Table #1 Lake Access

Table #1 – Lake Access

Haves/Insights

 More community docks would be effective and making public land available for public/back-lot access

 Municipal lift/dock tags have worked in other places

 Promote more setback along lake for future development and access

 Intermunicipal planning could address access through planning and subdivision

Needs/Issues

 Boat access: Some want more/some want less

o Safety: Need a way to get boats off lake in storms within 2 hours

 Foot access:

o Some areas are overwhelmed with users

o Need planning approaches to address access issues

 Still ATV use on shores

 Who pays for infrastructure when used by others: should one pay for access to a public resource? This is a complex issue with no easy solution!

 Municipal planning needs to consider access, boat launching, etc. with longer time horizon

 Parking issue: e.g. everyone wants to go to Sylvan from other places

 Need to determine capacity at lakes: what is the consequences of understanding capacity… will it limit development? How can boat capacity be determined?

 Storm response:

o Use strip ties on dock

o Need to get boats on lifts

o Who cleans up mess when everything is shaken loose from storms? How can CARL help? Recommendations/Next Steps Table #2 – Agricultural BMPs

Haves/Insights

 Cows and Fish has lots of expertise, experience and success promoting riparian stewardship with ag sector

 Knowledge and science is increasing and is available

 People want to do the right thing!

 Grants are available: Growing Forward 2, DUC, Agricultural Watershed Enhancement Program

 Counties have sustainability staff

Needs/Issues

 More education and outreach is needed

 More incentives and resources for farmers

 Are people applying nutrients according to requirements?

How can CARL help? Recommendations/Next Steps

 Better collaboration between counties, GoA (department of Agriculture, Environment and Parks and Municipal Affairs)

 Better and more outreach and education

 More enforcement

 Better guidelines for reclamation Table #3 – Water Quality Monitoring

Haves/Insights

 Limnologists

 Grants

 ALMS training and analysis

Needs/Issues

 More data, and more continuity in data, and more consolidated data

 More funding

 Information access and sharing

 Training and resources

 Concerns about industrial organic residues

 WPACs and WSGs need input and collaboration into AEMERA’s monitoring and

 Lake stewardship groups need to understand where and when does loading come from into lakes?

 Potential for retention activities (management)

 Need to apply more 21st century instrumentation: measuring flow, real time data

 Monitoring must be tied to clear objectives

 More citizen science support

 Need to monitor tributaries and surface loading

 CARL can play an “information management” role: have a place to store and share information

 Facilitates combined efforts for advocacy and lobbying: facilitates “strength in numbers”

 Provide a place to clearly articulate wants and needs as a group with common interests  Education and Outreach: Develop online short courses targeting public, municipal decision- makers Table #4 – Riparian Stewardship

Haves/Insights

 Have had some success with riparian setback promotion (e.g. Lacombe County)

 Model land use bylaw (PLWA)

 Education about hard surface vs soft

 Lake watershed management

 NAWMP

Needs/Issues

 Challenge that there is not a consistent, proper definition of “riparian”: not just the area of change… needs to be a much wider area, ~ 800m

 Need more monitoring and enforcement

 Come up with universally accepted definition of riparian: remove controversy and confusion

 Education for Municipalities

 CARL can play an “information management” role: have a place to store and share information

 Facilitates combined efforts for advocacy and lobbying: facilitates “strength in numbers” Table #5 – Land Use Planning for Lakes

Haves/Insights

 Encourage the development of IDPs

 Educate people living on lakes

 Review and update development plans in light of carrying capacity: take a risk-based approach

 To address cumulative effects: Educational about municipal requirements and clearly understood ground rules for development that are consistently applied

Needs/Issues

 All types of development within the lake watershed

 All kinds of non-statutory plans

 Really need to understand what is the carrying capacity of these lakes for development? Including, what is the capacity for boat traffic

 Look at whether or not development on ecologically significant areas is acceptable

 Need to refresh our approaches to decision making e.g. approvals tools

 Need to reconcile planning mechanisms for lake watersheds with other planning processes

 Forum for sharing and collaboration

 Lobbying

 Education (Municipalities, developers, stakeholders + public)

 Discussions with local municipalities

 Communicate/educate AAMDC, AUMA, ASVA about lake watershed land use policies (lake- friendly, low-impact) Table #6 – First Nations Engagement

Haves/Insights

 Aboriginal Consultation Office: www.aboriginal.alberta.ca

Needs/Issues

 Challenge of Engagement: Experience

o 4 Nations have different expectations, e.g. Pigeon Lake different than Maskwacis

o Insight: Cultural differences, e.g. communication and language differences

 Need to know who to talk to: continually changing contacts

How can CARL help? Recommendations/Next Steps Table #7 – Blue Green Algae

Haves/Insights

 AEMERA/AEP science expertise on water quality/ecology

 County being proactive protecting lake (sewer lines installed)

 Municipal bylaws: fertilizer bylaw

Needs/Issues

 Mitigation technologies

 Research needed (i.e. climate change and long-term trends)

 Education on issue and risks: understanding individual impact on water quality

 Lake specific monitoring and research

 Share information

 Lobby GoA Table #8 – Aquatic Invasive Species

Haves/Insights

 Voluntary inspection and cleanups

 Attitude: positive attitude for prevention

 Lots of education happening: pamphlets, websites, newsletter, anecdotal evidence of effectiveness

 Need to do education up to the “tipping point”, when the desired behaviour/action just becomes a cultural norm

Needs/Issues

 People need info on where to send samples of Eurasian watermilfoil

 Lacking info/attention to invasive plants: prioritize issues based on risk assessment

 Need to target people who live at a lake and people whose livelihoods would be affected

 Make the message resonate to the specific target audience

 Look to Europe vs the US for ideas on how to manage

 Situational scan: case study of strategies… what exists