Miquelon Growth Management Plan
Final Report
Prepared for:
Scheffer Andrew Limited Edmonton, Alberta
Prepared by:
Spencer Environmental Management Services Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta
EP-434
JUNE 2010
Spencer Environmental
Table of Contents
Chapter Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 3 1.1 Background...... 3 1.2 Study Area...... 3 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 7 2.1 Soils and Terrain...... 7 2.2 Hydrology ...... 8 2.2.1 Regional Hydrology...... 8 2.2.2 Surface Water Risks...... 13 2.3 Hydrogeology ...... 17 2.4 Vegetation...... 18 2.4.1 Regional Vegetation...... 18 2.4.2 Local Study Area Vegetation...... 20 2.4.3 Rare Plants...... 20 2.5 Wildlife ...... 22 2.5.1 Habitat...... 22 2.5.2 Special Status Species...... 24 2.5.3 Ecological Connectivity...... 27 2.6 Fish/Aquatic Resources...... 28 3.0 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ...... 30 3.1 Summary of Key Resources/Sensitivities...... 30 3.2 Development Recommendations...... 33 3.2.1 Opportunities and Constraints...... 34 3.2.2 Best Management Practices ...... 36 4.0 REFERENCES...... 39 4.1 Literature Cited ...... 39 4.2 Personal Communications...... 39 APPENDIX A: WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA...... A1
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page i Spencer Environmental
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Miquelon Study Area ...... 5 Figure 2. The Cooking Lake/Beaver Hills Moraine and the Miquelon Study Area...... 6 Figure 3. CLI Soil Classes in the Miquelon Study Area ...... 9 Figure 4. Watershed Sub-basins of the North Saskatchewan Watershed ...... 11 Figure 5. Gross Drainage Areas within the Miquelon Study Area...... 12 Figure 6. Surface Water Risk - Gross Drainage Areas ...... 14 Figure 7. Surface Water Risk – Land Parcel Level ...... 15 Figure 8. Groundwater Contamination Risk Map for the Miquelon Study Area ...... 19 Figure 9. Ecological Network and Protected Areas within the Miquelon Lakes Study Area...... 21 Figure 10. Key Connected Areas within the Miquelon Lakes Study Area...... 25 Figure 11. Historic Water Levels in Miquelon Lake #3 (from Swanson and Zurawell, 2006) ...... 29
List of Tables
Table 1. Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Soil Classes in Miquelon Study Area ...... 8 Table 2. Rare plants observed and recorded by ANHIC in the Miquelon Lakes Study Area...... 22 Table 3. Special Status Species with Potential to Occur within the Miquelon Lake Study Area...... 26
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page ii Spencer Environmental
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Land use policies for the Miquelon Lakes area of Camrose County were first created in the 1970s. Renewed development interest in the area and changes in economic conditions and environmental policy have created the need to update planning and development guidelines for the area. The Planning and Development Department of Camrose County released a request for proposals to complete an Area Growth Management Plan for the Miquelon Lakes area. Scheffer Andrew Limited was awarded this contract, and has now initiated background work to describe key features and growth potential within the area. Spencer Environmental Management Services Ltd. (Spencer Environmental), as part of their team, was asked to compile relevant information on key natural features of the area, and to advise the team on development opportunities and constraints, based on those findings. This report documents those findings.
1.2 Study Area The Area Growth Management Plan is to apply to the area around Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park, up to the northern Country boundary, generally including township 49- 20, 49-21, 50-20, and 50-21 (the Study Area, Figure 1). Although designated mainly for agricultural and residential land use now, much of this area remains forested, due to limitations for use as crop or pasture land. Wetlands are also abundant and a range of large to small ponds are distributed through the area. As a result, the landscape has retained significant natural character, which has become attractive to rural residential developers. That shift in land development pressure is a primary motivation for the County’s request for the Area Growth Management Plan.
A key feature of the area is Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park. It and Ministik Bird Sanctuary, immediately northwest of the County boundary, have attracted rural residential developments, including the recently developed Sanctuary Estates. This new rural residential subdivision lies directly north of the Provincial Park and on the east boundary of the Bird Sanctuary. The ease of access to these protected areas, and the natural lands they support, offers a valuable amenity to prospective rural residents, which is reflected in lot values. Although demand for such properties has not been strong within the County in the past, such rural residential development has been quite successful to the north, in Beaver and Strathcona Counties. Developers appear now to be extending their interest south into this part of Camrose County, to take advantage of seemingly favorable markets.
Both Miquelon and Ministik are important protected areas within the Cooking Lake/Beaver Hills Moraine (BHM), a geomorphological feature that extends from Miquelon to Elk Island National Park (Figure 2). The moraine is characterized by knob and kettle terrain that supports abundant wetlands and lakes. The rough topography and stony soils characteristic of morainal landforms has limited the extent of clearing for agricultural and other development in the past, so that much of the moraine remains
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 3 Spencer Environmental
naturally vegetated. It stands in sharp contrast to the surrounding agricultural plains and is one of the more distinctive natural features in the greater Edmonton area.
Because of the extensive natural features, including both forests and water bodies, it supports high biodiversity and provides a key role in local water cycles. These important ecological roles have been identified for conservation in various regional plans, including past watershed plans for the Miquelon Lakes area, provincial protected areas strategies, and other regional land use groups, including the Beaver Hills Initiative. That particular group has initiated several studies to update and compile a regional database of environmental and other information that provided an important source of information for this study.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 4 Beaver County Joseph Lake
Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Highway 623 Miquelon Lake #3 Leduc County
Miquelon Miquelon Lake Lake #2 Prov. Park Highway 833
Miquelon Kingman Lake #1
Hay Lakes Highway 617 Highway 21
Camrose County
Legend Figure 1. Study Area Roads The Miquelon Study Area
Rail Lines Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 0 1 2 4 Kilometers Municipal Boundary Miquelon Game Sanctuary Protected Areas 1:100,000 Beaver Hills Moraine Lakes, Rivers, and Streams Lamont County
Elk Island National Park
Strathcona County Cooking Lake Blackfoot
Beaverhill Lake
Tofield
Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Joseph Leduc County Lake Beaver County
Kingman Hay Lakes
Camrose County
Legend Figure 2. Study Area
Roads Beaver Hills Rail Lines Moriane Municipal Boundary 02 4 8 12 Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 Miquelon Game Sanctuary Kilometers Protected Areas 1:350,000 Beaver Hills Moraine
Lakes, Rivers, and Streams
Regional Urban Areas Spencer Environmental
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Soils and Terrain Geomorphologically, the Miquelon Lakes study area lies in a stagnant morainal deposit (the BHM). These landforms were created from clay till, sand and gravel deposited after the last glacial retreat, forming a distinctive, hummocky terrain (Chao, 2002). As the main glacier receded, large remnant pieces of ice were left on the landscape. When those remnant ice melted, the sediments within it remained, distributed in a relatively random pattern of piles of varying depths. The resulting terrain was undulating to rolling and hummocky, in places becoming deeply pocketed. The pockets collect surface water flows, and now support the many lakes and wetlands characteristic of this area.
The Miquelon study area lies at the southern edge of the moraine, within a transition zone where the terrain changes dramatically from the undulating to rolling BHM to flatter agricultural lands. Much of the northern part of the Miquelon study area tends to be hummocky to extremely hummocky and generally higher in elevation than the lands to the south and particularly to the southwest (Chao, 2002). The plains beyond the southern moraine edge become undulating and lower in elevation, creating a distinct transition zone, most noticeably to the southwest.
The surficial deposits within the Miquelon study area are an unsorted mixture of clay, sands and gravels from 5 to 20 m thick, underlain by bedrock and with localized areas of water-sorted sediments (sand lenses) (Chao, 2002). The Miquelon study area lies within two of Alberta’s Natural Sub-regions: the Dry Mixedwood Boreal and Central Parkland subregions. The Dry Mixedwood Boreal subregion roughly follows the moraine boundary. Black Chernozem soils, some Dark Gray Chernozems and significant occurrences of Solonetzic soils are characteristic of the Dry Mixedwood. Solonetzic soils are well represented in the Miquelon area of the moraine (pers. comm., D. Patriquin).
The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) classification (Department of Regional Economic Expansion, 1969) rated soil capability for agricultural use and is often used by land use planners to identify lands with good agricultural potential. The CLI classification was based on capability for crop production and the need for conservation action to improve production. Classes 1 through 3 are often considered good agricultural soils for land use planning purposes. These soils have no limitations for crop use (Class 1) or have moderately severe limitations and a need for moderate conservation practice to maintain fair production levels (Class 3). Classes 4 through 6 have severe limitations that restrict their use for crop production without special conservation practice (Class 4) or limit them to perennial forage crops (Class 5 and 6).
According to the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) classification, soils within the Miquelon study area are primarily Class 5 (38% of total study area) and Class 2 soils (20% of total area, Table 1, Figure 3). This split reflects distinct differences in soil capability in the moraine compared to the adjacent agricultural lands. When the moraine lands within the study area are considered separately, soils are predominately below the Class 3 threshold typically used to differentiate good agricultural soils. Within the moraine, 75% of the
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 7 Spencer Environmental
land base is of Class 5 or less and 15% of that total represents land cover by water (water bodies). Beyond the moraine lie better agricultural soils: 71% of this area is of Class 3 or higher, and much of it is considered Class 2 land. Only 1% of this land area is covered by water.
Table 1. Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Soil Classes in Miquelon Study Area
Study Area Study Area – Beyond Moraine Moraine Lands Total Study Area CLI Soil Class Area (ha) Percent Area (ha) Percent Area (ha) Percent Class 2 3,037 57 496 4 3,533 20 Class 3 740 14 1,119 9 1,859 11 Class 4 1,367 26 1,360 11 2,727 16 Class 5 119 2 6,461 54 6,580 38 Class 6 0 0 773 6 773 4 Water 32 1 1,851 15 1,883 11 Grand Total 5,294 100 12,062 100 17,356 100
2.2 Hydrology 2.2.1 Regional Hydrology Surface water is abundant within the Miquelon study area, with approximately 3,228 ha of water bodies (including lakes and wetlands) within the 17,356 ha area. Most of these are wetlands, with an average size of 3.2 ha. Not surprisingly, most of this water (2941 ha, or 91% of the water within total study area) is contained within the moraine. Post- glacial warming of the climate helped initially charge these waterbodies through melting of glaciers previously covering the regional landscape (the three Miquelon Lakes are thought to be remnants of a much larger, single lake formed at that time, Mitchell, 2005).
The hydrology within the study area is quite complex and again the moraine and agricultural lands must be considered separately. In both areas, terrain has limited the development of typical watershed drainage patterns through increasing orders of streams, such that a group of sub-basins contributes flows to major river systems of the greater watershed basin. The differences lie in the complexity of terrain, which in turn, dictates drainage patterns. The higher elevation of the moraine and its hummocky terrain has created a complex drainage system in which surface water is captured within wetlands and small lakes. Where terrain allows, surface flows may also be directed to small streams that release to larger water bodies beyond the moraine (an open drainage system). In other areas, terrain does not allow for flow beyond the catchment area and the area is considered a closed drainage system. On the flatter agricultural plains, surface water tends to collect and remain within small wetlands, creating closed systems that do not contribute flows to the regional watershed.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 8 Joseph Lake Beaver County
Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Miquelon Lake #3
Leduc County Miquelon Miquelon Lake Lake #2 Provincial Park
Miquelon
Lake #1
Hay Lakes
Camrose County
Legend Figure 3. Study Area CLI Soil Class Roads Class 1 CLI Soil Classes in the Rail Lines Class 2 Miquelon Study Area Municipal Boundary Class 3 Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 0 1 2 4 Kilometers Miquelon Game Sanctuary Class 4 Protected Areas Class 5 Beaver Hills Moraine Class 6 1:100,000 Lakes, Rivers, and Streams Spencer Environmental
Although the entire Miquelon study area is part of the North Saskatchewan watershed, the differences in terrain and elevation have created two sub-basins, which direct flows in three directions (PFRA, 2007). The southernmost part of the study area drains into the Battle River sub-basin of the North Saskatchewan watershed. The northeast part of the study area drains into Beaver Hills Lake, to the east of the moraine. In wet years, this area will in turn release flows northeast to the North Saskatchewan River, and so it is considered part of the North Saskatchewan sub-basin of the watershed. The northwest side of the study area (extending into Ministik Bird Sanctuary) is also part of the North Saskatchewan sub-basin of the watershed, but flows from the moraine are directed northwest, toward Edmonton (Figure 4).
The sub-basins can be further subdivided into gross drainage areas, also defined by internal drainage boundaries dictated by terrain (Figure 5). Within the moraine, some of these gross drainage areas are closed by terrain such that little flow is released to other downstream gross drainage areas, or ultimately, to the broader watershed. The gross drainage area in the northwestern part of the study area, which extends into Ministik Bird Sanctuary, is one such area. Effective contribution area is relatively low in this area (1.5% of the area contributes to “downstream” discharge in the 1:2 year flood event), meaning that most surface water falling in this area is not released to downstream gross discharge areas (PFRA, 2007). The area southeast of Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park is also closed, with an effective contribution area of 7.8%. In contrast, the gross drainage area enclosing the park has an effective contribution area of 74%, and the Beaverhill gross drainage basin northeast of it, 41%.
As mentioned above, the reasons for these differences in effective discharge are mainly related to differences in elevation across these landscapes. All of the water bodies in the study area are mainly fed by spring/runoff, with localized contributions of groundwater to individual wetlands and lake areas through recharge. The part of the study area within the moraine, which is rough, uneven and deeply pocketed, supports abundant wetlands and several large lakes (91% of the water area of the study area lies in the moraine). While the lakes may have outlet streams, the wetlands often do not have any drainage release to other surface water bodies. Where terrain is particularly uneven, these wetlands both capture and hold water, which provide numerous benefits from a hydrological and ecological perspective (flood control, water retention, water filtration, wildlife habitat, breeding areas). It also prevents downstream release of wet weather flows.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 10 Highway 15
Highway 16
Highway 21
Beaverhill Lake
Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Highway 14
Leduc County
Beaver Miquelon Lake County Provincial Park
Camrose County
Legend Figure 4. Beaver Hills Moraine Highway Roads Watershed Sub-basins of the Municipal Boundary North Saskatchewan River Miquelon Game Sanctuary 0 3.5 7 14 Kilometers Protected Areas Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 Lakes, Rivers, and Streams [Source: NRCAN] Watershed Sub-basins 1:350,000 North Saskatchewan River via Beaverhill Lake Battle River North Saskatchewan River Jospeh Lake
Ministik Bird Sanctuary Beaver County
Miquelon Highway 623 Lake #3
Leduc County Miquelon Miquelon Lake Lake #2 Provincial Park Highway 833
Miquelon Kingman Lake #1
Hay Lakes
Highway 617
Highway 21 Camrose County
Legend Figure 5. Study Area Basin Flow Gross Drainage Areas within Roads Closed the Miquelon Study Area Rail Lines Open Watershed Sub-basins Municipal Boundary 01 2 4 Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 Miquelon Game Sanctuary North Saskatchewan River via Beaverhill Lake Kilometers Protected Areas Battle River Beaver Hills Moraine North Saskatchewan River 1:100,000 Lakes, Rivers, and Streams Spencer Environmental
The other complicating factor is general differences in elevation across the study area. Some areas of the moraine part of the study area are higher in elevation than surrounding lands, so that drainage flows from higher gross drainage areas flow into adjacent gross drainage areas. For example, flows from Miquelon carry water towards Cooking Lake, Hastings Lake, and then finally Beaver Hill Lake through Hastings Creek (County of Camrose, 1973). The undulating lands to the south do not have the same extremes in elevational differences, and flows tend to remain within the gross drainage area, and in the small, shallow wetland pockets scattered across this landscape. The two areas function differently in terms of their hydrology, and so require different management approaches.
2.2.2 Surface Water Risks The Beaver Hills Initiative has developed two GIS map products that describe the level of risk to surface water, based on the density of waterbodies in the gross drainage areas (GDAs) comprising the overall moraine watershed and the extent of existing land development (BHI 2007). The maps indicate how lands have been impacted by past land use, both positively and negatively (primarily measured by the extent of clearing and land use zoning for intensive land uses). The resulting risk level is an indicator of the land’s capacity to provide a sustainable supply of clean and abundant water at the regional (gross drainage area) and more localized, individual parcel level (Figures 6 and 7). Ultimately, risk level is intended to inform management decisions for future land use and land management. Higher risk, in this case, implies a likelihood of exceeding a threshold for sustainability when compared to the surrounding lands.
Based on the two surface water maps, the following risk areas have been identified in the Miquelon study area.
The two GDAs in the northeast corner of the study area were mapped as a moderately low risk (Figure 6). These areas, overlapping the eastern edge of the moraine, have a lower density of wetland area and moderate level of past clearing activity. Current land use zoning in this area does not pose a significant risk due to increased density. At the individual parcel level, risk is low across both areas and it is only those parcels with rural residential land use and more cleared land to the north of Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park that have moderate risk (Figure 7). The southeastern GDA, which includes Miquelon Lakes #1 and #2, was considered to be at a moderately high risk (Figure 6). This was related mainly to a high density of waterbodies within the gross drainage area, which would have increased susceptibility to water contamination. Clearing has been relatively limited and existing land use does not likely pose a significant concern for surface water quality, as evidenced by the parcel level map (Figure 7). Land management practices appropriate to an area of high water density would help protect these lands.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 13 Jospeh Lake Beaver County Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Highway 623 Miquelon Lake #3
Miquelon Leduc County Lake Provincial Miquelon Park Lake #2
Highway 833
Miquelon Kingman
Lake #1
Hay Lakes
Highway 617
Highway 21
Camrose County
Legend Figure 6. Study Area GDA SW Risk Class Surface Water Risk- Gross Drainage Areas High Risk Gross Drainage Area Roads Moderately High Risk Rail Lines Moderately Low Risk 01 2 4 Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 Kilometers Municipal Boundary Low Risk Miquelon Game Sanctuary No water - fragmented GDA 1:100,000 Protected Areas *Note: Risk mapping was only available Lakes, Rivers, and Streams within the Beaver Hills Moraine area Jospeh Lake Beaver County Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Miquelon Highway 623 Lake #3
Leduc County
Miquelon Lake Miquelon Lake #2 Provincial Park Highway 833
Miquelon Kingman Lake #1
Hay Lakes
Highway 617 Highway 21
Camrose County
Legend Figure 7. Study Area Potential Water Risk Surface Water Risk- Gross Drainage Areas High Risk Roads Moderately High Risk Land Parcel Level Rail Lines Moderate Risk 01 2 4 Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 Municipal Boundary Moderately Low Risk Kilometers Miquelon Game Sanctuary Low Risk 1:100,000 Protected Areas No water - fragmented GDA Lakes, Rivers, and Streams *Note: Risk mapping was only available within the Beaver Hills Moraine area Spencer Environmental
The GDA in the northwest corner (which includes part of Ministik Bird Sanctuary) is considered to be at a moderately high risk (Figure 6). Although clearing has been relatively limited in this area and existing land use zoning would not introduce high density or intensive development (see land parcel risk map, Figure 7), this area has a relatively high density of surface water. As a result, water quality and quantity are susceptible to more intensive land uses (e.g., commercial use, Confined feeding operations, industrial use, higher density development) that would require extensive clearing, paving or creation of other impervious substrates, or potentially introduce contaminants (through operations or storm or waste water management). Such land uses would not be appropriate in this area. In addition to abundant water, it is also a closed gross drainage area, which makes it quite vulnerable in terms of water quality and quantity. The GDA surrounding Miquelon Lake #3 (and most of the provincial park area) is considered to be at a high risk (Figure 6). This is related to the large area of Miquelon Lake #3, correspondingly long shore length, associated inflow streams and clearing in the southern parts of the gross drainage area (as shown by the moderate risk zones in this area, in the land parcel risk map (Figure 7). Land management practices appropriate for an area of high water density are essential in this area. Intensive forms of land use (e.g., commercial use, Confined feeding operations, industrial use, high density development) that would require extensive clearing, paving or creation of other impervious substrates, or potentially introduce contaminants (through operations or storm or waste water management) would not be appropriate in this zone.
Although not explicitly mapped by the BHI, the agricultural lands in the south part of the study area would likely have a moderately low rating. The GDA that includes this area is actually part of the same GDA as the Miquelon Lakes #1 and #2, at the south end of the moraine (Figure 5). While the moraine section of this GDA was rated at high to moderately high risk due to the density of water in this area (Figure 6), the lands to the south have much lower density of surface water. The lands south of Miquelon Lakes are also much more extensively cleared for cultivation than the Miquelon Lakes area. Despite the low density of water bodies, the level of clearing and the fact that this is a closed basin raise the risk level, for both water quality and quantity. Although moderate to higher density development would be appropriate here, depending on site design and layout, water conservation practices should also be incorporated into land management strategies for this area, to protect the less abundant wetland resources in this part of the GDA.
To summarize, areas that are considered to be at a moderately high to high risk are quite sensitive to land uses that would result in extensive clearing, water diversion, overgrazing, and/or intensive development (e.g., commercial use, confined feeding operations, industrial use, some forms of high density development). The alterations to the landscape associated with such development (e.g., creation of large areas of impervious surfaces, extensive clearing, infilling of wetlands) and potential impacts of stormwater and waste water management on soil and water condition pose risks to the abundant water resources in these areas.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 16 Spencer Environmental
These development activities can have negative impacts on hydrology through several avenues. When trees are cleared near waterbodies, the wind exposure over the waterbodies is increased, in turn, increasing evapotranspiration and lowering water levels. Likewise, removal of a vegetative buffer that can trap sediments and contaminants can adversely affect water quality in the waterbody. Removing the treed buffers that naturally surround wetlands and lakes in this area also removes the dense and diverse grass and shrub understory, and reduces the ability of those lands to capture and hold sediments and contaminants before they are released to water. Further, the lawns, cropland or impervious substrates (e.g., pavement, or compacted roads or lots) that may replace vegetation can be a source of additional contaminants that are in turn, transferred to the water body through run-off.
Diverting water from waterbodies obviously lowers water levels, but will also increase evapotranspiration in the original receiving water body, since evapotranspiration is higher in shallower waters. Diversions can also drastically impact water quality by concentrating nutrients and contaminants released into the waterbody from surrounding lands. All of these effects would be acerbated within a closed basin, particularly with respect to water quality, since contaminants would accumulate within these areas.
2.3 Hydrogeology A map of the potential risk for groundwater contamination within the study area was also created by the BHI (Figure 8). In this case, risk was determined based on the co-location of coarse textured soils (sands, gravels), groundwater recharge or discharge and/or a surface water body. The combination of all three was interpreted as highest risk, while a combination of any two factors was considered moderate risk. Low risk primarily indicated the absence of groundwater recharge or discharge.
The Miquelon study area has some relatively extensive areas of recharge and discharge that overlap with the abundant surface water to create zones of moderate risk of groundwater risk over much of the study area, but particularly within the moraine. Based on the groundwater modeling, notable areas of potential moderate and high risk include an arc of land extending southwest to northeast through Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park and a similar arc to the south, extending through Miquelon Lake #1. Both zones correspond to areas with groundwater discharge and recharge potential, which when combined with the abundance surface water, create the dense pattern of high risk zones.
The lands adjacent to the boundary of the Ministik Bird Sanctuary also have moderate to high risk, due to a recharge zone that overlaps the northwest corner of the study area (along the east shoreline of Joseph Lake). Due to inconsistencies in the PRFA groundwater risk data at the County boundaries, a broad moderate risk zone that begins along Joseph Lake in Leduc County ends abruptly here. The PFRA data was compiled from groundwater well data for each county separately and in some areas do not match exactly, particularly where some extrapolation was necessary in areas without groundwater wells. This is further complicated by the absence of groundwater wells within protected areas such as Ministik. As a result, the broader moderate zone from
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 17 Spencer Environmental
Leduc County changed to a scattered pattern around smaller wetlands. Much of the Sanctuary land should be assumed to have moderate groundwater contamination risk, given the abundance of wetlands and the effect of groundwater data extrapolation in this area.
Activities with potential to release contaminants are obviously incompatible with high or moderate risk areas. From a land use planning perspective, this could include septic fields, Confined feeding operations or certain types of industry. A less obvious impact of land use is disruption of recharge and discharge areas. Actions such as filling of wetlands within recharge or discharge zones or placing large areas of impervious materials within such an area (e.g., roads, compacted yards) can block essential recharge functions, leading to reduced groundwater quantity and quality. In addition to contamination risk, filling or paving/compacting ground over a discharge area can produce long-term maintenance issues, since the underlying soils will continue to be saturated. Groundwater quality risks are particularly relevant to the study area, since local potable groundwater wells tend to be of high salinity and are already marginal quality for domestic use. Many local residents and the provincial park haul drinking water supplies rather than use local groundwater wells (pers. comm., D. Patriquin). Groundwater wells are still important for agricultural use, however.
2.4 Vegetation 2.4.1 Regional Vegetation The Miquelon Lakes study area includes two distinct landscapes: to the north, the hummocky southern end of the BHM and to the south and southeast, the undulating agricultural plains. The study area also lies at the transition between two natural subregions (the Dry Mixedwood Boreal and Central Parkland (Natural Subregions, Natural Regions Committee, 2006)), and some overlap in vegetation communities occurs as a result of these two ecological circumstances. The northern part of the study area supports forests dominated by aspen, characteristic of the Dry Mixedwood Boreal. Balsam poplar stands are also present in the wetter areas, and small areas of spruce woodlands can also be found in the area. Aspen stands become smaller and more patchily distributed in the flatter lands to the south, possibly due to a combination of agricultural clearing and transition to the aspen groves characteristic of the Central Parkland subregion to the south.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 18 Jospeh Lake
Beaver County Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Miquelon Highway 623 Lake #3
Leduc County
Miquelon Miquelon Lake Lake #2 Provincial Park
Highway 833
Miquelon Kingman Lake #1
Hay Lakes
Highway 617 Highway 21
Camrose County
Legend Figure 8. Study Area Lakes & Major Rivers Groundwater Contamination Risk Roads Environmental Sensitivity Rail Lines High Map in the Miquelon Study area Municipal Boundary Medium 01 2 4 Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 Kilometers Protected Areas Low Miquelon Game Sanctuary 1:100,000 Beaver Hills Moraine Spencer Environmental
2.4.2 Local Study Area Vegetation As mentioned above, the rolling terrain within the BHM has discouraged clearing of the land, which has resulted in retention of large areas of native forest and wetland habitat on the landscape. The presence and quality of these large natural areas prompted the Province to protect the Miquelon Lakes #2 and #3 as a provincial park, and the park has added additional lands when opportunities have arisen. The lands around the park have, for the most part, also retained their natural character and vegetation due to the terrain limitations. In the south part of the study area, the undulating terrain was generally more conducive to agricultural use. As a result, most of these lands are under cultivation, although small stands of trees, often around wetlands, have been retained in some areas.
Establishment of the provincial park in the early 1950s helped maintain native vegetation in the study area. The terrain limitations within the surrounding lands offered another form of protection that extends north through the BHM. A continuous band of forested lands and wetlands currently runs from the east side of the park west through to the Ministik Bird Sanctuary and north into Beaver County, providing natural vegetation cover over much of the study area (Figure 9, see Habitat areas). In fact, overall the forested area in the 17,356 ha study area totals 7,052 ha, or roughly 41% of the area. The broad band of forested lands alone contributes 4,879 ha to that total (although County roads bisect some parts of this band, see Section 2.5 below). With the addition of lakes and wetlands (3,228 ha), 10280 ha (59%) of the study area supports natural habitat. Again, much of this vegetation zone occurs within the moraine. These naturally vegetated lands and waterbodies continue past the Cooking Lake area and the Blackfoot/Cooking Lake Grazing Reserve and eventually reach the north end of Elk Island National Park. The abundance and connectivity of natural habitat within the study area and elsewhere in the moraine plays a significant role in regional biodiversity, a role discussed further in the wildlife section below.
2.4.3 Rare Plants A request for information to the ANHIC (Alberta Natural Heritage Information Center) placed on September 9, 2009 determined that six rare plant occurrences have been documented within the study area, representing four rare plant species (Table 2). All were relatively recent. One species, the Mycocalicium caliciodes, is ranked S1 (5 or fewer occurrences in the province) and was reported in the northeast corner of the study area (Figure x). Scoliciosporum chlorococcum, ranked S2 (with 5 to 20 occurrences in the province) was also observed in this area and in the provincial park, near Miquelon Lake #3. An S1S2 species (Ruppia cirrhosa), was reported in the northwest corner of the study area, near Ministik Bird Sanctuary and off the western tip of Miquelon Lake #3. The remaining rare plant species (Campylium radicale), an S2 species, was found on the east side of Miquelon Lake #3.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 20 Jospeh Lake Beaver County
Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Miquelon Highway 623 Lake #3
Leduc County Miquelon Lake Miquelon Provincial Lake #2 Park Highway 833
Miquelon
Lake #1 Kingman
Hay Lakes Highway 617 Highway 21
Camrose County
Legend Figure 9. Study Area Protected Areas Ecological Network and Roads Beaver Hills Moraine Protected Areas within the Rail Lines Lakes, Rivers, and Streams Miquelon Lakes Study Area Municipal Boundary Barriers (Features Promoting Habitat Connectivy) 01 2 4 Ducks Unlimited Project Areas Habitat Patches Kilometers Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 ER, MR and CE Lands Linkages Nature Conservancy of Canada Project Area Matrix 1:100,000 Miquelon Game Sanctuary Spencer Environmental
Table 2. Rare plants observed and recorded by ANHIC in the Miquelon Lakes Study Area
Provincial Common Date of Species Name Status Location Name Occurrence Rank Campylium Campylium S2 2007 E side of main lake moss radicale Mycocalcium Mycocalicium S1 1977 NE corner of study area lichen caliciodes City dot Scoliciosporum 1977 NE corner of study area; SE S2 lichen chlorococcum 2007 of Miquelon Lake #3 W tip of Miquelon Lake #3; Widgeon- 1975 Ruppia cirrhosa S1S2 NW corner of study area grass 1983 (near Ministik)
2.5 Wildlife 2.5.1 Habitat Because the study area falls near the boundary of two natural subregions, climatic, habitat and resource variations are more diverse and able to accommodate more species of wildlife than one subregion could alone. In addition, the extensive native forest and wetland habitat helps support a diverse suite of species that helps sustain not only its own biodiversity, but that in the adjacent lands as well (this is discussed further in the section below on Ecological Connectivity).
Some of the study area is now protected as Provincial Park or Bird Sanctuary land (25%, or 4491 ha of the 17,356 ha study area is provincially protected). Ducks Unlimited and other non-governmental agencies, including the Alberta Fish and Game Association, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Alberta Conservation Association have also acquired lands through conservation easements or land purchase, to protect additional habitat throughout the BHM and surrounding lands, including the Miquelon study area. Some of these easements lie within the study area (Figure 9). Ducks Unlimited Canada has several project sites in the area, and the Nature Conservancy has identified an area of operational focus for conservation activities at the southeast side of the study area. Both the protected lands, plus the forested areas that surround them, provide food, shelter, and nutrients for various species of wildlife.
Roads, which can fragment habitat, are limited within the provincial protected areas and large lakes have further limited road development on the privately-held lands in the study area. As a result, the habitat in and surrounding Miquelon Lake Provincial Park provides about 2503 ha of forested habitat that can be considered ‘connected’ (free of roads or other barriers; Figure 10). Ministik Bird Sanctuary and its adjacent lands provide another 8122 ha of relatively contiguous habitat (including lands extending beyond the study area). The adjacent private lands also support some relatively large patches of connected
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 22 Spencer Environmental
habitat, ranging between 500 ha to 1000 ha. These are separated from the protected areas by County roads, which are often relatively narrow, gravel roads (20 m wide or less) with lower traffic volumes. As such, they do not pose a significant barrier to any but the smallest species. Effectively, the connected forested lands within the study area, from Miquelon Lake #1 in the southeast to Ministik Bird Sanctuary in the northwest, total 8200 ha.
The County has proposed to pave the North Miquelon Lake Road, which would then provide paved access to residential subdivisions north of Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park. This road improvement will occur between the two contiguous forested segments surrounding Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park and the Ministik Bird Sanctuary. For wildlife, the impact of roads on connectivity is mediated by three factors: width of road (and the cleared space that must be crossed), volume of traffic (and the associated level of risk of collision) and the speed of vehicle travel (also related to risk of collision). Road width should not change significantly with the proposed improvements to North Miquelon Lake Road, but the volume and speed of vehicle traffic may. As a result, the viability of connection between these large forested areas may be reduced somewhat, due to risk of collision.
Environmental impacts are generally addressed by avoidance or mitigation. Avoidance is not necessarily feasible in this circumstance: the road already exists, as does rural residential subdivision development and residents desiring connections to local highways. Alternatives can also avoid impacts though, and might be possible in this case. North Miquelon Lake Road provides a semi-circular connection from Highway 623, around the west boundary of Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park, to Highway 833. Subdivision development is now concentrated along the part of the road running east to west and linking to Highway 833 (and Spillstead Road, another paved link used by local residents). A new subdivision located north along Spillstead Road (Sanctuary Estates) will bring additional residents to the area. The main connection between the two areas of forested lands is across the north-south section of North Miquelon Lake Road, which currently has fewer subdivisions and is less amenable to future rural residential developments. This road also has several sharp bends and corners which pose potential safety hazards for use as a higher volume, higher speed connector route. Paving the east-west section of the road would perhaps satisfy the access needs of local residents, while protecting the connectivity of the main forested segment between Miquelon Lake Provincial Park and Ministik Bird Sanctuary. If the entire road is paved, leaving the curves in the alignment will help reduce speeds through this zone, and lower the risk of collision. Regardless, wildlife crossing warning signage should be provided through the forested areas of the road.
Generally, wildlife (and plant) diversity increases with the size of a habitat patch. The distribution of large habitat patches (key connected segments) in the Miquelon Lakes
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 23 Spencer Environmental
study area suggests that biodiversity should be relatively high and that the area should be considered a core area1.
2.5.2 Special Status Species A total of 295 species have the potential to occur within the study area based on known provincial range. Of these, 103 species have been observed in the area (Appendix A; pers. comm., G. Hvenegaard, D. Patriquin). Special status species within that total include 19 species considered to be At Risk or May Be At Risk provincially, or Endangered or Threatened federally (Table 3). A request for information to FWMIS (Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System) on September 9, 2009 identified several special status species that have been documented within the study area (Table 2). Five have been observed in the area, either by FWMIS or others. Most of the 19 special status species have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring in the study area, based on known distribution, habitat requirements, life history and past observation within the study area.
Not surprisingly, given the origins of Miquelon as a bird sanctuary (pers.comm., G. Swinnerton), and the current sanctuary status of Ministik, the FWMIS data also reported large migratory flocks in the area and abundant amphibian populations. Approximately 10,000 ring billed gulls, 2000 California gulls and 210 wood frogs were noted in a 1998 ground survey of the area, according to the FWMIS record.
Often, the presence of special status species indicates that an area has rich biodiversity. Considering the observations here, the Miquelon area seems to support highly biodiverse wildlife communities.
1 Core areas are large patches of habitat that can support high levels of abundance and diversity, and so serve as source populations, sustaining adjacent lands as well as the core area.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 24 Jospeh Lake Beaver County
Ministik Bird Sanctuary
Miquelon Highway 623 Lake #3
Leduc County Miquelon Lake Miquelon Provincial Lake #2 Park Highway 833
Miquelon
Lake #1 Kingman
Hay Lakes Highway 617 Highway 21
Camrose County
Legend Figure 10. Study Area Lakes, Rivers, and Streams 10000 ha Key Connected Areas within the Roads Barriers 5000 ha Miquelon Lakes Study Area Rail Lines Linkages 2500 ha (Longer, contiguous habitats and linkages) Municipal Boundary Habitat Patches 1000 ha 01 2 4 Date Map Created: 15 March 2010 Miquelon Game Sanctuary Matrix 500 ha Kilometers Protected Areas Beaver Hills Moraine 1:100,000 Spencer Environmental
Table 3. Special Status Species with Potential to Occur within the Miquelon Lake Study Area
Provincial Status Observed Likelihood Scientific (General Wildlife Act COSEWIC SARA Common Name of Name Status of AB Designation Designation Designation By FWMIS Occurrence Wild Others a Species) Amphibians and Reptiles Schedule 1 (Special Low Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens At Risk Threatened Special Concern Concern) Y Canadian Toad Bufo hemiophrys May be At Risk Data Deficient Not at Risk Y Y High Birds Low Charadrius melodus Endangered- see Schedule 1 Piping Plover circumcinctus At Risk Endangered Recovery Strategy (Endangered) Schedule 3 (Special Low Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis At Risk Endangered Threatened Concern) Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator At Risk Threatened Not at Risk Y High Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum At Risk Threatened Special Concern Low Endangered ( Status Low Red Knot Calidris canutus May Be At Risk Report) Y (migration) Schedule 3 (Special Moderate Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus May be At Risk Special Concern Concern) Schedule 1 Moderate Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii Sensitive Special Concern Threatened (Threatened) Lanius ludovicainus Threatened (see Status Schedule 1 Low Loggerhead Shrike exubitorides Sensitive Special Concern Report) (Threatened) White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Sensitive Special Concern Moderate Barred Owl Strix varia Sensitive Special Concern High Black-Throated Green High Warbler Dendroica virens Sensitive Special Concern Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Sensitive Special Concern High Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Sensitive Threatened High Threatened (see Status High Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Sensitive Report) Schedule 1 (Special High Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Undetermined Special Concern Concern) Mammals Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata May be At Risk Not at Risk Y High Northern Bat Myotis septentrionalis May be At Risk High a (Pers. comm., G. Hvenegaard, D. Patriquin)
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 26 Spencer Environmental
2.5.3 Ecological Connectivity The naturally vegetated lands in the study area play an integral role in sustaining both local and regional biodiversity, including plant and wildlife diversity, due to the size of the core areas mentioned above. To sustain biodiversity across the broader landscape, however, requires connectivity to other habitat in the study area and in the broader region. This allows young to disperse from core areas such as the provincial park and the adjacent naturally vegetated areas, for adults to seek new mates and for other areas of habitat affected by drought or disease to be recolonized, maintaining genetic and species diversity across the broader region. It also helps ensure that the species that promote functional ecosystems continue to thrive across the regional landscape.
Above, we noted that several large patches of habitat (core areas) exist in the study area and form part of a larger forested corridor that extends through the BHM to Elk Island National Park. Highways and other barriers disrupt the connections somewhat, but overall, the permeability of this landscape is relatively high (BHI, 2007). The BHI have mapped relative permeability of the moraine landscape, based on tree cover and the absence of major roads. Based on their findings, permeability is high for the forested areas of the Miquelon study area, and moderately low in the agricultural lands. Lakes, a major barrier to movement during the summer months, were considered to have the lowest permeability, and this would also apply to the large lakes in the Miquelon and Ministik area. During the winter, however, they are much less of an impediment for the resident species that remain in the area year round.
Overall, diverse and abundant wildlife populations should be sustainable within the study area, given maintenance of these current conditions: a number of large and well- distributed small protected areas, the high level of connectivity of natural habitat, and the relatively high permeability of that habitat for movement. Further, the location of the study area at the southern end of the BHM, and its connectivity to other natural habitat in the broader moraine give it a prominent role in maintaining biodiversity at the regional level. The location of the study area, in a transition zone between two Alberta natural subregions enhances biodiversity potential within the study area, and that richness is evident in the number of species potentially occurring and observed. To ensure that biodiversity is sustained locally and regionally, habitat connectivity and permeability should be maintained as much as possible, to ensure wildlife movement is not hindered, resulting in a loss of habitat availability, resource availability/quality, and/or genetic diversity.
Recommendations in the preceding sections will also conserve ecological connectivity of the key components supporting this important local and regional ecological network: avoiding intensive forms of development (e.g., commercial, industrial, higher density residential developments) within the key connected areas segments identified in Figure 10 and discussed in section 2.5.1 (i.e., the segment between Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park and Ministik Bird Sanctuary), and minimizing road development within these same areas.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 27 Spencer Environmental
2.6 Fish/Aquatic Resources Although Miquelon Lake #3 and the “Grebe Pond” (a small pond at the Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park entrance) reportedly supported stocked fish populations (trout) in the past, they are no longer present (pers. comm., D. Patriquin). Due to declining lake levels and the highly alkaline water quality within Miquelon Lakes (all 3 lakes), no fish are now able to exist within the lake, other than the brook stickleback (Mitchell 2005, Swanson and Zurawell, 2006). Shallow lakes are susceptible to winter kill, caused by low oxygen levels. Stickleback are tolerant of very poor aquatic habitat and can withstand waters with high alkalinity and low oxygen levels.
The three Miquelon Lakes may serve as an indicator of the current and future condition of lakes and wetlands in this area. The drainage basin contributing to the largest lake (Miquelon #1) is relatively small compared to the lake basin and although the lake receives some groundwater flow, it is still dependant on overland flow (Swanson and Zurawell, 2006). Evaporation is high due to the overall shallow lake depth, making water level quite sensitive to changes in precipitation and local runoff. According to the Atlas of Alberta Lakes (Mitchell, 2005), there has been no outflow from Miquelon Lakes since the 1920’s and lake levels have declined considerably since then. In 1927, the outlet creek from Miquelon Lake #1 was deepened to divert water to supply the then Town of Camrose. The diversion flowed for only 3 years; despite additional deepening of the ditch to improve flow, it was eventually abandoned.
In 1966, the lake reportedly had a maximum depth of 6 m and average depth of 2.7 m (Swanson and Zurawell, 2006). Consistent monitoring of water levels at Miquelon Lake #3 has been underway since 1972, and levels were relatively stable until about 1990 (Figure 11; Swanson and Zurawell, 2006). Between 1991 and 2006, however, the lake level has dropped by 1.6 m.
No specific cause for the steady decrease in water levels at these lakes has yet been identified, although as in other areas of the province, intensive cattle grazing, land clearing, and a changing climate have been attributed to the decline. Of these potential causes, climatic factors are thought to have played a significant role at Miquelon Lakes (Woodburn, 1977 quoted in Mitchell, 2005, Swanson and Zurawell, 2006). Climatic effects have been particularly dramatic in the past decade. Two record level droughts have affected central Alberta and the Camrose County area in that time, one in 2002 and another in 2009. Water levels throughout the region are at historic lows of extremely dry conditions (Alberta Agriculture, 365 day Standardized Precipitation Index, 07 February 2010). With the significant drought of the past summer of 2009, Ministik Lakes #2 and #3 are almost completely dry.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 28 Spencer Environmental
Figure 11. Historic Water Levels in Miquelon Lake #3 (from Swanson and Zurawell, 2006)
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 29 Spencer Environmental
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
The area within and surrounding Miquelon Lakes is a unique and integral part of the Beaver Hill Moraine. Further, it plays a key role in maintaining the ecological function of not only the moraine lands, but the adjacent lands within Camrose County, south of the moraine. The natural character of the area has attracted public, government and now developer attention to the area, which has prompted this current reassessment of the land use goals for the area.
The area has continually played an important role in the local and regional community, a role substantially supported by recent efforts by government and other agencies. The abundant forests, wetlands and high level of biodiversity have been recognized by provincial parks, who have invested heavily into Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park over the past several years (approximately $12 million in campground improvements over the past three years; pers. comm., T. Krause). The park is also actively seeking other community partnerships. In December 2009, Alberta Parks and the Augustana campus of the University of Alberta signed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining opportunities for research and education within Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park (pers. comm., G. Hood). The agreement will benefit Augustana (and main campus) students and researchers, as well as the park and adjacent landowners, many of whom are already participating in on-going research programs.
The public also recognize the special values of the area. The provincial park is fully occupied for most of the summer operating months (pers. comm., D. Patriquin) and several rural residential subdivisions already exist within the study area. Now, new residents interested in living in the area are creating increasing potential demand for rural residential development, including the newly developed Sanctuary Estates north of the provincial park. The County’s request for development of a Growth Management Plan recognizes these pressures and the value of the natural resources in the Miquelon area. Their review also comes at a time of change provincially in land use, protected area and natural resource management and policy, which adds another layer of context for land use planning for these areas.
The sections below provide a summary of the key resources and sensitivities of the area, and relevant provincial policy management initiatives regarding natural resources. That information sets the stage for discussion of opportunities and constraints for future land use and development of the Miquelon area, and recommendations for protection of sensitive resources within the study area.
3.1 Summary of Key Resources/Sensitivities The Miquelon study area supports a rich, diverse and significant natural resource valuable to local and regional residents. For such an ecosystem to function well, soils, water, vegetation, wildlife and aquatic habitat must be effectively managed as inter- related components. Knowledge of the distribution and condition of these natural resources is essential to planning future development in a manner that will ensure that the
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 30 Spencer Environmental
natural values of this landscape are retained. The key natural features identified in this report are summarized in the sections below.
Soils and Terrain There is a dramatic shift in terrain, moving from north to south across the Miquelon study area that marks the transition from the Blackfoot-Cooking lake moraine (now called the Beaver Hills Moraine) to the flatter plains that surround this landscape feature. The northern two thirds of the study area are a rolling, hummocky landscape that has presented development constraints in the past, resulting in retention of extensive forests and wetlands now attractive to rural residential developers. The level to undulating plains in the southern part of the study area have been largely cleared for cultivation and here terrain has posed few limitations for agricultural land use. Soils in the Miquelon study area also follow a similar division into two zones of distinct agricultural capability. High value agricultural lands are located on the plains in the southern part of the study area. Poorer agricultural soils (with lower CLI classes) support the extensive forest and wetland habitat characteristic of the Miquelon area. Solonetzic soils are common in the study area and contribute to high soil alkalinity.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology Wetlands are abundant throughout northern (moraine) part of the study area, providing wildlife with habitat/resources and aiding in water filtration, groundwater recharge, and water supply on the landscape. Surface water is much less abundant on the agricultural plain. The three largest water bodies in the study area are lakes (Miquelon 1, 2, and 3). Miquelon 1 provides significant regional recreational opportunities (camping, beach activities, swimming, canoeing). Surface water risks for the gross drainage areas (the smaller catchments comprising the sub-basins of the regional watershed), in terms of water quality and quantity impacts, were highest: o around Miquelon 1 (high risk), o around Miquelon 2 and 3 (moderately high risk), and o in the northwest near Ministik Bird Sanctuary (moderately high risk). Surface water risk was higher in areas with high density of water bodies relative to the gross drainage area, more clearing, or zoning to more intensive forms of land use. Areas that are considered to be at a moderately high to high risk are quite sensitive to land uses that would result in extensive clearing, water diversion, overgrazing, and/or intensive/high density development (particularly if large areas of impervious surfaces were created). The agricultural lands south of the moraine were of moderately low risk, as were the two GDAs in the northwest corner of the study area. The agricultural lands are part of a closed gross drainage area though, meaning that they do not contribute to ‘downstream’ drainage areas, and ultimately the main watershed river systems. This also means that they are more susceptible to changes in water availability and water quality, since surface inputs to the system are limited to the rainfall within that area. The plains already have much lower surface water abundance than the moraine, and,
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 31 Spencer Environmental
therefore, are sensitive to activities that might acerbate water loss. Appropriate water conservation techniques are recommended for this area (retention of vegetative buffers around water bodies, prohibiting water diversion and wetland draining that could affect local water cycles). Large zones of the study area have been mapped as recharge and discharge areas (mainly within the moraine). Wetlands linked to these vital groundwater zones are important for sustaining the local water cycle. These sites are also vulnerable to contamination risk, particularly where they may overlap with coarse sediment textures. Confined feeding operations, certain high density developments, extensive creation of impervious surfaces, and in-filling of wetlands pose a potential risk to groundwater and surface water supply and quality in these areas. The majority of the wetlands in the area are fed by runoff and some also receive groundwater inputs. Maintaining groundwater flows and taking action to ensure runoff levels are not impeded will play a vital role in sustaining surface water levels and groundwater supply.
Vegetation Within the study area, a naturally vegetated band extends between the Miquelon Lakes area and the Ministik Bird Sanctuary and continues beyond the study area through Cooking Lake to Elk Island National Park. This naturally vegetated link is largely continuous and provides extensive forest and wetland habitat that is important for local and regional ecological function. Trees, shrubs, and grasses provide shelter against the wind and maintain/improve soil structure and stability, as well as preventing evapotranspiration from soils and water bodies. The dense forests throughout the moraine likely serve well in this regard, but on the plains, agricultural clearing has reduced naturally vegetated areas to much smaller patches, often surrounding wetlands. Retention of these naturally vegetated areas will be critical to soil and water conservation in this area. Conserving natural vegetation in the moraine will also be important for water conservation in this wetland dense area, as well as wildlife habitat functions (see below). Several rare plants have been documented within the study area, mainly in the forested lands of the moraine and within the protected areas (likely a result of more intensive survey in these areas). The observations include one S1 species, two S2 species, and one S1S2 species. The presence of several such high status species suggests high biodiversity and potential for other rare species to occur in the area.
Wildlife The Miquelon area has long been recognized for its wildlife habitat value. Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park was originally created as a bird sanctuary, and Ministik remains a provincial Bird Sanctuary. The abundance of lakes and wetlands offers abundant waterfowl and water bird habitat and the area has been documented as important for use by migratory and breeding species. The extensive forest cover in the northern part of the study area provides critical core area habitat that supports higher biodiversity and wildlife abundance. Such
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 32 Spencer Environmental
areas play a key role in maintaining local biodiversity, and in this case, the area is also important for maintaining broader regional biodiversity due to connectivity to habitat throughout the moraine. The location of the study area within a transition zone between two natural subregions leads to high wildlife diversity, including a mix of boreal and aspen parkland species. A total of 295 species have the potential to occur within the study area. Of those, 103 have been observed in the area and are confirmed to be present. A number of rare and endangered species have been observed within the study area, including the northern leopard frog (designated federally as a special concern species), Canadian toad (designated as May Be At Risk provincially) and the trumpeter swan (recently delisted federally, but protected as a Threatened species provincially). Protecting the habitat and resources the wildlife in the area rely on will ensure sustained biodiversity, genetic diversity, and reduce the likelihood of extirpation/extinction of one or more species.
3.2 Development Recommendations Knowledge of key resource locations can inform land use decisions by identifying areas of development opportunity or constraints. In many cases, development may still be feasible, provided site-sensitive mitigation measures are implemented to protect or conserve key resources of value to the local or broader community. In this section, we present options and considerations for future development planning within the Miquelon study area, based on the natural resource sensitivities identified in this assessment.
Often in planning assessment exercises such as this one, environmental specialists are also asked to provide recommendations for acceptable forms and levels of development. This can be done, but with certain limitations. For example, certain types of development have well-understood environmental effects and are clearly suitable for certain sites only (e.g., commercial or industrial development, Confined feeding operations). For others, the environmental impacts associated with development depend more on the proposed design for development, making it difficult to generalize regarding a preferred location for some land use types over a large landscape (e.g., rural residential development) and particularly their intensity (e.g., high density versus low density development). A low density development designed without consideration of site-specific natural features could be more harmful than a more dense development designed around those same features.
For this reason, the following section identifies areas of opportunity and constraint in terms of suitable types of development and levels of acceptable impact (rather than stipulating a somewhat artificial limit on density). This acknowledges the possibility of site-specific design to address natural resource concerns, and instead offers planning objectives based on the limits of sustainable development appropriate for a given area. Further to this assessment of opportunities and constraints, we provide general best management practices for sensitive development that will help to sustain the water,
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 33 Spencer Environmental
forests and habitat characteristics of the Miquelon area, and provide opportunities for growth and economic benefit from these lands.
3.2.1 Opportunities and Constraints Opportunities and constraints from a natural resource perspective must necessarily focus on the key values of the Miquelon study area, its extensive forests, lakes and wetlands and the protected areas that already actively conserve some of those features. These features are important from an ecological perspective, but also to the local and regional community, including recreational users, residents, Augustana Campus and provincial parks agencies. It also should address natural resources important to the agricultural community in the southern part of the study area, particularly water quality and quantity and areas of higher soil capability.
At the broadest level then, the landscape is naturally divided into two zones requiring different management approaches. The moraine, with its rugged terrain, extensive forests and water bodies, and groundwater recharge and discharge zones, is attractive to rural residential development and offers some opportunity for development, provided environmental constraints are recognized. Groundwater recharge and discharge zones are likely closely linked to water bodies throughout this area and would be sensitive to certain types of development and land management. Habitat connectivity is also important in these forested areas and in the large continuous segment of forest extending between Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park and Ministik Bird Sanctuary in particular. Low to medium density development is possible within the moraine, but preferably in already cleared areas with lower agricultural capability where impacts to regional and local natural systems would be fewer (e.g., the lands north of the provincial park, north of North Miquelon Lake Road, and at the eastern edges of the moraine, near Highway 833).
Developments that require extensive clearing and removal of wetlands, or creation of large areas of impervious (including compacted) surfaces would not be appropriate in areas of Moderate to High Groundwater or Surface Water Risk. Associated servicing (storm and waste water) for more intensive development (e.g., commercial, industrial, Confined feeding operations or higher density rural residential developments) could pose a risk to water resources if not well-managed. Such management infrastructure could also pose an unacceptable financial commitment for potential developers.
Extensive clearing could also negatively impact the core area and connectivity functions of the large, contiguous patches of habitat in the moraine, particularly the 2500 ha area of forest extending between Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park and Ministik Bird Sanctuary. High density development (e.g., the County’s current small holdings density of 40 lots per quarter section), commercial or industrial operations (including certain recreational developments) would not be appropriate in these zones. Recreational development covers a range of intensities, not all of which have intensive impact. In light of this fact, recreational development opportunities are discussed separately and in more detail below.
Confined feeding operations with risk of releasing contaminants would also be inappropriate in areas with Moderate to High Surface or Groundwater Risk. The existing
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 34 Spencer Environmental
Municipal Development Plan (based on provincial lake management planning studies from the 1970s) already recognizes the risks to surface water and identifies zones around the broader Miquelon Lakes area in which confined feeding operations will not be permitted.
Rural residential developments could be suitable in these areas, particularly with application of the best management practices identified in the section below and use of adaptive planning designs such as cluster developments that incorporate protection for sensitive natural resources. Waste water disposal and water supply options will be an important consideration for the moraine in general, given surface and ground water risks and groundwater well water quality. Availability of potable water supply and provincial requirements for wastewater treatment and disposal systems must be considered in determining appropriate density limits for this area. Some septic systems will not be feasible in this water-rich area. Sites within the moraine where forests have been partially cleared for agricultural (pasture) use would be most suitable for rural residential development, and many of these sites are located near enough to larger forested areas (and major roads) to provide the amenity value sought by rural residential developers and buyers.
Development levels within the large continuous forest between the provincial park and Ministik Bird Sanctuary should be carefully considered. This is one of the largest single patches of forest habitat within the broader Beaver Hills Moraine, and it forms part of the ‘spine’ of relatively undeveloped habitat running through the moraine. As such, it plays an important role in local and regional ecological connectivity that helps sustain the protected areas within the region, but also the adjacent lands (in terms of biodiversity and water cycles). Fragmentation of the forested area by roads and rural subdivision could remove habitat, but would also introduce potential water quality and quantity risks, including contaminant sources, impervious areas and higher evapotranspiration. These lands are currently under agricultural use (primarily grazing), which seems compatible with sustainability objectives.
Recreational developments (commercial campgrounds) and seasonal recreational (cabin) properties could also be seen by developers as potential opportunities in the moraine area. The natural character of the area and the proximity to other developed recreational facilities in the provincial protected areas offer potential amenities and the area is close to Edmonton and other larger urban centers. From the perspective of the natural resources in the area though, some types and intensities of recreational developments may not be appropriate. The potable and waste water concerns above would apply to proposed recreational developments as well. The higher density recreational developments may require servicing not feasible in the context of surface and groundwater conditions within much of the moraine. Seasonal recreational properties may not pose significant issues in terms of density and certainly will not have the intensity of use that a year round residence would. Management of waste water is probably the bigger concern here, although if the best management practices suggested for rural residential properties were applied, this issue might be mitigated.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 35 Spencer Environmental
The cultivated plains bordering the southern edge of the moraine may be more suitable for higher density, industrial or commercial development with respect to vegetation, wildlife, habitat, and water management. These areas have less surface water and very limited natural vegetation due to previous clearing; however, they also have soils with high agricultural capacity. Retention of high quality agricultural land is another emerging concern in natural resource management and in the County’s existing MDP, and the loss of productive lands should be carefully considered. Both agricultural and natural resource conservation goals could be accomplished by directing higher density development to less productive lands, with fewer ecological values (e.g., the cleared lands along the eastern fringe of the moraine and outside the larger continuous forest lands). Commercial development may be feasible in such areas or along the south boundary of Miquelon Lakes Provincial Park (to serve park visitors), but generally, neither the agricultural lands nor the heart of the moraine lands seems appropriate for intensive commercial or industrial development.
Regardless of the new development options proposed for the cultivated lands, water conservation practices will be critical in this area. Surface water in this closed basin is less abundant than in the moraine and has been impacted by past land management activity. Clearing has removed or significantly reduced the vegetative buffer protecting remaining wetlands, which exposes these water bodies to risk of pollution or drought due to heightened evaporative loss. Development should be directed to already cleared areas to minimize additional clearing and wetlands should be conserved where possible. Waste and potable water management will also be critical in these areas, for the reasons outlined in the preceding discussion.
3.2.2 Best Management Practices Various agencies have developed best management practices (BMPs) for sustainable development, including the BHI and the Land Stewardship Center of Canada (BHI, 2007, Primeau, et al., 2009). These were modified to apply to the Miquelon study area and its natural resources. The mitigative measures provided are adaptations to typical development activities that can minimize impact, while still allowing development in areas with environmental sensitivities. Benefits to relevant natural resources are provided with each best management practice, to allow selection of BMPs appropriate to a given sensitivity. However, use of these practices in any development scenario will help to reduce adverse effects to natural systems and valued resources.
Direct development, and particularly higher density development, away from areas with high surface water and groundwater risk ratings. Removes a risk of broad or point-source pollution from water bodies and areas with higher permeability between surficial sediments or surface water and groundwater.
Ensure that the full Environmental Reserve and Municipal Reserve dedication is taken during subdivision to retain wetlands and adjacent vegetated buffers. Consider providing incentives for landowners/developers to encourage conservation easements
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 36 Spencer Environmental
with local ENGOs, or alternatively, establish a system of referrals for those interested in such options. Wetlands are a significant resource in the moraine and in the agricultural plains and play a role in local and regional water cycles, plus provide important habitat for many wildlife species (notably waterfowl and waterbirds). Fewer legislative tools exist for conservation of upland areas, but conservation easements offer one such mechanism. Depending on the development context, easements can also enhance lot value, making this an attractive option for some developers.
Where possible, avoid construction of roads that would cross watercourses or natural drainage swales (or ensure that drainage patterns are maintained using appropriately sized culverts), or construction that would require wetland infilling. Disruption or infilling of natural drainage systems may deprive already sensitive water bodies of water and wetland loss is an issue for the entire province. Absence of adequate drainage systems can pose long-term maintenance problems for roads and other built infrastructure. Also, wetland infilling and draining requires provincial permitting and compensation that can increase development costs and prolong development timelines. Where wetland disturbance is required due to other considerations (e.g., public safety for road construction), minimize impact to waterbodies as much as possible and ensure existing drainage patterns are maintained.
Manage stormwater and other development wastewater, control runoff and sedimentation. Ensure that stormwater management plans are required of all subdivision applications. Septic systems must be selected for site-specific conditions, not limited to soil permeability, high water tables, locations of groundwater recharge and discharge zones and proximity to water bodies. Provincial guidelines dictate septic system types, size and location: areas with abundant surface water are may have additional restrictions that should be considered in determining targeted development density. All subdivision development should follow provincial regulations for stormwater and wastewater management, which address water quality requirements, and selection of appropriate sites and technologies for treatment and/or disposal.
Consider water supply in establishing development density and other guidelines. Some of the local residents and the provincial park now rely on trucked water supplies for drinking purposes, due to high alkalinity in local surface and groundwater. New developments, particularly rural residential developments, should consider adequacy of water sources and supply in their proposals.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 37 Spencer Environmental
Direct developments in already cleared areas outside the habitat corridor between Miquelon and the Ministik Bird Sanctuary, and between the other large waterbodies within the study area (e.g., Miquelon Lakes #1 and #2). Maintaining habitat connectivity will protect a regional wildlife movement corridor that extends from the south end of the project area north through the ‘spine’ of the BHM. This will help sustain genetic diversity, habitat/resource availability, and wildlife viewing opportunities for residents and visitors to the area.
Encourage development ‘up’ rather than ‘out’ to minimize lot clearing requirements (or for forested or partly forested areas, consider restrictions on lot clearing). Encourage use of designs/landscaping that will limit clearing and retain or replace maximum native vegetation cover. Incremental conservation of naturally vegetated areas will help maintain natural vegetation on the landscape, plus minimize other impacts associated with a larger development footprint (e.g., introduction of impervious surfaces, erosion risk). Use of native vegetation in landscaping can replace native cover as well as avoid introduction of invasive species. Clearing limits must also consider the requirements of Fire Smart principles, which dictate a zone free of combustible vegetation near buildings. Locating developments in areas where previously cleared ‘building pockets’ can be readily used will help balance the opposing concerns of conserving vegetation and protecting property.
Where trails and common amenities are proposed, recommend that designs follow cleared edges of natural areas, rather than bisecting them, to minimize fragmentation. Fragmentation of forested lands can introduce weeds and other exotic species, plus reduce habitat value for certain sensitive species.
Require a rare plant survey and special status wildlife review for proposed development parcels within the moraine area, which should include a mitigation plan for any species identified. Several rare plant species have been observed in the area in the past and the potential appears high for those same species or others to exist in the area. Various special status species are known to occur or may potentially occur in the area, and could be at risk, depending on the scale and type of development proposed.
Ensure that referrals to all relevant federal and provincial agencies for any development affecting wetlands or rare plant or wildlife species. Legislative requirements may apply to developments given the resources present in the study area. It remains the developer’s responsibility to obtain applicable permitting, however the County may wish to see comment on the proposal with regard to environmental legislation in evaluating development proposals.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 38 Spencer Environmental
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1 Literature Cited BHI. 2007. Land management framework, Phase II. Prepared for the Beaver Hills Initiative, Sherwood Park, AB by Spencer Environmental.
Chao, D. 2002. Quaternary geology of central and southern Alberta. Alberta Geological Survey. Edmonton, AB. 1:50,000 scale GIS map products (Map 207D, Map 213D) available on-line at .www.eub.ags-infosales.gov.ab.ca
Department of Regional Economic Expansion. 1969. The Canada Land Inventory. Soil capability for agriculture. The Canada Land Inventory Report No. 2. Ottawa, ON. Available on-line: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/CLI/index_agriculture.html
Natural Regions Committee 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.
PFRA. 2007. North Saskatchewan watershed boundaries GIS data layer. PFRA, Edmonton, AB.
Primeau, S., M. Bell., M. Riopel, E. Ewaschuk and D. Doell. 2009. Green communities guide: tools to help restore ecological processes of Albera’s built environments. Land Stewardship Center of Canada. Edmonton, AB.
Mitchell PA. Atlas of Alberta lakes: Miquelon Lake [Internet]. 2005. Edmonton (AB): University of Alberta Department of Biological Sciences; [cited 2009 Oct 14]. Available from: http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/Projects/Alberta- Lakes/view/?region=North Saskatchewan Region&basin=Battle River Basin&lake=Miquelon Lake&number=92 &page=Biological
Swanson, H. and R. Zurawell. 2006. Miquelon Lake Water Quality Monitoring Report - Provincial Parks Lake Monitoring Program. Monitoring and Evaluation Branch, Environmental Assurance Division, Alberta Environment.
4.2 Personal Communications Dee Patriquin, Environmental Scientist. Spencer Environmental Management Services Ltd. Edmonton, AB.
Dr. Glynnis Hood, Assistant Professor. Environmental Science Department, Augustana Campus, University of Alberta. Camrose, AB.
Dr. Glenn Hvennegaard, Professor. Environmental Science Department, Augustana Campus, University of Alberta. Camrose, AB.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 39 Spencer Environmental
Terry Krause, Park Planner. Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation, Parks Division East Central Area. Red Deer, AB.
Dr. Guy Swinnerton, Professor Emeritus. Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 40
APPENDIX A: Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Study Area
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Page A1 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Amphibians and Reptiles Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinium Secure Not at Risk R R Y Canadian Toad Bufo hemiophrys May be At Risk Data Deficient Not at Risk R R Y Y Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Secure R R Y Schedule 1 (Special Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens At Risk Threatened Special Concern Concern) R Y Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris maculata Secure R R Y Y Wandering Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans Sensitive R R Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix Sensitive R R Y Y Red-sided Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Sensitive R R Y Y Birds Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Secure M M Y Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Secure M M Ross's Goose Chen rossii Secure M M Canada Goose Branta canadensis Secure B B Y Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator At Risk Threatened Not at Risk M M Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Secure M M Gadwall Anas strepera Secure B B Y American Wigeon Anas americana Secure B B Y
2 Personal Communications from G. Hvenegaard and D. Patriquin.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Secure B B Y Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Secure B B Y Y Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Secure B B Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Secure B B Y Northern Pintail Anas acuta Sensitive B B Anas crecca Green-winged Teal carolinensis Sensitive B B Y Canvasback Aythya valisineria Secure B B Y Redhead Aythya americana Secure B B Y Y Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Secure B B Y Greater Scaup Aythya marila Secure M M Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Sensitive B B Y Melanitta Surf Scoter perspicillata Secure B M White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Sensitive Special Concern B B Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Secure B B Y Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Secure B B Y Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Secure M B Lophodytes Hooded Merganser cucullatus Secure B B Common Merganser Mergus merganser Secure B B Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Secure B M Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Secure B B Y Gray Partridge Perdix perdix Exotic/Alien R R
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Ring-necked Pheasant Phansianus colchicus Exotic/Alien R R Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Secure R R Y Tympanuchus Sharp-tailed grouse phasianellus Sensitive R R Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Secure M M Common Loon Gavia immer Secure Not at Risk B B Y Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Sensitive B B Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Sensitive B B Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Secure Not at Risk B B Y Y Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Secure B B Aechmophorus Western Grebe occidentalis Sensitive B B Pelecanus American White Pelican erythrorhynchos Sensitive Not at Risk B B Y Y Double-crested Phalacrocorax Cormorant auritus Secure Not at Risk B B Y American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Sensitive B B Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Sensitive B B Y Y Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Sensitive B B Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Sensitive B B Haliaetus Bald Eagle leucocephalus Sensitive Not at Risk M M Y Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Sensitive Not at Risk B B Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Secure Not at Risk B B Y
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Secure Not at Risk B B Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk atricapillus Sensitive Not at Risk B R Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Sensitive B B Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Sensitive B B Y Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Secure Not at Risk B B Y Y Schedule 3 (Special Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis At Risk Endangered Threatened Concern) B Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Secure Not at Risk M M Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Sensitive Not at Risk M M American Kestrel Falco sparverius Secure B B Merlin Falco columbarius Secure Not at Risk B B Y Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon anatum At Risk Threatened Special Concern M M Schedule 1 Coturnicops (Special Yellow Rail noveboracensis Undetermined Special Concern Concern) B B Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Undetermined B B Sora Porzana carolina Sensitive B B Y American Coot Fulica americana Secure Not at Risk B B Y Y Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Sensitive B M Y Black-bellied Plover Pluvailis squatarola Secure M M American Golden Plover Pluvailis dominica Secure M M Semipalmated Plover Charadrius Secure M M
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
semipalmatus Schedule 1 Charadrius melodus Endangered- see (Endangered Piping Plover circumcinctus At Risk Endangered Recovery Strategy ) B Y Charadrius Killdeer vociferous Secure B B Y Recurvirostra American Avocet americana Secure B B Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Secure B B Y Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Secure B B Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Secure B B Catoptrophorous Willet semipalmatus Secure B B Y Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Secure B B Y Bartramia Upland Sandpiper longicauda Sensitive B B Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Secure M M Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Secure M M Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Secure B B Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Secure M M Endangered ( Status Red Knot Calidris canutus May Be At Risk Report) M M Sanderling Calidris alba Secure M M Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Secure M M Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Secure M M
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Secure M M White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis Secure M M Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Secure Not At Risk M M Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Secure M M Dunlin Calidris alpina Secure M M Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Secure M M Tryngites Buff-breasted Sandpiper subruficollis Secure M M Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Undetermined B M Limnodromus Long-billed Dowitcher scolopaceus Secure M M Y Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Secure B B Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Secure B B Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Secure M M Leucophaeus Franklin's Gull pipixcan Secure B B Y Chroicocephalus Bonaparte's Gull philadelphia Secure B B Mew Gull Larus canus Secure M M Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Secure B B Y Y California Gull Larus californicus Secure B B Y Herring Gull Larus argentatus Secure B B Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri Secure M M Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Secure M M
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 6 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Sabine's Gull Xema sabini Secure M M Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Sensitive Not at Risk M M Black Tern Childonias niger Sensitive Not at Risk B B Y Y Common Tern Sterna hirundo Secure Not at Risk B B Y Y Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Secure M M Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Sensitive Data Deficient B B Rock Pigeon Columba livia Exotic/Alien R R Y Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Secure B B Y Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Secure R R Y Y Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca Secure Not at Risk W W Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Sensitive Not at Risk R W Y Barred Owl Strix varia Sensitive Special Concern R R Y Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa Sensitive Not at Risk R R Y Long-eared Owl Asio otus Secure R B Schedule 3 (Special Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus May be At Risk Special Concern Concern) B R Y Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus Secure Not at Risk R R Y Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Secure R R Y Threatened (see Status Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Sensitive Report) B B Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Secure B B Y Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Secure B B
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 7 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Secure B B Y Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Undetermined B Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Secure R R Y Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Secure R R Y Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Sensitive R R Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Secure B B Y Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Sensitive R R Y Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Secure Threatened B B Western Wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Secure B B Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Secure B B Y Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Sensitive B B Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Sensitive B B Y Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Secure B B Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalus Secure B Y Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Secure B B Lanius ludovicainus Threatened (see Status Schedule 1 Loggerhead Shrike exubitorides Sensitive Special Concern Report) (Threatened) B B Northern Shrike Lanius exubitor Secure B W Y Blue-headed Vireo/ Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius Secure B B Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Secure B B Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Secure B B
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 8 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Secure B B Perisoreus Gray Jay canadensis Secure R R Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Secure R R Y Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Secure R R Y Corvus American Crow brachyrhynchos Secure B R/B Y Common Raven Corvus corax Secure R R Y Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Secure B B Purple Martin Progne subis Sensitive B B Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Secure B B Y Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx Swallow serripennis Secure B B Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Secure B B Petrochelidon Cliff Swallow pyrrhonota Secure B B Y Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Sensitive HP Candidate B B Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Secure R R Y Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica Secure R R Y Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Secure R R White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Secure R R Y Brown Creeper Certhia americana Sensitive R R House Wren Troglodytes aedon Secure B B Y Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Sensitive Not at Risk B B
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 9 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Secure B B Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Secure B B Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Secure B B Veery Catharus fuscescens Secure B B Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus Undetermined M M Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Secure B B Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Secure B B American Robin Turdus migratorius Secure B B Y Dumetella Gray Catbird carolinensis Secure B B Y Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufrum Secure B B European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Exotic/Alien B B American Pipit Anthus rubescens Secure M M Schedule 1 Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii Sensitive Special Concern Threatened (Threatened) B B Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Secure R B Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Secure B B Y Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina Secure B B Y Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Secure B B Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Secure B B Y Dendroica Chestnut-sided Warbler pensylvanica Secure B M Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Secure B B Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Sensitive In Process B M
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Secure B B Y Black-Throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Sensitive Special Concern B M Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca Sensitive B M Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum Secure B B Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea Sensitive In Process B M Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata Secure LP Candidate B B Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Secure B B American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Secure B B Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Secure B B Y Seiurus Northern Waterthrush noveboracensis Secure B B Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Secure B B Oporonis Mourning Warbler philadelphia Secure B B Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Sensitive B B Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Secure B B Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Sensitive Threatened B B Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Sensitive B B American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Secure B B Y Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Secure B B Y Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Secure B B Y Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Secure B B Savannah Sparrow Passerculus Secure B B Y
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 11 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
sandwichensis Ammodramus Le Conte's Sparrow leconteii Secure B B Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Secure Not at Risk B B Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Secure B B Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Secure B B Y Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Secure B B Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Secure B B White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Secure B B Y Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula Secure M M Zonotrichia White-crowned Sparrow leucophrys Secure B B Y Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Secure B B Y Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Secure M M Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus Secure M M Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Secure W W Pheucticus Rose-breasted Grosbeak ludovicanus Secure B B Y Dolichonyx Bobolink oryzivorus Sensitive B B Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Secure B B Y Y Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Secure B B Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus Blackbird xanthocephalus Secure B B
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 12 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Sensitive Special Concern B B Euphagus Brewer's Blackbird cyanocephalus Secure B B Y Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscala Secure B B Y Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Secure B B Y Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Sensitive B B Y Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Secure R W Y Carpodacus Purple Finch purpureus Secure B B Y Carpodacus House Finch mexicanus Secure R Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Secure R R White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Secure R R Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea Secure W/B W/B Y Carduelis Hoary Redpoll hornemanni Secure W W Y Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Secure R R/B American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Secure B B Y Coccothraustes Evening Grosbeak vespertinus Secure R R House Sparrow Passer domesticus Exotic/Alien R R Y Mammals Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Secure R R Hayden's Shrew/Prarie Shrew Sorex haydeni Secure R R
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 13 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Dusky Shrew Sorex monticolus Secure R R Water Shrew Sorex palustris Secure R R Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus Secure R R Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Secure R R Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Secure R R Myotis Northern Bat septentrionalis May be At Risk R R Lasionycteris Silver-haired Bat noctivagans Sensitive R R Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Secure R R Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Sensitive R R Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Secure R R White-tailed Jack Rabbit Lepus townsendii Secure R R Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus Secure R R Woodchuck Marmota monax Secure R R Richardson's Ground Spermophilus Squirrel richardsonii Secure R R Thirteen-lined Ground Spermophilus Squirrel tridecemlineatus Undetermined R R Franklin's Ground Spermophilus Squirrel franklinii Undetermined R R Tamaisciurus Red Squirrel hudsonicus Secure R R Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Secure R R Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides Secure R R
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 14 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
American Beaver Castor canadensis Secure R R Peromyscus Deer Mouse maniculatus Secure R R Southern Red-backed Clethrionomys Vole gapperi Secure R R Phenacomys Heather Vole intermedius Secure R R Microtus Meadow Vole pennsylvanicus Secure R R Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Secure R R Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Secure R R Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis Secure R R House Mouse Mus musculus Exotic/Alien R R Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius Secure R R Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps Secure R R Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Secure R R Coyote Canis latrans Secure R R Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Secure R R Y Black Bear Ursus americanus Secure Not at Risk R R Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata May be At Risk Not at Risk R R Ermine Mustela erminea Secure R R Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Secure R R Mink Mustela vison Secure R R American Badger Taxidea taxus taxus Sensitive Data Deficient Not at Risk R R
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 Spencer Environmental
Wildlife Act Natural Sub-region Observed Provincial Designation Status and New COSEWIC SARA Common Name Scientific Name (General Species Designation Designation Status of AB Assessed by By Wild Species) Dry- Central ESCC Others FWMIS mixedwood Parkland 2
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Secure R R Wapiti/Elk Cervus elaphus Secure R R Moose Alces alces Secure R R Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Secure R R Odocoileus White-tailed Deer virginianus Secure R R Fish Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Secure
Updated with SARA Designations (July 2008), COSEWIC list (January 2007), COSEWIC Status Reports in preparation (13 June 2008), COSEWIC Candidate List (June 2008), General Status of AB Wild Species 2005, List of Species under AB Wildlife Act (26 Jan 2007), New Species Assessed by Alberta's ESCC (26 Jan 2007) and Birds of the Edmonton Area (Ritchie 2003). Updated March 2009
References for Species Distribution:
Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN). 2007. The atlas of breeding birds in Alberta: a second look. Altona (MB): Friesens Printers.
Fisher C, Acorn J. 1998. Field guide: birds of Alberta. Edmonton (AB): Lone Pine Publishing.
Fisher C, Joynt A, Brooks RJ. 2007. Reptiles and amphibians of Canada. Edmonton (AB): Lone Pine Publishing.
Pattie D, Fisher C. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Edmonton (AB): Lone Pine Publishing.
June 2010 MIQUELON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 16