Comprehensive Study Report Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Canadian Environmental Agence canadienne Assessment Agency d’évaluation environnementale

December, 2012 Photo is credited to Tom Murray, Seamas Skelly and Charlie Murphy.

This publication may be reproduced for personal use without permission, provided the source is fully acknowledged. However, multiple copy reproduction of this publication in whole or in part for purposes of distribution requires the prior written permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. To request permission, contact [email protected].

Catalogue No.: En106-112/2013E

ISBN: 978-1-100-21626-3

This document has been issued in French under the title Projet de remise en état et de modernisation du réservoir de Little Bow— rapport d’étude approfondie.

Alternative formats may be requested by contacting [email protected] Summary A provincial environmental assessment of the project under Alberta’s Environmental The Alberta Ministry of Transportation (AT), the Protection and Enhancement Act was not proponent, proposes to construct new structures required as the Project is an Exempted Activity and modify existing structures in the Little Bow as specified in the Alberta Environmental Reservoir, and in the connecting canal to the Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Travers Reservoir (TLBR Connecting Canal). Activities) Regulation. The Little Bow Reservoir is located in southern Alberta, approximately 50 km southeast The Canadian Environmental Assessment of the Town of Vulcan, and is one of three Act (the Act) applies to federal regulatory major reservoirs in the Carseland-Bow River authorities when they contemplate certain Headworks (CBRH) System that includes both actions or decisions that would enable a project the McGregor and Travers reservoirs and over to proceed in whole or in part. An environmental 65 km of irrigation canals. The Project is the assessment is required under the Act due to final phase in an upgrading and rehabilitation actions that may be undertaken by the Fisheries program for the CBRH System. and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Transport Canada (TC) to increase full supply limit (FSL) The objectives of the Little Bow Reservoir of the Little Bow Reservoir and subsequently Rehabilitation and Upgrading project (the increase its surface area by more than 35% of Project) are to ensure that the rehabilitated current operations. DFO and TC may issue works meet the requirements of the Canadian permits, authorizations or approvals in relation Dam Association (CDA) Dam Safety Guidelines to the project pursuant to the Fisheries Act and for the handling of extreme flooding, and to Navigable Waters Protection Act respectively. provide a reliable water supply for users of the Bow River Irrigation District (BRID). Moreover, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, this Primary physical undertakings of the Project project is subject to a comprehensive study include: raising and extending of the Little environmental assessment under the Act: Bow Reservoir Dam by approximately 3.35 m in height and 2.5 km in length; constructing “…an expansion of a dam or dyke results in the new Little Bow Reservoir irrigation outlet an increase in the surface area of a reservoir of structure and abandoning of the existing more than 35%.” structure at the main dam; constructing Enhancement Dyke 1; enlarging and upgrading The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency the downstream section of TLBR Connecting (the Agency) conducted the comprehensive Canal; removing the Travers Reservoir study in collaboration with the Federal Review irrigation outlet structure; constructing a Team, which consists of representatives from roadway and culvert crossing on the TLBR Environment Canada, Health Canada, Natural Connecting Canal; demolishing and removing Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada the existing Little Bow Reservoir Provincial and Transport Canada. Recreation Area (PRA) and constructing a new PRA; reclaiming disturbed areas; and The Agency assessed the effects of the project installing cattle deterrents. using information provided by the proponent

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project i in its Environmental Impact Statement, reservoir, and avoid disturbing migratory birds complementary reports, information request and their habitat during nesting season. response documents, opinions from federal experts, and comments received from A follow-up program is required under Aboriginal groups and the public during the the Act to verify the accuracy of the consultation phase. environmental assessment and to determine the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation During the environmental assessment, measures. The follow-up program will focus Aboriginal communities expressed concerns on critical phases of the project, including about issues such as water quantity and quality, winter drawdown of the reservoir during the wildlife and species at risk, traditional plants, construction phase; building and removal of and land access. The proponent has committed cofferdams; any in-water work; and installation to implementing mitigation measures in order of fish and terrestrial habitat replacement to reduce the effects that the project could and enhancement features. It will also have on the environment. These measures will include review of water quality construction also address concerns raised by Aboriginal monitoring reports and fish communities and the public. For example, the habitat compensation. proponent will apply best management practices to control erosion and sedimentation, revegetate Given the implementation of the proposed using a native grass seed mix as soon as it is mitigation measures and follow-up program, the practical after disturbance, conduct a fish salvage Agency concludes that the project is not likely operation during dewatering of any isolated areas to cause significant adverse environmental to ensure that stranded fish are returned to the effects.

ii CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Table of Contents Summary...... i

1. Introduction...... 1

1.1 Project Overview...... 1 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process...... 1 1.3 Purpose of the Comprehensive Study Report...... 1

2. Project Information...... 3

2.1 Purpose and Need for the Project...... 3 2.2 Project Description...... 3 2.2.1 Location...... 3 2.2.2 Components and associated activities ...... 3 2.2.3 Schedule...... 4

3. Scope of Assessment...... 4

3.1 Scope of the Project...... 4 3.2 Factors to be Considered...... 4 3.3 Scope of the Factors Considered and the Spatial Boundaries...... 7 3.4 Temporal Boundaries...... 7 3.5 Determination of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs)...... 7

4. Project Alternatives...... 7

4.1 Alternatives to the Project...... 8 4.2 Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project...... 8 4.3 Agency’s Assessment...... 8

5. Consultations...... 8

5.1 Public Consultations ...... 8 5.1.1 Agency consultations...... 8 5.1.2 Participation activities conducted by the proponent ...... 9 5.2 Aboriginal Consultation ...... 9 5.2.1 Consultations conducted by the Federal Government...... 9 5.2.2 Consultation activities conducted by the proponent...... 10

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project iii 5.3 Issues Raised...... 11 5.3.1 Capacity funding...... 11 5.3.2 Water quantity ...... 11 5.3.3 Water quality and aquatic environment...... 11 5.3.4 Current and traditional use and knowledge studies...... 11 5.3.5 Wildlife and species at risk...... 12 5.3.6 Traditional plants...... 12

6. Profile of the Environment...... 12

6.1 Biophysical Context...... 12 6.1.1 Landscape...... 12 6.1.2 Geophysical...... 12 6.1.3 Hydrology...... 12 6.1.4 Surface water hydrology...... 13 6.1.5 Hydrogeology and groundwater quality...... 14 6.1.6 Aquatic environment...... 14 6.1.7 Vegetation...... 15 6.1.8 Wildlife and terrestrial habitat...... 15 6.2 Human Context...... 15 6.2.1 General overview...... 15 6.2.2 Aboriginal context...... 16

7. Environmental Effects Assessment...... 17

7.1 Approach ...... 17 7.2 Geophysical ...... 18 7.2.1 Potential environmental effects...... 19 7.2.2 Mitigation measures ...... 19 7.2.3 Residual environmental effects ...... 20 7.2.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 20 7.2.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 20 7.3 Hydrology...... 20 7.3.1 Potential environmental effects...... 20 7.3.2 Mitigation measures...... 21 7.3.3 Residual environmental effects...... 21 7.3.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 22 7.3.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 22 7.4 Surface Water Quality...... 22 7.4.1 Potential environmental effects...... 23 7.4.2 Mitigation measures...... 23 7.4.3 Residual effects...... 24 7.4.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 24 7.4.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 24

iv CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 7.5 Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality...... 25 7.5.1 Potential environmental effects...... 25 7.5.2 Mitigation measures ...... 25 7.5.3 Residual environmental effects ...... 26 7.5.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 26 7.5.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 26 7.6 Aquatic Environment...... 26 7.6.1 Potential environmental effects...... 26 7.6.2 Mitigation measures...... 28 7.6.3 Residual environmental effects...... 29 7.6.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 30 7.6.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 31 7.7 Vegetation...... 31 7.7.1 Potential environmental effects...... 31 7.7.2 Mitigation measures...... 32 7.7.3 Residual environmental effects ...... 33 7.7.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 34 7.7.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 34 7.8 Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat...... 35 7.8.1 Potential environmental effects...... 35 7.8.2 Mitigation measures ...... 35 7.8.3 Residual environmental effects...... 36 7.8.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 37 7.8.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 38 7.9 Climate and Air Quality...... 38 7.9.1 Potential environmental effects...... 38 7.9.2 Mitigation measures ...... 38 7.9.3 Residual environmental effects ...... 39 7.9.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 39 7.9.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 39 7.10 Noise...... 39 7.10.1 Potential environmental effects...... 39 7.10.2 Mitigation measures and residual environmental effects...... 39 7.10.3 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 40 7.10.4 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 40 7.11 Navigable Waters...... 40 7.11.1 Potential environmental effects...... 40 7.11.2 Mitigation measures ...... 41 7.11.3 Residual environmental effects...... 41 7.11.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 41 7.11.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 41 7.12 Current Use of Lands for Traditional and Recreation Purposes...... 41 7.12.1 Potential environmental effects...... 42 7.12.2 Mitigation measures...... 44 7.12.3 Residual environmental effects...... 45 7.12.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 45

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project v 7.12.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 46 7.13 Heritage and Archaeological Resources...... 46 7.13.1 Potential environmental effects...... 46 7.13.2 Mitigation measures...... 46 7.13.3 Residual environmental effects ...... 47 7.13.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 47 7.13.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 47 7.14 Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 47 7.14.1 Potential effects...... 47 7.14.2 Mitigation measures ...... 47 7.14.3 Residual environmental effects ...... 48 7.14.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 48 7.14.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 48 7.15 Effects of Possible Accidents or Malfunctions...... 48 7.15.1 Potential effects...... 48 7.15.2 Mitigation measures ...... 49 7.15.3 Residual Environmental Effects ...... 49 7.15.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 49 7.15.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects...... 49 7.16 Cumulative Environmental Effects...... 50 7.16.1 Approach...... 50 7.16.2 Scoping...... 50 7.16.3 Potential cumulative effects...... 50 7.16.5 Residual environmental effects...... 51 7.16.6 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response...... 51 7.16.7 The Agency’s conclusions regarding cumulative environmental effects...... 52 7.17 Effects on the Capacity of Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources...... 54

8. Follow-Up Program under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.... 55

9. Benefits to Canadians...... 55

10. Conclusion and Recommendation of the Agency...... 56

11. References...... 57

Appendix 1: Summary of Project Components and Associated Activities...... 59

Appendix 2: Scope of the Project by Component and Associated Activity...... 61

Appendix 3: Vecs, Significance Thresholds, and Spatial Boundaries for the Project...... 64

vi CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 4: Summary of Identified Potential Residual Effects of the Project...... 68

Appendix 5: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures...... 71

Appendix 6: Summary of Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups with Respect to the EA...... 77

Appendix 7: Focus of the Follow-Up Program...... 82

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project vii List of Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols

% Percent < Less than > Greater than ~ Approximately AANDC Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada ACCS Alberta Culture and Community Services ACIMS Alberta Conservation Information Management System AENV Alberta Environment (Now AESRD) AESCC Alberta Endangered Species Conservation Committee AESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development AEW Alberta Environment and Water (Formerly Alberta Environment (AENV), now AESRD) AMEC AMEC Earth and Environmental Ltd. ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development AT Alberta Ministry of Transportation AQI Air Quality Index BMP Best Management Practice BRID Bow River Irrigation District CAESA Canada-Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture Agreement CBRH Carseland-Bow River Headworks CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CDA Canadian Dam Association CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment cm Centimetres

CO2 Carbon Dioxide COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CSR Comprehensive Study Report dam3 Cubic decametre = 1,000 cubic metres dBA Decibels DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EC Environment Canada EIS Environmental Impact Statement El. Elevation ESC Erosion and Sediment Control

viii CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project List of Acronyms, Abbreviations and Symbols (cont'd)

FAN Federation of Alberta Naturalists FHCP Fish Habitat Compensation Plan FSL Full Supply Level GHG Greenhouse Gas GOA Government of Alberta ha Hectare HCF Heritage Community Foundation HRA Historical Resources Act HRO Historical Resources Overview Hwy Provincial Highway IBA Important Bird Areas IO In-stream Objectives km Kilometres km2 Square Kilometres LSA Local Study Area m Metre mm Millimetre m3/s Cubic Metres per Second NRCan Natural Resources Canada PM Particulate Matter PMF Probable Maximum Flood PRA Provincial Recreation Area RSA Regional Study Area SARA Species at Risk Act TC Transport Canada TCPL TransCanada Pipelines Limited TDS Total Dissolved Solids the Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act the Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency the Project Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project TLBR Travers Reservoir and Little Bow Reservoir UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VEC Valued Ecosystem Component WSC Water Survey of Canada

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project ix

1. Introduction they contemplate certain actions or decisions in relation to a project that would enable the Project to proceed in whole or in part. 1.1 Project Overview An environmental assessment is required under The Alberta Ministry of Transportation (AT) the Act due to actions that may be undertaken the project proponent, is serving as the agent by the DFO and TC. DFO and TC may issue for Alberta Environment and Sustainable permits, authorizations or approvals in relation Development (AESRD), the owner and operator to the project pursuant to the Fisheries Act and of the Carseland-Bow River Headworks Navigable Waters Protection Act respectively. (CBRH) System. AT proposes to rehabilitate and upgrade the Little Bow Reservoir and The project is subject to a comprehensive study associated infrastructure in southern Alberta, environmental assessment under the Act as it is approximately 50 km southeast of the town listed in Part III, section 8 of the Comprehensive of Vulcan. The Little Bow Reservoir is one Study List Regulations. This section of the of three major reservoirs, the other two being Regulations reads as follows: McGregor and Travers reservoirs, which include more than 65 km of irrigation canals “…an expansion of a dam or dyke that would and together make up the CBRH. The Little result in an increase in the surface area of a Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading reservoir of more than 35%.” project (the Project) will ensure that the Travers Reservoir and Little Bow Reservoir are The Project did not require a provincial capable of passing the probable maximum flood environmental assessment under Alberta’s (PMF) as recommended in the Canadian Dam Environmental Protection and Enhancement Association (CDA) Dam Safety Guidelines Act as the Project is an Exempted Activity, (CDA, 2007), and are capable of providing a as specified in the Alberta Environmental reliable supply of water to users of the CBRH Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted and further downstream to the recreationally Activities) Regulation. and agriculturally important Bow River Irrigation District (BRID) canal system. The projected cost of the Project is $20 million. 1.3 Purpose of the Comprehensive Study Report

1.2 Environmental Assessment The purpose of this report is to present the Process results of the process carried out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to determine whether the Project is likely to (the Act)1 applies to federal authorities when cause significant adverse environmental effects.

1 The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) came into force on July 6, 2012, replacing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act S.C. 1992, c. 37. Section 125 of CEAA 2012 sets out transition measures for comprehensive studies, such as the Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project, which were commenced under the former Act. For this project, all references to federal environmental assessment legislation reflect the requirements and regulations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act S.C. 1992, c. 37.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 1 Figure 1.1: Project Site Plan

Courtesy of Alberta Transportation, 2012 Figure 1.2: Project Location

Courtesy of Alberta Transportation, 2012

2 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project The Agency prepared this comprehensive study of the CBRH system to be upgraded and is report in collaboration with the Federal Review located at its downstream end where it joins with Team composed of representatives from the BRID canal system. Environment Canada (EC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Health Canada (HC), Natural Rehabilitation and upgrading are needed to Resources Canada (NRCan), and Transport ensure that the Travers Reservoir and Little Bow Canada (TC). The conclusions of this report Reservoir are capable of passing the probable are based on the results of the review of the maximum flood (PMF), as recommended in proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement the CDA Dam Safety Guidelines (CDA, 2007). (EIS) and associated documentation and on an During normal operation, flows are released from assessment of the Project’s environmental effects. Travers Reservoir into the Little Bow Reservoir and subsequently into the BRID canal system The federal Minister of the Environment will where the water is then distributed for agricultural take into consideration this report and comments irrigation purposes. The Project will ensure received from the public and Aboriginal groups CBRH continues to be capable of providing a in making an environmental assessment decision. reliable supply of water to users of the both the Before announcing the environmental assessment CBRH and downstream in the recreationally and decision, the Minister may request additional agriculturally important BRID canal system. information or require public concerns to be addressed further. Following the announcement of the environmental assessment decision, the 2.2 Project Description Minister will refer the Project back to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada, 2.2.1 Location the responsible authorities for the Project, for The Little Bow Reservoir is located in southern appropriate action under section 37 of the Act. Alberta approximately 50 km southeast of the town of Vulcan. The area encompassed by the Project includes portions of Sections 16, 17, 18, 2. Project Information 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 33-14-20-West of the Fourth Meridian (Figure 1.1).

2.1 Purpose and Need for the Project 2.2.2 Components and associated activities The Project involves the construction of new AT is undertaking the CBRH Rehabilitation structures and the modification of existing Project as a phased upgrading and rehabilitation structures in the Little Bow Reservoir and program for the CBRH system which includes 65 Travers Reservoir to the Travers to Little km of main canal, 6 km of connecting canal, the Bow Reservoir (TLBR) Connecting Canal dams associated with the McGregor, Travers, and (Figure 1.2). The rehabilitation associated Little Bow Reservoirs, and numerous associated with the Project that is being considered in water control and conveyance structures. the comprehensive study is summarized in Appendix 1. Rehabilitation and upgrading of the CBRH system was divided into separate projects with the Currently the Travers Reservoir and Little Bow rehabilitation of the CBRH main canal, McGregor Reservoir are operated at different full supply Dam and structures, and portions of the Travers levels (FSLs) with the Travers Reservoir at Reservoir facilities being completed between elevation (El.) 856.18 m and the Little Bow 2001 and 2011. This Project is the last component Reservoir at El. 852.83 m. As part of the

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 3 Project, the hydraulic control structures will Project and the factors that will be assessed for be removed, the TLBR Connecting Canal will the Project. be enlarged, and the two reservoirs will be operated at a common FSL of El. 856.18 m. The Little Bow Reservoir will then operate in 3.1 Scope of the Project tandem with the Travers Reservoir changing the current Little Bow Reservoir operating regime For the purposes of this federal environmental from a stable balancing reservoir to a fluctuating assessment, the scope of the Project includes storage reservoir with a winter operating level all components and activities identified in of at least El. 854.05 m. This raises the Little Appendix 2. Bow Reservoir operating level by 3.35 m and increases the reservoir surface area from 6.16 km2 to 8.86 km2. This change in operations 3.2 Factors to be Considered will provide spillway capacity that exceeds the probable maximum flood event level. Pursuant to subsections 16(1) and 16(2) of the Act, the Agency has taken into consideration the 2.2.3 Schedule following factors: According to the proponent’s schedule (Table 2.2) construction is expected to start ••the purpose of the Project May 2013 and end by April 2016. ••alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible and Table 2.2: Schedule the environmental effects of any such Component Schedule alternative means ••the environmental effects of the Project, Little Bow Reservoir moves from May 2013 including the environmental effects of a stable balancing reservoir to a fluctuating storage reservoir malfunctions or accidents, and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result Little Bow Reservoir Dam July 2013 to April from the Project in combination with other 2015 projects or activities that have been or will be Little Bow Reservoir Outlet April 2014 to carried out; Structure January 2015 ••the capacity of renewable resources that are Enhancement Dyke 1 October 2014 to likely to be significantly affected by the Project December 2014 to meet the needs of the present and those of Travers Little Bow Connecting October 2014 to the future Canal April 2016 ••the significance of the environmental effects

Little Bow Reservoir Provincial October 2013 to ••comments from the public that are received in Recreational Area (includes September 2014 accordance with the Act and the Regulations; abandonment and construction) ••measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project 3. Scope of Assessment ••the need for, and the requirements of, any follow- up program in respect of the Project The scope of the environmental assessment is an exercise by which the Agency establishes Under subsection 16(1)(e) of the Act, the Agency the framework and limits of its analysis on the also required the assessment of the need for Project. It is determined by the scope of the the Project, an evaluation of alternatives to the

4 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Table 3.2: Environmental Components, Spatial Boundaries, and VECs Examined during the Environmental Assessment

Environmental Components Spatial Boundaries VECs

Geophysical • The Little Bow Reservoir, the lands that will be • Soil Quantity inundated with increased FSL, and the anticipated • Soil Quality construction footprint

Hydrology • The LSA includes the proposed area of inundation • Bow River discharge downstream of at the reservoir boundary at the operating FSL of BCRH diversion El. 856.18 m • Little Bow River discharge • The RSA includes the CBRH diversion from the downstream of Travers Reservoir Bow River, the CBRH system, the reach of the • Little Bow Reservoir and Travers Bow River downstream of the diversion, and the Reservoir water levels Little Bow River downstream of Travers Reservoir

Surface Water • The LSA includes the proposed new FSL • Little Bow Reservoir Quality boundary and the Little Bow Reservoir outlet, • Downstream BRID canals and the waters immediately downstream and • Travers Reservoir immediately upstream of the Little Bow Reservoir • Little Bow River (i.e., the BRID canals, Travers Reservoir, and Little Bow River) • The RSA includes the entire CBRH system

Hydrogeology and • The LSA is located in Township 14, Range 20, • Groundwater quantity Groundwater Quality W4M and includes the Little Bow Reservoir and • Groundwater quality adjacent areas where baseline groundwater conditions could be impacted. This study included assessment of the Little Bow River valley area south of Little Bow Reservoir and the canal, where groundwater from a spring is currently used for domestic purposes and where seepage areas have been identified on the valley slopes • The RSA encompasses a much broader area including the McGregor and Travers Reservoirs

Aquatic Environment • The LSA includes the lower half of the Travers • Northern Pike (Esox lucius) Reservoir, the TLBR Connecting Canal, the • Lake Whitefish (Coregonus Little Bow Reservoir and the BRID irrigation clupeaformis) canal immediately downstream of the Little Bow • Walleye (Sander vitreus) Reservoir • Spottail Shiner (Notropis husonius) • The RSA includes the entire CBRH system, • Benthic invertebrate density and including the Little Bow Reservoir, the Travers community structure Reservoir, and the McGregor Reservoir, as well • Vegetation communities in the littoral as the Bow River at the CBRH intake and all and riparian areas connecting canals

Vegetation • The LSA includes the proposed construction • Riparian vegetation footprint and area of inundation at the new • Wetland ecosystems operating FSL of 856.18 m, (15.66 km2) • Aquatic vegetation • The RSA was 94.62 km2 and is coextensive with • Grasslands the boundary of Township 14, Range 20, W4M • Shrubs and trees • Rare/uncommon plant species • Rare ecological communities including the western wheatgrass- low sedge and low sedge-western wheatgrass communities

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 5 Table 3.2: Environmental Components, Spatial Boundaries, and VECs Examined during the Environmental Assessment (cont'd)

Environmental Components Spatial Boundaries VECs

Wildlife and Wildlife • The LSA includes the proposed construction • Colonial nesting waterbirds Habitat footprint, the TLBR Connecting Canal, and the • Waterfowl 2.7 km2 to be inundated at the new FSL boundary, • Federal Species at Risk for a total area of 15.66 km2 ○○Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) • The 94.62 km2 RSA is coextensive with the ○○Long-Billed Curlew (Numenius boundary of Township 14, Range 20, W4M americanus) ○○Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) ○○Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) ○○Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) ○○Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) ○○McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) • Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus)

Climate and Air • The LSA refers to the area in which local effects • Climate Quality on climate and air quality could occur as a result • Air Quality of the proposed Project • The RSA includes the potential zones of influence of the Project that stretch to a radius of 65 km for climate and 130 km for air quality

Noise • The LSA includes the footprint of active • Noise construction and the area of proposed inundation. • The RSA includes a buffer with a radius of 3 km extending beyond the boundaries of the LSA

Heritage and • The LSA includes all terrain that will be inundated • Historical Resources Archaeological by the Little Bow Reservoir at the proposed FSL ○○Sites Resources of El. 856.18 m, as well as all lands that may ○○Structures be impacted during the construction of all the • Objects of historical, archaeological, structures paleontological or cultural significance

Navigable Waters • The LSA includes the entire wetted area of • Navigability the reservoir at El. 856.18 m, including TLBR Connecting Canal

Socio-economic • The LSA includes the Project footprint and area • Physical and cultural heritage (Current use of immediately surrounding the Project, including • Current use of lands and resources lands and resources the Little Bow Reservoir at the new operating FSL (for recreational or commercial for traditional boundary, the outlet canal, and the construction purposes or traditional use by and Recreational footprint Aboriginal groups) purposes) • The RSA for commercial and domestic land and • Health and socio-economic conditions resource use is coextensive with the boundary of with specific attention to the potential Township 14, Range 20, W4M entry of contaminants into the food • The RSA for recreation includes recreation chain. facilities and activities along the CBRH system including the LSA, McGregor Reservoir, and Travers Reservoir and the important birding areas immediately surrounding the reservoirs • The RSA for human health includes the area irrigated by water from the Little Bow Reservoir through the BRID system

6 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Project, and an examination of the benefits of the Temporal boundaries used in assessing the environmental assessment to Canadians. potential effects of the Project were defined as:

An environmental effect, as defined in ••baseline: The characteristics of the physical, the Act, means any change that the Project may biological and social environment as documented cause in the environment; any effect of any such during the Project studies. This reflects the change on health and socio-economic conditions, conditions in the study areas before the Project the current use of lands and resources for traditional development purposes by aboriginal persons, or any structure, ••construction: Pending regulatory approvals, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, construction of works above the level of the paleontological or architectural significance; or existing Little Bow Reservoir will begin in the any change to the Project that may be caused by summer of 2013. Construction of the works within the environment. This definition includes indirect the Little Bow Reservoir will begin in the winter of economic and social changes that are caused by 2014 once reservoir levels have been drawn down. biophysical modifications of the environment. It Construction is estimated to take three full years does not include the direct economic and social ••reservoir operation and maintenance: operation effects of the Project. For example, the Agency and maintenance will be ongoing throughout the may examine the economic effects of a decline in life of the reservoir, which is anticipated to be more commercial fishing success that is related to a loss than 50 years; and of fish habitat, but it will not examine economic ••decommissioning: Decommissioning of temporary effects related to the construction of a road. facilities no longer needed after construction will occur during, and immediately after, the construction phase Decommissioning of major 3.3 Scope of the Factors Considered Project components is not planned within the and the Spatial Boundaries foreseeable future and the life-span of major Project components, as noted above, is estimated In determining significant environmental effects, to be more than 50 years. As such, an assessment the environmental assessment focuses on aspects based on the legislative requirements at the time of of the natural and human environment that have decommissioning will be undertaken prior to the particular value or importance and are likely to be decommissioning of major Project components impacted by the Project. The Local Study Area (LSA) is the portion of the environment that may be directly affected by the Project. The Regional 3.5 Determination of Valued Ecosystem Study Area (RSA) is the portion of the environment Components (VECs) surrounding the Project that may be indirectly affected by the Project. The environmental VECs were determined by AT with input from components and associated spatial boundaries used the Federal Review Team. An opportunity to in the analyses are presented in Appendix 3. comment was provided to First Nations, Métis and the public. Table 3.2 lists the environmental components and their associated VECs. 3.4 Temporal Boundaries

The temporal scale of the assessment 4. Project Alternatives encompassed existing conditions, construction, reservoir operation (including maintenance Based on paragraph 16(1)(3) of the Act, and/or modifications) and decommissioning. the Agency required that the proponent

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 7 assess alternatives to the Project as part of Therefore, in considering all of the above, the a comprehensive study. Alternatives to the proponent has advised that proceeding with the Project are functionally different ways to meet Project in the near-term, as planned, is the the Project’s need and purpose. As well, in preferred alternative and is the only technically accordance with paragraph 16(2)(b) of the and economically feasible alternative that fulfills Act, the comprehensive study process included the Project’s purpose. consideration of the alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental 4.2 Alternative Means of Carrying effects of any such alternative means. The out the Project evaluation of both of these factors is presented in the following sections, based on evaluations Although alternative locations for some facilities conducted by the proponent. were considered, as the Project primarily involves rehabilitation or upgrading of existing structures and embankments the locations of 4.1 Alternatives to the Project which are fixed. As a result, AT determined that the Project as proposed was the only technically The proponent has indicated that alternatives and economically feasible way that the preferred to the proposed project are constrained by the alternative could be implemented. location of the pre-existing reservoir structures and by the Project’s purpose, which is to upgrade the infrastructure to meet the CDA 4.3 Agency’s Assessment Dam Safety Guidelines. As such, opportunities to compare the Project alternatives are The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has limited. As presented, there are three adequately considered alternatives to the Project project alternatives: and alternative means of carrying out the Project. The selected alternative provides the most ••proceed with the Project in the near-term, appropriate solution to meet the purpose of the as planned reservoir rehabilitation and upgrading, within the ••delay the Project or constraints of existing structures and embankments. ••abandon the Project

The environmental effects associated with the 5. Consultations first two alternatives would be essentially the same, with the exception of the timeframes. The Agency and the proponent conducted public The proponent has indicated that abandoning and Aboriginal consultation activities to improve the rehabilitation project would eliminate the the quality of the environmental assessment. anticipated environmental effects associated with construction and the change in the reservoir operating regime. This is not feasible because 5.1 Public Consultations as the existing system does not meet the requirements of the CDA Dam Safety 5.1.1 Agency consultations Guidelines and would pose an unacceptable The Act provides for three official opportunities risk to public safety during long-term operation. for the public to participate in the comprehensive Delaying the Project would also pose a safety study. The first consultation took place from risk to the public. July 19th to August 20th, 2010, seeking comments

8 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project on the Project description and the conduct of the to the public and to seek feedback on the comprehensive study environmental assessment. proponent’s assessment of the environmental effects. The public information session was The second consultation took place from advertised through applicable local Municipal November 2nd to December 2nd, 2010, seeking Districts, Towns, Villages, Little Bow Resort, comments on the draft project-specific guidelines and the BRID websites, printed on displays and and scoping document. in the Vulcan Advocate and Vauxhall Advance newspapers during the two weeks preceding the In the third consultation opportunity, the Agency session. The public information Session was will invite the public to comment on the content, attended by twenty-seven members of the public, conclusions and recommendations of this twelve exit surveys were received representing comprehensive study report. The Agency will nineteen people, and nine requests for further present the comments received to the Minister of information were received and responded to by the Environment to assist in the environmental the proponent. assessment decision. The proponent has committed to conducting The notices announcing the consultation periods additional public consultation if there are were published on the Registry Internet site changes to any of the features of the Project (www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm; File as a result of EIS recommendations or Number: 09-03-49421) and in locals newspapers: regulatory review. Le Franco, Lethbridge Herald, Sun Times, and the Prairie Post as well as the Aboriginal newspaper, Alberta Sweetgrass. 5.2 Aboriginal Consultation

To support the participation of interested The Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal individuals, not-for-profit organizations and groups and, if appropriate, to accommodate Aboriginal groups in federal environmental them when its conduct is likely to have assessments, the, Agency may provide funding an adverse impact on their established or through the Participant Funding Program. For potential Aboriginal or treaty rights. Aboriginal this comprehensive study, there was a single consultation is also commonly practiced with applicant, the Métis Nation of Alberta—Region 3 a view to good governance and to develop who received $4,000 from the program. appropriate policies and find informed solutions.

5.1.2 Participation activities conducted by In addition to these general practices and the proponent obligations, the Act requires that federal AT’s primary communication was to ensure environmental assessments take into that interested parties had the information they consideration, among other things, the impact required to make informed decisions about the of any change that a project may cause in the Project and to facilitate information exchange environment, and the impact of that change between interested parties and AT. on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons. A public information session hosted by representatives from AT, Alberta Environment 5.2.1 Consultations conducted by the Federal (AENV), and Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. was Government held on May 28, 2009 at the Southern Alberta To meet the Crown’s duty to consult, the Bible Camp to explain the proposed project Agency conducted focused consultations

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 9 with Aboriginal people in proximity to The Blood Tribe, Métis Nation of Alberta— the Project area, in addition to the public Region 3, Piikani (Peigan) Nation, Siksika consultation process. Nation, Tsuu T’ina Nation and Stoney (Nakoda) First Nation were provided with the draft During the first public consultation phase, Comprehensive Study Report for their review the Blood Tribe, Métis Nation of Alberta— and comment over a period of four weeks ending Region 3, Piikani (Peigan) Nation, and Siksika November 13, 2012. During the drafting of the Nation received a document summarizing CSR, it came to the Agency’s attention that the the Project and outlining the steps in the Project may fall within the asserted traditional environmental assessment. The consultation territory of the Tsuu T’ina Nation and Stoney period was announced in a local newspaper, the (Nakoda) First Nation. Consequently, the Agency Lethbridge Herald, Sun Times and the Prairie invited the Tsuu T’ina Nation and Stoney Pose as well as, an Aboriginal newspaper, (Nakoda) First Nation to comment on the Draft Alberta Sweetgrass, and on the Agency Internet Comprehensive Study Report (CSR). None of the site. During this phase, none of the Aboriginal Aboriginal groups submitted comments on the groups submitted any comments on the Project. draft Comprehensive Study Report. As indicated, the Métis Nation of Alberta— Region 3 applied and received participant During the final public consultation phase, the funding under the Participant Funding Program Agency will invite Aboriginal groups to comment administered by the Agency. on the content, conclusions and recommendations of the final Comprehensive Study Report. The In the second public consultation opportunity, Agency will present the comments to the Minister the Blood Tribe, Métis Nation of Alberta— of the Environment to assist in the environmental Region 3, Piikani (Peigan) Nation, and Siksika assessment decision. Nation received the draft project-specific guidelines and scoping document directly In addition to the identified public and Aboriginal from the Agency. In addition, the consultation consultation opportunities the Agency contacted period was announced in a local newspaper, the Aboriginal groups on several occasions to clarify Lethbridge Herald, Sun Times and the Prairie issues, solicit comments and feedback, and Post as well as the Aboriginal newspaper, exchange information through phone calls, email, Alberta Sweetgrass, and on the Agency Internet letters, and meetings. site. None of the Aboriginal groups submitted any comments on the draft project-specific If the environmental assessment decision is to guidelines and scoping document. allow the Project to proceed, departments with regulatory responsibilities may consult further Following the second public consultation with the Aboriginal groups on the authorizations opportunity, the Agency met with the Blood to be issued for the implementation of the Tribe, Piikani (Peigan) Nation, and Siksika project. This consultation may occur if there Nation individually. The Aboriginal groups are outstanding Aboriginal issues related received the EIS directly from the Agency at to departmental mandates that can be most these meetings. Métis Nation of Alberta— appropriately addressed in the regulatory phase. Region 3 was unable to meet with the Agency but was provided with a copy of the EIS directly 5.2.2 Consultation activities conducted by from the Agency. Aboriginal groups were invited the proponent to submit comments on the EIS to the Agency; The proponent’s communication objective was however, no comments were received. to ensure that the First Nations and Métis had

10 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project the information they required to make informed 5.3.2 Water quantity decisions about the Project and to facilitate Métis Nation of Alberta—Region 3 and opportunities for the exchange of information the Siksika Nation expressed concerns that between the First Nations, Métis and AT. First the Little Bow Reservoir development may Nations identified by AT as having a potential impact the ability of their communities to interest in the Project are the Blood Tribe, withdraw water from the reservoir, and have Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation and Métis concerns about the reduced water levels in Nation of Alberta—Region 3. The proponent the Bow River. The potential impact of the provided each of the First Nations and Métis Project on water quantity and the mitigation Project Specific Guidelines & Scoping measures proposed to address these concerns Document, the Project overview presentation are presented in Section 7.3 on hydrology. (included location, components, need, environmental effects), and historical resource 5.3.3 Water quality and aquatic and archaeology studies. Communication also environment included direct phone and email contact, letters, The Siksika Nation noted that water quality and face-to-face meetings. in nearby water bodies has declined in recent years, pointing to industry and development as the cause. They were concerned that the 5.3 Issues Raised water can no longer be used for traditional activities (e.g., swimming and sweat lodges). The Agency forwarded the concerns and The Siksika Nation and Métis Nation of comments received from the public and Alberta—Region 3 have noted that they Aboriginal Groups to both the proponent and are concerned about future activities in the Federal Review Team. The following the area that may impact abilities to fish general subjects were raised by the participants downstream of the Project. The potential and are addressed further in Section 7 impact of the Project on water quality and (environmental effects) where mitigation the mitigation measures proposed to address to address the issues, as they relate to the these concerns are presented in Section 7.4. environment, are also presented. A more The environmental effects assessment of detailed summary of issues raised can be found the aquatic environment is presented in in Appendix 6. Section 7.6. The potential impacts of the Project on the current use of lands and 5.3.1 Capacity funding resources for traditional and recreation The Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, Siksika purposes and suggested mitigation measures Nation and Métis Nation of Alberta— are presented in Section 7.12. Region 3 all indicated that capacity funding was required to fulfil AT’s request for 5.3.4 Current and traditional use and traditional knowledge and use of the Project knowledge studies area. Of the four groups, the Métis Nation The Blood Tribe and Siksika Nation stated a of Alberta—Region 3 was the only group need for further land use studies in the Project that applied for, and received, $4,000 from area to identify and verify the historical sites, the federal Participant Funding Program in plants and animals that may be present. The the summer of 2010. AT indicated that as a potential impacts of the Project on the current government proponent they would not provide use of lands and resources for traditional capacity funding to any of the Aboriginal and recreation purposes and proposed groups, either for review or for site visits. mitigation measures to address these, and

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 11 more general land use concerns, are presented The Little Bow Reservoir experiences frequent in Section 7.12. The environmental effects thunderstorms during the summer months as assessment of heritage and archaeological a result of rapid upward movement of warm, resources is presented in Section 7.13. moist air, causing convective storms. The area experiences the effects of Chinook winds 5.3.5 Wildlife and species at risk during the winter, but to a lesser extent than Métis Nation of Alberta—Region 3 has areas further west. These winter weather events concerns regarding the area of land that will be are characterized by a rapid rise in temperature inundated and how this will affect species at accompanied by dry winds. In general, the risk (including burrowing owls and ferruginous reservoir is subject to frequent high wind hawks) and other wildlife species (including velocities, predominantly from the west, due to red tailed deer, beaver, coyotes, fox, rabbits, the open landscape and long fetch. antelope and waterfowl). The potential impacts of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat 6.1.2 Geophysical and proposed mitigation measures are addressed Surface soil salinity, based on the observed in Section 7.8. presence of species of salt tolerant grasses, has been observed on localized parcels of land and 5.3.6 Traditional plants has been identified as being associated with The Blood Tribe has concerns over the either irrigation canal seepage salinity or slough relocation of traditional plants and feels that ring salinity in dry land. they should be the ones to carry out this relocation. The Siksika Nation has noted High winds and large resulting wave action that it has become very difficult to find their are a relatively common occurrence in this medicinal plants in the Little Bow Reservoir area of southern Alberta, commonly resulting area. The potential impacts of the Project on in shoreline erosion. The reservoir shoreline is vegetation and associated mitigation measures characterized by areas of frequent instability, are presented in Section 7.7. The environmental including areas of ongoing erosion of varying effects assessment of current use of lands and severity and areas that have become stabilized resources for traditional and recreation purposes at lower elevations through beaching or and more general land use concerns are armouring of the slope toe, however upper presented in Section 7.12. elevations continue to be eroded by large waves. Mass-wasting sometimes occurs during heavy rainfall events such as summer 6. Profile of the Environment thunderstorms.

6.1.3 Hydrology 6.1 Biophysical Context The Bow River originates at Bow Lake in the Rocky Mountains and flows southeast through 6.1.1 Landscape the mountains, foothills, and prairies to its The landscape of southern Alberta is the result confluence with the Oldman River which at that of North America’s last glaciation, which ended point together form the South Saskatchewan approximately 7,000 years ago. The landforms River. The Bow River is primarily a snowmelt present in the LSA and RSA are primarily stream that is considered to be relatively natural hummocky terrain resulting from the disintegration upstream of the Town of Banff; downstream of the Wisconsinan advances of the Laurentide of Banff most of the flows are highly altered. ice, and from the erosion of the resulting tills. The Bow River is the most regulated river in

12 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Alberta, with eleven hydroelectric facilities (the North and South McGregor dams). The and three major irrigation districts within dams and associated structures were originally its watershed. constructed in 1910, significantly upgraded in the 1950’s, and rehabilitated from 2004 The headwaters of the Little Bow River to 2008. Water is released through the South originate near the Town of High River. The Dam to the connecting canal to Travers river flows south to Twin Valley Reservoir and Reservoir. Travers Reservoir is created by a south and east from Twin Valley Reservoir to 44 m high dam on the Little Bow River. The Travers Reservoir. From Travers Reservoir the dam and associated structures were originally river flows south and east to the Oldman River, constructed in the early 1950s and are currently near the Town of Picture Butte. The natural being rehabilitated. catchment area draining to the Little Bow River is rolling upland dominated by pasture and 6.1.4 Surface water hydrology irrigated cropland. The land generally drains The Little Bow Reservoir receives water at its from northwest to southeast, away from the southwest corner from Travers Reservoir, and is Rocky Mountain Foothills. thus, despite its name, made up of water almost entirely from the Bow River. The reservoir’s The Little Bow, McGregor, and Travers volume is replaced approximately 16 times per Reservoirs together with more than 65 km year, with all inflows and outflows generally of irrigation canals make up the Carseland- occurring from April to October. The reservoir Bow River Headworks (CBRH) system. The discharges water at its northeast corner via CBRH system (see Figure 1.2) is a major a dammed outlet that directs water into the multi-purpose water delivery system that BRID main canal. The BRID main canal leaves diverts, impounds, and releases water from the Little Bow Reservoir and carries water in an Bow River for water management (e.g., water easterly direction to provide irrigation water supply for irrigated agriculture, municipalities, to the most of the BRID. The Lomond Lateral domestic users, and livestock operations, flow Irrigation Canal is a small canal that branches regulation, water conservation, industrial users, off from the main canal approximately 350 m and recreational users). Reservoir levels and downstream from the Little Bow Reservoir releases from the Combined TLBR are affected outlet and carries water in a northeast direction by upstream river diversions and downstream past the Village of Lomond. water demands, respectively. The CBRH system diverts water to 85,000 ha of agricultural The water in Little Bow Reservoir is clear, land in the BRID and 2,000 ha for the Siksika however high winds can cause wave erosion Nation. Diversions from the Highwood River of exposed sandy banks, particularly along the to the Little Bow River via the Little Bow east side of the reservoir south of the existing Canal started in the late 1890s. The canal was PRA. The water is well-mixed during the rehabilitated in 2004 as part of the Twin Valley summer because of its exposure to prevailing Dam and Reservoir project. Rehabilitation of westerly winds, and there is very little vertical the CBRH main canal was completed in 2008. stratification of water quality parameters (including temperature) throughout the water The McGregor Reservoir is approximately column during the open water season. 33 km long with the north end of the reservoir located approximately 100 km southeast The Travers Reservoir is considerably deeper of Calgary near the Village of Milo. The than Little Bow Reservoir and is contained reservoir is contained by two earthfill dams within generally higher landforms, such that

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 13 more thermal stratification occurs than in Little 6.1.6 Aquatic environment Bow Reservoir, although wind-generated wave Emergent vegetation around the perimeter of action still often mixes the water column. Little Bow Reservoir and some of the islands Almost all of the maximum concentrations consists primarily of cattail, with much smaller of nutrients occur during major precipitation amounts of bulrush, horsetail and sedge. In events, when storm water runoff carries cattle general, there is sparse emergent vegetation manure and crop fertilizers to the river. coverage only in shallow bays or on shorelines that are protected from the prevailing wind and 6.1.5 Hydrogeology and groundwater quality resulting wave action. Although the Little Bow Reservoir catchment is within the Oldman River drainage basin, most The Little Bow Reservoir littoral zone (<2 m of the reservoir inflow is water from the Bow deep) is about 30% of the total surface area, River basin diverted into the CBRH system. and supports extensive submergent weed beds. Groundwater resources are currently being used The submergent vegetation species observed for domestic, stock, irrigation and municipal in Little Bow Reservoir include: pondweed, purposes. In general, the majority of wells white water crowfoot, northern watermilfoil, produce water from aquifers that are less than chara, coontail, ditch-grass, bladderwort, water 100 m deep. Given the relatively flat topography starwort and occasional yellow pond lily. of the plain areas, local shallow groundwater flow will be controlled by the water level in the Benthic invertebrate samples from the Little Little Bow Reservoir. The Little Bow Reservoir Bow Reservoir showed considerably greater has porous soil that produces little natural densities of invertebrates than Travers runoff, and is in an area with some of the lowest Reservoir, a higher diversity index, and slightly precipitation rates and highest evaporation rates greater variety of taxa. in Canada. Although no official fisheries management The water chemistry of Little Bow Reservoir is objectives have been approved for Little very similar to Travers Reservoir; chloride ionic Bow Reservoir, the reservoir is managed to ratios are low in all groundwater and surface maintain northern pike, walleye, and lake water samples. Deeper groundwater chemistry whitefish populations. Northern pike and reflects long residence times in aquifers. Some walleye represent the two primary recreational shallow groundwater samples have relatively targets, while lake whitefish is the primary high Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) concentrations. commercial winter fishery species. Other Generally, sodium and potassium cations and species that may be present include spottail sulphate increase with depth and calcium and shiner, yellow perch, burbot, longnose sucker, magnesium are relatively reduced with depth. white sucker, shorthead redhorse, rainbow trout, and brown trout. Little Bow Reservoir appears The only domestic groundwater resource use in to provide suitable habitat for all age classes. the area is the L&J Murray Ranches Ltd. spring, Little Bow Reservoir winter dissolved oxygen which is a permanent spring situated on private concentrations under the ice are sufficient property. The spring, situated within the Little for fish survival, as no winter kills have been Bow River valley approximately 1 km south of documented. Catch data suggests a potentially and approximately 30 m lower in elevation than, greater density of lake whitefish and walleye the TLBR Connecting Canal, has been used as in Travers Reservoir than in Little Bow a domestic water supply since sometime prior Reservoir and more perch and spottail shiners to 1928. in Little Bow Reservoir. Northern pike catch

14 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project rates were similar for Little Bow Reservoir provides habitat to approximately 118 species and Travers Reservoir. of birds, including approximately 1,050 (1% of Canada’s population) of non-breeding American All fish sampled had mercury concentrations white pelicans in the summer months. over the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines (1999) for mercury in fish for consumption by birds and 6.2 Human Context mammals. In general, the older age classes of species typically showed higher mercury 6.2.1 General overview content as mercury accumulates over time when The closest communities to the LSA are the small quantities are ingested continually. ESRD Vulcan County communities of the village has applied the Health Canada Recommended of Lomond (population 175) and the hamlet Fish Consumption Limits to fish species in of Enchant (population 205), each located Alberta water bodies and set consumption approximately 20 km from the LSA. The limits accordingly. Current consumption limits communities of Vauxhall in the Municipal for Little Bow Reservoir and surrounding District of Taber and Picture Butte in water bodies and tributaries can be found at: the County of Lethbridge are the closest http://www.mywildalberta.com/Fishing/ communities with a population of over 1,000. SafetyProcedures/FishConsumptionAdvisory.aspx. The Little Bow Reservoir drainage basin has no At the time of writing, consumption limits for major population centres and no cottages. Northern Pike apply within the Little Bow Reservoir. The landscape of the South Saskatchewan Region, including the RSA, has been 6.1.7 Vegetation significantly affected by agricultural The Project occurs within the Mixedgrass development, both through grazing and Natural Subregion of southwestern Alberta. It other agricultural related activities including is broadly characterized as a band of intensely development of irrigation infrastructure. These cultivated prairie over coarse and/or medium activities have been ongoing since the early textured wind or water-laid sediments and 1900’s with the Little Bow Reservoir being glacial till. The Mixedgrass Natural Subregion completed in 1920. There are no private land accounts for 2.9% of the area of Alberta. The holdings or residences within the LSA. Mixedgrass Prairie experienced heavy livestock Several sections of land in the RSA are grazing during the early twentieth century, and privately owned. at present, only 31% of the original 4.6 million acres of native prairie remain. Both terrestrial The Little Bow Reservoir provides a good and aquatic vegetation types are present in environment for recreational activities but the Project area including riparian vegetation, is also exposed to strong winds and contains wetlands, emergent and submergent aquatic aquatic plant growth, concentrated on the vegetation, grasslands, and shrubs and trees. west side of the reservoir, which may deter some forms of recreation. The Little Bow 6.1.8 Wildlife and terrestrial habitat Reservoir PRA also provides access to some The Mixedgrass Subregion contains important sandy beach shoreline areas adjacent to the habitat for prairie wildlife species that can use Little Bow Reservoir. Activities available to moderately to heavily grazed prairie. The Little Little Bow Reservoir PRA and Little Bow Bow Reservoir PRA has been identified as an Reservoir users include beach use, birding, Important Bird Area (IBA) of Canada. This site camping, canoeing, kayaking, fishing, ice

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 15 fishing, power boating, sailing, swimming, have lived in southern Alberta for at least water skiing, windsurfing, hiking, other water 12,000 years. Historically, the First Nations activities, and wildlife viewing. led a nomadic lifestyle based on bison hunting and gathering in an area from the Red Deer The PRAs and provincial park in the Project River in Alberta to the Yellowstone River in area are managed by the MIM Management Montana. Following the signing of Treaty 7, Group, based in Champion, Alberta. The PRA Blackfoot Confederacy member nations provides basic camping facilities and access transitioned to an agricultural based lifestyle to beach areas and the Little Bow Reservoir. centered on their reserves. The Little Bow Reservoir and the areas around Travers and McGregor reservoirs are part of an Siksika Nation, Piikani Nation, and Blood Important Bird Area (IBA). Tribe customs, traditions, spirituality, and lifestyle reflect their intimate relationship with Little Bow Reservoir is currently used by their territory and its resources. This territory recreational power boaters and non-motorized includes lands on and surrounding the Little recreational craft (canoes, kayaks, wind-surfers, Bow Reservoir where Siksika, Blood, and and kite-boards). The open exposure and long Piikani tribes followed bison herds. Bison fetch of the reservoir frequently results in hunting was an important component of rough open water conditions, limiting most the Blackfoot ‘seasonal round’—a seasonal recreational opportunities on windy days. movement of people across a land base to use However, these windy conditions can also available resources. River valleys were often provide excellent opportunities for some used as wintering areas as they provided shelter, specific sports such as wind-surfing and the surrounding trees provided fuel, and game kite-boarding. usually wintered nearby.

The lands adjacent to, and immediately The Blood tribe surrounding, the LSA are owned by the The Blood, or Kainai, Tribe has a registered Alberta Provincial Government and leased for population of 11,274, two reserves known grazing. The proponent has indicated the same as Blood 148 (1,342.9 km2) and Blood 148A family has held the lease for three generations. (19.7 km2), and seven communities in Southern Pastureland in the LSA has good to fair Alberta, with the main community being capacity but is limited by ability to provide Standoff. As of June 2011, about 69% of Blood irrigation. Non-irrigable lands include gravel First Nation members were living on one of the operations immediately south of the TLBR two Blood Tribe reserves. Connecting Canal, and steeply sloping land on the banks of the Little Bow River. Some The Piikani First Nation primarily agricultural commercial property The Piikani Nation is the largest of the Blackfoot is also located in the RSA. The Little Bow Confederacy nations. The Piikani traditional Reservoir is located within the vicinity of oil, territory extended from Rocky Mountain House, gas, and coal deposits, of which oil and gas are Alberta to Heart Butte, Montana. Today, the currently extracted. Piikani Nation has two reserves known as Peigan Timber Limit “B” (29.8 km2) and Piikani 6.2.2 Aboriginal context (427.0 km2) with a registered population of Archaeological studies suggest that Blackfoot 3,578 members, approximately 66% of which Confederacy members (which include the live on reserve at Piikani. The administrative Blood Tribe, Siksika Nation and Piikani Nation) centre of Piikani Nation is situated in Brocket.

16 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project The Siksika Nation Aboriginal and European ancestry are one of The Siksika traditional territory includes the three Aboriginal groups recognized in Canada. northern and eastern lands of the Blackfoot The Métis of Southern Alberta Region 3 are Confederacy territory (i.e., the land between considered by the Métis Nation of Alberta to Saskatchewan to the east, Alberta to the West, be the Métis people who have traditionally the Saskatchewan River in Alberta to the North, occupied the area now known as ‘Region 3’. and Missouri River in Montana to the South). This is the area in which the Project is located. Today the Siksika are centred south of the Town of Gleichen and have 6,718 registered members, Traditionally, the Métis lived a semi-nomadic approximately 55% of which live on the lifestyle centred on seasonal activities 710.9 km2 Siksika 146 Reserve. including bison hunting, pemmican making, berry and vegetable gathering and trapping. Tsuu T’ina The Métis were known to have semi-permanent The Tsuu T’ina First Nation, signatory to bison hunting camps near Fort Macleod and Treaty 7, is located 13 km southeast of Calgary Fort Calgary. As the bison population declined where they hold 277 km2 ha of reserve land. in the 1870s, many Métis relocated and settled The registered population of the Tsuu T’ina First in order to survive. Nation is 1,992. The Project lies within the asserted traditional territory of the Tsuu T’ina First Nation which encompasses a large section of south 7. Environmental Effects central Alberta; extending from southern most Assessment Alberta, northwest along the Rocky Mountain range to north of Willmore Wilderness Park, east to Edmonton then south east to the Alberta/ 7.1 Approach USA border. In this section, the Agency provides a Stoney Nakoda First Nation summary to help readers understand the steps The Stoney Nakoda First Nation, signatory to in its analysis process. Readers who would Treaty 7, is recognized by AANDC as being like to have more detailed information can comprised of the Wesley First Nation, the Chiniki consult the series of documents relating to First Nation, and the Bearspaw First Nation. The the environmental assessment of the Project combined registered population of the three First available on the Canadian Environmental Nations is 5,146. The Stoney Nakoda First Nation Assessment Registry. holds more than 480 km2 of reserve land located west of Rocky Mountain House (Big Horn The Agency, in collaboration with the Federal Reserve), southwest of Calgary (Eden Valley Review Team, identified and assessed potential Reserve), and northwest of Calgary (Stoney adverse environmental impacts of the Project Reserves 142-143-144 and 142B). The Project on the basis of: lies within the traditional territory, as identified by the Stoney Nakoda First Nation during the ••the proponent’s impact assessment, including Joint Review Panel process for the Enbridge the proponent’s responses to the questions and Northern Gateway Project. comments from the Federal Review Team ••additional studies submitted by the proponent Métis such as survey results, fish and mercury The Métis, a culturally distinct group of level studies Aboriginal peoples who emerged from mixed ••the information obtained during public consultations

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 17 ••the expert opinions obtained from the federal in a measurable change in the population government departments. or resource that would be of significance to ecosystem structure and function The method used to assess the significance of the ••unknown: the impact cannot be determined effects considers six criteria, which are defined as: due to inadequate baseline information or uncertainty about the nature and extent of ••direction: the long-term trend of the effect the Project effect (i.e., positive, neutral, negative) ••magnitude: the amount of change in a Following the determination of level of impact, measurable parameter or variable relative the determination of significance was done to baseline conditions (i.e., negligible, low, by considering thresholds beyond which moderate, high) impacts would be considered significant. These ••geographical extent: the area within which an thresholds reflect the limits of an acceptable effect occurs (i.e., local, regional, provincial/ state for each ecosystem component based on trans-boundary) resource management objectives, applicable ••duration: the period of time required for a environmental standards, and guidelines. Where resource component to return to its baseline standards were not available, professional condition, or for the effect to be no longer judgement based on experience and scientific measured or otherwise perceived (short-term, literature was used to determine thresholds medium-term, long-term, far future) specific to each VEC. The level of confidence ••frequency: the number of times during a and likelihood that the impact would occur project or a specific project phase that an were also considered in their determination. effect might occur (i.e., one time, sporadic, After taking into account identified mitigation regular, and continuous) measures intended to reduce the incidence of ••reversibility: a rating of the permanence of potential adverse environmental effects the the effect (i.e., reversible short-term, reversible evaluation of significance was carried out for long-term, irreversible) each residual effect.

Based on the nature and extent of the effect, a A summary of VECs and significant effects conclusion was made as to whether the effect is presented in Appendix 3. A summary of would have a negligible, low, moderate, high residual effects for all VECs is presented or unknown impact on the VEC. in Appendix 4. A summary of all proposed mitigation is presented in Appendix 5. ••negligible: The Project effect is not expected to have a measurable or detectable impact on the population or resource 7.2 Geophysical ••low: the Project effect is expected to result in subtle environmental changes that are The proponent used previously existing data likely measurable or detectable but would sources (reports, maps, etc.) to review assess the not constitute or result in a population geophysical environment including soil quantity level effect; and quality in the LSA and RSA and the Alberta ••moderate: the Project effect is expected Soil Quality Guidelines for Unrestricted Land Use to result in a measurable change in the (AENV, 2001) to assess the soil for both topsoil population or resource that would be of and subsoil as good, fair, poor, or unsuitable. potential ecological significance Mapping indicated that all of the test soil sample ••high: the Project effect is expected to result sites, with the exception of one site located

18 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project outside the LSA but within the RSA, are rated as erosion during Project operation. Fluctuating good and have low reported values with respect to water levels will result in cyclical submersion measured salinity. and exposure of an area of approximately 2.13 km2 that will be subject to wind erosion. The proponent has noted that the processes of Exposure of a larger area of shoreline to the wave erosion and sediment transport within the effect of wave erosion and wave action at reservoir have not resulted in a state of shoreline lower elevations may lead to undercutting and equilibrium within the reservoir, but rather a destabilization of steep sloping shorelines. continuous process of shoreline erosion occurring Decreased slope stabilization poses a risk at a relatively consistent rate. to PRA users. Surface water erosion is not anticipated to increase significantly as a result 7.2.1 Potential environmental effects of the Project.

Construction 7.2.2 Mitigation measures To minimize the potential effect of the Project Potential impacts to soil during construction on the geophysical environment Erosion and are primarily related to handling of topsoil and Sediment Control (ESC) measures will be the use, maintenance, and storage of heavy implemented prior to work and maintained equipment. Topsoil will be stripped from all during the work phase until the site has been areas to be disturbed or developed and will be stabilized. The ESC measures will be inspected stockpiled for use during reclamation. Heavy regularly. The Erosion and Sediment Control equipment will be required for clearing and Manual (Alberta Transportation, 2011) and grubbing, topsoil stripping, material transport, standard AT construction practices will be and building structures. followed for all project phases. Wind and wave erosion will be mitigated by installing riprap The potential impacts that may occur armouring in the steeply sloped shoreline areas including: soil compaction, topsoil loss, in the vicinity of the new PRA. See Appendix 5 erosion, reduction of organic content of soils, for details. and the introduction of pollutants are all of low magnitude, of short duration and Monitoring will include both general restricted geographically. construction and reservoir turbidity monitoring conducted by AT during the first two years Operation of operation and biannually thereafter as a component of the Follow-up Program (see The primary impacts to soil that may occur Section 8 and Appendix 7) to determine the during reservoir operation include wind or extent and severity of erosion along the new wave erosion at the sediment/water interface shoreline at FSL and within the reservoir and deposition of sediment into the reservoir drawdown zone. These biannual surveys through wind or runoff erosion in near shore will visually assess changes in shoreline areas. Wind erosion potential for the RSA is stability and erosion potential, which will be rated as moderate to severe. Minor increases photographed, mapped and compared to the in sediment deposition into the Little Bow baseline condition. Areas of particular erosion Reservoir as a result of the Project are expected. concern, such as those predicted in the EIS, Increased shoreline exposure and fluctuating will be noted and the need for additional water levels are expected to result in a minor mitigation will be evaluated on a case by increase in sediment deposition due to wave case basis. The proponent will work with

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 19 federal authorities to identify thresholds at Contractor to conduct turbidity monitoring which monitoring results will trigger adaptive and the methodology to be used for such management. Over the long term, monitoring monitoring, this information was provided by of the reservoir shoreline will be conducted the proponent. Fisheries and Oceans Canada by ESRD on a biannual basis (once every and Environment Canada concluded that two years) to detect areas of potential erosion a satisfactory amount of information was concern or slope instability, in accordance gathered for assessing the effects. with established infrastructure management procedures. 7.2.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects 7.2.3 Residual environmental effects Taking into account the implementation of the Implementation of the proposed mitigation proposed mitigation, as well as the Follow- measures will result in a negligible potential for Up Program, the Agency concludes that the residual effects on soils as a result of Project Project is not likely to cause significant adverse construction activities. During operation, environmental effects on soil quantity or soil increased aquatic sedimentation resulting from quality. increased wind and wave erosion will not be fully mitigated and will result in a residual effect that is local in extent, continuous, 7.3 Hydrology extending far into the future, and irreversible. Wind and wave erosion is a naturally occurring Simulation modelling assisted the proponent in process that results from the existing LSA soil identifying and developing an understanding of conditions, but the Project will likely cause an potential issues including: water supply versus increase in the magnitude of this effect over the water demand, instream objectives, reservoir long term. The residual effects of the Project on operation, and competing stakeholder objectives soil quantity and quality are likely to be limited (i.e., irrigation, fisheries and recreation). in magnitude and geographic extent. Instream objectives (IO) are the amount and quality of water in an aquatic ecosystem 7.2.4 Government, public and Aboriginal necessary for the protection of a natural water comments and proponent’s response body or its aquatic environment; protection of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment tourism, recreational, transportation or waste Canada had requested that the proponent assimilation uses of water; and management of provide more detail with respect to the potential fish and/or wildlife. increase in erosion as a result of the Project including an explanation of the extent of the The Bow River basin and South Saskatchewan increase in erosion due to increased water sub-basin have been reserved to limit future levels and a fluctuating reservoir and details licenses for water-taking to protect the aquatic on whether any monitoring will be conducted environment and improve the water supply to within the reservoir to determine the extent and existing licensees. severity of erosion. The proponent provided further information on rates of shoreline 7.3.1 Potential environmental effects erosion, their methodology for calculation, There are no proposed changes to the existing and proposed mitigation and monitoring to licensed allocations for the proposed Combined address the potential impact. Fisheries and TLBR; however, the size and timing of Oceans Canada and Environment Canada also diversions from the Bow River for the existing sought clarification on the requirements of the allocations may change.

20 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Construction AT notes that Alberta Environment’s Operating Strategy 2010 will account for any fluctuations The proponent did not identify any anticipated impacts in the system, limiting and/or temporarily to hydrology as a result of construction activities. restricting diversions as necessary.

Operation The potential for increased withdrawals from the Bow River in the spring, as identified in the Water Impacts to hydrology with respect to Bow Resource Management Model results, can be River discharge may include a slightly greater mitigated in accordance with AENV’s Operating diversion in spring (April to mid-May) from the Strategy 2010. In the late summer-early fall, Bow River downstream of the CBRH diversion river diversions are expected to be less which at Carseland. In the late summer and fall, could result in a slight increase in the number of (mid-August to mid-October) less water will weeks when the IO is met over the long term. be diverted from the Bow River as a result of A Combined TLBR results in a net benefit as increased storage within the Combined TLBR, Bow River discharges downstream of the CBRH thereby lessening the impact of CBRH system diversion are greater in the late summer-early fall, diversions on Bow River temperatures. Over when water temperatures are higher, than they the long term, there may be slight changes to would be under baseline conditions. the number of weeks when the weekly Bow River discharge downstream of the CBRH The Project will result in increased evaporation diversion is above and/or below the IO. losses from Little Bow Reservoir due to the increase in the flooded area. This loss cannot be mitigated. Impacts to the Little Bow River Discharge include an increase in the FSL of Little Bow Monitoring Reservoir relative to the existing operating level (15.87 km2 over the entire reservoir). In Current monitoring of Bow River discharge, CBRH addition, annual fluctuations of the Little Bow diversion discharge, and Little Bow River discharge Reservoir will occur as a result of irrigation upstream and downstream of the Travers Reservoir demands. The effect of this change on current will continue as in the past, as per existing licensing use of lands and resources for traditional requirements. Current water level monitoring of and recreational purposes is discussed in the McGregor Reservoir will also continue, and Section 7.12. Negligible changes in flow at the the water level monitoring previously conducted Little Bow River discharge downstream for the Travers Reservoir will now be carried out of Travers Reservoir are expected. on the Combined TLBR. This monitoring will be conducted by AESRD in liaison with WSC. High evaporation water loss from Little Bow Reservoir is expected as a result of an increase 7.3.3 Residual environmental effects in surface area. This is estimated to be 0.225% There are no impacts to hydrology anticipated of the water volume allocated for CBRH as a result of Project construction activities. System withdrawal. The potential for increased withdrawals from the Bow River in the spring can be mitigated 7.3.2 Mitigation measures in accordance with AENV’s Operating Strategy Based on the water licenses allocated for 2010. A Combined TLBR results in a net benefit the CBRH system, no mitigation is required as Bow River discharges downstream of the with respect to reduced Bow River discharge CBRH diversion are greater in the late summer- downstream of the CBRH system diversion. early fall when water temperatures are higher,

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 21 than they would be under baseline conditions. (maximum design discharge of 51 m3/s) if This positive residual effect is expected to be different instream flow conditions are not met. negligible in magnitude, regional, and sporadic. The proponent also confirmed with the province During operation, increased evaporation that should the Siksika Nation wish to use their resulting from an increase in flooded area will existing water license, the water will be made not be mitigated and will result in a residual available to them. However, to date they have effect that is regional in extent, is regular in not exercised their right to this water. frequency, and will extend far into the future and be irreversible during operation. Evaporation is 7.3.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding a naturally occurring process in any reservoir residual environmental effects or basin of water, but the Project will likely Taking into account implementation of the cause an increase, although negligible, in the proposed mitigation, as well as the Follow- magnitude of this effect over the long-term. This Up Program, the Agency concludes that the increase is equal to approximately 0.225% of Project is not likely to cause significant adverse the total water allocation for the CBRH System environmental effects on the hydrology, and does not represent a significant increase in specifically the Bow River discharge withdrawal from the Bow River. downstream of the CBRH diversion, the Little Bow Reservoir discharge downstream of 7.3.4 Government, public and Aboriginal Travers Reservoir, or the Little Bow Reservoir comments and proponent’s response and Travers Reservoir water levels. In response to a request from Fisheries and Oceans Canada the proponent provided detailed calculations and analysis of evaporation loss 7.4 Surface Water Quality in the Little Bow Reservoir. Fisheries and Oceans Canada subsequently concluded that The analysis of impacts to surface water quality a satisfactory amount of information was was wide-ranging in order to incorporate and gathered for assessing the effects. assess concerns with respect to the health and survival of organisms living in (e.g., fish and The Métis Nation of Alberta—Region 3 and aquatic organisms) or otherwise exposed to the Siksika Nation expressed concerns that the (e.g., agricultural crops and livestock), the development may impact the ability of their reservoir water. communities to access water resources (i.e., water withdrawals from the reservoir), and The Little Bow Reservoir has high dissolved had concerns about the reduced water levels oxygen content. Levels of total organic carbon, in the Bow River. In particular the Siksika nitrogen, and phosphorous are generally low, Nation sought reassurance that the Project and the trophic status of Little Bow Reservoir would not impact current and future use of the is on the border between oligotrophic (i.e., water supply licenses allocated to the Siksika cold, low nutrient levels) and mesotrophic Nation. The proponent responded that, based (i.e., moderate nutrient levels). Chlorophyll a on the water licenses allocated for the CBRH concentrations during the open-water season in system, no mitigation is required with respect the Little Bow Reservoir are generally similar to reduced Bow River discharge downstream of to those in Travers Reservoir and are low the CBRH system diversion as these licenses compared to natural lakes in the area. Alkalinity, are not subject to IO. However, as per AENV’s conductivity, and TDS are all generally low. The Operating Strategy 2010, AESRD has made dominant ions are bicarbonate, sulphate, and a commitment to limit diversions to 34 m3/s calcium. The pH has been in the range of 8.0 to 9.0.

22 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Travers Reservoir is between oligotrophic and 7.4.2 Mitigation measures mesotrophic, due mainly to nutrient-rich runoff The primary potential impact to aquatic life is the from agricultural fields that potentially contains reduction of dissolved oxygen concentrations as fertilizers and/or cattle manure. Water releases oxygen is sequestered during the decomposition from Travers Reservoir have consistently low process; however the period in which the concentrations of all water quality parameters decomposition process will occur within the and have not exceeded of published guidelines. wetted perimeter of the reservoir has been timed Irrigation return flows only affected water quality to coincide with the operational irrigation season in the mainstem river during low flow years, when where open water conditions exist and the total nitrogen, total phosphorous, and dissolved reservoir is well mixed. Oxygen concentrations are phosphorous were increased due to nitrogen and expected to be high throughout the water column phosphorous forms in the irrigation return water. at this point; reducing the impact on aquatic life decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. 7.4.1 Potential environmental effects Supplemental aeration (i.e., adding additional oxygen to the water) may be required to maintain Construction and operation dissolved oxygen concentrations in the drawn down reservoir if low dissolved oxygen levels are Surface water quality in the Little Bow Reservoir measured, to ensure the survival of fish and other could potentially be impacted during construction aquatic life during the winter (see Section 7.6.1). and operation as a result of erosion and As such, the anticipated impact on water quality sedimentation from direct disturbance of the bed as a result of decomposition of flooded terrestrial and shoreline, or indirectly as a result of surface vegetation is negligible. See Appendix 5 for details flow or wave action. Decreased dissolved oxygen of mitigation. concentrations and release of methane, CO2, and other by-products as vegetation decays during As Little Bow Reservoir experiences a rapid reservoir drawdown in winter are expected for water exchange rate, it is expected that any three consecutive years of construction. There increased nutrient loading within the inundation will be an increased nutrient and organic carbon zone would be offset through distribution within loading within the reservoir. Both nutrients and the reservoir and flushing out of the reservoir dissolved oxygen may be transported throughout (i.e. adding new water to the reservoir). No the reservoir with re-suspended sediment during algal blooms or significant increases in aquatic heavy wave action and mixing. vegetation growth are expected in the Little Bow Reservoir or in the BRID canal system Increased methylation of mercury is expected as a downstream, due to the nutrient inputs. Nutrient result of decomposition of vegetation in the newly input may actually help vegetation to establish in flooded area. The assimilation of methylmercury by the drawdown zone. aquatic life will result in an increase in fish mercury level. Mobilization of metals (aside from mercury) Fish tissue samples in both Little Bow River will likely occur as a result of decomposition and Travers Reservoir currently show mercury of vegetation in the newly flooded area. An levels exceeding the CCME criterion for improvement to regional water quality under the wildlife that eat fish and approaching the Health new combined operating regime as a result of Canada criterion for fish eaten by humans. smaller river diversions from mid-August to Environmental effects and mitigation measures mid-October is expected. During the same with respect to methylation of mercury in the period temperatures in the Bow River are aquatic environment are further discussed in expected to increase. Section 7.6 and Section 7.12.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 23 Given that there have been no trends of high quality related to changes in CBRH system metal content, other than mercury, noted in withdrawal rates and timing under the new sediment, water, or fish tissue samples collected combined operating regime. in the existing reservoir, the increased sediment water interface is not expected to increase metals The residual effects with respect to increased leaching sufficiently to result in an impact. sedimentation are assessed in detail in Section 7.2. For further mitigation with respect to erosion and sediment control see Section 7.2. 7.4.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response Monitoring Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada requested more information with Monitoring of turbidity levels will occur respect to turbidity monitoring (as described during any construction activities within the in Section 7.2). Environment Canada sought wetted perimeter of the reservoir. Construction more information on a water quality worst- monitoring will be required to ensure that case scenario. The proponent has committed erosion and sedimentation are controlled within to a further discussion of the effects associated the construction footprint and that potential with ongoing sediment loadings, along with impacts to surface water quality options for improving mitigation, through the are mitigated. Follow-up Program presented in Section 8 and Appendix 7. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Monitoring of dissolved oxygen concentrations and Environment Canada were satisfied with will be conducted through the ice during the this response. three years when the Little Bow Reservoir is drawn down for construction during the winter. The Siksika Nation has expressed concerns Supplemental aeration may be required to with respect to water quality and the aquatic maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations in the environment. Specifically, they are concerned drawn down reservoir if low dissolved oxygen that the water may become unsuitable for levels are measured, to ensure the survival of traditional activities, that swimming holes fish and other aquatic life during the winter. will no longer be used due to water quality issues, and that the ability to fish downstream The Government of Alberta is responsible of the Project will be impacted. The proponent for monitoring mercury content in fish in has indicated that the proposed mitigation Alberta water bodies and setting consumption measures, monitoring, and follow-up will limits. Ongoing regional sampling programs sufficiently address these concerns to the are employed throughout southern Alberta extent that they relate to the Project. Mitigation to determine fish consumption advisory measures related to current use of lands and requirements. Monitoring of methylation of resources for traditional and recreational mercury and fish mercury levels is further purposes are explored further in Section 7.12. discussed in Section 7.6. 7.4.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding 7.4.3 Residual effects residual environmental effects Two potential residual effects are and Taking into account implementation of the increase in aquatic sedimentation resulting proposed mitigation, as well as the Follow- from increased wind and wave erosion and a Up Program, the Agency concludes that the potential net positive regional impact to water Project is not likely to cause significant adverse

24 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project environmental effects on the surface water locally elevated groundwater levels include quality, specifically in the Little Bow Reservoir, increased seepage from ground surfaces such downstream BRID canals, Travers Reservoir, as valley sides, low lying areas, and ephemeral and Little Bow River. watercourses as well as local changes in groundwater elevations south of the Little Bow Reservoir in the Little Bow River valley where 7.5 Hydrogeology and groundwater discharge has historically occurred Groundwater Quality naturally as spring flow, seepage, and likely as base flow to the Little Bow River. Inflow water Clay till dominates the surficial geology and quality to Little Bow Reservoir will not change changes in the Little Bow Reservoir operating and no impact to local groundwater quality is level are likely to be dissipated over a limited expected as a result of the Project. distance by relatively steep groundwater gradients. Groundwater contours interpreted 7.5.2 Mitigation measures from available data show that groundwater flow As part of canal widening in the upstream in bedrock shale is toward the Little Bow River. portion of the TLBR Connecting Canal, sand Similarly, groundwater contours in surficial and gravel exposures in the base and sides of aquifers is generally away from Little Bow the canal were lined with a clay liner to mitigate Reservoir and Travers Reservoir towards the future seepage losses. Additional seepage Little Bow River valley. Based on the available mitigation is not required as the impacts to data and the interpreted groundwater contours, groundwater quantity resulting from the Project there is no significant vertical gradient between are expected to be minor. Mitigation measures bedrock and surficial aquifers, and hydraulic may be required in the future if impacts on connection between the TLBR Connecting Canal groundwater levels, spring flow or seepage are and springs on the Little Bow River valley slopes detected through monitoring. south of the canal cannot be substantiated. Increasing the FSL in the Little Bow Reservoir 7.5.1 Potential environmental effects and the TLBR Connecting Canal may result in The upland plains portion of the LSA has higher groundwater levels in areas immediately relatively flat topography and the shallow adjacent to these structures. In areas where clay hydrogeology is dominated by low permeability till dominates the surficial geology, increased clay tills. From the information available, there groundwater levels are expected to be dissipated are no buried channel aquifers that connect or over relatively short distances away from the daylight within the area of inundation in Little FSL contour and the residual groundwater level Bow Reservoir at its new FSL of El. 856.18 m. effects will be limited to areas close to Little Consequently, groundwater impacts to the Bow Reservoir and the TLBR Connecting Canal. north, west and east of Little Bow Reservoir Minor increases in seepage rates will likely are expected to be limited to areas close to the occur in current seepage areas and new seepage reservoir and the TLBR Connecting Canal. areas may develop down gradient of the FSL.

The increase in the Little Bow Reservoir FSL The proponent has specified that contractors will increase local groundwater recharge within will ensure ground water levels in wells located the LSA. Increased recharge will result in local on adjacent lands are not changed due to their increases in groundwater elevations that will be activities and that the groundwater quality in dissipated as groundwater flows radially from adjacent landowner wells is not diminished due Little Bow Reservoir. The potential impact of to their activities. See Appendix 5 for details.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 25 Monitoring downstream of the Little Bow Reservoir. The RSA included the entire CBRH system, including A groundwater monitoring program will be Little Bow Reservoir, Travers Reservoir, and conducted to monitor changes in groundwater McGregor Reservoir, as well as the Bow River levels in response to the Project, for the at the CBRH intake and all connecting canals confirmation of conclusions regarding residual (Figure 1.2). groundwater effects. 7.6.1 Potential environmental effects 7.5.3 Residual environmental effects The aquatic environment impact assessment The residual effect of increased seepage rates focused on identifying the effects of construction is expected to be local in extent, will fluctuate and operation of the Project, including the impact regularly with increased head pressure as the of fluctuating water levels on the new littoral zone, reservoir is filled, and will continue for the entire the effects on fish and their life stages (spawning, operational existence of the Project. The residual rearing, feeding, etc.), the effects on fish habitat, effects of the Project on hydrogeology and and the effects on aquatic invertebrates. groundwater are likely to be limited in magnitude and geographic extent. Construction

7.5.4 Government, public and Aboriginal In general physical works associated with raising comments and proponent’s response and extending the Little Bow Reservoir Dam are NRCan asked the proponent about time series expected to have limited impacts on the aquatic groundwater level data and potential climate trends environment as the majority of the material used for surficial water and groundwater flow. The to build the structure will be installed on dry land proponent provided the raw data for groundwater to the north and west of the wetted perimeter of levels and explained that as long as the reservoir the reservoir. Potential impacts resulting from is operated and maintained at proposed operating construction of the Little Bow Reservoir Dam levels, climatic influences on local groundwater may include; a minimal impact on fish habitat levels are expected to be insignificant. NRCan from additional riprap material that will be concluded that a satisfactory amount of information installed along the dam face both above and below was gathered for assessing the effects. the FSL as needed to ensure long-term erosion protection and dam safety; some disturbance 7.5.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding to the substrates in the existing shallows from residual environmental effects heavy equipment used to place riprap along the Taking into account implementation of the proposed upstream face of the dam; wave erosion of newly mitigation, as well as the Follow-Up Program, the flooded borrow areas that may lead to increased Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to suspension and transport of sediment; temporary cause significant adverse environmental effects loss of fish habitat from the construction of two on groundwater quantity or quality. cofferdams comprised of clay till within the Little Bow Reservoir during construction of the new outlet structure and removal of the existing outlet 7.6 Aquatic Environment structure; and erosion or sediment deposition into the reservoir from dewatering of the cofferdam The LSA for the aquatic environment assessment isolated work areas. Raising and extending the included the lower half of Travers Reservoir, the Little Bow Reservoir Dam will also result in the TLBR Connecting Canal, Little Bow Reservoir displacement of 37,500 m2 of fish habitat during and the BRID irrigation canal immediately the construction of Enhancement Dyke 1.

26 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project The potential impacts resulting from as the water levels recede during initiation of construction of the TLBR Connecting Canal construction. Stranded fish would potentially may include: the temporary loss of aquatic perish during the winter, as these areas would habitat; increased sediment deposition be shallow and would either freeze to the and suspension; and fish stranding during bottom or be too shallow to sustain sufficient construction and removal of cofferdams within dissolved oxygen through the winter. the canal. The construction of the TLBR Connecting Canal will result in the permanent The potential impacts resulting from future loss of 5,500 m2 of fish habitat from the operations of the reservoir and the TLBR footprint of the earthfill embankments and the Connecting Canal are extensive and may culvert structure. include: a seasonal increase in the total area of fish habitat by 2.765 km2 in the Little Bow There will be some positive effects associated Reservoir and TLBR Connecting Canal as a with the construction of the TLBR Connecting result of an increase in FSL, complete loss Canal, including the creation of approximately of all existing emergent cattail, bulrush, and 41,800 m2 of new aquatic habitat in the sedge around the perimeter of the Little Bow medium- to long-term as a result of increasing Reservoir (~12,284 m2 total) due to inundation, the width of the TLBR Connecting Canal and and an increase in reservoir productivity an increase in fish habitat (~ 6,250 2m ) from the as initial increase in the flooded terrestrial removal of both the inlet and outlet structures. vegetation decays and surficial substrates begin Another positive feature is that future reservoir to erode. operation will create seasonal fish passage, from approximately October 7 to April 15, Seasonally fluctuating water levels in the and will include unimpeded passage during littoral zone are expected to be less productive spawning periods. for plant and animal life than is the existing stable water levels in Little Bow Reservoir. Operation These seasonal fluctuations in the Combined TLBR will also result in seasonally variable The potential impacts resulting from reservoir moisture availability and create uncertainty in operation during construction of the Little the establishment of new emergent vegetation Bow Reservoir may include: potential impacts along the perimeter of Little Bow Reservoir at to water quality if the grey water pumped the new FSL. from the isolated work areas is released into the reservoir; the complete loss of preferred The reservoir may experience a reduction in spawning habitat during construction fish populations due to an expected loss of drawdown, reduction in populations of spring emergent vegetation. This will result in a loss of spawners, such as northern pike, if water levels spawning and early rearing habitat for northern are not raised to normal operating levels by pike, and rearing habitat for other juvenile fish, early spring to inundate the spawning habitat including lake whitefish, and suckers. Die-off of typically used by these species; and decreased well-developed submergent aquatic vegetation dissolved oxygen concentrations and release in the Little Bow Reservoir due to decreased of methane, CO2, and other by-products as light penetration from the increased FSL is vegetation decays during reservoir drawdown expected. Limited establishment of submergent in winter for three consecutive years of vegetation within the seasonal drawdown zone construction. In addition, fish may be stranded resulting from annual desiccation is expected. within any of seven ponded areas of concern A stable zone supporting submergent vegetation

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 27 will eventually become established between the Of note, the drawdown process will be monitored seasonal low water level and the limit of light to identify areas of potential concern with respect penetration at FSL. to fish stranding during all three years that construction drawdown occurs. A fish rescue A reduction in benthic community abundance operation will be conducted in any areas where will occur in both the drawdown and littoral fish may become stranded during drawdown of the zones due to fluctuations in surface elevation reservoir. Fish will be returned to the reservoir. All during reservoir operation. The condition of areas that may potentially result in fish stranding lake whitefish is expected to decrease as a within the annual drawdown zone will be modified result of reduction in benthic invertebrates. to allow for either positive drainage or complete isolation from the reservoir. This may require the Elevated mercury levels are expected in excavation of channels or construction of berms the biota from newly flooded soils that are and will be completed prior to the initial raising of currently in the riparian area around Little the Little Bow Reservoir to the new FSL. Bow Reservoir. Increased methylation of mercury in the environment and the Possible supplemental aeration, to maintain bioaccumulation of mercury in fish will dissolved oxygen concentrations in the drawn occur as a result of elevating reservoir down reservoir, will be used if low dissolved levels. Increased mercury levels in predatory oxygen levels are measured, to ensure the fish such as northern pike and walleye are survival of fish and other aquatic life during the expected while mercury concentrations in the winter. Supplemental aeration would be done insectivorous lake whitefish are expected by installing an aerator on the ice, which can to increase by a lower factor. quickly increase the oxygen levels in the water.

7.6.2 Mitigation measures AT will enter into an agreement with the commercial The proponent has indicated that a range of fishery license holders to suspend the harvest of impact avoidance and mitigation measures lake whitefish during the three years of construction will be employed to protect fish and fish drawdown. This will ensure that 13,600 kg of lake habitat in Little Bow Reservoir, Travers whitefish (the annual commercial quota) is not Reservoir and the connecting canal, such that harvested from the Little Bow Reservoir each year. most of the potential adverse effects of the Project on the aquatic environment will be In accordance with DFO’s policy on fish habitat minimized. The proponent will follow the management, a fish habitat compensation plan Alberta Transportation Fish Habitat Manual: (FHCP) will be implemented to mitigate fish Guidelines and Procedures for Watercourse habitat losses due to construction and operation Crossings in Alberta (AT, 2009) for instream of the project. A conceptual FHCP has been works, as well as any appropriate measures prepared by the proponent; a detailed FHCP will contained in the Alberta Transportation be prepared for DFO as part of the application Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (AT, for authorization of the Project. 2011) for terrestrial aspects of the project. See Appendix 5 for details. Any impacts to The mitigation measures identified in Section 7.2 fish habitat that cannot be mitigated through to prevent impacts from construction activities the proceeding measures will be mitigated near water bodies will be applied to prevent through fish habitat compensation measures, sediment-laden water in construction areas from as described in the Follow-up Program (see entering the Little Bow Reservoir and the TLBR Section 8 and Appendix 7). Connecting Canal.

28 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Implementation of mitigation measures for including those upstream and downstream of the mercury in fish as they relate to human health Travers Reservoir outlet structure. The impact is that are presented in Section 7.12 expected to be low in magnitude, local in extent, short-term, and reversible. Monitoring Construction drawdown may result in a low A monitoring plan will be developed by the magnitude impact to lake whitefish due to reduced proponent in consultation with federal agencies spawning habitat suitability. This could result in to validate the assessment of residual impacts on a short-term shift in lake whitefish population the aquatic environment. Areas for monitoring structure towards older, mature fish with a higher will likely include: proportion of the total biomass comprised of fewer fish. However, this moderate residual effect ••fish stranding monitoring during construction is tempered by the effects of natural mortality and early future operation and harvest, and the fact that lake whitefish are ••spring spawning water levels and habitat availability a long-lived species (reproductively mature fish ••benthic invertebrate populations aged in range from 3 to 17 years). Suspending ••aquatic and riparian vegetation the commercial lake whitefish harvest during the ••planktonic productivity construction drawdown period will also reduce ••turbidity the negative draw on the whitefish population, ••compensation minimizing the negative effect from reduced ••dissolved oxygen concentrations through the ice recruitment. The overall level of impact on the during drawdown whitefish population is expected to be local and ••turbidity levels reversible in the short-term, low in magnitude and ••mercury concentrations in water and fish tissue the effect will not be significant. ••chlorophyll to monitor shoreline erosion The three years of poor lake whitefish recruitment Monitoring during the second year of reservoir during construction drawdown could result in a operation will be conducted to validate the negative effect on piscivorous species that feed on assessment of residual impacts to aquatic life. The juvenile lake whitefish, including walleye, burbot, need for further monitoring will be determined and juvenile northern pike. A reduced number of based on the results of this summary report. juvenile whitefish would limit the food source If deemed necessary, the monitoring program available for other fish, forcing them to rely on other will be repeated in the fifth year following sources of forage, such as spottail shiner, juveniles construction. Monitoring will also serve to of other species, and the young of their own species. validate the recommendations of the FHCP and to This could result in a reduction in the productivity of determine whether the proposed compensation was these three species over the period of construction, constructed as planned and is providing functional but the effect is expected to be buffered by the habitat. If any part of the compensation works does availability of other food sources. The residual effect not function as planned, adaptive management will is expected to be a minor decrease in productivity be applied to ensure that the compensation measures which will be of short-term duration and is not are remediated and begin to function properly. considered to be significant.

7.6.3 Residual environmental effects Despite proposed mitigation measures, it is Despite the application of mitigation measures, likely that some fish will remain stranded and it is likely that some sedimentation will occur die, or be eaten by predators during reservoir during installation and/or removal of cofferdams, drawdown. Likewise, some of the fish salvaged

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 29 may not survive being captured and transported. a shift in the benthic invertebrate population of Relative to the total population of fish within the Little Bow Reservoir drawdown zone does the Little Bow Reservoir, this represents a low occur, the dominant species would be expected to impact that is local and is reversible over the include chironomids and copepods. short-term. The level of impact is negligible and the effect is not significant. A minor shift in invertebrate species assemblage and biomass towards a more planktonic The provision for fish passage from Little Bow dominated food source could result in a minor Reservoir into Travers Reservoir during future decrease in the growth rate of lake whitefish in reservoir operation will result in a positive effect Little Bow Reservoir. This effect is expected on fish populations. Upstream passage had to be of low potential magnitude and is not previously been impossible as a result of a drop expected to have a significant effect on the total at the irrigation outlet structure at the outlet of biomass of the lake whitefish population. Travers Reservoir. This change is expected to have a low to negligible enhancing effect on habitat The potential minor increase in spottail shiner availability for all species in Little Bow Reservoir, food availability and decrease in lake whitefish as suitable habitat is currently available. growth rate would be expected to have a negligible effect on the populations of northern It is anticipated that there will be a residual pike and walleye. The potential changes are impact on northern pike reproductive effort as not anticipated to be large enough to have an a result of a short-term decrease in spawning appreciable effect on either species, as food habitat suitability during construction and in availability is not expected to be limiting. the first few years of operation. The effect is expected to be of low magnitude and reversible in Salvage of fish stranded during the first year of the short-term. operational drawdown may be required, and a small portion of these fish are likely to perish. The residual effect of submergent vegetation This impact will be local, occur once, and will be loss and change in community structure is reversible in the short-term. likely to have a measurable impact of ecological significance, and a moderate magnitude impact Increases in mercury are expected to peak on rearing habitat. This impact will be local and within 5 years to 10 year of Little Bow likely be irreversible; however rearing habitat Reservoir expansion, after which they will will be available in the long-term elsewhere in gradually decrease back to baseline levels the reservoir within 15 to 30 years. All predicted peak mercury concentrations are within ranges A moderate reduction in abundance and species typically observed in southern Alberta diversity of benthic invertebrates is expected which typically exceed CCME water quality to have an adverse impact on food chain input guidelines. Increased mercury levels are and productivity. This effect will be of low predicted to have a short- to medium-term magnitude, local, long-term, and irreversible. impact on fish populations and will be Based on the assessment of potential changes monitored during the follow-up process. in benthic invertebrate biomass and community structure a minor reduction in total biomass of 7.6.4 Government, public and Aboriginal benthic invertebrates within Little Bow Reservoir comments and proponent’s response and a shift in the population of invertebrates Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked the within the drawdown zone is expected. Assuming proponent for more specific details on

30 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project submergent vegetation, riparian vegetation, Rare plant species are defined for the purposes compensation and emergent vegetation. They of the EIS to include those species listed: also requested that the proponent provide an estimate of potential growth and survival ••by the Alberta Conservation Information effects from expected or potential changes in Management System (ACIMS) on the benthic invertebrate populations on all life tracking list for rare vascular and stages of VEC species. non-vascular plant species ••within Alberta as At Risk or May Be at Risk Environment Canada asked the proponent ••within Alberta as Species at Risk by the about water quality in relation to pre- Alberta Endangered Species Conservation construction water sampling of mercury, Committee contaminants guidelines, and worst-case ••as Threatened or Endangered under the scenario for mercury concentrations through Alberta Wildlife Act construction and the medium-term operating ••as Special Concern, Threatened, or life of the facility. Endangered under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) Following the proponent’s responses, both Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Vegetation surveys completed in 2007 and 2010 Canada concluded that a satisfactory amount identified four rare plant species (Common of information was gathered for assessing the beggarticks, Salt-marsh sand spurry, Prairie effects of the project on the aquatic environment. wedge grass, American water-horehound) and nine uncommon plant species (Low milk vetch, 7.6.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding Berlandier’s goosefoot, Louisiana broomgrape, residual environmental effects Plains cottonwood, Veined dock, Peach-leaved Taking into account the implementation of the willow, Common tickseed, Pale blue-eyed proposed mitigation measures, the Agency grass, Bushy cinquefoil) within the LSA. concludes that the Project is not likely to cause Several of these species are on the AESRD significant adverse environmental effects on the provincial tracking or the ACIMS watch list. aquatic environment including northern pike, lake whitefish, walleye, spottail shiner, benthic The rare ecological vegetation communities invertebrates and vegetation communities in the (western wheatgrass–low sedge and low sedge– littoral and riparian areas. western wheatgrass), occur in seven locations within the LSA.

7.7 Vegetation 7.7.1 Potential environmental effects Vegetation within the LSA may be impacted The LSA includes the proposed construction by construction activities include direct impact footprint and area of inundation at the and loss within the footprint of the structures new operating FSL of 856.18 m. The RSA including the dam, dykes, canal, and new PRA, (94.62 km2) was used to assess the effects of the temporary disturbance in laydown areas, access Project on the general vegetation community. roads, and work pads adjacent to the structures, temporary disturbance during installation of The LSA and RSA contain a variety of an overhead three phase power line, as well habitats, such as shoreline, wetlands, aquatic, as modification of some existing pipeline grasslands, shrub and tree lands, and disturbed infrastructure, and introduction and spread of agricultural land. non-native vegetation species.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 31 Reservoir operation effects will occur as a Wetland compensation will involve one of the result of raising the Little Bow Reservoir water following: reconstructing the compromised level to the new FSL and the new reservoir wetland area at another location onsite; operating regime. The potential effects of restoring off-site wetlands which have the Project on vegetation VECs as a result of previously been degraded; enhancement of future reservoir operation include the loss of existing wetlands; or paying compensation to vegetation ecosystems. The terrestrial riparian an accredited/recognized wetland conservation vegetation community may experience changes and restoration organization. A compensation in community structure. Some species that plan outlining the proposed measures for currently exist such as sedge and rush may achieving compensation will be submitted to be unsuccessful at reestablishment. Loss ESRD, which will review the proposal to ensure of wetland ecosystems, emergent aquatic that the requirements of the Alberta Water Act vegetation (100% in LSA and RSA) and are met. Consequently, the Project is expected changes in submergent aquatic vegetation to result in no net loss of wetland vegetation, community structure and abundance are also function, or habitat value. expected. It is estimated that a total of 2.9 km2 of wetland (0.028 km2), emergent aquatic Reclamation measures for grasslands will (0.031 km2), grassland (2.772 km2), and shrub include re-establishment of northern and and tree (0.038 km2) vegetation communities western wheatgrass within the LSA following (including rare or uncommon plants and completion of construction activities. ecological communities) will be lost as a result However, EC recommends the amount of of the Project. western wheatgrass in the seed mix be kept minimal—10 to 15 percent. Efforts should be Four rare and nine uncommon plant species made to establish other species such as needle will be impacted by raising the Little Bow and thread, green needle, june, or blue gramma Reservoir to the new FSL. All rare and grasses. Should the proponent be unable to uncommon plants identified within the footprint complete sod salvage, salvaged topsoil from of the expanded reservoir will be lost however, the areas that will be inundated with water these species likely occur within the RSA and should be spread over the area. In addition, the none are listed as threatened or endangered. LSA has been fenced, which will exclude local In addition, it is anticipated that a small portion cattle and contribute to an improvement of the of the western wheatgrass–low sedge and low existing grassland areas. sedge–western wheatgrass plant communities, which occur within the LSA, will be lost as The increased variability of soil moisture a result of flooding. conditions as a result of proposed reservoir fluctuations will result in a larger area for 7.7.2 Mitigation measures riparian and emergent aquatic vegetation to Wetland habitat will be lost as a result of the establish in the upper portion of the reservoir Project and compensation must be provided drawdown zone. The most suitable conditions for all wetland complexes that will be affected, for establishment of emergent and riparian which are identified as Class II or greater vegetation within the future drawdown zone according to the Stewart and Kantrud system include low gradient, protected bays. of classification (1971) and as per the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. The total loss Trees may be planted within the new PRA to of wetland habitat for which compensation is replace the mature trees that will be removed required is equal to 0.028 km2. however, if the mature trees that were removed

32 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project were not native to the area or ecozone, they disturbance using native grass seed mix to should not be replanted as this will disrupt inhibit invasive species introduction and ecozone integrity. The only native trees in the spread. Noxious and restricted weeds will ecozone are cottonwoods that occur along the be controlled as per the requirements of the river valley bottom in the flood zone, not on the Alberta Weed Control Act. open prairie shorelines of lakes. The proponent should discuss the planting of trees and shrubs Monitoring with appropriate federal authorities. Planting of sandbar willow will be carried out as per Post-construction monitoring will be conducted the conceptual FHCP. to ensure that all mitigation, weed control, and revegetation of disturbed areas have been Transplanting rare plant and rare ecological implemented. Regular weed control will be communities from within the zone of completed until successful revegetation has inundation will be attempted to offset the been achieved. The inspection will follow the potential effect on the regional populations of procedures and requirements of the Erosion and these species. Suitable areas for transplanting Sediment Control Manual (AT, 2011). will be determined based on species growing requirements. As the precise species Monitoring of transplanted rare plants will be preferences are not typically well known and conducted to determine their success rate. A parameters such as moisture content will have survey will be conducted in July of the first to be predicted based on the future reservoir two years of operation to assess survival; the operating regime, it is expected that the success results will be reported and the need for further rate for transplanting may be low. However, monitoring or mitigation assessed after two years. even moderate successful establishment will help to reduce the short-term impact and could 7.7.3 Residual environmental effects result in a complete offset of the anticipated Residual effects on Little Bow Reservoir loss over the long-term as individual plants vegetation include: an increase of propagate and establish populations. Live approximately 0.157 km2 of riparian cuttings or potted saplings of identified vegetation, changes in riparian vegetation VECs, including peach leaf willow and plains community structure, the loss of approximately cottonwood will also be planted above the new 0.031 km2 of emergent aquatic vegetation, FSL of Little Bow Reservoir in and around the changes in submergent aquatic vegetation new PRA. community structure and abundance, the loss of approximately 2.772 km2 of In addition, a revegetation plan promoting a modified grasslands, and the loss of 13 rare native mixed grass community in disturbed or uncommon plant populations within the areas of the LSA would help to promote re- inundation zone. establishment of rare and uncommon plant species by limiting competition with invasive The increase in riparian habitat available for species. Likewise, re-establishment of a healthy establishing water-loving species is expected to riparian zone would improve the likelihood result in a low magnitude increase in riparian of hydrophilic rare or uncommon species vegetation abundance. This effect will be local becoming re-established within the LSA. in extent and it is expected that riparian species will begin establishing in the short-term and the All disturbed areas above the new FSL will transition to riparian species dominance will be revegetated as soon as practical after occur over the medium-term. The overall level

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 33 of impact is expected to be low and the existing as these species may re-establish populations riparian habitat was not a critical or limited in the vicinity of the reservoir and additional resource. A change in riparian vegetation populations may exist outside of the footprint community structure is expected to occur as of inundation or within the RSA. The species a result of fluctuating water levels creating a have not been rated as endangered or threatened moisture regime that is different from the soil under provincial or federal legislation. conditions in the existing riparian area. This effect is expected to be of low magnitude, local, 7.7.4 Government, public and Aboriginal a single occurrence and will be irreversible comments and proponent’s response during future reservoir operation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada questioned the proponent extensively on the effects of the The loss of emergent aquatic vegetation is Project on riparian vegetation, as described expected to be moderate in magnitude within above in Section 7.6. Following the proponent’s the LSA as although some emergent vegetation response with respect to re-establishment of will likely re-establish, the existing species are emergent, submergent, grassland and tree not likely to recover to the current productive and shrub vegetation, Fisheries and Oceans capacity for the duration of the Project. Canada and Environment Canada concluded However, the emergent vegetation within the that a satisfactory amount of information was LSA was heavily dominated by cattail with low gathered for assessing the effects. species diversity and all species recorded are common aquatic plants. Within the RSA, all The Blood Tribe has concerns over the species are expected to occur in other permanent relocation of traditional plants and believes water bodies such as wetlands, despite the that they should be the ones to carry out absence of comparable reservoir habitat. this relocation. The Siksika Nation noted that it has become very difficult to find their As discussed in Section 7.6, a low magnitude medicinal plants in the Little Bow Reservoir reduction in submergent vegetation abundance area and more generally in the southern part is expected as well as a shift in species of the province of Alberta. The proponent composition as a result of fluctuating is encouraged to continue discussions on water levels. reclamation with Aboriginal groups and include groups in the planning and relocation Loss of modified grassland vegetation is of traditional plants within the Little expected to be high in magnitude within the Bow Reservoir. LSA, will occur once, and will be permanent for the duration of the Project. With respect 7.7.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding to the RSA, the loss is of low magnitude as it residual environmental effects represents a small percentage of the regional Taking into account implementation of the grassland vegetation area (4.7%). Likewise, proposed mitigation measures and the Follow- grassland habitat of equivalent quality and up Program, the Agency concludes that the species composition will continue to exist Project is not likely to cause significant adverse within the vicinity of the new FSL. environmental effects on the vegetation components of the Project including riparian Despite transplanting of rare plants, a one- vegetation, wetlands, emergent and submergent time moderate magnitude of local impact that aquatic vegetation, grasslands, and shrubs and is reversible in the short-term is expected. The trees and rare or uncommon plant species and overall level of impact is expected to be low rare ecological communities.

34 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 7.8 Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat grasslands, shrubs, trees, islands and nesting structures for cliff swallows (i.e., Little Historically, colonial nesting waterbirds Bow Reservoir and Travers Reservoir outlet inhabiting the Little Bow Reservoir have structures) during clearing, during site included double-crested cormorants, American preparation, and because of an increased FSL white pelicans, ring-billed gulls, and California and a newly fluctuating operating regime. gulls. Currently, a colony of double-crested Ferruginous hawk nesting sites may be lost due cormorants is located on an island in the to the removal of mature trees. An indirect loss northern portion of the Little Bow Reservoir. of habitat close to intensive activity (traffic and large machinery, etc.) and impedance of wildlife There were eleven waterfowl species along movement by physical barriers and disruptions with common loons, red-necked grebes, and is expected. A decrease in abundance and American coots reported during waterfowl reproductive success of songbirds in adjacent surveys. Nine species of waterfowl were habitats may occur. There may also be direct observed in the 2011 Wildlife Surveys. Ducks mortality of wildlife as a result of clearing and and geese can begin breeding as early as March, grubbing during the nesting or natal period or though the peak of the breeding season occurs during the initial raising of the reservoir, which in May. is particularly a risk for nesting birds. Increased vehicle traffic associated with construction, may For this assessment, wildlife ‘species at risk’ also result in direct mortality by increasing the are defined as being listed as endangered, number of animals involved in vehicle-wildlife threatened, or of special concern by COSEWIC, collisions. SARA, or AESCC and have been documented within the LSA. There were twelve species (all Reservoir Operation may potentially affect birds) that may be found in the LSA that met wildlife within the LSA through the loss of this criterion. They include the Ferruginous 2.36 km2 of vegetation communities providing Hawk, Piping Plover, Long-billed Curlew, habitat for various wildlife species and the Burrowing Owl, Short-eared Owl, Common potential submergence of early nests built below Nighthawk, Loggerhead Shrike, Sprague’s Pipit, the FSL. Barn Swallow, McCown’s Longspur, Chestnut- Collared Longspur, and Bobolink. 7.8.2 Mitigation measures The following mitigation measures, primarily Of these twelve species at risk, evidence of to ensure compliance with the Migratory 5 species were observed during surveying: Birds Convention Act, will be implemented ferruginous hawk (2008); long-billed curlews during construction. Clearing and grubbing of (2009, 2011); common nighthawks (2008, 2009, wildlife habitat will be completed outside of 2011); Sprague’s pipits (2008, 2009, 2011); and the breeding season (April 15 to July 31) for the chestnut-collared longspurs (2008, 2009, breeding birds protected under the Migratory 2011). Suitable habitat was also found for each Bird Convention Act and the Alberta Wildlife of these species, including high quality habitat Act. If Sprague’s Pipits are nesting in this area, for burrowing owls, though none were observed. restricted activity dates of May 1 to August 31 will be followed. If, despite mitigation, a 7.8.1 Potential environmental effects Sprague pipit nest is found, it cannot be Construction may potentially affect wildlife destroyed or moved and the proponent must within the LSA through the direct loss of wait until the young have fledged. In such a habitat such as wetlands, emergent vegetation, case the proponent could contact Environment

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 35 Canada Wildlife Enforcement to discuss the replanting trees and shrubs within the riparian matter. If limited clearing must take place area of the new PRA, and controlling cattle during the nesting season, EC recommends that grazing within the LSA through maintenance it be undertaken by qualified avian biologists of fences, to improve the quality of grassland, or avian naturalists that have expertise in wetland, and riparian habitat. identifying indicated nests as well as in identifying behaviour indicative of nesting (i.e. 7.8.3 Residual environmental effects aggressive or defensive behaviour, carrying of Mitigation measures will reduce or nesting material, food or faecal sacs). Surveys eliminate most project effects on wildlife should be undertaken within seven days of during construction. However, some minor clearing, with the results submitted to EC for effects due to disturbances associated with review. The removal of structures, such as the construction activities will remain after the Little Bow Reservoir and Travers Reservoir application of the mitigation strategies. The outlet structures where birds may be nesting will avoidance of suitable habitat by wildlife be completed outside of the breeding season for due to disturbance is expected to be low in those species. The initial filling of the reservoir magnitude, local, short-term, and sporadic. will be delayed until July 15 to avoid flooding The residual effects of disturbance are of Sprague’s pipit nests, but not left until later expected to be negligible. as predictive models suggest a later flooding initiation date would not allow for full levels by The few mature trees present within the PRA the end of the irrigation season will be removed during the construction phase. While suitable nesting habitat for The following mitigation measures are ferruginous hawks will be lost, no nests recommended by EC as a means to assist will be destroyed during the construction compliance with the Migratory Bird Convention phase. White the proponent has committed Act and the Alberta Wildlife Act. The proponent to planting new trees in the proposed PRA will complete any grass mowing in the area to based on EC’s understanding of the ecozone; be inundated outside of both the Sprague’s pipits the only native trees should be cottonwoods nesting period of May 1st to August 31st as well and should only occur along the river valley as the breeding season for migratory birds of bottom in the flood zone, not on the open April 15th to July 31st. Therefore, the proponent prairie shorelines of lakes. EC notes that if needs to mow the area before April 15th. If there the mature trees that were removed were are any trees to be removed that have shown not native to the area or ecozone then they evidence of ferruginous hawk activity within should not be replanted as this will disrupt the the last two years, they should be replaced with ecozone integrity. The continuous presence of nesting platforms. Implementation of lowered transmission towers in the area will provide speed limits (less than 60 km/hour) within the nesting opportunities for the hawks throughout active construction area and along new roads the operation phase of the Project; however, will reduce the likelihood of wildlife/vehicle nests on transmission towers pose a safety collisions. In addition, installation of metallic hazard (fire, mortality of birds) and are not streamers may deter birds from nesting along considered ideal habitat. The proponent may the shoreline. replace ferruginous hawk nests that have been active within the last two years with suitable During reservoir operations, mitigation includes habitat in the form of nesting platforms, thereby reclaiming disturbed grassland habitat using reducing the potential for birds to nest on a grass seed mix containing native species, transmission lines. Thus, the Project is expected

36 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project to have a negligible effect on ferruginous Sprague’s pipits and longspurs. No habitat has hawks, with the effects being local, a single been defined as critical and suitable grassland occurrence and reversible in the short-term. habitat exists elsewhere in the RSA. As such, accounting for the entire area of inundation Once the Little Bow Reservoir water level as a loss of habitat is considered to be an is raised to the new FSL, after the breeding overestimation. The effect of habitat loss to period, the islands currently used by colonial grassland species is considered negative, will nesting birds will be submerged. However, new occur once, and will extend into the far future, islands will become available in the vicinity of lasting the life-span of the Project. While a high the existing cormorant colony and will provide proportion of grassland habitat within the LSA isolation from land predators at all operating will be inundated with water, the geographic levels. At the new FSL, the existing 23 islands extent and magnitude of the reduction in habitat with an area of 0.059 km2 will be replaced by availability are considered to be low, as the an estimated 59 new islands with an area of loss is equivalent to 5.0% of the grassland 0.397 km2. No mortalities are expected due habitat available within the RSA. The potential to flooding. Although no colonies of pelicans mortality of breeding grassland birds will be or gulls were observed, the establishment of limited by raising the water level to the new colonies may also occur as these species were FSL outside of breeding season. observed within the LSA. A net gain of nesting habitat coupled with no increases in mortality Monitoring indicates that the Project will have a net positive effect on colonial nesting waterbirds. Revegetation of disturbed grassland, shrubs This effect may be regional, as additional and trees will be monitored. A survey will be habitat may result in increased numbers of conducted in the second year, of operation birds residing at Little Bow Reservoir during to assess the presence of and habitat use by the breeding season. The loss of 23 islands wildlife. This will include conducting breeding will occur once and will be permanent for the bird surveys, observing of colonial nesting duration of the lifespan of the Project. waterbirds presence, and generally observing wildlife. The need for further monitoring or The reduction of upland nesting habitat is mitigation will be assessed after the second considered to be minor as equivalent grassland year. If deemed necessary, the survey will be habitat will continue to be available adjacent repeated in the fifth year of operation. to the new FSL. Despite the absence of comparable emergent aquatic vegetation within 7.8.4 Government, public and Aboriginal the RSA, wetland habitat is readily available comments and proponent’s response and will provide comparable habitat value Environment Canada sought clarification for waterfowl. The negative effect of habitat from the proponent on how it intended to loss is therefore considered to be local, of low avoid destruction to any migratory bird eggs magnitude and minor when regional habitat and/or active nests and adhere to each of the availability is considered. species at risk setbacks and timing restrictions for burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk and Approximately 2.32 km2 of grassland habitat Sprague’s pipit. The proponent provided further will be inundated at the new FSL; however, not explanation of the set-backs and strategies it all grassland habitats adjacent to the reservoir intended to use to avoid impacts to migratory at baseline is suitable for species at risk such birds and species at risk. Environment Canada as burrowing owls, long-billed curlews, also noted that with the new PRA will result

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 37 in the destruction of native prairie and may warmer temperatures in the winter. There are affect species at risk. The proponent provided no aspects of the Project that could affect wind its rationale on site selection, specifically or precipitation patterns; therefore, no changes noting factors used to minimize impacts to are anticipated. species at risk and native prairie. Following the proponent’s responses, EC concluded that a Man-made sources of Greenhouse Gas satisfactory amount of information was gathered (GHG) emissions for the Project will include: for assessing the effects. construction activities using mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment; motor 7.8.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding vehicle emissions generated by vehicles arriving residual environmental effects and leaving the Project site; and onsite fuel Taking into account implementation of the combustion for other Project-related activities, proposed mitigation measures and the Follow- such as space and water heating and fireplaces up Program, the Agency concludes that the and/or stoves. In addition, the production of Project is not likely to cause significant adverse methane will occur as a result of inundating and environmental effects on wildlife and wildlife resulting decay of the upland vegetation due to the habitat, including colonial nesting waterbirds, planned increase in water levels of the reservoir. waterfowl, and federal species at risk. Approximately 494 tonnes CO2 equivalents and

1,462 tonnes CO2 equivalents respectively will be emitted for the clearing of vegetation and the 7.9 Climate and Air Quality subsequent flooding of the upland area of Little Bow Reservoir, during construction and operation. The climate of the region is defined as the Grassland ecoclimatic province. It has cold The Project will not be a major emitter of ozone, winters and short hot summers with July usually nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur being the warmest month. The region has the dioxide, or total reduced sulphur compounds. lowest mean annual precipitation (410 mm) of Potential impacts of the Project as a result of the three ecoclimatic provinces, with a summer- construction activities, soil transfer or excavation high typically occurring in the month of June. and from vehicle/equipment traffic on access roads, The temperature regimes and precipitation strong wind conditions, and reservoir drawdown patterns make the Grassland Natural Region the may include an increase in emitted particulate warmest and driest region in Alberta. Wind (or matter (PM), in the form of dust and an increase in airflow) patterns are usually northerly in winter vehicle-related emissions of combustion gases, as and westerly (or south-westerly) during other well as emissions from construction equipment. seasons of the year. Air quality within the RSA has been categorized as ‘good’, or as having an 7.9.2 Mitigation measures air quality index (AQI) between 0-25. No mitigation action is required with respect to the Project’s potential effect on the temperature 7.9.1 Potential environmental effects of the surrounding micro-climate. The change in surface area of the Little Bow

Reservoir is not sufficient to have a substantial CO2 emissions are minor (0.000008%) in effect on the local climate. A minor moderating comparison with the total provincial GHG effect on temperature within the micro-climate emission of 244 million tonnes of CO2 immediately east of Little Bow Reservoir may equivalents. In addition, the upland vegetation occur, resulting in slightly lower surface air that will be inundated at the new FSL will be in temperatures in the summer and slightly dormancy during flooding. Therefore, clearing

38 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project of the vegetation prior to flooding is not to result in a significant contribution to considered necessary. climate change or cause significant adverse environmental effects on air quality. Where required, site-specific measures such as water spraying to damp down disturbed areas with high dust concentrations or erecting silt fencing or 7.10 Noise other structures will be erected to block wind in areas of active excavation will be employed. The LSA for noise associated with the Project is confined to the footprint of active construction Monitoring and the area of proposed inundation. The RSA is the area in which regional impacts to sound Dust levels will be visually monitored on site quality may potentially occur, which includes during construction to assess the need for a 3 km buffer extending beyond the boundaries additional measures to prevent topsoil loss and to of the LSA. The average baseline day-night protect workers. sound levels for the Little Bow Reservoir were found to be 47.6 dBA which is, according to 7.9.3 Residual environmental effects Health Canada guidelines, comparable to noise Although the Project may result in a minor levels found in quiet rural areas with an average moderation of the surface air temperature of population density of 28 people per km2. the micro-climate associated with the Little Bow Reservoir due to the increase in surface 7.10.1 Potential environmental effects area of the reservoir, the effect is expected to be Chronic noise, such as that associated with traffic negligible as it affects only the microclimate and and large machinery, can affect the abundance and not the regional climate. reproductive success of songbirds in adjacent habitats. The noise impact will be greatest in With the mitigation measures in place, strong locations that are closest to the source (the wind conditions at the site are not expected to construction site) and will then gradually taper carry construction dust to areas of concern like off with increasing distance from the source. human residences. A low magnitude, irreversible The Project will result in minimally increased increase in dust created as a result of wind erosion noise levels during construction by about 1 dBA in the exposed drawdown zone is expected, and above current levels. No increase in noise levels will continue for as long as the proposed operating is expected during future operation. regime is in place. 7.10.2 Mitigation measures and residual 7.9.4 Government, public and Aboriginal environmental effects comments and proponent’s response A change of less than 3 dBA is barely Neither the public or Aboriginal groups perceptible to the human ear (Health Canada, expressed any concerns regarding AT’s 2011). For short-term construction, where an mitigation or approach to the climate and air increase of 1 dB is predicted, a comparison of quality components of the Project. construction noise levels on human receptors at receptors 1,800 m, 3,275 m and 5,250 m from 7.9.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual the source indicates that mitigation measures environmental effects at the source are not required. Calculations to Taking into account implementation of the quantify long-term construction noise exposure proposed mitigation measures, the Agency were not considered necessary because of the concludes that the Project is not expected attenuation of the construction noise levels

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 39 to 10 dBA below baseline levels at 3,275 m for commercial fishing could occur would be and 5,250 m from the source. in a year where there was no ice on the reservoir and an open-water fishery was sanctioned Based on the impact assessment, the Project is by AESRD. not expected to affect ambient noise levels at the identified receptors, for both humans and There are several existing impediments to songbirds, and no further mitigation navigability in Little Bow Reservoir that reduce was deemed necessary by the proponent. the overall potential for watercraft use. There are significant areas of shallow water near shore, 7.10.3 Government, public and Aboriginal including large bays too shallow to navigate comments and proponent’s response with an outboard engine, particularly along the Neither the public nor Aboriginal groups west and north margins of the reservoir. There expressed any concerns regarding AT’s are also numerous submerged islands, bars, and mitigation or approach to the noise components points in the reservoir. These features present of the Project. a potential hazard to navigation and as a result, signage has been posted at the public boat 7.10.4 The Agency’s conclusions regarding launch warning users to exercise caution. The residual environmental effects presence of dense submergent aquatic vegetation In considering that there are no residual noise also impedes travel. Passage between Little Bow impacts, the Agency concludes that the Project- Reservoir and Travers Reservoir is not possible related noise is not likely to cause significant because of the presence of the control structure adverse environmental effects. at the outlet of Travers Reservoir.

7.11.1 Potential environmental effects 7.11 Navigable Waters Construction Navigability was selected as a VEC as changes within a water body may impact the public right During reservoir operation during construction to navigation legislated under the Navigable access to the public boat launch will be restricted Waters Protection Act. Impacts to navigation and launching at most locations along the shore were examined within the LSA which included will be difficult after the reservoir is drawn- the entire wetted area of the Little Bow down as the previously wetted shoreline would Reservoir at current and future operating levels. primarily consist of mud, clays, etc.

Boaters currently access the reservoir at the Operation public boat launch located in the PRA on the east side of the reservoir. At times when the PRA Once the Little Bow Reservoir is operational, the was closed and the boat launch was inaccessible, cofferdam may have an impact on navigation in sport fisherman launched their boats along the the open water season. northwest shore of the reservoir at other beach areas accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles. During operation, passage between the reservoirs via the TLBR Connecting Canal will continue There is no anticipated commercial navigation to be unfeasible as a submerged culvert will on the reservoir. The commercial fishery that be installed at the outlet of Travers Reservoir. operates at Little Bow Reservoir is a winter Navigation within the vicinity of the culvert fishery. The only instance in which navigation structure could present a hazard to public safety.

40 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project During future reservoir operation and safety booms across the inlet to Little Bow maintenance fluctuation in reservoir levels Reservoir and the outlet at Travers Reservoir. will mean inconsistent presence of hazards as they will sometimes be exposed and sometimes 7.11.3 Residual environmental effects be submerged. Unplanned drawdowns for The only identified navigational impact that maintenance activities that occur during the cannot be mitigated is the presence of irregular summer could impact navigation. contours in the profile of the reservoir bottom, which may create hazards as the reservoir level 7.11.2 Mitigation measures fluctuates. These contours cannot be graded The recommended means for mitigating impacts and marking of individual hazards would to navigation is to post signage at the public be impractical. The anticipated incidence boat launch in the new PRA that identifies the of hazards will be similar to the existing location of potential hazards. The sign will be navigational conditions in the reservoir, easy to interpret and clearly communicate that necessitating boater caution. This impact is hazards may be present at various water levels, expected to be low in magnitude, local in necessitating user caution at all times, which is extent, and regular in frequency. similar to the existing navigational conditions. The sign should have a large air photo overlaid 7.11.4 Government, public and Aboriginal with markings to show the location of the comments and proponent’s response hazards relative to the boat launch, with a The public and, Aboriginal groups did not legend explaining all markings. In addition, the express any concerns regarding AT’s mitigation UTM or latitude and longitude coordinates for or approach to navigation. specific hazards can be provided below the map so that recreational users who are interested can 7.11.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding program the information into their navigational residual environmental effects equipment. Additional signage will be posted for Taking into account the implementation of the construction activities and potential short-term proposed mitigation measures and the Follow- impediments or hazards. up Program, the Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse To minimize navigational hazards all areas are environmental effects on the navigability of the to be armoured with riprap such as the dam Little Bow Reservoir. slope and cofferdams, and areas prone to erosion will be at a constant grade consistent with the specified design or natural shoreline contour. 7.12 Current Use of Lands for The armouring will not project into the reservoir Traditional and Recreation Purposes and, therefore, will not represent a hazard to navigation. Buildings and other structures within This section contains an assessment of the the portion of the existing PRA to be flooded effect of any change the Project may cause will be removed and all mature trees and shrubs in the environment including impacts to within the same area will be cleared and the roots health and socio-economic conditions, removed, prior to inundation. The new Little Bow physical and cultural heritage, current use Reservoir PRA structure will be constructed in of lands and resources for recreational or the dry, prior to raising the reservoir level to the commercial purposes or traditional use by new FSL and will be clearly visible at reservoir Aboriginal groups. The effect of any change operation levels. Access to the entire TLBR the Project may cause in the environment on Connecting Canal will be eliminated by installing any structure, site or thing that is of historical,

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 41 archaeological, paleontological or architectural First Nations may hunt for food throughout significance is assessed in Section 7.13. Alberta year round for food related purposes where they have a right of access for hunting The LSA encompasses the Project footprint (GOA, 2009). Hunting white-tailed deer and and area immediately surrounding the Project, mule deer is allowed on surrounding private including the Little Bow Reservoir at the new and/or agricultural public lands provided the operating FSL boundary, the outlet canal, and the hunter receives permission from the landowner construction footprint. No residences are located or leaseholder. Hunting or the discharging of within the LSA. firearms is not permitted in the LSA or RSA PRAs or the provincial park in the RSA (GOA, The RSA likely includes historic traditional use 2011h). There is no specific information on areas of surrounding Aboriginal groups, though whether the Blackfoot First Nations, Métis or specific uses have not been identified as part of other Aboriginal groups currently use the RSA the Project studies. The RSA is encompassed or LSA as a hunting area. within the historic Blackfoot traditional territory and within an area of importance for traditional Gathering of plants for traditional purposes uses, use areas, and traditional knowledge by Aboriginal people may occur within the for Blackfoot First Nation Peoples. It is also LSA and/or RSA, as plant resources gathered within the traditional territory of the Nakoda for domestic uses by Blackfoot First Nations (Stoney) First Nation and the Tsuu T’ina First people for traditional use, such as yarrow Nation, and likely within the traditional use and scarlett mallow, have been identified in area for Métis Nation—Region 3 members. these areas; however, no gathering activities More specifically this means that the RSA were identified during the Project studies. No may include areas where hunting, fishing and Aboriginal traditional use of LSA and RSA trapping as well as the gathering of berries and lands for commercial purposes were identified medicinal plants may be carried out. during the Project studies.

Fishing for recreational purposes occurs on The Little Bow Reservoir has been fished the Little Bow Reservoir within the LSA. It commercially in winter for whitefish, northern is likely that a portion of the fish caught is pike, and walleye since 1948 (Beak, 1983). consumed. While unconfirmed, examination The value of the commercial fishery in of the limited information on traditional use Little Bow Reservoir, Travers Reservoir and activities within the RSA suggested the possible McGregor Reservoir is vulnerable to changes subsistence use of fisheries resources in the in spawning and rearing habitat availability reservoir by either First Nations or Métis that are associated with water level fluctuations groups is also occurring. (Beak, 1983). In the 1970s, commercial catches decreased as a result of drawdown in Aboriginal peoples may hunt, trap, and/or fish all three reservoirs (Beak, 1983). The Little within the RSA for domestic purposes on all Bow Reservoir fishery was closed in 1982 for unoccupied Crown land. Geographically, the several years to allow for population recovery Project is not within, or close to, any Province after over-harvesting throughout the late 1970s of Alberta Registered Fur Management (Beak, 1983). Areas, nor is trapping permitted in the Little Bow Reservoir PRSA or any of the PRA or 7.12.1 Potential environmental effects provincial parks in the RSA (GOA, 2011g). The proponent has indicated that preliminary With the exception of bison hunting, treaty Project-related discussions with representatives

42 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project of local First Nations and Métis groups suggested Construction activities are not expected to that traditional use activities were conducted affect potential resource uses for traditional in the LSA and surrounding area in the past. purposes such as gathering, hunting, and However, as the three First Nations and Métis trapping in the LSA or RSA. The potential contacted by the proponent did not participate impacts to the ten historical resource sites fully in the Project studies due to lack of capacity which were identified within the LSA are funding, the information presented by the assessed under Heritage and Archaeological proponent was taken primarily from secondary Resources (Section 7.13). sources (e.g., publicly available reports, Aboriginal websites, AANDC, Statistics Canada, During construction, fishing on Little Bow and government databases). The proponent Reservoir may be affected by the proposed acknowledges that, as a result, the information drawdown during construction as well as by presented may not be wholly representative of limited access to fishing sites. Drawdown First Nations and Métis interests. to El. 849 m and potential activation of an aeration system will likely force fish to occupy The Agency in turn made an effort to acquire different areas of the reservoir and the typical traditional land use information by directly netting locations may not produce as well as engaging with the Blackfoot First Nations and usual. Alternatively, drawdown could result in Métis Nation—Region 3, however little project- concentration of fish in specific areas, resulting specific information has been provided to date. in an above average catch rate in those areas. As a cautious approach given the minimal traditional land use information, the mitigation The proposed structures and construction measures presented below broadly address the activities are not expected to affect human health. potential impacts of the Project on possible traditional uses within the LSA and RSA. Operation

Construction A new PRA was included as a Project component and a larger recreation area with The effect of construction on recreation infrastructure and facilities similar to those facilities and activities will be a temporary loss at the current PRA (e.g., boat ramp, fire pits, of recreation-related infrastructure in the LSA toilets, water pump, and picnic tables) will be due to the two–year closure of the Little Bow developed on higher ground near the southeast Reservoir PRA during construction. A reduction perimeter of the Little Bow Reservoir. As such, in recreational activities and opportunities, such the Project will result in an improvement in as bird watching, boating, and sport fishing in the recreation facilities during operation. Existing LSA and, possibly, the RSA due to construction beach areas and boat launches will be affected activities, including lowering of the Little Bow by the new FSL but these activities will be Reservoir will also occur. available at new locations on the Little Bow Reservoir during operations. No acquisition of properties and/or residences in the RSA is required for the Project and Traditional land use in the LSA may be construction activities are not expected to generate impacted during operation, as resource use impacts to domestic land use. Temporary road areas below the new FSL of El. 856.18 m will closures during the construction period could be inaccessible due to inundation. Though this result in inconvenience for local residents, but the could potentially result in changes to traditional effect is expected to be minor and short-term. use areas and plant gathering areas of both the

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 43 First Nations and Métis groups, no specific facilities in the LSA. Mitigation for decreased gathering areas in the inundation zone have access due to construction road closures in been identified. the LSA is not planned. Birding opportunities will continue to be available in the RSA. No Oil and gas facilities and activities in the LSA mitigation is proposed for the loss of access and RSA are not expected to be impacted to the boat launch in the Little Bow Reservoir during operation, as most existing oil and PRA during construction. Boaters choosing gas facilities are situated above the new to access the Little Bow Reservoir during FSL. Where oil and gas facilities are located construction via unofficial boat launch locations below the elevation of the PMF, and therefore will not be prohibited from doing so, but susceptible to short-term impacts during major this activity will be undertaken at the users’ flood events, advance notice has been given risk. During operations, a boat launch will be to respective companies so the appropriate available at the new Little Bow Reservoir PRA. mitigation measures could be arranged. No mitigation is recommended for reduced access for sport fishing. Changes to the retail fish guideline exceedances and consumption limit advisories are expected The loss of plants potentially gathered by to be transient in nature and will reflect the Aboriginal people is local in extent, will occur timeline of mercury increases in the fish, i.e., once, and is permanent. Given the limited peak increases within 5 to 10 years, followed geographic extent of this loss and the presence of by gradual reversal to baseline levels within 15 these plants elsewhere in the RSA, no mitigation to 30 years. Increased mercury concentration in is planned to specifically address this loss. fish may result in a higher proportion of some fish populations exceeding Health Canada’s Given the extent to which hunting and trapping guidelines for consumption and consumption is already limited in the RSA and LSA as advisories for some sport and/or subsistence a result of the presence of privately owned fish species may be required. land, extensive agricultural development, and occupied Crown land (PRA, PRSA, and The navigable waters assessment contained in provincial parks), the Project is unlikely to have Section 7.11 identified irregular contours of an impact on any hunting and trapping activities the Little Bow Reservoir bottom at fluctuating potentially undertaken by Aboriginal people. water levels as a residual effect of reservoir operation. Due to the irregular nature of No mitigation is recommended for potential contours in the reservoir substrate profile, effects on potential subsistence or commercial caution must be exercised by boat users on the fish catches during construction drawdown as Little Bow Reservoir to avoid impacts to human the impacts of drawdown on fish catches are health. Failure to exercise caution may result expected to be short-term in duration and local in such human health effects as accidental in extent. drowning and/or death. The TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TCPL) 7.12.2 Mitigation measures pipeline near the proposed Little Bow Reservoir No mitigation strategies are proposed for the outlet structure will be relocated by the pipeline temporary loss of the Little Bow Reservoir PRA owner to coincide with the realignment of the and infrastructure during project construction. outlet channel. A protective concrete slab will A new PRA will be available during operation be installed where a new roadway is proposed and will result in an improvement in recreation across a TCPL pipeline at the west end of

44 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project the Little Bow Reservoir Dam. Additional year eight of operation. If values are close to, protective measures such as concrete slabs or exceed the Health Canada guideline, the were not required for ConocoPhillips pipeline sampling, frequency may be increased. After crossings. Potential impacts to oil and gas in mercury levels stabilize or begin to decline, the LSA and/or RSA during construction and the monitoring frequency will be reduced. operation have been mitigated through advance After mercury levels decline, monitoring notice to respective stakeholders. Pipeline would revert to general provincial monitoring companies have been advised of this risk so that as directed by Alberta Health. A consistent protective measures such as protective berms sampling method and analytical protocol will can be incorporated, if deemed necessary. be employed at all times to ensure that the data is comparable. The potential human health effect of boating hazards, due to irregular contours, will be 7.12.3 Residual environmental effects mitigated through strategies detailed under Residual effects include improvements in Section 7.11. PRA facilities, change in fish catch rates during construction drawdown, changes in fish The Government of Alberta monitors all consumption rates, including which species recreational fishing areas for mercury levels. are being consumed, increases in mercury If retail fish species and sport fish species that levels in fish over the next 5 to 10 years, and are caught recreationally are found to have irregular contours affecting boater safety. All elevated mercury levels, the Government of residual effects are local in extent, of limited Alberta will modify the consumption limits magnitude, and are reversible in the long-term. for Little Bow Reservoir and surrounding water bodies and tributaries. Fish consumption 7.12.4 Government, public and Aboriginal advisories can be found at: http://www. comments and proponent’s response mywildalberta.com/Fishing/SafetyProcedures/ Health Canada requested further information FishConsumptionAdvisory.aspx. Consumption from the proponent on Country Foods, with advisories may be required until mercury a focus on types, quantities, and frequency levels gradually reverse to baseline in the of consumption of fish consumed by First next 15 to 30 years. To avoid exceeding Nations and Métis groups and their exposure mercury consumption advisory levels, people risk to mercury. The proponent has indicated concerned about exposure to mercury may that although there is no evidence to suggest choose to primarily consume lake whitefish that subsistence use of the fisheries resources (an insectivorous species). in the reservoir is occurring, measures such as consumption advisories will help mitigate the Monitoring potential impact if there is in fact subsistence fishing by Aboriginal people occurring. Project-specific monitoring of mercury in fish Health Canada concluded that the proponent’s will be conducted by Alberta Environment response was satisfactory. and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) and will start in year 2 after Environment Canada asked the proponent expanded operation and continue until about the calculation of baseline mercury mercury levels peak and begin to decline. levels in the water and fish. The proponent After the initial operation phase sampling, clarified its methods and sampling results. subsequent sampling will be conducted at Environment Canada concluded that the least once every three years, in year five and proponent’s response was satisfactory.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 45 7.12.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding cultural significance. The proponent identified residual environmental effects three sites as containing surface stone features Although limited information was provided (i.e., tipi rings and/or stone cairns), that are by the proponent or the Aboriginal groups, dated to the Pre-contact period. In addition, on First Nations and Métis current and one was a Historic period site, and through traditional land use, given the implementation further research was proven to be the former of the proposed mitigation measures that residence of a dam operator, who likely lived encompass potential current and traditional at the site during the 1950s. land use within the vicinity of the Project, as well as the Follow-Up Program, the Agency 7.13.2 Mitigation measures concludes that the Project is not likely to The successful documentation of all modern cause significant adverse environmental and pre-contact surface features and pre- effects with respect to health and socio- contact artefact assemblages was completed economic conditions, physical and cultural and clearance documentation issued by Alberta heritage, current use of lands and resources Culture and Community Services (ACCS) for recreational or commercial purposes or under the Alberta Historical Resources Act traditional use by Aboriginal groups. (HRA) has been received or is anticipated for all of these identified historical resource sites.

7.13 Heritage and Archaeological Final removal, where possible, of the Resources remaining historical features at the six sites within the footprint of disturbance will occur The LSA for the historical resources prior to inundation. assessment includes all terrain that will be inundated by the Little Bow Reservoir at Under Alberta law, the proponent and its the proposed FSL of El. 856.18 m, as well contractors are required to report the discovery as all lands that may be impacted during of any additional historical resources construction of the infrastructure. The (archaeological, paleontological, or Aboriginal assessment looks at physical and cultural traditional use sites) that may be encountered heritage, as well as any structure, site or during construction activities. This caveat thing that is of historical, archaeological, is considered by the Government of Alberta paleontological or architectural significance. (GOA) to provide an appropriate level of self- monitoring in the rare cases that significant 7.13.1 Potential environmental effects historical resources were to have previously Seven historical resource sites identified eluded identification during the Historical within the LSA will be impacted by Resources Impact Assessment process. the Project. Two sites as a result of the construction of the Little Bow Reservoir Monitoring Dam and the new PRA, one as a result of construction of an enhancement dyke and four Specific requirements for monitoring either sites will be impacted by raising the FSL of during or post-construction are not listed as the Little Bow Reservoir. a condition of the HRA Clearance (refer to ACCS Project File 4825-09-002). Therefore, Additional studies were conducted at the monitoring of the construction activities, or of four sites that will be inundated by raising residual effects of the construction, will not be the Little Bow Reservoir to determine their undertaken as regards historical resources.

46 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 7.13.3 Residual environmental effects 7.14.1 Potential effects Although there will be a final removal Under the Act, and as part of the evaluation of and/or inundation of remaining historical effects, an EA must consider the potential effects features at the six sites within the footprint of the environment may have on the Project. The disturbance, such an eventuality is a routine Agency considers the following environmental consequence of construction in all cases where conditions as the most likely to impact the Project: HRA Clearance is granted. Thus, the residual flooding, drought, and climatic variability. effect of construction on these historical sites is considered to be neutral. In 2002, NRCan determined that the most likely impacts to water resources as a result of climate An increased understanding of past human change on the Prairies were changes in annual occupation of the Little Bow region of Alberta; stream flow with large summer declines, increased represents a positive effect of the project. likelihood of drought and aridity, and changes in It is unlikely that a comprehensive study of irrigation demand and water availability. historical resources on the spatial scale that was ultimately achieved would otherwise have As the Project lies in a seismically monitored, been undertaken in this region. but inactive area of Alberta, the proponent did not provide an effect assessment related 7.13.4 Government, public and Aboriginal to earthquakes. comments and proponent’s response The public and Aboriginal groups did 7.14.2 Mitigation measures not express any concerns regarding AT’s In the case of flooding, excess flows entering mitigation or approach to heritage and McGregor Reservoir can be either stored or archaeological resources with respect to routed to the north of McGregor Reservoir the Project. via its auxiliary spillway rather than south into Travers Reservoir to minimize 7.13.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding downstream impacts. Following completion residual environmental effects of the proposed upgrades to the reservoir and Taking into account implementation of the associated structures, Little Bow Reservoir proposed mitigation measures, the Agency and Travers Reservoir will operate in tandem concludes that the Project is not likely to at a common FSL of El. 856.18 m. During cause significant adverse environmental the operational phase, negative impacts from effects on any physical or cultural heritage flooding are unlikely as the reservoir and or on any structure, site or thing that is of associated infrastructure have been designed historical, archaeological, paleontological to accommodate the PMF by routing flood or architectural significance. waters from Little Bow Reservoir through the auxiliary spillway back into the Little Bow River. The risk of extreme floods, 7.14 Effects of the Environment greater than the 1:1000 year flood, within the on the Project CBRH System during the construction phase is very low; however should one occur it This section addresses potential effects could result in drastic impacts to the Project the environment may have on the Project. and downstream areas. Emergency manual The proponent examined these effects and activation of the auxiliary spillway would be proposed mitigation measures for the Project required in this event to prevent overtopping construction and operation phases. of the Little Bow Reservoir Dam.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 47 A primary objective of the Travers and Little malfunctions can occur at any time during Bow Reservoir components rehabilitation is to Project construction and operations, with the provide protection for extreme floods. Until the actual environmental effects being dependent Little Bow Reservoir Dam has been raised to on the specific nature of the accident, its new level, the potential consequences of an malfunction, or unplanned event (e.g., amount extreme flood include dam failure and extreme of deleterious material released, scope of environmental, financial and social losses and cofferdam failure). impacts. Although the probability of such an event is considered to be very low, the potential 7.15.1 Potential effects adverse consequences are considered to be extreme. This is an inherent risk that will exist Construction until such time as the planned work is completed. The proponent identified the spill or release 7.14.3 Residual environmental effects of deleterious substances as the main risk of A severe flood could cause significant impacts to accident or malfunctions. The use of heavy the construction works as well as the irrigation machinery, motorized equipment, and light- infrastructure and downstream communities. duty vehicles during construction and to a lesser However, this risk is a constant threat under the degree during operations presents an inherent present operating conditions and the proposed risk of spills or releases of gasoline, diesel fuel, Project will provide sufficient flood control hydraulic fluids, lubricants, coolant, and other capacity to mitigate this risk in the future. As deleterious substances. These substances can be potential impacts are confined to the short-term released as a result of equipment being in poor period of construction, there are no anticipated repair, mechanical failure, damage sustained residual effects as a result of the Project. during operation, poor fuelling practices, or inadequate means of containment during storage. 7.14.4 Government, public and Aboriginal comments and proponent’s response Additional accidents and malfunctions include There were no comments with respect to AT’s failure of cofferdams installed to allow isolation mitigation or approach to the environmental of work areas within the reservoir, which could effects of the environment on the lead to hazards to the safety of workers and Project components. impacts to downstream areas if a large scale failure occurred at the outlet structures. 7.14.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding residual environmental effects Future Operation Taking into account implementation of the mitigation measures proposed by the proponent, the During future operation, a ‘sunny day’ dam Agency concludes that environmental conditions failure may occur, whereby a dam breach occurs are not likely to adversely affect the Project. under normal or typical operating conditions not associated with a storm or flooding. This is an existing risk at the site as there are a number 7.15 Effects of Possible Accidents of dams on the Little Bow system. There is a or Malfunctions very low potential for the Little Bow Reservoir Dam or associated structures, or any other The environmental effects caused by accidents dam or structure in the CBRH to fail under or malfunctions are among the factors to be normal operating conditions. There is negligible examined pursuant to the Act. Accidents and potential for flooding to cause catastrophic

48 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project failure of the Little Bow Reservoir Dam after As the cofferdams are engineered structures it is rehabilitated. Activation of the auxiliary designed to withstand anticipated reservoir levels spillway during a major flood could result in and waves, there is low potential for a failure significant erosion within the south channel to occur. In addition, regular inspections will and in the Little Bow River valley. However, be carried out to allow for early identification activation of the auxiliary spillway would only of any potential maintenance requirements. occur in the event of a 1:1000 year flood or The proponent’s Emergency Measures Plan greater; therefore, the risk of this occurring is will include provisions to deal with any considered to be very low. unexpected failure or malfunction of a temporary containment system. 7.15.2 Mitigation measures The potential for a spill or release to occur In the case of extreme flooding during during construction can largely be mitigated operation, emergency manual activation of the through best management practices, such as auxiliary spillway would be initiated to prevent frequent inspection of machinery for leaks, easy overtopping of the Little Bow Reservoir dam. access to spill response kits and the appropriate Completion of the Project will also mitigate the usage, storage and disposal of waste and possibility of an extreme flood as the existing hazardous materials. Therefore, the potential Emergency Response Plan will be updated to for a spill or release to occur is low. If a spill include a procedure for manual activation of the were to occur, the potential for a deleterious auxiliary spillway to prevent overtopping of the substance to enter the Little Bow Reservoir Little Bow Reservoir dam during construction. is also considered to be low. The majority of the proposed works will occur above the 7.15.3 Residual Environmental Effects existing Little Bow Reservoir operating level, No residual effects have been identified with and any work required within the Little Bow respect to accidents and malfunctions. Reservoir will be isolated by a cofferdam and the construction area will be dewatered. A 7.15.4 Government, public and Aboriginal Spill Prevention and Response Plan (including comments and proponent’s response provision for refuelling and servicing of The Agency requested further information vehicles) will address the means to prevent from the proponent with respect to the and/or deal with accidental discharges and potential environmental effects of any accident, any emergency situations that may arise. See malfunction, or unplanned event and the spill Appendix 5 for details. contingency plans for the various components of the site. The proponent supplied information The risk of contact with an underground concerning potential accidents and malfunctions as utility during construction is typically well as emergency response plan. As a result, the controlled by conducting line locates for Agency concluded that a satisfactory amount of underground utility lines as well as by information was gathered for assessing the effects. general hazard assessment procedures during work planning. Although utility owners in 7.15.5 The Agency’s conclusions regarding the Project area have been contacted during residual environmental effects the previous investigation, design and Taking into account the implementation of the construction phases, provisions are included proposed mitigation measures, the Agency for reconfirming all utility locations prior to considers that the Project is not likely to cause any new work. The potential for an incident to significant adverse environmental effects through occur is therefore considered to be low. accidents and malfunctions.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 49 7.16 Cumulative Environmental activities from the Project are included. The Effects temporal scope for assessing the cumulative environmental effects of the Project was defined 7.16.1 Approach as the period of time during which a residual Cumulative environmental effects are defined impact caused by a project related activity as the effects on the environment that are likely would act in combination with effects from to result from a project when a residual effect other existing and foreseeable future project combines with the effects of other projects activities, plus the period required for any or human activities that have been or will be cumulative impacts to become undetectable and carried out. This assessment of cumulative for the resource to return to current background effects is based on the Canadian Environmental levels. The Project baseline reflects existing Assessment Agency’s Operational Policy projects and the future temporal limit is set Statement on cumulative effects (Canadian to the lifetime of the Project, with specific Environmental Assessment Agency, 2007), the temporal boundaries relative to specific Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners ecosystem or social components Guide (Canadian Environmental Assessment being considered. Agency, 1999) and the proponent’s analyses. Other regional projects or activities were 7.16.2 Scoping identified and reviewed to determine their The scope of this Cumulative Effects potential temporal or spatial overlap with the Assessment (CEA) was to examine the Project. All potential Little Bow Reservoir predicted residual effects arising from residual effects are summarized in Appendix 4. the Project that were identified in direct Projects which met the temporal and spatial assessments (e.g., fisheries, vegetation), that criteria identified above were evaluated to could interact with the residual effects from determine any cumulative interactions with other projects or activities both past, present the residual effects of the Project in the areas and reasonably foreseeable. Residual effects are identified (see Table 7.16.1). defined as Project impacts that will potentially exist following implementation of mitigation. 7.16.3 Potential cumulative effects Residual effects on VECs of concerns that After residual effects were considered, potential have the potential to interact with effects of cumulative impacts in relation to the Project other projects and/or activities were considered and any other projects and activities that could within the analysis of cumulative effects. potentially contribute to cumulative effects Cumulative effects were assessed in cases were identified. Where it was determined that where the Project-specific residual impact is the potential residual effects of the Project expected to have a measurable or demonstrable would not act in a cumulative manner with effect and is reasonably expected to occur; and similar effects from past, present or likely the Project-specific residual impact is likely to future projects and activities, it was determined act in a cumulative manner with the effects of that there would be no cumulative effects. other existing or future projects and activities. Following this methodology, three projects The RSA used for assessing cumulative or activities occurring within the vicinity environmental effects includes the largest of the Project were identified as having the defined resource component RSA to ensure that potential to contribute to cumulative effects: the all projects and/or activities that potentially Blackspring Ridge Wind Project, oil and gas have effects that could combine with those wells, and agricultural activities.

50 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Table 7.16.1: Potential Effects of Past, Existing or Reasonably Foreseeable Projects with the Potential to Interact Cumulatively with the Project

Potential for Cumulative Project or Activity Project Description Potential Effects/Residual Effects Effects

Existing Projects/Activities (including potential future changes to existing activities)

Agriculture • Grazing lease, crop land • Future changes to agricultural • Potential cumulative and ranching in the Little activities in the Little Bow Reservoir loss of grassland Bow Reservoir RSA as well RSA or surrounding area are not vegetation. as in the surrounding area. known but would be expected • Potential cumulative • As most of the land in the to follow land-use and other loss of wildlife habitat. RSA is currently agricultural guidelines. • Depending on land, future agricultural • Continued displacement of native agricultural practices, use would be similar to grassland prairie within the RSA could act cumulatively that currently occurring but with non-native agricultural and with wind erosion and possibly in a different mix noxious-weed species. creation of dust. barring changes to land use • Loss of potential habitat for designations. burrowing owls and other ground dwelling species. • Additional irrigation requirements will result in more nutrient- rich return water to Little Bow River. This is not expected to be significant.

Oil and gas • Oil and gas wells in the • Development of new gas or oil • Potential cumulative activity Little Bow Reservoir LSA wells could affect vegetation and loss of grassland, and RSA as well as in the wildlife resources depending on vegetation, shrubs, surrounding area. the location of the wells and the and trees. clearing required. • Potential cumulative • Potential for additional wildlife loss of wildlife habitat. habitat loss due to installation of new wells within the RSA.

CBRH System • Existing McGregor and • It is possible that future • Cumulative effects Overall Travers Reservoir and maintenance activities may are not anticipated as associated irrigation result in different effects activities would not infrastructure in the Little depending on the nature of the act cumulatively with Bow Reservoir RSA and maintenance required. Should identified residual surrounding area. major maintenance be required, effects. • Diverts water to 85,000 ha applicable permitting and of agricultural land in the regulatory requirements would BRID and 2,000 ha for the have to be met and residual effects Siksika Nation. The source from the Project would of water for the water be assessed. licenses supplied by the CBRH system is the Bow River.

Commercial • Small commercial lake • Reduction in the number of • Cumulative effects are Fishing whitefish fishery on Little lake whitefish in the Little Bow not anticipated as the Bow Reservoir. Reservoir. Project is not expected to affect lake whitefish populations.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 51 Table 7.16.1: Potential Effects of Past, Existing or Reasonably Foreseeable Projects with the Potential to Interact Cumulatively with the Project (cont'd)

Potential for Cumulative Project or Activity Project Description Potential Effects/Residual Effects Effects

BRID (Water Use • All unallocated water in the • None identified • No cumulative in the Bow River Bow, Oldman, and South effects as basin is Basin) Saskatchewan sub-basins closed to further is reserved and further water allocations and licenses in these sub-basins unallocated water are limited to outstanding must be used for applicants, First Nations, specified uses. IO, and for future storage development provided the development is to protect the aquatic environment or to improve water supply to existing licensees.

Established • Existing Provincial Park • Existing effects are expected to • Cumulative effects Recreation and PRAs on McGregor continue and were captured in the are not anticipated as Sites (Little Bow Reservoir and Travers baseline and assessed in the EA. activities would not Reservoir PRA Reservoir provide access to act cumulatively with and Travers and reservoirs for recreation. identified residual McGregor PRAs) effects.

Roadways • Existing roadways in • Existing effects are expected to • Cumulative effects the Little Bow Reservoir continue and were captured in the are not anticipated as LSA and RSA and in the baseline and assessed in the EA. activities would not surrounding area. act cumulatively with identified residual effects.

First Nations • Potential hunting, gathering • Specific activities currently being • Cumulative effects Traditional Use and other activities in the undertaken in the RSA have not are not anticipated as RSA and surrounding area. been identified. However, any activities would not environmental effects associated act cumulatively with with ongoing activities are reflected identified residual in the Project baseline. effects.

Recreation/ • General recreation and • Existing effects are expected to • Cumulative effects Tourism tourism activities outside the continue and were captured in the are not anticipated as Park and PRAs including baseline and assessed in the EA. activities would not activities similar to those act cumulatively with undertaken in the Park and identified residual PRAs as well as others effects. such as hunting.

52 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Table 7.16.1: Potential Effects of Past, Existing or Reasonably Foreseeable Projects with the Potential to Interact Cumulatively with the Project (cont'd)

Potential for Cumulative Project or Activity Project Description Potential Effects/Residual Effects Effects

Future Projects/Activities

Blackspring Ridge • Proposed wind energy • Potential residual effects include • Potential cumulative Wind Project project to be developed increased mortality of bird and loss of grassland immediately west of the bat populations as a result of habitat. Project in Township 14, wind turbine interaction within the Range 21 and 22, and RSA, including Sprague’s Pipits Township 13, Range 21, 22, which were observed within the and 23. Blackspring Ridge Wind Project study area. • A minor loss of prairie grassland habitat would be required for the construction of 27 towers (~25 m2/tower). This represents a total loss of approximately 675 m2 of grassland.

Siksika Water • Siksika irrigation expansion • Siksika expansion has been • Cumulative effects License of 43,172 dam3 that considered in modelling scenarios not expected as receives water from the for the Combined TLBR. In potential effects have CBRH system. addition, the models assume a been captured in the • Siksika expansion is subject 20% increase in irrigation demand assessment of the to current IO on the Bow within the Bow River basin. Project. River.

Cumulative impacts to grasslands may occur as a will be minimal. Therefore, the residual result of the combined influences of the new Little cumulative effect on grasslands is not Bow Reservoir operating regime and continued considered to be significant. Likewise, the agricultural activity in the RSA. The loss of cumulative effect of grassland vegetation approximately 2.77 km2 of modified grasslands loss on wildlife habitat availability is not as a result of the increased FSL in combination considered significant. with continued agricultural activity in the RSA has the potential to further reduce the grassland The Project is expected to cause an increase community biodiversity through overgrazing, in soil loss through wind and wave erosion as spread of adjacent crop species, and introduction a result of an increase in shoreline length and or proliferation of noxious or invasive species. annual fluctuation in water levels. Cultivated land is expected to have a much higher incidence Further loss or degradation of grassland of wind erosion than the grazing pasture adjacent vegetation could contribute to a cumulative to project. Because of the arid nature of soils effect on wildlife within the RSA. Continued in the RSA, it is expected that both soil loss agricultural activity could result in degradation of as a result of the Project and wind erosion of grassland vegetation as described above. the exposed drawdown zone during future reservoir operation will contribute cumulatively Clearing for the Blackspring Ridge Wind to wind erosion and increased dust occurring in Project and any future oil and gas development cultivated land.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 53 7.16.4 Mitigation measures in the CBRH could impact the Project and The effects of wind erosion can be minimized contribute to cumulative effects of the Project. through practices such as building shelterbelts. The proponent clarified that the baseline Soil loss within the adjacent cultivated land environmental conditions assessed reflect the is expected to be reduced through the regular current conditions on the landscape, and thus application of irrigation water and zero tillage account for accumulated residual environmental practices. The magnitude of this cumulative effects of past and existing projects and effect of wind erosion is expected to be low. activities in proximity to the Project, such as Likewise, the creation of dust from cultivated the existing works on the Travers Reservoir fields is expected to have a low impact. and other infrastructure. Following the proponent’s response, Fisheries and Oceans To mitigate the impact on grassland vegetation, Canada concluded that a satisfactory amount the Project area has been excluded from the of information was gathered for assessing the existing grazing lease and has been fenced cumulative effects of the Project. to control local cattle from accessing the reservoir. This is expected to improve the The Agency requested that the proponent existing grassland areas by limiting degradation provide additional detail on the rationale through grazing and loss of species diversity. and methodology used to determine that a All grassland areas disturbed by construction project or sector would not act cumulatively will be revegetated with a native seed mix with the identified residual effects of the and monitoring of the success of revegetation Project and that an identified residual effect conducted. No additional monitoring is of the three project/sectors would have recommended. limited or no interaction with an identified residual effect of the Project. Following the 7.16.5 Residual environmental effects proponent’s explanation of its cumulative The majority of the existing grassland vegetation effects methodology, the Agency concluded within the RSA has been grazed for many that a satisfactory amount of information was decades and further reduction in habitat value gathered for assessing the cumulative effects is not anticipated as a result of ongoing land of the Project. use. Likewise, the land suitable for cultivation has already been broken and it is not expected 7.16.7 The Agency’s conclusions regarding that the remaining grassland vegetation will be cumulative environmental effects cleared for cultivation. The residual cumulative Taking into account implementation of the effects on vegetation and wildlife are not mitigation measures, the Agency concludes that expected to be significant. the Project is unlikely to cause significant adverse cumulative environmental effects on grassland The residual cumulative effects on the vegetation, grassland habitat available for wildlife, geophysical environment as a result of wind and soil erosion or dust introduced into the air. wave erosion and the creation of dust from fields are not expected to be significant. 7.17 Effects on the Capacity of 7.16.6 Government, public and Aboriginal Renewable and Non-Renewable comments and proponent’s response Resources Fisheries and Oceans Canada requested further information on how the existing works on The Act under section 16(2)(d) states that Travers Reservoir and other infrastructure comprehensive study reports must “address the

54 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project capacity of renewable resources that are likely expansion; however, this impact is considered to be significantly affected by the project to to be minor relative to the total area available meet the needs of the present and the future.” for grazing in the vicinity of the Project.

Renewable resources As the Project is not predicted to have any significant adverse residual effects on Water within the reservoir is a renewable renewable resources, the Agency concludes resource which is managed for irrigation and that the Project’s impacts on the capacity of the domestic purposes. This water constitutes a renewable resources will not be significant. portion of a large network of canals and storage reservoirs designed to transport water to areas where it can be used for agricultural irrigation, 8. Follow-Up Program under drinking water, household water, and watering the Canadian Environmental live-stock. This resource is critical for the end- Assessment Act users as there are few other options for procuring water in these areas, hence the necessity for The purpose of a follow-up program is to verify the upgrades of the infrastructure required to the accuracy of the environmental assessment transport this water. This water resource is of a project and to determine the effectiveness carefully managed through the allocation of of any measures taken to mitigate the adverse water licenses to ensure that the capacity of the environmental effects of the Project. The system is not overdrawn. The proposed Project results of a follow-up program will also support has been designed to facilitate the continued the implementation of adaptive management management of this water resource and the measures to address previously unanticipated proposed upgrades will ensure a sufficient adverse environmental effects or to modify storage capacity for future water use and protect existing measures. against flooding. The regional requirements for water usage have been established in the Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Approved Water Management Plan for the South Canada will be responsible for the Follow-up Saskatchewan River Basin, which describes Program and, with the support of the relevant water allocation limits, conservation objectives, federal and provincial authorities, will ensure and management objectives for the future that the proponent designs and implements a (AENV, 2006). detailed program.

The prairie grassland surrounding Little Bow Appendix 7 outlines the requirements and Reservoir is pasture land which has been used objectives of the Follow-up Program pertaining for grazing cattle for many years. This land grassland vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, base has historically provided a nutritional groundwater, water quality, and fish habitat component of the annual energy budget of the (compensation structures and free passage of herd maintained by the adjacent landowner. fish) among other things. The program will take Cattle are rotated throughout the pasture land, into account the conditions of the federal and consuming regenerating grassland vegetation provincial authorizations and approvals required in cycles. The area of pasture that will be for the implementation of the Project, as well inundated has already been fenced off and as changes in environmental conditions and the excluded from the landowner’s grazing lease. observation of environmental effects that may The grazing capacity of this resource (roughly arise while the Project is being carried out. The 238 ha) will be lost as a result of reservoir proponent will undertake adaptive management

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 55 practices with respect to adverse environmental ultimately achieved, would otherwise have effects that are identified through monitoring. been undertaken in this region.

As part of the Follow-up Program, the During this evaluation, modifications were proponent must produce reports describing the made in response to comments received results, their interpretation and any necessary from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and corrective measures. The proponent will Transport Canada to ensure that stream submit the reports to Fisheries and Oceans crossings were designed so as to reduce fish Canada and Transport Canada as well as to the habitat loss and disturbance and maintain relevant monitoring committees. The results of navigability where necessary. the follow-up program will be made publicly available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry. 10. Conclusion and Recommendation of the Agency

9. Benefits to Canadians To reach a conclusion on the environmental effects of the Project, the Agency took The comprehensive study process gave the the following elements into account in its Canadian public and Aboriginal groups analysis: opportunities to participate in improving the Project during the design phase thus ••the documentation submitted by the proponent helping reduce the environmental effects ••the analysis and findings of this of its construction and operation. As a result, comprehensive study report the design, construction and operation of ••the opinions and comments of the public, the Project are not based solely on technical federal and provincial expert departments, or economic criteria, but also incorporate and Aboriginal groups environmental criteria that promote a ••the proponent’s obligations and mitigation balanced approach in keeping with the measures, as documented in Appendix 5, principles of sustainable development. Table of Commitments ••requirements to be described in the The Project will ensure that the Travers Fisheries Act authorizations and their Reservoir and Little Bow Reservoir are associated habitat compensation plans to capable of passing the PMF as recommended mitigate potentially negative impacts to fish in the CDA Dam Safety Guidelines (CDA, and fish habitat 2007), and are capable of providing a reliable ••requirements to be described in the Navigable supply of water to users of the CBRH and Waters Protection Act approval further downstream in the recreationally and ••requirements of the follow-up program to be agriculturally important BRID canal system. implemented by the proponent

An increased understanding regarding of past In the event that the responsible authorities human occupation of the Little Bow region take the course of action described in of Alberta represents a clear and significant paragraph 37(1) (a) of the Act, they will ensure positive effect of the Project. It is unlikely that mitigation measures are implemented in that a comprehensive study of historical accordance with subsection 37(2.1) and (2.2) of resources, on the spatial scale that was the Act.

56 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project No significant adverse biological, health, Anderson & Associates, Unitech Solutions Inc., or heritage effects are predicted to result and Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. January, 2010. from the Project. The environmental effects of the Project have been determined using Alberta Online Encyclopedia. (2011a). Treaty 7, assessment methods and analytical tools that Past and Present: The Kainai Nation—Historical reflect current best practices. The EIS concludes Overview. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from www. that the Project can be constructed and operated albertasource.ca/treaty7/ traditional/kainai_ without significant adverse environmental overview.html effects, including the consideration of cumulative effects and accidents and Alberta Online Encyclopedia. (2011b). Treaty 7, malfunctions. Past and Present: Traditional Life—The Piikani (Peigan) Nation. Retrieved May 4, 2011, from Taking into account implementation of the www.albertasource.ca/treaty7/ traditional/ mitigation proposed, including commitments piikani.html made by the proponent in this report and the fulfillment of regulatory requirements, the Agency Alberta Online Encyclopedia. (2011c). Treaty concludes that the Project is not likely to cause 7, Past and Present: Traditional Life—The significant adverse environmental effects. Blackfoot Nation. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from www.albertasource.ca/treaty7 /traditional/ siksika.html 11. References Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Alberta Environment (AENV). (1996). Development (AESRD). (2010). Sensitive species Carseland-Bow River Headworks. License to guidelines. Government of Alberta. Retrieved Divert and Use Water. November 21, 2012, from http://www.srd. alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildlifeManagement/ Alberta Environment (AENV). (2001). Salt SensitiveSpeciesInventoryGuidelines.aspx Contamination Assessment and Remediation Guidelines. Alberta Transportation (AT). (2011). Erosion and Sediment Control Manual. Retrieved July 20, 2012, Alberta Environment (AENV). (2006). from http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4626.htm Approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (Alberta). Alberta Transportation (AT). (2009). Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines and Procedures for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Watercourse Crossings in Alberta. Retrieved Resource Development (AESRD). November 21, 2012, from http://transportation. (2011). Forest and Vegetation Inventories. alberta.ca/2644.htm Retrieved 2011, July from http://www. srd.alberta.ca/MapsPhotosPublications/ Bayne, E.M., Habib, L. & Boutin, S. (2008). Maps/ResourceDataProductCatalogue/ Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise ForestVegetationInventories.aspx from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation AMEC Earth and Environmental Ltd. (AMEC). Biology, 22(5), 1186–1193. (2010). South Saskatchewan River Basin in Alberta—Water Supply Study. AMEC Earth Beak Associates Consulting Ltd. (Beak). & Environmental in association with Marv (1983). Environmental overview of the

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 57 Little Bow River basin. Prepared for Alberta Environment Canada (EC). (2011). National Environment, Planning Division. Edmonton, Climate Data and Information Archive. Alberta, Canada. Retrieved 2011 from http://www.climate. weatheroffice.gc.ca/Welcome_e.html Blood Tribe—Kainai. (2011). Retrieved July 18, 2011, from www.bloodtribe.org Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN). (2007). The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. 626 pp. Bruce, J.P. (2011). Climate change projections for Alberta: A guide for regions of Alberta (draft). Government of Alberta (GOA). (2009). Profile Prepared for Alberta Climate Change Secretariat of the South Saskatchewan Region. Retrieved by Marbek and Summit Enterprises International. December, 2011 from https://landuse.alberta. ca/Documents/SSRP Profile of the South Canada—Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Saskatchewan Region Report-P1-2009-11.pdf Agriculture Agreement (CAESA). (1994). County of Vulcan No. 2—Salinity Map. Government of Alberta (GOA). (2011). Alberta Conservation Information Management System Canadian Council of Ministers of the (ACIMS). Retrieved 2011 from http://www.tpr. Environment (CCME). (1999). Canadian Water alberta.ca/about/default.aspx. Accessed June – Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic August 2011 Life. Winnipeg, MB: Author. Government of Alberta (GOA). (2011b). Canadian Dam Association. (CDA). (2007). Tourism, Parks and Recreation: Little Bow Dam Safety Guidelines. Reservoir Provincial Recreation Area. Retrieved November 21, 2011, from http://www. Canadian Environmental Assessment albertaparks.ca/siteinformation.aspx?id=70 Agency. (2007). Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Government of Alberta (GOA). (2011g). Alberta Environmental Assessment Act. November Regulations: Travers Wildlife Management 2007. Retrieved October 10, 2012 from Unit (134). Retrieved November 21, 2011, from http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default. http://www.albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs / asp?lang=En&n=1F77F3C2-1 wmu/134.html

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Government of Alberta (GOA). (2011h). (1999). The Cumulative Effects Assessment Tourism, Parks and Recreation: Hunting. Practitioners Guide. February 1999. Retrieved Retrieved November 21, 2011, from http:// October 10, 2012 from http://www.ceaa-acee. www.albertaparks.ca/hunting.aspx#provincial gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=43952694- RecreationAreas 1&offset=&toc=hide Habib, L., Bayne, E.M., & Boutin, S. (2007). Dempsey, H.A. (1987). Treaty Research Chronic industrial noise affects pairing Report: Treaty 7 (1877). Treaties and Historical success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus Research Centre, Comprehensive Claims aurocapilla. Journal of Applied Ecology Branch, Self-Government, Indian and Northern 44: 176–184. Affairs Canada. Retrieved September 1, 2011 from http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu / Heritage Community Foundation (HCF). pubs/T7/tre7-eng.pdf (2002). The Métis Nation. Retrieved August

58 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 31, 2011, from http://wayback.archive-it. Mirau, N., & First Rider, D. (2009, March). org/2217/20101208163234/http://www. South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) albertasource.ca/treaty8/eng/Peoples_and_ Traditional Use Studies Project. Retrieved Places/Profiles_of_the_Treaty_Makers/Bands_ November 21, 2011, from http://www. and_Nations/metis.html environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8261.pdf

Important Bird Areas of Canada (IBA). Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). (2002). (2010). IBA Site Summary AB016: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: McGregor Lake and Travers Reservoir— A Canadian Perspective—Water Resources. Vulcan, Alberta. Retrieved November 21, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation 2011, from http://www.ibacanada.com/site. Directorate, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, jsp?siteID=AB016&lang=EN Ontario, Canada.

Leskiw, L.A. (1986a). Little Bow Area—East Natural Resources Canada. NRCan. of Carmangay, Level III Land Irrigability (2007). Climate change and water. South Classification Report. Can-Ag Enterprises Saskatchewan River Basin final Technical Limited. Edmonton, AB. Report. NRC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Leskiw, L.A. (1986b). Annex I—Profile and Site Reijnen, R., Foppen, R., Braak, C., & Description Summary and Laboratory Results Thissen, J. (1995). The effects of car traffic for Block 36 Little Bow East of Carmangay. on breeding bird populations in Woodland. Can-Ag Enterprises Ltd. Edmonton, AB. Ill. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Little, J.L., Saffranz, K.A. & Fent, L. (2003). Ecology. 32: 187–202. Land Use and Water Quality Relationships in the Lower Little Bow River Watershed, Alberta, Shetsen, I. (1987). Quaternary Geology Canada. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada, 38(4), Map of Southern Alberta. Terrain Sciences 563–584. Department, Research Council of Alberta. Map 207. Métis National Council. (2011). The Métis Nation. Retrieved August 31, 2011, from Travel Alberta. (2011). Little Bow http://www.metisnation.ca/index.php/who-are- Reservoir Provincial Recreation Area. the‑metis Retrieved November 21, 2011, from http:// www1.travelalberta.com/search/details. Mitchell, P.B. & Prepas, E.E. (1990). Atlas of cfm?id=8684&TDR=South& title=Little Bow Alberta Lakes. University of Alberta Press: Reservoir Provincial Recreation Area Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 59 Appendix 1: Summary of Project Components and Associated Activities

Area Component Existing Facility New Facility/Activity

• Little Bow Reservoir • Dam crest El. 857.25 m • Dam crest El. 860.5 m Dam • 14 m high • Raise by 3.25 m and lengthen to • 1,200 m long, relatively steep 3,300 m slopes 1.85-2.75H:1V • Flatten slopes to 3-3.5H:1V • Riprap in poor condition • New riprap • Widen on downstream side with internal drains

• Little Bow Reservoir • Design capacity is 76.5 m3/s • Design capacity is 87.8 m3/s Outlet Structure • Comprised of an inlet at El. • Comprised of an inlet at El. 848 m, 846 m, 7 cell conduit, and gatewell structure, 5 cell conduit, basin section and stilling basin section • Structure to be partially • Slide gates 1.83 m wide by 2.44 m demolished and remainder high grouted and abandoned in • Offset 90 m east of existing outlet place

• Enhancement Dyke 1 • No existing enhancement dyke • Dyke crest El. 860 m • Upstream slope varies 5-15H:1V with no slope protection Little Bow Reservoir • Downstream slope 3H:1V

• Canal Enlargement • 24.4 m wide • 50 m wide (Downstream • 2H:1V side slope • 2.5-3H:1V side slope Portion) • Unprotected slopes • Partial clay liner with gravel • Invert at El. 849.8 m armour • Invert at El. 849 m

• Inlet and Outlet • Travers outlet structure • Both existing structures to be Structures consisting of 7 box shaped removed and no new structures concrete conduits with constructed 2.438 m square radial gates • Little Bow Reservoir inlet structure consisting of concrete chute with overflow weir at El. 850.95 m

• Culvert and Roadway • No existing culvert crossing • Combined culvert and roadway Crossing • Roadway currently located on crossing Travers outlet structure • Four 3 m wide by 3.5 m high conduits • Invert of culvert at El. 848.8 m Travers Little Bow Reservoir Travers Connecting Canal

• Little Bow Reservoir • Camping areas, toilets, picnic • Camping areas, picnic tables, PRA tables, boat launch, and beach toilets, breakwater and boat launch at new PRA location Little Bow PRA Appendix 1: Summary of Project Components and Associated Activities (cont'd)

Area Component Existing Facility New Facility/Activity

• Utilities • Remove single phase power • Construct new three phase power • Abandon sections of phone • Install new phone lines line • Relocate sections of pipelines • Protect existing oil and gas facilities

• Roadways • Abandon sections of roadway • Construct new sections of roadway

• Topsoil Stockpiles • Two existing topsoil stockpiles • Two additional topsoil stockpiles Miscellaneous

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 61 Appendix 2: Scope of the Project by Component and Associated Activity

Area Component Phase Activity

• Little Bow Reservoir • Construction • Change in reservoir operation including full supply levels

• Little Bow Reservoir • Construction, operation, • The rehabilitation of the Little Bow Dam and maintenance Reservoir dam and its associated works or activities related to the raising of the main dam, the extension of the dam, the placement of riprap and drainage materials, and the installation of geo-technical and structure instrumentation

• Little Bow Reservoir • Construction, operation and • New irrigation outlet in the Little Outlet Structure maintenance Bow Reservoir and its associated works or activities

• Enhancement Dyke 1 • Construction, operation and • Enhancement dyke at the south Little Bow Reservoir maintenance end of the Little Bow Reservoir

• Canal Enlargement • Modification, operation, and • Enlargement of the remaining (Downstream maintenance 1.8 km of connecting canal from Portion) 25 m to 50 m and any associated works or activities

• Inlet and Outlet • Decommissioning • Removal of existing control Structures structures in the TLBR Connecting Canal and its associated works or activities

• Decommissioning • Little Bow Reservoir inlet chute and Travers Reservoir outlet control structure in the connecting

Travers Little Travers Bow Reservoir Connecting Canal canal, and its associated works

• Culvert and Roadway • Construction, operation and • Culvert crossing and its Crossing maintenance of the associated works or activities in the TLBR Connecting Canal Travers Travers Little Bow Reservoir Connecting Canal

• Little Bow Reservoir • Decommissioning • Demolition and removal of the PRA existing recreation facilities in the Little Bow Reservoir Provincial Recreation Area and any associated works or activities

• Construction, operation, and • New Provincial Recreation Area maintenance and its associated works and Little Bow PRA activities

62 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 2: Scope of the Project by Component and Associated Activity (cont'd)

Area Component Phase Activity

• Reservoir Systems— • Operations and maintenance • Change to the annual operations, Water Withdrawal and associated maintenance activities, of the CBRH system post construction with particular focus on operations within the Little Bow Reservoir and any changes to timing or rate of water withdrawal from the Bow River to the CBRH system required for the purpose of filling and maintaining the Little Bow Reservoir to its new Carseland-Bow River Headworks (CBRH) System expanded capacity

• Roadways • Construction • The reconstruction of the existing gravel road north of the Little Bow Reservoir dam

• Construction and maintenance • Concrete protective slabs for the existing roads crossing pipelines

• Disturbed Areas • Reclamation • Reclamation of disturbed areas including re-distribution of topsoil and re-seeding with vegetation native to the area

• Fencing and Gates • Construction and • Installation of remaining sections maintenance of fencing and gates around the reservoir boundary including maintenance of the fencing and

Miscellaneous gates throughout its operation

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 63 Appendix 3: Vecs, Significance Thresholds, and Spatial Boundaries for the Project

Spatial Boundaries

VEC Significance Thresholds Local Regional

Geophysical

Soil Quality • Contamination exceeding Alberta The LSA includes the Little Surficial and bedrock Tier 1 or CCME guidelines Bow Reservoir, the lands stratigraphy is • Permanent damage to soil that will be inundated once discussed over a structure in an area greater than the reservoir is at the new broader RSA including 5% of LSA FSL (El. 856.18 m), and a significant portion of the anticipated construction southern Alberta Soil Quantity • Increased loss of soil will be footprint greater than 5% of LSA soil

Hydrology

Bow River discharge • Frequency of IO not being met The LSA includes the The RSA includes downstream of CBRH increases by greater than 1% proposed area of inundation the CBRH diversion diversion at the reservoir boundary from the Bow River, of the operating FSL at El. the CBRH system, Little Bow River • Reduction in Little Bow River 856.18 m the reach of the Bow discharge downstream discharge downstream of River downstream of Travers Reservoir Travers Dam exceeding of the diversion, and conditions of the Water License the Little Bow River downstream of Travers Little Bow Reservoir • Change significantly affects other Reservoir and Travers Reservoir VECs, as evaluated within the water levels EIS

Surface Water Quality

Little Bow Reservoir • Change in parameter The LSA includes the The RSA includes the concentration that causes proposed new FSL boundary entire CBRH system Downstream BRID an exceedance of regulatory and the Little Bow Reservoir canals guidelines outlet, and the waters immediately downstream and Travers Reservoir immediately upstream of the Little Bow Reservoir (i.e., Little Bow River the BRID canals, Travers Reservoir, and Little Bow River)

Hydrogeology

Groundwater Quantity • Increased seepage to surface The LSA includes the For information affects adjacent landowner proposed new FSL purposes, regional through changes in soil (El. 856.18 m) of the Little hydrogeology is structure or land use capability Bow Reservoir and adjacent discussed over a areas where baseline broader RSA Groundwater Quality • Change in parameter groundwater conditions concentration that causes could be impacted an exceedance of regulatory guidelines

64 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 3: Vecs, Significance Thresholds, and Spatial Boundaries for the Project (cont'd)

Spatial Boundaries

VEC Significance Thresholds Local Regional

Aquatic Environment

Northern pike • Change in population numbers The LSA includes the lower The RSA includes or biomass greater than 20% half of Travers Reservoir, the entire CBRH Lake whitefish • Change results in contravention the TLBR Connecting Canal, system, including of protected species legislation Little Bow Reservoir, and Little Bow Reservoir, Walleye • Residual effect after mitigation the BRID irrigation canal Travers Reservoir, contravenes legislation immediately downstream of and McGregor Spottail shiner • Change in tissue mercury the Little Bow Reservoir Reservoir, as well as concentration that causes the Bow River at the an exceedance of regulatory CBRH intake and all guidelines connecting canals

Benthic invertebrate • Change in biomass greater density and than 20% community structure

Vegetation • Change in areal extent greater communities in the than 20% littoral and riparian areas

Vegetation

Wetland ecosystems • Change in areal extent within The LSA includes the The RSA is RSA greater than 20% proposed construction coextensive with • Change results in contravention footprint and area of the boundary of of protected species legislation inundation at the new Township 14, • Residual effect after mitigation operating FSL of 856.18 m Range 20, W4M contravenes legislation

Aquatic vegetation • Change in areal extent greater than 20%

Riparian vegetation • Change in areal extent within RSA greater than 20% Grasslands

Shrubs and trees

Rare/uncommon • Change results in contravention The LSA includes the The RSA is plant species (see of protected species legislation proposed construction coextensive with Table 11.1 of the EIS • Change results in re- footprint and area of the boundary of for a complete listing classification of provincial or inundation at the new Township 14, of rare/uncommon global listing operating FSL of 856.18 m Range 20, W4M plant species • Change results in local identified as VECs ) extirpation of rare ecological community Rare ecological communities including the western wheatgrass-low sedge and low sedge- western wheatgrass communities

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 65 Appendix 3: Vecs, Significance Thresholds, and Spatial Boundaries for the Project (cont'd)

Spatial Boundaries

VEC Significance Thresholds Local Regional

Wildlife

Colonial nesting • Published thresholds for The LSA includes the The RSA is waterbirds population viability are not proposed construction coextensive with available footprint, the TLBR the boundary of • A permanent 20% decrease in Connecting Canal, and the Township 14, island habitat surface area was area to be inundated at the Range 20, W4M considered to be significant new FSL boundary

Waterfowl • Published thresholds for population viability are not available • Only a select number of species of waterfowl and diver (e.g., red-necked grebes) use emergent vegetation for nesting. The majority of species nest in upland areas (e.g., mallards), or in tree cavities (e.g., buffleheads) • For the species that use emergent vegetation for nesting, a permanent 20% decrease in emergent vegetation was considered significant

Federal Species at Risk

Ferruginous hawk • Use of a numerical threshold to determine the significance of Project effects on ferruginous hawks was considered to be inappropriate. The sparse spatial distribution of nesting ferruginous hawks in the region exists at a scale that is not comparable to the localized effects of the Project • The permanent destruction or disturbance of a ferruginous hawk nest was considered significant

Burrowing owl • The use of a numerical threshold to determine the significance of Project effects on burrowing owls was considered to be inappropriate. The sparse spatial distribution of nesting burrowing owls in the region exists at a scale that is not comparable to the localized effects of the Project • The permanent loss of an active or historical burrowing owl burrow was considered significant

66 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 3: Vecs, Significance Thresholds, and Spatial Boundaries for the Project (cont'd)

Spatial Boundaries

VEC Significance Thresholds Local Regional

Long-billed curlew • Published thresholds for population viability are not Sprague’s pipit available • A 10% reduction of nesting Chestnut-collared habitat for grassland species longspur within the RSA was considered to be a potential threat to McCown’s longspur regional population sustainability Loggerhead shrike for Species at Risk and would be considered significant Common nighthawk

Climate and Air Quality

Climate • Change in total provincial GHG The LSA includes the The RSA includes a emissions greater than 0.1% proposed construction radius of 65 km • Change in local or regional footprint, the TLBR mean surface air temperature Connecting Canal, and the greater than 1°C area to be inundated at the new FSL boundary Air Quality • Change in parameter The RSA includes a concentration that causes radius of 130 km an exceedance of regulatory guidelines

Noise

Noise • Increase in noise level at a The LSA includes The RSA includes a Receptor is greater than 5 dBA the footprint of active buffer with a radius above ambient level construction and the area of of 3 km extending inundation beyond the boundaries of the LSA

Heritage and Archaeological Resources

Historical Resources • Residual effect after mitigation The LSA includes the An RSA is not defined contravenes legislation proposed construction for the historical footprint, the TLBR resources assessment Connecting Canal, and the in accordance with area to be inundated at the HRA Clearance new FSL boundary requirements

Navigation

Navigability • Residual effect after mitigation The LSA was defined as the As there are no contravenes legislation entire wetted area of the impacts to navigation reservoir at El. 856.18 m, anticipated within the including the TLBR region outside of the Connecting Canal LSA, an RSA was not defined

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 67 Appendix 3: Vecs, Significance Thresholds, and Spatial Boundaries for the Project (cont'd)

Spatial Boundaries

VEC Significance Thresholds Local Regional

Current Use of Lands and Resources

Recreational land and • A potential effect was identified The LSA encompasses the The RSA is resource use if there was a change from project footprint and area coextensive with the baseline condition (e.g., if immediately surrounding the the generalized IBA any activities, businesses, or Project, including the Little boundary for Site properties were affected) Bow Reservoir at the new #AB016 • Professional judgement operating FSL boundary, Domestic land use considering baseline the outlet canal, and the The RSA is information, the nature of the construction footprint coextensive with Domestic resource Project/VEC interaction, and the boundary of use ability to mitigate the effect Township 14, were considered in the effects Range 20, W4M Commercial land use assessment and residual Commercial resource effects discussion use

Human health, • Health Canada’s methylmercury The human health specifically including guidelines RSA includes the the potential entry of portion of the BRID contaminants into the irrigated by water food chain from the Little Bow Reservoir

68 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 4: Summary of Identified Potential Residual Effects of the Project

Resource Component Phase Activity Residual Effect Description

Geophysical Operation • Reservoir operation at the • Soil loss through wind and wave Environment new FSL and at fluctuating erosion water levels

Hydrology Operation • Changes to diversion of water • Net reduction of diversion in late from Bow River summer/early fall during periods when Bow River flows are typically low

• Increased surface area at FSL • Increased evaporation from Little Bow El. 856.18 m Reservoir

Hydrogeology/ Operation • Reservoir operation at FSL El. • Increased groundwater quantity and Groundwater Quality 856.18 m seepage as a result of increased head pressure

Surface Water Construction/ • Reservoir operation at FSL El. • Increased aquatic sedimentation Hydrology Operation 856.18 m resulting from increased wind and wave erosion • Net positive regional impact to water quality related to changes in CBRH system withdrawal rates and timing under the new combined operating regime

Aquatic Environment Operation • Operation during construction • Temporary reduced suitability of drawdown whitefish spawning habitat in drawdown zone • Reduced access to spawning substrate for northern pike • Stranding of fish during construction drawdown • Reduced benthic invertebrate abundance and species diversity

• Reservoir operation at the • Loss of northern pike spawning new FSL and at fluctuating substrate (emergent vegetation) water levels • Loss of rearing habitat (emergent vegetation) • Loss of rearing habitat (submergent vegetation) • Reduced benthic invertebrate abundance and species diversity • Decrease in health of piscivorous species that feed on juvenile lake whitefish • Shift in population structure toward older lake whitefish • Decrease in lake whitefish growth rate • Stranding of fish during operational drawdown • Provision of fish passage between Little Bow and Travers Reservoirs • Increase in fish mercury levels, higher levels expected in predatory fish

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 69 Appendix 4: Summary of Identified Potential Residual Effects of the Project (cont'd)

Resource Component Phase Activity Residual Effect Description

Vegetation Operation • Reservoir operation at the • Net increase in terrestrial riparian new FSL and at fluctuating vegetation water levels

• Annual fluctuation in water • Changes in riparian vegetation levels community structure • Changes in submergent aquatic vegetation community structure and abundance

• Reservoir operation at the • Loss of emergent aquatic vegetation new FSL and at fluctuating • Loss of grassland vegetation water levels • Loss of locally rare/uncommon plant populations

Wildlife and Terrestrial Construction • Clearing and grubbing of • Direct loss of shrubs and trees Habitat vegetation to prepare the (ferruginous hawk nesting habitat) footprint of the structures

• Construction activity in • Indirect loss of habitat through laydown areas, access roads, disturbance and avoidance and work pads

Operation • Reservoir operation at the • Net increase in colonial nesting new FSL and at fluctuating waterbird habitat water levels • Loss of waterfowl nesting habitat in grassland, emergent aquatic, and wetland vegetation • Loss of grassland nesting habitat for burrowing owl, long-billed curlew, Sprague’s pipit, and longspurs

Climate and Air Operation • Increased surface area at FSL • Minor moderation of surface air Quality El. 856.18 m temperature within the microclimate east of the LSA

• Annual fluctuation in water • Introduction of dust to the air as a result levels of wind erosion in drawdown zone

Navigable Waters Operation • Annual fluctuation in water • Changing navigational hazards due to levels submerged topography

Current Use of Lands Operation • Construction of new PRA • Improvement of PRA facilities and Resources for Traditional and • Operation during construction • Change in fish catch rates for Recreational purposes drawdown commercial fishing during construction drawdown

• Fluctuating water levels • Navigational hazards affecting health

• Reservoir operation at the • Increases in mercury levels in fish over new FSL the next 5 to 10 years

Effects of the Construction • Operation during construction • A severe flood could cause significant Environment on the drawdown impacts to the construction works as Project well as the irrigation infrastructure and downstream communities

70 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 5: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Project Phase | Party No. Commitment Timing Responsible

1 The proponent will implement Erosion and Sediment (ESC) Control All project AT measures found in the Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (Alberta phases Transportation, 2011) prior to work and maintained during the work phase until the site has been stabilized. The ESC measures will be inspected regularly.

2 The proponent will follow Standard AT construction practices which All project AT include: topsoil will be salvage and stockpiling for re-use under non- phases frozen and non-saturated soil conditions.

3 The proponent will install the cofferdams and Enhancement Dyke 1, as All project AT well as armouring of these structures and the Little Bow Reservoir Dam phases face, during the periods when the reservoir is drawn down to El. 849 m.

4 The proponent will install riprap armouring in the steeply sloped All project AT shoreline areas in the vicinity of the new PRA. phases

5 An evaluation of the need for armouring along the slope adjacent to the All project AT south loop of campsites during development of the PRA (Area 2) will be phases completed.

6 Should the steeply sloped island (Area 3) adjacent to Borrow Area B All project AT be included in borrow excavations; the proponent will ensure it is re- phases graded to a more natural gradient, resilient to wind and wave erosion.

7 The proponent will ensure ground water levels in wells located on All project AT adjacent lands are not changed due to their activities and that the phases DFO groundwater quality in adjacent landowner wells is not changed due to their activities.

8 The proponent will apply fish habitat compensation measures to All project AT mitigate any impacts to fish habitat that cannot be mitigated through phases DFO other identified measures.

9 The proponent will follow the Alberta Transportation “Fish Habitat All project AT Manual: Guidelines and Procedures for Watercourse Crossings in phases Alberta (AT, 2009) for instream works, as well as any appropriate measures contained within the Alberta Transportation Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (AT, 2011) for terrestrial aspects of the project.

10 The proponent will ensure grey water pumped from the isolated work Construction AT areas within Little Bow Reservoir will be directed into a silt curtain DFO contained area within the reservoir to settle on bottom in an area with sand/silt substrates and no aquatic vegetation. If the grey water from the isolated area is both high in volume and suspended sediments, it will be pumped inland for release into a constructed sediment trap or basin well away from the reservoir to infiltrate to ground.

11 The proponent will ensure borrow areas are graded and compacted to All project AT minimize the potential for erosion once construction of the Little Bow phases Reservoir Dam is completed and no further borrow fill is required.

12 The proponent will ensure access within the reservoir for installation of Construction AT riprap material on the dam face is controlled and confined to a minimum DFO area of the reservoir bottom to limit disturbance of fish habitat.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 71 Appendix 5: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures (cont'd)

Project Phase | Party No. Commitment Timing Responsible

13 The proponent will ensure tracked or rubber-tired equipment, is Construction AT operated directly on the frozen bottom substrates, rather than constructing work pads with fill material.

14 The proponent will ensure installation of and removal of the cofferdams Construction AT upstream of the Travers outlet. Turbidity monitoring will be carried out as per AT specifications and a silt curtain will be installed to prevent suspended sediment from being distributed into the water body.

15 The proponent will conduct a fish rescue operation in any areas where All project AT fish may become stranded during drawdown of the reservoir fish will be phases DFO returned to the reservoir.

16 The existing cattails, rushes and sedges will be left in place by the Construction AT proponent prior to inundation to provide seed stock for any such plants that may take root after the FSL is raised; likewise for any sandbar willow found in the existing riparian zone.

17 The proponent will develop and grade borrow areas after use to ensure Construction AT positive drainage during periods of drawdown and to avoid entrapment DFO and stranding of fish.

18 The proponent will monitor the drawdown process to identify areas of Construction AT potential concern with respect to fish stranding during all three years DFO that construction drawdown occurs.

19 AT will enter into an agreement with the commercial fishery license Construction AT holders to suspend the harvest of lake whitefish during the three years of construction drawdown.

20 If required, the proponent will initiate supplemental aeration to maintain Construction AT dissolved oxygen concentrations in the drawn down reservoir if low DFO dissolved oxygen levels are measured to ensure the survival of fish and other aquatic life during the winter.

21 The proponent will modify all areas that may potentially result in fish Operation AT stranding within the annual drawdown zone to allow for either positive DFO drainage or complete isolation from the reservoir.

22 The proponent will monitor drawdown during the first year of operation Operation AT during drawdown to the winter El. of 854.06 m to identify additional DFO areas where stranding of fish may occur.

23 The proponent will provide wetland habitat compensation for all All project AT wetland complexes that will be affected which are identified as Class II phases or greater according to the Stewart and Kantrud system of classification (1971) and as per the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation.

24 The proponent will include reclamation measures for grasslands such AT as the re-establishment of northern and western wheatgrass within the EC LSA following completion of construction activities (EC recommends the amount of western wheatgrass in the seed mix be kept minimal, 10 to 15 percent).

25 The proponent will continue to maintain fences and control cattle All project AT grazing to improve existing grassland areas. phases

72 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 5: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures (cont'd)

Project Phase | Party No. Commitment Timing Responsible

26 Planting of sandbar willow will be carried out as per the conceptual Operation AT FHCP. DFO EC

27 The proponent will attempt transplantation of rare plant and rare Construction AT ecological communities from within the zone of inundation in order to EC offset the potential effect on the regional populations of these species.

28 Monitoring of transplanted rare plants will be conducted to determine AT the success rate of mitigation.

29 The proponent will revegetate all disturbed areas above the new FSL All project AT after disturbance using native grass seed mix to inhibit invasive species phases EC introduction and spread.

30 Noxious and restricted weeds will be controlled by the proponent as All project AT per the requirements of the Alberta Weed Control Act. phases

31 The proponent will complete regular weed control until successful All project AT revegetation has been achieved. The inspection of weed control will phases follow the procedures and requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Manual (AT, 2011).

32 The proponent will conduct post-construction monitoring to ensure that Operations AT all mitigation, weed control, and revegetation of disturbed areas have been implemented.

33 Clearing and grubbing of wildlife habitat will be completed outside Construction AT of the breeding season (April 15th to July 31st) for breeding birds EC protected under the Migratory Bird Convention Act and the Alberta Wildlife Act.

34 If Sprague’s Pipits are nesting in this area, restricted activity dates of Construction AT May 1st to August 31st will be followed. EC

35 If limited clearing must take place during the nesting season, it will Construction AT be undertaken by qualified avian biologists or avian naturalists that EC have expertise in identifying indicated nests as well as in identifying behaviour indicative of nesting (i.e. aggressive or defensive behaviour, carrying of nesting material, food or faecal sacs). Surveys should be undertaken within seven days of clearing, with the results submitted to EC for review.

36 Removal of structures such as the Little Bow Reservoir and Travers Construction AT Reservoir outlet structures where birds may be nesting will be EC completed outside of the breeding season for those species.

37 The initial filling of the reservoir will be delayed until July 15 to avoid Construction AT inundation to avoid flooding of Sprague’s pipit nests. EC

38 The proponent will complete any grass mowing in the area to be Construction AT inundated outside of both the Sprague’s pipits nesting period of EC May 1st to August 31st as well as the breeding season for migratory birds of April 15th to July 31st. Therefore, the proponent needs to mow the area before April 15th.

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 73 Appendix 5: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures (cont'd)

Project Phase | Party No. Commitment Timing Responsible

39 The proponent’s revegetation plan should include the replacement of Construction AT trees where ferruginous hawk nests have been active within the last EC two years with nesting platforms.

40 The proponent will set speed limits (less than 60 km/hour) within the Construction AT active construction area and along new roads to reduce the likelihood EC of wildlife/vehicle collisions.

41 The proponent should install metallic streamers to deter birds from Construction AT nesting along the shoreline. EC

42 Trees and shrubs will be replanted within the riparian area of the new Construction AT PRA. The Proponent should discuss the planting of trees and shrubs EC with appropriate federal authorities.

43 The proponent will monitor revegetation of disturbed grassland, shrubs Operations AT and trees. A survey will be conducted in the second year following the EC commencement of operation to assess the presence and habitat use of wildlife. This will include conducting breeding bird surveys, observation of colonial nesting waterbird presence, and general observation of wildlife. The need for further monitoring or mitigation will be assessed following the second year. If deemed necessary, the survey will be repeated in the fifth year of operation.

44 The proponent will employ water spraying to tamp down disturbed All project AT areas with high dust concentrations. phases

45 The proponent will erect silt fencing or other structures to block wind in Construction AT areas of active excavation.

46 Dust levels will be visually monitored on site during construction in Construction AT order to assess the need for additional measures to prevent topsoil loss and protect workers.

47 Signage will be posted at the public boat launch in the new PRA that Operation AT identifies the location of potential hazards. The sign will be easy to TC interpret and clearly communicate that hazards may be present at various water levels, necessitating user caution at all times, similar to the existing navigational conditions. The sign should have a large air photo overlaid with markings to show the location of the hazards relative to the boat launch, with a legend explaining all markings. In addition, the UTM or lat/long coordinates for specific hazards can be provided below the map for recreational users that are interested in programming the information into their navigational equipment.

48 Additional signage will be posted for construction activities and Operation AT potential short-term impediments or hazards. TC

49 The proponent will ensure all areas to be armoured with riprap such All project AT as the dam slope, cofferdams, and areas prone to erosion will be at a phases TC constant grade consistent with the specified design or natural shoreline contour. The armouring will not project into the reservoir and, therefore, will not represent a hazard to navigation.

74 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 5: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures (cont'd)

Project Phase | Party No. Commitment Timing Responsible

50 The proponent will ensure that buildings and other structures within Construction AT the portion of the existing PRA to be flooded will be removed and all TC mature trees and shrubs in the same area will be cleared and the roots removed, prior to inundation.

51 The proponent will construct the new Little Bow Reservoir PRA Construction AT structure in the dry, prior to raising the reservoir level to the new FSL.

52 Access to the entire TLBR Connecting Canal will be eliminated by Operation AT installing safety booms across the inlet to Little Bow Reservoir and the TC outlet at Travers Reservoir.

53 Should consumption advisories for some sport/subsistence fish species Operation AT that are caught be required the Government of Alberta will modify the GOA consumption limits for Little Bow Reservoir and surrounding water bodies and tributaries and inform anglers of these changes.

54 The proponent will report the discovery of any additional historical All project AT resources (archaeological, paleontological, or Aboriginal traditional use phases GOA sites) that may be encountered during construction activities.

55 The proponent will prepare and adhere to a Spill Prevention and All project AT Response Plan (including provision for refuelling and servicing of phases vehicles).

56 The proponent will prepare and adhere to an Emergency Measures All project AT Plan. The plan will include provisions to deal with any unexpected phases failure or malfunction of a temporary containment system and a procedure for manual activation of the auxiliary spillway to prevent overtopping of the Little Bow Reservoir dam during construction.

57 The follow-up program, which includes monitoring, will be carried out Operations AT (see Appendix 7). DFO TC EC NRCan

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 75 Appendix 6: Summary of Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups with Respect to the EA

Comment ID# Group Subject Comment Summary of Proponent Response Agency Response 1 Piikani Nation • Heritage and • Concerned about a Tipi Ring that was previously moved • The proponent confirmed that the Little Bow • Agency confirmed that the ‘Little Bow Project’ (2004) created what Archaeological on the Little Bow Basin. Basin was not synonymous to the Little Bow is now known as the Twin Valley Dam and Reservoir, approximately Resources Reservoir. 50 km upstream on the Little Bow River from the project currently under assessment. • A joint Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) and CEAA Panel examined this as the ‘Highwood Storage and Diversion Project’ between 1998 and 2002. 2 Piikani Nation • Surface Water • Concerned about loss of historically used Little Bow • The potential impacts to surface water • Upstream impacts to the Little Bow River are outside the scope of this Quality [River] water for ceremonies. quality within the Little Bow Reservoir were environmental assessment; however this issue was forwarded • Current Use of Lands assessed in the EIS, Section 8. to DFO. and Resources • Sections 7.4 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to surface water quality. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue within the EIS and, taking into account the identified mitigation measures, concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity. 3 Siksika Nation • Surface Water • Concerned they can longer use the water from the • The potential impacts to surface water • Upstream impacts to the Little Bow River are outside the scope Quality [Little Bow] river in their sweat lodges. quality within the Little Bow Reservoir of this environmental assessment. • Current Use of Lands were assessed in the EIS, Section 8. • Sections 7.4 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential and Resources effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to surface water quality. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue within the EIS and, taking into account the identified mitigation measures, concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity. 4 Siksika Nation • Surface Water • Concerned that the children can no longer play in the • The area of the Little Bow River near the • Although this issue was not within the scope of the environmental Quality [Little Bow] river water, some experience skin irritation Strathmore treatment plan is not within the assessment, the Agency notes that the proponent’s assessment does • Current Use of Lands and peeling after having been in the water. scope of the environmental assessment and include an analysis of the swimming area located at the Little Bow and Resources • Unknown cause, concerned it could be related to the is in fact upstream of the proposed project. Reservoir Provincial Park however. Strathmore treatment plant and its effluent. • The potential impacts to surface water • Sections 7.4 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential quality within the Little Bow Reservoir were effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, assessed in the EIS, Section 8. Impacts to commitments and follow-up measures related to surface water quality. the Little Bow Provincial Recreation Area • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential were assessed in Section 17. effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to recreational use of lands. 5 Siksika Nation • Surface Water • Concerned traditional swimming holes [Little Bow River] • The potential impacts to surface water • Although this issue was not within the scope of the environmental Quality no longer exist due to reduced water levels/water quality. quality within the Little Bow Reservoir were assessment, the Agency notes that the proponent’s assessment does • Current Use of Lands assessed in the EIS, Section 8. Impacts to include an analysis of the swimming area located at the Little Bow and Resources the Little Bow Provincial Recreation Area Reservoir Provincial Park however. were assessed in Section 17. • Sections 7.4 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outlines the potential effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to surface water quality. • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to recreational use of lands. 6 Siksika Nation • Surface Water • Concerned with fish deaths in Little Bow River. • The potential impacts to surface water • Upstream impacts to the Little Bow River are outside the scope of this Quality quality within the Little Bow Reservoir were environmental assessment; however DFO was notified of this issue. • Current Use of Lands assessed in the EIS, Section 8. DFO provided Siksika First Nation with their spill response number and Resources should any additional dead fish in this or any other water body be observed.

76 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 6: Summary of Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups with Respect to the EA

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 77 Appendix 6: Summary of Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups with Respect to the EA (cont'd)

Comment ID# Group Subject Comment Summary of Proponent Response Agency Response 7 Metis Nation • Wildlife and Wildlife • Concerned about the area of land that will be inundated • The potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife • Sections 7.8 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential of Alberta— Habitat and how this will affect species at risk (including burrowing habitat were assessed in Section 12 if effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, Region 3 owls and ferruginous hawks) and other wildlife species the EIS and associated Supplemental commitments and follow-up measures related to wildlife and (including red tailed deer, beaver, coyotes, fox, rabbits, Information Requests. wildlife habitat. antelope and waterfowl. 8 Blood Tribe • Current Use of Lands • Concerned about the relocation of traditional plants and • The potential impacts to vegetation within • Sections 7.7 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential and Resources indicated that it is the Blood First Nations people that the Little Bow Reservoir were assessed in effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, should carry out that relocation as a form of mitigation. the Section 11 of the EIS and associated commitments and follow-up measures related to vegetation. Supplemental Information Requests. • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential • Impacts to the current use of lands and effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, resources were assessed in Section 17 commitments and follow-up measures related to current use of the EIS. of lands and resources. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue within the EIS and, taking into account the identified mitigation measures, concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity. 9 Siksika Nation • Current Use of Lands • Concerned that is has become very difficult to find their • The potential impacts to vegetation within • Sections 7.7 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential and Resources medicinal plants in the Little Bow Reservoir area. the Little Bow Reservoir were assessed in effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, the EIS, Section 11. Impacts to the current commitments and follow-up measures related to vegetation. use of lands and resources were assessed • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential in Section 17. effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to current use of lands and resources. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue within the EIS and, taking into account the identified mitigation measures, concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity. 10 Siksika Nation • Current Use of Lands • Concerned that during periods of drought possibly • The proponent has indicated that, based on • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential and Resources exaggerated by the rehabilitation of the Little Bow the water licenses allocated for the CBRH effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, Reservoir that they will lose their license for irrigation water system, no mitigation is required with respect commitments and follow-up measures related to current use under the “First in time, First in Right” Provincial policy. to reduced Bow River discharge downstream of lands and resources for traditional purposes. of the CBRH system diversion. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this • The proponent also confirmed with the issue within the EIS and, taking into account the identified mitigation province that should the Siksika First Nation measures, concludes that there will be no significant adverse wish to use their existing water license, environmental effect associated with this activity. the water will be made available to them however, to date they have not exercised their right to this water. 11 Piikani Nation • Current Use of • Concerned that Project is a surrender of the tribe's territory • The potential impacts to current and • The environmental assessment process is not, in itself, a rights Lands for Traditional and that it is an erosion of land rights. traditional land use were assessed in the determination process. Purposes EIS, Section 17. • However, with respect to current use and lands and resources Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue, to the extent possible based on information provided by the Aboriginal groups, within the EIS. Taking into account the identified mitigation measures, the Agency concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity.

78 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 6: Summary of Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups with Respect to the EA (cont'd)

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 79 Appendix 6: Summary of Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups with Respect to the EA (cont'd)

Comment ID# Group Subject Comment Summary of Proponent Response Agency Response 12 Siksika Nation • Current Use of Lands • Concerned about the raising of water levels in the Little • The details of increase in water levels are • Sections 7.6 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential and Resources for Bow Reservoir. presented the Executive Summary of the effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, Traditional Purposes EIS. The potential Impacts to current use of commitments and follow-up measures related to the aquatic lands and resources were assessed in the environment and include details on the impacts to the inundation EIS, Section 17. zone. • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to the current use of lands and resources. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue, to the extent possible based on information provided by the Aboriginal groups, within the EIS. Taking into account the identified mitigation measures, the Agency concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity. 13 • Piikani Nation • Current Use • Concerned that site visit were not conducted. • The proponent has indicated that a Historical • Participant Funding was made available in 2010, but the only • Siksika, and Lands and Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) was application received was from Metis Nation—Region 3 who received Nation Resources for conducted for the project. $4,000. No applications were received from these groups within the • Metis Traditional Purposes • The proponent was not prepared to provide application period. Nation— funding to Aboriginal groups for the Little • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential Region 3 Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation Project. effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, commitments and follow-up measures related to the current use of lands and resources. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue, to the extent possible based on information provided by the Aboriginal groups, within the EIS. Taking into account the identified mitigation measures, the Agency concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity. 14 Metis Nation— • Current Use of Lands • Concerned with harvesting in the area of Little Bow • The potential impacts to current use of lands • Sections 7.12 and Appendices 3, 4, 5, and 7 outline the potential Region 3 and Resources for Reservoir. and resources within were assessed in the effects, mitigation measures, environmental effects analysis, traditional purposes EIS, Section 17. commitments and follow-up measures related to the current use of lands and resources. • The Agency is satisfied that the proponent has considered this issue, to the extent possible based on information provided by the Aboriginal groups, within the EIS. Taking into account the identified mitigation measures, the Agency concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental effect associated with this activity. 15 Metis Nation— • EA • Concerned with lack of funding for EA review. • The proponent was not prepared to provide • Metis Nation—Region 3 received up to $4,000 in Participant Funding Region 3 funding to Aboriginal groups for the Little from the Agency in 2010. Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation Project. 16 • Piikani Nation • EA • Concerned with lack of funding for EA review, • The proponent was not prepared to provide • Participant Funding was made available in 2010, but the only • Siksika traditional use collection, and site visits. funding to Aboriginal groups for the Little application received was from Metis Nation—Region 3 who received Nation Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation Project, $4,000. Participant funding is available to be used by groups for such • Blood Tribe however was willing to conduct site visits if activities as site visits. the groups were prepared to attend. • No applications were received from these groups within the application • Metis First Nation—Region 3 attended such period. a site visit. 17 Siksika Nation • EA Concerned with lack of proper consultation. • The proponent indicated on numerous • The Agency met, in person, with Siksika Nation in February 2012 occasions that it was willing to consult and/ and attempted to arrange a site visit and/or meetings on numerous or provide a site visit, however was not other occasions. Siksika Nation was provided with all relevant prepared to provide funding to Aboriginal environmental assessment documentation and an opportunity to groups for the Little Bow Reservoir comment on this draft Comprehensive Study Report. Rehabilitation Project. • Participant Funding was made available in 2010. No application was received from Siksika Nation.

80 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 6: Summary of Concerns Raised by Aboriginal Groups with Respect to the EA (cont'd)

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 81 Appendix 7: Focus of the Follow-Up Program

Responsible Element Objectives and Requirements Frequency and Duration* Department

Revegetation of • Monitoring to ensure the revegetation of • Post-construction DFO disturbed areas disturbed areas and survival of plantings

• Implement corrective measures • Based on 2nd year results, DFO depending on the results of the follow-up determination will be made for further mitigation and/or monitoring

Weed control • Invasive plant control • Applied until successful EC and rare plant revegetation has been completed replacement • Monitoring of transplanted rare plants to • Conducted in July for the first 2 years EC determine success rate of mitigation of operation to assess survival

• Implement corrective measures • Based on 2nd year results, EC depending on the results of the follow-up determination will be made • Thresholds at which corrective measures for further mitigation and/or are required should be implemented monitoring should be established in conjunction with the relevant federal department(s)

Terrestrial • Survey to assess the presence and • To be conducted in the EC wildlife habitat use of wildlife, including breeding 2nd year following operation bird surveys, observation of colonial commencement. nesting waterbird presence

• Implement corrective measures • Based on results, determination EC depending on the results of the follow-up will be made for further mitigation and/or monitoring to be carried out in 5th year following construction

• Thresholds at which corrective measures EC are required should be implemented should be established in conjunction with the relevant federal department(s)

Fish habitat • Confirm the integrity and effectiveness of • As specified in the Fish Habitat DFO (compensation the compensation works outlined in the Compensation Plan works) Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (FHCP)

• Implement corrective measures DFO depending on the results of the follow-up

• Thresholds at which corrective measures DFO are required should be implemented should be established in conjunction with the relevant federal department(s)

Surface water • Reservoir turbidity monitoring • Daily to weekly during construction DFO quality (depending on activities)

• Monitor to determine the extent and • During first 2 years of operation DFO severity of erosion along the new shoreline at FSL and within the reservoir drawdown zone

• Monitor dissolved oxygen concentrations • During the 3 years when the Little DFO in drawn down reservoir during winter Bow Reservoir is drawn down for construction & mitigate as necessary to construction during the winter ensure aquatic life survival

82 CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project Appendix 7: Focus of the Follow-Up Program (cont'd)

Responsible Element Objectives and Requirements Frequency and Duration* Department

Groundwater • Monitor for changes in groundwater • To be determined in discussion NRCan levels in response to Project to confirm with proponent conclusions on residual groundwater effects

Aquatic life • Monitoring will be conducted to validate • During construction phase DFO (including fish) the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat

• Monitoring to validate the assessment of • During 2nd year of operations. DFO residual impacts to aquatic habitat Based on results, determination will be made to repeat monitoring in 5th year following construction

• Monitor draw down process to ensure • During the 3 years construction DFO avoidance of fish stranding drawdown occurs and during first year of operation when winter drawdown to 854.06m El. occurs

Mercury • Monitoring of mercury concentrations in • Periodically during construction EC monitoring the water and in fish tissue and annually during operation

• Implement corrective measures EC depending on the results of the follow-up

• Thresholds at which corrective measures EC are required should be implemented should be established in conjunction with the relevant federal department(s)

Navigation • Provide bathymetric signage of the Little • During construction and for the life TC Safety Bow Reservoir at launch facilities of the project

• Indicate locations on map of potential TC submerged islands/hazards

• Indicate locations on map showing non- TC navigable areas (Travers Reservoir Dam- Little Bow Reservoir connecting Canal)

• A floating safety boom and signage shall TC be placed and maintained at the entrance to and outlet of the Travers Reservoir Dam-Little Bow Reservoir connecting canal during all open water periods as per specifications outlined in the Canadian Dam Association guidelines

*Depending on the results, the proponent may extend the duration

CEAA—Comprehensive Study Report: Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project 83