DOCSLIB.ORG

State of the Watershed Report SUMMARY 2010 MESSAGE from the CO-CHAIRS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

State of the Watershed Report

SUMMARY

2010

MESSAGE FROM THE CO-CHAIRS

Stephanie Palechek and I would like to extend our sincere appreciation to the many individuals and organizations that supported the State of the Oldman River Watershed Project through countless hours of in-kind work and financial support. In particular, we would like to thank Alberta Environment providing funding for the project and for the many in-kind hours of staff during the development of this report.

It has been a long and enlightening process that could not have been completed without the contributions and hard work of the State of the Watershed Team members as well as the open and effective communication between the State of the Watershed Team and the AMEC Earth and Environmental team. The State of the Watershed Team consists of:

!!!!!
!!!!!

  • Kent Bullock
  • Shane Petry (Co-chair)

Stephanie Palechek (Co-chair) Jocelyne Leger
Brian Hills Farrah McFadden Doug Kaupp Wendell Koning
Andy Hurly Brent Paterson

We also extend our appreciation to Mr. Lorne Fitch for writing an inspiring foreword that sets the basis from which we can begin to appreciate the beauty and complexity of our watershed – thank you Lorne.

Finally, to the many people who participated in our indicator workshops as well as to those who reviewed the draft report, thank you for providing your insight, expertise and experience to the State of the Oldman Watershed Project it could not have been a success without you.

Please enjoy.

  • Shane Petry
  • Stephanie Palechek

State of the Watershed Report

SUMMARY

2010

Contents

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Indicators and Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Sub-basins and W a tershed Rankin g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Mountain Sub-Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Foothills Sub-basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Southern Tributaries Sub-basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Prairie Sub-basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Oldman River Mainstem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Recommendations and Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Reclamation and Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1

OVERVIEW

The State of the Watershed report is a step towards understanding what we have, the challenges we face and how decisions we make today will affect future water users. This report provides a snapshot of the entire Oldman watershed: its current accounting and how well our watershed is working.

The Oldman watershed is a large diverse land and water system in southern Alberta covering 23 000 km2 in southwestern Alberta and 2 100 km2 in Montana. It extends eastward from the forested slopes of the Rocky Mountains, through rangelands in the foothills, dryland and irrigated agricultural plains, to the prairie grasslands. The Rocky Mountains feed the headwaters of the Oldman mainstem and its tributaries (Crowsnest and Castle rivers, Willow and Pincher creeks), while the headwaters of the Belly, Waterton and St. Mary rivers rise in Montana. The watershed varies greatly, both in terms of the status of the land and water resources and impacts from human activities. In headwater Sub-basins, water quantity is adequate, quality is fair to good, and riparian ecosystems are generally healthy. However, as the Oldman River flows east, water quality deteriorates, available water supplies diminish, and there are several issues of concern.

Moving from west to east, forests give way to grasslands and agricultural land uses. Cultivated agriculture is the main land use in 60% of the watershed and covers half or more of the Southern Tributaries and Prairie subbasins. Approximately 20% of the cultivated land is irrigated. Approximately 30% of the watershed has a soil erosion risk of moderate or more, most of which

PRAIRIES SUB-BASINS

FOOTHILLS SUB-BASINS

occurs in the Prairie Sub-basins. The effect of long term climate change

MOUNTAIN SUB-BASINS

SOUTHERN TRIBUTARIES

SUB-BBASINS

Figure 1. Oldman Watershed and Sub-basins

2

Actual water use is almost always less than total may increase the magnitude and frequency of drought

and the proportion of precipitation that falls in the form of rain. These changes will increase the allocations. Water licence allocations and actual water use within the Oldman watershed are shown in Figure 2. The data for the Waterton, Belly and St. Mary rivers below the Belly-St. Mary Headworks and for the Oldman River at the Mouth indicate that there is potential for expansion in the Southern Tributaries Sub-basins and along the Oldman River mainstem without the requirement of additional allocations. However, the available water supply may not support additional expansion without increased deficits to instream needs and existing consumptive use projects with junior licence priorities. In contrast, the Little Bow River has high allocations, but the potential for expansion within existing allocations is low because there is little difference between the use and likelihood of wind and water erosion. With increasing population, expanding land use activities and potential change to more arid climatic conditions, more attention to erosion control and conservation measures is necessary. The riparian areas of the watershed are less healthy than riparian areas in Alberta as a whole. The least healthy areas in the watershed are in the Prairie Sub-basins and the Oldman River mainstem. Land use activities in the watershed include agriculture, forestry, mining, recreation, and oil and gas extraction and affect 60% of the land base. The Prairie and Southern Tributaries sub-basins are the most disturbed. Integrating results from the terrestrial and riparian indicators for land cover, soil erosion, riparian health and land use provides an overall ranking of “Fair” for the Oldman watershed. allocations.
Nine of Alberta's 13 irrigation districts are sourced from waters of the Oldman watershed. Some of the irrigated lands extend beyond the Oldman watershed. The irrigation districts in the Oldman watershed (as well as in the Bow River watershed) have made significant gains in water-use efficiency from the
Natural flows in the Oldman watershed are highly variable both geographically and from year to year. Trend analyses of natural flows (recorded natural flows at some hydrometric stations and reconstructed at others) show signs of decreasing flows, but trends are not considered to be statistically significant at any stations except those on Beaver Creek in the Foothills Sub-basins and the Little Bow River in the Prairie Sub-basins.

Current (2006) Water Licence Allocation in the Oldman Watershed

Irrigation - 83% Stockwater - 2% Commercial- 1% Other - 13%

The waters of the Oldman watershed are highly regulated and extensively used. Water demands are generally low in the upper reaches of streams in the watershed, but increase to high levels in lower reaches of most streams. Generally, the higher the actual use is, expressed as a percentage of natural flow, the greater the potential for water supply deficits. However, several other factors come into play in a complex water resource system. For instance, storage and flow regulation can help to reduce deficits. Within the watershed, there are three major onstream storage reservoirs, Oldman River, Waterton and St. Mary reservoirs, with a total storage capacity of about 970 000 dam3. In addition, there are over 660 000 dam3 of offstream storage, some of which is located outside of the Oldman watershed.

Municipal - 1%

Current (2006) Water Use in the
Oldman Watershed

Irrigation - 91% Stockwater - 2% Commercial- 1% Other - 5% Municipal - 1%

Source: SSRB Water Supply Study

Figure 2: Water Licence Allocations and Actual Use in the Oldman Watershed

3

combined impacts of more effective on-farm application processes, district conveyance improvements, and reduced return flows. neutral and/or decreasing trends that result in better conditions within upstream reaches, except in the Foothills and Prairie sub-basins. These two Sub-basins show poorer water quality and increasing trends for almost all indicators. The upstream reach of the Oldman River shows no trend, with variable trends downstream. Increasing trends and accordingly poorer water quality in the Oldman River mainstem are caused by higher loading from tributaries and/or from urban centres. Improving (decreasing) trends in the Mainstem are maintained as a result of lower loadings from the tributaries.
Municipal use includes distributing water to homes, commercial and institutional establishments, and industrial users in cities, towns and villages. It does not include water use in hamlets, rural subdivisions or industrial complexes in rural areas. Water use records indicate that municipal use is usually highest in the summer months, primarily due to outside watering of lawns, gardens and parks. The total estimated surface and groundwater withdrawals for cities, towns and villages in the Oldman watershed was compared with Alberta and Canadian averages: in 2001 the average per capita withdrawal for the Oldman watershed was 742 litres per capita-day (L/c-d), which was
Integrating the results of water quality analysis for nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS) and fecal coliforms gives an overall rank of “Good” to “Fair” for the Oldman watershed. considerably higher than the Alberta (519 L/c-d) and Canadian (622 L/c-d) averages.
Based on an evaluation of the combined ranking, the health of each of the Sub-basins is shown in Table 1.
Overall, the water quantity of the Oldman watershed is “Fair” based on the results of analysis of flow variability, licensed allocation and actual use, as well as water use efficiencies within irrigation districts and municipalities.
Overall, the health of the Oldman watershed is rated as “fair”. The Mountain Sub-basins are good, three Sub-basins are ranked fair, and the Prairie Sub-basins are ranked fair to poor. In the Foothills, Southern Tributaries, and Mainstem sub-basins, which are ranked fair, and the Prairie Sub-basins, land cover, riparian health, land use, water allocations, surface water nutrient levels are the indicators of most concern.
Water quality in the Oldman watershed is defined primarily by natural conditions in the headwaters and is modified by downstream drainage and associated land-use patterns. A combination of effects from nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff from agricultural lands, pastures, etc.) and point sources (mainly related to municipal, industry, and irrigation return flows) creates additional loadings to streams in the watershed. All of these factors affect changes in concentrations of indicators, their temporal trends and loadings in different streams and their reaches.
Storage, flow regulation, and water diversions are the keys to meeting current water use demands within the Oldman watershed. In one instance (Little Bow River sub-basin), diversions from outside the watershed are used to meet current demand. Overall, management actions in the watershed are required to maintain sustainability in light of potential expansion of demand (within current allocations) and potentially lower

  • streamflow as a result of climate change.
  • The overall temporal trend pattern for all water

quality indicators in the Oldman watershed shows

Table 1: Overall State of the Watershed Ranking for all Indicators by Sub-basins

Sub-Basins
Indicator
Southern

Tributaries
Oldman Watershed

  • Mountain
  • Foothills
  • Prairie
  • Mainstem

Terrestrial and Riparian

  • Good
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor
  • Good

Poor
Fair

  • Fair
  • Water Quantity

Water Quality Overall
Good Good Good
Fair Fair Fair
Poor Fair Fair

  • Fair
  • Poor

Poor Poor
Fair Fair
Good
Fair

  • Fair
  • Good

Fair
Fair

4

managers and the public about the condition of a watershed compared to desired goals, and to help assess whether or not management actions are effective. As a result of the long history of monitoring water quantity and quality in the watershed, a large data set on indicators is available. These data provide

APPROACH

To assess the state of the Oldman watershed, it was divided using natural drainage patterns and water management history. Four Sub-basins – the Mountain, Foothills, Southern Tributaries, and Prairie – were defined. A fifth – the Oldman River Mainstem – was also identified because it receives and is influenced by water from the other Sub-basins (Figure 1). the opportunity to conduct an analytical assessment of indicators.

For the Oldman watershed, three groups of indicators were chosen and assessed (Table 2).

Indicators and Thresholds
Sub-basins and Watershed Ranking

In the same way performance measures show how well systems function over time, environmental indicators are used to measure the state of the watershed. Indicators allow us to understand the cause and effect relationship between human activities on the landscape and the environmental response to those activities. Indicators have three roles: to show trends in environmental conditions over time, to inform
The health of each of the Sub-basins was evaluated by integrating the rankings for terrestrial and riparian ecology, water quantity, and water quality indicators to determine an overall value. A comparative assessment of the rankings assigned to each of the Sub-basins was then used to assess the overall health of the Oldman watershed.

Instream Objectives (IOs) and Water Conservation Objectives (WCOs)

IOs - flows that should remain in the river to protect environmental values, human uses or parts thereof. IOs are maintained through dam operations or by restrictions on licences. IOs are in place throughout the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB), although some offer only limited protection of the aquatic environment. IOs have usually been set in response to fish habitat instream needs and/or water quality.

WCOs are defined in Alberta's Water Act. A WCO is the amount and quantity of water necessary for the protection of a natural water body or its aquatic environment, or any part thereof. It may also include water necessary to maintain a rate of flow or water level requirements for human instream use. WCOs were established in the Oldman River Basin following completion and government approval of the SSRB plan.

5

Table 2: Indicators and Thresholds used for the Oldman River State of the Watershed Report

  • Indicator
  • Threshold

Terrestrial and Riparian Ecology

Land Cover

···

Good: >50% combined land cover of forest, grassland, shrubland and rock/barren land Fair: 25 to 50% combined land cover of forest, grassland, shrubland and rock/barren land Poor: <25% combined land cover of forest, grassland, shrubland and rock/barren land

Soil Erosion Rates

Riparian Health

···

Good: <25% of area at risk of erosion Fair: 25 to 50% of area at risk of erosion Poor: >50% of area at risk of erosion

···

Good: riparian class healthy Fair: healthy but with problems Poor: unhealthy

Land use

···

Good: linear disturbance <2% Fair: 2 to 3% linear disturbance Poor: >3% linear disturbance
Linear Developments

···

Good: <50% total land use disturbance Fair: 50 to 90% total land use disturbance Poor: >90% total land use disturbance
Total Land Use Disturbance

Water Quantity

  • Trends in Natural Flow
  • Thresholds for assessing water quantity within the Oldman

watershed have not been established. Water quantity thresholds were assessed by a relative comparison among stations for each of the Sub-basins with assignment of rankings of good, fair or poor.

Licensed Allocation and Actual Use vs Natural Flow Performance in Meeting IO and WCO in Recent Years Irrigation and Municipal Water Use Efficiency
See above See above See above

Water Quality:

Nutrients - nitrogen

···

Good: no exceedances or less than 10% within the data set and neutral or decreasing trends in concentration particularly over the last decade Fair: the number of exceedances not more than 50% of the analyzed data set with increasing trends in concentration for one or two indicators Poor: exceedances occur in more than 50% cases and increasing trend in concentration pronounced in more than two indicators

Nutrients - phosphorus Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Fecal Coliforms
See above See above See above

6

average 0.3% per year at Frank and by 0.5% per year near Lundbreck. However, these annual decreases do not represent statistically significant trends. On a monthly basis, a significant decrease in flows is observed in April on the Crowsnest River.

MOUNTAIN SUB-BASINS

This is the westernmost portion of the Oldman watershed. The headwaters of the Crowsnest, Castle and Oldman rivers are deeply incised, narrow and swift flowing with boulders and cobbles forming the stream beds. These coldwater rivers are worldrenowned among avid anglers for their native populations of mountain whitefish and trout.
In the Mountain Sub-basins, water is used for agricultural, municipal, commercial, industrial, and other uses. The largest allocation and withdrawal is for the commercial sector, primarily the Allison Creek Fish Brood Station and Hatchery west of Coleman. The hatchery has high return flows. Actual use is much less than allocations within the Mountain Sub-basins. The rivers perform better at meeting water conservation and instream objectives at downstream sites than at upstream locations, however, deficits occurred at all monitored sites, primarily during the winter low flow period. Water quantity indicators are rated as Good.
The dominant land cover is forest, and activities such as forest harvesting and reforestation, grazing, fire and mountain pine beetle can all affect the watershed. The growing season is short, the climate is harsh, and wind is a constant element. Soil erosion is generally not a concern, because 87% of the Mountain Sub-basins is covered by forest and grassland. The Mountain Sub-basins riparian areas are healthier than the average in the Oldman watershed. Approximately 25% of the Mountain Sub-basins is altered by human development, with the greatest disturbance by agriculture (22%), which is concentrated in the Crowsnest River valley bottom. Extensive random recreational use (hunting, fishing, camping and OHVs) occurs throughout the Sub-basins, but data are not available to quantify the area affected. Terrestrial and riparian indicators are rated as Good.
Water quality within the Mountain Sub-basins is generally within guidelines. Exceedances observed in the past are related to an extreme rainfall event in June 2005 with subsequent flooding which is reflected in high loadings for phosphorus, nitrogen, TSS, and fecal coliforms. Loadings of total nitrogen, TSS and fecal coliforms were all typically higher in the Castle River sub-basin than the Crowsnest River sub-basin. Water quality tended to improve over time at the mouth of the Crowsnest River; improvements in water quality are apparent in the Castle River for nitrogen,
The Crowsnest and Castle river sub-basins have considerable snowpack and high amounts of precipitation contributing to flows typical of a mountain stream. In both rivers, recorded flows are equivalent to natural flows because the rivers are unregulated and have low water demands. Annual flows on the Crowsnest River are decreasing by an phosphorus, and fecal coliforms. Water quality indicators are rated as Good.

Overall, the Mountain Sub-basins are rated as

Good.

7

40% of the total area. This includes 1% of the land that is occupied by the Oldman, Chain Lakes and Pine Coulee reservoirs. Terrestrial and riparian indicators are rated as Good.

FOOTHILLS SUB-BASINS

The Foothills Sub-basins lie in the transition zone between the mountains and forests to the west and the Prairie grasslands and agricultural land to the east. Three primary tributaries -Willow, Beaver and Pincher creeks – flow into the Oldman River. Although the headwaters of these tributaries are in the mountains, all three are shallow and warm up quickly in the summer.
Flows on Beaver and Pincher creeks are closer to those seen on mountain steams, while flows on Willow Creek are typical of foothills region streams. The Chain Lakes Reservoir, build in 1966, regulates flows on Willow Creek as does the offstream Pine Coulee Reservoir, built in 1999. Flows on Beaver Creek show significant decreasing trends in annual natural flow and in most months, however, Willow and Pincher creeks indicate decreasing monthly trends in April, November and December. Trends in annual flows are not significant.
Land cover is a mix of cultivated land and forest and native grassland. Grassland and forest covers approximately 60%. Soil erosion is rated as negligible over most (60%) of the area with small areas of moderate risk near Claresholm and south of Fort Macleod. Riparian health is slightly better than the average for the Oldman watershed and is comparable to that found throughout Alberta. Land use (agriculture, infrastructure, urban, recreation) affects

Recommended publications
  • The Camper's Guide to Alberta Parks

    The Camper's Guide to Alberta Parks

    Discover Value Protect Enjoy The Camper’s Guide to Alberta Parks Front Photo: Lesser Slave Lake Provincial Park Back Photo: Aspen Beach Provincial Park Printed 2016 ISBN: 978–1–4601–2459–8 Welcome to the Camper’s Guide to Alberta’s Provincial Campgrounds Explore Alberta Provincial Parks and Recreation Areas Legend In this Guide we have included almost 200 automobile accessible campgrounds located Whether you like mountain biking, bird watching, sailing, relaxing on the beach or sitting in Alberta’s provincial parks and recreation areas. Many more details about these around the campfire, Alberta Parks have a variety of facilities and an infinite supply of Provincial Park campgrounds, as well as group camping, comfort camping and backcountry camping, memory making moments for you. It’s your choice – sweeping mountain vistas, clear Provincial Recreation Area can be found at albertaparks.ca. northern lakes, sunny prairie grasslands, cool shady parklands or swift rivers flowing through the boreal forest. Try a park you haven’t visited yet, or spend a week exploring Activities Amenities Our Vision: Alberta’s parks inspire people to discover, value, protect and enjoy the several parks in a region you’ve been wanting to learn about. Baseball Amphitheatre natural world and the benefits it provides for current and future generations. Beach Boat Launch Good Camping Neighbours Since the 1930s visitors have enjoyed Alberta’s provincial parks for picnicking, beach Camping Boat Rental and water fun, hiking, skiing and many other outdoor activities. Alberta Parks has 476 Part of the camping experience can be meeting new folks in your camping loop.
  • Fish Stocking Report 2013

    Fish Stocking Report 2013

    Fish Culture Information System Report : Stocking Report Module Id : FM_RRSTK Filename : fm_rrstk.pdf Run by : CCOPELAN Report Date: 12-OCT-2013 For Year: 2013 Stocking Report for year: 2013 Page 2 of 9 Sport Fishing Zone: ES1 Oldman / Bow River Watershed Location Month Number Species Genotype Ave. Length (cm) AIRDRIE POND (1-27-1-W5) May 250 RNTR 3N 20 AIRDRIE POND (1-27-1-W5) June 250 RNTR 3N 21 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) May 2,000 RNTR 3N 22 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) June 2,000 RNTR 3N 23 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) May 2,500 RNTR 3NTP 24 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) May 1,200 RNTR 3NTP 29 BATHING LAKE (11-4-1-W5) May 700 RNTR 3NTP 29 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) April 400 BNTR 2N 22 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) April 8,000 RNTR 3N 16 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) April 15,000 RNTR 3N 17 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) September 150 BNTR 2N 33 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) September 23,000 BNTR 3NTP 6 BEAVER MINES LAKE (11-5-3-W5) May 23,000 RNTR 3N 17 BURMIS LAKE (14-7-3-W5) May 1,000 RNTR 3NTP 23 BURN'S RESERVOIR (26-6-30-W4) May 500 RNTR 3NTP 23 BURN'S RESERVOIR (26-6-30-W4) May 500 RNTR 3NTP 26 BUTCHER'S LAKE (15-4-1-W5) September 3,000 BKTR 3NTP 9 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) May 26,700 RNTR 3N 18 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) May 23,400 RNTR 3N 19 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) September 31,000 RNTR 3NTP 16 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) September 19,000 RNTR 3NTP 17 COLEMAN FISH AND GAME POND (24-8-5-W5) May 1,600 RNTR 3NTP 24 COTTONWOOD LAKE (16-7-29-W4) May 750 RNTR 3NTP 23 CROSSFIELD TROUT POND (27-28-1-W5) June 700 RNTR 3N 23 CROWSNEST
  • CZN Comments on Final Arguments

    CZN Comments on Final Arguments

    September 16, 2011 Chuck Hubert Environmental Assessment Officer Mackenzie Valley Review Board Suite 200, 5102 50th Avenue, Yellowknife, NT X1A 2N7 Dear Mr. Hubert RE: Environmental Assessment EA0809-002, Prairie Creek Mine Comments on Final Arguments Canadian Zinc Corporation (CZN) is pleased to provide the attached comments on the Final Arguments submitted by parties at the conclusion of environmental assessment EA0809-002. Technical replies are provided, where necessary, by stating CZN’s position with respect to recommendations made. Where recommendations are unchanged from Technical Reports, the Review Board is directed to CZN’s comments on Technical Reports in Attachment 1. The contents of Attachment 1 should be read first since context is provided for some of our responses to the Final Arguments. Please note that our comments on Technical Reports contain no new information, and no timeline was provided by the Review Board for their submission. Also attached is a final commitments table (Table 1), and the curricula vitae of the main individual consultants who provided deliverables for the environmental assessment process. Yours truly, CANADIAN ZINC CORPORATION David P. Harpley, P. Geo. VP, Environment and Permitting Affairs Suite 1710-650 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6B 4N9 Tel: (604) 688-2001 Fax: (604) 688-2043 E-mail: [email protected], Website: www.canadianzinc.com COMMENTS ON PARTY FINAL ARGUMENTS Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Water Management and Storage Recommendation 2: Final selection of an additional water storage option must be done in conjunction with the determination of Site Specific Water Quality Objectives for Prairie Creek. If increased capacity associated with construction of an additional pond provides for the ability to meet Reference Condition Approach benchmarks as defined within the derivation process, that option must be selected and implemented.
  • Filed Electronically March 3, 2020 Canada Energy Regulator Suite

    Filed Electronically March 3, 2020 Canada Energy Regulator Suite

    450 – 1 Street SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 5H1 Tel: (403) 920-5198 Fax: (403) 920-2347 Email: [email protected] March 3, 2020 Filed Electronically Canada Energy Regulator Suite 210, 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2R 0A8 Attention: Ms. L. George, Secretary of the Commission Dear Ms. George: Re: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) NGTL West Path Delivery 2022 (Project) Project Notification In accordance with the Canada Energy Regulator (CER)1 Interim Filing Guidance and Early Engagement Guide, attached is the Project Notification for the Project. If the CER requires additional information with respect to this filing, please contact me by phone at (403) 920-5198 or by email at [email protected]. Yours truly, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Original signed by David Yee Regulatory Project Manager Regulatory Facilities, Canadian Natural Gas Pipelines Enclosure 1 For the purposes of this filing, CER refers to the Canada Energy Regulator or Commission, as appropriate. NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. CER Project Notification NGTL West Path Delivery 2022 Section 214 Application PROJECT NOTIFICATION FORM TO THE CANADA ENERGY REGULATOR PROPOSED PROJECT Company Legal Name: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Project Name: NGTL West Path Delivery 2022 (Project) Expected Application Submission Date: June 1, 2020 COMPANY CONTACT Project Contact: David Yee Email Address: [email protected] Title (optional): Regulatory Project Manager Address: 450 – 1 Street SW Calgary, AB T2P 5H1 Phone: (403) 920-5198 Fax: (403) 920-2347 PROJECT DETAILS The following information provides the proposed location, scope, timing and duration of construction for the Project. The Project consists of three components: The Edson Mainline (ML) Loop No.
  • Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 3A: Effects Assessment (Construction and Dry Operations)

    Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 3A: Effects Assessment (Construction and Dry Operations)

    SPRINGBANK OFF-STREAM RESERVOIR PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT VOLUME 3A: EFFECTS ASSESSMENT (CONSTRUCTION AND DRY OPERATIONS) Assessment of Potential Effects on Hydrology March 2018 Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 6.III 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON HYDROLOGY ............................................. 6.1 6.1 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 6.1 6.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting ..................................................................... 6.1 6.1.2 Engagement and Key Concerns ................................................................ 6.2 6.1.3 Potential Effects, Pathways and Measurable Parameters ..................... 6.6 6.1.4 Boundaries ...................................................................................................... 6.6 6.1.5 Residual Effects Characterization ............................................................... 6.8 6.1.6 Significance Definition ................................................................................ 6.10 6.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR HYDROLOGY .................................................................. 6.11 6.2.1 Methods ......................................................................................................... 6.11 6.2.2 Overview ......................................................................................................
  • Status of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens) in Alberta

    Status of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens) in Alberta

    Status of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) in Alberta: Update 2003 Prepared for: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) Update prepared by: Kris Kendell Much of the original work contained in the report was prepared by Greg Wagner in 1997. This report has been reviewed, revised, and edited prior to publication. It is an SRD/ACA working document that will be revised and updated periodically. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 9 (Update 2003) March 2003 Published By: i Publication No. T/035 ISBN: 0-7785-2809-X (Printed Edition) ISBN: 0-7785-2810-3 (On-line Edition) ISSN: 1206-4912 (Printed Edition) ISSN: 1499-4682 (On-line Edition) Series Editors: Sue Peters and Robin Gutsell Illustrations: Brian Huffman Maps: Jane Bailey For copies of this report,visit our web site at : http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/riskspecies/ and click on “Detailed Status” OR Contact: Information Centre - Publications Alberta Environment/Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Fish and Wildlife Division Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920 - 108 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2M4 Telephone: (780) 422-2079 OR Information Service Alberta Environment/Alberta Sustainable Resource Development #100, 3115 - 12 Street NE Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2E 7J2 Telephone: (403) 297-6424 This publication may be cited as: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2003. Status of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) in Alberta: Update 2003. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 9 (Update 2003), Edmonton, AB. 61 pp. ii PREFACE Every five years, the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development reviews the status of wildlife species in Alberta.
  • Western Grebe Surveys in Alberta 2016

    Western Grebe Surveys in Alberta 2016

    WESTERN GREBE SURVEYS IN ALBERTA 2016 The western grebe has been listed as a Threatened species in Alberta. A recent data compilation shows that there are approximately 250 lakes that have supported western grebes in Alberta. However, information for most lakes is poor and outdate d. Total counts on lakes are rare, breeding status is uncertain, and the location and extent of breeding habitat (emergent vegetation, usually bulrush) is usually unknown. We are seeking your help in gathering more information on western grebe populations in Alberta. If you visit any of the lakes listed below, or know anyone that does, we would appreciate as much detail as you can collect on the presence of western grebes and their habitat. Let us know in advance (if possible) if you are planning on going to any lakes, and when you do, e-mail details of your observations to [email protected]. SURVEY METHODS: Visit a lake between 1 May and 31 August with spotting scope or good binoculars. Surveys can be done from a boat, or vantage point(s) from shore. Report names of surveyors, dates, number of adults seen, and report on the approximate percentage of the lake area that this number represents. Record presence of young birds or nesting colonies, and provide any additional information on presence/location of likely breeding habitat, specific parts of the lake observed, observed threats to birds or habitat (boat traffic, shoreline clearing, pollution, etc.). Please report on findings even if no birds were seen. Lakes on the following page that are flagged with an asterisk (*) were not visited in 2015, and are priority for survey in 2016.
  • Stocking Report

    Stocking Report

    Fish Culture Information System Report : Stocking Report Module Id : FM_RRSTK Filename : fm_rrstk.pdf Run by : CCOPELAN Report Date: 01-NOV-2012 For Year: 2012 Stocking Report for year: 2012 Page 2 of 11 Sport Fishing Zone: ES1 Oldman / Bow River Watershed Location Month Number Species Genotype Ave. Length (cm) AIRDRIE POND (1-27-1-W5) May 250 RNTR 3N 21 AIRDRIE POND (1-27-1-W5) June 250 RNTR 3N 21 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) May 2,000 RNTR 3N 25 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) June 2,000 RNTR 3N 27 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) July 2,000 RNTR 3N 29 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) August 2,000 RNTR 3N 27 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) August 260 RNTR 3N 28 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) May 2,400 RNTR 3NTP 25 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) May 500 RNTR 3NTP 26 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) June 1,800 RNTR 3NTP ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) July 600 RNTR 2N 38 ASTER LAKE (5-19-9-W5) August 1,300 CTTR 2N 4 BATHING LAKE (11-4-1-W5) May 700 RNTR 3NTP 23 BEAR POND (36-14-4-W5) May 4,100 ARGR 2N 1 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) April 120 BNTR 2N 45 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) April 34 BNTR 2N 59 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) April 23,000 RNTR 2N 18 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) September 200 BNTR 2N 52 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) September 23,000 BNTR 3NTP 9 BEAVER MINES LAKE (11-5-3-W5) May 23,000 RNTR 3N 17 BIG IRON LAKE (1-15-4-W5) May 1,900 ARGR 2N 1 BULLER POND (17-22-10-W5) May 1,200 RNTR 3N 21 BULLER POND (17-22-10-W5) August 500 RNTR 3N 28 BURMIS LAKE (14-7-3-W5) May 1,000 RNTR 3NTP 25 BURN'S RESERVOIR (26-6-30-W4) May 500 RNTR 3NTP 23 BURN'S RESERVOIR (26-6-30-W4) June 500 RNTR
  • Fish Stocking Report 2017

    Fish Stocking Report 2017

    Fish Stocking Report 2017 Jan 2, 2018 Stocking Week District Waterbody Name Species Strain Ploidy Stocked Size - cm (2017) Airdrie Dewitts Pond BNTR BRBR 3N 600 19.0 17-Apr-17 Airdrie Dewitts Pond RNTR TLTLS AF3N 1,244 20.9 17-Apr-17 Airdrie Dewitts Pond RNTR TLTLJ AF3N 1,219 16.5 17-Apr-17 Athabasca Lower Chain Lake RNTR LYLY AF2N 8,000 26.5 15-May-17 Athabasca Lower Chain Lake TGTR BRBE 3N 4,000 22.5 25-Sep-17 Athabasca Lower Chain Lake RNTR LYLY AF2N 1,319 31.9 25-Sep-17 Athabasca Lower Chain Lake RNTR TLTLS AF3N 3,200 10.9 9-Oct-17 Barrhead Dolberg Lake RNTR TLTLK AF3N 18,000 14.5 8-May-17 Barrhead Peanut Lake RNTR TLTLJ AF3N 13,500 18.7 22-May-17 Barrhead Peanut Lake RNTR TLTLK AF3N 1,500 14.6 22-May-17 Blairmore Allison Lake RNTR BEBE 3N 930 26.0 8-May-17 Blairmore Allison Lake RNTR BEBE 3N 2,770 26.0 22-May-17 Blairmore Allison Lake RNTR BEBE 3N 150 33.0 25-Sep-17 Blairmore Beaver Mines Lake RNTR TLTLJ AF3N 13,000 17.3 15-May-17 Blairmore Beaver Mines Lake RNTR BEBE 3N 10,000 20.5 18-Sep-17 Jan 2, 2018 Fish Stocking Report Page 2 of 29 © 2018 Government of Alberta Blairmore Coleman Fish and Game Pond RNTR BEBE 3N 1,000 25.5 8-May-17 Blairmore Coleman Fish and Game Pond RNTR BEBE 3N 600 27.0 22-May-17 Blairmore Crowsnest Lake RNTR TLTLJ AF3N 15,000 17.0 24-Apr-17 Blairmore Island Lake RNTR BEBE 3N 1,900 25.5 8-May-17 Bonnyville Lara Fish Pond RNTR LYLY AF2N 400 27.4 1-May-17 Bonnyville Lara Fish Pond RNTR BEBE 2N 200 19.4 2-Oct-17 Brooks Brooks Aquaduct RNTR BEBE 2N 20,000 11.6 1-May-17 Brooks Brooks Aquaduct RNTR BEBE 2N 10,000
  • Fish Stocking Report 2021 Fish Stocking Managed by the Government of Alberta and the Alberta Conservation Association Updated August 31, 2021

    Fish Stocking Report 2021 Fish Stocking Managed by the Government of Alberta and the Alberta Conservation Association Updated August 31, 2021

    Fish Stocking Report 2021 Fish stocking managed by the Government of Alberta and the Alberta Conservation Association Updated August 31, 2021 Average Length = adult fish stocked (cm) Species Stocked Strains Stocked Ploidy Stocked ARGR = Arctic Grayling BEBE = Beitty x Beitty TLTLJ = Trout Lodge / Jumpers 2N = diploid BKTR = Brook Trout BRBE = Bow River x Beitty TLTLK = Trout Lodge / Kamloops 3N = triploid BNTR = Brown Trout CLCL = Campbell Lake TLTLS = Trout Lodge / Silvers AF2N = all female diploid CTTR = Cutthroat Trout JLJL = Job Lake AF3N = all female triploid RNTR = Rainbow Trout LYLY = Lyndon TGTR = Tiger Trout PLPL = Pit Lakes WALL = Walleye Waterbody Official Waterbody ATS Species Strain Genotype Average Number Stocking Name Common Name Length Stocked Date Alford Lake SW4-36-8-W5 RNTR Trout AF3N 21.6 3,000 15-May-21 Lodge/Jumpers Bear Pond NW36-14-4-W5 TGTR Beitty/Bow River 3N 16.5 750 17-Jun-21 For further information on Fish Stocking visit: https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/fish-stocking/default.aspx ©2021 Government of Alberta | Published: June 2021 Classification: Public Page 1 of 22 Beauvais Lake SW29-5-1-W5 RNTR Trout AF3N 17.7 23,000 27-Apr-21 Lodge/Jumpers Beaver Lake NE16-35-6-W5 RNTR Trout AF3N 21.9 2,500 7-May-21 Lodge/Jumpers Beaver Mines Lake NE11-5-3-W5 RNTR Trout AF3N 17.5 23,000 28-Apr-21 Lodge/Jumpers Birch Lake SE18-35-6-W5 BNTR Bow River 3N 15.7 500 6-May-21 Birch Lake SE18-35-6-W5 BKTR Beitty Resort 3N 18.2 5,000 6-May-21 Birch Lake SE18-35-6-W5 RNTR Trout AF3N 22.3 3,500 7-May-21 Lodge/Jumpers Blood Indian
  • 2005 Stocking Program

    2005 Stocking Program

    Fisheries Management Information System Report : Stocking Report Module Id : FM_RRSTK Filename : H:fm_rrstk.pdf Run by : JWAGNER Report Date: 03-JAN-2006 For Year: 2005 Stocking Report for year: 2005 Page 2 of 8 Sport Fishing Zone: ES1 Oldman / Bow River Watershed Location Month Number Species Ave. Length (cm) AIRDRIE POND (1-27-1-W5) April 250 RNTR 20 AIRDRIE POND (1-27-1-W5) June 250 RNTR 20 ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5) May 2,900 RNTR 22 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) May 2,700 RNTR 20 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) June 1,210 RNTR 22 ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5) October 1,500 RNTR 18 BARNABY LAKE (LOWER SOUTHFORK LAKE) (31-4-3-W5) September 85 GLTR 2 BARNABY LAKE (LOWER SOUTHFORK LAKE) (31-4-3-W5) September 35 GLTR 10 BATHING LAKE (11-4-1-W5) May 700 RNTR 10 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) January 300 BNTR 46 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) May 23,100 RNTR 17 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) July 43,500 BNTR 12 BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5) July 13,800 RNTR 18 BEAVER MINES LAKE (11-5-3-W5) April 61,000 RNTR 9 BULLER POND (20-22-10-W5) July 1,300 RNTR 25 BURMIS LAKE (14-7-3-W5) June 1,000 RNTR 22 BURN'S RESERVOIR (26-6-30-W4) May 500 RNTR 20 BURN'S RESERVOIR (26-6-30-W4) June 500 RNTR 22 BUTCHER'S LAKE (15-4-1-W5) May 900 BKTR 26 BUTCHER'S LAKE (15-4-1-W5) August 3,000 BKTR 16 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) February 220 RNTR 57 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) February 370 RNTR 58 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) May 97,500 RNTR 12 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) May 82,600 RNTR 13 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5) June 20,100 RNTR 13 CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5)

  • PINE COULEE NRCB/EARP JOINT REVIEW PANEL Edmonton, Alberta

    PINE COULEE NRCB/EARP JOINT REVIEW PANEL Edmonton, Alberta PINE COULEE RESERVOIR Report of Pre-Hearing Conference on WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT Preliminary and Procedural Matters IN THE WILLOW CREEK BASIN June 15, 1994 SOUTHWEST OF STAVELY, ALBERTA Stavely, Alberta - APPLICATION # 9401 1. INTRODUCTION Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services (PWSS or the Applicant) requests approval to construct a water management project which includes a diversion weir on Willow Creek, a 3.5 kilometer (km) canal and a multiple use offstream storage reservoir in Pine Coulee, approximately 6 km west of Highway #2 near the Town of Stavely in southwestern Alberta (the project). The water in the reservoir would be held behind an earthfill dam standing about 21 meters above the valley floor and extending 450 meters between the valley walls across Pine Coulee just upstream of where Pine Creek meets Willow Creek. When full, the reservoir would cover 6 square kilometers (1480 acres), store 41,000 acre-feet of water and extend 13 km north from the Dam. On December 16, 1988, the Alberta Minister of the Environment issued a press release announcing that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required for the Pine Coulee Project. The Applicant filed an application, including the EIA, with the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB or the Board) on January 5, 1994, to obtain approval under Section 5(l) of the NRCB Act. A Request for Supplemental Information was prepared following independent review of the Application by NRCB staff, Alberta Environmental Protection, and other provincial government departments. The timing of key events in the review process is listed in Table A.