City of Lethbridge Ecological Inventory and Environmental Land Use Best Practices Policy Report

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

CITY OF LETHBRIDGE ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT

Prepared by: O2 Planning + Design Inc. (O2) Finalized October 6, 2016

Prepared for: City of Lethbridge

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 CONTENTS

CONTENTS ...... II

LIST OF FIGURES...... IV

LIST OF TABLES ...... IV

1. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ...... 1

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 1

1.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ...... 1

2. IDENTIFICATION OF ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY FEATURES...... 5

2.1 ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY FEATURES ...... 5

2.2 WATERSHEDS AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 5

2.3 LAND COVER AND LANDFORMS ...... 11

2.4 WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ...... 15

2.5 CRITICAL HABITAT FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ...... 16

3. IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY ECOLOGICAL AREAS (PEA) ...... 22

3.1 GIS-BASED SITE IDENTIFICATION ...... 22

3.2 FIELD-BASED SITE OBSERVATIONS ...... 26

3.3 PRIORITY ECOLOGICAL AREAS – STEEP SLOPES, TOPLANDS, AND RIPARIAN AREAS ...... 26

3.4 PRIORITY ECOLOGICAL AREAS – ISOLATED WETLANDS AND WETLAND COMPLEXES ...... 76

4. REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ...... 85

4.1 FEDERAL POLICIES ...... 85

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 4.2 PROVINCIAL POLICIES ...... 85

4.3 REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL BEST PRACTICES ...... 86

5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES FOR THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE ...... 92

APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES ...... 96

APPENDIX B: GIS METHODOLOGY ...... 103

5.2 DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM) PROCESSING ...... 103

5.3 LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION ...... 103

5.4 WATERSHED DELINEATION ANALYSIS ...... 107

5.5 IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF WATERBODIES ...... 110

APPENDIX C: FIELD WAYPOINT LOCATIONS ...... 116

REFERENCES...... 121

iii

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. City of Lethbridge and Surroundings………………...... 2 Figure 2. Depiction of the catchment naturalization methodology...... 6 Figure 3. Primary Class of the Land Cover layer…………...... 8 Figure 4. Watershed Natural Land Cover Percentage…………………………………………….…….9 Figure 5. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Riparian Floodplain...... 10 Figure 6. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Tree Canopy Cover...... 13 Figure 7. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Contiguous Natural Patch Size...... 14 Figure 8. Ecologcal Inventory Natural Feature: Steep Slopes ...... 17 Figure 9. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Important Connectivity Areas...... 18 Figure 10. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Species of Concern...... 20 Figure 11. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Cottonwood Habitat...... 21 Figure 12. Weighted Multicriteria Environmental Significance Analysis Results ...... 25 Figure 13. Priority Ecological Areas of the City of Lethbridge...... 27 Figure 14. Priority Ecological Area: Site 1 Pavan Park………………… ...... 29 Figure 15. Priority Ecological Area: Site 2 Alexander Wilderness Park Toplands and Slopes...... 33 Figure 16. Priority Ecological Area: Site 3 Alexander Wilderness Park Riparian Area...... 35 Figure 17. Priority Ecological Area: Site 4 Northwest Slopes...... 38 Figure 18. Priority Ecological Area: Site 5 Northwest Riparian Area...... 41 Figure 19. Priority Ecological Area: Site 6 Bridgeview RV Resort Riparian Area...... 43 Figure 20. Priority Ecological Area: Site 7 Elizabeth Hall Wetlands...... 46 Figure 21. Priority Ecological Area: Site 8 Helen Schuler and Indian Battle Park Riparian Area. .. 48 Figure 22. Priority Ecological Area: Site 9 Bull Trail Park North and South Riparian Area...... 53 Figure 23. Priority Ecological Area: Site 10 University Slopes...... 55 Figure 24. Priority Ecological Area: Site 11 East Slopes Riparian Islands and Areas...... 60 Figure 25. Priority Ecological Area: Site 12 Six Mile Coulee...... 62 Figure 26. Priority Ecological Area: Site 13 Six Mile Coulee Eastern Handle...... 65 Figure 27. Priority Ecological Area: Site 14 Popson Park Slopes...... 68 Figure 28. Priority Ecolgoical Area: Site 15 Cottonwood Park Slopes...... 70 Figure 29. Priority Ecological Area: Site 16 Cottonwood Park Riparian Area...... 73 Figure 30. Priority Ecological Area: Site 17 Cottonwood Island...... 75 Figure 31. Priority Ecological Areas: Significant Wetlands...... 77

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Figure 32. An example of stream order classification based on the modified Horton (1945) method by Strahler (1957). Citation: Endreny 2003...... 108 Figure 33. An example of stream order classification based on the modified Horton (1945) method by Strahler (1957). Citation: ESRI 2016 ...... 109 Figure 34. Thresholding the inverted normalized digital surface model to a value that omits low lying vegetation, undergrowth, and building roofs as much as possible (Rahman and Gorte 2008)...... 112 Figure 35. Wetland Permanency Decision Tree 115

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Natural Patch Size Classification ...... 12 Table 2. PEA Criteria and Associated Landscape Values ...... 22 Table 3. Summary Attributes of Priority Ecological Areas ...... 23 Table 4. Ecological Ranking Criteria and Scoring ...... 96 Table 5. Land Cover Classes and Description ...... 97 Table 6. Land Cover Classes and Friction Values ...... 100 Table 7. Land Cover Classes and Origins ...... 104 Table 8. Preliminary Waterbody Typology ...... 110 Table 9. Primary Class Descriptions for all Waterbodies ...... 111 Table 10. Secondary Class Descriptions for Natural Waterbodies ...... 111 Table 11. Secondary and Tertiary Class Descriptions for Artificial Waterbodies 111 Table 12. Secondary and Tertiary Class Descriptions for Rivers ...... 112 Table 13. Noxious Weed Locations ...... 116 Table 14. Additional Field Observations ...... 118

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 1. Overview of Environmental Resources The City of Lethbridge contains a wide variety of valued natural resources which contribute to the vibrancy and health of the region. The relatively intact river valley is an iconic and cherished aspect of the city, and the preservation of the ecological functioning of this area must be a high priority for the City, to maintain and promote this valuable resource. As the City is currently expanding its urban footprint into croplands and wetland areas, and towards the river valley (Intermunicipal Development Plan, Policy Area 3; Oldman River Regional Services Commission 2004), the need to document and understand these values become even more essential. While growth and development brings with it important benefits to the city and its residents, these must be weighed against the ecological tradeoffs associated with development, such as increased impervious surfaces, increased fragmentation of continuous habitats, and reduction or elimination of habitat connectivity. This study was initiated to support long-term strategic planning that aligns with the directions and the foundations of the Land Use Framework (Alberta Environment and Parks, AEP 2008) and South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (Government of Alberta, GoA 2014), by informing land-use planning that is outcome-, place-, and knowledge-based. Along with other ongoing projects, this study will support the management of ‘cumulative effects of development on air, water, land, and biodiversity, and ensure that the value and benefit of these are sustained at the regional level and contribute to provincial outcomes’ (GoA 2014). In order to support stable urban growth, approaches to planning and development that allow for the continued functioning and sustainable use of environmental resources within urban ecosystems must be considered. Urban ecosystems in the past have often been considered as a black box within natural ecosystems. However, within the last decade the study and applications of urban ecology and planning have fused, leading to the emergence of innovative and integrative designs for landscapes, urban communities, and buildings. Important ecological principles of patterns, processes, and flow can now inform decision-making strategies, leading to more comprehensive understanding, and more viable and practical decisions. The last report on priority ecological areas (referred to within the Intermunicipal Development Plan; Oldman River Regional Services Commission 2004) was conducted for the County of Lethbridge in 1987 (Cottonwood Consultants 1987), and included the southern reach of the Oldman River in this study area. More recently there have been range and riparian health assessments conducted by Cows and Fish (Wood and Ambrose 2011; Hull et al. 2013) in the valley that enumerate several management priorities for the study area. This study will identify local priority ecological areas that will aid the City of Lethbridge Planning and Development department in making ecologically informed sustainable growth decisions for the City of Lethbridge; this assessment will complement and support the objectives of the plans and bylaws within the existing Integrated Community Sustainability/Municipal Development Plan’s framework leading into 2050 (City of Lethbridge 2010).

1.1 Purpose and Scope The primary purpose of this study is to update the City of Lethbridge’s ecological inventory, and use this inventory to identify Priority Ecological Areas (PEAs). PEAs are identified by ‘hotspots’ of natural features, ranked based on their potential to provide ecosystem goods and services, and whether they contain unique natural features, and critical habitats for species of concern, and/or rare species. Ultimately, the inventory and identification of PEAs will help inform and identify the environmental land use best practices for the region. Best practices from other jurisdictions that are most pertinent for the City of Lethbridge will be identified, and recommended for application to effectively manage development near PEAs.

1.2 Study Area Description The study area is in the City of Lethbridge, which encompasses an area of 124.3km2, delimited by the city’s administrative limits. For this study, however, the inventory considered areas one quarter section beyond these limits to include important environmental resources that are contiguous, functionally associated, or supportive for areas within the study area.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 The City is currently at a population of 94, 804 residents, and has experienced an increase of 1,800 residents (1.94% change) since 2014 (City of Lethbridge 2015). West Lethbridge is experiencing the majority of this growth, compared to North (1.13%) and South Lethbridge (0.52%), at 1,339 new residents (3.78% change). The city’s current growth objective is to expand in an orderly and responsible manner in line with the vision of the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan / Municipal Development Plan (ICSP/MDP Section 6.4.4). West Lethbridge is an area surrounded by croplands and wetlands to the west, and the southwestern fringe of the City’s expansion is moving through these areas into remaining grasslands areas along the river valley toplands. North Lethbridge is also following a similar pattern over time as the City expands along the eastern side of the river valley.

Figure 1. City of Lethbridge and Surroundings.

1.2.1 Regional Context Surrounded by Lethbridge County, and bordering the Kainai Nation Blood Reserve No. 148, the City of Lethbridge falls within the South Saskatchewan provincial planning region. The City itself is chiefly accessed via Highways 3 and 4. The City straddles either side of the Oldman river valley system. This section of the Oldman is in the river’s southern reach, within the Oldman river sub-basin of the South Saskatchewan river basin. The river flows in a northerly direction before it joins with the Bow river into the South Saskatchewan river, where it begins to move northeast. This river valley is largely intact and free from substantial development through much of its course through the City. An intact river valley is a global rarity for a city of this size. Much of the surrounding lands are devoted to agriculture and ranching, broken by a variety of wetlands and remnant native grassland. Oil and Gas infrastructure is prevalent throughout these lands.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 1.2.1.1 Vegetation Lethbridge is within the Lethbridge Plain Ecodistrict of the Mixedgrass Natural Subregion (Adams et al. 2013). The dominant vegetation includes Western porcupine grass (Stipa curtiseta), wheat grass (Agropyron dasystachyum; Agropyron trachycaulum), needle grass, thread grass (Stipa comata), and June grass (Koeleria cristata; Moss 1983). The majority of the study area, excepting the river valley, is extensively developed into croplands, tame pasture, and urban areas. Good quality, moderately grazed, and weed free mixedgrass prairie is uncommon (Bush pers. comm. 2015). Cottonwood stands are found throughout the river valley, many are aging and recruitment has been a concern, however current rates of recruitment appear sufficient if maintained. As landscapes become increasingly urbanized, the configuration and composition of vegetation in open spaces becomes increasingly important to support biodiversity and connectivity for the landscape as a whole. Urban open green spaces within Lethbridge are mostly maintained grass, with and without surrounding vegetation, but some areas are left as unmanaged lots, vegetated or disturbed bare ground.

1.2.1.2 Climate Lethbridge experiences a dry climate with an annual average precipitation of approximately 405 mm, with 271 mm falling as rain and 134 mm falling as snow. During the winter Lethbridge experiences warming Chinooks, which rarely leaves snow cover to exceed 25 cm and on westerly and southerly slope aspects, snow cover is generally absent (Lombard North Group 1983).

1.2.1.3 Landforms The majority of the landscape is a level plain, excepting the Oldman River valley and Six Mile Coulee escarpments, coulees, slopes, and floodplains. The landscape gradually transitions from plains into narrow coulees and steep slopes (>15% grade), with some rolling slopes descending into the river’s floodplain. The steep slopes that characterize the valley are vulnerable to erosion and slumping. Slumping is evident throughout the valley, some of which is so significant it has formed escarpments.

1.2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife The river valley is home to a plethora of rodents – deer mice, shrews, meadow voles, pocket gophers, Richardson’s ground squirrels, beavers, and yellow-bellied marmots. The little brown bat, the big brown bat, and the red hoary bat are also present. There are medium-sized mammals including striped skunks, red foxes, and coyotes. Infrequently large mammals, bobcats, river otters, lynx, cougars, and black bears have been observed. Herptiles include the striped chorus frog, the tiger salamander, the wandering garter snake, the bullsnake, and the prairie rattlesnake. Over 50 species of grasshoppers and crickets have been observed in the area, including bush crickets, long-horned grasshoppers, and camel crickets (Helen Schuler, nd). Some fish in the Oldman River include brown trout, mountain whitefish, northern pike, and suckers. The lake sturgeon is an uncommon fish in the Lethbridge area, but is becoming more prevalent. They spawn during periods of high water in the tributary around what is locally referred to as ‘Battleship Island’. Over 230 species of birds that have been recorded, including meadowlarks, vesper sparrows, sharp-tailed grouse, American white pelicans, prairie falcons, and rock wrens. Numerous migratory species move through these lands, as the river valley and numerous surrounding wetlands act as stepping stones for longer journeys to the north. Birds of Prey are increasingly common throughout this area as populations rebound province- wide. Notably, species at risk found in the area include the prairie rattlesnake (‘May be At Risk’), sharp-tailed grouse (‘Sensitive’), Sprague’s pipit (‘Sensitive’), ferruginous hawk (‘At Risk’), woodland skipper (‘May be At Risk’), and the Lake sturgeon (‘At Risk’).

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 1.2.1.5 Watersheds and Aquatic Resources Only 1% of the Mixedgrass Natural Subregion has open water (rivers and irrigation structures), while wetlands cover about 5% (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Unevaluated wetlands in Lethbridge are of differing open water permanency; there are approximately 13.9ha of permanent wetlands, 18.2 semi-permanent wetlands, 30.8 seasonal wetlands, and 71.1ha ephemeral wet areas1; cumulatively, this represents an area of 134.6ha. Riparian areas are transitional zones between the drier uplands and surface water. In the prairies of southern Alberta, about 80% of wildlife species use riparian areas for all or part of their life cycle (Lalonde et al. 2005). The vegetation and soils in these riparian green zones are influenced by adjacent lakes, rivers, streams, and other bodies of water.

1 Note: this inventory focused on determining wetland permanency from aerial imagery, and not on a formal classification of wetland classes. A formal wetland assessment is required for the area. Please see Appendix B Section 5.5 Identification and Classification of Waterbodies.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 2. Identification of Ecological Inventory Features The natural features that constitute the ecological inventory were identified, and specific natural features were selected to create GIS layers that represent significant ecological criteria in the landscape, such as riparian floodplains, undisturbed cottonwood stands, natural contiguous habitat patches, and wildlife connectivity. They were used to rank and delineate Priority Ecological Areas (PEAs) within the City of Lethbridge administrative limits.

2.1 Ecological Inventory Features Watersheds and Aquatic Resources • Rivers and streams • Catchment naturalization • Riparian corridors, floodway, and flood prone areas • Wetland permanency, complexes, and surrounding habitat Natural and Semi-Natural Land Cover • Grasslands • Trees • Grasses and shrubs • Natural contiguous habitat patches Landforms • Steep slopes • Northern aspects of steep slopes Wildlife Connectivity

Critical Habitat for Species of Concern • Prairie rattlesnakes • Western painted turtles • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats

2.2 Watersheds and Aquatic Resources

2.2.1 Rivers and Streams The Oldman river and Six Mile Coulee are the major hydrological features in this region. These features were digitized using the Aerial Imagery (Aerial Imagery: a 20x20cm georeferenced true-color raster obtained from the City of Lethbridge for 2015) provided by the City of Lethbridge, and other streams were selected from existing files. Streams of orders 5, 6, and 7, were produced by the watershed delineation analysis (Appendix B Section 5.4), which are considered to have permanent water flow throughout the year. These streams were selected and buffered by 3m, then combined with the digitized Oldman river and Six Mile Coulee features to produce the Rivers and Streams layer. Buffering by 3m was selected after measuring several streams using the Aerial Imagery as a guide, to verify that this adequately represented the width of these streams.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 2.2.2 Catchment Naturalization Different land cover types from the Land Cover layer were divided into three classes: natural, non-natural, and semi-natural. This layer was then intersected spatially with the individual watersheds from the Watershed layer (Please refer to Appendix B Section 5.4 for the GIS-methodology on the Watershed layer), in order to estimate the percent of natural areas within the boundaries of the individual watersheds.

Natural Classes Catchments Percent Catchment Naturalization Figure 2. Depiction of the catchment naturalization methodology.

2.2.3 Riparian Floodplain The Riparian Floodplain layer is a copy of the City of Lethbridge’s Flood Plains layer, which encapsulates the riparian vegetation surrounding the Oldman river. Expert opinion was then used to decide on the digitization of additional riparian stream corridors based on the landscape composition and the contribution of the selected corridors to a regional network of corridors. The river and its tributaries were deleted from the floodplain so it would reflect an area that is not within a faster moving river channel or tributary. The river channel and its tributaries were represented as a separate layer with water bodies and scored separately (Section 2.2.1). This floodplain (not including the floodway) represents an area where water floods and recedes, but is not permanent. The floodplain has increased sedimentation, nutrient retention, and water uptake for riparian vegetation.

2.2.4 Wetlands

2.2.4.1 Wetland Permanency Waterbodies within the study area were primarily identified and delineated using the Aerial Imagery as a primary dataset. When multi-year comparisons were required, additional aerial imagery datasets were obtained from Google Earth for various time periods. All waterbodies were digitized based on the primary dataset and delineated to the high water mark. These waterbodies were then divided into hierarchical classes (primary, secondary, and tertiary) based on their degree of naturalness and permanency (Please see Appendix B Section 5.5 Identification and Classification of Waterbodies, for a more thorough description of how the Water Bodies layer was created). This Wetland Permanency layer is a selection from the full Water Bodies layer of wetlands that have both the primary class attribute Natural Waterbodies, and the secondary class attributes Seasonal, Semi-permanent, and Permanent. These unevaluated wetlands represent a selection of natural wetlands that have open water for a longer period during the year, and as such were considered to have more potential to provide ecological services over a longer time period than those that do not (e.g. ephemeral wet areas).

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 2.2.4.2 Unevaluated Wetland Complexes Natural wetlands that were seasonal, semi-permanent, and permanent, as identified in Section 2.2.4.1 Wetland Permanency, were used to identify wetland complexes. Wetland complexes are defined as areas consisting of two or more unevaluated wetlands connected within 200m, where the total wetland surface area is greater than 5ha.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 3. Primary Class of the Land Cover layer – Result of the Land Cover Classification (Appendix B Section 5.3).

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 4.Watershed Natural Land Cover Percentage 9

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 5. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Riparian Floodplain. 10

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 (BCMOFR 1995). Wetland complexes were identified by finding wetlands that are within 200m of each other. The wetlands whose buffers were connected within this distance were assigned unique complex IDs, if they contained two or more wetlands with a combined area of at least 0.5 ha. The complexes were then grouped by area using the same area classes as used in the natural patch class analysis (Section 2.3.1.4). The wetlands that fell within the complexes were selected and used to create a layer of wetlands that are part of a complex, and as such have additional ecological value (Please see Section 5.9 Identification of Wetland Complexes for more detail on this methodology).

2.2.4.3 Habitats Surrounding Unevaluated Wetlands Surrounding habitat within 30m of an unevaluated wetland was assessed to determine if the habitat was predominantly (>60%) cropland, managed, natural, or semi-natural. This radius and these land cover classes were chosen to complement the existing Alberta Wetland Rapid Evaluation Tool, which specifies that in the field the percentage of natural cover within a 30m buffer should be evaluated (Government of Alberta 2015). Wetlands were buffered by 30m and combined with the land cover types from the Land Cover layer. The area of the respective covers within a buffer was then turned into a percentage. The land cover class that constituted >60% was then considered the predominant land cover class to produce the Surrounding Unevaluated Wetlands Habitat layer.

2.3 Land Cover and Landforms

2.3.1 Natural and Semi-Natural Land Cover A Natural Semi-Natural land cover layer was created by reclassifying the existing Land Cover layer into natural, semi-natural, and non-natural classes. Natural classes were considered to be features with natural, but not necessarily native, cover such as grasslands, lakes, rivers, and wetlands, whereas non-natural classes were considered to be developed areas that are often paved built-up, such as roads, buildings, and railroads. Semi- natural classes were considered to be features that are not paved, but are or have been modified or maintained by humans, such as croplands, green spaces, and artificial waterbodies (Please see Appendix B Table 7 to view the complete division of these classes).

2.3.1.1 Grasslands While it was not possible to identify native grassland from the Aerial Imagery, an attempt was made to interpret and digitize patches of natural or semi-natural grasslands. These areas of grassland (natural) appear different than the linear grassy features associated with the riparian floodplain. Grasslands (agricultural) appear regular, and often angular, in shape and are surrounded by cropland. These areas are also non-cropped consisting of relatively continuous areas of mixed non-native grassland or cattle-grazed rangeland. Although they do not have the true habitat value that large patches of native grassland would offer, they nonetheless represent large areas of open cover that can facilitate wildlife movement, as well as offer some benefits in terms of soil stability and water management.

2.3.1.2 Grasses and Shrubs Areas that had grasslands and several darker patches of shrubs were classified into the Land Cover layer, which was previously corrected and verified using the Aerial Imagery. These features were then selected from the Land Cover layer as the Grasses and Shrubs layer.

2.3.1.3 Tree Canopy Cover Trees and forests provide numerous ecological, health, and economic benefits. They are an important source of habitat providing cover, nesting habitat, and are a source of food for a variety of species. Trees and forests also

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 improve air quality; reduce air temperature; store carbon; reduce noise; increase human wellbeing; and increase real estate value, amongst other benefits. There is approximately 631ha of deciduous and coniferous tree canopy cover in the study area. Tree canopy cover was created using available LiDAR data using an inverse watershed delineation method. Anthropogenic features such as buildings and low lying vegetation were removed first (Please see Appendix B Section 5.6). The surface was then inverted and treated as a watershed, with elevation being a simulation of where, and in which direction, water will flow or drain through the basins (‘canopy cover’) into drainage points (‘tree peaks’). Areas of increased water flow and accumulation are identified as basins (‘tree crowns’) generating a canopy cover layer. This canopy cover layer was afterwards combined with a pre-existing trees class layer from the River Valley Sustainability Project land cover layer to produce the final Tree Canopy Cover layer.

2.3.1.4 Natural Contiguous Patches Landscapes are composed of a variety of natural patch sizes and configurations. The size and structural contiguity of a patch can influence its ecological functioning and its importance for a particular species. Certain species have ranges that require a minimum habitat patch size that is of one unique natural cover type or a variety of cover types, depending on their resource requirements and degree of specialization to a particular resource or habitat. Natural patches were considered to be patches of natural vegetation and water bodies including the following cover types: grass/herbaceous, natural grasslands, poorly vegetated, informal trails, ephemeral wet areas, permanent wetlands, seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent wetlands, and river tributaries. River tributaries (Natural Class) and informal trails (Semi-natural Class) were considered as being features that are part of a natural patch, and do not fragment them. River channels, although they are natural features, were considered large enough to structurally fragment contiguous natural vegetation patches. This leads Battleship Island to be treated as a distinct patch. In order to identify these natural contiguous patches, all features with Natural classes were selected from the Natural Semi-Natural layer. Natural patches that were structurally or physically connected to each other were then considered contiguous (Please see Appendix A Table 5 to see the land cover types that are identified as Natural and Section 5.8 for more detail on the methodology). The resulting contiguous patches were divided into discrete size classes based on the following rationale: Table 1. Natural Patch Size Classification Patch Rationale Size >500 ha Wide-ranging mammals and area-sensitive bird species require habitat patches greater than 500 hectares for survival (Rieman and McIntyre, 1995; Trine, 1998). Patch sizes >500 hectares were also used by Fiera (2009) in their provincial inventory of ESAs. 200-500 ha Contiguous blocks of >200 ha provide the greatest habitat potential for most grassland bird species and small mammals (USDA,1999). 50-200 ha Many area-sensitive bird and mammal species require patches of suitable habitat of at least 55-150 ha (Herkert, 1994; Fitzgerald et al., 1999). Protecting habitat patches of >55 hectares captures the majority of species requirements (Kennedy, et al., 2003). 5-50 ha Forest patches >40 ha and >5.5 ha are required to conserve >90% and >50% of insect-eating birds, respectively (Forman, et al., 1976). Several grassland bird species require minimum habitat patches of 10-50 ha (Fitzgerald et al., 1999). 2-5 ha Butterflies, seed-eating birds, and most invertebrate species require minimum patch areas of 2-5 ha (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967; Forman, et al., 1976).

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 6. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Tree Canopy Cover.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 7. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Contiguous Natural Patch Size.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 2.3.2 Landforms

2.3.2.1 Steep Slopes The Topographic Position Index (TPI) developed by Andrew Weiss, was used to conduct a Land Form Classification analysis (Land Facet Tool by Jeff Jenness). Steep slopes were defined as slopes exceeding a 15% grade. A standardized TPI model was selected to generate the landform classification, since it more reliably differentiates between valleys and ridges. Several radii were initially run within this model, but the landform classification produced by the 100m radius was considered most appropriate for the scale of analysis of this study area. A four class landform classification was chosen, which generated the following classes: 1 – Canyons 2 – Steep Slopes 3 – Gentle Slopes 4 – Ridges Steep slopes were extracted from the output, and cleaned of edge artifacts and man-made steep slopes. The resulting Steep Slopes layer represents naturally occurring steep slopes.

2.3.2.2 Northern Aspects of Steep Slopes Northern aspects are not as exposed to solar radiation and as a result have more moisture than southern aspects. This process is responsible for the north-south aspect landscape pattern that is predominant in this region, where lusher vegetation is present on the northern slopes compared to the southern slopes. Northern aspects were generated from the DEM (Appendix B Section 5.2) and clipped to the extent of the Steep Slopes layer. This north-south vegetation pattern was most evident on steep slopes, and was used as a supplementary factor to describe the changes in vegetation on these slopes.

2.4 Wildlife Connectivity The connectivity of the regional landscape plays an important role in maintaining the natural functioning of an area. Connectivity modelling is a challenging task requiring both broad-scale context, and fine-scale local structural information. While functional connectivity is highly variable (as individual species display a broad range of responses to terrain and land cover, requiring detailed field study to truly describe their idiosyncratic responses to landscape pattern), more general assessments of structural landscape connectivity provide a powerful, more holistic planning tool. Structural connectivity, rather than focusing on species-specific habitat requirements, is more concerned with the relative impact of terrain and human impacts, making it more appropriate for general use across a broad area. Structural landscape connectivity is best estimated using the Circuitscape model, as it makes the fewest assumptions of the goals and responses of those wildlife species moving across the landscape. The model employs the same calculation methods used to estimate the movement of electrons through a circuit to describe the likelihood of wildlife movement in response to ‘landscape friction', the difficulty in moving across the land. While this proposed approach will not be trained on specific species-level movement values, we classify the landscape friction using broadly consistent wildlife responses: landscape elements which are typically avoided by many animals (loud, active, high traffic, impermeable or fenced areas); landscape elements which many animals find easy to move through (grasslands, forest, other natural cover types); and landscape elements which are often more difficult to move through (rock, bare earth, wetlands, disturbed areas). While individual species display a wide variety of idiosyncratic responses to land cover, these general categories are consistent across many species.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 The model outputs show the relative likelihood of wildlife movement through the land. Areas with high likelihood are essential for movement through the landscape, and their loss will greatly impact regional connectivity. Areas with low likelihood are infrequently used while moving through the landscape, and contribute little to overall landscape connectivity. Areas with moderate likelihood are frequently used while moving through the landscape, but many alternative paths are available, and so these areas make only a moderate contribution to overall landscape connectivity, and the loss of individual areas may increase the use of alternative paths. Highlighting the areas with the highest likelihood of movement allows us to identify notable landscape pinch- points. These high density patterns occur in areas which are influenced by high friction land cover types, such as roads, urban development, large open water areas and steep slopes. Pinch points form when wildlife movement is restricted, funneling movement through specific corridors in the landscape. In areas with lower friction, dominated by natural terrestrial vegetation, movement paths take on a more diffuse pattern, with fewer pinch points, and many more options for moving across the landscape. Pinch points identify areas where the remaining natural cover plays an essential role in maintaining connectivity across the landscape; developments in these areas will have a disproportionate effect on regional connectivity, and should be conducted with best practices to ensure that movement through these areas is maintained or improved. The model was built in an iterative three-step process by integrating expert knowledge within the criteria identification, model building, and model revision (Dickson et al. 2014). Only slope and land cover were considered as additive criteria for the friction surface, since the model is not species-specific and is a generalized multispecies movement model. Land cover types were first, ranked based on increasing difficulty of movement, and secondly, assigned friction values through expert-based consensus opinion (Please see Appendix B Section 5.7 for more detail on this methodology). A 1m cell size was used for the analysis, in order to better capture any significant micro-corridors that might cross through urban areas. Please note here that this inventory focuses on areas of the highest relative wildlife movement flow to identify Priority Ecological Areas. Potential urban corridors in this study area had lower relative movement flow compared to potential corridors in natural areas in the river valley, and were, therefore, not identified amongst the PEAs.

2.5 Critical Habitat for Species of Concern

2.5.1 Fish and Wildlife Species Species of concern for this inventory were considered as species with an Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) ranking between S1 to S3. Only prairie rattlesnakes (S2S3; Crotalus viridus) and the western painted turtle (S1; Chrysemys p. bellii) were considered for the priority ecological areas inventory. Although data was available for other species of concern, such as the ferruginous hawk (S2S3; Buteo regalis), the bullsnake (S3; Pituophis catenifer), and the American white pelican (S2S3; Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), these points were either present as a single occurrence or single occurrences that were spatially isolated that did not form spatial clusters. The points for these species were removed from the analysis, since they were considered unreliable due to their small sample size and older collection dates. Notably, although there is local knowledge that American white pelicans fish around the weir during the spring and summer, breeding and nesting colony locations were unavailable. Data, that formed spatial clusters over a span of observation dates, that included data that was more recent, were considered more reliable and were used to produce kernel density diagrams. A 500m radius was chosen to produce kernel density diagrams. This layer was then used to identify natural habitats that fell within a 500m radius as critical habitats for these species.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 8. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Steep Slopes

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 9. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Important Connectivity Areas. 18

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

2.5.1.1 Prairie Rattlesnakes There is a small population of prairie rattlesnakes in the valley, that has steadily been in decline over the last decade due to the City’s population growth and urban development (Helen Schuler Nature Centre 2009). Prairie rattlesnakes typically live in drier areas of native grassland and sagebrush (often close to a river valley or coulee), farm fields and pastures, rocky outcrops, sandy soil near rock piles or flat boulders, and stony canyons (Alberta Environment and Parks, Fish & Wildlife, 2014). Cottonwood Nature Reserve, Popson Park, and the Bridge View Drive site are the locations of three known rattlesnake populations. However spatial data was not available for the Cottonwood Nature Reserve location, therefore a potential delineation of critical habitat was created from a cluster of non-transmitter implanted prairie rattlesnake locations and higher utilization habitat types, flood plain/grassland and coulee/grassland, published within Andrus’ (2010) Master’s thesis. Over the last two years evidence of a much larger population of rattlesnakes has been anecdotally observed, however requests for these observations, or any recent spatial data products, were not provided for inclusion to this analysis. The distribution of rattlesnakes throughout the study area is undoubtedly broader than that shown here, covering much of the slopes of the river valley up to the university, where hibernacula have been reported.

2.5.1.2 Western Painted Turtles Western painted turtles were introduced into the valley as escaped pets, but there are now over 20 turtles present (Helen Schuler Nature Centre 2009). They have a very low and local population distribution with fewer than 100 individuals in four specific locations across southwestern Alberta. Adults and juveniles have been observed in the Elizabeth Hall wetlands, and females have been observed laying eggs in sand traps and bunkers at Henderson golf course. They have also occasionally been observed in Henderson Lake (Helen Schuler Nature Centre 2009). They prefer habitats with weedy ponds, lakes, and slow-flowing streams with soft muddy bottoms and partially submerged logs that can be used for basking (ACA 2010). The point data available for this species indicated multiple observations at Elizabeth Hall Wetlands, but there were no observations available indicating their current presence at Henderson Lake.

2.5.2 Undisturbed Cottonwood Stands and Recruitment Habitats The reach of the Oldman River between Pincher Creek and Lethbridge is ‘generally recognized as significant on a national and international scale’ because of the extensive cottonwood forests (Clipperton et al. 2003). This area is home to three species of cottonwood: narrow-leaved cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), and plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Southeastern Alberta is the one place all three species occur together and produce a swarm of hybrids. All three species can regenerate from roots and shoots. However, they have differing primary modes of reproduction. Cottonwoods are adapted to repeated high floods and tend to release their seeds just as the floodwaters recede, landing on wet bare ground suitable for germination. Recruitment typically occurs in a fringe or band no more than 1m above the late summer river stage, above which seedlings are susceptible to drought, and below which seedlings are at risk of being scoured by ice or later floodwaters (Amlin 2000; Rood et al 2007). Saplings from root and shoot suckers, establish further away from the river’s edge, as root suckers rely on the combination of mature trees and barren flood scoured ground (Rood et al 1994). Shoreline gravel and sand bars were digitized from the Aerial Imagery to delineate potential seedling recruitment areas, unless they were present as thin linear strips on the cut bank of the river or small rock outcroppings. Undisturbed cottonwoods were also extracted from the River Valley Sustainability Project land cover layer, and combined with the digitized gravel and sand bars.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 10. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Species of Concern (Prairie Rattlesnake habitat likely to be substantially more extensive than the confirmed locations shown here). 20

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 4. Ecological Inventory Natural Feature: Cottonwood Habitat.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3. Identification of Priority Ecological Areas (PEA)

3.1 GIS-based Site Identification

3.1.1 Key PEA Ranking Criteria Significant ecological features were identified based on ecological principles, conservation values, and expert opinion that recognize the importance of • Species of conservation concern; • Rare or unique landforms; • Large intact patches of natural vegetation; • Nature corridors and connecting areas; • Riparian areas and shorelines; • Major river valley systems; • Wetlands; and • Areas important for maintaining groundwater and surface water quality and quantity.

Table 2. PEA Criteria and Associated Landscape Values Landscape Values Scoring Category and PEA Criterion Water Water Inventory Feature Biodiversity Connectivity Quality Quantity Watersheds and Major rivers and streams x x x x Aquatic resources (orders 5,6,7) Catchment naturalization x x x Riparian floodplain x x x x Wetlands Wetland complexes x x x x Surrounding wetland habitat x x x Wetland permanency x x x (seasonal, semi-permanent, permanent) Natural and Semi- Trees x x Natural Habitat Grasses and shrubs x x Natural contiguous habitat x x x x patches Landforms Steep slopes x x x Northern aspect of steep x x x slopes Wildlife Connectivity Wildlife connectivity x x Critical Habitat for Western painted turtles x Species of Concern Prairie rattlesnakes x

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Undisturbed cottonwood x x x stands and recruitment habitats

3.1.2 Weighted Multicriteria Environmental Significance Analysis In this approach the majority of ecological ranking criteria were equally weighted. Each component was given different scores (1 to 5 and rescaled from 0 to 1), assessing the contribution of the criterion as low, moderate, strong, very strong, or of extreme importance towards the ecological value of the region (Please see Appendix A Table 4 for the scoring value of each criterion and Section 2 Identification of Priority Ecological Areas for justification of each criterion’s categories). After scoring the categories of a criterion, each criterion was summed with all other ranking criteria. The Steep Slopes criterion is the exception, it was the only criterion composed of two components, which were weighted by 0.5 for location of Steep Slopes and 0.5 for the location of Northern Aspects on steep slopes (Please see the results of this analysis in Figure 11).

3.1.3 Spatial Definition of PEA Boundaries The average sum-total ecological value for the entire area was calculated, in order to identify areas that are above average ecological value. The boundaries of the ecological hotspots were identified from these areas that were above average ecological value. This selection was then classified into two classes to delineate ecological hotspots. In the final output, certain PEAs are outside the explicit limits of the study area, but have been included to provide a more complete representation of areas that are contributing and affecting the ecological value and functioning of the study area (Figure 11). Table 3. Summary Attributes of Priority Ecological Areas Site PEA Location Area (ha) PEA # Value 16 Cottonwood Park 64.3 4.19 17 Cottonwood Island 124.2 4.03 7 Elizabeth Hall Wetlands 27.8 3.96 5 Northwest Riparian Area 34.8 3.37 6 Bridgeview RV Resort Riparian Area 18.7 3.33 15 Cottonwood Park Slopes 133.1 3.17 3 Alexander Wilderness Park Riparian 41.2 3.13 Area 9 Bull Trail Park North and South 40.3 3.03 Riparian Area 14 Popson Park Slopes 114.9 2.93 1 Pavan Park Riparian Area 8.9 2.91 4 Northwest Slopes 162.8 2.86 8 Helen Schuler and Indian Battle 56.7 2.80 Park Riparian Area 11 East Slopes Riparian Islands and 39.4 2.72 Areas

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 12 Six Mile Coulee 127.4 2.61 10 University Slopes 167.2 2.56 2 Alexander Wilderness Park 209.3 2.55 Toplands and Slopes 13 Six Mile Coulee Eastern Handle 51.9 1.77

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 5. Weighted Multicriteria Environmental Significance Analysis Results

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.2 Field-based Site Observations Dana Bush, vegetation ecologist, and Karina Lamy, landscape ecologist, visited a pre-selected number of natural features in Lethbridge between May 2 and May 6, 2016. The goals were to determine the ecological value of each feature, verify the model, and identify problems or constraints that would influence future planning and design. Each area was briefly assessed for: • estimated proportion of native vegetation to introduced species • prohibited or noxious weeds • cottonwood regeneration • erosion (i.e. natural or human induced) • human induced bare ground (e.g., trails, agriculture, etc.) • human alterations of wetlands (e.g., dugouts, canals, storm sewers, etc.) • animal sign or sightings (e.g., trails, beaver cuttings, scat, etc.) • grazing or browsing Photographs, GPS points, and notes were taken at frequent intervals along the tracks. As each area was not surveyed completely, this description should not be considered complete or comprehensive (Please see Appendix B Table 13 for weed locations).

3.3 Priority Ecological Areas – Steep Slopes, Toplands, and Riparian Areas The PEAs were grouped based into the three recurring terrestrial landscape categories in the valley: steep slopes, grassland toplands, and riparian areas. They are numbered from 1 to 17, starting North and moving South.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 6. Priority Ecological Areas of the City of Lethbridge. 27

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.1 Site 1: Pavan Park Riparian Area

Pavan Park Riparian Area (Wood and Ambrose 2011) This site is 8.9ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands • Within a riparian floodplain • Within a natural contiguous patch of 200-500ha • Catchment naturalization of 63.97% The environmental significance value of this site is 2.91. This site was not assessed in the field, but Cows and Fish conducted a Riparian Health Inventory in the park in 2011 (Wood and Ambrose 2011). The area was described as ‘Healthy, but with problems’ receiving an overall health score of 62%. The invasive species Canada thistle and leafy spurge were present. There were some issues with human-caused bare ground, dewatering of the river system, control of flood peak and timing by upstream dams, human alterations to the riverbanks, and human alterations in general.

Recommendations • Informal trails in the area should be formalized or closed • Non-native grasses around recreation areas should be re-naturalized • Erosion prone shoreline should be protected with native vegetation to restore riparian condition

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 7. Priority Ecological Area: Site 1 Pavan Park.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.2 Site 2: Alexander Wilderness Park Toplands and Slopes

Alexander Wilderness Park Grassland Toplands and Slopes This site is 209.3ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Natural grasslands • Steep slopes • Very high wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of 200-500ha • Catchment naturalization 73.34%

The field survey identified the following additional features: • Species of concern: bullsnake hibernaculum, potential sharp-tailed grouse habitat The environmental significance value of this site is 2.55 from the weighted PEA analysis. The presence of species of concern observed in the field and dominant native vegetation observed in the toplands increases the estimated ecological value of this site. Areas within this site previously received an 80% overall range health score during a Cows and Fish upland range health assessment in 2012 (Hull et al. 2013). Two coulees and a portion of the upland at this site were surveyed in the field. The riparian area was not surveyed. This area of Alexander Wilderness Park was dominated by native vegetation. The coulee was moderately wide, with erosional patterns typical for the area. Partway up was a flat area that has been disturbed in the past, with a large pile of cobbles. Introduced species such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and absinthe wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) dominated the disturbed area, and were common along the broader trails as was leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). The toplands were unbroken, but somewhat modified native prairie. The drier areas were covered with native wheatgrasses (Elymus lanceolatus, Pascopyrum smithii), with patches of sand grass (Calamovilfa longifolia) or snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis). Introduced species were present: crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) occurring in occasional clumps; Kentucky bluegrass occurring in swales, where there is more moisture; and rhizomatous smooth brome occurring in several large circles. There is an ephemeral wetland dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and snowberry. There was very little bare ground, but large game trails (deer) were present. Abundant litter was also present. Occasional beds of tall shrubs, such as chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), golden currant (Ribes aureum), and saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia), provide cover and food for deer, coyotes, and sharp-tailed grouse (Pediocetes phasianellus). We observed three bullsnakes (S3; Pituophis catenifer sayi) on the uplands, and two deposits of grouse scat. Although both ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse are present in the valley, the sharp-tailed grouse (S3S4; Tympanuchus phasianellus) prefers grasslands and shrubland habitats, whereas the ruffed grouse prefers more treed habitats with increased cover. The three bullsnakes were found within a foot of a hibernacula. The

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 presence of bulllsnakes denning, and the potential presence of sharp-tailed grouse brings this site up to a much higher ecological value than initially estimated by GIS-based data.

Three bullsnakes near a hibernaculum. Grouse feces The site was estimated to have very high connectivity flow. At the site, there were numerous animal trails following the coulee bottoms, across the slopes, and along the ridgelines. However, most game trails were funneled, and connected into trails within the coulee bottoms. Although the trails were not measured in a formal way, we observed more game trails at this site than in the East Slopes, and possibly more or equal to the number observed on the Popson Park Slopes.

Numerous game trails that begin in the toplands and are funneled through the coulees into the riparian area. Trucks have accessed the area via 9 St and 44 Ave N. There was a well-developed truck trail along the crest of the hill and several other trails descended into the coulees, often directly downslope. Tracks from mountain bikes were also observed. However, truck and ATV tracks were much more evident in the area. Both trucks and mountain bike trails followed the line of the slope, and therefore, cause erosion: at one point the truck/ATV tracks measured 11 cm deep. During the site visit, a truck was observed leaving the toplands into a local neighbourhood.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Truck tracks on the slopes Recommendations • Prevent vehicles from entering the park at 9 St and 44 Ave N. • Eliminate the discrete populations of smooth brome and crested wheatgrass in the upland to prevent these species from spreading. In order to do so mow litter, apply glyphosate in the spring to new growth, and reseed with native species. This may need to be repeated. • Control leafy spurge and downy brome. • Graze the uplands: occasional grazing in the uplands would control the litter and promote plant diversity. Minimize walking trails and further developments to maintain this high quality wildlife habitat.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 8. Priority Ecological Area: Site 2 Alexander Wilderness Park Toplands and Slopes.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.3 Site 3: Alexander Wilderness Park Riparian Area

Alexander Wilderness Park Riparian Area (Wood and Ambrose 2011) This site is 41.2ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Within a riparian floodplain • Within a natural contiguous patch of 200-500ha • Catchment naturalization of 95.9% The environmental significance value of this site is 3.13 from the weighted PEA analysis. This site was not assessed in the field, but Cows and Fish conducted a Riparian Health Inventory in the park in 2010. The area was described as ‘Healthy, but with problems’ receiving an overall health score of 73%. The invasive species Canada thistle, downy chess, leafy spurge, perennial sow-thistle, scentless chamomile, spotted knapweed, and yellow toadflax were present. There were some issues with dewatering of the river system and control of flood peak and timing by upstream dams, human alterations to the riverbanks, and human alterations in general.

Recommendations • Maintain the preservation status of this area • Close informal trails in erosion prone areas • Maintain the riparian vegetation which protects the shoreline • Control or remove invasive species

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 9. Priority Ecological Area: Site 3 Alexander Wilderness Park Riparian Area.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.4 Site 4: Northwest Slopes

Northwest slopes This site is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Lethbridge, but has been identified from the weighted PEA analysis as having a high ecological priority area value of 2.86 in the landscape. It is therefore outside the scope of this inventory, however it is listed here due to its high ecological value and to provide a holistic perspective on areas that are ecologically connected in the river valley system, even if they are not jurisdictionally connected. This site is 162.8ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Natural grasslands and poorly vegetated land cover • Steep slopes • Very high to moderate wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization 65.3% This area north of the RV resort is privately owned. The narrow band of eroded cliffs is extremely unstable, with numerous slumps, fissures, cracks, and hidden soft spots. The area is too unstable to build even semi- permanent trails and there is no space to walk along the shoreline. In addition, when the ground is wet it will be slippery and/or unstable, and when the grass grows tall, in the flatter areas it will hide the numerous cracks and fissures, making this area dangerous for unwary hikers.

Fissures in unstable ground The lack of a riverbank for travel below and the presence of cultivated land on top means that this continuous grassland strip is likely important for wildlife movement. Game trails were numerous and traveled along the slopes. Coyote and deer feces were found on these trails. The difficulty with which people can access this area is an additional reason to leave this strip untouched. Signs should be posted stating that the ground is extremely unstable and hikers should hike at their own risk and exercise caution.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Deer traveling Numerous game trails Recommendations • Work with the land owners and the County to manage slope erosion and maintain natural function • Consider the formal acquisition and preservation of these lands should the area be annexed by the City • Ensure that RV Park activities do not degrade the function of the wildlife corridor through this area • Post signage to highlight the erosion risk

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 10. Priority Ecological Area: Site 4 Northwest Slopes.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.5 Site 5: Northwest Riparian Area

Northwest Riparian Area This site is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Lethbridge, but has been identified from the weighted PEA analysis as having a high ecological priority area value of 3.37 in the landscape. It is therefore outside the scope of this inventory, however it is listed here due to its high ecological value and to provide a holistic perspective on areas that are ecologically connected in the river valley system, even if they are not jurisdictionally connected. This site is 34.8ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Riparian floodplain • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization of 66.4% The environmental significance value of this site is 3.37 from the weighted PEA analysis. This is a depositional area downstream (north) and across from Peenaquim Park. In between this area and Peenaquim, there is a sharp curve in the river, with a narrow band of highly eroded cliffs. Recent floods have resulted in several cohorts with thousands of cottonwood seedlings along the lower terrace in this depositional area. On this northern floodplain, there are at least four rings, with 1st and 2nd year cohorts on gravel bar, as well as saplings and mature forest.

Riprap on shoreline below sewage treatment ponds Riprap has been installed on the opposite bank of the river at the same location as the sewage treatment ponds of the Lethbridge Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is potentially causing realignment of the channel or changes in channel flow, which may affect cottonwood regeneration on the west side or further downstream, as the seedlings may become scoured out of the bank.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Very old cottonwood forest The upper terrace on the northern portion is private land and is used for agriculture (i.e. grazing and crops). A very old cottonwood forest with numerous dead limbs, shows the typical understory of smooth brome, snowberry, Canada thistle, and leafy spurge due to past disturbances. There are no signs of beaver here and no clonal regeneration, but there is a band of 2m tall saplings at the foot of the terrace. Picnic tables indicate that locals use this spot. The access road has a solid bed that descends from the upland to a dugout and irrigated crops.

Marsh end of dugout, with irrigated field. Cottonwood saplings and flood debris. The dugout is in a natural wetland with some signs that beaver have cut trees here. The northern end has several terraces and remnant oxbows, with debris from recent floods and various cohorts of cottonwoods. Leafy spurge is common throughout the area. Recommendations • Avoid formal trails in the steeply eroded section and install warning signs • Consider the formal acquisition and preservation of these lands should the area be annexed by the City • Work with the private land owners and the County to maintain the natural functioning of these wetlands • Control leafy spurge, downy brome, and burdock

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 11. Priority Ecological Area: Site 5 Northwest Riparian Area.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.6 Site 6: Bridgeview RV Resort Riparian Area

Bridgeview RV Resort Riparian Area This site is adjacent to the Bridgeview RV Resort, the weighted PEA analysis identified it as having a high ecological priority area value of 3.33 in the landscape. This site is 18.7ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Within a riparian floodplain • Within a natural contiguous patch of 200-500ha • Catchment naturalization of 63.8% The Bridgeview RV Resort lies in the cottonwood forest immediately north of the highway. This is a depositional area, by the RV resort directly across from the gravel pit. Recent floods have resulted in several cohorts with thousands of cottonwood seedlings along the lower terrace in this depositional area. Below the RV park, the small seedlings (<0.5 m) appear to be two years old, with a narrow ring of saplings 1.5-3m tall. The mature cottonwood forest is on the next terrace. A large patch of willow leaf beetles (possibly Altica subplicata) was found on sand bar willows (Salix exigua or Salix interior; Appendix C Waypoint 177). The willow leaf beetle is a native beetle that is found in the United States and Canada. It is a specialist herbivore on willows, primarily on sandbar willow, but it will also feed on peach-leaved willow (Salix amygdaloides; Leasia and Scholtens 2013). Willow competes with cottonwood seedlings in the floodplains, so that herbivory may serve to enhance cottonwood regeneration.

Willow leaf beetles Cottonwood seedlings in foreground, narrow ring of saplings, with mature trees in the back Recommendations • Manage use of this area by RV campers and city residents • Monitor Cottonwood regrowth and take steps to ensure its persistence

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 12. Priority Ecological Area: Site 6 Bridgeview RV Resort Riparian Area.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.7 Site 7: Elizabeth Hall Wetlands

Elizabeth Hall Wetlands This site is 27.8ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Permanent unevaluated wetland • >60% natural cover buffer within 30m of an unevaluated wetland • Presence of a species of concern: western painted turtle • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization of 62.2% The environmental significance value of this site is 3.96 from the weighted PEA analysis. Elizabeth Hall Wetlands is a permanent open water wetland that originated as an ox-bow channel and was later damned at both ends to retain water. The site was not targeted specifically for assessment since it is already protected and recognized for its ecological value. This site was also assessed in 2010 by Cows and Fish during a Riparian Health Inventory. The riparian area was described as ‘Healthy, but with problems’ receiving an overall health score of 64%. The invasive species Canada thistle, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, perennial sow-thistle, and spotted knapweed were present. There were some issues with riverbank root mass protection, dewatering of the river system, control of flood peak and timing by upstream dams, and floodplain accessibility within the site. The field information below was assessed in transit to Bull Trail Park North and South. Only the southern end of the wetland is described here. The section of the riverbank between Elizabeth Hall Wetlands and the river has been bermed with large cobbles and is sparsely vegetated, primarily with leafy spurge. There are few shrubs and no cottonwoods.

Berm on east side of Elizabeth Hall Wetlands, with leafy spurge

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 The floodplain south of the wetlands and north of the High Level Bridge (Lethbridge viaduct) has 70% bare ground from flood deposition, and has a mix of shrubs (e.g., sandbar willow (Salix exigua or Salix interior), an unidentified willow (Salix sp.), thorny buffalo berry, Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii), Red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and Saskatoon, with licorice root (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), smooth brome, and the usual leafy spurge in the understory. There are also numerous cottonwood saplings, approximately 2m tall. Western painted turtles were also observed basking in the area on logs. A muskrat, red-winged blackbirds, nesting Canada geese, ducks, a garter snake, and deer were also observed.

Basking Western Painted turtles Beaver house

Recommendations • Considering acquiring the Golf Course lands to the west of the wetlands, to reduce runoff impacts of maintenance operations • Maintain its formal protected status • Ensure that further developments do not impede connectivity to and through this area

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 20. Priority Ecological Area: Site 7 Elizabeth Hall Wetlands.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.8 Site 8: Helen Schuler and Indian Battle Park Riparian Area

Helen Schuler and Indian Battle Park Riparian Area This site is 56.7ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed and grass/herbaceous land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Within a riparian floodplain • Within a natural contiguous patch of 50-200ha • Catchment naturalization of 77.1% The environmental significance value of this site is 2.80 from the weighted PEA analysis. This site was viewed by binoculars in the field, but not visited. It was observed that Indian Battle Park has an extensive band of young cottonwood saplings along the river. The area also has numerous braided trails that have removed much of the understory. This site was also assessed as two separate sites (i.e. Indian Battle Park and Helen Schuler Nature Centre) by Cows and Fish during a Riparian Health Inventory of the park in 2010. The area was described as ‘Healthy, but with problems’ receiving an overall health score of 64% for Helen Schuler Nature Reserve and 65% for Indian Battle Park. Both areas had the invasive species Canada thistle, Caragana, and leafy spurge. In addition, Helen Schuler has spotted knapweed, and Indian Battle Park has diffuse knapweed, field bindweed, perennial sow- thistle, and Russian olive present. At both sites there are some issues with dewatering of the river system, control of flood peak and timing by upstream dams, and human physical alteration to the sites. Recommendations • Maintain protected status of the Helen Schuler lands • Control additional spread of invasive species • Maintain shoreline vegetation to prevent flood impacts

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 13. Priority Ecological Area: Site 8 Helen Schuler and Indian Battle Park Riparian Area.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.9 Site 9: Bull Trail Park North and South Riparian Area

Bull Trail Park North and South riparian area This site is 40.3ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed and grass/herbaceous land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Within a riparian floodplain • Part of an unevaluated wetland complex • Seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands • >60% natural cover buffer within 30m of an unevaluated wetland • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization of 41.9% The environmental significance value of this site is 3.03 from the weighted PEA analysis. This site was assessed by Cows and Fish during a Riparian Health Inventory of the park in 2010 (Wood and Ambrose 2010). The area was described as ‘Healthy, but with problems’ receiving an overall health score of 71%. The invasive species Canada thistle, diffuse knapweed, downy chess, field bindweed, leafy spurge, perennial sow-thistle, Russian olive, spotted knapweed, and yellow toadflax were present. There are some issues with dewatering of the river system and control of flood peak and timing by upstream dams. An industrious beaver has felled nine large cottonwoods and a very high number of smaller cottonwoods, which have been cut continuously throughout the site. The Bull Trail Park North and South sites had the highest beaver activity observed out of all the sites assessed. Bull Trail Park South had more active beaver sign than Bull Trail Park North.

Beaver felled trees Disturbed cottonwood forest Like most of the river valley, the dry portions of the floodplain of Bull Trail Park North are dominated by cottonwoods and smooth brome. Years of homesteading, ranching, farming, and other activities have permanently altered the ecosystem, eliminating the native grasses, shrubs, and forbs that would normally form the understory. 49

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 A semi-permanent shallow open-water wetland occurs at the north base of Whoop-Up Drive, where it is fed by storm-water outflow (Appendix C Waypoint 149). The vegetation is dominated by great bulrush, with bottle sedge, wire rush (Eleocharis acicularis), and foxtail barley in outer rings. Water and drawdown area is estimated at greater than 25% of the wetland. There are many deer tracks in the open mud, and algal crusts on the dried mud. It appears to have an outflow creek flowing north to the river (2014 satellite imagery from GoogleEarth, DigitalGlobe 2016).

Shallow open-water wetland Storm-water outflow Access beneath Whoop-Up Drive

The riparian area beneath fort Whoop-up is narrow and barren with no cover. None-the-less, it is used by animals to cross under the bridge. There were numerous deer tracks observed in the mud. This crossing is likely a high constriction site for wildlife movement. There are several areas with erosion problems from stormwater runoff. A major stormwater outflow in Bull Trail Park North has carved a significant channel and is still actively eroding, resulting in a deep channel with little riparian zone. It appears that rocks have been dumped at the base of the outflow in an effort to control the erosion, but it is only somewhat successful. Concrete channels on Whoop-Up Drive also divert water from the roadbed down the hillside. Unfortunately, the channels only descend partway, leaving the stormwater to surge down the unprotected slope and eroding it.

Stormwater outflow Eroded banks due to stormwater Erosion from Whoop-Up Drive (Appendix C Waypoint 170) outflow A semi-permanent marsh lies on the south side of the bridge in a parallel position to the one on the north side (Appendix C Waypoint 152). Although a storm-water outflow was not observed, given its position and proximity to the bridge, it is probably fed by storm-water. It is surrounded by mature cottonwood forest, with great bulrush and bottle sedge near the open water, and reed canary grass dominating the now dry area, and a small area with horsetails (Equisetum sp.) and sandbar willow (Salix exigua/interior).

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Semi-permanent marsh at base Permanent shallow open-water wetland of Whoop-Up Drive A large permanent shallow open-water wetland lies between Coal Banks Trail and the river (Appendix C Waypoint 154) functions as a wetland, but the steeply bermed sides allow little space for marsh species. The square perimeter on the south end and the even berms indicate that it was probably a borrow pit. Less than 20% of the wetland had open water in May 2016 with drawdown mud covering the rest. The wetland has a narrow riparian edge because of the bermed sides, but there were cattails, wire rush, and horsetails, with aquatic plants such as sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinatus) and white water crowfoot (Ranunculus aquatilis) in the remnant ponds. Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), and sandpipers (unknown species) were observed, and there were deer and coyote tracks in the mud. The area south of the wetland had flood debris lodged up to 2 m into the shrubs, so the pond may be occasionally recharged by floodwaters. This pond functions as a wetland, but the steeply bermed sides allow little space for marsh species. Re-grading this wetland to a more natural shape and slope would encourage more diversity and it may be more effective in improving water quality. A narrow oxbow creek divides the upper and drier terrace of the floodplain from a lower terrace. There were numerous fresh beaver cuttings, and fresh mud on a series of dams on the oxbow, as well as scent piles on these dams, indicating the active presence of beavers. Two houses were observed and it is likely that there is more than one breeding pair in the area. Beavers can significantly affect the regeneration of cottonwoods. Mature cottonwoods have been felled and cottonwood saplings have been repeatedly harvested, resulting in multi-stemmed saplings. There are several cohorts of young trees, with first year seedlings near the river (15- 20cm), second year saplings (<1m), and an older cohort that are 2-3 m tall. Beaver are a natural part of the ecosystem, deepening natural channels, forming rich productive ponds, and cutting mature cottonwoods, which then regenerate as they sucker. Too many beaver in areas of high cottonwood recruitment can prevent young cottonwoods from reaching maturity by repeatedly harvesting the young stems, and young cottonwoods are difficult to protect using mesh barriers. A lack of natural predators (e.g., wolves, cougar) in some instances may require active beaver management to allow the maturation of cottonwoods. It may be useful to allow beaver activity in older cottonwood forests and in some regenerating stands, while preventing further harvesting in others by wrapping trees and/or reducing beaver breeding pairs.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 One of a series of beaver dams in the area American white pelicans fishing at the weir Other wildlife observed include deer, and a large colony of American white pelicans, fishing at the weir and swimming.

Cottonwoods – 1st year cohort Cottonwoods 2nd year cohort Cottonwood seedling bed, with 2m trees

Narrow-leaved cottonwood clonal suckers Narrow-leaved cottonwood Flood debris from flood buried stems clonal suckers from beaver Mountain Bike trails were evident throughout the area. While they are narrow, they often descend directly down the fall line of steep slopes, removing the vegetation and encouraging erosion. The City of Lethbridge should work with mountain bike user groups to determine suitable areas, and limit trail use in other areas. Information signs describing the effects of erosion from steep trails (foot trails and mountain bike trails) may help influence people’s actions. Recommendations • Re-grade permanent wetland (borrow pit) to more natural shape and cross-section to encourage more marsh vegetation. • Determine appropriate beaver populations and monitor beaver activity so that regenerating cottonwoods can reach maturity. • Control erosion at storm water outflows – both the large one in Bull Trail Park South and the smaller ones on Whoop-Up Drive. • Control leafy spurge and burdock. • Choose mountain bike trails and close unsuitable/eroding trails. Install signs explaining erosion effects.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 14. Priority Ecological Area: Site 9 Bull Trail Park North and South Riparian Area.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.10 Site 10: University Slopes

University Slopes This site is 167.2ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Natural grassland land cover • Steep Slopes • Very high to high wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization of 39.40% It’s environmental significance value is 2.56 from the weighted PEA analysis. This site is likely an important north-south wildlife movement corridor on the western side of the river. It is a large contiguous patch of natural grassland cover and steep slopes with some topland fragments. Although this potential corridor was not verified in the field, other areas with ‘Very High’ movement flow were verified in the field as potential corridors and had numerous game trails. Other areas with ‘Very High’ movement flow were in the Northwest Slopes and the Alexander Wilderness Toplands, which were corroborated in the field as having numerous game trails. The inventory of game trails was not done in a formal manner. The connectivity model additionally corroborates available rattlesnake mortality data at the Highway 3 crossing near the Bridgeview RV resort, Popson Park Drive, and Canyon Boulevard West. Recommendations • Work closely with the University to maintain these lands • Explore opportunities for collaboration with University students and researchers to produce relevant research and basic environmental features inventories • Maintain connectivity along the topland

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 15. Priority Ecological Area: Site 10 University Slopes.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.11 Site 11: East Slopes Riparian Islands and Areas (includes Battleship Island) This site is 39.4ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed and grass/herbaceous land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Within a riparian floodplain • High wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization of 63.15% The environmental significance of this areas is 2.72 from the weighted PEA analysis.

3.3.11.1 Battleship Island and East Slopes Riparian Areas

Battleship Island and East Slopes riparian areas The river pathway parallels the river along the edge of the cottonwood forest. The forest has mature trees, tall shrubs, and an understory of smooth brome. There are frequent patches of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) throughout the area. Beaver have harvested some of the trees, leaving stumps with multiple young shoots. There is an inactive beaver dam in place in the riverine park with multiple slides into the creek and into the river along the banks. There is active beaver sign (sticks cleaned of bark along the shoreline and fresh tree cuttings) and many working trails on Battleship Island. The East Slopes riparian area at the bottom of the East Slopes is being proposed as a third vehicular river crossing. The current design intends to create a berm through the slopes, similar to the Whoop Up Dr bridge crossing. The Lethbridge Country Club lies directly to the north of this location, while the major East-West Six Mile Coulee wildlife movement corridor lies to the south. This design would force wildlife movement into a narrow strip through the riparian area and the Lethbridge Country Club, and would greatly reduce wildlife movement through a bottleneck. This might result in increased human-wildlife conflict as animals are funneled into these recreational spaces, similar to the town of Canmore. The High Level bridge in comparison is elevated and allows train crossings over the river without bottlenecking wildlife movement.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Inactive beaver dam Heritage tree – plains cottonwood One very large plains cottonwood has been designated as a heritage tree. A newly constructed bridge and riprap crosses a deeply incised channel/creek (Appendix C Waypoint 444). It appears that it is an extension of a natural creek that was diverted beneath the golf course and comes out in a culvert at the base of the golf course. The channel to the river is very straight which erodes the channel during heavy rains. This channel/creek should be investigated to determine the source and water flow. Slowing the water flow during heavy storms may be desired, by reconstructing the creek with pools and meanders, or installing falls and pools. The pathway continues to the perimeter of the Lethbridge County Club where it ends at a gate and no trespassing signs. An informal trail turns west into the active floodplain through large flood debris and recently deposited silt, then joins the channel by Battleship Island at the base of the Lethbridge Country Club.

No trespassing at Lethbridge Trail flood debris River channel and informal trail at Country Club Trail base of Lethbridge Country Club Battleship Island and the island at the base of the East Slopes path are separated from the shore by a channel. In late summer, and in years where the river is low, the channels are dry allowing people and dogs to walk to the islands. Battleship Island shows signs of flooding, with downed trees and 30% bare ground (silt and cobbles). The cottonwood saplings, both plains (Populus deltoides) and narrow-leaved cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), are primarily clonal shoots from buried flood damaged trees and from beaver harvesting, with cottonwood seedlings in the cobbles along the shore. Young cottonwood seedlings are sensitive to water levels and drawdown for up to three years after establishment, so these may not contribute to the cottonwood population, if 2016/17 are dry years. There is a significant amount of leafy spurge (Table 13) throughout the floodplain.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Clonal shoot of plains cottonwood Cottonwood seedlings Recommendations • Monitor and control beaver populations (if necessary) to allow cottonwood saplings and seedlings to reach maturity. If necessary, protect the bases of mature trees from beaver by wrapping with wire mesh. • Older cottonwood stands may be beneficially impacted by beaver populations by removing mature trees. If the clonal shoots that emerge from the felled trees are protected from further harvesting, they may develop into a second growth forest. • Control populations of leafy spurge using biocontrols, such as insect releases or grazing. • Protect wildlife movement through the valley by ensuring that any additional development in this area (bridges, walkways, utility infrastructure) is done with best practices to ensure well-connected wildlife movement, healthy riparian vegetation and minimal impact to the scenic character of the area. • Investigate the channel/creek from Lethbridge Country Club. Slow the water flow during heavy storms by reconstructing the creek with pools and meanders, or install falls and pools, in order to slow the erosion of the channel bed. • Limit access of pedestrians and dogs in areas with young regenerating cottonwoods, to allow them to grow to a height that is resistant to trampling. Install signs explaining the link between floods, cottonwood germination, and the risks to survival of young seedlings (e.g., drought, ice scour, beaver, trampling). • Remove Tatarian honeysuckle. • Control leafy spurge.

3.3.11.2 Riparian Island

Riparian Island (Wood and Ambrose 2010)

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 This area was not assessed in the field, but Cows and Fish conducted a Riparian Health Inventory of the area in 2010 (Wood and Ambrose 2010). The area was described as ‘Health,y but with problems’ receiving an overall health score of 70%. It has the invasive species Canada thistle, leafy spurge, perennial sow-thistle, and Russian olive. There are some issues with river bank root mass protection, dewatering of the river system, and control of floodpeak and timing by upstream dams. Recommendations • Ensure adequate Cottonwood recruitment • Target and remove invasive species • Maintain minimal-footprint natural footpaths

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 16. Priority Ecological Area: Site 11 East Slopes Riparian Islands and Areas.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.12 Site 12: Six Mile Coulee

Six Mile Coulee This site is 127.4ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Natural grassland land cover • Steep slopes • Very high to high wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization of 53.46% The environmental significance value of this site is 2.61 from the weighted PEA analysis. This site was not assessed in the field, but Cows and Fish conducted a Riparian Health Inventory in the area in 2010 (Wood and Ambrose 2010). The area was described as ‘Healthy’ receiving a health score of 83%. The invasive species Canada thistle, leafy spurge, perennial sow-thistle, and yellow toadflax were present. There were some issues with channel incisement. Recommendations • Maintain adequate setbacks to prevent further erosion • Manage trail use in the area to minimize disturbance in sensitive areas • Work to control or remove existing invasive species

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 17. Priority Ecological Area: Site 12 Six Mile Coulee.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.13 Site 13: Six Mile Coulee Eastern Handle

Six Mile Coulee Eastern Handle This site is 51.9ha was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Natural grasslands • Steep slopes • Within a riparian floodplain • Very high wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of 50-200ha • Catchment naturalization of 31.35% The field survey identified the following additional features: • Rare species or community: potential for the presence of rare plants within saline seeps The environmental significance value of this site is 1.77 from the weighted PEA analysis. This site was included in spite of its lower score because it is part of a movement corridor connected to Six Mile Coulee, leading through urban areas (or the urban matrix) into agricultural areas. Should the city continue to develop south and eastward, this corridor will be important to limit the isolation of movement in the valley from its surroundings. Six Mile Coulee was assessed from the north rim and the bottom near Highway 5. Six Mile Coulee’s eastern handle is a steep, narrow, highly unstable coulee with a narrow stream in the bottom, and active slumps and saline seeps. The upland on the north side has been planted with tame grasses, trees, and shrubs, and is mowed to the edge of the coulee. The uplands on the south side were dominated by cropland. An old shelterbelt of caragana (Caragana arborescens) was planted along the edge of the coulee (Appendix C Waypoint 102). The end of one coulee branch has also been dammed to construct a pond.

Caragana shelterbelt Dammed coulee branch

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 The vegetation in the coulee is dominated by native vegetation typical of dry eroding slopes. There is some crested wheatgrass invading more shallow slopes from the uplands. Recent slumps are covered by the introduced annual stinkweed or pennycress (Thlaspi arvense). One major slump near Highway 5 (Appendix C Waypoint 100) has developed a saline pond on a midslope flat area and may support rare plants. On the face of the slope, there are bank swallow (Riparia riparia) colonies. The saline areas are also likely being used as mineral licks by deer.

Bank swallow colonies Saline pond Mineral lick used by deer Locals have and are using the coulee to dump landscaping and building debris (Appendix C Waypoints 195 and 101).

Large tree trunk debris Tree cuttings debris Landscaping and building debris Recommendations • Avoid development within the coulee because of narrow, steep and unstable terrain. • Survey saline seep for rare plants. • Clean up debris dumped in coulees to discourage further dumping and install signs prohibiting dumping.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 18. Priority Ecological Area: Site 13 Six Mile Coulee Eastern Handle.

3.3.14 Site 14: Popson Park Slopes

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Popson Park Slopes This site was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Natural grasslands • Steep slopes • Very high to moderate wildlife movement • Presence of a species of concern: prairie rattlesnake hibernacula • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization 42.89% The field survey identified the following additional features: • Rare species or community: red-three awn The environmental significance value of this site is 2.93 from the weighted PEA analysis. In the field, the Popson Park Slopes was observed to have a large flat area between the coulees and the river. Most of this area is covered with introduced species such as crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, absinthe wormwood, goat’s-beard (Tragopogon dubius), annual hawkbeard (Crepis tectorum), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), as well as patches of noxious weeds such as Canada thistle and downy brome. The fenced dog park has a broad area of bare ground (50% cover) near the entrance, although the cover and litter improves in the centre away from the path, indicating that most people walk on the path. There were no vegetation concerns with the placement of the dog park as there was little native vegetation in this area. Rattlesnakes however are a concern, both for dog and human safety, and because of the loss of useable habitat for rattlesnakes. As the proposed neighbourhoods above the park are developed, more people are expected to use the valley to walk their dogs. The coulee slopes above the dog park were relatively open and gentle. Once past the toe of the slope, the vegetation was typical of the Mixedgrass Prairie subregion. The coulees in Popson Park run from the NW to the SE, so dense tall shrub stands have grown on the north and northwest upper slopes and along the upper draws of the coulees. The photo below (left) shows the contrast between the green of a NNE facing slope and brown of a SW facing slope. The NNE facing slope has a dense and rich cover of grasses, forbs and low shrubs.

Green NNE and brown SW facing slope Remnant strip of grassland toplands The upland has been cultivated very close to the top of the coulees. Because it is cultivated land there is very little crested wheatgrass invading the upper end of the coulees south of the access road. A corner of the road intersects the top (10 St W and 60 Ave W) whereupon smooth brome, crested wheatgrass and dandelion become common. A pipeline runs (Appendix C Waypoint 999) down a narrow coulee resulting in a sharp increase in disturbance species and weeds, including leafy spurge, a large patch of burdock (Arctium sp.) extending approximately 108m down the bottom of the draw, and Canada thistle. According to 2014 satellite imagery (GoogleEarth, DigitalGlobe 2016), the pipeline RoW appears to be slumping and eroding south of the park road.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Red three-awn (Aristida purpurea), a rare grass (S3 in Alberta, S1 for red three-awn community), was found at two locations (Appendix C Waypoint 652). One location consisted of scattered plants, while the other was a dense community that extended across the hillside for approximately 90 m. This may qualify as an S1 rare community. Bluebird boxes have been installed in the park along the top of the coulee, one of which is occupied by tree swallows, and two coyotes were observed, one of which was a lactating female. There are numerous game trails crossing the slopes in Popson Park, which are relatively undisturbed.

Game trails across slopes Tree swallow Recommendations • Collect data on the red three-awn community and submit data to ACIMS. • Eliminate two discrete patches of burdock. • Control populations of leafy spurge using biocontrols, such as insect releases. • Limit access to the coulees to maintain wildlife populations. • Check integrity of gas pipeline and control both weeds and erosion. • Construct an alternative dog park (with dog friendly facilities) in one of the neighborhoods above Popson Park to divert people and dogs, and reduce potential human- or dog-rattlesnake conflict associated with increased use of this park.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 19. Priority Ecological Area: Site 14 Popson Park Slopes.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.15 Site 15: Cottonwood Park Slopes

Cottonwood Park Slopes This site is 133.1ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Natural grasslands land cover • Undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Presence of a species of concern: prairie rattlesnake hibernacula • Steep slopes • High to very high wildlife movement on the toplands and <15% steep slopes • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization 90.21% The environmental significance value of this site is 3.17. This site was not assessed in the field, but Cows and Fish conducted an upland range health assessment of valley slopes and valley top (benchland/plateau) habitats in 2013 (Hull et al. 2013). The area was described as ‘Healthy with problems’ receiving an overall health score of 82%. The invasive species Canada thistle, cleavers, common burdock, downy brome, field bindweed, hound’s tongue, Japanese brome, and leafy spurge were present. The rare plant red-three awn (S2) was found on a native slope in the northeast region of the park. Recommendations • Maintain wildlife connectivity through the toplands • Ensure adequate setbacks around the valley edge to minimize the impacts of development to the natural functioning and scenic character of the area • Monitor trail use to minimize erosion issues during wet periods

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 20. Priority Ecological Area: Site 15 Cottonwood Park Slopes.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.16 Site 16: Cottonwood Park Riparian Area

Cottonwood Park riparian area This site is 64.3ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed land cover • Presence of unique natural features: undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Riparian floodplain • Very high wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization 89.32% The environmental significance value of this site is 4.19 from the weighted PEA analysis. The slopes and riparian area of Cottonwood Park were not visited. However, photos were taken from several viewpoints: from within Popson Park, and from the viewpoint at the crest of the slopes in Cottonwood Park. This site was also assessed by Cows and Fish during a Riparian Health Inventory of the park in 2010 (Wood and Ambrose 2010). The area was described as ‘Healthy, but with problems’ receiving a health score of 69%. The invasive species Canada thistle, diffuse knapweed, downy chess, leafy spurge, oxeye daisy, and spotted knapweed were present. There were some issues with riverbank root mass protection, dewatering of the river system, and control of flood peak and timing by upstream dams. Cottonwood Park has a significant stand of mature cottonwoods in the flood plain at the base of the southeast facing slopes. There appears to be limited regeneration within the forest, nor is there any along the river on the east side, which is eroding.

Riparian area on east side of Cottonwood Park, Riparian area on south side of Cottonwood Park, with no sign of cottonwood seedlings recent deposition with young cottonwood saplings 71

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 The riparian area on east side of Cottonwood Park has no sign of cottonwood seedlings. However, on the point bar across the river on the south side, there are signs of recent deposition and young cottonwood saplings regenerating on the fresh deposits.

Recommendations • Maintain the protected status of these lands • Work with neighbouring landowners to ensure connectivity through this area to the lands to the west • Monitor recruitment of Cottonwood stands to ensure the persistence of the forested riparian area • Maintain permeable, low footprint trails through this area

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 21. Priority Ecological Area: Site 16 Cottonwood Park Riparian Area.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.3.17 Site 17: Cottonwood Island Area

Cottonwood Island This site is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Lethbridge, but has been identified from the PEA analysis as having a high ecological priority area value of 4.03 in the landscape. It is therefore outside the scope of this inventory, however it is listed here due to its very high ecological value and to provide a holistic perspective on areas that are ecologically connected in the river valley system, even if they are not jurisdictionally connected. This site is 124.2ha and was identified as a Priority Ecological Area due to the following features: • Treed land cover • Presence of unique natural features: undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats • Within the riparian floodplain • Very high wildlife movement • Within a natural contiguous patch of >500ha • Catchment naturalization of 79.74% There are no field assessments available for this site and was not accessed during the current assessment because it is on private land. However, this site is the largest continuous patch of cottonwoods present in the entire region, and merits future collaboration with Kainai Nation to determine the health of the cottonwoods in this area. Large continuous patches of forest provide not only structural landscape connectivity, but also functional connectivity for various species. Larger patches can provide habitat for sensitive interior species, and limited fragmentation of these patches can limit their exposure to edge predation. Recommendations • Work with neighbouring landowners and first nations to ensure connectivity through this area to the lands to the west • Monitor recruitment of Cottonwood stands to ensure the persistence of the forested riparian area • Consider acquiring these lands for inclusion into the River Valley Parks System

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 30. Priority Ecological Area: Site 17 Cottonwood Island.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.4 Priority Ecological Areas – Unevaluated Isolated Wetlands and Wetland Complexes Most of these sites are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Lethbridge, but have been identified from the weighted PEA analysis as having high ecological priority area values in the landscape. It is therefore outside the scope of this inventory, however they are listed here due to their high ecological value, and to provide a holistic perspective on areas that are ecologically important and unique. These PEAs are different from the former PEAs, some of which contain wetlands, since they have been identified as high environmental significance primarily for their permanency, surrounding habitat within 30m, and presence of other wetlands within 100m. The field- and GIS-based approaches did not identify the formal class of the wetlands, but did identify the permanency of the wetland from aerial imagery. The PEA analysis has delineated several wetland sites that had a higher PEA value. However due to the high degree of alteration of many of the wetlands in this landscape and its surrounding habitats, which heavily influence its ecological functioning, the GIS-based PEA scores are strongly advised as a tool to identify areas of interest, but not to compare them. The sites visited in the field are numbered from 1 to 9 and split into four quadrants (i.e., NW, NE, SE, SW). Wetlands provide several functions important to both agriculture and urban areas. Wetlands trap and store sediments, which improves water quality. They store water and energy, which means less flood damage during heavy rains, and they slowly transfer surface water to aquifers, maintaining groundwater that we use for drinking, irrigation, and other uses. Wetlands reduce the amount of contaminants, nutrients, and pathogens reaching creeks and rivers, which improves water quality. Wetlands are important habitat; they provide shelter, food, and cover for wildlife, and increase the diversity of plants and insects. In Alberta, approximately 64% of wetlands have been lost in the settled area with higher levels (80-90%) near cities and towns (Wetlands Alberta 2015). Restoring wetlands can: • Reduce the negative impacts of drought and floods by retaining run off water, • Increase quantity and quality of ground and surface water resources, • Increase forage, • Reduce soil erosion and watershed sedimentation, • Reduce greenhouse gases by absorbing carbon emissions. Under the Alberta Wetland Policy, “permanent (or reasonably so) naturally occurring bodies of water” are owned by the province (GoA 2014). The class (permanence) and size of a wetland is based on its expected state prior to disturbance (GoA 2015). Wetlands are classified and delineated using historical air photos, vegetation, and soil samples. Only more recent photos (2004-2016) were used for digitization. Historical air photos were not used in addition to the field assessment. Many of the wetlands were dry this year due to very dry conditions. The average yearly precipitation for SW Lethbridge is 392 mm (1961 to 2015), but the precipitation in 2015 was 271 mm. In 2015, the 6th lowest annual precipitation occurred since 1961 (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2015), and the 365-Day Precipitation Accumulations Percent of Average from May 18, 2015 to May 16, 2016 were 40-60% below normal. The northwest area (approximately from Whoop-up Drive to Highway 3) was dominated by cropland and these wetlands were left untilled. They were surrounded by tame pasture or hay, and were or are permanent wetlands, most of which have been altered or bisected by roads. The southwest area (south of Whoop-Up Drive) consists of a complex of temporary to semi-permanent wetlands (Appendix C Waypoints 1011-1041). They are in private agricultural lands and have all been tilled. Several wetlands intersected by 25 St. SW were briefly surveyed from the road allowance. The fourth was away from the road behind a rural residential house and was surveyed with binoculars.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 22. Priority Ecological Areas: Significant Wetlands.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.4.1 Northwestern Unevaluated Wetlands Quadrant Isolated Wetland 1 This site was identified as a Priority Ecological Area from the weighted PEA analysis due to the following features: • Permanent wetland • Surrounding habitat within a 30m radius is mostly (>60%) natural

Marsh end of dugout, with irrigated field The dugout is in a natural wetland with some signs that beaver have cut trees here. The northern end has several terraces and remnant oxbows, with debris from recent floods and various cohorts of cottonwoods. Leafy spurge is common throughout the area. Wetland Complex 2 This site was identified as a Priority Ecological Area from the weighted PEA analysis due to the following features: • Within 100m to another wetland forming a potential complex • Semi-permanent wetlands • Surrounding habitat within a 30m radius is mostly (>60%) semi-natural This wetland complex is composed of two wetlands:

Large wetland in tame pasture A) A large wetland in tame pasture was observed from the side of Crowsnest Highway (#3), south of the highway and east of the railway (Appendix C Waypoint 118). Although dry in May 2016, it had cattails and water smartweed on the edges and may be a permanent shallow open water wetland. The pasture appears to have been drained by a canal and may have been part of a much larger wetland. Examination of historic photos and soil tests will be required to determine the wetland edges and class. B) This wetland was on private property behind a fence and not clearly visible from the road. It appeared to be a dugout that was severely altered and broken up.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Isolated Wetland 3 This site was identified as a Priority Ecological Area from the weighted PEA analysis due to the following features: • Within 100m to another wetland forming a potential complex (road bisection) • Semi-permanent wetlands • Surrounding habitat within a 30m radius is mostly (>60%) semi-natural

Remnant wetland in cultivated field Snail shells in wetland Old well and water pump A remnant wetland in a cultivated field, bisected by 30 St. SW and just south of 2 Ave N, shows signs of having been permanent shallow open water (Appendix C Waypoint 115). The east side was dry in May 2015, but the centre area had remnants of aquatic vegetation and numerous snail shells. Progressive zones contained cattails, golden dock, water smartweed, and foxtail barley. The west side of the road consisted of a small ditch to hold water and what might have been an old windmill and well, with a culvert connecting the two sides. An untilled area along 2 Ave W, visible in a 2014 satellite image (GoogleEarth, DigitalGlobe 2016), may indicate that the wetland was much larger. Examination of historic photos and soil tests will be required to determine the wetland edges and class. Isolated Wetland 4 Please see Section 3.3.7 Elizabeth Hall Wetlands and Riparian Area. Wetland Complex 5 This site was identified as a Priority Ecological Area from the weighted PEA analysis due to the following features: • Within 100m to another wetland forming a potential complex (road bisection) • Semi-permanent wetlands • Surrounding habitat within a 30m radius is mostly (>60%) semi-natural The field survey identified the following additional features: • Only the most southwestern wetland is not a dugout. This wetland is considered a complex, and not a single wetland, since the dugouts and wetland on the west side (A) are not connected by a culvert or a channel to the eastern side (B).

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

A) B)

Extensively altered large remnant wetland These are the remnants of a large wetland (>60m2), which are visible on 30 St. W north of Walsh Dr. W (Appendix C Waypoints 1101-114). This wetland has been extensively regraded, bermed, and drained, with a road bisecting it, a canal draining it, and four dugouts. A functional wetland (probably a permanent marsh) persists on the west side of the road with cattails, bottle sedge, open water, red-winged blackbirds, and yellow- headed blackbirds. The east end appears to be permanent marsh in a 2014 satellite image (GoogleEarth, DigitalGlobe 2016). Examination of historic photos and soil tests will be required to determine the wetland class and edges. Downy brome is present in the roadside ditch.

Pump shack and irrigation on northern Canal draining Permanent marsh with cattail, bottle sedge, and dugout wetlands open water, and red-winged, and yellow-winged blackbirds A) On the west side there is currently a permanent marsh with cattail, bottle sedge, and open water, and red- winged and yellow-headed blackbirds (Appendix C Waypoint 1101). There are two dugouts north of this site and a canal that is being pumped for irrigation (Appendix C Waypoint 113. There is also a culvert but it does not connect the permanent marsh on the west side to the east side.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Canal extending on the east side Dugout with marsh vegetation east of road and south of canal B) On the east side of the road, north of the canal is another dugout in a wet meadow that is being pumped for irrigation (Appendix C Waypoint 114). South of the canal there is another permanent marsh, with remnant patches of bottle sedge, water smartweed, and salt crusts on the soil (Appendix C Waypoint 112). Isolated Wetland 6 This site was identified as a Priority Ecological Area from the weighted PEA analysis due to the following features: • Seasonal wetland • Surrounding habitat within a 30m radius is mostly (>60%) semi-natural

A dugout in a large shallow wetland Large shallow wetland in a gentle swale in tame pasture This is a large shallow wetland in the middle of a pasture of tame hay. The dugout has a rim of great bulrush and cattails, and the wet meadow area contain foxtail barley, reed canary grass, golden dock, and curled dock interspersed with tame species. According to the air photos, it may have been continuous with a wetland on the west side that has since been tilled (GoogleEarth, DigitalGlobe 2016). The upland has significant bare ground due to grazing and many ground squirrel burrows. It is difficult to estimate the original class because of the dugout, but the size of the wetland in pasture provides good wildlife habitat, as can be seen by signs of coyotes, deer, and badgers.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.4.2 Southwestern Unevaluated Wetlands Quadrant Wetland Complex 7 Please see Section 3.3.9 Bull Trail Park North and South Riparian Area. Wetland Complex 8 This site was identified as a Priority Ecological Area from the weighted PEA analysis due to the following features: • Within 100m to another wetland forming a potential complex (some road bisections) • Seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands • Surrounding habitat within a 30m radius is mostly (>60%) cropland The field survey identified the following additional features: • Wetlands A, C, D of Complex 8 have been completely tilled through. • Wetland B is the only wetland that has not been completely tilled through, but has been tilled around its fringes. The following three wetlands are in a complex of temporary to semi-permanent wetlands (Appendix C Waypoints 1011-1041). They are on private land and have all been tilled, however, 2014 satellite imagery (GoogleEarth, DigitalGlobe 2016) indicates that they may all be hydrologically connected. Several wetlands intersected by 25 St. SW were briefly surveyed from the road allowance. The fourth was away from the road behind a rural residential house and was surveyed with binoculars.

Tilled wetland A) Dry and recently tilled. On the east side it has cattails, great bulrush, dock, and foxtail barley. It is bisected by a road with no culvert. It is possibly a semi-permanent wetland (Appendix C Waypoint 1031).

Tilled wetland Cattails, great bulrush, dock, and Drawdown phase with aquatic plants in foxtail barley mud B) Dry and recently tilled. On the west side it has cattails, great bulrush, dock, and foxtail barley. It is bisected by road with no culvert. The east side is in a drawdown phase with aquatic plants in mud. It is probably a semi-permanent wetland (Appendix C Waypoint 1021).

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Cattails and dock Tilled wetland C) Dry and recently tilled. It has cattails and dock. Bisected by road with no culvert. Possibly semi-permanent (Appendix C Waypoint 1011).

Tilled wetland D) Wetland behind house in tilled field. Possibly semi-permanent (Appendix C Waypoint 1041)

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 3.4.3 Southeastern Unevaluated Wetlands Quadrant Wetland Complex 9 This site was identified from the weighted PEA analysis due to the following features: • Within 100m to another wetland forming a potential complex (railroad bisection) • Seasonal unevaluated wetlands • Surrounding habitat within a 30m radius is mostly (>60%) semi-natural for the wetland on the west side of the railroad tracks, and croplands for the wetlands on the east side.

Remnant marsh A small marsh surrounded by tall shrubs (mostly willows) and balsam poplar had open water with aquatic vegetation connected by a culvert under the road to the canal. Although it was surrounded by tame pasture and had introduced species such as quackgrass (Elytrigea repens) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) in the understory, and scattered Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense; Table 13), the species were predominantly native, and provided good habitat for birds (red-winged blackbirds, Agelaius phoeniceus; ring-necked pheasant, Phasianus colchicus) and predators (bedding site with canid hair, and bones from unknown prey). There was some trampling by animals and humans, and there were potted shrubs stored by the wetland (potentially by Agriculture Canada). Recommendations • Maintain the small wooded marsh, which provides a small patch of habitat for birds and mammals.

3.4.4 Northeastern Unevaluated Wetlands Quadrant No wetlands were visited in the field within this quadrant. General Recommendations • Conserve all existing wetlands that have not been severely altered. • Restore wetlands that have been tilled, drained, or bisected by roads. • Maintain natural drainage patterns between wetlands.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 4. Review of Environmental Policies and Recommended Best Practices in Other Jurisdictions

4.1 Federal Policies

4.1.1 Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (1991) The purpose of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation is to “promote the conservation of Canada's wetlands to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions, now and in the future.” The policy applies to provincial/federal partnerships for wetland conservation in general, and the conservation of wetlands on federal lands in particular. In this capacity, the policy provides guiding principles for recognizing the importance of wetland conservation at all levels of government and the public, including municipal governments. This includes seven recommended strategies for the use and management of wetlands: public awareness; managing wetlands on federal lands; promoting wetland conservation in federally protected areas; enhancing cooperation among stakeholders; conserving wetlands of significance to Canadians; ensuring sound scientific basis for policy; and promoting international actions.

4.1.2 Canada Fisheries Act (2015) Under the Canada Fisheries Act, “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.” The Fisheries Act applies to any activity that could potentially cause serious harm to fish, either from activities within waterways (e.g. bridge construction), or from activities that cause the discharge of deleterious substances (e.g. wastewater discharge into a fish-bearing waterway). The Fisheries Act does not apply to artificial waterbodies that do not discharge into fish-bearing waters (e.g. hydrologically isolated ponds), and generally does not apply to work occurring outside the high water mark of a fish-bearing waterbed.

4.2 Provincial Policies

4.2.1 Alberta Wetland Policy (2013) The Alberta Wetland Policy “provides the strategic direction and tools required to make informed management decisions... to conserve, restore, protect, and manage Alberta’s wetlands”. The policy provides guidance on the valuation of wetlands in terms of their ecological function, and focuses on three strategies for wetland management in Alberta: flexibility in wetland management; effective tools, knowledge, and capacity; and conservation of wetlands and promoting voluntary stewardship. Under this policy, wetlands of the highest value must be protected for the long-term benefit of all Albertans. Where development activities have the potential to impact wetlands, the wetland policy advocates for avoidance and minimization. The Policy recognizes that wetlands of high ecological value should be protected to retain their ecological services, and that these services also improve the urban environment by contributing to biodiversity, water quality improvement, flood reduction, and the anthropogenic value of land.

4.2.2 Alberta Water Act (2014) The Water Act regulates the diversion of water from surface and groundwater sources, including the provision of water licenses. (Activities such as pipeline construction, watercourse crossings, and outfalls are covered by other regulations.) Under the Water Act, a license is required for diversions of water with a few exceptions: household purposes, traditional agriculture use, and exemptions under the Water Act - Water (Ministerial) Regulation. The Alberta Water Act also provides a framework for the restriction of land development within floodplains, and allows for water management plans to be developed to address local and regional issues.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 4.2.3 South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (2014) The South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) establishes a long-term vision for the watershed-based region and aligns provincial policies at the regional level to balance Alberta’s economic, environmental and social goals. In particular, the Plan expresses management directions with regards to conservation, protection of watersheds, and sustaining biodiversity and sensitive habitats while acknowledging the need for continued resource and urban development. Key highlights include an environmental management framework for air and surface water quality that includes strict environmental limits; a commitment to completing a biodiversity management framework (with expected policies related to habitat conservation); guidelines for avoiding native grassland conversion; and policies for improving the connectivity of wildlife habitat.

4.3 Regional and Municipal Best Practices

4.3.1 Calgary Regional Partnership

4.3.1.1 Calgary Metropolitan Plan (2014) The Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP) establishes policies and best practices for protecting the natural environment and watersheds in the Calgary region. The fourteen member municipalities of the Calgary Regional Partnership are encouraged to adopt these practices in areas not subject to existing municipal policies. The Plan aims to “ensure that natural landscapes, ecologies and water sources are identified, respected and stewarded to ensure their function and integrity over time as the region grows.” In order to achieve this goal, the Plan enumerates four strategies, two of which are watershed protection (through integrated watershed management, a “no net loss” approach to wetlands management, protecting the ecological function of riparian lands) and enhancing ecological infrastructure (through ecological restoration, maintaining landscape connectivity, and protecting the six elements of ecological infrastructure: wetlands, riparian buffers, regional corridors, large patches of natural vegetation, ridges and escarpments).

4.3.2 Bow River Basin Council

4.3.2.1 Protecting Riparian Areas: Creative Approaches to Subdivision Development in the Bow River Basin (2002)

This report, from the multi-stakeholder non-profit Bow River Basin Council (BRBC), provides information about the importance and benefits of protecting riparian areas, and how the thoughtful design of subdivisions can be compatible with riparian area preservation. The report emphasizes not only the ecological value of riparian areas, but also the financial benefits, including lower development costs, less infrastructure, and visual amenity for home buyers. The report also identifies best management practices for mitigating development impacts on riparian areas: • Balance uses while maintaining natural beauty and wildlife • Minimize soil erosion associated with land use activities • Prevent disturbance within the riparian area • Retain slopes in their natural state • Minimize the use of drainage channels and culverts

4.3.2.2 Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan, Phase I: Water Quality (2008) This report, which was adopted as a decision support tool by over two dozen municipalities and regional and provincial authorities, contains water quality objectives, targets, warning levels, and baseline water quality data

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 with the aim of improving water quality in the Bow River Basin. In addition to technical recommendations, the Plan establishes management actions in order of priority. Some of the highest priority actions, based on available science, involve source control (of pollutants and storm water runoff), adopting municipal riparian setbacks, encouraging low-impact development, and conducting groundwater assessments in the Elbow River sub-basin prior to development. The Plan is an explicit example of integrated watershed management planning, with additional themes potentially being explored in future phases of the Plan.

4.3.3 Nose Creek Watershed Partnership

4.3.3.1 Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan (2008) This Management Plan adopts a science-based and integrated water management approach to protect riparian areas and improve water quality in the Nose Creek watershed. The Plan serves as a guidance and decision- making tool for any authority working in the watershed. The Plan contains recommendations in the categories of adoption/governance, water conservation, integrated stormwater management, protection of natural features, riparian protection, water quality protection, mitigation/compensation, and cumulative effects. Specific recommendations include • Implementing low-impact development practices to reduce stormwater runoff volumes; • Establishing more appropriate setbacks for watercourses (both intermittent and perennial) based on the 1:100 floodplain, escarpments and meander belt widths to protect riparian environments; • “No net loss” of channel length to deter further channelization of watercourses; • Maintaining natural vegetation on critical slope areas to stabilize soils and filter surface runoff water; • Preserving vegetation during construction and discouraging development in ravines and coulees; • Restoring riparian function when disturbance is unavoidable; and • Addressing cumulative effects during the development application review process. These recommendations are supported by an Implementation Plan with short, medium and long-term actions, and rough budget estimates to support decision-making.

4.3.4 City of Calgary

4.3.4.1 Wetland Conservation Plan (2004) This plan was developed in response to concerns about the rate of wetland loss due to urban growth. The Plan has policies and procedures for the identification of wetlands and their associated environmental significance, as well as goals including: • Balancing the conservation of wetlands with the pressures of urban development • No net loss of wetlands, after attempting to avoid impacts from development • Regional planning to meet mitigation or enhancement objectives in cases of unavoidable losses • Using best management practices to maintain wetlands • Monitoring and research & development • Public education to raise awareness about the role, value and location of wetlands The Plan also contains development approval policies at the Community Plan (i.e. Area Structure Plan), Outline Plan, Tentative Plan (i.e. subdivision) and construction phases of development, including provision for low- impact design and grading, protection of unique species, biophysical impact assessments, and mitigation planning, among others. 87

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 4.3.4.2 Riparian Strategy (2013) The Riparian Strategy contains a high-level framework that provides strategic direction for the protection, restoration and management of riparian ecosystems within Calgary’s watersheds. The framework was developed using the principles of ecosystem valuation for decision-making, an integrated systems approach to management and monitoring, and support and capacity-building for work on riparian areas. The four goals closely align with these principles, and result in several strategies and suggested implementation actions for each. Strategies include protecting ecological habitat and connectivity in upland areas; using restoration techniques that mimic natural riparian ecosystems; and protecting riparian areas from development, in addition to outreach, funding/valuation, and management strategies.

4.3.4.3 Open Space Plan (2003) The Open Space Plan builds on three foundational documents – the Calgary River Valleys Plan, Natural Area Management Plan, and Integrated Pest Management Plan – to provide guidelines for the acquisition and management of parks, natural environments and urban forest in Calgary. The Plan is intended to maintain the integrity of the park and open space system; protect and enhance the urban forest and natural areas; and provide for environmental stewardship, education, programs and services. The Plan provides policies for all types of open space, including environmental open space. Some policies recommend that undeveloped escarpments be preserved as natural environment parks, that recreational facilities within natural parks should be developed to avoid negative impacts, and that priority ecological areas beyond city limits should be identified and protected through strategic partnerships and intergovernmental coordination. Specific strategies are enumerated to support the implementation of the policies.

4.3.4.4 City of Calgary Environmental Policy The Environmental Policy comprises a series of aspirational statements that outline the City’s actions regarding environmental management and performance. Relevant objectives in achieving community environmental sustainability include developing and implementing strategies to mitigate impacts, promote conservation and minimize consumption of natural resources; and to prevent pollution, protect and enhance the natural environment.

4.3.4.5 Environmental Reserve Setback Guidelines (2007) These Council-adopted guidelines stemming from the Municipal Government Act of Alberta established a greater setback from wetlands and water courses to prevent pollution discharge into water bodies, and to further protect riparian areas. The “base setback” varies from 6m for variable-flow streams to 50m for higher- order rivers or tributaries; and 30m for Class 3-6 wetlands (unless engineered wetlands whose primary purpose is for stormwater management). The base setback is increased on a site-specific basis on sloped lands, disturbed/disrupted lands, or adjacent lands with a high level of underground hydraulic connectivity.

4.3.5 City of Edmonton

4.3.5.1 Natural Connections Strategic Plan The Natural Connections Strategic Plan is the City of Edmonton’s conservation plan for the protection and restoration of natural areas to preserve city-wide biodiversity. The primary purpose of the plan is to ensure that all natural areas in Edmonton are managed using a network approach that consider them as a functional unit, not as individual parks. The focus is on strengthening connections between natural areas by establishing functional biological corridors, and strengthening connections between people by creating partnerships that empower Edmontonians to work together to protect Edmonton’s natural systems. The Plan recognizes that the people of Edmonton live in an interconnected and interdependent system with both natural and human components, and that the activities and health of one affect the activities and health of the other.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 4.3.5.2 City of Edmonton Wetland Strategy (2012) The City of Edmonton Wetland Strategy integrates multiple city plans, policies, programs, and initiatives into one document to address the City’s wetland conservation approach, and identify areas for improvement in current wetland conservation efforts. The main goals of the Wetland Strategy are to secure Edmonton’s wetlands as part of the city’s ecological network; manage Edmonton’s wetlands to maximize their ecological function; and engage Edmontonians to support wetland conservation.

4.3.5.3 Ribbon of Green Concept Plan (1990) and Master Plan (1992) The Ribbon of Green Concept Plan recognizes the North Saskatchewan River Valley and its associated ravines as a significant cultural, social, and environmental landscape and the importance of protecting it from development. The Plan proposes a tripling of the urban park along the North Saskatchewan River within city limits to encompass the entire river valley and associated ravines. The plan includes a land acquisition strategy, and a recommended financing strategy, to accomplish this goal. To balance public use of the valley and the protection of natural landscapes and wildlife habitat areas, the Plan establishes three land management zones to reflect each category of use (Preservation, Conservation, and Extensive Use). The Master Plan establishes guidelines and standards for policies and site plans developed as part of the Ribbon of Green Concept Plan. Under the Master Plan a review system, classification system, and project management guidelines are established for all projects within the North Saskatchewan River Valley and ravine system in a three-phased approach that identifies priority areas for park development. The plan addresses development and park design concerns such as accessibility, trail development, park amenities, programming, and interconnectivity to other parks and trail systems outside the river valley.

4.3.5.4 North Saskatchewan River Valley Area Redevelopment Plan Within the North Saskatchewan River Valley Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) boundaries, most development activities are required to go through environmental review, which includes an initial project review; an environmental screening; and an environmental impact assessment. The purpose of the review process is to identify and mitigate environmental impacts prior to any development activities, therefore ensuring an opportunity to address actions which might impair ecological function and negatively impact biodiversity.

4.3.5.5 Development Setbacks from River Valley Ravine (Policy C542) This policy establishes appropriate setbacks from the river to ensure preservation of the River Valley and Ravine System as a significant visual and natural amenity feature and an important contribution to the ecological function of the city’s natural areas system.

4.3.5.6 Conservation of Natural Sites in Edmonton’s Table Lands (Policy C467) This policy is intended to “enhance the liveability, attractiveness, and bio-diversity of Edmonton and ensure consistent, uniform and equitable conservation of natural sites” by conserving environmentally sensitive areas (PEAs) and significant natural areas in discharging Corporate duties; retaining and integrating natural areas through the planning and development process; and conserving the four regionally significant PEAs on the table lands, and other significant PEAs in the River Valley. The goal is to conserve as many environmentally sensitive and significant natural areas as sustainable and feasible.

4.3.5.7 City-Wide Natural Area Management Plan (2010) Under the Conservation Policy C-467 (1998), the City of Edmonton required that management plans be created for each natural area protected by the City. However, this method did not necessarily support a systems approach to conservation at the city level, and so the City-Wide Natural Area Management Plan was created to address conservation planning for both city upland areas, and the North Saskatchewan River Valley and 89

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 ravines. New protected area plans are completed under section 4.3 of the Citywide Natural Area Management Plan to ensure consistency across all natural area plans within the city in terms of planning principles and management strategies. The objectives and guiding principles of the Plan focus on protecting vulnerable plant species, controlling the spread of invasive species, increasing overall biodiversity, minimizing impact to wildlife from human activity, ensuring safe walking trails and publicly accessible areas, maintaining park infrastructure, managing waste, supporting educational opportunities, and maintaining vistas and viewpoints.

4.3.6 City of Red Deer

4.3.6.1 Environmental Master Plan (2011) The Environmental Master Plan (EMP) serves as a guide to improve environmental sustainability in Red Deer by setting goals and providing short, medium and long-term strategies in seven focus areas: water, ecology, transportation, built environment, air, energy and waste. An annual report (Our Environment, Our Role) tracks progress and identifies areas for improvement. The associated goals related to environmentally sensitive areas include improving the quality of water resources; protecting and enhancing the terrestrial and aquatic health of the natural heritage system; and creating compact communities that minimize negative environmental impacts. Priority actions under these goals include storm water management strategies (under a separate Integrated Storm Water Management Plan), increasing the amount of green space in the city by using Environmental Reserve setbacks from water bodies and sensitive areas, and developing infill and density guidelines to promote compact, lower-impact development patterns.

4.3.6.2 River Valley & Tributaries Parks Concept Plan (2010) Although the plan is described by the City as a “tool” for intermunicipal planning rather than a management plan, this document is intended to be used alongside Red Deer County’s Open Space Master Plan as a guide for future development of the Red Deer River valley and its major tributaries. The Plan identifies areas appropriate for recreation facilities and formal parks, but also areas where sensitive or significant environmental lands and their associated ecological services can be protected as part of the parks system. Several of the recommendations address environmentally sensitive lands; for instance, Recommendation 6 suggests the City maximize the use of Environmental Reserve to acquire lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries, lakes, sloughs, escarpments and other environmentally sensitive lands. The Concept suggests a 100m buffer adjacent to the Red Deer River, a 60m buffer around permanent streams, lakes and wetlands, and a 30m buffer around indefinite or recurrent streams. Additionally, the Plan recommends using Municipal Reserve or land purchases to establish buffers along indefinite or recurrent streams, which provide important water management functions.

4.3.6.3 Municipal Development Plan (2008) The City of Red Deer Municipal Development Plan (MDP) is a statutory document that establishes social, economic, and environmental goals for the City, including goals related to environmental and ecological management: • Preserve and integrate significant natural areas into the open space system; • Foster the creation and maintenance of attractive, clean and ecologically responsible natural and built environments; and • Recognize and promote environmental sustainability initiatives and trends in land development. Key policies used to support these goals include the continuing use of the Natural Area/Ecospace Classification and Prioritization System to support sound land use planning and identify wildlife corridors or other connectivity features; incorporating wetlands and vegetation into the (green) infrastructure network; establishing an ecological management system to provide an integrated and sustainable approach to managing ecological and

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 natural habitat features in established and new growth areas; and using Environmental Reserve dedications to protect areas with steep slopes, flood hazard areas, and wetlands.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 5. Recommendations for Environmental Land Use Best Practices for the City of Lethbridge

The City of Lethbridge and its environs play host to a wide variety of natural areas, most notably the Old Man River Valley, a remarkably intact natural resource of which few cities can boast. As surrounding lands are dominated by agriculture, few substantial barriers exist for wildlife movement into the river valley, although expanding residential areas pose potential challenges unless development occurs to minimize impact to the remaining natural areas. Many wetlands in the agricultural areas have been disturbed or modified, reducing the availability of natural stepping stones and refuges. Maintaining connectivity corridors into and through the river valley should be a high priority for city planners. At the same time, management of the river valley lands has not been comprehensive, allowing the spread of invasive species in the riparian area, and increased erosion along the valley slopes. Targeted removal of invasive species should be a high priority for the management of the river valley. More comprehensive vegetation surveys are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainable management of the area, and guide development patterns away from highly valuable natural lands. The City should maintain staff capable of conducting detailed land cover and environmental feature inventories of the river valley, or develop a long-term working relationship with a set of experts who can provide these services. Regularly updated land cover data provides a very valuable planning tool, and must accurately reflect the true distribution of natural land cover and human disturbances. A comprehensive land cover dataset and up-to-date feature inventory area required to identify areas of high environmental value prior to development planning.

Watersheds and Aquatic Resources • Rivers and streams

o Establishing more appropriate setbacks for watercourses (both intermittent and perennial) based on the 1:100 floodplain, escarpments and meander belt widths

o Avoid development of impervious surfaces within a 100m buffer adjacent to the Old Man River, a minimum 60m buffer around permanent streams, and a 30m buffer around ephemeral water courses. Ensure that existing impervious surfaces within these buffers are adequately maintained, and that maintenance activities do not introduce non-native species into the area • Catchment naturalization

o Identify watersheds which have little impervious human footprint, and preferentially avoid development in these areas

o Implementing low-impact development practices to reduce stormwater runoff volumes • Riparian corridors, floodway, and flood prone areas

o Restrict the development of impervious surfaces and other permanent structures in riparian areas

o Restore native riparian vegetation along the river’s edge o River put-ins and bridges should be low-impact and seasonally removable o Continue to discourage off-trail use along the riverbanks o Limit paved pathways in the riparian area • Wetland complexes and surrounding habitat

o No net loss of wetlands, after attempting to avoid impacts from development o Conserve all existing wetlands that have not been severely altered

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

o Restore wetlands that have been tilled, drained, or bisected by roads o Maintain natural drainage patterns between wetlands o Maintain a minimum buffer of 60m around permanent wetlands

Natural and Semi-Natural Land Cover • Grasslands

o Undisturbed native grassland is rare in the region, and the remaining patches of native cover must be preserved

o Planting following disturbances should be done with native species where ever possible, coupled with active removal of non-native species in the area. These efforts must be followed with monitoring and maintenance to ensure that intended re-establishment occurs • Trees

o Monitor and protect undisturbed cottonwood stands and recruitment habitats o Avoid planting of ornamental introduced species in public areas, and encourage the planting of native species on private lands

o Monitor beaver populations in recruitment areas, to ensure that cottonwood saplings and seedlings are allowed to reach maturity. Protect the bases of mature trees from beaver by wrapping with wire mesh. In areas with low recruitment, maintain beaver populations to ensure clonal regrowth • Grasses and shrubs

o Control populations of invasive weeds near wet areas or native habitats using biocontrols o Identify and eradicate small expanding weed infestations (using appropriate techniques) o Use grazing to control weeds and maintain ecosystem health and biodiversity • Natural contiguous habitat patches

o Preferentially avoid disturbing large patches of native vegetation o Developments should occur from the edge into of natural land cover, and not from the centre o Bundle disturbances together to reduce perforation and fragmentation of natural land cover

Landforms • Development or degradation of steep slopes should be avoided, and water management in the areas above these steep slopes should ensure that runoff and ground saturation is prevented. Slumping is a critical concern in these areas • Slumping areas should be well signed, and managed to ensure that non-native vegetation does not become established • Northern aspects of steep slopes should be preferentially avoided • Clean up debris dumped in coulees to discourage further dumping and install signs prohibiting dumping • Ensure an adequate set-back from the valley edge, appropriate for soil conditions and expected hydrological regimes

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Wildlife Connectivity • The loss of remaining natural land cover should be preferentially avoided where possible, bundling new developments with existing disturbances. If the development of remaining native habitats cannot be avoided, ensure that important wildlife corridors are retained, and that high intensity disturbances (e.g., loud noises, bright lights, active transportation routes) are located on the interior of developed areas. • Maintain a ‘Dark Sky’ policy for the River Valley and the surrounding valley setback region

o Artificial lighting can disrupt foraging patterns, dispersal movements, and circadian rhythm, as well as increase predation risk and road mortality (Beier 1995; Beier 2005). Habitat connectivity is also reduced for species that avoid crossing or cross less frequently through structures with artificial light (Ketchum et al. 2016) • An assessment of potential gap crossing is recommended to capture the movement of species of concern that disperse by flight, and identify important stepping stones (e.g. stop-over locations) that provide connectivity for local movements and migration routes • Potential high wildlife movement flow areas outside the river valley system include:

o Eastern linear strip corridors: both of these potential corridors are structurally continuous; they follow a dirt road, and a grassy strip along a canal through the surrounding agricultural landscape. In the field, people were observed using the more southern strip to jog and walk their dogs, the northern strip was not visited. The southern portion also connects to the east to Wetland Complex 9. There is the potential to provide brush cover and trees along this canal to allow facilitated passage from north to south along the eastern edge of the city. As the city expands into Policy Area 3 and Policy Area 1 (Intermunicipal Development Plan; Oldman River Regional Services Commission 2004), it is potentially advantageous to incorporate this canal into an open space system that could be connected in the south, to the Eastern Handle of Six Mile Coulee, and in the north, near the Lethbridge Waste and Recycling Centre, into the river valley. This corridor could provide a future multipurpose active transportation loop through the city

o Western wetlands in agricultural areas: these areas should be considered on a site by site basis. Areas that are tilled and dry, as observed in the field, should not be considered as areas of relatively isolated high connectivity during dry years. This is the case since the connectivity was estimated from a wetland land cover, that did not take dry years (e.g. 2016) into account

o Henderson Lake Golf course: this is the largest open space patch in the city. The surrounding movement flow in the urban landscape is low, until it funnels into this large open space patch. All potential surrounding paths have far less resistance passing through this open space to traverse into any other location. It is advisable to verify with road mortality data (e.g. deer), to determine whether there are existing public safety concerns related to wildlife crossings through South Parkside Dr and Highway 4 • Conduct further studies on wildlife movement using local, field, and/or available datasets:

o Validate the corridors with high likelihood of wildlife movement predicted by this study. Potentially by placing camera traps in predicted corridors, and unpredicted structurally connected linear green open space corridors. If movement through the predicted corridor is not better than the randomly selected corridors, it is not a true movement corridor with high wildlife movement flow

o Evaluate whether existing road mortality data from available species datasets (e.g., rattlesnakes, deer, and coyotes), reflect areas of high movement flow that are pinched around or blocked by roads in the model

o Road mortality datasets (e.g., 311 Lethbridge City Services, road carcass collection pickup) can also be used independently to identify road mortality hotpots, for multiple or individual species, that are in need of speed reduction, warning signage, crossing structures, and/or fencing on or along roads to create safe wildlife passage 94

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

o Collect further information from local experts and citizens on wildlife crossings and road mortalities through an online or app-based citizen science program, such as the ‘Road Watch in the Pass’ program conducted by the Miistakis Institute

Biodiversity • Map and protect rare plants, lichens, and rare ecological communities • Monitor species of special concern or potential conflict • Develop a long-term monitoring program in conjunction with University researchers, provincial rare species experts, and community monitoring groups • Identify and mitigate environmental impacts prior to any development activities, therefore ensuring an opportunity to address actions which might impair ecological function and negatively impact biodiversity

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 APPENDIX A: Data Tables

Table 4. Ecological Ranking Criteria and Scoring PEA Criterion Category Sub-category Score Species of Concern Western Painted Turtle 0.80 Prairie Rattlesnake 0.60 Undisturbed Cottonwood <10 ha 0.40 Stands 10-50 ha 0.60 >50 ha 1.00 Recruitment Habitat 0.93 Landforms Steep Slopes 0.73 Northern Aspects 0.80 Natural Patches Contiguous Natural 2-5 ha 0.20 Patches 5-50 ha 0.40 50-200 ha 0.60 200-500 ha 0.80 >500 ha 1.00 Natural Cover Grass / Herbaceous 0.60 Grassland (Natural) 0.80 Poorly vegetated 0.33 Trees (non-urban) 0.87 Gravel bar 0.33 Semi-Natural Cover Cropland 0.33 Grassland (Agricultural) 0.47 Cemeteries / Golf 0.53 Courses Sports fields (Vegetated) 0.20 Open urban residential 0.40 Rural residential 0.40 Trees (urban) 0.40 Disturbed land 0.27 Road verge 0.20 Rivers and Streams Oldman River 1.00 Higher order streams 0.73 (5,6,7) Permanency Seasonal 0.53

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Wetlands Semi-Permanent 0.73 Permanent 0.93 Surrounding Habitat Natural 1.00 within 30m (>60% cover) Semi-Natural 0.73 Managed 0.40 Cropland 0.33 Complex 0.73 Catchment Linear relationship Naturalization assumed Riparian Floodplain 0.60 Wildlife Connectivity Linear relationship assumed

Table 5. Land Cover Classes and Description

Primary Secondary Class Description Naturalness Class Agriculture Cropland Agricultural areas that have been Semi-natural visibly tilled Grassland Areas that are dominantly grassland Semi-natural (Agricultural) which also include areas that are used for pasture that are within agricultural areas. Artificial Unvegetated Poorly vegetated man-made ponds, Semi-natural Waterbodies reservoirs, or dugouts. Typically surrounded by rocks, planted grass, or native grass/forbes. Unvegetated man- made waterbodies provide little cover for nesting birds or other habitat. Man- made ponds in urban or industrial areas created to store surface runoff (stormwater ponds). Vegetated Well vegetated man-made ponds, Semi-natural reservoirs, or dugouts. Typically surrounded by native or non-native shrubs and/or trees in additional to grass/forbes. Vegetated man-made waterbodies offer habitat opportunities for nesting birds and other wildlife. Developed Buildings The structural building. Non-natural Business/Commercial Business and commercial parcels Non-natural lot which often include parking lots and associated commercial infrastructure.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Formal trails Trails that are paved and formal trails. Non-natural Local rural roads Small local rural roads that are often Non-natural dirt roads or leading into residential lots. Local streets Local streets in urban neighbourhoods. Non-natural Major highway Major highways that typically have 2-4 Non-natural lanes of traffic. Industrial lot Areas with industrial parcels including Non-natural more urban work sites with parking lots and bigger work sites involving excavation. Other areas in this class include agricultural work sites including yards and storage facilities and feedlots. Minor highway Minor highways that typically have 2 Non-natural lanes of traffic. Railroad Railroad Non-natural Rural residential lot Rural residential parcels which include Non-natural a lot often has maintained grass with some surrounding vegetation. Urban open paved Urban open paved space including Non-natural space various open paved areas, sidewalks, and back alley gravel laneways Natural Grass / herbaceous Grassy areas with varying amounts of Natural Vegetation bushes Grassland (Natural) Areas that are dominantly grassland in Natural non-agricultural areas. Poorly vegetated Poorly vegetated areas that can Natural include rocks, planted grass, or native grass/forbes. This includes vegetation on steep slopes. Road verge Grass that is often maintained on the Semi-natural side of roads. This includes some larger islands of land within major highway turnabouts. Trees (non-urban) Single trees and stands of trees that Natural are outside of urban areas and rural residential lots. Disturbed land Areas that are bare ground, walking / Semi-natural biking trails, and vegetated dog parks. Informal trails Informal trails that are mostly disturbed Semi-natural bare ground. Natural Ephemeral wet areas Single trees and stands of trees that Natural Waterbodies are within urban areas and rural residential lots.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Permanent wetlands ¹ Ephemeral Wetlands: typically have Natural free surface water for only a short period of time after snowmelt or storm events in early spring. Because of the porous condition of the soils, the rate of water seepage from ephemeral wetlands is very rapid after thawing of the underlying frost seal. They may be periodically covered by standing or slow moving water. Water is retained long enough to establish some wetland or aquatic processes. They are typically dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, goldenrod and other wetland or low prairie species. Class II - Temporary Wetlands are periodically covered by standing or slow moving water. They typically have open water for only a few weeks after snowmelt or several days after heavy storm events. Water seepage is fairly rapid, but surface water usually lingers for a few weeks after spring snowmelt and for several days after heavy rainstorms at other times of the year. Water is retained long enough to establish wetland or aquatic processes. They are dominated by wet meadow vegetation such as fine-stemmed grasses, sedges and associated forbs. Seasonal wetlands ¹ Permanent Ponds and Lakes: contain Natural permanent open water in central zone that is generally devoid of vegetation. Submerged plants may be present in the deepest zone, while emergent plants are found along the edges. Plants commonly present in these wetlands include cattails, red swampfire and spiral ditchgrass. Semi-permanent ¹ Seasonal Ponds and Lakes: Natural wetlands characterized by shallow marsh vegetation, which generally occurs in the deepest zone (usually dry by midsummer). These wetlands are typically dominated by emergent wetland grasses, sedges and rushes. Green Cemeteries / golf Privately owned open green space. Semi-natural Space courses These are cemeteries and golf courses. Open urban Open green space or parks in urban Semi-natural residential residential areas that does not include sports fields and amenities.

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Urban Residential lot Urban residential parcel, which Semi-natural includes a front and/or backyard surrounding a residential building. Open industrial Open industrial areas that are most Semi-natural often bare ground with some grasses and vegetation. Sports amenities Areas that have sports amenities like Semi-natural baseball diamonds, tennis courts, and exercise structures. Sports amenities Areas that have sports amenities like Semi-natural (vegetated) baseball diamonds, tennis courts, and exercise structures that have surrounding vegetation on their lots. Sports fields Sports fields that are used for various Semi-natural activities that do not have vegetation on their lots. Sports fields Sports fields that are used for various Semi-natural (vegetated) activities that have surrounding vegetation on their lots. Trees (urban) Single trees and stands of trees that Semi-natural are inside urban areas and rural residential lots. Rivers River channel River channel Natural River tributary River tributary Natural Gravel bar Shoreline gravel and sand bar along Natural the major river.

Table 6. Land Cover Classes and Friction Values Friction Value Secondary Class Primary Class 99 Building Developed

80 Major Highway Developed

75 Unvegetated Artificial Waterbodies

75 Vegetated Artificial Waterbodies

70 Minor Highway Developed

65 Railroad Developed

60 Local Streets Developed

58 River channel Rivers

57 Industrial lot Developed

100

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 56 Business / Commercial lot Developed

50 Permanent wetlands Natural Waterbodies

47 Semi-permanent wetlands Natural Waterbodies

46 Urban Open Paved Space Developed

45 Urban Residential lot Green Space

43 Road Verge Green Space

40 Sports Amenities Green Space

39 Open Industrial lot Green Space

37 Sports Fields Green Space

36 Trees (urban) Green Space

33 Disturbed Land Natural Vegetation

29 Sports Amenities (Vegetated) Green Space

28 Sports fields (Vegetated) Green Space

28 Open Urban Residential Space Green Space

27 Local Rural Roads Developed

22 Rural Residential Lot Green Space

20 Cemeteries / Golf Courses Green Space

19 Paved Trails Developed

17 Informal Trails Developed

16 Cropland Agriculture

15 Grassland (Agricultural) Agriculture

15 River tributary Rivers

12 Seasonal Wetlands Natural Vegetation

7 Ephemeral Wet Areas Natural Waterbodies

5 Poorly Vegetated Natural Vegetation

4 Gravel Bar Natural Vegetation

3 Trees (Non-urban) Natural Vegetation

2 Grass / Herbaceous Natural Vegetation

1 Grassland (Natural) Natural Vegetation

101

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

102

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 APPENDIX B: GIS Methodology

5.2 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Processing O2 received LiDAR point cloud data provided by the City of Lethbridge and processed it into a 1m resolution DEM and Digital Surface Model (DSM). The data did not cover the entirety of the region so a second DEM with an unknown lower resolution provided by the City of Lethbridge from the Lethbridge Integrated Growth Management Strategy project was used. Both rasters were clipped around the edges of their extent to eliminate outliers. The edges of the DEM included values that were well beyond the possible range of the area, and are a construct from processing. The former, higher resolution raster, was mosaicked to the latter, lower resolution raster, and used to generate a hillshade image for cartographic output, an aspect raster, and a slope raster. The slope raster was both generated in percent. for use in the connectivity analysis; and in degrees for identification of steep slopes. ESRI's Spatial Analyst was used to create all DEM-derived raster products.

5.3 Land Cover Classification

5.3.1 Initial Data Initially O2 received the following list of data that was used to generate the Land Cover layer: • Buildings Footprints (source: City of Lethbridge) • Parcels (source: City of Lethbridge) • Roads and Railways (source: GeoBase, City of Lethbridge) • Trails (source: City of Lethbridge, from previous O2 RVPMP project) • LiDAR (source: City of Lethbridge) • River Valley Sustainability Plan (RVSP) land cover (source: City of Lethbridge, from previous O2 project) • Lethbridge Integrated Growth Management Plan DEM (source: City of Lethbridge, from previous O2 project) • Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) land cover (source: ASRD) • Aerial Imagery 2015 (source: City of Lethbridge)

5.3.2 Data Pre-Processing

• The Buildings layer was corrected for topology errors, such as overlapping features, slivers, and gaps. • The Roads layer was updated and new roads were digitized using manual interpretation of Aerial Imagery 2015. In order to be used in the Land Cover layer, all roads were buffered based on width information. • The Trails layer was verified for topological errors and geometric repair. This file was not modified. • The Tree Canopy layer was developed using DSM and a reverse watershed delineation method (Please see Section 2.3.1.1 Trees for a more thorough description). • The Parcels layer was corrected for topology errors, and parcels types were interpreted based on the Aerial Imagery and percent of building types within a parcel.

103

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 • The Wetlands layer (Wetland Permanency) was developed by manual interpretation and digitization based on the Aerial Imagery 2015 and several seasons/years of Google Earth Imagery (Please see Appendix B Section 5.5 for a more thorough description). • The land cover classes from the updated RVSP and GVI land cover layers were regrouped and renamed into new classes.

5.3.3 Merging Process When all datasets were pre-processed to have the same land cover classes, they were merged in the following order/priority -overlapping features of the higher priority datasets overrode the features of the lower priority datasets (the lower the number the higher the priority): 1. Buildings 2. Roads 3. Tree Canopy 4. Parcels 5. Wetlands 6. RVSP 7. GVI Once these layers were combined, gaps were identified and manually digitized using the Aerial Imagery. Finally, the resulting dataset was reviewed and edited manually.

Table 7. Land Cover Classes and Origins Class Name Naturalness Acquisition Method Source data Manual digitization and ARTIFICIAL WATERBODIES rough classification of SEMINATURAL O2_WETLANDS (UNVEGETATED) wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective Manual digitization and ARTIFICIAL WATERBODIES rough classification of SEMINATURAL O2_WETLANDS (VEGETATED) wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective Buildings dataset received BUILDINGS NON-NATURAL from the City with fixed BUILDINGS topology Manual interpretation from Aerial Imagery 2015 using BUSINESS LOT NON-NATURAL Digitization and Parcels PARCELS_FIXED feature classes with fixed topology Manual interpretation from Aerial Imagery 2015 using CEMETERIES / GOLF SEMI-NATURAL Digitization and Parcels PARCELS_FIXED COURSES feature classes with fixed topology Interpretation of RVSP CROPLAND SEMI-NATURAL RVSP, GVI and O2_GAPS project and GVI data

104

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Class Name Naturalness Acquisition Method Source data Interpretation of RVSP DISTURBED LAND SEMI-NATURAL RVSP project data

Manual digitization and rough classification of EPHEMERAL WET AREAS NATURAL O2_WETLANDS wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective O2_ROADS is a dataset based on buffered roads EXTERNAL RURAL ROADS NON-NATURAL after additional delineation O2_ROADS a few new roads and adding width Interpretation of RVSP GRASS / HERBACEOUS NATURAL RVSP, GVI and O2_GAPS project and GVI data GRASSLAND Interpretation of RVSP SEMI-NATURAL RVSP and GVI (AGRICULTURAL) project and GVI data Interpretation of RVSP GRASSLAND (NATURAL) NATURAL RVSP, GVI and O2_GAPS project and GVI data Interpretation of RVSP GRAVEL BAR NATURAL RVSP, GVI and O2_GAPS project and GVI data Interpretation of Parcel PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP and INDUSTRIAL LOT NON-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery GVI 2016, RVSP and GVI Interpretation of RVPMP INFORMAL TRAILS SEMI-NATURAL RVPMP data Roads data from GeoBase and City of Lethbridge was LOCAL STREETS NON-NATURAL updated and buffered in O2_ROADS order to have roads outlines Roads data from GeoBase and City of Lethbridge was MAJOR HWY NON-NATURAL updated and buffered in O2_ROADS order to have roads outlines Roads data from GeoBase and City of Lethbridge was MINOR HWY NON-NATURAL updated and buffered in O2_ROADS order to have roads outlines Interpretation of Parcel OPEN INDUSTRIAL SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery PARCELS_FIXED, GVI 2016 and GVI Interpretation of Parcel PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP and OPEN URBAN RESIDENTIAL SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery GVI 2016, RVSP and GVI Interpretation of RVSP PAVED TRAILS NON-NATURAL RVSP data

PERMANENT WETLANDS NATURAL Manual digitization and O2_WETLANDS rough classification of

105

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Class Name Naturalness Acquisition Method Source data wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective Interpretation of Parcel PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP and POORLY VEGETATED NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery GVI 2016, RVSP and GVI Roads data from GeoBase was updated and buffered RAILROAD NON-NATURAL O2_ROADS in order to have roads outlines Manual digitization and rough classification of RIVER CHANNEL NATURAL O2_WETLANDS wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective Manual digitization and rough classification of RIVER TRIBUTARY NATURAL O2_WETLANDS wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective Interpretation of Parcel PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP and ROAD VERGE SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery GVI 2016, RVSP and GVI Interpretation of Parcel PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP and RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOT SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery GVI 2016, RVSP and GVI Manual digitization and rough classification of SEASONAL WETLANDS NATURAL O2_WETLANDS wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective Manual digitization and SEMI-PERMANENT rough classification of NATURAL O2_WETLANDS WETLANDS wetlands from wildlife connectivity perspective Interpretation of Parcel SPORTS AMENITIES NON-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP 2016 and RVSP data Interpretation of Parcel SPORTS AMENITIES SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery PARCELS_FIXED (VEGETATED) 2016 Interpretation of Parcel PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP and SPORTS FIELDS SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery GVI 2016, RVSP and GVI Interpretation of Parcel SPORTS FIELDS SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP (VEGETATED) 2016, RVSP Developed using TREECANOPY, RVSP and TREES (NON-URBAN) NATURAL watershed method using GVI LiDAR (DEM and DSM) Developed using O2_TREECANOPY and TREES (URBAN) SEMI-NATURAL watershed method using PARCELS_FIXED LiDAR (DEM and DSM)

106

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Class Name Naturalness Acquisition Method Source data Interpretation of Parcel PARCELS_FIXED, RVSP and URBAN OPEN PAVED NON-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery GVI 2016, RVSP and GVI Interpretation of Parcel URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOT SEMI-NATURAL based on Aerial Imagery PARCELS_FIXED 2016

5.4 Watershed Delineation Analysis

5.4.1.1 Terrain Processing Surface drainage and catchment area for the City of Lethbridge and its surrounding landscape were determined using topographic data based on the basic principle that water drains and accumulates from higher elevation areas to lower elevation. All hydrological analyses were based on a 1m scale digital elevation model (DEM) provided by the City of Lethbridge and delineated using the ArcHydro tools available from ESRI. Flow direction and accumulation across the study area was calculated based on a localized digital elevation model and the flow accumulation/direction tools in ArcHydro, which identify the direction of flow within each cell of the elevation raster based on the assumption that surface water will flow from cells of higher elevation to the adjacent cell with the lowest elevation. The direction of flow can be used to identify the number of cells, for each cell of the raster, that will contribute flow into the given cell. In this manner, cells with the highest accumulated flow are considered to be drainage lines which indicate the most probably path that water will flow in the landscape. Prior to identifying flow direction, internally draining cells in the accumulation raster were artificially ‘filled’ using an iterative algorithm. In this manner, cells with no ‘outflow’ are hydrologically connected to an adjacent cell to remove cells with internal drainage.

5.4.1.2 Surface Drainage Network and Stream Order Several methods for determining appropriate accumulation thresholds for surface drainage network delineation have been explored. For example, the USGS Elevation Derivatives for National Applications (http://edna.usgs.gov/) uses a default accumulation value of 5000 based on 30x30 m cells which yields a catchment area threshold of 4.5 km², but this was not suitable for the study area at the cell size of the base DEM (1 m). Other USGS methods for stream generation include using an estimated accumulated runoff objective of 1 cfs as a threshold for generating hydrologically significant streams (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012). This method identifies major surface streams but can miss surface drainage channels that are highly intermittent but relevant during high precipitation events. The default setting in ArcHydro is to use 1% of the total raster area, which was 0.7 km². This was tested against three additional catchment thresholds of 0.25 km², 0.5 km², and 1 km² to determine an appropriate threshold for the study area based on average catchment size and whether major stream branches derived from the topographic modelling matched known surface stream locations. A base accumulation threshold of 1 km² yielded the best results. Stream order was determined based on the Stahler (1957) method where stream order is additive from upstream to downstream (Figure 31). Stream orders derived using this method and based on the catchment threshold of 1 km² should indicate ephemeral headwaters areas as stream orders 1-4 where surface flow occurs only during precipitation events, while stream orders 5-7 are well correlated with well-delineated channels of perennial surface flow and associated lotic (riparian) vegetation.

107

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 23. An example of stream order classification based on the modified Horton (1945) method by Strahler (1957). Citation: Endreny 2003. It should be noted that the use of the term ‘streams’ to describe the drainage channels, derived from the ArcHydro tools is a bit misleading. The flow accumulation and flow direction tools identify direction and accumulation of surface water movement based on some key assumptions: 1) water flows downhill (which is generally true); 2) surfaces are impermeable and therefore water accumulation across the surface is preserved (generally not true). As a result, the ‘streams’ derived from this method actually represent potential surface water movement and accumulation, and therefore, do not directly correlate with the presence of surface streams. These are ‘most likely’ paths of surface drainage. However, because the model does not take into account the characteristics of surficial material, whether or not these ‘most likely paths’ actually result in ephemeral (temporary) or perennial (permanent) water flow at the surface, depends on the characteristics of the ground cover. Locations with little contributing area, but with hard surfaces may have water flow at the surface, because there is little or no infiltration of precipitation into the ground. On the other hand, areas with large contributing areas, but very permeable ground cover, like sand or gravel, may have no actual surface streams present, but actually accommodate a large volume of water, since the water infiltrates and moves below ground as groundwater. There is no way of determining definitively which ‘streams’ are actually going to be surface streams without a complex model that includes soils and surficial materials. However, in general the further ‘downstream’ you are within the network, the more contributing surface flow, the more likely that a given segment will manifest as a surface stream. Stream ordering can, therefore, be used as a proxy indicator to determine the likelihood that our drainage network segments are going to actually show up as a surface stream. For example, the stream ordering tool used in ArcHydro is based on a modified Strahler (1957) method. The Strahler method of order classification (as with most methods of stream ordering) takes an additive approach, starting with a stream order of 1 for the upper-most stream segments and moving ‘downstream’, all stream segments increase in order (1 --> 2 --> 3) when two streams of the same order intersect. In this manner, higher order streams correlate with segments that receive a magnitude higher amount of flow from 'upstream' segments. In the diagram below, stream orders of 1 receive the least flow, while stream order 3 receives the most flow.

108

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Figure 24. An example of stream order classification based on the modified Horton (1945) method by Strahler (1957). Citation: ESRI 2016 The concern with stream ordering is that it is entirely dependent on the density of the drainage network, because it is an additive representation of the number of ‘segments’ or ‘branches’ in the network. The larger the study area, the more branches there will be, and therefore, the higher the stream orders will be. So a static stream order cannot be used to define which stream segments will show up as surface streams, it is different for every study area. For Lethbridge, in general, stream orders higher than 4 were correlated with actual streams. But since this is a model based on some limiting assumptions, there is no way to reliably predict which segments of order 5+ will actually be surface streams - reality is more complex, and depends on things that the model cannot accommodate. This is particularly true with urban/disturbed areas (like the example you posted), where surface water flow is not actually based on natural topographic slope, but where surface drainage is controlled, modified, and redirected into stormwater systems. In general, environmental models tend to perform very poorly in urban landscapes because most of the basic assumptions are not reliable; there may have previously been a naturally occurring surface stream there, but alteration of the surface has since changed the way that water moves through and across these surfaces. Within the urban environment, our surface drainage model performed poorly. The resulting streams indicate general direction and accumulation of potential surface flow, but do not reliably indicate actual surface flow through the built environment (which is primarily controlled by the stormwater management system). Unfortunately, a detailed model of Lethbridge's stormwater system, to improve this process, is outside the scope of this study, which focuses on the ecological value of natural areas.

5.4.1.3 Catchments Catchments for each stream segment were generated based on the 1 km² surface drainage network and outflow points were identified for each stream branch associated with each catchment. Edge effects were noted for catchments along the study area where catchments artificially ended at the bounding coordinates of the topographic data, creating cut-off catchment polygons. Elevation along the periphery of the study area therefore had to be re-sampled to match the primary DEM for the study area from a separate DEM with a larger coverage area. This was done to provide additional topographic data outside the study area, which was required to reduce error and adjust for boundary effects in the analysis. Catchment boundaries and delineated surface flow were used preferentially from the base DEM with 1 m cell size to minimize error associated with resampling and larger cell sizes (Azizian and Shokoohi 2014).

5.4.1.4 Watersheds Contributing area for stream order 5 or greater were delineated as a separate dataset to differentiate catchments areas for major streams with semi-permanent or permanent stream flow (and associated lotic vegetation) from catchments associated with ephemeral drainage channels.

109

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 5.5 Identification and Classification of Waterbodies Waterbodies within the study area were identified and delineated using aerial imagery. The primary dataset used for identification and delineation was a 20x20 cm georeferenced true-color raster obtained from the City of Lethbridge for 2015. Where multi-year comparisons were required, additional aerial imagery datasets were obtained from Google Earth for various time periods, including May 2016; November 2014; August 2013; December 2012; September 2012; June 2012; May 2010; July 2007; and April 2004. All waterbodies were digitized based on the primary dataset and delineated to the high water mark. Waterbodies were divided into preliminary hierarchical classes (primary, secondary, and tertiary class) based on degree of naturalness, and permanency (Table 5). Primary waterbody classes included natural waterbodies, artificial waterbodies, and rivers (Table 6). Secondary classes for natural waterbodies included ephemeral wet areas, seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent wetlands, and permanent wetlands (Table 7). No natural lakes were identified in the study area, and no tertiary class was identified for natural waterbodies. Secondary classes for artificial waterbodies included poorly vegetated and well vegetated bodies based on vegetation cover around the waterbody perimeter. Tertiary classes included ponds and dugouts (Table 8). Secondary classes for rivers included river channels and river tributaries. Tertiary classes included man-made canals. Primary and secondary feature classes for artificial waterbodies and rivers were identified based on characteristics such as shape, presence of water, apparent water color and clarity, perimeter vegetation color and texture, and surrounding land use. Primary and secondary feature classes for natural waterbodies were based on presence of absence of three critical attributes: presence of open water during spring freshet conditions compared over multiple years (April or May), presence of water during the dry season compared over multiple years (August-September), and presence or absence of permanent riparian and aquatic vegetation. These attributes were used in a decision tree to determine permanency (Figure 34). Presence of water over seasons/years was identified by comparing multiple years of imagery from Google Earth (see description of imagery years, above). Permanent riparian vegetation was identified wherever possible based on the primary aerial imagery from 2015, and expert opinion and experience. Permanent riparian vegetation types included cattails, reed grasses, and sedges. Ephemeral wet areas, in particular, are locations where water is present only during the spring freshet, but is present long enough for riparian vegetation to establish such as sedges and hydrophilic grasses. Some wet areas, for example, may fill up with water after a precipitation event, but will not contain water long enough to support wetland vegetation. Because classification was done through aerial imagery, multiple years of images had to be compared to identify wet areas that were present from year to year. Delineating the ephemeral wet areas was challenging because consistent imagery was not available for multiple years to compare seasonal water retention. Wet areas that were tilled through most years were considered to be unviable as functional ephemeral wetlands and were not delineated. Since some wet areas were transiently tilled (tilled one year but not the next), which means we may have missed some legitimate ephemeral wetlands because they happened to be tilled through for the years we had imagery available from Google Earth.

Table 8. Preliminary Waterbody Typology Primary Class Secondary Class Tertiary Class Ephemeral Wet Areas N/A Seasonal Wetlands N/A Natural Waterbodies Semi-Permanent Wetlands N/A Permanent Wetlands N/A Pond Poorly Vegetated Artificial Waterbodies Dugout Pond

110

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Dugout Vegetated Reservoir River Channel N/A Rivers Canal River Tributary N/A

Table 9. Primary Class Descriptions for all Waterbodies Primary Class Description Natural Waterbodies Lentic waterbodies where hydrological characteristics and naturally occurring vegetation are largely unaltered by human activity. Artificial Waterbodies Lentic waterbodies where human activity has significantly changed the hydrologic regime or the present riparian and aquatic vegetation. Rivers All lotic waterbodies.

Table 10. Secondary Class Descriptions for Natural Waterbodies Secondary Class Description Ephemeral Wet Areas Wetlands or wet areas that hold free surface water for only a short period of time during spring freshet. These wetlands typically do not have riparian vegetation, or may include sedges, fine-stemmed grasses, or forbs. Seasonal Wetlands Wetlands that hold water most years, but are dry in the summer or fall and which contain permanent riparian vegetation such as emergent wetland grasses, sedges, and rushes/cattails. Semi-Permanent Wetlands Wetlands that hold surface water year-round, but may occasionally become dry for part of the year in very dry years. These wetlands usually include emergent and submergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and pondweeds. Permanent Wetlands Wetlands that hold water year round, over multiple years and include an open water zone that is devoid of vegetation, and perimeter with riparian vegetation.

Table 11. Secondary and Tertiary Class Descriptions for Artificial Waterbodies Tertiary Class Description Vegetated Artificial Waterbodies Artificial waterbodies with and intact fringe or perimeter containing riparian vegetation. Poorly Vegetated Artificial Waterbodies Artificial waterbodies where perimeter vegetation is absent or severely disturbed.

111

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Pond Man-made ornamental and stormwater ponds. Dugout Man-made ponds created for primarily agricultural purposes (irrigation or watering livestock).

Table 12. Secondary and Tertiary Class Descriptions for Rivers Tertiary Class Description River Channel Mainstem river channels. Within this study area this included the main river channel for the Oldman River. River Tributary Creeks and ephemeral drainages with free- flowing surface water for at least part of the year. Canal Man-made water channels with lotic (flowing) water, usually established for irrigation or stormwater purposes.

5.6 Inverse Watershed Delineation Analysis to Identify Tree Canopy Cover Tree canopy cover was extracted using available LiDAR data using an inverse watershed delineation method. This method was adapted by combining methods (i.e., Plowright 2015; Bigelow, et al. 2016; Swamer and Houser 2012) and concepts (Rahman and Gorte 2008) from several similar existing, mostly unpublished, methodologies delineating tree canopy cover from LiDAR. Firstly, values below zero are removed from the LiDAR derived normalized digital surface model (1m resolution), since the focus is tree canopy cover and not watershed basins. Secondly, the surface is inverted. Thirdly, a threshold value is determined, through visualization, that cuts out most of the low lying vegetation, undergrowth, and building roofs, but retains the tree crowns. Anything below this threshold is eliminated and the remaining tall anthropogenic features, such as tall power lines, lamp posts, large shipping containers, gulleys and ravines, cranes, bridges, and silos are cleaned using the Aerial Imagery and the Building Footprints layer to facilitate the process. The methodology simulates the flow of water from cells of higher value into cells of lower value. The flow, therefore, goes from the edges of the crown into the tree peak. For a single deciduous tree, there may sometimes be several visualized peaks, due to their being several connected branches of similar heights.

Figure 25. Thresholding the inverted normalized digital surface model to a value that omits low lying vegetation, undergrowth, and building roofs as much as possible (Rahman and Gorte 2008).

112

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Areas of high flow accumulation are identified as tree peaks and crowns, which are then segmented into individual tree crowns to generate a segmented tree canopy cover layer. The resulting layer was then further cleaned of any missed tall anthropogenic features using the Aerial Imagery.

5.7 Circuit Theory Analysis of Wildlife Connectivity Connectivity was calculated by estimating the ability of a medium-large sized species (e.g. deer) to move through the landscape. This mid-sized species generalization was considered capable of crossing streams, and large enough that the density of vegetation from grassland to shrubs would increase resistance to movement. The difficulty with which a species moves through the landscape is termed resistance or friction. The model was built in an iterative three-step process by integrating expert knowledge within the criteria identification, model building, and model revision (Dickson et al. 2013). Only slope and land cover were considered as additive criteria for the friction surface, since the model is not species-specific and is a generalized multispecies movement model. Firstly, the rank order of the friction for the land cover categories was determined, based on expert consensus opinion, prior to assigning friction values to these categories. After determining a rank order of increasing land cover friction, experts quantified the degree to which one land cover type was more resistant to another. These values were averaged and were run in the first iteration of the circuit model. The subsequent iterations were refined by visualization of the results, followed by further expert consensus opinion decision-making on the friction of land cover types. For example, open spaces designed for sports were further divided into paved or modified sports amenities (e.g., baseball diamonds, tennis courts) and maintained grass sports fields (e.g. soccer or multi-use sports fields) to differentiate between areas that provided more or less cover for wildlife movement. The iteration process was also used to adjust for error (e.g. In the first run, the linear habitat strips under bridges were not digitized, artificially severing connectivity north- south completely at Whoop-Up Dr bridge. In the second run, these linear strips were included, which more realistically estimated the funneling of north-south movement through this narrow strip under the highway). This friction surface was created by normalizing a percent slope surface from 1 to 100 and adding it to the Land Cover layer, which was assigned friction values also on a scale of 1 to 100, based on the estimated resistance to movement. The connectivity surface was then calculated using a circuit theory algorithm in Circuitscape (McRae et al. 2008) from the expert based friction surface. This method assumes a random walk model for the species where the animal’s movement is simulated as an electrical current that flows from a source towards a sink through several resistors (land cover types with differing friction values). A tiling method (Pelletier et al. 2014) was also applied, which divides the surface into tiles, allowing higher and faster resolution processing. The cell size for the analysis was selected as 1m, in order to better capture any significant micro-corridors that might cross through urban areas. For each tile, connectivity was processed in all four directions to simulate travel from one edge of the tile to another by the path of least resistance from the four cardinal directions (i.e., North, South, East, West).

5.8 Natural Contiguous Patches In order to identify natural contiguous patches, natural features were selected from the Natural Semi-Natural layer. Features were converted to a binary raster with natural features assigned a value of 1 and non-natural features assigned a value of 0. The binary raster was grouped using the Region Group tool in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst using a spatial connectivity setting of four. This ensures that cells from two features that are connected only by the diagonal corners of individual pixels are not considered as one group. The resulting raster was converted to polygons and classified into discrete size classes based on the following rationale: Features were converted to a binary raster with natural features assigned a value of 1 and non-natural features assigned a value of 0. The binary raster was grouped using the Region Group tool in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst

113

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 using a spatial connectivity setting of four. This ensures that cells from two features that are connected only by the diagonal corners of individual pixels are not considered as one group.

5.9 Identification of Wetland Complexes Wetland complexes were identified by reclassifying the land cover raster into a binary wetlands raster, where wetlands have a value of 1 and all other classes have a value of 0. The wetland areas were region grouped using ArcGIS to assign unique wetland IDs to the wetlands. The Euclidean Distance tool in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst was used to buffer the wetlands to a distance of 100m. The resulting raster was reclassified to equal 1 and region grouped to assign unique complex IDs to each complex area and selected, if they contained two or more wetlands with a combined area of at least 0.5 ha. The complexes were then grouped by area using the same area classes as used in the natural patch class analysis (Section 2.3.1.4). The wetlands that fell within the complexes were selected and used to create a layer of wetlands that are part of a complex, and as such have additional ecological value.

114

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06

Permanent Yes Semi-Permanent Wetland Yes Is there free- Wetland standing water present year-round, for all years? Is there water Yes Seasonal Wetland No present year-round for most years? Presence of riparian Yes vegetation?

Is there water for No No part of the year for most years?

No Ephemeral Wetland

Figure 26. Wetland Permanency Decision Tree

115

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 APPENDIX C: Field Waypoint Locations

Table 13. Noxious Weed Locations Noxious Site Name Description Waypoint Latitude Longitude Weeds Agriculture Canada Thousands of downy brome plants Bromus 003 49.6788 -112.7685 on bank of canal tectorum Bromtec

Agriculture Canada Scattered Canada thistle in woods Cirsium 004 49.6773 112.7671 arvense Wetland

Alexander Wilderness Leafy spurge along side of shale Euphorbia 007 Euph 49.7378 -112.8506 Park Toplands and trail just S. of parking lot. esula Esu Slopes Discontinuous, but extends to at least WP 030 (and probably further).

Alexander Wilderness Small patch leafy spurge on foot Euphorbia 008 49.7388 -112.853 Park Toplands and path esula Euphesu Slopes Alexander Wilderness Leafy spurge - one plant Euphorbia 97 49.7394 -112.8519 Park Toplands and esula Slopes Alexander Wilderness Leafy spurge - patch at base of Euphorbia 28Euphesu 49.7396 -112.8526 Park Toplands and eroded slope esula Slopes Alexander Wilderness Leafy spurge along trail Euphorbia 30 Euphesu 49.7384 -112.8527 Park Toplands and esula Slopes Alexander Wilderness Leafy spurge along trail Euphorbia 030 shale 49.7384 -112.8527 Park Toplands and esula tral Slopes Alexander Wilderness Downy brome near parking lot Bromus 31 Bromtec 49.7378 -112.8500 Park Toplands and tectorum Slopes East Slopes Riparian Burdock growing beneath large Arctium sp. 343 49.6702 -112.8220 Islands and Areas willow on side of trail

East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge Euphorbia 040 49.6662 -112.8332 Islands and Areas esula euphesu East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge along river pathway Euphorbia 043 49.6661 -112.8409 Islands and Areas esula Euphesu East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge along river pathway Euphorbia 045 49.6664 -112.8423 Islands and Areas esula Euphesu East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge at base of Lethbridge Euphorbia 484 49.6685 -112.8439 Islands and Areas Country Club esula

East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge 493 49.6690 -112.8445 Islands and Areas

East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge Euphorbia 504 49.6676 -112.8438 Islands and Areas esula East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge common Euphorbia 051 49.6684 -112.8454 Islands and Areas esula Euphesu

116

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge Euphorbia 056 Ee Ca 49.6677 -112.8442 Islands and Areas esula, East Slopes Riparian Canada thistle Cirsium 056 Ee Ca 49.6677 -112.8442 Islands and Areas arvense East Slopes Riparian Leafy spurge Euphorbia 060 49.6691 -112.8277 Islands and Areas esula Euphesu Wetlands Downy brome in road ditch Bromus 114 49.7018 -112.914401 tectorum Popson Park Slopes Occasional Canada thistle from Cirsium 623 49.6405 -112.8606 road to lower slopes, north side. arvense

Popson Park Slopes Large patch of burdock in draw Arctium sp. 742 49.6393 -112.8702 Popson Park Slopes Scattered plants (50?) of leafy Euphorbia 832 49.6382 -112.8726 spurge down draw esula

Popson Park Slopes Large patch of burdock in draw, Arctium sp. 851 49.6388 -112.8698 extending 108 m (WP 861 to 901)

Popson Park Slopes Occasional leafy spurge in draw Euphorbia 851 49.6388 -112.8698 (WP 861-901) esula

Popson Park Slopes Occasional leafy spurge Euphorbia 861 49.6387 -112.8700 esula Popson Park Slopes Patch of Canada Thistle Cirsium 881 49.6389 -112.8692 arvense Popson Park Slopes Canada thistle on weedy pipeline Cirsium 911 49.6382 -112.8683 RoW arvense Popson Park Slopes Canada thistle on weedy pipeline Cirsium 921 49.6377 -112.8660 RoW arvense Popson Park Slopes Patches of Canada thistle in dog Cirsium 981 49.6390 -112.8612 park arvense Popson Park Slopes Patch of downy brome (no heads) in Bromus 981 49.6390 -112.8612 dog park tectorum

Bridge Drive Canada thistle, large patch Cirsium 1261 49.7039 -112.8778 arvense Bridge Valley Golf Burdock along base of coulees Arctium sp. 130 49.7023 -112.8741 Course Bridge Valley Golf Burdock along base of coulees Arctium sp. 131 49.7018 -112.8737 Course Elizabeth Hall Berm, leafy spurge along berm near Euphorbia 135 49.6999 -112.8690 Wetlands to High Level river bank esula Bridge Elizabeth Hall Leafy spurge Euphorbia 136 49.6990 -112.8692 Wetlands to High Level esula Bridge Bull Trail Park North Common mullein on eroded slopes Verbascum 140 49.6961 -112.8700 thapsus

117

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Bull Trail Park North Leafy spurge Euphorbia 146 49.6912 -112.8668 esula Bull Trail Park North Russian olive Eleagnus 147 49.6911 -112.8670 angustifolia Bull Trail Park South Leafy spurge Euphorbia 158 49.6842 -112.8571 esula Bull Trail Park South Leafy spurge Euphorbia 163 49.6839 -112.8591 esula Bull Trail Park South Leafy spurge Euphorbia 164 49.6840 -112.8595 esula Bull Trail Park South Leafy spurge Euphorbia 165 49.6848 -112.8608 esula Bull Trail Park South Burdock Arctium sp. 165 49.6848 -112.8608 Bull Trail Park South Lots of leafy spurge near pathway Euphorbia 167 49.6865 -112.8646 beneath Whoop Up Dr., south side esula Bull Trail Park South Leafy spurge Euphorbia 168 49.6889 -112.8674 esula Northwest Slopes Leafy spurge in upland area at base Euphorbia 179 49.7152 -112.8732 of coulee esula

Northwest Slopes Downy brome in patch on slump Bromus 183 49.7183 -112.8701 tectorum

Northwest Slopes Leafy spurge scattered in meadow Euphorbia 186 49.7222 -112.8644 and among cottonwoods esula

Northwest Slopes Leafy spurge along roadbed Euphorbia 188 49.7229 -112.8639 esula

Northwest Slopes Leafy spurge scattered throughout Euphorbia 190 49.7238 -112.8624 area esula

Northwest Slopes Leafy spurge in sandy terrace above Euphorbia 201 49.7298 -112.8561 river esula Northwest Slopes Large number of Leafy spurge Euphorbia 224 49.7254 -112.8590 esula Northwest Slopes Canada thistle and leafy spurge on Cirsium 235 49.7201 -112.8656 broad upper terrace arvensis Northwest Slopes Canada thistle and leafy spurge on Euphorbia 235 49.7201 -112.8656 broad upper terrace esula Northwest Slopes Burdock in Bridgeview RV resort Arctium sp. 239 49.7139 -112.8736

Table 14. Additional Field Observations Site Name Description Waypoint Latitude Longitude Six Mile Coulee One major slump near Highway 5 has 100 49.651567 -112.789982 Eastern Handle developed a saline pond on a midslope flat area and may support rare plants.

118

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Six Mile Coulee Large pile of landscaping debris (branches 101 49.651837 -112.789714 Eastern Handle and logs) pushed over coulee edge.

Six Mile Coulee An old shelterbelt of caragana (Caragana 102 49.652777 -112.788839 Eastern Handle arborescens) was planted along the edge of the coulee Wetland Complex 5 East side is not connected by a culvert to 112 49.7008 -112.9143819 1101. There are remnant patches of bottle sedge, water smartweed and salt crusts on the soil. Wetland Complex 5 Dugout, west of road. North of this site is a 113 49.7018 -112.9144368 canal and another dugout that is being pumped for irrigation. Wetland Complex 5 Wet meadow with dugout east of WP113. 114 49.7018 -112.9144011 North of the canal is another dugout in a wet meadow. Downy brome in ditch. Wetland 3 Probably a permanent shallow open water 115 49.7111 -112.9144957 wetland, although dry in 2016. Snail shells and dried aquatic vegetation in centre. Wetland Complex 2 A large wetland in tame pasture was 118 49.7197 -112.9045787 observed from the side of Crowsnest Highway (#3), south of the highway and east of the railway Bull Trail Park North A dense mass of black-knot fungus 138 49.6981 -112.8695 (Apiosporina morbosa) is growing on the chokecherry near the base of the viaduct. This is a highly infectious disease that reduces the aesthetic value of species in the Prunus family, such as mayday, Amur cherry, flowering plums, and apricots. High levels may eventually kill the plant (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2015). Few infected plants were seen elsewhere in the river valley. Bull Trail Park North Erosion at base of stairs 143 49.6926 -112.8700 Bull Trail Park North A semi-permanent shallow open-water 149 49.6891 -112.8638 and South Riparian wetland occurs at the north base of Whoop- Area up Drive, where it is fed by storm-water outflow. Bull Trail Park North A semi-permanent marsh lies on the south 152 49.6879 -112.8604 and South Riparian side of the bridge in a parallel position to the Area one on the north side Bull Trail Park North A large permanent shallow open-water 154 49.6866 -112.8615 and South Riparian wetland lies between Coal Banks Trail and

Area the river Bull Trail Park North A major stormwater outflow in Bull Trail Park 170 49.6905 -112.8687 and South Riparian North has carved a significant channel and is Area still actively eroding, resulting in a deep channel with little riparian zone. Bridgeview RV A large patch of willow leaf beetles (possibly 177 49.7136 -112.8722 Resort riparian area Altica subplicata) found on sand bar willows (Salix exigua or Salix interior)

119

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Six Mile Coulee Large pile of debris (cement and logs) pushed 195 49.651403 -112.779053 Eastern Handle over the coulee edge.

Battleship Island and A newly constructed bridge and riprap 444 49.6663 -112.8418 East Slopes Riparian crosses a deeply incised channel/creek Areas Popson Park Slopes Red three-awn (Aristida purpurea), a rare 652 49.6413 -112.8631 grass (S3 in Alberta, S1 for red three-awn community, was found at two locations. Popson Park Slopes Red three-awn community (Aristida purpurea) 781 to 821 49.6384 to -112.8725 to from WP 781 to 821. 49.6379 -112.8734

Popson Park Slopes A pipeline runs down a narrow coulee 999 49.63824 -112.86833 resulting in a sharp increase in disturbance species and weeds, including leafy spurge, a large patch of burdock (Arctium sp.) extending approximately 108m down the bottom of the draw, and Canada thistle Wetland Complex 5 On the west side there is currently a 1101 49.65732713 -112.8921011 permanent marsh with cattail, bottle sedge, and open water, and red-winged and yellow- headed blackbirds Wetland Complex 8 Dry and recently tilled. It has cattails and 1011 49.65295723 -112.8920745 dock. Bisected by road with no culvert. Possibly semi-permanent Wetland Complex 8 Dry and recently tilled. On the west side it has 1021 49.64747177 -112.8917703 cattails, great bulrush, dock, and foxtail barley. It is bisected by road with no culvert. The east side is in a drawdown phase with aquatic plants in mud. It is probably a semi- permanent wetland. Wetland Complex 8 Dry and recently tilled. On the east side it has 1031 49.64507966 -112.8921261 cattails, great bulrush, dock, and foxtail barley. It is bisected by a road with no culvert. It is possibly a semi-permanent wetland. Wetland Complex 8 Wetland behind house in tilled field. Possibly 1041 49.65732713 -112.8921011 semi-permanent

120

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 REFERENCES

Alberta Conservation Association. (2010, September). Reptiles of Alberta. Alberta Conservation Association. Retrieved from http://www.ab- conservation.com/downloads/educational_materials/brochures/aca_reptiles_of_alberta.pdf Alberta Environment and Parks, Fish & Wildlife. (2014, April 14). Wild Species. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wild-species/default.aspx Amlin, N. M. (2000, December). Influences of Drought and Flood Stresses. MSc. Thesis dissertation. Alberta, Canada: University of Lethbridge. Andrus, W. (n.d.). Ecology and Conservation of Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridus viridus) in Relation to Movement in a Fragmented Urban Environment. MSc. Thesis dissertation. 2010: Department of Biology, University of Lethbridge. Azizian, A., & Shokoohi, A. (2014). DEM resolution and stream delineation threshold effects on the results of geomorphic-based rainfall runoff models. Turkish Journal of Engineering & Environmental Sciences, 38: 64-78. City of Lethbridge. (2010). Integrated Community Sustainability Plan / Municipal Development Plan. Lethbridge, Alberta: City of Lethbridge. City of Lethbridge. (2015). Lethbridge Census Online 2015 Census Results. Lethbridge. City of Lethbridge, N. C. (n.d.). Living with Rattlesnakes in Lethbridge: what you should know. Retrieved 2015 йил 5-May from Teach and Learn: Plant and Wildlife Resources: http://www.lethbridge.ca/Things-To- Do/Nature-Centre/Documents/Rattlesnake%20Brochure%202013.pdf Clipperton, G. K. (2003). Instream flow needs determinations for the South Saskatchewan River. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Environment. Cottonwood Consultants Ltd. (1987). Priority Ecological Areas in the Oldman River Region County of Lethbridge. Lethbridge, Alberta. Endreny, T. (2003). Fluvial Geomorphology Module. Retrieved April 2016, from UCAR COMET Program and NOAA River Forecast Centre: http://www.fgmorph.com Helen Schuler Nature Centre and Lethbridge Naturalists Society. (2009). Coulees and Cottonwoods: Nature Field Guide for Lethbridge. Retrieved from City of Lethbridge, Teach and Learn: http://www.lethbridge.ca/Things-To-Do/Nature- Centre/Documents/HSNC%20Field%20Guide%20singlepages.pdf Horton, R. (1945). Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydro-physical approach to quantitative morphology. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 56 (3): 275-370. Hull, K., Halawell, A., & Ambrose, N. (2013). City of Lethbridge Oldman River Valley Range Health Study. Lethbridge: City of Lethbridge. Lalonde, K., Corbett, B., & Bradley, C. (2005). Southern Alberta's Watershed: An Overview. Prairie Conservation Forum. Lombard North Group, L. a. (2008, March 3). River Valley Area Redevelopment Plan. City of Lethbridge Bylaw 5503. City of Lethbridge. Natural Regions Committee. (2006). Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Government of Alberta. Oldman River Regional Services Commission. (2004). County of Lethbridge and City of Lethbridge Intermunicipal Development Plan. Lethbridge. Pelletier, D. C. (2014). Applying Circuit Theory for Corridor Expansion and Management at Regional Scales: Tiling, Pinch Points, and Omnidirectional Connectivity. PLoS ONE, 9 (1): e84135.

121

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE BEST PRACTICES POLICY REPORT 2016-10-06 Rood, S. G. (2007). Floods, fire and ice: disturbance ecology of riparian cottonwoods. Canadian Journal of Botany, 85: 1019-1032. Rood, S. H. (1994). Clonal reproduction of riparin cottonwoods in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Boatany, 72: 1766-1774. Shah, V. D. (2008). Circuitscape: a tool for landscape ecology. Ecology, 10:2172-2724. Strahler, A. (1957). Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysical Union Transactions, 38 (6) 913-920. Urban Futures, S. R. (2014, January). Population and Housing Projectsionf for the City of Lethbridge. City of Lethbridge. Wetlands Alberta. (2015). Wetlands and Waterfowl Research. Retrieved 2016, from Wetlands Alberta: http://www.wetlandsalberta.ca/wetland-loss/ Wood, C., & Ambrose, N. (2011). Lethbridge River valley Riparian Health. Phase 1. River Valley Management Plan. City of Lethbridge: Alberta Riparian Habitat Management (Cows and Fish).

122