about 1940, although commercjal quantities of gas were not discovered until 1959 (FRAS' 1973).

The Hudson's Bay 0i1 and Gas Company Lim'ited is operating a gas processing and sulphur recovery plant about l0 miles west of the proposed Western Decalta plant site. The present capac'ity of the Hudson's Bay pìant ìs 196 MMSCFD raw gas with a production of 176 MMSCFD sales gas and 9'l LTD

s u1 phur.

Tenneco 0il of Canada Ltd. is also operat'ing a gas plant l0 mìles south of the proposed Western Decalta pìant s'ite. The capacity of Tenneco's plant is 67 MMSCFD raw gas w'ith a production of 60 MMSCFD sales gas and 45 LTD sulphur.

3.3.1.4 Fur trapp'ing

No recorded fur trapping has taken piace within four miles of the proposed gas processing plant. The closest trapping act'ivìty ìs sjtuated northwest of the proposed p'lant site within Townshíp 46, Range 13 (Trapìine l'lumber I 030 ) . Two trappers , Ì'lr. Tom Helm and Mr. Lorne Karl ston , of Bl uff ton .l970. ' Alberta, have been working this area since Their combined fur- harvest hi story i s g'iven i n Tabl e 3. 9.

Table 3..l0 shows the average value of each of the animal pelts taken in this area for the years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976. The value of fur pelts varies wjdely from year to year' primarì'ly as a functjon of demand, but also with respect to supply of pelts (which jn turn'is partially due to R e12 R e ll Rge lO Rqe 9

lI ¿-¿ t ^Þ$v¿- I *"è/ Tp.47 +7 r Îp 47 ^o/ J oo/ I É- ul\ &t 7 o -rrq / ù ,"r/ ( ,To/ MAIN DAM PESERVO/R &ot Tp.46 FULL SUPPLY LEV€L 3 ERAZEAU Q' Tp 46 LOW SUPPLT LEV€L 3/O2, E 3tol ELK R IVER qr I RESERVOIR PUMPHOUSE R f PROPOSED , u-' PLANT S/78

I 6- 33 \6-3 I I t a CANAL L 7 FIJLL SUPPLY LEVEL 314 8, C4,V4t _ _ _ l,í1, POWERHOUSE Tp 45 Tp.45

E

NORDEGG

Rge l2 Rgell R9e l0 Rge 9 g.il". Or J

FIGURE 3.I2 GENERAL PLAN OF CALGARY POWER LTD. BRAZEAU STORAGE AI{D POWER DEVELOPMENT 62.

Tabl e 3.9

FUR-HARVEST HISTORY IN THE VICINITY OF THE

PROPOSED WTSTERN DECALTA GAS PLANT

Year Number and spec'ies taken

I 970-l 971 l0 badgers, l0 muskrats, 20 beavers, 24 ermine, I lynx, 4 m'ink. 1971-1972 58 muskrats, ?0? red squìrrels, l7 coyotes. 1972-197 3 32 beavers, l2 erm'ine, l0 1ynx, 5 m'ink, l2 muskrats' 250 red squìrreìs,37 coyotes,3 skunk. 197 3-197 4 25 beavers, l0 bobcats, 5 red fox, 5 mink, 5 muskrats, 100 red squ'irrel s, 19 coyotes. 197 4-197 5 42 beavers , 1 lynx, 6 mi nk, I 5l squ'irrel s , 20 ermì ne, 22 coyotes, 37 muskrats.

Source : Al berta Recreat'i on Parks and hJi I dl i fe 63.

Table 3..l0

AVTRAGE FUR PELT VALUE 1974 TO 1976

Pelt Value ($) Fur Species 1974-1975 1975-1976

Badger 13.37 25.87 Muskrat 2.22 3. 3l Beaver 13.60 19.52 Ermi ne 1.22 1.12 Lynx I 02. 84 237 .90 Mi nk 12.65 17.69 Coyote 30. 65 50. 00 Skunk I .50 I .50 Red Squìrreì 0. 78 0. B0 Bobcat 66. 00 86. 00 Red Fox 33. 25 49.78

Source: Alberta Recreation Parks and l¡Jildlife 64.

animal population levels, some of which are cyclical, and partia'ì1y due to trapping effort).

As an indication of the fur production value of the area, the total value of furs taken each year for the period 1970 to 1975 is gìven in .ì975- Table 3.11. The table shows that the highest value, assuming 1976 fur prices, would have been for the years 1972-1973 when the total value of furs taken was $5160.71. Foxes and'lynx accounted for 82 percent of this value.

3.3. I .5 Recreat'ion

Other than huntìng and fishing activities, the recreational value of the study area 'is low due to'large areas of muskeg and wet marsh, homogeneous tree stands and a lack of unique topography. The Brazeau Reservoir was expected to be a popular recreatjonal lake for nearby residents, within commuting distance, such as those from Lodgepole or Drayton Vailey. Howevero boat'ing, swìmming and associated activjtìes are not popular on the reservoir as much of the timber on the s'ite was not removed prior to flood'ing, with the result that the reservoir contaìns standÌng timber, f'loating logs and branches, sunken logs and trees, and other debrjs. In addition to this, the reservoir experiences wjdely fluctuat'ing water levels. These factors combined make the land surround'ing the reservoir unsuitable for serviced campsites, pìcn'ic areas, or resjdential development.

3.3.2 Popu'l ati on

There are no occup'ied residences within the study area. The location and size of the closest population centers to the proposed plant site are given ìn Table 3.12. 65.

Table 3.ll

ANNUAL VALUE OF FUR HARVTST IN THT VICINITY OF THT PROPOSED WESTERN DECALTA GAS PLANT

Yea r Total value of furs taken (dollars)*

197 0-1971 1017 .7 4

1971 -197 2 I 203. 58

1972-1973 5l 60.71

1973-197 4 2731.90

197 4-1975 2529.55

Mean annual value 2528.70

* Based on 1975-1976 fur Prìces. 66

Tabl e 3.1 2

LOCATION AND SIZE OF CLOSTST POPULATION CTNTERS TO THT PROPOSED I^ITSTERN DICALTA GAS PLANT

Popuì ati on S'ize Pl ace Locati on I 961 I 966 1971

Cynth'ia 50- I 0-bJ5 165 l0B B? Violet Grove 48- 7-hJ5 200 il6 94

Lodgepol e 47- 1 0-W5 508 207 144 'ley Drayton Val 49-7 -W5 3854 3352 3900

0'Chiese Indian Reserve - 43 , 44- I 0-l^15 t2o (to+t¡ 275 (re7r ) Sunchild indian Reserve - 42,43-10-W5 roo (re45) 3oo (re7r)

.l966) Source: Dominion Bureau of Statist'ics (lg0l , Stati st'ics Canada ( l97l ) Foothi I I s Resource Al I ocation Study (1 973) 67.

3.3.3 Natural resource capabil'ity

The study area possesses vary'ing degrees of capability for ungulate range, outdoor recreatìon, sport fish, agriculture, forestry, and grazing. The various resource capabil'itjes are illustrated in F'igures 3..l3 through 3.18. The maps show that the land that would be affected posseses good to excellent capab'ility as ungulate range. Some potent'ially hishly productive forest timber land would be affected. In terms of outdoor recreation, agricultural, and grazìng capab'ility, the land that would be affected is of no or low to moderate capab'ility. The sportfìsh capability woul d not be affected.

The resource capabil'ity maps are based on data taken from "The Foothjlls Allocat'ion Study Phase l: Lower Brazeau Draìnage District". A dìscussion of the purpose and content of the Foothills Resource Allocat'ion Study ( FRAS ) fol I ows .

FRAS was "a comprehensive planning program designed to determine the most benefícìal allocation of resources in the Alberta Foothìì1s region .l973)' on the basis of product'ivìty and economic consjderations" (FRAS, It was established as a joint federal-prov'incial agreement funded by the federal office of the Canada Land Inventory but designed and administered by the Alberta Department of Lands and Forests.

One of the primary objectives of FRAS was to evaluate the information compiled jn the Canada Land Inventory, inc'ìud'ing agrìcu'lture, forestry' recreation, sportfish, ungulates and waterfowl. Some aspects of resource management were not incorporated into the Canada Land Inventory (for examp'le non-renewable resources, forestry, watershed, grazing). Add'itional data was therefore assembled to give a more complete jnventory of the resources of the foothìlls. The suppliers of all resource inventories incorporated 'into FRAS is given ìn Table 3.13. 68

Tp.4ô Tp.46

Tp.45 Tp.45

Rge. I 2 ffiffi EXCELLENT ffi GOOD NO CAPABILITY PROPOSED PLANT @ SI TE GOOD - EXCELLENT LOW_ MODERAÏË PROPOSED 32OO.LEVEL PRESENT SITO,LEVEL FIGURE3.I3 LAND CAPABILITY FOR UNGULATË RANGE

SOURCE: FOOTHILLS RESOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY 1973 69

Tp.46 Tp.46

lt-27

Tp.45 Tp.45

Rge. I 2

EXCELL ENT GOOD NO CAPABILITY ffiffiffiffi ffi...'.î.1..''. PROPOSED PTANT @ SITE GOOD - EXCELLENT LOW - MODERATE PROPOSED S2OO.LEVEL W PRESENT 3I70, LEVEL FIGURE 3.I4 LAND CAPABILITY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

SOURCE: Í-OOTHILLS RESOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY 1973 70.

Tp.a6 Tp.46

6-3

15-35

6-31 6-33

n-27 Tp.45 Tp.45

6- 29

Rge, I 2

I\JO CAPABILITY ffiffiffiil EXCELLENT ffi GOOD @ PROPOSED PLANT GOOD - ËXCELLENT LOW - MODERATE SITE PROPOSED 32OO LEVEL PRESENT 3i70.LEVËL FIGURE 3. 15 WATER CAPABILITY FOR SPORTFISH

SOURC E : FOOTH ILLS RESOURC E AL LOCAT IO N STUDY 1973 71.

I

I l BRAZEAU I I f

l Tp.46 ( I pr'+Þ RESERVOIR

6-3

Ê .J 3 ) b-

6-3 r / BRAZEAU/ -/

\ Tp.45 Tp.45 il27 \ \

I

-Z - - RESERVOIR

Rge, I 2 ffiilffi EXCELLENT ffi GOOD NO CAPABILITY PLANr @ !RoPosED GOOD _ EXCELLENT L ow - MODERATE _--- 5H?:"'-?"1?î9 iåJEi FIGURË 3,16 L/\ND CAPABIL ITY FOR AGR ICU LTU RE

SOURCE : FOOTHILLS RËSOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY I973 72.

BRAZEAU

\ I Ì \ Tp.46 Tp.46 RESERVOIR (

I 6-3

 Ã- 6-31 6-33

I \ ERAZEAU I I n-27

Tp.45 Tp.45

\

I

\ --rl RESERVOIR

Rçe. I 2

EX C ELLENT GOOD NO CAPABiLITY ffilÏrflffitfiilililffifl ffi PROPOSED PLANT @ S ITE GOOD - EXCELLENT LOW _ CAPABILITY W. PROPOSED 32OO LEVET -PRESENT 3ITO.LEVEL FIGURE 3,17 FORËSTRY CAPABILITY FOR LOGGING

SOURCE : F00THILLS RESOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY I973 73.

I

BRAZEAU

tt \

I Tp,46 Tp.46 L_/I ¿-\ \ U RESERVOIR

6-3

à 3 Ã

6 -33 6-31 BRAZEAU I

lt -27 \ Tp.45 Tp.45 I t \ 6- 29 \ \ I I

\--- -â_ RESERVOIR --/

Rge, I 2

NO CAPABILITY ffiffiffi EXCE LLE NT ffi GOOD PROPOSED PLANT @ SITE MODËRATE GOOD - EXCELLENT LOW - PROPOSED 32OO'LTVEL - PRESENT 3I70, LEVEL FIGURE 3.IB LAND CAPABILITY FOR GRAZING

SOURCE : FOOTH ILLS RESOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY 1973 74.

Table 3..l3

FOOTHILLS RISOURCE ALLOCATION STUDY: SUPPLIERS OF RESOURCE INVENTORIES

Resource Supp'l 'ier

Archaeol ogy University of Calgary, Department of Archaeology Agriculture Capabi f ity C. L. I . Soi I Capabi I i ty for Agri cu'l ture Coal Research Counci I of Al berta, Geol ogy Dì vi sjon

Forest Capab'i1ity C. L. I . Soi 1 Capabi 1 ì ty for Forestry Forest Cover Detajled Forest Inventory, Tjmber Management Branch, Alberta, Forest Service, Alberta Department of Lands and Forests Industrial Minerals Research Councj I of Al berta, Geol ogy Dì vi sion Key Ungul ate Range F'ish and l^l'ildlife Djvis'ion, Alberta Department of Lands and Forests Li vestock Graz'ing Forest Land Use Branch, Alberta Forest Service, Al berta Department of Lands and Forests Metallic M'inerals Research Council of Alberta, Geo'logy Dìv'ision 0i 1 and Gas Alberta tnergy Resources Conservat.ion Board

Recreati on Capabì 1 i ty C.L. I. Land Capabìl ity for 0utdoor Recreation Sport Fì sh Capabi I ì ty C. L. I . Land Capabi ì i ty for Sport fì sh

Ungulate Capability C . L. I . Land Capabi 1 i ty for Ungu'ì ates l^laterfowl Capab'il i ty C. L. I . Land Capabì f i ty for hlaterfowl Watershed Inventory Department of Lands and Forests in co-operation with other water management and research agencì es 75.

FRAS divided the Alberta foothills and eastern slopes'into a number of sub-regional plannìng units, based primarily on watershed divisions or drainage distrjcts. l^lithin each drainage distrjct studìed there was an injt'ial assessment of the physical capability of the land to supply the various resources. Physical capability is used in the study to describe the productive capacity of land, whìch is evaluated in terms of natural cond'itions. It assumes no enhancement of the natural sjtuation (such as drainage and fertiljzation of soils for agriculture). 76.

4.0 TNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

This chapter cons'iders the maior physical , bìologica'l and cul tural resources that would be affected by the construction and operation of the processing plant and gathering system.

4. 1 tffects on ai r qual'itv

The prìmary source of impact to the ambient air quality would be the gaseous contam'inants emitted by the processìng plant. Some disturbance would result from the jncreased dust, noise and odour levels associated with the project. However, consideration of aìr qua'lity effects will be restricted to the chemical atmospheric po1Iutants for the fo'ì1owìng reasons:

(a) Increased dust levels would be associated prinrarì1y w'ith construct'ion and should result in m'inor overall d'isturbance. (b) The noise levels associated wìth the processìng plant must be wjthin the guidelines given in Section 2.6.1 and would generall.v result'in only a minor disturbance. The most s'ignificant noise disturbance would likely be from occasional gas flaring operations (which would generally be less than half an hour duration). (c) The potent'ial sources of odour outlined in Section 2.6.3 would be controlled wìthin the process. Occasionally odours may arise from the sulphur plant and the sulphur block storage area, however, they woul d general ly be detectabl e only on the p'lant s'ites .

The Hudson's Bay 0i1 and Gas Company Ltd. Brazeau gas plant, located l7 kilometers (10 miles) west of the proposed plant sìte, was visited during the field trip in June. Thìs p'lant's operatìons are an order of magnìtude larger than those of the proposed piant' yet lìttle or no odour could be detected during the visjt.

In addjtion to the normal process emissjons, consideration will be gìven to the potentia'ì impact that urould be associated with a possìb1e pìpeìine rupture 'in the gathering system. 77.

The only atmospheric contam'inant that would be emitted in quant'itìes sufficiently high to be of concern would be sulphur dioxide. The maior source of sulphur dioxide emissions, under normal operat'ing condìtions, woul d be the su'l phur pl ant 'inci nerator stack. Duri ng pl ant upsets , sulphur dioxide may be released from the flare stack. The estimated sulphur dioxide concentrations from these two sources have been evaluated and the results are given below.

The maximum permissible concentrations of sulphur dìoxide in the ambient air are given in Table 4.1.

4. l. I Sulphur dioxide emissions from incinerator stack

The incinerator stack emission parameters are gjven in Table 4.2. The emission parameters have been based on the design specificatjons of lJestern Decalta Petroleum Ltd. with the fol1owìng exceptions:

(a) The emission rate of stack gases was calculated by means of Western Research & Development Ltd. computer program IMl,lRD.

(b) The value of 5 percent for excess oxygen was used to ensure complete combust'ion of the ta i I gas .

(c) The estimated sulphur dìoxjde emission was multiplìed by 1.4' the safety factor recommended by the Province of Alberta (Energy Resources Conservati on Board, Informati onal I etter I'lo. IL-0G 74-5, 1974).

Ground and treetop level sulphur d'ioxide concentrations u/ere estimated by employing the Alberta Department of the Environment atmospherjc d'ispersìon model. Thjs method calculates downwind contaminant ground- I evel concentrat'ions al ong a pl ume axi s from a cont'inuous po'int source. In using this method it is assumed that: 78.

Table 4..]

MAXiMUM PTRMISSABLT LEVEL OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE IN THT AMBIENT AiR

Maximum average concentration Durati on ug/m3 ppm equìvalent

30 minutes 525 0. 20 One hour 450 0.17 24 hour 150 0. 06 Annua I 30 0. 0l

Source: Alberta Department of the Environment. Clean Aìr Reguiations 218/75 Part I 79

Tab'le 4.2

INCINERATOR STACK EMISSION PARAMETERS

Raw gas 'i nl et f I ow (MMSCFD )l 19.41 Acid gas to sul phur p'lant (t'lNSCf o)l 1.19 Su'lphur pl ant eff ì ci ency (%) 95. 0 Sulphur production (LTD) 10.4 Stack gas emission rate (scrs)2 36. 9l

Su'l phur em'i ss i on rate (LTD ) 0. 55 Su'l phur d'ioxi de emi ssi on rate (Scf s )2 0.24 Stack gas exit temperature ('F) I 000. 0 Stack gas ex'it vel oc'i ty (ftlsec ) 35. B Excess oxygen (%) 5.0 Stack exit djameter (ft) 2.0

I At 60'F and I 4. 7 ps'ia .l4.7 2 At 70"F and psia (actua'l value multjplied by l.a) 80.

(a) The plume has a Gaussian distribution, with lateral and vertical standard deviations as given by Pasqu'ilì (lg0l) for neutral atmospheres. An outline of the Gauss'ian model is given in Appendìx C.

(b) Plume rise for flat terrain is equal to 3/4 of the plume rise predicted by the Bosanquet, Carey, and Halton (1950) formu'la for stable atmospheres. An outlìne of this formula is gíven in Appendix D.

(c) Terrajn influences may be estimated by subtract'ing 3/4 of the terrain he'ight above the stack base from the piume rise calculated for flat terrain.

Due to the manner in r,¡h'ich the last assumption'incorporates terrajn influences, details of topograph'ic features in the vicinity of the plant are necessary. In addition, due to thjs assumption, the magnitude of the estimated ground-level concentratjon of sulphur dioxjde 'is dependent on wind direction.

Treetop allowance may be subtracted from the calculated plume rìse or added to the des'igned phys'icaì stack height. The maxjmum height of the trees in.the area is about 85 feet (26 meters).

The maximum terrain elevations above the plant base at distances up to ,l0,000 feet from the plant site are g'iven jn Table 4.3. The maximum elevations are northwest of the proposed plant site.

F'igure 4.1 shows the maximum calculated sulphur dioxide concentrat'ion as a function of w'ind speed. Figure 4.2 shows the maximum calculated sulphur d'iox'ide concentrat'ion as a function of downwjnd distance. l^lith the proposed 6l meter incinerator stack, the maximum ground-level su'lphur diox'ide concentration was calculated to be 0.08 ppm. This maxjmum ,]370 occurs at a downwind distance of meters (+SOO feet) and'is associated wjth wind speeds of 5-10 mph (B-.l6 kjlometers per hour). The maximum treetop-level concentrat'ion was calculated to be 0.19 ppm at a distance of 580 meters (.¡900 feet) and js associated with a wind speed of about 13 mph (20 kilometers per hour). 81.

Tabl e 4.3

MAXII4UM ELEVATIONS ABOVE PLANT BASE IN THT VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PLANT SITE

Di stance f rom p'l ant s i te Elevation above p'lant base ( feet ) ( feet )

0 0 I ,000 0 2,000 50 3,000 50 4,000 100 5,000 150 6,000 150 7 ,000 150 8,000 200 9 ,000 200 .l 0,000 200 a.22

sLEEIìrÀ oj{liu!,lE¡Lr rA NqaR.Ð.- o.20 _G _s

E o- INCINERATOR STACK HEIGHT o- o.t8 - 6l meters ( 2OO teet) z. TREE HE¡GHT o Tree-top Level t-- o.l6 - 26 melers(85 f eet) (r t-- z. oUJ o.l4 z o C) o. r2 o (Í, o o.lo lrj F J o.08 (J:] J (J o.o 6 Ground Level z. :) o.o4 ã X ¿- o.o2 5 10 r5 20 25 (mph) o.o o (¡tm/nr) 5 to t5 20 25 30 35 40 WIND SPEED

CONCENTRATION AS A co FIGURE 4.1 MAXIMUM CALCULATED SULPHUR DIOXIDE N)

FUNCTION OF WIND SPE E D o .22

ALBERTA GOVERNMENT STANDARD o.2 0

E (2OOf ô- o.lB INCINERATOR STACK HEIGHT - 6lmeters eet) 3 TREE HEIGHT - 26meters (85 feet ) z WIND' SPEED - l6km,/hr (lO mph ) o o.r6 Ë É. o.l4 zt-- til (J z o o. t2 c.) { ïree - lop Level o îJ' o.lo (f lri l- o.o B J f, (J o.o6 J Ground Level () o.o4 E 3

x o.o 2 d ä ? 3 4 5 I 7 I (xlOOOf t) o.o o os l.o 1.5 2.O 2.5 (km) DISTANCE FROM PLANT SITE oo (¡-) FIGUR E 4.2 MAXIMUM SULPHUR DIOXIDE CONCENTR ATION AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE FROM THE PLANT SITE 84.

Two other gas processing plants are operated in the reg'ion. The Hudson's Bay 0i I and Gas Co. Ltd. Brazeau pl ant 'is I ocated I 7 k'i I ometers west of the proposed plant site and the Tenneco 0-il of Canada Ltd. Nordegg piant is located l6 kilometers south of the proposed plant s'ite. The proposed plant incinerator stack plume would 1ìne up with the Ïenneco stack plume with either a north or south wind and w'ith the Hudson's Bay stack p'lume with either an east or west wind.

Diffusion calculations, us'ing the approved emission rates for the neighbouring plants given in Table 4.4, determined that in all cases the maximum sulphur dioxide concentration resulting from plume overlap would be less than 0.0.| ppm.

4.1 .2 Sul phur d'iox j de emi ss'ions f rom the fl are stack

During periods of gas p'lant upset ìt may be necessary to flare all or part of the raw gas feed stream. If the sulphur plant shuts down the acid gas stream may be flared until sulphur process'ing can be resumed. The maxjmum ground-level suìphur dioxide concentratìons that may result from each of these conditions was calculated.

4.1 .2.1 Fl ari ng raw gas

A severe gas plant upset may occasionaliy necessitate flaring the total raw gas stream of 19.4 MMSCFD. Using the flare stack raw gas em'ission parameters of Table 4.5 and the Briggs two-thirds plume rise formula for large heat sources given in Appendix E, the maximum ground-level sulphur d'ioxide concentrations were calculated to be less than 0.01 ppm in all cases.

4.1 .2.2 Fl ari ng acì d gas

Acid gas flaring may be required during su'lphur plant upsets. The maxjmum flare rate would occur during sulphur plant shutdovrn when the total acid gas stream of l.l9 MMSCTD containìng 24 percent hydrogen sulphìde would be flared. The gross heating vaìue of the ac'id gas without a fuel gas 85.

Tabl e 4.4

TMISSION PARAMETERSI AND DETAILS OF NEIGHBOURING GAS PROCESSING PLANTS

Hudson's Bay 0ì I and Gas Company Tenneco 0i I of Ltd. (Brazeau) Canada Ltd. (Nordegg)

.l96 Raw gas (MMSCFD) 67 Sulphur production (LTD) 90 45

Sui phur em'i ss i ons (LTD ) 8.4 4.0 Stack S0, concentration (PPm) 8300 9900 Di stance from proposed p'lant (km) 16.6 I 6.0

tl evat'ion (f t ASL ) 3700 3400

lBased on Energy Resources Conservatjon Board approval rates B6

Tabl e 4.5

FLARE STACK RAl,l GAS EMISSION PARAMETERS

Flare gas flow rate (MMSCFD) 19.4 .l.5 Hydrogen suiphide concentration (%) Suiphur emission rate (LTD) 10.9 Flame temperature ('F) I 800 Stack he'ight (feet) 160 Stack exjt djameter (inches) l5 87.

supplement is 173 Btu/SCF, which is less than the m'inimum value of 250 Btu/SCF recommended by the Alberta Government (Department of Health' .I969). Division of Environmental Health Services, Thus, approximately .1073 0.ll MMSCFD of fuel gas with a gross heat'ing value of Btu/SCF would be required to supplement the acid gas during flaring ìn order to maintain the minjmum gross heating va'lue. Diffusíon calcuatjons usjng the Briggs two-thirds plume rise formula showed that w'ith thjs fuel gas supplement' half-hourly average ground-level suìphur diox'ide concentrations of 0.54 ppm may result under the worst conditions. This 'is above the maxjmum allowable half-hourly average of 0.2 ppm.

There are two alternatives that may be used to maintain the half-hourly average below the limit. Either the flare time may be limìted to less than half an hour, or alternatjvely, nore fuel gas than the minimum required to raise the heating value could be used to supplement the acid gas. Diffusion calculations us'ing the Briggs two-thirds plume rìse formula were performed to determine the volume of addjtional fuel gas that would be requjred. The calculations showed that if the acid gas was supplemented by 1.5 MMSCFD fuel gas, the max'imum half-hour'ly average sulphur dioxide ground-level concentratjon would be 0.'ì8 ppm.

If only the minimum fuel gas supplement,0.ll MMSCFD' were added to the acid gas, flaring wou'ld have to be ljmjted to l0 minutes or less during any ha'l f- hour peri od.

The flare stack acid gas emission parameters are given in Table 4.6.

4. I . 3 Sour gas rel ease from pi pel i ne fa'i I ures

The operation of the sour gas gathering system presents a potential for the accjdental release of hydrogen sulphide gas. Concentratjons of hydrogen suìphide greater than 150 ppm for more than one hour are hazardous (Alberta Industry Government Sour Gas Envjronmental Commjttee, 1g74). In Alberta, sour gas pipelìne breaks averaged seven per year in the perìod l97l to 1974, although only one rupture per year was consjdered 8B

Tabl e 4. 6

FLARE STACK ACID GAS EMISSION PARAMETERS

Acid gas pìus Acid gas plus O. I I MMSCFD I .5 MMSCFD Ac'id gas fuel gas fuel gas

Fl are gas f ]ow rate (MMSCFD I . 1 9 1.3 2.7 ) .l0.59 Hydrogen su'l phi de concentrati on (%) 24.0 22.0 Su'lphur emission (LTD) 10.9 10.9 10.9 Flame temperature ("F) lB00 I 800 I 800 Stack height (feet) 160 160 160 Stack exi t d'iameter (i nches ) 1 5 l5 l5 89. major. Durìng the period 1970 to 1974, an average of one sour well blowout per year occurred in Alberta. The primary cause of pipe'line ruptures was corros'ion (Alberta Industry Government Sour Gas Environmental Committee, 1974).

For the purpose of be'ing conservative it is considered in this report that concentrations greater than '100 ppm hydrogen sulphide would be hazardous for a period of exposure greater than one hour.

Diffus'ion calculations were performed in order to evaluate the ground- level hydrogen sulphide concentrat'ions that would result from a pipeline rupture, assuming worst case conditions. The worst case 'is a surface release under Pasquill stability category F (moderately stable) wjth w1nd speeds of 4.4 mph (6.S fps) (Alberta Industry Government Sour Gas Environmental Committee, 1974). The emission rate of hydrogen sulph'ide .l9.41 is assumed to be equal to the raw gas pìpe'line flow capac'ity of MI4SCFD.

The ground- I evel hydrogen su'lphi de concentrat'ion was cal cul ated from the Gaussian plume model:

a . 106 X fiÕ y oru

(ppm); hJhere X = time averaged ground-1eve'ì concentrat'ion 0\ = hydrogen sulphide emission rate (ScFS); ñ o lateral and vertical standard deviations of the "v z = plume (ft);

U = wind speed (fps)

In order to estimate the most unfavourable hydrogen sulphide concentrat'ion, it is assumed that no check valves would be installed in any of the .ì9.41 laterals feed'ing the pìant. Thus the total raw gas flow of MMSCFD would be released through a rupture at any point in the gathering system. The corresponding hyclrogen sulphide emjssjon rate would be 3.37 SCFS. 90

Assuming the worst cases as stated above, the product of the lateral and vertical standard deviations of the plume, w'ith a concentrat'ion of ']634 100 ppm hydrogen sulphÍde, was ca]culated to be ft2 (152 mz). The corresponding ì00 ppm isop'leth is predicted to occur at a downwind distance of 0.5 km (1650 feet) (Turner, 1969).

4.2 Effect on water resources

The potent'ia'l impact to water resources in the vicin'ity of the proposed plant would be associated with the process water requirements, waste water disposal, and process area runoff.

4.2.1 Process water requirements

The proposed five Igpm process water requirements that would be obta'ined from a well would not have a sign'ificant effect on the groundwater resources ,l00 of the area. The estimated groundwater ZO-year safe yield is 25 to Igpm (See 3 .1.4.2).

4.2.2 lrlaste water disposal

No sign'ificant ìmpact would be associated with waste water d'isposa'l . Waste water from the sour water stripper wou'ld be stored in a 2000 gallon wastewater storage tank and periodically trucked out to a waste water d'isposal well. No emissions would be associated w'ith the storage tank as it is a closed system that would be vented into the lolv pressure flare. Pressure would be ma'intained'in the storage tank by fueì gas.

The floor washings would be pumped to the wastewater storage tank, and the total waste water volume would not exceed 4 lgm. The tank would be emptied two or three times a day. Domestic wastewater would be handled by a conventional sept'ic tank and disposa'l field. 9l .

4.2.3 Process area runoff

Surface rainwater runoff from the process area would be collected'in ditches and directed to a 250,000 Imperial ga1'lon storm holding pond lined wìth'impermeable c'lay. The pond volume uras determined on the .l60,000 basis of a process runoff area of square feet. The estimated runoff volume for this area from a 3-inch ra'infall and based on a .]87,500 75 percent runoff is Imperial gallons. The additional capacity is a safety factor. Following a rajnstorm, water in the pond would be monitored and treated, if required, before being released to the surface water draìnage system. 0verflow would not occur unless there was an extremely heavy rainfal'l (approxjmately 4 inches) ìn a Z4-hour period. Rainfall of this intensity'is unlikely as the mean total precipìtatìon for June, the month with heaviest rainfall, is less than four inches (see Fìgure 3.6).

4 .3 P h.ys ical land chanqes

Physicaì land changes would be in the form of d'isrupt'ion of the natural vegetatìon component and topsoìl from tr¡¡o maior sources; (a) construction of the gas pìant and sjte facil'itjes, and (b) construct'ion of the gathering system.

The proposed plant site, well locations and associated road and pipeì'ine rights-of-way are shown in Figure 2.'1. Since the roads to the wells and the well sites themselves have already been cleared and bujlt, discussion of physical effects is restricted to physìca1 land changes assoc'iated w'ith the proposed pìant s'ite and pipel jne corridors.

4.3.1 Proposed p'lant site

.l000 The processing p'lant would require a site approximately feet (:OS meters) square and would cover an area of approx'imate'ìy 23 acres. 92.

The existing landform on the proposed site would be graded to make 'l the surface more uni form and to ìmprove drai nage. Essent'ial ly al of the 23 acres would be stripped, levelled to grade w'ith clay fill and recovered with topso'il, except in those areas where permanent plant buildings and other structures are to be built. Site levelling and process unit foundations would not penetrate beneath the present ìand s.urface to a depth greater than l2 feet (4 meters)'

4.3.2 Proposed gathering sYstem

¡¡.ith exceptìon of the p'ipe'line to 6-3, the gathering system corridors would be constructed aiongside the exjstjng well access roads. As shown in F'igure 2.1, the corridor to 6-3 would be located adiacent to the access road as it runs north until the road swings west. The pipeljne would continue straight north untjl it connects again with the access road. From that point it would run adiacent to the south side of the road to the lvel I s i te.

p'ipefines constructed adjacent to the existing roads would require a 33 foot (10 meter) right-of-way. 0therw'ise a 50-foot (15 meters) rìght-of- way wou'ld be requ'ired.

For these right-of-way specifications, the approximate land areas that woul d be af fected by each i ndi v'idual p'i peì i ne are:

acres l^Jel I Lenqth of pìpeline - feet( meters ) Land area -

I 5-35 9930 ( 3027 ) 7.5 6-3 5089 (1551 ) 4.6 11-27 6120 (lBo5) 4.6

4.4 Effects on ve qetat'ion . soi l . and wi l dl'ife

j jated Essent'ia11y a1l of the natural vegetation commun'ities, so I , and assoc wildlife habitat that fall within the boundarìes of the proposed plant 93. site and pipeline routes, as gìven jn Section 4.3, would be changed. The consequences of these changes are d'iscussed below.

4.4.1 Effects on vegetation

The effects that the proposed development would have on vegetatìon within and around the plant s'ite and p'ipe'line routes ìs related to three general considerations:

(a) Di rect el imìnati on of veget,ati on communi ti es on the proposed pl ant s i te and al ong the pi pel ìne routes . (b) Changes jn sojl mojsture resulting from modification of topography that may change the species composition of inmedjately adiacent vegetatìon communi ties. (c) Possible effects to vegetation from the release of su'lphur dioxide to the atmosphere.

4.4. I . I Direct el iminat'ion of vegetation communi ti es

Figure 3..l0 shows the locatjon of the proposed pìant site and pìpeline routes jn relation to the existing major vegetatìon groups.

The proposed plant site of 23 acres would be located on a slightly elevated piece of land that presently'is covered by a dense mjxed aspen-coniferous forest, which averages approximately 70 feet (21 meters) in height. tssentjally a1l of the trees and understory vegetation within the proposed plant site would be removed.

Construction of the p'ipe'line to well 6-3 would result in the removal of approxìmately fìve acres of muskeg-type forest, prìmarily black spruce averaging about 40 feet (.l2 meters) in height. The route to ll-27 would run through mixed aspen-coniferous, coniferous, and muskeg-type forest. The vegetation along this pjpe'line right-of-way would be cleared from approxìmate'ly fìve acres of land. The pìpeline to l5-35 would run through conjferous (black spruce and lodgepo'le pine) and mixed aspen- 94. coniferous forest averaging approximately 70 feet (21 meters) in height. Approximately eight acres of land adjacent to the road would be cleared.

4 .4.1 .2 Changes i n soi I mo'i sture

Topographical alterations aris'ing from construct'ion of the pìant and pipeline wouid modify the existing surface water flow pattern within and jn the vicjnity of the development. Th'is disruption may result in successional changes in the 'immediately adiacent vegetatìon communities, as these natural communit'ies have established themselves as a result of the exjsting physical conditions. l,lithin the proposed plant boundaries all surface water that would normaì1y run off would be collected and contaìned. This would result in drier than normal condìtjons in the immedjately surrounding landso wh'ich may lead to the eventual replacement of such species as black spruce and tamarack that customarily requ'ire moist cond'itions, by such spec'ies as aspen, white spruce, or pine that are capable of withstanding the drjer soil environment.

Simìlari1y, the existjng surface water pattern along pìpef ine routes may result in djfferent moisture cond'itions than normally exjst, particularly 'if they intersect small stream channels which may cause the normal surface water flows to be díverted. This would ljkely result in long- term successional changes along the pipelìne route to spec'ies more tolerant of the ensuing conditions.

4.4.1.3 Possible effects to vegetation from sulphur dioxide

The tolerance of a plant species to the effects of suìphur dioxide varies according to the djfferent envìronmental condit'ions or the physical conditíon of the plant. Tolerance js lowest under the fol'lowing condjt'ions: high light intensity, h'igh temperature, daylight' growing 95 season, h'igh relative humidity, water on leaves, Very moist soil, old plants, low vigour, low nutritional levels, susceptib'ìe spec'ies and genetic effects (Loman et a1.1972). If the envjronmental factors and growth stages of the plants are not conducive to iniury, damage wiil not take place even in the presence of potent'ia1ly damaging concentrations of sulphur dìoxide (Linzon, l97l ).

Sulphur dioxide may cause acute or chronic leaf iniury to pìants. Acute 'injury is produced by hìgh concentratjons for relatively short perìods, while chroníc injury.resu'lts from the gradual accumulation of excessive amounts of sulphate in the leaf tjssue.

The suscept'ibiìity of several of the tree spec'ies found in the study area is g'iven in Tabl e 4.7. The djffusjon calculations by Western Research & Development Ltd. show that the half-hour average ground-level concentration of sulphur dioxide resultìng from the 6l meter (200 foot) incinerator stack and from the 49 meter (160 foot) flare stack would be less than 0.2 ppm provìded a restrjcted flaring period or extra fuel gas assist is adopted (see section 4.1.1). It is generally accepted that this concentration should not adversely affect higher forms of vegetation

It has been found that the rnost sensjtive species of ljchens are unable to survive in areas where annual sulphur d'ioxide levels are greater than 0.011 ppm and no lichen species surv'ive where annual concentratìons of sulphur djoxide exceed 0.035 ppm. No damage to l'ichens in the vicinity of the proposed p'lant should occur as the Alberta standard of 0.01 ppm average annual concentration of su'lphur dioxide would be nret with the stack des'ign spec'ificat'ions given in Sect'ion 4.1 .

Sulphur dioxide emissions may also have a positive ìmpact on vegetation as plants have a nutritional requirement for the elemental sulphur. Suiphur dioxide may be absorbed through the leaves of pìants and act as a plant nutrient. 96.

Table 4.7

MINIMUM AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF SULPHUR DIOXIDT (PPM) AT hJHICH INJURY TO VEGTTATION HAS OCCURED

Exposure Durations 30 min. I hr. 2 hr. 4 hrs. 8 hrs. 24 hrs.

Trembl 'ing aspen 0.42 0.39 0.26 0..l3 l,lhite birch 0. 46 0.38 0. 2B 0.21 Balsam poplar 0. B2 0. 65 0.45 0.26 White spruce 0. 87 0.79 0. 70 0. 50 Ambient air quaf ity standards 0.20 0. I 7 0.06

,l970 Source: Loman et a1.1972, adapted from Drejs'inger et al. and .l973 Alberta Department of the Envjronment, January o7

Su'lphur dioxide may also affect vegetation by changing the pH of the soil. The rate of soil acidification'is slow but a shift on one unit of pH over a number of years in forests and grasslands would eventual'ly result in more acid-tolerant spec'ies developìng (Hocking and Nyborg, 1974). The m'inimum pH for good plant growth varies from 6.0 for alfafa to 3.5 for aspen. The pH range of most Alberta soils is 6.0 to 8.0. The normal pH of the upper horizon of the gray wooded and organ'ic so'ils in the Brazeau region ranges from about 6.5 to 6.9.

4.4.2 Effects on soil

As described in Section 3.1.3 there are two maior soil types'in the vi c'in'ity of the proposed devel opment, 9rêY wooded soi I s and organi c soils. Generally the gray wooded variety js located on moderate to well drained sites, while the organic sojls are restrjcted to poorly draìned muskeg areas.

The proposed 23 acre plant s'ite is covered by moderately well dra'ined gray wooded soil, which would be stripped off prior to construction to even the surface contours and improve dra'inage characteristics. The topsoìl would be replaced in depressions and'in those areas where permanent process structures were not erected.

The pipeiine route to 6-3 would encounter primarily organ'ic soils, while p1pelines to l5-35 and ll-27 would run mainly through gray wooded soil areas. During pipei'ine construct'ion the topso'i1 along the right-of-way would be stripped, the pipe would be buried, and the topsoi'l replaced.

Both major soil types have high erosion potential once the stabifizing 'located vegetation cover is removed. The organic soils are generally on level ground so erosion hazards would normally be slight. 98.

Some localized topographìca'l changes would be encountered along the pjpeline routes to wells l5-35 and l1-27. The potential for soil erosìon on slopes would be high, especially if construction took place during the spring runoff and during summer rain storms. Most of the discharge experienced during these periods would flow along the surface as the fine textured subsoils are not very permeable. Suitable engineering procedure would have to be employed to ensure that erosion damage is minimized.

Soils downwind of the gas plant would be potentially suscept'ible to a certa'in degree of acidification by su'lphur dioxide emissjons. The magnitude of thjs acidificat'ion would be very s1ìght due to the low level of sulphur emìss'ions from the proposed p1ant, and would vary with the existing sulphur and calcium content of the affected so'il.

4.4.3 Effects on w'il dl i fe

The proposed development would have both direct and indirect effects upon w'ildl'ife popu'lations withìn and'in the vicinity of the plant j si te and pi pe'l 'ine corri dors . These ef f ects , whi ch range f rom d rect elimination of existing wildl jfe habitat to increased graz'ing land for unguìates, would have both a negat'ive and a positjve aspect with respect to wi I dl i f e popuì at'ions i n the area .

The deleterious effects that the proposed development would have on js wildlife within and around the plant site and pipeline corridors related to four general considerat'ions:

(a) alteration of habitat that lowers an area's ability to support parti cul ar w'i I dl i f e sPeci es ; (b) activity that can divert wildljfe from import,ant range areas and normal movements; oo

(c) improved access that increases hunting pressure on certain wildljfe

popul ati ons ; (d) human activity that attracts certajn wildl ife species (eg. black bear) resulting in conflict.

Habitat alteration on the plant site and along the p'ipe1ìne coffidors would have the greatest effect on those wildlife species that have very specific habitat requìrements, have limited distrjbution, or concentrate 'in specific areas. However, clearing activities may also ímprove habjtat conditions for other species of rodents, birds, and ungulates.

The fol l owi ng dì scuss'ion wi I I deal wi th partì cul ar categori es of wi I dl i fe that would be affected by the proposed development.

4.4.3. I Ungu'lates

In areas of mixed-wood and conjferous forest, construct'ion that eliminates large tracts of tree cover has a negative effect on elk, deer, and moose populations. The areas of land that wou'ld be cleared for this development are consjdered relatìve1y smaìl and should not result in any major deleterious effects to ungulate populations.

However, a posìt'ive impact may also take place when thick forest that is presently unsu j tabl e as ungu'late graz'ing l and i s cl eared al ong the pipeline corridors which would result ìn a new food source of colonìzing vegetat'ion types preferred by ungulates. Revegetation wìth sujtable specìes should be undertaken as soon as poss'ible after construct'ion, especi al ly on s'lopes , so that so j I eros'ion on the exposed surfaces woul d not preclude vegetatìon recolonization.

During construction, 'intens'ive human and machjnery activity would result in the short-term retreat of ind'iv'idual ungulates from the v'icinjty. I 00.

As shown in Figure 3.1.l, the proposed p'lant sjte and pipeìjne corridors are situated adjacent to an area of land along the Brazeau Reservoir that has been designated as key ungulate winter range. It'is anticipated that the disturbance created by the proposed plant and facjl'ities would substantially lower the capability of the winter range that exists on the Brazeau Reservoi r south and east of the devel opment, espec'ial'ìy during the construction phase. Ungulates normally inhabitatìng th'is portion of the Brazeau Reservoir during the winter may restrjct their actìvity to the extensjve winter range areas east along the Brazeau River, or northeast along the Elk River. The limited field surveys that have been done in the area suggest that ungulate popu'lations are not large enough to result in an overcrowd'ing situatjon.

Improved road access would likely result in'increased bÍg game hunting pressure in the vjcinity of the p'lant site and pìpeìjne corridors.

4.4.3.2 Carnivores

The red fox and coyote have proven their adaptab'ility and ma'intained thejr populations even in areas of hjgh human activity. The proposed development would likely not produce negatìve effects to these species or to less tolerant and less abundant wolf and lynx populat'ions unless construction results in the direct disturbance of active denning s'ites

Black bears'in the region may be affected'in three ways:

i) increased hunting Pressure; jj) poor food waste dìsposal practjces; iii ) di sturbance of denni ng s'ites.

The potentia'l magn'itude of increased hunting pressure is difficult to est'imate. Regardìng waste disposa'ì , if easily obtainable garbage is available to black bears, they wjll tend to concentrate in the vic'inity. They may lose thejr natural fear of man and thus become targets for l0l hunters or gas plant personneì that may over-react to the presence of bears. For this reason jt is essential that all food waste be careful]y contained to avoid th'is problem.

It has been observed that activit'ies 450 meters or more away from dens did not disturb normal black bear activity, and that in wooded areas black bears would remain at denning sites with'in 90 meters of hjghway construction activ'ity (Environment Protection Board, 1974).

4.4.3.3 Small mammals

The impact of construction activity upon small mammals, particu'lar'ly rodent species, can be considered major for the lìmited areas where ind'ividual s are el imìnated. I'lo extensive del eterious effects are antìcjpated. Construction activities may destroy indjvidual home ranges on pipefine rights-of-wâjr access roads, and at the plant st'te. Resultant vegetative changes wi1'l tend to exclude some species from recolonjzing the disturbed areas while encouraging co'lonizat'ion by others. Because small mammals have restricted home ranges, do not concentrate, and have h'igh reproductive potential, the chances of a s'ing1e, concentrated d'isturbance within a relatively narrow area destroyìng an entire populat'ion is remote. In fact, the edge effect created by the pipef ine routing wi'lì probably increase the density of certain small mammal species along the cleared area.

Comp'lete tree clearinq and ground levelììng at the proposed site will have a major adverse impact on nesident small mammal specìes. A number of squirrels, chipmunks, voles and mice may be destroyed during construction and others will relocate. The magnitude of joss for the region'is expected to be minor.

Hares are very mobile and it is unlike'ly that they wi'11 be affected by any construction activ'ity except for direct destruction of home areas. 102.

The porcupine has a low dens'ity, wìde popu'lation distribution, and'is solitary by nature. Therefore only a few individuals, if any, might be disturbed during clearing operat'ions.

4.4.3.4 Waterfowl

The proposed development would result jn little impact upon waterfowl and waterfowl habitat. Pipeìine and plant site construction would create a certa'in amount of activity and noise that may occass'iona11y disturb waterfowl resting on the Brazeau Reservoir, but the consequences would not be significant.

4.4.3. 5 0ther bi rds

Habitat clearjng would eliminate a certain amount of des'irable habitat which present'ly provides favourable shelter and nesting areas for perch'ing birds and grouse. Grouse tend to be territorial and may be disrupted from their normal activitìes by the development. Song bjrds and perching birds are able to respond qujckly and posìt'ively when environmental condit'ions are unfavourable. Combined with their wide spread djstrjbution and large population numbers for most spec'ies, the long term effects of disturbances caused by man's activities would be minimal (Brooks et al., l97l). The impact of construction activìty would be short term and although habitat would be destroyed, a favourable edge effect would develop around the plant site and along the pìpeline corridors creatìng new habitat.

Birds of prey would not be significantly disturbed. No nestjng sites were observed within the pìant site or a'ìong the proposed pipeline corri dor. 103

4.5 Social and economìc i moact

This sectìon discusses the social and economic effects related to the proposed development. A summary 'is gìven in Table 4.8.

4.5.1 Economic characteristics of the proposed development

The immedjate econom'ic characterist'ics of the proposed development, which would involve establishment of a nelv gas processing plant and gathering 1ines, would be d'irect employment, gâS production and a change in land use associated with the scheme. The estimated capital costs of the project are $4 mjllion for the processing p1ant, and $l mjllion for the gathering system.

The positive aspects of the development would include direct emp'loyment opportun'ities during the construction and operating phases to people of the surrounding regìon, and increased revenues to the province of Alberta through roya'lty and tax payments on gas production. The negatìve socio-economic 'impacts of the proposed development consist of minor opportun'ity costs associated rvith land required for the processing p'l ant, access roads and gatheri ng I j nes .

4.5. I . I Dj rect empl oyment

The proposed development would provide employment opportunities during both the constructìon phase and durjng plant openation. The labour force required for pipe'line and processìng plant constructìon, and for operation and maintenance of the process'ing p1ant, would be composed of highly skilled tradesmen and labourers, typicaliy consjsting of machine operators, pipefitters, welders, carpenters, p'lant operators, and steam eng'ineers.

It is estìmated that pipeline constructjon would requ'ire a seven man crew over a perìod of 40 days. Constructjon of the plant and related facilìties would take about e'ight months and would employ on the average 30 workers. The actual number of p'lant construction personnel would Table 4.8

SUMMARY OF SOCIAL AND TCONOM]C EFFECTS RELATED

TO TI-IT PROPOSED DEVELOPMTNT

Refer to Item Relative Effect (report sections)

Emp'l oyment opportuni ti es 292 nan-years total 4.5.1 .l Natural gas royalties Approx. $1,550,000 per year for 20 years 4.5.1 .2

Condensate royalties Approx. $1S0,000 per year for 20 years 4.5.1.2

Value of timber cleared f'let val ue $ I 5 ,000 maximum 4.5.1.3. I

Loss in timber roya'lties Approximately $IOOO 4.5.1.3. I Loss in existìng fur production Nil 4.5.1.3.4

Loss in potential fur production Less than $ZSZg average per season 4.5.1"3.4

Loss in recreation opportunities luli nor 4.5.1.3.5

Populations changes Minor 4.5.1 .4

¿ OÞ I 05.

vary between 20 and 60 over the eight-month construction period. The piant construction personnel would be temporarily located at a construction camp 'located adiacent to the plant site.

The actual operation and maintenance of the facility would require l3 permanent staff work'ing 10-hour shjfts over an est'imated min'imum plant life of 20 years. Qutside service and majntenance personnel would occasjonally be requ'ired for special ized dut'ies.

The scale and nature of the proposed development is small, thus jt would not be expected to put a stra'in on the reg'iona1 labour market' The majo¡ity of the construction workers and permanent emp'loyees would be drawn from Drayton Vailey, Edson, Edmonton, or Calgary and smaller communjt'ies such as Lodgepo'le and Violet Grove that are within commuti ng d'i stance of the pì ant s j te.

A summary of the minimum anticipated employment opportunities'is given bel ow:

Durat'ion of I'1an years (a) Construction phase Labour force empl oyment empl oyment

(1) P'ipeìine 7 40 days 1.2 (2) Pl ant and faci I i tj es 30 B months 30 (b) Operation t3 20 years ?60 TOTAL 292

4.5.1.2 Natural gâs, sulphur, and condensate production

At normal production rates of 14.0 MMSCFD sales gas and 8.3 LTD sulphur, and based on 355 days of operat'ion per year' the proposed p'lant would produce 4970 MMSCF per year of natural gâS, 2950 LT per year of elemental sulphur, and 69,000 barrels per year of condensate' I 06.

Assumjng a conservat'ive value of $1.00 per MCF of natural gas when the plant goes onstream, and a provincial royalty rate of 3l percent, natural gas production from the proposed development would result in roya'lty 'in payments to the prov'ince of about 1.55 million dollars the f irst year of product'ion. Although decreasìng reservoir pressures would be experìenced, gas product'ion 'is expected to last for a min'imum of 20 years.

Sulphur marketing would not be economical under present cond'itions, so all elemental sulphur produced would be stored in block form on the site. The condensate would be stored'in a 5000 barrel tank and would be sold and trucked out periodica'11y.

The royalties paid to the province on condensate sales would approximate $l5o,ooo per year.

4. 5. I . 3 Effects on exj stì ng I and use

The proposed development would have a m'inor impact on the existing land use of the area. The most signìficant effects that would result to the existjng land use pattern are discussed below.

4.5. I .3. I Tjmber Productìon

The proposed development would not affect ex'isting timber operations. A total of approximately 40 acres of forest would be removed on the plantsite and pìpelìne rights-of-way. The value of timber removed cannot be accurately est'imated wjthout a detajjed timber census and market survey.

A conservative approximation of the value of timber removed assumes that 20 acres of the forest cleared is or wi'll develop into merchantable lodgepole pine or white spruce, yìe'ldìng 10,000 board-feet per acre. At a wholesale value of $lb0 per thousand board-feet the total value of merchantable timber cleared r^rould be $30,000. Assuming transportatjon and mjlling costs amount to half th1s value, the net value of timber removed would be $.l5,000. This 'is cons jdered to be a h'igh estimate as: 107 .

(a) The 40 acres that would be affected consists of mjxed aspen-con'iferous or muskeg-black spruce forest types. It is likeìy that substantial'ly less than 20 acres of the land affected would be capable of yielding 10,000 board-feet per acre of merchantable white spruce or lodgepole pi ne.

(b) Merchantable timber ìn this area may not be economical to develop due to prohibitive costs ìn transport'ing the product to the closest saw mill.

It is assumed that all merchantable t'imber removed will be transported to the cl osest sawmi I I .

An addìtional factor is timber royalties. For t'imber that is removed as sau¡ log or post materìa'l under the authority of a timber license, a royalty of $S per thousand board - feet'is paid to the Alberta government. For timber that'is removed for jndustrial operat'ions (eg.gas plant) the present prov'incial royalty 'is approx'irnately $20 per acre. Thjs means that approximateìy $gOO in royalt'ies would accrue from the proposed gas p'lant and gathering system if the land was cleared for development purposes only. If the same volume of timber were to be removed under the autho¡ity of a timber license, up to $ISOO would be paìd in royalties. This loss in timber royalties'is ratherinsign'ificant when compared wjth the petro'leum royal t,i es that woul d be pai d.

4.5.1.3.2 Hydro-electric power development

The proposed development would have no s'ignifjcant eff_ect on power development. However if Calgary Power Ltd. should raise the maxjmum level of the Brazeau Reservoir to 3200 feet from the present max'imum 3170 feet, the 6-3 lease would be flooded. The 6-3 well site corner elevat'ions are as follows: (A1l-Can Engìneerìng & Surveys Ltd., 1975) I 08.

NE 3'l95.8 feet

SE 3197.5 feet

SL'l 3l 98.7 feet

Nl,J 3197 .3 feet

Since the lease slopes upward to the south, the proposed 3200 foot water jevel would not flood far past the lease. If the water level is raised, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) lvould require the wellhead to be elevated 3 to 4 feet above the maximum water level. A pad and upgraded road would also have to be built around the well for access purposes. The pad would probably be rìp-rapped in order to decrease eros'ion potential .

4.5.'l.3.3 Natural gas Productìon

The proposed development would increase raw gas production in the region from the existing 263 MMSCFD (combined capacìty of Hudson's Bay 0i'l & Gas Ltd. and Tenneco 0'il of Canada Ltd. ) to 280 MMSCFD. Sulphur product'ion .146 would be 'increased from 136 LTD to LTD.

4. 5. I . 3. 4 Fur trapp'i ng

The proposed development would not affect existìng trappìng activities ìn the area. These have been restrjcted to one township, the closest boundary of wh'ich js located approximately four miles northwest of the proposed plant sjte. The exist'ing trapline is also about the same distance from the existjng Hudson's Bay 0i'ì & Gas Ltd. Brazeau gas p'lant.

It is possible that the proposed development may discourage fur trapp'ing on the land immedìately adjacent to it but it ìs difficult to estimate the area of land'in wh'ich future fur trapping actìvities would be discouraged. However, 'it may be conf ident'ly assumed that substantial ly less than one townsh'ip wouìd be affected. I 09.

The average historical value of the fur-harvest for one township'in the area is $2,529 per season (see Table 3.ll). It follows that the potent'ial fur trappìng opportunity costs assocjated with the proposed development would be substantially less than th'is amount per season.

4.5. I .3.5 Recreation

The proposed development should have little effect on present human recreat'ion activity in the area. Since big game huntjng is the p¡imary recreation activity in the area' negative effects may be related to jn dìsturbance of bìg game animals. Noise and activìty would result h"igher d'isturbance du¡ing the eight month construction perìod than durìng normal plant operation. In the same context, posit'ive aspects (as far as hunters are concerned) may be associated r¡rith the additional four miles of access road and pipe]ine rights-of-way into the area, allowing better penetratìon of the heavY bush.

4.5. I .4 Effects on PoPul ation

The small labour force requ'ired for the construction and operation of the proposed development would have little effect on the ex'isting population of the region. As discussed in Section 4.5..l.1, construction of the plant would employ about 30 workers over an ejght month period. Construction of the pìpelìne would requìre a seven man crew over a per.iod of 40 days. The construction personnel would likely be drawn from major urban centers jn Alberta and would be temporarily located at a construction camp.

gperation of the fac'ility wou'ld require l3 permanent staff who would probably iive in Drayton Val'ìey with their familjes or be located ìn a camp at the proposed plant site and commute on a week'ly bas'is to and from their homes. ll0.

4.5.2 Changes in natural resource capabif ity

As discussed jn Section 3.4, the land with'in the study area possesses vari ous degrees of capabi'l 'ity for ungu'late range, outdoor recreati on , logging, grazing, and agriculture. In addition the Brazeau Reservoir, Brazeau R'iver and El k Ri ver prov'ide sportf i sh capabi'ì ì ty. The antìci pated changes jn each of these resource capabil'ities is discussed below.

4.5.2.1 Land capab'ility for ungu'late range

The plant site and gathering lines would be constructed in areas that are classified by FRAS as provìd'ing good to good-excellent capab'il ity for ungulate range. Regarding the ungu'late resource, FRAS (1973) reports

" The Brazeau area has already undergone some deterioratjon such as erosion along cutlines on steep grades and the impediment of draìnage along some tracks and servjce roads. Even more ev'ident has been the decline in elk populations in the past twenty years In the 1940's hunters commonly encountered herds of 50 or 60 elk daììy. Tlljth 'improved access to hunters and the loss of habitat caused by the building of Brazeau Dam, this is no longer the case. "

"The ungulate resource is in danger of deterioratjon jf other resource capabilities are to be explo'ited on the same land'unit. There is ev'idence that ihe cutting of overstocked t'imber stands can cause a reversion to an early stage of plant succession and a condition better suited for grazers such as elk and brovrsers such like deer and moose. Increased accesS, however, ffiôY offset the resultant increase in popuìations."

4.5.2.2 Land capability for outdoor recreation

The proposed development would occur jn an area that provìdes low to moderate capability for outdoor recreation. FRAS reports: lll.

" Exploration for and extraction of oil and gas genera'l'ly detract from the beauty of the countryside and harm its recreational value. The importance of this conflict may be less than elsewhere, because the muskegs, dense forests, and uniform terrain do not offer any great appeal for most touri sts. "

4.5.2.3 Land capability for loggìng

The ability of the land to produce commercial timber that would be cleared by the proposed development varjes between no capability to good-excellent. The overall effect on the timber resource of the area has been discussed in Section 4.5. I .3. I .

4.5.2.4 Land capab'ility for grazing

The land area that would be affected by the proposed development provides no capability for grazing.

4.5.2.5 Land capabi'ìity for agriculture l4ost of the land that would be affected possesses no capabiljty for agricuìture due to generally unfavourable soil and a short grow'ing season. A small area of land surroundjng the plant sìte provides low- moderate capab'il'ity for agricu'lture, but would require timber clearing and soil upgrad'ing 'in order to produce forage crops.

4.5.2.6 Water capability for sport fìsh

The Brazeau Reservoir, Brazeau River and Elk R'iver provide good- excellent capabilìty for sport fish. FRAS reports that the area has few js limítations to the productìon of sport fish. The most common species dolly varden, but smalIer populations of Rocky Mountain whitef ish and brook trout are present. Lake sturgeons are also occasionally recorded in the Brazeau River below the power development. 112.

The proposed development should not affect the sportfish capabil'ity of the reg'ion. There would be some surface water runoff and erosion assocjated with pipeline constructl'on, but thjs would not result in signìficant siltation of the reservoir.

4.5.3 Aesthetic imPact

An evaluation of the aesthetic impact of the proposed gas processìng development involves consideration of the type and magnjtude of the anticipated change'in qua'lity of the landscape'in terms of physìca'l attracti veness and un'iqueness of I andforrn.

The landscape to be affected ìs typical of the genera'l area wh'ich consists of large tracts of mixed forest and muskeg-marsh areas. The recreational value of the area is generally low whjch may be attributed largely to the homogeneity of the landscape and lack of un'ique landform.

The development of the proposed gas project, particular'ly the processing plant, would permanently reduce the exist'ing aesthetìc quai'ity of the area due to the jntroduction of an jndustrial facilìty. However, prevìous development of two sim'ilar plants (one ten miles south and one ten m'iles west of the proposed project), development of the Brazeau Reservoir and Power Facil'ity, and a network of service roads and seismic lines has already had significant impact on the area.

The fol'lowing facjlities would comprise the most conspìcuous features at the plant site:

One 200 foot, 2 f oot d j ameterincìnerator stack, that r^roul d be pa'inted with red and white stripes.

.|60 One foot, l5 inch diameter flare stack, that would be pajnted an'inconspicuous colour.

.l00 Four processing towers, less than feet hìgh, that would be painted with inconspicuous colours. ll3.

One sulphur storage block less than 30 feet high

Several p'lant bujldings'less than 20 feet h'igh that would be painted an inconspìcuous colour.

The plant site is surrounded by trees averaging 75 feet'in height. These will effectiveìy screen the processing towers, plant un'its, sulphur storage block and plant buildings until the viewer is in close proximity to the p1ant.

The incinerator and flare stack will proiect above the surrounding forest by approximateìy 130 and 90 feet respective'ly. These stacks would be visible throughout the reservojr area and from as far a\,vay as two to five miles in the east and west directions. Due to the river valleys that develop north and south of the proposed site the stacks would be vis'ible from up to ten miles away.

When viewed from the east at distances greater than four m'iles the plant stacks would not project against the skyline but would be presented aga'inst a forested hill or mountain background that would reduce the impact cons'i derab'ly.

There are no permanent residences in the study area and for the most part, persons jn the area are'involved u¡ìth the oil and gas ìndustry or forestry operations and the service industries associated with them.

The view'ing public on whom the aesthet'ic impact must be considered is, therefore, prima¡i1y the recreat'ional public, walking, boating, fishing or hunting in the area. The number of persons involved'in these pursuits in this area is small. I 14.

The overall aesthetic impact of the proposed development is antjcipated to be mjnor, due to the remoteness of the area from the general publ'ic and the existing industrial development. The height of the surrounding forest would screen most of the p'lant structures w'ith the exception of the top 90 to 130 feet of the stacks which would be vìsjble over most of the study area. ll5

REFERENCES

Alberta Industry Government Sour Gas Environmental Committee (1974) "Guidel'ines for Urban Development in Relation to the Sour Gas I ndustry" , Edmonton.

All-Can Engineerìng & Surveys Ltd. (1975) Plan show'ing location of Decal ta et al . Brazeau N 6-3-46-'12, Map.

Berlie, E.M. (lgZl) "Processing of llatural Gas", Texasguìf Sulphur Company Ltd. , 0kotoks , Al berta.

Brooks, J.w., J.C. Bartonek, D.R. Kle'in, D.c. spencer, and A.S. Thayer (.1971 ) "Envìronmental influences of oil and gas deveìopment in the Arctic slope and Beaufort Sea", U.S. Department of the Interìor, Bureau of Sport, Fjsh and hlildl'ife Resources, Publication 96' 24 pp.

Farvolden, R.N. (196.] ) "Groundwater resources Pembina area, Alberta" Research Council of Alberta, Preì'imjnary Report 6l-4' tdmonton'

Government of Alberta, Department of the Environment (.]975) Clean Air Regulat'ions, 218/75.

(.l975) Alberta Environmental Impact Assessment System Interim Gui del i nes.

Department of Labour (l gZl ) Al berta Regul ati on 30/71 ',Protection of workers from the effects of noise".

Department of Health (.l969) "Air Pollution control at Gas Processing and sulphur Recovery Plants". il6.

Government of Alberta and Government of Canada (1973) "The Foothills Resource Allocation Study Phase I - Lower Brazeau Drainage District" Alberta Department of Lands and Forests, Alberta Environment, Environment Canada, Edmonton.

Government of Canada, Department of Transport, Meteorological Branch ".|968 Cljmatic Normals Volume 3 - Sunshine, cloud, pressure and thunderstorms", Toronto.

Department of Transport, Meteoro'logica'l Branch ".l968 Climatic Normals Volume 4 - Humid'ity", Toronto.

Department of Transport, Meteoro'logìca1 Branch, ".l968 Climatic Normals Volume 5 - Wind", Toronto

Department of Transport, Meteorologica'l Branch "1968 Hourly Data Summaries - No. 47 - Rocky Mountain House".

Department of the Envìronment (1973) "Temperature .l970 and precipitation - l94l to - Prairie Provinces" Atmospheri c Envi ronment, Dor¡¡nsvi ew, Ontari o.

Department of the Env'ironment (I973) "Canadìan Normals Volume I - Temperatures l94l to 1970" Atmospheric Environment, Downsv'iew, 0ntario.

Department of the Environment (lgZ:) "Canadian Normals Volume 2 - Prec'ipitation l94l to 1970" ATmospherjc Environment, Downsview, 0ntario.

Department of the Envjronment (1974) "Environmental Impact Assessment of the portion of the McKenzìe gas p'ipeljne from Alaska to Alberta" Envìronment Protection Board, liljnnìpeg, Volume 4, Research Report. 117 .

Department of the Environmento Water Survey of Canada, Analyt'ica1 water qualjty data and flow data of the Brazeau R'i ver.

(.l968) "1966 Census of Canada - population unincorporated p'laces" Dominion Bureau of Statistjcs Cataìogue 92 - 633, Bulletin S-3, 0ttawa.

(1973) ".l971 Census of Canada - population unincorporated settlements", Statistics Canada Catalogue 92 - 771

(sP-l )

(1967 ) ".I966 Census of Canada, Popu'lation - Divisions and Subdivjsions, lllestern provinces" Domjnion Bureau of Statistics Catalogue No. 92-606, Ottawa.

(re62) " l96l Census of Canada , Popul at'ion ,

Di vi s i ons and Subd'i vi s i ons " Dominion Bureau of Statjst'ics Cata'logue 92-534, 0ttawa.

Haltiner, G.J. and F.C. Mart'in (lgsz) "Dynamìca1 and physical meteorol ogy" McGraw Hj I I , Toronto ' 470 pp.

Hare, F.K. and M.K. Thomas (1974) "Climate Canada" l^lììey Ltd', Toronto 256 pp.

Hockjng, D. and lr4. Nyborg (1974) "The problem of soil acidification by sulphur dioxide", Proceedings of t^torkshop on reclamation of disturbed lands in Alberta" Alberta Environment and Environment Canada.

Lesko, G.L. and J.D. L'indsay (1973) "Forest/soÍl relationships and management cons jderations 'in a portjon of the Ch'ip Lake map area' Alberta" Alberta Research Report 731, Edmonton 66 pp. ltB

Linzon, S.N. (1971 ) "Effects of sulphur dioxide on vegetation" Air Irlanagement Branch, Ontario Department of the Environment, Toronto.

Loman, 4.4., R.A. Blauel and D. Hocking (lglZ) "Sulphur dìoxide and forest vegetatìon" Northern Forest Research Center, Information Report N0RX49, Edmonton.

Nibourg, J. and B. Hall (.l976) "Regìon III l¡lountain Moose (Drainage) Survey" Alberta Recreation, Parks and l,Jildlife, Fish and l,Jildlife Dìv'ision, unpubl ished report, Edmonton. .|950) and l,J. E. Bowser (circa "So'il Survey of Rocky Peters, T.W. .l9, Mountain House sheet" Alberta Soil Survey Report No. Edmonton

Rowe, J.S. (1959) "Forest regìons of Canada" Canada Department of Northern Affajrs and Natural Resources, Forestry Branch, Bulletjn I 23, 0ttawa.

Toharsky, 0. (lgZl) "Hydrogeology of the Rocky Mountain House Area, Alberta" Research Council of Alberta Report 7l-3' Edmonton.

Turner, A.B. (1969) "|,rJorkbook of atmospheric dispersion estimates" U.S. Department of Health, Education and !^lelfare, Cinncinati, 0hjo.

Tvrardy, A.G. and J.D. L'indsay (.l971) "So'iì survey of the Chìp Lake area', Alberta Soil Survey Report S-71-28.

Western Decalta Petroleum Ltd. (1976) "Brazeau East Gas Plant Approval Submission", CalgôrY, Alberta.

¡¡ingert, K. (1974) "Brazeau Reservoir land use aSS'ignemtns ungulate survey. Alberta Recreation, Parks, and !,lildlife, Fish and l^lildlife Division, Habjtat Land Use Section, unpub'lished report, Edmonton. APPENDIX A Water Quality Data - Brazeau River

Source: Environment Canada, Analytjcal Services Sectjon sEGU EST OOO¡ PAG y{ÁIE.X A UALJTY I) ATA

tlq r'\ 2 lt/ q^c. qf ÂTInN ô0ÀLOs S Ln¡iÊllllDE

8:IÀ¿EÂIJ R.i VER BËLOI.I PO9.¡ERHOUSÊ, ÄLBERIÂ 6 ¿ùltL o¿n?ll t0l(ItL - a F 0 2c-4,rs t 0f = PH A¡lPI 6ts 1 M SP eciFic ÌURIìIDITY SP EC TF P H OXYGFN 0AlE I I F,e f EMP. IC A Ën Cn I.:DUC 1o ',{ÀIEfr c0 NDUC T . DISSOLVTD I t'{ST DO U /Cn U PH tJÑ t)MYHtl / c¡'t N TS r'1G / L E I 6 l¿ t2 50 2q. 0 å-9 -7¿-14-10-----J3' ¡2 ç0 I ¿o 6 73 ')9 50 !i. 0 e 60 g 285 u I l l) 7 I s | 7 71 ¿1. q ãi:l 3t¡1 t 7¿¡ t2 ¡¡5 l. ô 380 I 2¿ I 4r 2e5 ¿¡ tt 10 tt.o .J

t Ht.(JU OOO¿ PÀGI, U AIA ST

qIrH /IGQ r M qñq o t ¡ ? t L I Y f I r ilìÉ {,trì rn NGTYUDL t lq D2 ^lt ^ 8RÅZEÀU RIVER BELOH POI{ERHOUSE, ALEERIA 04 (.t1 I !0501 I t0 r5tL_--' 0 0601L 0q5 t0 5sr I sÀr'rPL_E 0 2o I 6 02 R RESII¡ ÚE ALK I I¡JIf Y HA ---l R ESI t)ut F¿ sIn UE ¿sl0 UE DÅ1 I ME c OL Lì ttH HA R l) NE ss RDNT.SS llxÈ. t) Px F tv0L lr o TOTÂL FIL TÊR ABLE t ItÉ o f.{O¡,¡FlLlR. AP PI\ RFNT I T^L Epa IILE N0NFlt. TR, PIi I F AI.I IN Mgl (c A L FILI r AC0 Lol__-  33r M MG /L M Èl /L l-l /t- D H Y I{ H RE UNIfS ¡t G /L H G/L | 7 f3 I 45 tt h7 0 2¿ _,L,7 LA q0 144 ,0 2q 5 7u -lI t t0 ¡

N) }IATER OUALITY DA

a?^??ñÀr I ÂttTilnF qtô qúM llqg t oN ÊILUQ t r tEn )rv <ôq ^ÂAl ^

(, U

q1ÀflOt! lìn I ñÊflfìñn^A (! a aÊ^ ')ag i^o ERAzFAU RIVER EELO}l POl.,ERHOUSë, ÀLAERIA n¿¡fr f'ì6q\t P r05L t .910f Ir L02l-______06 7J,r 2¡l t 02 2ol ..__sat{PLli l0t0-t R (J'l PH t_ñ0L DÂTE TIHE ALKAI. IN IYY FI.U f]R I DE PO TASS IUq S ILICA Ch L0Ê Qr I IR 0N I c Á STJLVED F_xTÉ{BLE, FÀ TTKTÂL TNI A L 0ls SOLVTD D¡ SSOL vFD RE ACTTVE Ph YLL Dts r{3 T nc o# .-=Sf! l'rOL - nG r.t riGl1, r.1G/L ll Y l{ l.'l t{G / L- HG/L HG/L ¡lcl L ll /L 0 26 I ¿, 7¿ l,l 0 --fl,_6 ._s-_7 ? til.- 0 tb ?0 l, l't 0r¡ 5 t I 4 6 0.009 0 I 05 I 7 1\ t 16 0.06 05 72 I 74 r¡ 45 t3¡¡ o.lt 0 I 4 I L:troI L ! 2e 5 74 t1 t0 t2ô 0!08 0.7 5.ó Lfqot 0.007

Þ U

al^tfô¡r ¿¡qg-L!¡lcfllroL t lclì tlH qnq ^^ LnSDOOOjó LaflTlloE--5>n sllH 8RA¿EÁU RIVER EELOH POHEPHOUSE, ALBERTÄ 0 n ôì s A¡'tP.L 525s1_ 1,5 ¿t l3 I 0 L I 08 L_-- 07_0 0 t 16 0 ¿ o05lL ô 0-0. ,3ul¿- I I r.g l( N I TROG N NT TR () ÉN c ARrìOrl C ARð NN I IThIIJH E Phn SPF,inRU 5------FH 0SpH0 U I NI I RTìGEN 'tol DI SSOLVF t) ÍOTA L DI s StrLvt-0 f0f IO I A L TOI ÀL AL ExYxtl¡¿. N O NIC H31 0R I8(J p0 l.l NO 3 t, NOE K JELDA nL (CAL c t) ,) I ORGÄNTC RGA ô N _. N_-_ l¡ a c HG H G HG/L ttî D ¡,, Y Þt H 14 G,/ L HG /L ¡'tG/L H GlL L /L / I 6 72 I 50 005 a (!- 005 ,9._ f2 --¡ 3 oos 2 0 fì 73 0 qr 5 0 7 L"oo5 0.010 0óL I 0 I 73 3 0 2 2 t 7u 1;r 45 0i006 o: l oo 061 i:B 8:it iä:8 ?e 5 74 H t0 0¡ol5 .020 06L .5 e r0

(tr (c) I

r o'l ¿0 0' 0f I ¡ h¿__s 6¿ r1 ¿I ltL t ¿z 0 0 0 0 n o0' Itl" 0 9n I lo to 'l t. i. L I I 0 u !(i 0 z 001 U I0t E .-l 't 09 60 t¿ 9 o¿ dtr0 ? tl 0 l0 0 I 00r ¿0c 0 --ð- t¡--I 0 0 (JU I I0" 7L 0 0 'ì ¿0 05 ¿l ¿L 9 c l0 0 'l lo 0 0 00' ' o -'ll9t^l 'l/, I 'l/ r.{ 1/ f) /1w / 9vt /,JÞI l/gH 9¡l NH N t\¿ FO I d J '{HAN l*'Z_- lSH t3l qu a? x Sxlx 3 0¡^l n6 x3 03^-ì ùst 0 ' .3'1 Bulxl o3^10ss 0 ÈHI 3 03^ l0ss IO s¡0 'Jl ò Hjddo Nvg N v H NY9N VH I 3¡v(J 3¡i ¡ 7 l Nl 0 v lì 1dd0:) ts 3Sl ]HI z0 !? 1,0 ¿ r0 Ì5 31¡Jl.rvs------5Dt0 5 UI or--a¿ 0t OI¿ s0t6'c-l50I6 t 5 Vld3g'lY '3En0Hd3È10d t{0'ì3S ö3^IU nY3ZYUg -r0'0-Ñ-0-ITY-I bVJ FIC UJI } J õ rIfT5]'¡O.1--EED--qr¡5-Í eí_-JmITI- Utrtrgt50-l b

n --0f-h1t IiÀTER OUALITY DAI

otr ttnM ^^a 8RÂZEAU RIVER BELOI'I POgJERHOUSE, ÄLBERTA 77 fì tt 273 0 ,9 ,¡ 2 0 {!el0 lP,__ s 05 2L....___- zu.laZP 2810 I 8l a?e t -- A,r'rPLL--z4-l NICKE N CO BALI c0R A rf 140L Y fiD t-¡ìrJM Hor-iÁuÊñiJi'.r -f ME CHnot"ìluM Cf RQYI UH L lc KFL olSSoLvEo ExTRtì LE, 0ISS0L vE0 E xl RELET DIS 9OLVED EXT RfìLE, D I SSIJ LVEU EXTRRLE, MSl ?o f.1 MG/L ¡1G DMYHH I+G/L HG /L HG/L MG/ r'tGlL L -DAT€ 0 0 1.0 0t L 0ú .05 I f, 72 l2 5 ¡ì t: 0 ô ô^o 00 _1 2_ ta.l 5 -,9- L 0 0 0:oo5 0 I 00 L ¿0 6 7] 09 5 U r) q L 0 0 0 I 00 l L t.7 73 0 0u t L 0 5 2?r 74 l2 4 5 L 0 0 8:33i a 29 5 74 11 l0 L.010 L.001 L 01

\¡ U

qA¡__45S I I Ên tt s (^a af Á?lrì¡t ô^^l ô 5 nn ô fì n A ¡ Át1filfrÉ -52n I ONG I llln

ER A¿EÀU RIVTR BELOW POI'¡ËPHOUSF, ALBERf  1 lf, 5 A1ô t p ôq 5l ,1r810 0_1 30 ) 110 IP älü t0 8101L 2P-.1-3 t 0ru - --sÀHP,LE-!l M r.t VANÂD ¡l0trlltlH B ARIU¡4 bnk T ADr'r¡11 H c AD¡,I I Ur'r ÂLU I Nu¡l A U I UM tur4 sl OAIE I'1E Ç RULE E XTXHI.E. E ITxFL€. 0lSSuLvF{) DI SSOLV ¿i) E Xl'r BLE, DIS s 0 LVfD XTRI} LE. EX I ¡ M9r çtÂ Þ _c v I HG,/L l'1 t{G /l ¡rG/t_ hG/L DHYHM HG /L l'' G /l ì4G/l /L 'l 0. 30 L 05 0. ¿ 0 I 6 7¿ 1¿ 50 L 00 I 6 lr_3 00 05 ¿ --9__72 -t q0 00 0 t 05 u.t6 L 2 0 6 7] 0 9 L L L.ù2 73 L 00 0 I 1 7 0 o. Jo L 0.ù4 ? ¿ I 7u t A {s L 00 L -j 0.¿5 L 0.08 29 5 74 tt t0 0.oo¿ 0 n 25

I æ WAIER GUALIIY DAI U

t q2rì q4M t r x côq o tÀlt0N nn-ÀLXS .¡ss LQIyG-ll!-D-E lçD 2 BRÅ¿EÂU RIVI.C BELOI{ POI.JEEHOUST, ÀLBERTA q ¿¡7f0t q7_L0 î ll0 I 1 Il0-1 c L02 0Ir LP _Â IL L1 P I c H r.j Y SILVT. slt.vE H -SÀr'tF-LE T r¡F À RSf À RSEN LEÑI H Lf?c R YM tR c lrk R DÀlE f SS 0 ExTHI¡ DISSTL VED OI ss0 LVED E XTRB L D ss0L En I xlH BL E. DI t.vEt) LE, HSI Âfi ÂG S hG/L D¡IYH tl T4G/L^c G/L hG,/ L U /l UGlL h G/t 0l I 6 72 l2 s0 0r006 L 0 s L. 0 __6 -_i- t 2_lll i0 0 20 6 71 09 50 L.005 0 f3 0 0 I I L 0 5 0 2 2 I 7r¡ l2 {J5 29 -ll¡ It lo L.ooos o'¡L r0

(ot r ? ? f r lnf q t^ çIIM ,rtq I nÀ¡nrftrlìÉ I l

U t'l hG/L DI.tVH M UGlI VG/L /L UG /L UG /L /L I å 72 l? 50 .20 ô 6 _.9 _7e-.1.1 _3 ù._ 2 0 6 75 09 5 0tP 0 I L 06 2 9 5 74 tt I L.o2 roJ '

o¿ APPENDIX B

Vegetation Species in Vicin'ity of Study Area

Source: Lesko, G.L. and J.D. Lindsay (1973) Forest/Soiì relationships and management considerat'ions in a portion of the Chip Lake map area, Alberta. Alberta Research Report 73-1 B-l

APPTNDIX B

VEGETATION SPECIES IN VICiNITY OF STUDY AREA

Common Name Scientific Name l. Trees A'lpine Fir Abies I asiocarpa Paper Birch Betul a pap.ynif era

Tama rac k Larix laric'ina l¡lh i te Spruce Picea glauca Black Spruce Pìcea mariana Lodgepole Pine Pinus contorta Bal sam Popiar Popu I us bal sami fera Aspen Popul us tremuloides

2. Shrubs

Green Al der Al nus sinuata R'iver Al der Alnus tenuifol ia

Sa s ka toon- berry Amel anchier al ni fol ia Common Bearberry Arctostaphyl os uva-ursi Swamp Birch Betul a pumi la Dogwood Cornus stol on'ifera Beaked Hazel nut Coryl us cornuta Si I verberry El aeagnus commutata Labrador Tea Ledum qroenl andicum Bracted Honeysuck'le Lon'icera i nvol ucrata Twi n'ing Honeysuckl e Lonicera dioica Choke Cherry Prunus virgin'iana Golden Current R'ibes aureum þli I d Gooseberry Ri bes hi rtel I um Bristly Black Current Ri bes I acustre Prickly Rose Rosa acicularìs Wild Red Raspberry Rubus stri qosus B-2

Common Names Scientific Name

2. Shrubs

Wìllow Salix myrtillifol'ia 'low hli 1 Sal ix spp. Canadi an Buffalo-berry Shep herdia canadens'is þühite Meadowsweet Spi raea I ucj da Mountain Ash Sorbus scopul ìna Snow Berry S r1 car OS al bus Tall Bììberry Vaccinium membranaceum j Bl ueberry Vacc n'i um myrti I I oi {e¡ Low Bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus Grouse-berry Vaccinium scoparium Low-bush Cranberry Viburnum edule

3. Herbs

Yarrow Achillea sibirica Red and l,.lhite Baneberry Actaea rubra

Mon ks hood Aconi tum del phì n'ifo1 i um hlild Sarsaparilla Aral ia nudicaul i s Arni ca Arnica cordifol ia Li ndl ey' s Aster Aster ci I iol atus Lady Fern Athy rium fil ix-femina Grape Fern Botrych'ium v'irgi ni anum Bluejoint-Marsh Reed Grass Ca I ama rostis canadensis Pine Grass Ca I ama rosti s rubescens Marsh l4arigold Caltha palustris Venus' -s'l i pper Calypso bul bosa Bl uebel I Harebel I Camp anula rotundifol ia Bitter Cress Cardamjne pensyl vanica Sedge Carex capillaris Sedge Carex conc'inna Sedge Carex di sperma Sedge Canex dougl asi i B-3

Common Names Scientific Name

3. Herbs

Sedge Carex media Sedge Carex sp renqel i i Common Red Pa'int Brush Castilleja miniata

Enchanter' s N'i ghtshade Ci rcaea al pi na Purp'le Cl emati s Cl emat'is verti ci I I ari s Pale Coral-root Coral I orhi za tri fi da Bunchberry Cornus canadensis Bladder Fern Cystopteris fraqjlis Broad Spi nu'lose Shi el d Fern Dryopteris d'ilatata Smooth ìrJild Rye Elymus glaucus Hairy l,lì1d Rye Elymus innovatus 'i Fi reweed Great Wi I I ow-hero Ep i I obi um anqusti fol um Common or Field Horsetail Equjsetum arvense Scouring Rush Equi setum hyema I e Horseta i I Equi setum sc'irpo j des l,loodl and Horseta'il Equ i setum s.yl vat'icum l^li I d Stralvberry Fraqaria virqiniana Cl eavers Gal i um aparj ne Northern Bedstraw Gal ium boreal e

Toad- Fl a x Geocaul on I i vi dum Crane's-bi I l Geranium richardsonj j Purpìe or I,Jater Avens Geum rival e Rattlesnake Planta'in Good.yera repens Oak Fern G.ymnocarpi um dryopter j s Northern Green Orchid Habenaria hyperborea

Hedysari um Hedysarium al 1 num Cow Parsníp Heracl eum I anatum

l,loo1ly Hawkweed Hi eraci um a I berti num Rush Juncus sp. Pea Vine Lathyrus ochrol eucus B-4

Common Names Scientific Name

3. Herbs

Western Wood L'iìy Ljlium phjladelphicum Twi n-fi ower Linnaea boreal is St'iff Cl ub-moss Lycopodi um annoti num Common or Running Club-moss Lycopodium cl avatum Ground Cedar Lyco pod i um compl anatum Tree Club-moss Ground Pine Lycopod'ium obscurum tlli 1d Li'ly-of -the-Val'ley Maianthemum canadense Two-leaved Solomon's Seal Wh'ite Sweet Clover Mel i I otus al ba Tal I Mertansia Mertensia paniculata Bj shop's cap Mitella nuda Bi shop's-cap MitelIa trifida

One-f I owered T^lì ntergreen Moneses uniflora Round Leaved Orch'id 0rch'i s rotund'if ol i a Rice Grass Oryzops'i s asperi fol j a Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza depauperata Small Bog Cranberry 0xyc occus mlcrocarpus Palmate-Leaved Col tsfoot Petas'ites palmatus Arrow-Leaved Col tsfoot Petasj tes sagj ttatus Bì uegrass Poa qlaucifol'ia Common Pink Wjntergreen Сrol a asani fol i a Large Wìntergreen Pyrol a bracteata [,lhi te-vei ned hji ntergreen Pyrola pjcta

0ne-sjded Wintergreen Pyrol a !gcri!_d_g_ Greeni sh-fl owered Wi ntergreen Pyrola virens Buttercup Ranuncul us sp. Cloudberry Baked-Apple Berry Rubus chamaemorus Creeping Raspberry Rubus pedatus Dewberry Running Raspberry Rubus pubescens Fal se Mel ic Schi zachne purpurascens Fal se Solomon's-seal Smilacina racemosa B-5

Common Names Scienti fic Name

3. Herbs

Star-fl owered Sol omon' s-seal Smi I aci na stel I ata Chi ckweed Stellaria s p. Twi sted-stal k Streptopus ampl exi fol i us Veìny Meadow Rue Thal ictrum venulosum Common Nettl e Urtica qracilis Bog CranberrY Cow-berrY Vacci n'ium vi ti s-idaea Valeriana sìtchensis

Wi I d Vetch Vicia americana hlestern Canada Violet Viola rugulosa APPENDIX C

THE GAUSSIAN MODEL FOR PREDICTING DIFFUSION FROM A CONTINUOUS POINT SOURCT

Source: Dr. D. Leahey l.lestern Research & Development Ltd. Calgary, Alberta c-t

The well-known Gaussian distribution has been assumed as a continuous source diffusion model by Sutton (1932), Frenkiel (.l953), and many others. Rectangular co-ordinates are used in the model wjth the x co-ordinate in the direction of the mean horizontal w'ind Ú, z in the vertical directjon and y ìn the lateral.

The usual s imp'l i fyi ng assumptì ons are :

(i) Diffusion in the x directjon is neg'lected in comparìson to transport by the mean wind. (ii) l^li thi n the p1 ume, the pol I utant i s cons'idered to have a Gaussian d'istribution with'lateral and vertical standard deviations Sy(x) and St(x) respectivelY. (iii) The turbulence is considered to be homogeneous and stationary. (iv) The ground js considered to be a perfect reflector of the poliutant. blithin these assumptjons, the continuous point source diffusion formula can be derived:

..2 ( X,YrZ) I y2 (z + H) (z - H12 üx e (a) te2 +e a 2nSyS, t"y e 2Sz' 2sv'

l.lhere:

X = time average value of the concentration Q = rate of emission from a continuous point source H = effectìve height of the plume above the terrain

Any consistent set of units may be used. c-2

The problem in using equat'ion (a) arises ìn predict'ing the va'lues of Sy, Sz and H.

Strict]y speak'ing, the Gaussian diffusion model appl'ies only under very regular terrain condìtions. Batchelor (1949) coniectured, however' that the Gaussian functìon may provide a genera'l descrjptìon of average p'lume dispersion because of the essentìal random nature of turbulence by anaìogy wìth the central limjt theory of statistics. Ljn and Reid ('1963) also point out that the turbulence generated w'ind fluctuat'ions which result in pìume dispersion approxìmate a Gaussian distribution fairly closely. l'loreover, experimental studies by Hay and Pasquii'l (1957), and Barad and Haugen (1959), indicate that the Gauss'ian plume formula should have a wide area of practical applicability 'in the atmosphere.

1 c-3

REFERENCES: ApPendix C

Barad, M.L. and D.A. Haugen (lgSg) a ez,elínrinary EuaLuation of Suttonts Hypothesis foz' Díffttsíon fz'om a Contínuous Point Sout'ce J. Meteor. 16 (1 ), pp 12-20

Batchelor, G.K. (j949) ttffusíon in a FieLd of Honogeneous Tw'buLence L EuLerian AnaLgsis Australian J. Sci. Res. 2 PP 437-450

Frenkiel , F.N. (.ì953) futbuLent Díffusíon - Ì,lean Coneentv'atíon Dístv"Lbution in a FLou FieLd of Homogeneous Turbulence Advan. A l. Mech. (3) pp 6l -l 07

Hay J.S. and F. Pasquì1'l (1957) Aiffusion fr'om a Fiæed Souz'ce at a Heíght of a Feu Hundred Feet in the Atmosphez'e J. Fluid Mech. 2 (Part 3), pp 299-310

Lin C.C. and W.H. Rejd (lge:) TurbuLent FLou TheoneticaL Aspects Handbuc h der Phvsik Vol. I , Part 2, pp 438-523

Sutton, 0.G. (I932), A Theory of Eddy ÙLffusíon in the Atmosphez'¿ Proc. .l43-165 Ro . Soc. (London), Ser. A. Vol.135, pp APPENDIX D

BOSANQUET, CAREY, HALTON PLUME RISE FORMULA FOR

STABLE ATMOSPHERES

Source: Dr. D. Leahey Western Research & Development Ltd. Calgary, Alberta D-l

The Bosanquet, Carey and Halton p'lume rise formula for the maximum p'lume rise in a stable or neutral atmosphere is as follows:

oh*u^=hu+h1

where Ahmax = maximum P'lume rise

hv = piume rise due to momentum ht = plume rise due to bouyancy

hv= 4.77 tqtyt/' I + 0.43U/Vs U

h¿ = 6.37 (ln ¡2 + 2 - 2) ^T J u3Tl

where J = ¿2 [0.43 (r1)", - o.2B Ys- + I , lt] -.-I(Qtvs ) '2 (gú) s ^Tl [= w'ind speed

Vs = stack gas eject'ion speed Qt= volume emjss'ion rate of stack gas at temperature Ti g= accelerat'ion due to gravìtY Tl= absolute temperature at which density of stack gas would be equal to that of the amb'ient atmosphere

= Ts-Tl ^Tr Ts= absolute temperature of stack gas (at stack top) þ= potential temperature gradient of ambient atmosphere D-2

REFERENCE l. Bosanquet, C. H., l^I. t. Carey, and E. M. Halton (1950) "Dus t Depositíons from Chimney Stac ks" Proc. Inst. Mech. Cong ress (London) 162 pp 355-357. APPENDIX E

THE 2/3 LAI^I PLUME RISE FORMULA FOR NEUTRAL ATMOSPHTRES

Source: Dr. D. Leahey Western Research & Development Ltd. Cal gary, A'lberta E-l

In the last ten years, there have been many studies of plume rise from large heat sources. There seems to be a general consensus (eg.Slawson .l965; and Csanady, 1967; Briggs, Brjngfe'lt, 1969; Carpenter et al., 1971; Hewett et al., l97l; Thomas et al.,1970) that these buoyancy-dominated plumes rise in a neutrally stratified atmosphere according to the "2/3 law."

þ= c *'Átvt (b) u

Where: C = a dimensionless constant x = downwind distance F = bouyancy f'lux u = mean wind speed along direct'ion of plume

For hot, dry effluents whose mean molecular wejght is close to that of air, the bouyancy flux may be defjned as:

F=s(T) Qr

l¡lhere: g = acceleration due to gravitY Tr= absolute temperature of the stack gases T¿= ôbsolute temperature of the air 'is Q1= rate at whjch total effluent leaving stack

Th'is definition of F assumes that the effect'ive densìty of the stack gases is approximate'ly constant and equal to that of the air which is a valid assumption away from the jmmediate v'icìnìty of the stack.

For sources of known heat release such as flare stacks, the bouyancy flux F may be defined as:

g a F=- H il cpoTu E-2

Where' QH = rate of heat rel ease c heat of at constant pressure p = specific air p = density of dry air

The above equation may be applied with any consistent set of units.

It may be shown that the "2/3 law" expressed in equat'ion (b) has a sound theoretìcal bas'is which'incorporates energy, momentum and mass conservat'ion I aws.

There have been many empirically derjved valtles for the dimensionless constant C, ranging from 1.2 to 2.6, After reviewing the ljterature' Briggs (1972) recommends that a conservative value of 1.6 be adopted.

Studies have been performed in Alberta jn order to determine plume rise behaviour from two 'large heat sources: the Edmonton Polver Clover Bar generatì ng stat'ion and the Petrogas su'lphur pì ant at Bal zac. The first study was undertaken by l,Jestern Research & Development, while the second was done by ['',lr. Vinodh Kumar as a master's thesis in Mechanical Engìneering at the University of Ca'lgary. Both studies showed that plume rise was weì'l-approximated by the 2/3 1aw when C = l'6' Results of these two plume rjse experiments have been communicated to the Alberta Department of the Environment.

Fol'lowing a recommendation by Briggs (1971), Equation (l) was applied for values of x<3.5 x*. For downwind distances greater than this amount, however, X WaS asSumed to have a constant value equal to 3.5x* where:

x* = I qn G/m4/ru.3)5/B *hun F55 ,4/r..3 E-3

REFERENCES - Append'ix t

Briggs, G.A. (f 965) I pLume z.ise modeL eonrpaz,ed uith obsentations J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. I 5 pp 433-438

(1971 ) Some Recent AnaLyses of PLwte Ríse )bsez.uations in Proceedinqs of the Second International Cl ean A'ir Congress H.M. Englund and l,J.T. Berny, Editors - Academic Press, New York and London I 029-l 032

(1972) chimney pLunes in neutraL and stabLe sw,noundíngs Atmospheri c Envi ronment pp 507-51 0

Bringfeìt B. (1969) A Stuaa of Bouyant Chimney PLunes in NeutraL and Stable Atmospheres Atmospheric Envi ronment 3 pp 609-623

Csanady, G.T. (1973) Turbulent Diffusíon in the Environment D. Re'idel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, U.S.A.

Hewett, T.4., J.A. Fay and D.P. Hoult (1ç17'l ) Labov,atory eæperiments of smokestaek pLunes in a stabLe atmosphere Atmospheri c Fnvi ronment q pp 767-7Be

Slawson, P.R. and G.T. Csanady (1967) on the mean path of buoyant bent-ouer chímneg p Lumes J. Fluid Mech. 28 pp 311-3?.2

Thomas, F.|{., S.B. Carpenter, and l,l.C. Coìbaugh (.l970) rLune níse estimates fot' electz,íe generatíng statíons J. Ai r Pol I ut. Assoc. 20 pp 170-177