CLIMATE CHANGE

CLIMATE CHANGE

Shell Canada Limited Page 3-i Peace River In Situ Expansion Carmon Creek Project

Climate Change – Volume IIA November 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 3.

Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Assessment Approach ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Regional Climate................................................................................................ 3-2 3.4 Historical Climate Data for Peace River Region................................................ 3-3 3.4.1 Temperature .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.2 Precipitation .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.5 Regional Climate Predictions............................................................................. 3-5 3.5.1 Regional Climate Models...................................................................... 3-5 3.5.2 Extreme Weather Events ....................................................................... 3-6 3.5.3 Effects of Potential Climate Change within the Footprint .................... 3-7 3.6 Project Adaptability to Climate Change............................................................. 3-9 3.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 3-9 3.8 References .......................................................................................................... 3-9 3.8.1 Literature Cited ..................................................................................... 3-9 3.8.2 Internet Sites........................................................................................ 3-10

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.3-1: Table 3.4-1: Table 3.4-2: Table 3.5-1: Table 3.5-2:

Seasonal Variation in Precipitation and Temperature 1971–2000 ..................... 3-2 Total Changes in Minimum and Maximum Temperature Data at the Peace River A Station, 1959–2004..................................................................... 3-3 Spatial Change in Precipitation (1971–2000 Climate Normals) ........................ 3-3 Potential Emissions Scenarios............................................................................ 3-5 Range of Climate Change Predictions within the Footprint (2000–2050) ......... 3-6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.4-1

Historical Precipitation and Temperature Data at Peace River A Monitoring Station ............................................................................................. 3-4

Shell Canada Limited Page 3-1 Peace River In Situ Expansion Carmon Creek Project

3.

Climate Change

3.1

Introduction


Shell Canada Limited (Shell) is requesting regulatory approval to commercially develop the Peace River In Situ Expansion Carmon Creek Project (the Project), located about 40 km northeast of the Town of Peace River, Alberta within Townships 84–85, Ranges 17–19, W5M in Northern Sunrise County. Shell is proposing to increase thermal bitumen production from its Peace River leases up to about 12,600 m3/d (80,000 bbl/d). Vertical steam drive thermal-enhanced recovery methods will be used to produce the bitumen. This section presents the results of the climate change assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Project, in accordance with the Terms of Reference (TOR; AENV 2009). Climate change is considered to be a departure from natural climate variation as indicated by historical data (i.e., climate normals). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (United Nations 1992, Internet site) defines climate change as: “A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” Potential climate change effects might either serve to either buffer or magnify the predicted environmental effects of the Project. These predicted environmental effects might require design modifications to ensure the Project’s environmental management components can adapt to a change in climatic conditions. This section provides historical climate data and model predictions which aid in identifying issues related to Project impacts.

3.2

Assessment Approach

This section assesses the potential effects of climate variability on the Project and, based on predicted climatic trends, it: • identifies specific aspects of the Project that might be sensitive to climate change • identifies design modifications or mitigation measures that could be implemented to

address issues and impacts potentially resulting from changes in climate trends • considers potential impacts related to climate change that could be further affected by Project impacts The approach taken to address climate change issues in this EIA includes: • assessing historical temperature and precipitation data • assessing climate model predictions of climate change within the region • identifying components of the Project design that might be affected by climate change

over the Project’s life-span Guidance for this section was primarily obtained from the following: • Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Climate Change and Environmental

Assessment (2003) • Canadian Institute for Climate Studies (CICS) (Barrow and Lee 2000; Lee 2001) • the Project TOR (AENV 2009)


3.3


Regional Climate

The climate in the Peace River area is characterized by long, cold winters and short, cool summers. Available meteorological data for the area include long-term climate records from 1944 for the Atmospheric Environment Service Station at Peace River (Environment Canada 2002, Internet site). Data was sporadically collected during the 1940s with more detailed recording occurring after 1959. Historical average climate information was evaluated using data collected from 1971–2000 as this period represents the most complete and consistent data set. The Peace River A Station is located about 5 km west of the Town of Peace River at the regional airport. Data recorded at this station provide insight into climate conditions outside the footprint. However, the station is situated close enough to represent conditions within the footprint. Table 3.3-1 shows 30-year climate normals for the period 1971–2000, based on measurements made at the Peace River A Station. Table 3.3-1:

Seasonal Variation in Precipitation and Temperature 1971–2000

Month Rainfall (mm)

Precipitation Snowfall Total1 Precipitation (cm) (mm) 23.1 21.3

January

0.4

February

0.4

18.2

March

0.8

April

9.7

May

32.8

June

70.9

July

66.6

August

55.3

Mean Daily Maximum (oC) -11.4

Temperature Mean Daily Mean Daily Minimum Temperature (oC) (oC) -21.9 -16.6

16.4

-7.1

-18.3

-12.7

14.0

13.3

0

-11.8

-5.9

6.7

16.1

9.9

-2.6

3.7

2.5

35.4

17.0

3.4

10.2

0.0

70.9

20.4

7.9

14.2

0.0

66.6

22.2

9.7

16.0

0.2

55.4

21.2

8.1

14.7

September

38.5

2.5

40.5

15.7

3.3

9.5

October

14.8

9.9

24.3

8.4

-2.4

3.0

November

3.5

19.8

21.3

-3.4

-12.5

-8.0

December

0.6

22.5

20.7

-9.0

-19.3

-14.2

294.3

119.4

402.2

7.0

-4.7

1.2

Annual Note: 1

Total precipitation calculated by summing rainfall and amount of water released by melting snowfall. The amount of water released by melting 1 cm of snowfall varies with snow density from about 1.0 mm (wet, warm snow) to about 0.7 mm (cold, dry snow).

Mean daily temperature varies between -16.6°C in January and 16.0°C in July. On average, the temperature stays below freezing for 107 days each year. Precipitation is moderate with an annual mean value of 402.3 mm, of which on average 294.2 mm falls as rain and the remainder as snow (see Table 3.3-1). Total monthly precipitation over the year varies from 13.3 mm in March to 70.9 mm in June, with most falling during the summer months. The ground typically has snow cover between October and April, with the maximum accumulation (23.1 cm) occurring in the month of January. Based on Environment Canada data for the Peace River A Station, the average evaporation rate from a waterbody such as a lake or pond is about 600 mm/y (Environment Canada 2002, Internet site).


3.4


Historical Climate Data for Peace River Region

Climate data provided by Environment Canada (2002, Internet site) for the Peace River A Station was assessed to determine historical temperature and precipitation trends. These trends were compared with model predictions of climate change within the footprint (see Section 3.5).

3.4.1

Temperature

Actual temperature trends were assessed for the Peace River A Station. Monthly minimum and monthly maximum temperatures since 1959 have shown a slight increasing trend based on the observed slope of least-squares linear regression (see Figure 3.4-1). Data scatter about the regression lines is nevertheless high resulting in low R2 values ranging from 0.11 to 0.29. This is a result of the large variability in seasonal temperature in the area over the period of record. In general, the minimum temperature shows a great increase than the maximum temperature (see Table 3.4-1). Table 3.4-1:

Total Changes in Minimum and Maximum Temperature Data at the Peace River A Station, 1959–2004

Station Name

Mean Monthly Minimum Temperature Change (oC)

Peace River A

+ 2.3

Mean Monthly Maximum Temperature Change (oC) + 1.3

Note: Data missing for 1945–48.

Based on the non-parametric Mann Kendall test for trend (Mann 1945; Kendall 1975), there is evidence for statistically significant (greater than 95% confidence) increases in minimum, maximum and mean temperatures at Peace River A Station. Assessment of more recent climate information (post-2000) suggests a continuing but slightly more subdued trend in temperature increase.

3.4.2

Precipitation

Precipitation data from Peace River A Station, as well as Grande Prairie to the southwest and High Level to the north, indicate an apparent northward reduction in the average annual amount of precipitation. The overall difference moving north from Grande Prairie to Peace River is about 11% (see Table 3.4-2). Over the period of record, the general trend for precipitation at Peace River A Station has been positive. However, the associated R2 value (0.007) indicates large variability in the data. Using the same test for trends as that used for temperatures, no statistically significant changes were found for precipitation. However, based on a decreasing trend in precipitation northward, as noted previously, an increasing rate of precipitation would be expected to accompany an increasing trend in temperature. Table 3.4-2:

Spatial Change in Precipitation (1971–2000 Climate Normals) Average Annual Precipitation (mm) 446.6

Change (%)

Peace River A

402.3

-11

High Level A

394.1

-12

Station Name

Grande Prairie A

0

Peace River A 56 14' N 117 27' W Elevation: 570.9 masl o

o

1,000

800

Annual Precipitation1959 to 2004

12

Linear (Average Maximum Monthly Temperature) Linear (Average Monthly Minimum Temperature)

Annual Precipitation (mm)

700

7

600 500 2 400

Temperature (oC)

900

300 -3

200 100 0 1958

-8 1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

Year

SHELL CANADA LIMITED - PEACE RIVER IN SITU EXPANSION CARMON CREEK PROJECT DRAWN BY: TG

Historical Precipitation and Temperature Data at Peace River A Monitoring Station

APPROVED: G.J.

EDITED BY: DATE TG

24 Sep 2009

FIGURE:

3.4-1

N:\PROJECTS\61330000\61334000_2009\ArcGIS\MXDs\

FILE: ClimateChange\HistPrecip_Temp_PeaceRiverA.mxd

Page 3-4


3.5

Regional Climate Predictions

3.5.1

Regional Climate Models


Several climate models have been developed worldwide to assess the effects of increasing global temperatures on the world’s climate. General circulation models and coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models project a global-scale warming of between 1.5–4.5ºC by the middle of this century (2050). CICS publishes predictive results from several prominent climate prediction models. The results represent interpolated data within the grid cell of the model domain closest to a selected latitude and longitude coordinate. Climate model predictions for the footprint were based on emission scenarios in the Special Report for Emission Scenarios (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). The special report provided details of four scenarios (A1, A2, B1 and B2) with different qualitative emission driver conditions, including: • political • social • cultural • educational

Examples of quantitative inputs for each scenario are: • regional measures of population, economic development and energy efficiency • availability of various forms of energy • agricultural production • local pollution controls

The emission scenarios are the quantitative interpretations of these qualitative scenarios. Table 3.5-1 summarizes the scenarios. Four modelling scenarios have been selected to provide results to indicate the range of predicted outcomes. Table 3.5-2 shows the discrete values or range of values generated by the various climate models as reported by CICS for the Project’s latitude and longitude and for the four scenarios outlined in Table 3.5-1. Table 3.5-1:

Potential Emissions Scenarios

Scenario A1

Description Future world with rapid economic growth; introduction of new and more efficient technologies; convergence among regions, capacity building and increased cultural and social interactions; substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income

A2

Very heterogeneous world; underlying theme is self-reliance and preservation of local identities; fertility patterns across regions converge very slowly, resulting in continuously increasing population; economic development is primarily regionally oriented; per capita economic growth and technological change is more fragmented and slower developing

B1

A convergent world with global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter; rapid change in economic structures toward a service and information economy; reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource-efficient technologies; oriented towards environmental protection and social equity focusing at the local and regional levels

B2

Emphasis placed on local solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability; continuously increasing global population at a rate lower than A2; intermediate levels of economic development, and less rapid and more diverse technological change than in the B1 and A1 scenarios; oriented towards environmental protection and social equity at the local and regional levels


Table 3.5-2:


Range of Climate Change Predictions within the Footprint (2000–2050) Range of Mean 2.1–4.1

Standard Deviation 1.0–1.9

Maximum

Minimum

4.5–8.8

0.7–2.0

Maximum temperature (°C)

1.8–2.5

0.9–1.8

3.5–5.8

0.5–1.0

Minimum temperature (°C)

2.0–3.1

1.0–1.8

4.3–5.7

0.6–1.4

Precipitation (%)

3.9–8.7

3.6–6.7

13.0–20.0

-8.0–2.0

0.03–0.04

0.01

0.04–0.05

0.02

Parameter Surface temperature (°C)

Evaporation (mm/d) Note:

Predictions are based on all modelled scenario results (A1, A2, B1, B2) for the footprint as provided by CICS. All values represent changes with respect to the 1961–1990 climate normals, as the models have not been updated with the 1971–2000 climate normals. Predictions are for the year 2050 relative to the 1971–2000 climate normals.

3.5.2

Extreme Weather Events

Four types of extreme weather conditions have the potential to adversely affect the Project: • extreme low temperature • extreme high temperature • extreme precipitation resulting in flooding • extreme wind causing damage

Review of the climate information obtained to date indicates that extreme low temperatures are expected to moderate over the period of prediction, reducing the potential for negative impacts associated with extreme low temperatures. With respect to extreme high temperatures, because temperatures are expected to increase over the period of prediction, the maximum high temperature during the Project’s life is also expected to increase. However, the high temperatures typically experienced in the footprint are not extreme, and are not predicted to increase by enough to materially affect the Project. Therefore, no significant impacts to the Project associated with extreme high temperatures are expected to occur during the Project. Extreme precipitation events are of potential concern as flooding could put facilities close to watercourses at risk. Predicted climate trends indicate a 4–9% increase in mean annual precipitation during the Project’s life. As a result, a similar increase in runoff and stream flows associated with the design storms could occur. However, no impacts to Project facilities are anticipated because of the following: • central processing facilities and well pads are located away from water courses • road and pipeline water crossings are limited and designed to address extreme runoff

events and include safety factors • runoff containment facilities are similarly designed to contain more than the predicted one-time design runoff event Extreme wind predictions are not included in the long-term climate trend models; however, substantial changes in wind patterns and extreme winds are not expected as the area is generally not susceptible to extreme winds. The potential for impacts associated with wind, such as damage from falling trees, can be reduced by ensuring trees are cleared around facilities, power lines and flow lines.


3.5.3


Effects of Potential Climate Change within the Footprint

Predictions generated by the climate model results made available by CICS indicate the potential for increasing temperature and precipitation over the region during the next several decades. These trends are not the result of the Project, but are based on predictions relating to global effects associated with the various scenarios outlined in Table 3.5-1. Short-term historical data provided by the meteorological station at Peace River supports the predicted increasing trend in temperature and precipitation (see Figure 3.4-1) but at a lower rate. The potential exists for impacts related to climate change to be further altered by Project-related effects and vice versa. In either case, the super-position of impacts might result in increased impacts or muting of the impacts, in a positive or negative direction. The effects on the following three general areas are considered: • aquatic resources (surface and groundwater) • terrestrial ecology and biodiversity • air quality

3.5.3.1

Aquatic Resources

Effects on surface water resources as a result of climate change might result in: • changes in flow volumes of rivers and streams • accumulations of standing water in wetlands • changes in the water balance of fens and bogs

This, in turn, can affect water resource availability and associated aquatic habitat. Similarly, disturbance associated with the Project is expected to result in increased runoff. With respect to the Project, these impacts are expected to be localized, small in extent and negligible in final impact rating. Under the predicted warming of 2.1–4.1ºC, as noted previously in Table 3.5-2, precipitation might increase by about 3.9–8.7% and evaporation by about 0.03–0.04 mm/d over current averages. Precipitation exists as an input to the surface water and groundwater resources, whereas evaporation exists as an output. The effect of these changes on surface water and groundwater resources might affect the amount of available water to sustain the regional ecosystem. A potential increase in precipitation would provide additional surface water runoff to nearby creeks and wetlands within the footprint and, subsequently, additional recharge to the shallow groundwater regime. However, the predicted increase in precipitation is partially offset by the predicted increase in evaporation of about 0.03–0.04 mm/d. When evaporation is most active (May–October), this additional evaporation would amount to about 5.5–7.4 mm over the 184-day period. Considering that predicted average precipitation might increase by 15.7–35 mm, any increase in evaporation should be offset by the increase in precipitation resulting in a potential net gain of 10.2–27.6 mm/y. The amount and quality of aquatic habitat are not expected to change substantially over the life of the Project because predicted increases in precipitation are partially offset by an increase in evaporation rates. The predicted increase in precipitation is expected to be larger than the predicted increase in evaporation rates. Therefore, impacts to aquatic habitat that are associated with predicted increases in temperature and precipitation are expected to be positive. Predicted Project-related impacts to water and aquatic resources are also expected to be both positive and negative, but with negligible overall impact.


3.5.3.2


Terrestrial Ecology and Biodiversity

The predicted impacts of climate change on biodiversity are still relatively unknown. Some models predict that warming trends might lead to increased forest productivity if sufficient moisture is available (Price et al. 1999) as a result of increased soil decomposition, longer growing seasons and warmer temperatures. However, most models predict that negative impacts will occur to the boreal forest and its biodiversity. Climate change effects to biodiversity might include a species shift to grassland and parkland areas (Schneider et al. 2009) as warming trends will push boreal forest to higher latitudes. Because of this, there could be an increase in the number of competitive or invasive species and a loss of species that are not able to compete in a parkland or grassland environment (Hogg 1995, Internet site). Many models predict an increase in disturbance regimes such as fire and insect outbreaks which could alter boreal forest species composition. In this case, predicted changes in climate remain supportive of a boreal forest ecosystem. Project-related impacts to species bio-diversity are expected to be low and are not associated with climate change. Therefore, terrestrial ecology and biodiversity impacts related to climate change are not expected to be further affected by Project-related impacts.

3.5.3.3

Air Quality

An increase in temperature will not affect the predicted ambient air quality concentrations. Most Project emissions are from combustion sources. Ambient concentrations from combustion sources are related to the plume rise from the combustion source. The plume rise is related to the energy added to the ambient air in the combustion process relative to the ambient air. Thus, the plume rise will not change as a result of temperature increase from climate change. Although some equipment performance and operational changes could potentially occur (i.e., less heating in winter and more cooling summer), no significant impact is expected for the predicted temperature increase over the life of the Project. An increase in temperature might have an effect on regional ozone concentrations. Ozone formation from Project and regional emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) is affected by both temperature and photochemical reactions. If the temperature increase is associated with non-overcast skies, then an increase in ozone formation could be expected. Offsetting this increase is the predicted increase in precipitation which could be associated with either an increase in precipitation rates or in the number of over-cast sky days. The closest monitoring station to the Project has not shown any elevated ozone concentrations for 2004–2008. Based on ozone modelling in the Athabasca oil sands region of Alberta, the Project NOx emissions might affect ozone formation up to 0.3%. Temperature increase as a result of climate change would operate upon this small increment and, therefore, have negligible or nonmeasurable impact. An increase in precipitation might increase the rate of wet acidification deposition. Although there is an offset decrease in dry deposition, the highly effective wet deposition dominates so that the effective change in potential acid input (PAI) is about proportional to the change in precipitation. Project PAI predictions are greatest near the Project. A 4–9% increase in Projectrelated PAI would not change the pattern (i.e., areal contour shape) of deposition but would increase the magnitude. No change to the impact ratings associated with PAI are anticipated.


3.6


Project Adaptability to Climate Change

Increased surface water runoff might occur as a result of the predicted increase in precipitation across the footprint. The design and management of industrial runoff ponds and site drainage practices are expected to address the potentially higher volumes of surface water runoff. This will allow for the continuation of natural drainage so isolated areas are not adversely affected by Project activities. The possible effects of climate change on other aspects of the Project design were considered minor. Therefore, they do not require design adaptations. No major impact is predicted to occur to surface water or groundwater resources during the Project. Therefore, follow-up programs or adaptive management considerations are not considered necessary.

3.7

Summary

To predict the effects of climate change on the Project, publicly available climate change model results were used. Results from all climate models provided by CICS for the four emission scenarios have been provided to show the range of predicted outcomes for various climate variables. The model-predicted climate change for the Peace River region is one of increasing surface temperature (2.1–4.1ºC), increasing precipitation (3.9–8.7%) and increasing evaporation (0.03–0.04 mm/d). Increased evaporation should be offset by increased precipitation. Modelled results for temperature are supported by the short-term historical temperature trends noted for the Peace River region. However, the rate of historical temperature increase is substantially smaller than that predicted by the climate models. The potential changes in climate are not expected to materially affect the Project, or the potential impacts that the Project could have on the environment.

3.8

References

3.8.1

Literature Cited

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2009. Final Terms of Reference, Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Peace River In Situ Expansion Carmon Creek Project. July 2009. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB. Barrow E.M. and R.J. Lee. 2000. Part 2: Climate Change Guidance for Environmental Assessments. The Canadian Institute for Climate Studies (CICS) for the Research and Development Monograph Series, Catalogue No. EN 105-3/75-2003-2E-IN. Federal–Provincial–Territorial Committee on Climate Change and Environmental Assessment. 2003. Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment: General Guidance for Practitioners. November 2003. Kendall, M.G. 1975. Rank Correlation Methods Fourth Edition. London, UK: Charles Griffin. Lee, R.J. 2001. Part 1: Review of Climate Change Considerations in Selected Past Environmental Assessments. Prepared for the Canadian Institute of Climate Studies. Catalogue No. EN 105-69/2002E. Mann, H.B. 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 245-259.



Nakicenovic N. et al. (Ed.). 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Price D.T., C.H. Peng, M.J. Apps and D.H. Halliwell. 1999. Simulating effects of climate change on boreal ecosystem carbon pools in central Canada. Journal of Biogeography, 26: 12371247. Schneider R., A. Hamann, D. Farr, X. Wang and S. Boutin. 2009. Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem distribution in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39(5):1001-1010.

3.8.2

Internet Sites

Environment Canada. 2002. National Climate Archive, 1971-2000 Climate Normals. Available at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. Accessed: July, 2009. Hogg, T. 1995. Biological Effects of Climate Change: The Western Canadian Boreal Forest. The Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network, 1st National Meeting Report. Environment Canada. Available at: www.emailrese.ca/eman/reports/publications/national95/part22.html Accessed August 2009. United Nations. 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. Accessed: January 2006.

NOISE

Shell Canada Limited Page 4-i Peace River In Situ Expansion Carmon Creek Project

Noise – Volume IIA November 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 4.

Noise................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Issues and Assessment Criteria .......................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Issues ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Assessment Criteria............................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ...................................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Local Study Area................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.2 Regional Study Area ............................................................................. 4-6 4.3.3 Temporal Boundaries ............................................................................ 4-6 4.4 Methods.............................................................................................................. 4-6 4.4.1 Baseline Field Study.............................................................................. 4-6 4.4.2 Computer Noise Modelling ................................................................... 4-7 4.5 Baseline Case ................................................................................................... 4-10 4.5.1 CPFs and Well Pads LSA.................................................................... 4-10 4.5.2 River Source Water Station LSA ........................................................ 4-12 4.6 Application Case .............................................................................................. 4-14 4.6.1 Potential Effects .................................................................................. 4-14 4.6.2 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 4-22 4.6.3 Residual Effect Classification ............................................................. 4-23 4.7 Planned Development Case.............................................................................. 4-23 4.8 Follow-up Noise Monitoring............................................................................ 4-23 4.9 Summary .......................................................................................................... 4-24 4.10 References ........................................................................................................ 4-25

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.2-1: Table 4.2-2: Table 4.5-1: Table 4.5-2: Table 4.6-1: Table 4.6-2: Table 4.6-3: Table 4.6-4: Table 4.9-1:

Basic Nighttime Sound Levels (ERCB Directive 038) ...................................... 4-2 Assessment Criteria for Noise............................................................................ 4-2 CPFs and Well Pads LSA Baseline Case Noise Modelling Results................. 4-10 River Source Water Station LSA Baseline Case Noise Modelling Results ..... 4-12 CPFs and Well Pads LSA Construction Case Noise Modelling Results.......... 4-14 River Source Water Station Construction Case Noise Modelling Results ....... 4-16 CPFs and Well Pads LSA Application Case Noise Modelling Results .......... 4-19 River Source Water Station LSA Application Case Noise Modelling Results .............................................................................................................. 4-20 Final Impact Rating Summary Table (Application Case) ................................ 4-25

Shell Canada Limited Page 4-ii Peace River In Situ Expansion Carmon Creek Project


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d) Page No.

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.3-1: Figure 4.3-2: Figure 4.5-1: Figure 4.5-2: Figure 4.6-1: Figure 4.6-2: Figure 4.6-3: Figure 4.6-4:

Noise LSA – CPFs and Well Pads ..................................................................... 4-4 Noise LSA – River Source Water Station .......................................................... 4-5 CPFs and Well Pads LSA – Baseline Case Noise Modelling Results.............. 4-11 River Source Water Station LSA – Baseline Case Noise Modelling Results .............................................................................................................. 4-13 CPFs and Well Pads LSA – Construction Noise Modelling Results ............... 4-15 River Source Water Station LSA – Construction Noise Modelling Results .............................................................................................................. 4-17 CPFs and Well Pads LSA – Application Case Noise Modelling Results ........ 4-18 River Source Water Station LSA – Application Case Noise Modelling Results .............................................................................................................. 4-21

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 4A Appendix 4B

Project Noise Sources Assessment of Environmental Noise (General)


4.

Noise

4.1

Introduction


Shell Canada Limited (Shell) is requesting regulatory approval to commercially develop the Peace River In Situ Expansion Carmon Creek Project (the Project), located about 40 km northeast of the Town of Peace River, Alberta within Townships 84–85, Ranges 17–19, W5M in Northern Sunrise County. Shell is proposing to increase thermal bitumen production from its Peace River leases up to about 12,600 m3/d (80,000 bbl/d). Vertical steam drive thermal-enhanced recovery methods will be used to produce the bitumen. This section presents the results of the baseline studies and impact assessment for noise as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the Terms of Reference (TOR; AENV 2009) for the Project.

4.2

Issues and Assessment Criteria

4.2.1

Issues

Development plans for the Project include various noise-producing infrastructure components, including two central processing facilities (CPFs) and about 100 well pads. The Project Description (see Volume I) provides detailed information about the Project. Noise from production and processing facilities could potentially affect local residents. The following activities associated with existing facilities and the Project will generate noise:  operating existing facilities in the area  constructing Project infrastructure  operating CPFs and well pads  operating Project-related vehicles

4.2.2

Assessment Criteria

Environmental noise levels from industrial sources are commonly described in terms of equivalent sound levels or Leq. This is the level of a steady sound having the same acoustic energy, over a given period, as the fluctuating sound. In addition, this energy-averaged level is A–weighted to account for the reduced sensitivity of average human hearing to low frequency sounds. These Leq in dBA (A-weighted decibels), which are the most common environmental noise measure, are often given for daytime (LeqDay – 07:00 to 22:00) and nighttime (LeqNight – 22:00 to 07:00), whereas other criteria use the entire 24-hour period (Leq24). Sound power levels are provided in Appendix 4A. See Appendix 4B for a detailed description of acoustical terms. Criteria selected for this assessment follow the TOR (AENV 2009). The Energy Resources Conservation Board Directive 038 on Noise Control (ERCB 2007) sets the permissible sound level (PSL) at the receiver location based on population density and relative distance to a heavily travelled road and rail line (see Table 4.2-1). In all instances, the basic sound level (BSL) for nighttime hours is 40dBA (22:00–07:00) and 50 dBA for daytime hours (07:00–22:00). Directive 038 specifies that new facilities must meet a PSL-Night of 40 dBA at 1.5 km from the facility fenceline if no dwellings are closer than 1.5 km. It further recommends that design noise levels be about 5 dBA lower than the PSL to provide a suitable margin of safety. Therefore, the PSL at each of the receptors is a LeqNight of 40 dBA and a LeqDay of 50 dBA with a recommendation that the resulting sound levels be close to 5 dBA lower than the PSL.


Table 4.2-1: Proximity to Transportation


Basic Nighttime Sound Levels (ERCB Directive 038)

Dwelling Density per Quarter Section of Land 1–8 Dwellings nighttime (dBa Leq) 40

Category 1

9–160 Dwellings nighttime (dBa Leq) 43

>160 Dwellings nighttime (dBa Leq) 46

Category 2

45

48

51

Category 3

50

53

56

Notes: Category 1: dwelling units > 500 m from heavily travelled roads or rail lines and not subject to frequent aircraft flyovers. Category 2: dwelling units > than 30 m but < 500 m from heavily travelled roads or rail lines; not subject to frequent aircraft flyovers. Category 3: dwelling units < 30 m from heavily travelled roads or rail lines and not subject to frequent aircraft flyovers.

The PSLs provided are related to noise associated with activities and processes at the Project, and not to vehicle traffic on nearby highways (or access roads). This includes all traffic related to the construction and operation of the Project. Noise from traffic sources are not covered by any regulations or guidelines at the municipal, provincial or federal levels. Therefore, an assessment of noise related to vehicle traffic was not included within the scope of the assessment. Construction noise is not specifically regulated by Directive 038. However, construction noise mitigation recommendations are provided in Section 4.6.2.1. Project impacts were characterized using criteria listed in Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-2: Parameter Direction

Assessment Criteria for Noise

Rating

Description

Positive

Measured or estimated effect represents a real or potential increase in quality at the receptor

Negative

Measured or estimated effect represents a real or potential decrease in quality at the receptor

Neutral

No measurable or estimated effect at the receptor. “Neutral” direction indicates there is no effect to quantify; therefore, no quantitative assessment (e.g., extent, magnitude, duration) is possible. Confidence in the assessment (based on an understanding of cause and effect relationships. Quality and quantity of available data covered under Confidence

Geographic extent

Local

Effects are restricted to the Local Study Area (LSA)

Magnitude

Zero

No noise is contributed

Low

Predicted noise level is less than or equal to the PSL

Medium

Predicted noise level is greater than the PSL, but less than the PSL + 5 dBA

High

Predicted noise level is greater than or equal to the PSL + 5 dBA

Short term

Effects will occur only during construction

Long term

Effects can occur at anytime during the Project lifespan

Isolated

Occurs at a specific time

Occasional

Intermittent and sporadic

Regular

Occurs recurrently during the assessment period

Continuous

Occurs continually during the assessment period

Duration Frequency of Occurrence


Table 4.2-2:


Assessment Criteria for Noise (Cont’d)

Parameter

Rating

Description

Permanence

Reversible in short-term

Reversible within one year

Reversible in medium-term

Reversible within one to ten years

Reversible in long-term

Reversible in greater than ten years

Irreversible

Permanent

Low

No clear understanding of cause and effect because of lack of relevant information base

Medium

Understanding of cause and effect from existing knowledge base, limited data, or lack of directly applicable data

High

Good understanding of cause and effect from existing knowledge base; good, directly applicable data available

No impact

Zero magnitude impact within the LSA and in compliance with ERCB noise guidelines

Negligible impact

Noise likely inaudible within the LSA and in compliance with ERCB noise guidelines

Low impact

Noise likely audible within the LSA and in compliance with ERCB noise guidelines

Moderate impact

Noise distinctly audible within the LSA and in compliance with ERCB noise guidelines

High impact

Noise distinctly audible within the LSA and not in compliance with ERCB noise guidelines

Confidence

Rating

4.3

Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

4.3.1

Local Study Area

The Noise Local Study Areas (LSAs) are a buffer of 1,500 m around Project-related noise sources and all existing significant noise sources within about 5 km. The LSAs include two main areas of noise assessment:  CPFs and well pads (see Figure 4.3-1)  river source water station at the Peace River (see Figure 4.3-2)

The Project comprises two CPFs (CPF 1 and CPF 2), 100 well pads and associated infrastructure such as pipelines, power lines, roads and source water wells. CPF equipment will be in operation for the life of the Project. At most about one-third of the total well pads could be in operation at the same time. Initially, seven will be in operation and the others will come online in subsequent years (each pad will have a life cycle of about 10 years). The existing river source water station consists of mechanical equipment including predominantly pumps, and will be operated on an asneeded basis. Existing noise sources in the LSAs include the Shell Peace River Complex comprised of a central processing facility and various well pads, the CCS Energy Services TRD Facility at LSD 12-2485-19-W5M (see Figure 4.3-1), and the Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. (DMI) pulp mill on the west side of the river, about 1,000 m southwest of the river source water station (see Figure 4.3-2). All other existing facilities in the LSA include numerous small wells that do not produce any significant noise. The Peace River Complex will be decommissioned and removed as part of the Project; however it was included in the Baseline Case assessment. As the DMI pulp mill is not regulated by the ERCB or Alberta Utilities Commission, their noise criteria do not apply. This is important, because the DMI pulp mill is a major source of noise in the area.

0

2.5

5

Kilometres

SHELL CANADA LIMITED - PEACE RIVER IN SITU EXPANSION CARMON CREEK PROJECT

Noise LSA - CPFs and Well Pads

DRAWN BY:

EDITED BY:

JP

TG

APPROVED: S.B.

DATE 24 Sep 2009

FIGURE:

4.3-1

N:\PROJECTS\61330000\61334000_2009\ArcGIS\

FILE: MXDs\Noise\Noise_LSA_CPFs_WellPads.mxd

Page 4-4

0

0.75

1.5

Kilometres


Noise LSA - River Source Water Station

DRAWN BY:

EDITED BY:

JP

TG

APPROVED: S.B.

DATE 24 Sep 2009

FIGURE:

4.3-2


FILE: MXDs\Noise\Noise_LSA_RiverSourceWaterStation.mxd

Page 4-5



Topographically, the land in the CPF and well pad LSA has a very gentle upward slope from west to east (increasing in elevation about 70 m over a span of about 15 km). Acoustically, this is considered quite flat. The ground is covered with upland and lowland forests, shrubby bogs and fens, and graminoid fens. Therefore, the level of vegetative sound absorption is considered substantial. At the river source water station, the difference in elevation between the top and bottom of the river valley is about 200 m, and the valley is about 3.5 km wide. The area is primarily forested and, as a result, the level of vegetative sound absorption is considered substantial.

4.3.2

Regional Study Area

As noise from any specific source is a localized phenomenon and Project noise does not extend beyond the LSA, no Regional Study Area is required.

4.3.3

Temporal Boundaries

The temporal scope of the EIA reflects the timing and nature of the Project as well as information available on other proposed projects. Project and cumulative effects are assessed in the Application Case and Planned Development Case by comparing to existing conditions in the Baseline Case. The Baseline Case describes the environmental conditions including vegetation and habitat mapping, anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, towns, agriculture), and existing and approved projects or activities as of June 2009. The Application Case describes the Baseline Case (minus projects that will be decommissioned) with the effects of the Project added. It incorporates a maximum disturbance case that assumes all components of the Project are fully developed and operational at the same time. This assessment approach is conservative as the Project will be constructed and reclaimed progressively over the Project life. Two scenarios were considered including construction and operations. The temporal boundary for the Application Case extends to the end of Project life since facilities will be decommissioned at that time. The Planned Development Case includes existing, approved and anticipated future environmental conditions, based on existing and approved projects or activities, plus planned projects and activities that can be reasonably expected to occur. The Planned Development Case includes planned projects in the region that have not yet received approval and that were publicly disclosed as of May 2009 (see Section 1: Introduction). No other projects were announced to occur in the LSA so a Planned Development Case was not conducted. The Project will have an approximate 35-year operating life. Construction of Central Processing Facility 1 (CPF 1) could start in 2011 with first production in 2014. Construction of Central Processing Facility 2 (CPF 2) could begin in 2014 and commence operations in 2017. Based on this scenario, the facilities will be operational from 2014–2049. Final reclamation will occur upon completion of operations and is tentatively scheduled from 2049–2054. A conceptual Project schedule is provided in Volume 1, Section 1: Introduction.

4.4

Methods

4.4.1

Baseline Field Study

As part of the noise assessment, a field study was conducted in June 2009 to update the location of, and relative noise contribution of, existing industrial noise sources. For sources that were subjectively determined to be of no significant concern, no sound level measurements were conducted. All other sources were measured with a sound level meter at various locations to



determine the noise contribution; measurements were conducted at the fenceline or farther from the facility. Thus, the total noise contribution for the facility was determined, which is adequate for noise modelling and assessment. These measured values were used to derive the sound power levels used in the noise model (see Section 4.4.2.3). Given the minimal existing industrial noise sources in the area, and the lack of permanent residents within 1,500 m of the Project, a baseline noise monitoring program was not conducted. This conforms with the requirements of ERCB Directive 038.

4.4.2 4.4.2.1

Computer Noise Modelling General Modelling Discussion

Computer noise modelling was conducted using the CADNA/A (version 3.72.127) software package. CADNA/A allows for modelling of various noise sources such as road, rail and stationary sources. Also considered in the assessment are:  topographical features, such as land contours, vegetation and bodies of water  meteorological conditions, such as temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and

wind direction The modelling methods used meet or exceed the requirements of ERCB Directive 038. The calculation method used for noise propagation follows International Standards Organization (ISO) 9613-1 (ISO 1993), ISO 9613-2 (ISO 1996) and ISO 1996-1 (ISO 2003). All receiver locations were assumed as being downwind from the source(s). In particular, as stated in Section 5 of the ISO 9613-2 document: “Downwind propagation conditions for the method specified in this part of IS0 9613 are as specified in 5.4.3.3 of IS0 1996-2:1987, namely  wind direction within an angle of ± 45 of the direction connecting the centre of the dominant sound source and the centre of the specified receiver region, with the wind blowing from source to receiver, and  wind speed between approximately 1 m/s and 5 m/s, measured at a height of 3 m to 11 m above the ground. The equations for calculating the average downwind sound pressure level LAT(DW) in this part of IS0 9613, including the equations for attenuation given in clause 7, are the average for meteorological conditions within these limits. The term average here means the average over a short time interval, as defined in 3.1. These equations also hold, equivalently, for average propagation under a welldeveloped moderate ground-based temperature inversion, such as commonly occurs on clear, calm nights.” Because of the large size of the LSA and the density of vegetation, vegetative sound absorption was included in the models. An absorption coefficient of 0.5 was used along with a temperature of 10°C and relative humidity of 70%. As a result, all sound level propagation calculations are considered representative of summertime conditions for all surrounding receptors (as specified in Directive 038). The computer noise modelling results were calculated in two ways. First, sound levels were calculated at specific receiver locations (i.e., cabins and 1,500 m receptors). Second, sound level conditions were calculated using a 20 m x 20 m receptor grid pattern within the LSA. This provided colour noise contours, so results are easier to visualize and evaluate.


4.4.2.2


Modelling Confidence

As mentioned previously, the algorithms used for noise modelling follow ISO 9613 standards. The published accuracy for this standard is ±3 dBA between 100 and 1,000 m. Accuracy levels beyond 1,000 m are not published. Experience on similar noise models over large distances shows that as distance increases, the associated accuracy in prediction decreases. Environmental factors such as wind, temperature inversions, topography and ground cover all have increasing effects over distances larger than about 1,500 m. Therefore, for all receptors within about 1,500 m of the various noise sources, the prediction confidence is considered high, whereas for all receptors beyond 1,500 m, the prediction confidence is considered medium.

4.4.2.3

Existing Noise Sources

As mentioned in Section 4.4.1, noise measurements of existing facilities updated from 2006 field work were conducted in the area surrounding the Project in 2009 to determine the relative noiselevel contribution of each facility. The only two facilities of significance were the DMI pulp mill and CCS Energy Services TRD facility. The measured sound pressure levels were used to derive the sound power levels used in the noise model. Information provided by Shell regarding the equipment at the existing river source water station was used to derive the baseline sound power levels used in the noise model. Sound power levels for the existing Peace River Complex and well pads were used in the noise model for the Baseline Case. Sound power levels used are provided in Appendix 4A.

4.4.2.4

CPF and River Source Water Station Noise Sources

CPF 1 and CPF 2 noise sources were included in the Application Case as running concurrently. All CPF noise sources (e.g., stacks, vent fans, motors, pumps, air compressors and other operating equipment) have been modelled as point sources at their appropriate heights. Sound power levels for all noise sources were modelled using broadband sound power level information (octave band sound power level information was not available for the assessment). Large buildings and storage tanks were included in the modelling calculations because of their ability to provide shielding as well as reflection for noise. Equipment located within buildings was modelled using the broadband sound power levels and a generic broadband building attenuation of 20 dBA. This is a conservative attenuation value based on a typical construction of a metal clad, insulated building with minimal windows and some person-doors and overhead doors. This also assumes that the doors and windows remain closed at all times. Specific information about the buildings (other than the dimensions) is currently not known. Lists of equipment associated with the Project are provided in Appendix 4A.

4.4.2.5

Well Pad Continuous Noise Sources

Noise sources associated with the individual well pads were included in the model. Of the 99 well pads associated with the Project, each have 68 specific noise sources (including compressors, pumps, pump jacks and well chokes). Thus, the total number of sources and modelling effort is complex. To limit the noise sources included in the model, each well pad was condensed down to a single point source with the equivalent sound power level of all 68 specific noise sources. This is a reasonable approach because each of the individual noise sources is at about the same height (i.e., 2 m above grade), and because the closest receptors, which are theoretical receptors, are 1,500 m from the well pads. Information on the sound power levels associated with well pad noise source and the cumulative well pad sound power level used in the noise model are listed in Appendix 4A.



To determine the validity of reducing the well pad noise sources to a single point source, a simple noise model was generated for a single well pad. The model included two solution scenarios:  all 68 specific noise sources at their individual locations  the equivalent single noise source at the centre of the well pad

For modelling purposes, theoretical receptors were placed at 1,500 m in a circle around the well pad fenceline (at 45° increments) and sound levels were calculated for the two different scenarios. The results indicated that the maximum difference between the two scenarios was 0.1 dBA at about half of the receptors, whereas the other half had no difference. Therefore, the use of a single equivalent point source is valid. See Appendix 4A for the results of the modelling test case.

4.4.2.6

Well Pad Drilling Noise Sources

In addition to the normal operation of the well pads, drilling noise will be present. Typical well pad design associated with in-situ projects requires short duration drilling. However, for the Project, a higher number of wells need to be drilled. Given the number of well pads to be used and the number of wells to be drilled, drilling noise will be ongoing throughout much of the Project’s lifetime. Therefore, drilling noise was considered to be a constant noise source. Throughout the life of the Project, the drilling and well pad operations will move from pad to pad throughout the LSA. Each well pad will have a life cycle of about 10 years. Therefore, noise levels near the well pads will not remain consistent throughout the life of the Project. However, to provide a more conservative noise modelling assessment, all well pads were assumed to be operating and drilling at the same time. Drilling equipment will be electrically driven and power will be sourced from the electrical distribution system, generally resulting in very low noise levels. There could, however, be times when electrical power is not available and diesel generators will be used. The noise modelling assumes that diesel generators are not operational. Drilling noise sources for equipment associated with the Project are provided in Appendix 4A.

4.4.2.7

Construction Noise Sources

For noise sources associated with the construction activity, see Appendix 4A (Teplitzky and Wood 1978; Environment Canada 1989). Construction noise associated with the well pad surface equipment will be relatively short compared with that for the CPFs (i.e., only a few months at each well pad) and will move from site to site. Thus the impact on the surrounding environment near each well pad will be much less than the construction noise associated with the CPFs. As mentioned previously, drilling noise at each well pad is considered to be a continuous noise source and not construction noise for the purpose of this assessment. Therefore, only construction noise associated with the CPFs was included in the assessment. However, noise mitigation measures as recommended in Directive 038 (see Section 4.6.2.1) will be used as necessary during construction.

4.4.2.8

Ambient Noise Level

Directive 038 requires the assessment to include background ambient noise levels in the model. As specified, the average nighttime ambient noise level is about 35 dBA in most rural areas of Alberta where there is an absence of industrial noise sources. This is known as the average ambient sound level (ASL). This value was used as the ambient condition in the modelling.


4.5

Baseline Case

4.5.1

CPFs and Well Pads LSA


The results of the Baseline Case noise modelling for the CPFs and well pads LSA are presented in Table 4.5-1 and Figure 4.5-1. Note that the receptors are those associated with the 1,500 m perimeter for the Application Case assessment since most of the existing noise sources (i.e. the Peace River Complex and well pads) will not be present for the Application Case. At all locations, the Baseline Case night-time sound levels will be well below the ASL of 35.0 dBA. In particular, once the Peace River Complex and well-pads are removed the only significant existing noise source in the area will be the CCS facility, which will still result in sound levels below 30 dBA at all 1,500 m receptors. As a result, the ambient sound level at all of the 1,500 m receptors is simply equal to the ASL of 35.0 dBA as prescribed by ERCB Directive 038. Table 4.5-1:

CPFs and Well Pads LSA Baseline Case Noise Modelling Results

Receptor (Distance from Nearest Application Case Noise Source)

ASLNight (dBA)

Baseline Case LeqNight (dBA)

R1

(1,750 m)

35.0

19.6

ASL + Baseline Case LeqNight (dBA) 35.1

PSLNight (dBA)

Compliant With ERCB Directive 038

40.0

Yes

R2

(3,300 m)

35.0

13.3

35.0

40.0

Yes

R3

(4,300 m)

35.0

13.5

35.0

40.0

Yes

R4

(3,000 m)

35.0

12.2

35.0

40.0

Yes

R5

(3,900 m)

35.0

5.2

35.0

40.0

Yes

R6

(5,000 m)

35.0

0.9

35.0

40.0

Yes

R7

(5,500 m)

35.0

0.0

35.0

40.0

Yes

R8

(5,800 m)

35.0

0.0

35.0

40.0

Yes

R9

(7,100 m)

35.0

0.0

35.0

40.0

Yes

R10

(6,900 m)

35.0

0.0

35.0

40.0

Yes

R11

(4,900 m)

35.0

0.0

35.0

40.0

Yes

R12

(3,300 m)

35.0

8.8

35.0

40.0

Yes

R13

(3,200 m)

35.0

14.2

35.0

40.0

Yes

R14

(3,900 m)

35.0

12.2

35.0

40.0

Yes

R15

(5,500 m)

35.0

8.8

35.0

40.0

Yes

R16

(5,200 m)

35.0

12.1

35.0

40.0

Yes

R17

(3,900 m)

35.0

16.5

35.1

40.0

Yes

R18

(1,750 m)

35.0

28.5

35.9

40.0

Yes

R19

(1,500 m)

35.0

30.2

36.2

40.0

Yes

R20

(1,300 m)

35.0

30.4

36.3

40.0

Yes

R21

(1,250 m)

35.0

28.1

35.8

40.0

Yes

Cabin B

(2,400 m)

35.0

16.8

35.1

40.0

Yes

Cabin E

(4,800 m)

35.0

0.0

35.0

40.0

Yes

Cabin F

(8,700 m)

35.0

0.0

35.0

40.0

Yes

ECAN Camp(1,300 m)

35.0

26.2

35.5

40.0

Yes

0

2.5

5

Kilometres


CPFs and Well Pads LSA - Baseline Case Noise Modelling Results

DRAWN BY:

EDITED BY:

JP

TG

APPROVED: S.B.

DATE 24 Sep 2009

FIGURE:

4.5-1


FILE: MXDs\Noise\Noise_CPF_WellPads_Baseline.mxd

Page 4-11


4.5.2


River Source Water Station LSA

The results of the Baseline Case noise modelling for the river source water station LSA are presented in Table 4.5-2 and Figure 4.5-2. At all of the receptor locations, the largest contributor to the noise levels is predicted to be from the DMI pulp mill. Several of the locations have predicted noise levels well above the PSLs. As a result, the existing noise source is not regulated by the ERCB and the issue of compliance with Directive 038 for the river source water station will be assessed based on its relative contribution to the existing noise climate. Table 4.5-2:

River Source Water Station LSA Baseline Case Noise Modelling Results

Receptor (Distance from Nearest Noise Source)

ASL-Night (dBA)

Baseline Case LeqNight (dBA)

North (3,100 m)

35.0

37.4

ASL + Baseline Case LeqNight (dBA) 39.3

PSL-Night (dBA)

Compliant With ERCB Directive 038

40.0

Yes

Northeast (3,300 m)

35.0

36.2

38.7

40.0

Yes

East (3,100 m)

35.0

32.8

37.0

40.0

Yes

Southeast (2,300 m)

35.0

41.6

42.5

40.0

No

1

South (1,500 m)

35.0

50.1

50.3

40.0

No

1

West (1,500 m)

35.0

47.8

48.0

40.0

No

1

Northwest (2,400 m)

35.0

33.6

37.4

40.0

Yes

Note: 1

Noise from existing source is not compliant with ERCB Directive 038 . However, Directive 038 does not apply to DMI.