RRiippppllee EEffffeeccttss The First Watershed Stewardship Grant Program Report on the first $100,000 (April 2006 - March 2007)

Sarah Hipkin Grant Administrator Alberta Stewardship Network

Special thanks to:

Members of the Stewardship Grant Committee (spring 2006):

™ Margaret Glasford, ASN Chair ™ Jeff McCammon, Lac La Nonne Watershed and Lake Stewardship Society ™ Kent Lyle, Sylvan Lake Watershed Stewardship Society ™ Shirley Pickering, Highwood Water Management Plan Public Advisory Committee ™ Petra Rowell, Alberta Environment ™ Ken Lewis, Alberta Agriculture and Food / AESA ™ Ernie Ewaschuk, Land Stewardship Centre of Canada / ASN Secretariat ™ Diana Rung, Alberta Conservation Association ™ Kelsey Spicer-Rawe, Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society (Cows & Fish) ™ Wendy Devent, formerly of Oldman Watershed Council

And those others that provided support in developing the grant program: ™ Sarah Primeau, ASN Secretariat / Land Stewardship Centre of Canada ™ Tracy Scott, Ducks Unlimited Canada ™ Mark Bennett, Bow River Basin Council

Front cover photo provided by Friends of Little Red Deer River Society. Photo (this page) ‘Getting ready to plant’ provided by Tim Giese, Cochrane Branches & Banks Environmental Foundation

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 2 Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5 Supporting Stewardship: the Alberta Stewardship Network ...... 6 Ripple Effects: The First Watershed Stewardship Grant Program...... 7 Diagram A: ‘Awareness to Action’ for Water Conservation (example) ...... 8 Highlights of the first Watershed Stewardship Grant Program...... 9 Grant Recipients by Major Watershed...... 10 Diagram B: Major Watersheds of Alberta ...... 10 Athabasca River watershed...... 11 Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration)...... 11 1. Lac La Nonne Watershed & Lake Stewardship Society Category: Biophysical & Social Monitoring ...... 12 2. Lesser Slave Lake Watershed Committee Beaver River watershed...... 13 Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration)...... 13 3. Lakeland Agricultural Research Association Category: Awareness & Knowledge ...... 14 4. Pelican Narrows Healthy Shoreline Committee North Saskatchewan River watershed...... 15 Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration)...... 15 5. Rocky Riparian Group Category: Awareness & Knowledge / Biophysical & Social Monitoring /Community-based Action ...... 166 6. Sandy Lake Restoration Society South Saskatchewan River watershed ...... 17 Red Deer River sub-watershed ...... 17 Category: Biophysical & Social Monitoring ...... 17 7. Friends of Little Red Deer River Society Bow River sub-watershed...... 18 Category: Awareness & Knowledge ...... 19 8. Elbow River Watershed Partnership 9. Ghost Watershed Alliance Society 10. Mountain Parks Watershed Association (Bow Riverkeeper) Category: Team-building/Community-based Action ...... 22 11. Nose Creek Watershed Partnership 12. Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society Category: Community-based Action ...... 23 13. Calgary Field Naturalists Society 14. Cochrane Branches & Banks Environmental Foundation 15. Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society Oldman River sub-watershed ...... 26 Category: Awareness & Knowledge ...... 26 16. Alberta Wilderness Association - Beehive Natural Area Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration)...... 27 17. Lee Creek Watershed Group Category: Biophysical & Social Monitoring ...... 27 18. Beaver Creek Watershed Group Milk River watershed ...... 29 Category: Community-based Action ...... 29 19. Milk River Ranchers Group Overcoming Stewardship Challenges ...... 30 Strategies for Limited Human Resources ...... 30 Strategies for Accessing Further Resources (funding, materials, and expertise) ...... 30

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 3 Strategies to Encourage Stewardship in Others...... 31 Strategies to Better Monitor the Effectiveness of the Project ...... 31 Recommendations Received...... 32 Application and Reporting...... 33 Conclusions...... 33 Appendix A: About the Alberta Stewardship Network ...... 34 Appendix B: Financial Information...... 35 Budget (B1): Overview of Administration and Granting...... 35 Budget (B2): Overview of Watershed Stewardship Group’ Financial Information...... 36 Appendix C: Watershed Stewardship Group’ Partnerships...... 37 Appendix D: Grant Administration ...... 38 Appendix E: Household Water Conservation Calculations, Friends of the Bow campaign ...... 39

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 4 Introduction

Watersheds are slowly being recognized as the most appropriate spatial unit to undertake environmental planning and stewardship delivery. Issues of water quality, supply and ecosystem health are often intrinsically linked to actions taking place within the natural ecological boundaries of these drainage areas, and often go beyond jurisdictional boundaries.

In recent years more than a hundred and forty community stakeholder groups have formed across Alberta in response to local watershed issues. These dedicated groups are often composed of volunteer stewards who combine first-hand knowledge of their watershed’s issues with innovative ideas to improve their watershed’s health. In recent years, stewardship in Alberta has been trying to organize itself to become less duplicative, easier on volunteers, and in general, more efficient.

In 2005, as part of the compiling of a Directory of Watershed Stewardship in Alberta, the range of stewardship activities being undertaken by local groups in Alberta was documented. The plethora of activities already being undertaken by these, often volunteer-based groups, could be categorized under: education and awareness, surveys, demonstration sites, publications and products, research and monitoring, land conservation/protection initiatives, restoration, conservation strategies, development of management plans, participation in planning and environmental assessment processes, advocacy and policy analysis and developing partnerships1. At that time, groups were also asked to list their top three needs or requirements that would assist them in doing their work more efficiently. Funding was the main need listed by these groups (37%), followed by access to information/expertise (22%) and human resources needs (17%)2. Groups have been surveyed on two other occasions over the past four years with consistent results indicating a need for financial assistance to do their work3.

An important catalyst for many watershed stewardship groups is the Alberta Stewardship Network’s Watershed Stewardship Grant Program. The first grant program was made possible by a grant of $100,000 from the Government of Alberta to support Watershed Stewardship Groups’ contribution to Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability (www.waterforlife.gov.ab.ca). Local watershed stewardship groups are one of the three key types of partnerships listed in Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability as important to help accomplish the goals of safe, secure drinking water; healthy aquatic ecosystems; and reliable quality water supply for a sustainable economy. Thus in supporting the grant program, the Government of Alberta (GOA) and its partners sought to recognize the tremendous grassroots effort already found in communities across the province to care for our watersheds and water resources.

1 S. Primeau, Summary of Stewardship Activities in Alberta, Land Stewardship Centre of Canada, 2005 2 Report on Feedback Solicited from Watershed Stewardship Groups, E. Ewaschuk, Land Stewardship Centre of Canada, Alberta Stewardship Network, May 2005 3 P. Rowell and E. Ewaschuk, Watershed Stewardship Across the Prairies, 2003 for the National Stewardship Conference, 2003; Stewards in Motion workshop.

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 5 Supporting Stewardship: the Alberta Stewardship Network

The Alberta Stewardship Network (ASN) was formed in September 2004 to provide a network for Alberta’s stewards to enhance information exchange and support and to recognize the contribution of individuals, communities and organizations as local watershed stewards in Alberta (ASN’s mission).

Our vision: Albertans are connected, informed, and working together as effective stewards of our air, land, water and biodiversity.

While the ASN, GOA and other partners are undertaking a number of activities to communicate with, connect, and build capacity in Watershed Stewardship Groups, the partners felt that a grant program would be an appropriate mechanism to support the stewardship community and to increase their ability to participate in bringing about Water for Life outcomes in their local watersheds. To this end, the ASN asked Alberta Environment to grant the ASN $100,000 in 2005. In return, the ASN would undertake the administration of a grant program that would see a number of small grants go to community-based Watershed Stewardship Groups (WSGs) working to achieve Water for Life outcomes.

The ASN is well-placed to be able to link with and respond to the needs of Watershed Stewardship Groups in Alberta. First, members of the ASN board are distributed approximately half and half between those that are experienced volunteer stewards and those that represent some of the agencies that typically provide technical expertise to support watershed stewardship in Alberta. Secondly, the ASN already provides a number of means to connect with and support stewards, such as a toll-free “Ask ASN” telephone service (1-877-7-ASK-ASN), an on-line and hard copy directory of watershed stewardship groups and resource organizations in Alberta (2005 with Alberta Environment support), in addition to tools on the website (www.ab.stewardshipcanada.ca) and the annual Stewards in Motion workshop. The Land Stewardship Centre of Canada provides secretariat services to the ASN. Please refer to Appendix A for further details about the ASN.

A note from Margaret Glasford, ASN Chair and former watershed stewardship group volunteer:

Many stewards from the smaller watershed groups are mostly volunteers. They get together because they have a common concern about something in their watershed. But they often find it hard to move ahead to get information and resources. The ASN formed to connect these people, to provide information and resources to them, and to provide some support in the way of funding.

It is a real plus for us to be able to offer this grant program. The funding has allowed [the watershed groups] to undertake projects that they may not have had funding for before. It has allowed them to leverage other funding for their projects and to be successful in their projects. We really appreciate Alberta Environment and Alberta Government for supporting and recognizing stewardship in this way.

Thank you,

Margaret Glasford, ASN Chair

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 6 Ripple Effects: The First Watershed Stewardship Grant Program

Through the Watershed Stewardship Grant Program, grants of up to $5000 were awarded to Watershed Stewardship Groups working to raise awareness of local watershed issues or improve the condition of their local watershed in Alberta. Grant recipients were chosen on a ‘project by project’ basis with their activities meeting one or more of the following categories:

1. Awareness and Knowledge – activities that increase the awareness and understanding of local watershed issues. 2. Tool-Building – activities that lead towards the development of tools that demonstrate, test, or display watershed management options. 3. Team-Building – activities that build membership and organizational capacity to take on team tasks. 4. Biophysical and Social Monitoring – activities that measure environmental and social indicators of watershed health. 5. Community-based Action – physical “on-the-ground” activities that improve the condition of the local watershed.

Many projects involved various activities that spanned one or more of the “Watershed project categories. Successful applicants also explained how their initiative Stewardship Group” is supported at least one of the three goals of the Water for Life strategy a broad term used in the (safe, secure drinking water supply, healthy aquatic ecosystems, and Water for Life strategy to reliable, quality water supplies for a sustainable economy). encompass diverse types of community Applicants had to accord with definition of Watershed Stewardship Group partnerships actively and have society status or other legally recognized status. In situations engaged in environmental where the watershed stewardship group did not have legal status, the ASN stewardship of their local accepted applications from other legal entities that had agreed to represent watershed. Such groups the stewardship group as a partner in the project. In this manner, seven of are inclusive (they may the grant recipients were able to apply to the first grant program. include individuals, organizations, In this manner, the first grant program supported 19 stewardship projects agriculture, industry, (and 18 groups). These projects were located in five of the seven major municipalities and other watersheds listed in Alberta’s Water Act (Athabasca, Beaver, North forms of local Saskatchewan, South Saskatchewan and the Milk River watersheds). It is no government) who work together to set common surprise that many were in the most populous watersheds of the province in goals and achieve central and southern Alberta. (Specifically, twelve projects were located in shared outcomes. the South Saskatchewan River watershed, two in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, two projects in the Athabasca River watershed, two in the Beaver River watershed, and one in the Milk River watershed.)

The results truly were a ripple effect where one small action rippled out across the province. With support from the grant program, these local watershed groups were able to carry out projects like water quality monitoring, education and awareness programs that get school children or scouts or neighbours out to do a shoreline cleanup or pick invasive weeds, riparian health assessments, and undertake demonstrations of beneficial management practices for farmers and ranchers. All of these activities contribute directly to Water for Life outcomes.

Spreading the message about doing our part for watershed stewardship in Alberta, the 18 groups organized the participation of over 5000 people in hands-on experiences to improve their local watershed or in the information and awareness sessions on stewardship solutions and responses to local watershed issues. Furthermore, the 18 groups reached over 33000 people indirectly through the media (website, newsletter, radio or newspapers).

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 7 In financial terms alone, for every dollar contributed by the grant, these local watershed stewardship groups were able to triple or even quadruple its value through partner funding and in-kind contributions of time, materials and equipment. (From a total project grant of $90,000, recipients added $254,356.02 in value of additional funding, volunteer and technical partner’ time and equipment use resulting in a total project value of $344,356.02.) In volunteer time alone, the groups contributed the equivalent of $118,820 in organizing, carrying out and evaluating the projects. Since this was only the documented time, the actual volunteer time contribution is expected to be vastly underestimated. These groups were also able to leverage an additional $80,181.37 in needed funding from partners and members. Of that amount, partners contributed $67,464.21. In additional to financial support, partners also contributed the in-kind equivalent of $55,960.15 for equipment use, materials or staff/technical time to the projects. However, in real terms such partnerships proved invaluable to the groups by partners being on-hand to provide local technical assistance and other forms of support when needed (see the section on Overcoming Stewardship Challenges).

The significant in-kind contribution to this grant program, over $170,000, went further than the target groups or grant recipients. The 10 representatives of stewardship groups and supporting agencies on the Stewardship Grant Committee also contributed over 496.5 hours or $14,895 in- kind in time contribution towards developing the grant program and selecting grant recipients (see Appendix B1 for details).

Diagram A: ‘Awareness to Action’ for Water Conservation (example)

Friends of the Bow Commitments Made and Amounts of Water (litres) Saved per Week4

# of People Amount of water saved

Committed each week (litres)

Fixing toilet and tap leaks 126 33,516

Placing a pitcher of water in fridge 109 14,364

Filling dishwashers prior to any wash cycle 82 8,720

Running clothes washer only when it is full 121 16,093

Turning off the tap while brushing teeth 136 14,280

Caring for lawn wisely 75 285,000

Installing a low flush toilet 16 16,800

Installing a low flow showerhead 21 10,920

TOTAL WATER SAVED OVER n/a 399,693 1 WEEK PERIOD

Courtesy of: Karen Jepp and Danielle Droitch, Bow Riverkeeper.

4 See Page 20 for grantee’s project information and Appendix E for an explanation of calculations.

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 8 Highlights of the first Watershed Stewardship Grant Program

¾ 19 watershed stewardship projects located in 5 of Alberta’s 7 major watersheds ¾ Range of grants awarded $1000 to $5000 per project, with a total grant of $90,000 ¾ For every dollar contributed by the grant, these groups were able to triple or quadruple its value through partner funding and in-kind contributions ¾ 18 Watershed Stewardship Groups contributed the equivalent of $118,820 in volunteer time ¾ 64 different partnerships; project partners contributed $123,424.36 in financial and in-kind support ¾ Over 5000 people received a watershed stewardship message either through hands-on involvement or in person presentation and over 33000 were reached indirectly through the media (website, newsletter, radio and newspapers) ¾ 10 groups organized physical “on-the-ground” activities that improved the condition of the local watershed through 11 projects which: o Removed invasive alien plant species (4 groups) o Removed non-biological debris (3 groups) o Used bioengineering techniques to restore two stream-banks (2 groups) o Planted over 7000 native trees and shrubs (2 groups) o Demonstrate the agricultural beneficial management practices of off-stream watering of livestock (3) and establishing a riparian buffer (1) ¾ 8 groups organized projects that included components to measure local watershed health or public receptivity to behavioural change: o 3 groups organized riparian health assessments (including aerial videography) o 2 groups conducted water quality monitoring o 1 group conducted a survey of invasive alien plant species (for ongoing mapping and as a prelude to removal ) o 1 group conducted a survey of agricultural dump sites (as a prelude to garbage removal) o 2 groups organized Home-site Consultations with shoreline property owners to evaluate residential practices for shoreline health and water quality o 1 group surveyed residents for their views of water conservation and the use of water saving devices (as a prelude to their water conservation campaign) ¾ 5 groups focused specifically on building awareness and knowledge of local watershed issues although many projects included awareness aspects. Some awareness outputs included: o A permanent outdoor display on shoreline health and stewardship at Moose Lake in the Beaver River watershed o A poster, new brochure and representative stand for Ghost River watershed o The Beehive Natural Area & Oldman River Watershed Brochure o A slideshow DVD describing the journey of the Elbow River from the source to mouth in the Bow River watershed o An on-line water conservation calculator developed for residential water users in the Bow River watershed and partnerships with other agencies to distribute water conservation devices as part of a Friends of the Bow water conservation campaign o Aerial videos and a set of colour-coded maps showing areas of healthy shoreline and areas of concern for Lesser Slave Lake and South Heart River

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 9 Grant Recipients by Major Watershed

In the following section projects are grouped according to their location within each major watershed and then under the category most appropriate to the main focus of their project. Please see Diagram A for a map of the major watersheds in Alberta and some of the sub- watersheds.

Diagram B: Major Watersheds of Alberta j

Wood Buffalo N National Mackenzie Park

Northern Lights Wood Clear East Buffalo Hills Peace Opportunity Fort McMurray

Peace Fa irvie w Sad dle Hills Spirit Birch River Hills Sm oky River Big Lesser Grande Prairie Slave Grande Prairie Lakes River La keland

Athabasca Greenview Bonnyville Westlock Barrhead ThorhildSm oky L ake Woodlands St. Pau l Lac Ste. W illmore Sturgeon Lamont Anne Two Hills Wild ern ess Edmonton Yellow head Parkland Strath co na Vegreville Vermilion River Beaver Brazeau Leduc Lloydm inster

Wetaskiwin Jasper Camrose Wainw righ t Po noka Flagstaff

Laco mb e Provost

Clearw ater Red DeerStettler Paintearth Hay River W atershed Red D eer Sp ecial Area 4 Peace R iver W atershed Moun tain Starland Athabasca River Watershed View Kneehill Ba nff Sp ecial Sp ecial Beaver R iver W atershed Area 3 Bighorn Area 2 North Saskatchewan River W atershed Rocky View Ac a dia Battle R iver Sub-W atershed Calgary Wheatland Sounding C reek Sub-W atershed Kananaskis Newell So uth Sa skatche wan W a tersh ed Footh ills Red Deer River Sub-Watershed Vulcan Bow River Sub-W atershed Cypress Willow Oldm an River Sub-W atershed Ranchland Creek Taber Medicine Hat Milk R iver W atershed Lethbridg e Lethbridge Forty Mile Pincher Creek 100 0 100 200 Kilometers Cardston Milk River Waterton

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 10 Athabasca River watershed

The Athabasca River is the second largest river in Alberta. Originating in the Athabasca glacier of the Colombia Icefields in Jasper National Park, the river flows northeast through the province, past the urban centres of Jasper, Hinton, Whitecourt, Athabasca and Fort McMurray before emptying into Lake Athabasca. Water from the basin eventually makes its way to the Artic Ocean. The basin covers a total area of approximately 159,000km² 5. Issues associated with this watershed and being tackled by watershed stewardship groups in this grant program were the prevention of cattle entering the water source and causing erosion and degraded water quality (from fecal coliform, sediment) and raising awareness of riparian health as an important precursor to water quality.

Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration)

“Our project demonstrated that the agriculture, cottager and business community are all concerned with and are interested in doing whatever they can to preserve the watershed environment, and will come together and work together to further this objective” Jerry Wispinksi, Lac La Nonne Watershed & Lake Stewardship Society

Organization/Location Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Lac La Nonne Water Delivery for Riparian - Recovery of approximately 75 Watershed & Lake Improvement Project – Dezaeyer acres of riparian areas draining Stewardship Society Farms into Lac La Nonne - Installment of a shallow well system - Demonstration of a solution as part of a comparison of three to provide a secure quality demonstration sites for off-site water supply to sustain watering and grazing systems for agriculture production while livestock; signage and touring of sites improving the environmental (conventional, shallow well and solar health of the landscape pump and windmill-powered pump; - Indirect demonstration of the cross-fencing). economic and environmental - 12 participants in the work: 3 benefits of completing an Farmers, 6 Cottagers, and 3 Business Environmental Farm Plan. Owners. Other categories: Community-based Action, Awareness & Knowledge

5 Water for Life: Facts and Information on Water in Alberta, Alberta Environment, 2002

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 11 Category: Biophysical & Social Monitoring “One of the first tasks of the Lesser Slave Lake Watershed Committee will be to prepare a State of the Watershed Report. The shoreline assessment, undertaken through this grant and partners, will form a key component of that report” John Hallet, ACA partner in the Lesser Slave Lake Watershed Committee’ project

Photo provided by: John Hallet

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Lesser Slave Lake Aerial Videography Assessment of - Maps available as visual tools Community Lesser Slave Lake and South Heart at public events and talks to Development River promote action to improve the Corporation for the -Helicopter survey producing GPS- condition of the watershed. Lesser Slave Lake linked videos showing entire shoreline - The shoreline assessment will Watershed of the lake and river. form a key component of the Committee -Assessment of shoreline and riparian State of the Watershed Report areas from the videotape and as the next step of the assignment of health scores using a committee riparian health and integrity scorecard. - Maps and scores can be used -Production of colour-coded maps for as tools for decision-making in the east and west basins showing the the local authority to determine riparian health ratings for shoreline priority areas for action or segments. Results indicate that the education efforts. majority (78%) of the riparian zones adjacent to the lake are healthy (in green on map) with 12.5% and 8.8% of shorelines defined as moderately impaired (yellow) to highly impaired (red) respectively. Other categories: Awareness & Knowledge

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 12 Beaver River watershed

The Beaver River Basin is one of the smaller basins within the province with a catchment area of about 14,500 km2. The basin and river extend east, across the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, emptying into Hudson's Bay. The Beaver River begins at Beaver Lake, and then flows through urban centres of Bonnyville, Cold Lake and Grand Centre. The basin is characterized by many meandering streams and rivers which drain such lakes as Cold, Moose, Muriel, Ethel and Wolf Lake6. Issues associated with this watershed and being tackled by watershed stewardship groups in this grant program were the prevention of cattle entering the water source and causing erosion and degraded water quality (from fecal coliform and sediment) and raising awareness of riparian health as an important precursor to water quality.

Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration)

Solar off-site livestock watering system supported by the grant program

Photo provided by: Jay Byer

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Lakeland Agricultural Mobile Off-site Watering - Improved water quality and Research Association Demonstration System riparian health from - Mobile solar off-site water pumping demonstration site and beyond system for livestock for demonstration as ranchers encouraged to events and trial by four producers. restrict animal access to creeks - 50+ ranchers visited the system in and streams two Beneficial Management Practice demonstration days in August and September

Other categories: Community-based Action, Awareness & Knowledge

6 Water for Life: Facts and Information on Water in Alberta, Alberta Environment, 2002

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 13 Category: Awareness & Knowledge

“I believe that this initiative has given our group more credibility. People are now starting to pay more attention to the message we are trying to get out: that we must take care of our shoreline (the riparian area) if we want to protect and enhance the health of Moose Lake.” Georges Binette, Pelican Narrows Healthy Shoreline Committee

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Summer Village of Raising Awareness for Shoreline - Partnering with the Summer Pelican Narrows for Health Village on this project has the Pelican Narrows Various: increased credibility with them, Healthy Shoreline - Design and installation of a such that the Summer Village Committee permanent outdoor display with three has now passed a resolution panels for displaying shoreline health permitting installation of and stewardship information and a signage for the Environmental back panel for residents’ own Reserve and to discourage off- information. This also included design highway vehicles in sensitive and printing of display posters for the areas. panel in collaboration with the Cows & - Using a local contractor for Fish Program. the work and including a - Collaboration with The Living by bulletin board in the display Water Project for 15 Home-site enabling property owners to Consultations where shoreline home- use this for their personal use, owners around Moose Lake received a has also added credibility to home visit and personalized report that the work of the group in the evaluated their current practices for community. their impact on shoreline health and water quality and recommended further steps. Each participating household also received a copy of the book “On The Living Edge Your Guide for Waterfront Living” - Website development and 2 newsletter issues to Summer Village’ residents

Photos: Georges & Mary Binette

Constructing the display

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 14 North Saskatchewan River watershed

The North Saskatchewan River Basin covers about 80,000 km2 of the province. The basin originates in the Saskatchewan Glacier in Banff National Parks and generally flows in an eastward direction to the Alberta-Saskatchewan border. The Brazeau, Nordegg, Ram, Clearwater, Sturgeon and Vermilion rivers flow into the North Saskatchewan River within Alberta. The Battle River also forms part of the North Saskatchewan Basin and joins with the North Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan. Major centres within the basin include Drayton Valley, Rocky Mountain House, Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan and the Saddle Lake Indian Reserve. The mean annual discharge from the basin in Albertarta into Saskatchewan is over seven billion m3 7. Issues associated with this watershed and being tackled by watershed stewardship groups in this grant program were the loss of native vegetation and the spread of invasive alien plant species reducing the ability of these riparian areas to act as effective vegetative buffers to filter out contaminants.

Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration) “Land use, in close proximity to water courses, has been a problem with agriculture. Mostly pasturing but some cropping contributes to the lack of riparian buffer vegetation in our area. Our high water events in 2005 proved the vulnerability of these areas to erosion and the need to protect them. Prairie Creek has been on the water quality “radar” for some time. Some of the downstream users have expressed concern as to the impact of agriculture on the water quality. EPCOR has an interest in the North Saskatchewan watershed and has supported water sampling and analysis through our group. A healthy Prairie Creek is good for the local producer and for the users outside our boundaries. Water sampling has shown that Prairie Creek is in good shape but there are concerns with nutrient run off. Riparian protection [via restoring a vegetative buffer] will help filter the landscape thus improving water quality and fish habitat” Gary Lewis, Clearwater County’ support staff to the Rocky Riparian Group

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Clearwater County for Riparian Planting & Restoration - It has raised the profile of the Rocky Riparian - Almost 5000 trees/shrubs (White riparian planting (buffer strips) Group Spruce and Red Osier Dogwood) as a Beneficial Management planted by Prairie Creek. At a later Practice amongst landowners: return to the site, an approximately there are plans for more 60% take with the dogwood species planting in 2007. and even higher with the spruce was - The project also got the observed. involvement of a “fringe” RRG - Approximately 30 people involved member who had a keen including 25 Junior Forest Wardens, 5 particular interest in riparian Rocky Riparian Group members, 3 tree planting. County staff and the landowner Other categories: Community-based Action, Awareness & Knowledge

7 Water for Life: Facts and Information on Water in Alberta, Alberta Environment, 2002

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 15 Category: Awareness & Knowledge / Biophysical & Social Monitoring /Community-based Action

“We were able to learn more about the condition of our watershed with the completion of the riparian health assessment. Review of the [riparian health assessment] report will help us determine future activities and action”, Dianne Johnstone, Sandy Lake Restoration Society

Photo provided by: Dianne Johnstone

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Sandy Lake Sandy Lake Educational Sessions & - Members trained in detection Restoration Society Riparian Health Assessment of noxious weeds enabling - 250 people participated in the Under weed removal work to continue the Tent public information event of - Removal of invasive species displays and information about the /invasive species control, will lake and watershed including help restore native plant habitat demonstration of a watershed model and improve efficacy of the and groundwater model. riparian buffer for filtration of - 3 “We can do” public educational and potential contaminants of lake practical sessions with Cows & Fish, water and impacts on aquatic DFO and the Living by Water Project ecosystems. covering topics: native and riparian - Riparian health assessments’ plant identification, noxious weed report enables the group to identification and removal, water quality determine future activities and testing, and homeowners’ actions for action to improve the condition shoreline health. of the Sandy Lake watershed. - Removal of over 21 large garbage bags of the noxious weed, Canada Thistle, from approx. 1200sq foot area of Sandy Lake riparian area - Collaboration with Cows & Fish staff for 7 Riparian Health Assessments along Sandy Lake - Collaboration with the Living by Water Project for 3 Home-site Consultations where shoreline home-owners receive a home visit and personalized report that evaluates their current practices for their impact on shoreline health and water quality and recommends further steps.

Other categories: Team-Building

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 16 South Saskatchewan River watershed The South Saskatchewan River Basin includes the sub-basins of the Bow, Red Deer, Oldman and South Saskatchewan river basins. All of the basins begin in the Rocky Mountains, generally flowing eastward through foothills and prairie. The combined watershed of the basins is 121,095 km2, of which 41% is to the Red Deer sub-basin, 22% to the Oldman, 21% to the Bow and 16% to the South Saskatchewan. The mean annual discharge from the basin into Saskatchewan is 9,280,000 dam3. Indicating the propensity of the South Saskatchewan River Basin for agriculture as well as the reciprocal need for water distribution and supply, all of the province's thirteen irrigation districts are found within this major basin. For Red Deer River sub-watershed, Red Deer is a major urban centre, while Calgary is the major urban centre in the Bow River sub-watershed and Lethbridge is the major urban centre in the Oldman River sub- watershed8.

Red Deer River sub-watershed

Issues associated with this sub-watershed of the South Saskatchewan River and being tackled by watershed stewardship groups in this grant program were concerns related to water quality. Results have found levels of fecal coliform in some of the areas tested of the Little Red Deer River, tributary of the Red Deer River, indicating a problem with either cattle entering the river, manure management or sewage management/treatment.

Category: Biophysical & Social Monitoring “Our education efforts [about water quality and the health of our watershed] are based on proof of testing.” Leona Marshall, Friends of Little Red Deer River Society.

Photos provided by: Leona Marshall

8 Water for Life: Facts and Information on Water in Alberta, Alberta Environment, 2002

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 17

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Friends of Little Red Little Red Deer River Water Quality - Over 10000 people learn Deer River Society Testing about the work organized by - FLRDRS contracted out Olds College the society and some of the to continue work in establishing a water quality issues through baseline on the water quality of the the newspaper articles. Little Red Deer River watershed. - The contract gave 2 Olds - 9 samples from 10 sites along a College students, as 115km stretch of the Little Red Deer aspiring future technicians, River. training and experience in - Results highlighted some areas of water quality monitoring, concern with fecal coliforms indicating a testing and analysis problem with livestock/manure - The group’s next step is management. Summary provided to approach producers in Red Deer River Watershed Alliance problem areas to encourage (circ. 200) and Red Deer County News riparian fencing. (circ. 10,000).

Near the mouth of Little Red Deer River

Photo provided by: Leona Marshall

Bow River sub-watershed

The Bow River originates from Bow Glacier in Banff National Park (Alberta Environment). The basin is home to more than one million Albertans and the population is growing placing demands on a limited and uncertain future water supply as the glacier retreats. The area includes several irrigation districts and much of the water supply supports agriculture in the area. Hundreds of thousands of people visit every year, attracted to recreational possibilities in scenic setting. The watershed includes Calgary as the main urban centre for the area and water conservation and stormwater run-off are major issues. Water quality declines along the length of the Bow River, with higher concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in the lower reaches. Other issues include invasive plant species and wetland loss9. Issues that watershed stewardship groups responded to in this grant program were: limited water supply, the spread of invasive alien plant species, litter/garbage dumping, sour gas well development, access, forestry management and stream- bank erosion.

9 Excerpts from Bow River Basin Council State of the Watershed Report, 2005

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 18

Category: Awareness & Knowledge

“The Photographic Journey of the Elbow River slideshow (left) and photographic images show the changing character and features of the river and display its beauty and diversity, inspiring and encouraging the viewers to be good stewards” Sarah Hamza, Elbow River Watershed Partnership

“The community’s perception was that water conservation would cost them money or was an inconvenience – we resolved this by working with partners to share the same message (more effective when information comes from trusted local sources). Our partners also provided water saving devices and we promoted rebates on water saving devices that municipalities offered” Karen Jepp, Bow Riverkeeper, Mountain Parks Watershed Association (see p20)

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Elbow River Photographic Journey of the Elbow - Viewers of all ages informed Watershed River and inspired be good stewards Partnership - Photographer Dr. Robert Lee of the watershed compiled photos for a slideshow - Framed photographs are a portraying the journey of the river potential source of fundraising from source to mouth with addition of and/or reward and recognition watershed facts from ERWP of committed members of the coordinator organization - 7 framed photographs for display, - The slideshow also presents recognition and fundraising an opportunity to initiate - a stockpile CD of original, high dialogue on the Elbow River resolution images for the group to use Water Management Plan and in future communication and how people can become education work involved in its development and implementation”

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 19

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Ghost Watershed Awareness Events for Ghost - Between August and Alliance Society Watershed & Operation of GWAS December, there were 838 hits Actions included: on the website, implying that - 1 representative stand with as many people may have information on the watershed and the learned about the Ghost River work of the group for public events watershed and the work of this - 120 Ghost Watershed brochures watershed stewardship group - Organization of 5 public walks in by visiting the website different parts of the watershed with - Increased appreciation of the over 30 people attending watershed and awareness of - 2 riparian health assessments with impacts affecting its condition Cows & Fish staff on one of these amongst those experiencing public walks along the Ghost River the guided walks in the - Co-organization of 4 public meetings watershed or seeing the on a proposed sour gas well display and brochure. development; plus meetings - A local school teacher who commenting on Ghost Watershed participated in one of the walks Public Access Plan and a sawmills’ now plans to bring her Detailed Forest Management Plan students to one of the following - Establishment of interpretative year’s walks (2007). signage trails in the watershed - Development of GWAS website to share information about the watershed and the work of the group.

“The Walks in the Watershed are the most effective [way] to raise awareness about watershed issues. Attendants get to experience with all their senses the area of the watershed, looking at particular features (depending on the route of each walk) and are often inspired by this experience to exchange thoughts, learn and appreciate the values of healthy ecosystems in a watershed. This experience cannot be substituted by documentations or presentations.” Marina Krainer, Ghost Watershed Alliance Society

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 20 Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Mountain Parks Friends of the Bow - Awareness and knowledge of Watershed - Development of Friends of the Bow the Bow River watershed and Association (Bow webpage including an on-line water its issues was generated Riverkeeper) conservation calculator tool indirectly to 10,000 people (www.bowriverkeeper.org through the media /friend/commitment) - Increased public awareness - Friends of the Bow brochures and of their impact on Bow River commitment forms water supply and reciprocal - 10 public presentations on water actions around the home that conservation to 765 people. help conserve water - Distribution of 150 partner-donated - Increased public awareness Frisbees indicating proper water use of water saving devices and over 200 toilet leak detection available and how to get tablets. rebates on low-flush (dual - Survey of 100 residents of the Town flush) toilets of Banff regarding their views of water -At the time of the report, 184 conservation and water saving people had made devices commitments to reduce their - 3 formalized partnerships (partner water use resulting in an plans) with City of Calgary, Town of estimated 399,693 litres of Cochrane and the Unitarian Church of water being conserved/reused Calgary, and an additional 8 informal every week. partnerships for water conservation collaboration

“According to the Office of Energy Efficiency at Natural Resources Canada, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, commitments or pledges are one of the four key tools used in Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) to foster successful behaviour change. Through the campaign and personal commitment forms to be ‘Friends of the Bow’ (River) we are: challenging individuals to take personal responsibility to conserve water; helping to change attitudes and actions to reduce total household water consumption; placing value on the amount of water used to ensure future generations will have access to clean drinking water; and creating awareness around water conservation and how individuals can make a difference”. Karen Jepp, Bow Riverkeeper

http://www.bowriverkeeper.org/friend/commitment

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 21 Category: Team-building/Community-based Action

“The eroding bank along Nose Creek was getting worse. There was a large amount of soil entering the creek which was evident by the sedimentation on the creek bottom where the work was taking place. This project helped restore an eroded stream bank that otherwise would not have been treated using soil bioengineering 1 2 techniques. The increased amount of vegetation in the area will enable the previously slumping bank to withstand the spring flooding, preventing further erosion. The high spring flows will therefore lift sediment off the creek bottom without further damaging the bank improving local conditions in the watershed. ” Erin McMahon, City of Airdrie Photos: E. McMahon and D. Patterson 3 4

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects City of Airdrie for the Soil Bioengineering Workshop - An eroded stream bank Nose Creek - 30 people participated in this ‘Train restored with growing woody Watershed the trainer’ workshop in stream bank vegetation Partnership restoration for group members within - Demonstration to the Bow River watershed (including 8 municipalities and stewardship different organizations and groups of a solution to stream municipalities) bank erosion using living rather - Restoration of an eroded Nose than man-made materials; Creek bank at Airdrie by the team those trained have the skills to using living materials. Photos indicate repeat the restoration in other the growth in vegetation. riparian areas where need is indicated. - This initiative has increased the credibility of the Partnership with the community and other groups in the area laying the groundwork for collaboration on future watershed initiatives

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 22

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Friends of Fish Bio-engineering Course to - Enhancing the riparian buffer Creek Provincial Rehabilitate Stream Beds in Fish and stream bank stabilization Park Society Creek Provincial Park using bioengineering - 37 participants (volunteer crew techniques and live materials leaders, park staff, landscape which will help filter architects) were trained in contaminants and prevent bioengineering techniques through a further erosion and sediment 2-day workshop from entering the creek - As the second part of the workshop, impacting water quality these techniques were used to - Those trained have the skills restore a 100m2 flood-damaged to repeat the restoration in riparian area of Fish Creek in Fish other riparian areas where Creek Provincial Park. need is indicated. - The consultant provided participants with a manual to support further restoration of riparian areas with bioengineering techniques - The consultant has made this manual available for download on the ASN website to support volunteers’ stewardship efforts.

Category: Community-based Action “Controlling noxious and restricted Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAS) through various volunteer activities and biological control agents, helps improve conditions of watersheds by: allowing native flora to re-establish and help erosion control, improve water filtration, safeguard and restore biodiversity, restoring natural habitats and food for wildlife, allowing re-establishment of native fauna, thereby increasing biodiversity, contributing to a healthier watershed and aquatic ecosystem, and ultimately to a reliable quality water supply for a sustainable economy” Erika Almási-Klausz, Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park Society

“On September 27, CBC As It Happens aired a seven minute interview with project coordinator Andrew Stiles on the importance of coming to grips with the IAS issue and seeing it as one of the greatest threats to Canadian sovereignty. “Host Carol Off said she felt like going out to pull weeds! Media coverage was very positive and resulted in our group receiving many inquiries of how to help.” The Calgary Herald also featured Andrew Stiles picking river trash for an article on local environmental heroes just before Earth Day. A great picture of him pulling grimy tires out of a swamp was included with a public invitation to join in the upcoming river cleanup” Andrew Stiles, Calgary Field Naturalists Society Photo provided by: Andrew Stiles

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 23

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Calgary Field Leading Community Participation - By recovering an enormous Naturalists Society in Bow River Clean-up quantity of weeds and trash -Coordination of 33 days of shoreline and inspiring citizens to lend clean-ups removing litter and non- themselves to these efforts, biological debris with friends, families, our aquatic ecosystems are members, schools, cub groups and much healthier other community groups - A wide audience (2994 - 100 large garbage bags of garbage people in person, many more and over 200 large garbage bags of by radio and newspaper) was invasive alien plant species removed given a stewardship message from the Bow River watershed in on watershed issues, including Calgary and upstream tributaries, control of the spread of (along with smaller efforts on the Milk invasive alien plant species River, Oldman and Castle Rivers). (IAS) with many of these - IAS presentations given to people also participating in Agricultural Fieldmen, Calgary City hands on activities planners, the Pesticide Education and Best Management Practices Subcommittee and at the 2006 North American Weed Management Association - IAS bouquets given to Aldermen followed by field trips highlighting the issue of the spread of these species Cochrane Branches Big Hill Creek Habitat - Restoration of the Big Hill & Banks Enhancement & Interpretive Sign Creek riparian area to more Environmental Project natural habitat enabling Foundation - Removal of enough invasive plant improved riparian function species and garbage from Big Hill - Approximately 150 people of Creek to fill a one ton Town of all ages gained hands-on Cochrane truck experience of riparian - On-site informative talks and restoration through native planting of 2500-3000 native trees planting and removal of and shrubs in a 200-300 metre garbage increasing the section of the creek south of Highway appreciation of the creek and 1A healthy aquatic ecosystems. - Installation of interpretative signs.

Youth participants in Big Hill Creek Habitat Enhancement & Interpretive Sign Project

Photo provided by: Tim Giese

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 24 Photos: Eriika Allmásii-Kllausz

Before weed pull After weed pull

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Friends of Fish Restoring the Balance in Fish - A total of 323 people learnt Creek Provincial Creek Provincial Park about invasive alien species in Park Society - 3 workshops in May and June 2006 theory and practice through trained crew leaders in identification introductory presentation and and proper removal of invasive alien participation in weed pulls in plant species (IAS) the park - Survey of IAS within a 30m buffer zone along Fish Creek and the Bow River in Fish Creek Provincial Park; GPS and data sheets used to record locations, species and observations - Crew leaders led three weed pull events Tackle-the-Tansy, Purge-the- Spurge and Battle-the-Burdock; information brochures produced to support the three annual events - 8 different weed pull events (including those above and 2 Scentless Chamomile’ weed pulls). - 2 field trips on invasive alien species in Fish Creek Provincial Park with 150 people including school children, their teachers and parents

New tri-fold brochure for Tackle-the-Tansy (Common Tansy) Weed Pull Event:

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 25 Oldman River sub-watershed

Located in southwestern Alberta, the Oldman River watershed is home to 161,400 rural and urban residents. There are about 70 small towns, villages and hamlets in the Basin, as well as the City of Lethbridge, population 73,000. The Basin encompasses 28,000 km2 and has an average population density of just less than six people per km2. About 33% of the Basin's land cover is agricultural, 29% is forested and 17% is native vegetation. The central and eastern parts of the Basin are characterized by more concentrated urban and industrial development, dryland farming and intensive livestock agriculture. The main tributaries of the Oldman River are the Livingston, Crowsnest, Castle, Waterton, Belly and St. Mary Rivers, in turn supplied upstream by numerous small streams, springs and wetlands10. Issues that watershed stewardship groups responded to this grant program were: protecting water supply/ headwaters area from logging threats and mitigating water quality and riparian health impacts of agriculture.

Category: Awareness & Knowledge “The flexibility of the Beehive Natural Areas/Oldman River watershed brochure allowed the issue of watershed protection to be discussed with individuals at different levels: local government, local residents, potential supporters etc. The brochure will be a starting point for contact with local authorities to enhance awareness of the importance to the whole watershed of having this protected area in its headwaters”, Christyann Olson, Alberta Wilderness Association.

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Alberta Wilderness Beehive Natural Area & Oldman - Raising awareness, amongst Association River Watershed Brochure readers, of the natural values - Collaboration with local volunteer of the Beehive Natural Area stewards and the Oldman Watershed and its role in contributing to Council to develop a brochure on secure, abundant and safe Beehive Natural Area emphasizing water as a protected area in natural values, and the area’s role in the headwaters of the Oldman helping ensure water supply to the River Oldman River Watershed. - Initial contacts have already - Printing of 10,000 copies with 8000 been made with the City of distributed to gateway and Lethbridge to discuss the neighbouring communities that importance of watershed depend on the Oldman River protection and follow up watershed and 2000 copies for future meetings are planned. outreach work. - 11 people participated in an interpretative hike into the Beehive Natural Area; these hikes are set to continue as an annual event.

10 Oldman Watershed Council website, 2007, http://www.oldmanbasin.org/orbwqi/about_basin.html

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 26 Category: Tool-building (BMP demonstration) “The Remote stock watering project on Lee Creek has had a direct correlation to at least two goals associated with the Water for Life strategy. In regards to safe, secure drinking water, improved and maintained water quality will be ensured by the removal of potential contamination from livestock manure associated with on-stream bedding and watering sites. A healthy aquatic ecosystem will also be better protected on a local scale with the improvement, and recovery associated with reduced pressure on local riparian areas. A healthy riparian area is directly correlated to a healthy aquatic ecosystem.” Tim Romanow, Cardston County’ support staff to Lee Creek Watershed Group

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Cardston County for Mobile Remote Stock Water – Off- - Three of the four sites are the Lee Creek stream Watering BMP Demo now planning to implement Watershed Group - Trial of a mobile solar-powered their own permanent off-stream remote livestock waterer and varying watering or alternative watering grazing/timing strategies at 4 different system producers’ sites over summer and fall - With Cardston County’s 2006; extension program supporting - Showcasing the off-site livestock maintenance/ setup, the off-site watering system in operation to 45 livestock watering unit will residents of the watershed at the continue to operate as the annual watershed information group sees fit allowing further session/BBQ producers to trial the system - 2 newsletter issues of the group and contribute to enhanced highlighted the project and one local water quality within the newspaper article reaching watershed. approximately 2200 homes. - Monitoring of sites for riparian health and biodiversity (amphibian monitoring).

Category: Biophysical & Social Monitoring “In the Beaver Creek watershed, many area residents derive their drinking water from water wells, which can be affected by the quality and quantity of water in the Beaver Creek. Agriculture is the main economic activity of the area. Access of high quality water is essential for farming and ranching and Beaver Creek is the main reliable water supply of the area. Water quality is important to producers for the health of the livestock and therefore their livelihood. The Beaver Creek supports a wide variety of aquatic organisms and plants. Continued monitoring of water quality parameters will help to maintain a healthy aquatic environment that continues to support this great biodiversity. Also, Beaver Creek ultimately flows into the Oldman River, which provides many communities with their drinking water.” Jollin Charest, AESA support staff to Beaver Creek Watershed Group See overleaf…

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 27

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects Oldman Watershed Beaver Creek Water Quality - Better understanding of the Council for the Beaver Monitoring Program impact of the two main Creek Watershed - Water quality monitoring conducted tributaries of the Beaver Creek Group by volunteer group members with over - Pending results of water 150 water quality samples collected quality testing, new BMP sites from 10 sites (5 sites on Beaver Creek, can be added to future BMP 3 sites on Five Mile Creek and 2 sites tours. Over 15 beneficial land on Nine Mile Creek) on a biweekly management practices have basis during summer and monthly already been implemented during winter from the knowledge and - Group tour of existing riparian best awareness resulting from past management practice sites water quality monitoring of - Report on the results produced Beaver Creek, thus reducing identifying recommended BMPs and the impact of agriculture and areas for their implementation in the recreational activities on the following year (2007) creek.

Milk River Ranchers’ Coulee Clean-up (See page to right):

Photos: Sandi Riemersma, Milk River Watershed Council Canada

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 28 Milk River watershed

The Milk River is the smallest of the province's major river basins encompassing an area of about 6,500 km2. The river is a northern part of the Missouri-Mississippi River Basin. The Milk River enters Alberta from Montana, flows eastward through the southern portion of the province prior to looping back to Montana. Mean annual flows entering Alberta are 106,000 dam3 and leaving Alberta are 167,000 dam3. The town of Milk River is one of the few towns in the basin11. The predominant land use is agriculture (ranching and farming). Correspondingly, issues that watershed stewardship groups responded to for this grant program were related to agriculture with the removal of old farm equipment and related materials from dump sites in the coulees.

Category: Community-based Action “It was difficult to find these [garbage dump] sites. They are not visible from the roads and some produces did not know they were on their land. Some producers were reluctant to admit they had a potential dump site on their lands until we showed them Photo: Keston Prince we had a way to clean up the dump site. Consequently, we had to travel the river and GPS all the dump sites that were found then contact the landowners. Once we showed the landowners we had a solution to the problem they were willing to work with us and clean up the old farmstead dump sites” Keston Prince, County of Warner support staff to Milk River Ranchers Group

Organization Project Title & Actions Ripple Effects County of Warner No. 5 Milk River Ranchers Coulee Clean- - Removal of potential sources for the Milk River up of water contamination to the Ranchers Group - GPS Survey locating old dump sites Milk River in the coulees - 15 people participated in the removal of old farm equipment and other non- biological debris, including group members, other landowners, scouts, County Councillors and employees, other stewardship groups and a representative of the Milk River Watershed Council Canada - 10 tandem loads of trash were hauled away from 3 abandoned dump sites in the coulees and banks of the Milk River including batteries, oil filters, chemical jugs, pesticide containers, wire, machinery and other farmstead garbage.

11 Water for Life: Facts and Information on Water in Alberta, Alberta Environment, 2002

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 29 Overcoming Stewardship Challenges

The participating watershed stewardship groups were asked to identify, in interim and final reports, any challenges they faced in carrying out the work planned in their original application. Comments have been grouped below under the main issues identified.

Strategies for Limited Human Resources: - Due to time constraints of Directors with their day jobs, a group of 3 directors committed a large amount of extra time to get the goals accomplished. In the future we plan to do a better distribution of certain projects to different directors and members. - The number of volunteer [tree/shrub] planters has decreased for the third straight year. We are missing the 17-25 year age group. We plan to conduct a survey at area high schools to identify the reasons why young adolescents do not want to participate in this [tree/shrub planting/riparian restoration] event. Once we identify the barriers we will develop solutions and promote them through community based social marketing strategies. - Our strategies for preventing and/or dealing with volunteer burnout: providing incentives, volunteer recognition events, maintaining interest by involving volunteers in all aspects of the programs, keeping volunteers updated on events and results in our monthly newsletter, website and via e-mail, offering a diversity of programs to be involved in, sending thank-you letters within a week after event. We reward volunteer efforts: Volunteer recognition events -Gift certificates - Friends' apparel and giftware -Free BBQs after events -Thank you letter -Recognition in newsletters. - There is an urgent need to find more individuals to undertake roles in the core organization including most of the executive roles. Numerous pleas, e-mails and phone calls were made to members of the organizing committee. Finally with the threat of my resignation I was able to secure enough people to finalize the details and logistical support. It is likely an on-going issue and the next biggest challenge for the group will be to undertake an evaluation of our goals, objectives and future strategies.

Strategies for Organizing Activities or Events: - To better organize time and human resources, we set a fixed water sampling date and monthly meetings which greatly helped the establishment of priorities among other projects - To ensure sufficient numbers on the day of events, these events had to be planned well in advance and advertised through various venues, including: Advertisement at the Open House in April, 2006; Purchased Volunteer Calgary Media Contact Guide; Th e Friends’ monthly newsletter; Members were e-mailed two days prior to event; Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) had to be submitted at least a month prior to event to be advertised; The Friends’ website; Posters were displayed at, e.g., nearby stores, community centres, shopping centres, throughout the Park. - To mitigate uncertainty of the number of volunteers attending the [weed pull] events for us to plan sufficient food, we requested that people register by phone or e-mail for the events. Upon registration, we tallied the number of people in attendance, the number to attend the barbecue following the event, and each volunteer filled out a volunteer agreement form. Sites were also pre-selected and appropriate numbers/abilities of volunteers taken into account in the distribution to sites.

Strategies for Accessing Further Resources (funding, materials, and expertise): -Due to the amount of time and work the GWAS has committed to try to safeguard the Ghost Watershed, [local volunteers] Erin & Darcy Scott decided to organize a benefit concert to raise

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 30 additional dollars. The concert, featuring Katy Moffat and Cowboy Celtic, was sold out and the GWAS received the proceeds of $403.95. - We relied on one of our partners to secure a donation we needed for the project from a local company but unfortunately it didn’t come through. We decided to charge the workshop attendees that were not volunteer stewards $80.00 to cover additional expenses. Many of the attendees commented that we could have charged more for the course and that the average is approx $200 for such a workshop (soil bioengineering). - As trees are free to eligible landowners, County AESA staff assisted one landowner with a Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration application for shelterbelt trees which were used in the project. - Development of the mapping for the brochure was a complex process and satellite photos, important for the central map of the brochure, were difficult to locate. The most recent image obtainable was from 2000, where a more recent image would have been preferable. With the help of students from SAIT and University of Calgary GIS programs we have and will continue to have a cost-effective way of producing high quality maps. We are building our stock file of maps including satellite images that show the changes to the landscape and in this case the watershed through logging and linear disturbances. - We provided information on how to get rebates on low-flush (dual-flush toilets) and inexpensive water saving devices and the City of Calgary donated150 Frisbees to households to help the public measure the amount of water used to water their lawns (2.5 cm/week is all that is needed), while the City of Calgary, Canmore Utility, EPCOR donated over 200 toilet leak detection tablets.

Strategies to Encourage Stewardship in Others: - The community’s perception was that water conservation would cost them money or was an inconvenience – we resolved this by working with partners to share the same message (more effective when information comes from trusted local sources). Our partners also provided water saving devices and we promoted rebates on water saving devices that municipalities offered (Mountain Parks Watershed Association - Bow Riverkeeper). - The Awareness to Action campaign was re-named Friend of the Bow to reflect an identity associated with individuals reducing the amount of water they use (using training in Community- Based Social Marketing, as above). - It was difficult to find these [garbage dump] sites. They are not visible from the roads and some produces did not know they were on their land. Some producers were reluctant to admit they had a potential dump site on their lands until we showed them we had a way to clean up the dump site. Consequently, we had to travel the river and GPS all the potential dump sites that were found then contact the landowners. Once we showed the landowners we had a solution to the problem they were willing to work with us and clean up the old farmstead dump sites.

Strategies to Better Monitor the Effectiveness of the Project: - Correlating water quality data to the implemented beneficial land management practice is challenging because water quality is influenced by several factors such as weather, soil type, irrigation, wildlife, etc. There is a lot of natural variability in the water quality data set and it could take years to measure visible changes. Because of the naturally high variation in the water quality parameters, a better understanding of the impact of implemented beneficial land management practices in the watershed could be acquired by including riparian assessment, fish survey in addition to water quality monitoring. - The mobile livestock watering system has “led us to a challenge of long term monitoring of the project sites; we are finding that it is difficult to track changes to riparian areas when the fences and pumping system is only in operation for a short duration. We are in the planning stages of a watershed health assessment to allow us to get a broader picture of overall health including an aquatic health assessment in conjunction with the University of Lethbridge.

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 31 - Making stewardship efforts tangible to the target audience is important so in an effort to do this we calculated and shared information on average results of water conservation efforts (how much water used on average per appliance/average frequency of household use of appliance, etc.)

Recommendations received: - One suggestion [for the grant program] would be to allow grants for longer-term projects. It would reduce the stress of having to apply [annually] to several grants for a single multi-year project.

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 32 Application and Reporting: From the perspective of grant administration, it is a major challenge to get groups to be more specific in monitoring the effectiveness of their projects, from the basic level of just quantifying and fully recording all activities, participation (and volunteer time contribution) to measuring when they have reached the desired outcomes. This is probably a big part of the administrator’s review of applications received by the Early Submission Deadline and also of follow ups required at reporting stages.

In terms of reporting, it is probably a fine line between accountability and making the process too onerous for groups. ASN and the Stewardship Grant Committee need to ensure a fine balance, and encourage further feedback from grantees on this issue in final reports.

For example, for reasons of brevity, the step by step process of successful project implementation and some of the less common lessons learned by the groups have not been included in this report. The ASN can explore other avenues of sharing this information such as requesting the groups present at future Stewards in Motion workshops or, with permission, featuring their projects in future stewardship showcase projects. Alternatively, the written section of the Final Report where groups document their steps could potentially be omitted as these steps could be covered adequately by captions for photos within the Photo Gallery part of their submission.

Conclusions Some of the main conclusions to be drawn from these reports are that: ƒ Limited volunteers and volunteer burn-out remains a major concern for many groups. Volunteers are trying to find a balance between their volunteer work and own needs and families. Some also balance with a day (paying) job. ƒ Quite a few of the groups leading ‘community-based action’ field events mentioned liability as a big issue whether they choose to seek their own insurance coverage or arrange it so that the liability rests with the individual or with a partner organization that has coverage. ƒ Monitoring, both environmental and social/behavioural change, requires a long term commitment which is limited by grant funding for a year. Longer term granting may be a solution for some of these projects, including those that seek to establish a water quality baseline. ƒ In some cases it may also be hard to determine the environmental impact of just one practice (covered by the grant) versus the cumulative effects of various practices (some of which were not put in place through grant activities). ƒ Some groups are getting fairly sophisticated in their environmental education methods and seeking behavioural change. A few groups mentioned incorporating community-based social marketing techniques into the design of outreach materials and methods, enabling these materials to take into account some of the barriers to change and highlight benefits as identified by the target audience. • For stewardship it seems that positive messaging (vision) and partnerships are key. Many groups managed to find ways of overcoming difficulties by making use of member’s contacts or seeking forms of in-kind rather than financial support from potential partners. Appendix C lists the partners involved with the watershed stewardship group’ projects.

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 33 Appendix A: About the Alberta Stewardship Network

Brief Description of the Alberta Stewardship Network:

Year of Origin: 2004. Type of group: the Alberta Stewardship Network is a registered not for profit society with provincial scope. The Land Stewardship Centre of Canada is the secretariat and office-based coordination of the Alberta Stewardship Network (ASN). Members: 45. ASN Board of Directors has 15 members: 8 volunteer watershed stewardship group (WSG) representatives, 7 support/regulatory organizations (Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society / Cows & Fish), Alberta Conservation Association, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Fisheries & Oceans Canada and AAFC-PFRA, AARD-AESA and Alberta Environment).

Vision: Albertans are connected, informed, and working together as effective stewards of our air, land, water and biodiversity.

Mission: To provide Alberta’s stewards with a network that facilitates information exchange, provides support, and recognizes the contribution of individuals, communities and organizations in advancing environmental stewardship on a watershed basis.

Goals: 1. Maintain a functional network for exchanging information and knowledge 2. Support grassroots stewardship by providing current knowledge and appropriate tools 3. Build partnerships and provide linkages to other resource sector networks

ASN support initiatives for Watershed Stewardship Groups: • Directory of Stewardship Groups, Support Agencies and Resources for Watershed Stewardship in Alberta • ASN Grassroots News: The ASN serves 525 people engaged in stewardship across the province who receive the emailed Stewardship E-News and 200 that receive the mailed hard copy ASN Grassroots News. • Free-hosting of stewardship group’ web pages. • Stewards in Motion annual workshop • ASK ASN toll-free phone-line: 1-877-7-ASK-ASN or 1-877-727-5276 • Website: www.ab.stewardshipcanada.ca • Stewardship Showcase Project: some best stewardship practices in Alberta from farmers, schools, municipalities and stewardship groups • Stewardship Directory Atlas for Alberta: on-line mapping tool

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 34 Appendix B: Financial Information

Grant Received from the Government of Alberta: $100,000.00

Budget (B1): Overview of Administration and Granting In-kind contributions from all sources: Amount ($) Volunteer time - $20/hour, Technical expert - $30/hour, Equipment time - $40/hour Stewardship Grant Committee (tech. time): Alberta Environment (55hrs @ $30/hr) 1650.00 Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development – AESA , 51.5 hours 1545.00 Alberta Conservation Association, 50 hours 1500.00 Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society / Cows and Fish, 52 hours 1560.00 Volunteers (i.e. representatives from 3 community-based watershed stewardship groups 5130.00 plus the ASN Chair), 171 hours Representatives from 2 Watershed Planning & Advisory Councils (Oldman Watershed 1740.00 Council, Bow River Basin Council*), 58 hours Land Stewardship Centre of Canada (application review/conf. calls), 55hrs est. 1650.00 Ducks Unlimited Canada (tech. time), 4hrs* 120.00 Land Stewardship Centre of Canada (Exec Director, documented in-kind time and 475.15 travel only) Grant Recipients: Watershed Stewardship Group’ volunteer time contribution 5941 118,820.00 hours @ $20/hr Grant Recipients: Watershed Stewardship Group and Partner’ in-kind equipment, 55,960.15 materials and technical support/time Sub-total: Stewardship Grant Committee (SGC) (496.5 hours at $30/hr tech.) 14,895.00 Sub-to tal: Land Stewardship Centre of Canada staff in-kind contribution 475.15 (additional documented time, travel expenses) Sub-total: Grant Recipients (Watershed Stewardship Groups) 174,780.15 Total In-kind Contributions ($) 190,150.30 Income from all sources: Amount ($) GOA Grant received for Watershed Stewardship Grant Program (06GREA15) 100,000.00 Grant Recipients: own financial contribution member and partner financial contribution 80,181.37 Total Income ($) $180,181.37 Expen ses: Amount ($) Granting: 19 projects with grants from $1000 to $5000 (more details in B overleaf) 89,394.50 ASN Grant Administrator 8,074.00 Related office supplies (photocopying, mail out stationary and postage) 650.60 Stewardship Grant Committee expenses (application review meeting, honoraria and 1276.00 expenses for three volunteers) Total Granting 89,394.50 Total Administration 10,000.00 Total Expenses ($) $99,394.50 Total Income less Total Expenses $605.50**

Notes: *Participated in program development but not application review. **Remainder returned to the ASN as one of the group’s contractors over estimated costs. This will balance out in the subsequent grant report.

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 35 Budget (B2): Overview of Watershed Stewardship Group’ Financial Information Groups (Signing Authority in ASN grant Project Expenses by In-kind contribution Total Project parenthesis) with page number original ($) income source ($) ($) Value ($) ASN grant Other WSG In-kind – In-kind – e.g. spent Income volunteer equipment, materials, etc. 1. Lac La Nonne Watershed & Lake 5000.00 5000.00 870.88 2580.00 3858.93 12,309.81 Stewardship Society, pp11 2. Lesser Slave Lake Watershed 5000.00 5000.00 29200.00 34,200.00 Committee (LSL Community Devt Corp.), pp12 3. Lakeland Agricultural Research 5000.00 5000.00 362.00 3400.00 8,762.00 Association, pp13 4. Pelican Narrows Healthy 5000.00 5000.00 282.00 4300.00 9,582.00 Shoreline Committee (Summer Village of Pelican Narrows) , pp14 5. Rocky Riparian Group 1000.00 1000.00 24.51 3598.00 4,622.51 (Clearwater County), pp15 6. Sandy Lake Restoration Society, 5000.00 5000.00 2839.27 2970.00 10,809.27 pp16 7. Friends of Little Red Deer River 5000.00 5000.00 792.00 2500.00 5500.00 13,792.00 Society, pp17 8. Elbow River Watershed 5000.00 5000.00 417.02 7820.00 950.00 14,187.02 Partnership, pp19 9. Ghost Watershed Alliance 5000.00 5000.00 745.05 10220.00 1000.00 16,965.05 Society, pp20 10. Bow Riverkeeper i.e. Mountain 5000.00 5000.00 17,649.79 12302.00 34,951.79 Parks Watershed Association, pp21 11. Nose Creek Watershed 5000.00 4394.50* 267.33 2650.00 7,311.83 Partnership (City of Airdrie), pp22 Returned rest 12. Friends of Fish Creek Provincial 5000.00 5000.00 2373.45 1840.00 2317.33 11,530.78 Park Society (BIO) ,pp23 13. Calgary Field Naturalists 5000.00 5000.00 200.00 31050.00 7800.00 44,050.00 Society, pp24 14. Cochrane Branches & Banks 4000.00 4000.00 11451.63 7510.00 22,961.63 Environmental Foundation, pp24 15. Friends of Fish Creek Provincial 5000.00 5000.00 9752.46 17720.00 6000.00 38,472.46 Park Society (ISP) ,pp25 16. Alberta Wilderness Association 5000.00 5000.00 2060.38 480.00 450.00 7,990.38 for Beehive Natural Area, pp 26 17. Lee Creek Watershed Group 5000.00 5000.00 478.40 1280.00 4080.00 10,838.40 (Cardston County), pp27 18. Beaver Creek Watershed Group 5000.00 5000.00* 900.00 20872.50 26,772.50 (Oldman Watershed Council), pp28 19. Milk River Ranchers Group 5000.00 5000.00 415.20 5700.00 3131.39 14,246.59 (County of War ner No. 5), pp29 Totals Grant Spent Partner/ In-kind (5941 In-kind Total Project Amount $89,394.50 WSG vol hours) (equipment/ $344,356.02 $90,000.00 revenue $118,820.00 materials) $80,181.37 $55,960.15 Notes: Volunteer time - $20/hour, Technical expert - $30/hour, Equipment time - $40/hour . * In two cases, the full grant was not used by the grant recipient. One used the remaining $503.65 for specific materials to support other off-stream livestock watering projects (#17). Another returned the $605.50 remaining due to the consultant having overestimated the cost of their services (#3).

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 36 Appendix C: Watershed Stewardship Group’ Partnerships There were 64 different partnerships, in addition to the ASN, for the 19 projects. Group Partners Major Watershed Page # 1. Lac La Nonne Lac La Nonne Enhancement & Protection Association, Canada Athabasca River 11 Watershed & Lake Alberta Farm Stewardship Program, Cows & Fish and De Zaeyer watershed Stewardship Society Farms 2. Lesser Slave Lake Signing Author ity: Lesser Slav e Lake Comm unity As above 12 Watershed Committee Development C orporation. Alberta Conservat ion Association, Municipal Distric t of Lesser Slave River, Alberta Environment 3. Lakeland Agricultural M.D. of Bonnyvill e, Moose Lake Water for Life Co mmittee Beaver River 13 Research Association watershed 4. Pelican Narrows Signing Authority: Summer Village of Pelican Narrows. As above 14 Healthy Shoreline Moose Lake Wa ter for Life Committee Committee 5. Rocky Riparian Group Signing Author ity: Clearwater County Agricultural Services. North Saskatchewan 15 The Alberta Conservation Association, the Rock y Rams Junior River watershed Forest Wardens, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration 6. Sandy Lake Restoration Alberta Environm ent, DFO, Cow s and Fish, S ummer Villages of As above 16 Society Sunrise Beach a nd Sandy Beach , County of L ac Ste Anne and Sturgeon County, Living by Water Project/FAN 7. Friends of Little Red Olds College South Saskatchewan 18 Deer River Society River watershed: Red Deer River sub - watershed 8. Elbow River Watershed Photographer Dr. Robert Lee South Saskatche wan 19 Partnership River watersh ed: Bow River sub-watershed 9. Ghost Watershed Alberta Sustaina ble Resource D evelopment (ne w partner for As above 20 Alliance Society signage) 10. Bow Riverkeeper City of Calgary, T own of Cochrane, Town of Canmore, Town of As above 21 (Mountain Parks Banff, Stoney/Chiniki First Nation, Blackfoot Nation Cultural Watershed Association) Society (on the Siksika Reserve), Clean Calgar y, Biosphere Institute of the B ow Valley, Unitarian Church of Calgary 11. Nose Creek Signing Authority: City of Airdrie. City of Calgary, Municipal As above 22 Watershed Partnership District of Rocky View, the T own of Crossfield, Ducks Unlimited, the Calgary Airpo rt Authority and the Bow River Basin Council 12. Friends of Fish Creek (BIO) Alberta Government Parks & Protected Areas, Sammy’s As above 23 Provincial Park Society Pizza, Spolumbo s Deli 13. Calgary Field Friends of Fish Creek Provincial Park, RiverWatch As above 24 Naturalists Society 14. Cochrane Branches & Town of Cochran e, Shell Environ mental Fund, Fortis Alberta As above 24 Banks Environmental Inc., TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., Bow River Basin Council Foundation 15. Friends of Fish Creek (ISP) Parks Canada, Calgary Field Naturalists Society [event co- As above 25 Provincial Park Society organizers/traine rs], students of the University of Calgary and Mount Royal College 16. Alberta Wilderness Castle-Crown W ilderness Coaliti on and Oldman Watershed South Saskatc hewan 26 Association for Beehive Council [reviewe rs] River watershe d: Natural Area Oldman River sub- watershed 17. Lee Creek Watershed Signing Authority: Cardston County As above 27 Group 18. Beaver Creek Signing Authority: Oldman Watershed Council. Alberta As above 28 Watershed Group Agriculture, Fo od & Rural Deve lopment 19. Milk River Ranchers Signing Authori ty: County of Warner. Milk River Watershed Milk River watershed 29 Group Council Canada, Cows & Fish Note: As groups were sometimes lax in recognizing partners’ contributions as Partners even when they co-hosted events, or were supplied with food at half normal price, where this was obvious these were added.

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 37 Appendix D: Grant Administration

A 10% portion of the $100,000 grant was used by the ASN for administration, manpower and overhead costs associated with administering and communicating the grant program. While much of the base work was prepared ahead of time by participating agencies, in January 2006 the ASN contracted a staff administrator to undertake the administrative support necessary for the program and coordinate with the grant committee and AENV representative on program development. The ASN committed to design and implement a granting program such that: • Appropriate notice of the grant program is circulated to the stewardship community in a timely manner. This was achieved with promotion beginning in January for the final application deadline in March (approx 200 groups received a hard-copy of the grant program announcement and application form, in addition to email to e-groups, phone calls to 100 groups on ASN contact list, notice in ASN Grassroots Newsletter and details on the ASN website and a radio interview on CKUA’s Call of the Land). • An application process was utilized to evaluate grant requests in a fair and transparent manner. This was achieved as: the application form was distributed widely, stated eligibility criteria and questions related to the criteria used in the individual scoring sheet. Col lective results of the individual scoring formed the basis for joint decision-making in the app lication review meeting in order to select the final grant recipients. There was a procedure in place for conflicts of interest which involved the member being excluded from scoring and voting. • A grant vetting/selection committee and process with appropriate WPAC or basin input and/or participation is established to set selection criteria, review applications against these criteria, and select grant recipients in a process that is logical and defendable. There was WPAC and WSG representation both on the grant committee and in developing the program. Projects were selected based on their evaluation against set criteria which sought to support Water for Life goals, capacity-building of the watershed stewardship groups and effective project management. • An accounting and reporting process is designed such that funds are distributed appropriately and meet GOA and ASN accountability and auditing requirements. Report templates were prepared ahead of time such that WSG reporting was kept simple while accountable, useable for other purposes and provided groups with opportunities to showcase their work (photo gallery, press release). Similarly, a template for the ASN Grant Program Annual Rep ort was developed ahead of time. Below, are the main steps involved in running the grant program: 1. Program Development (identification of committee members, conference calls and meetings developing criteria, process and key documents). 2. From January: Grant Promotion (as above) and Pre-screening (handling phone calls and emails to support over 55 stewardship groups) 3. Feb 26: Early Submission Deadline (reviewed draft applications and comments provided in timely manner to 27 applicants) 4. Mar 3: Final Submission Deadline (related administration) 5. Mar 13: Selection of Grant Recipients by the Stewardship Grant Committee*: individual scoring against the selection criteria, and an Application Review Meeting for consensus on the final grant recipients ™ 19 projects approved (a total of 30 funded in spring 2006 with the additional funding being provided via a contribution of the $500,000 of Grant Agreement 06-GREA29) 6. By Mar 31, notification of all 56 applicants and packages to 19+ grant recipients 7. Aug-Sept: Interim Progress Reporting (due Aug 31) and Highlights’ Presentation to GOA and partners 8. WSG Final Reports (due Dec 31) administration and review/ follow up 9. ASN Final Report to GOA and Highlights’ Presentation to GOA and partners *In keeping with the original proposal, the Stewardship Grant Committee is composed of 10 members: the ASN Chair, and representatives from 3 Watershed Stewardship Groups, Alberta Environment, Alberta Agriculture/AESA, 1 Watershed Planning and Advisory Council (Oldman Watershed Council) and 3 organizations supporting stewardship in the province (Land Stewardship Centre of Canada /ASN Secretariat, Alberta Conservation Association and Cows & Fish).

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 38 Appendix E: Household Water Conservation Calculations, Friends of the Bow campaign (courtesy of Bow Riverkeeper)

Fixing toilet and tap leaks It is estimated that leaks from the toilet and tap can waste as much as 38 litres of water/day. If we multiply that by 7 (number of days in the week) and by 126 (the number of people committed to checking for leaks), there is an estimated 33,516 litres saved each week. (38 litres x 7 x 126) = 33,516 litres

Filling dishwashers prior to any wash cycle If each dishwasher cycle uses an estimated 40 litres of water and if individuals committed to ensuring their dishwashers were completely full prior to any wash cycle (109), and an estimated 2 washes are saved each week, there is an estimated 8,720 litres of water saved each week. (40 litres x 109 x 2) = 8,720 litres

Running clothes washer only when it is full If each cycle uses a conservative estimated 133 litres of water and if individuals committed to ensuring their clothes washers were completely full prior to any wash cycle (121), and an estimated 1 load of wash is saved each week, there is an estimated 16,093 litres of water saved each week. (133 litres x 121) = 16,093 litres

Turning off the tap while brushing teeth or shaving If the tap runs for 5 minutes an estimated 45 litres of water is wasted. In a very conservative estimate, if a person were to only allow the tap to run for 10 seconds (1.5 litres) each time they brushed their teeth, instead of 1 minute (dental professionals recommend brushing your teeth for 2 minutes), 2 times a day, multiplied by the number of people committed to turning off the tap while brushing their teeth (136) and 7 (the number of days in a week), there is an estimated 14,280 litres of water saved each week. (9.0 litres x 2 x 136 x 7) - (1.5 litres x 2 x 136 x 7) = 14,280 litres

Caring for lawn wisely A lawn only needs 2.5 cm of water a week. According to the town of Okotoks, watering your lawn for 1 hour should be more than enough time to achieve this. According to the City of Calgary, Calgarians water their lawn 5 times more than necessary - an extra 4 hours each week. 1 hour of watering the lawn uses 950 litres of water, multiplied by 4, then multiplied by the number of people committed to caring for their lawns more wisely (75), there is an estimated 285,000 litres of water saved each week. (950 litres x 4 x 63) = 285,000 litres

Installing a low flush toilet If 16 litres is the average volume per flush for older toilets (they vary from 13 litres per flush to 20 litres per flush) and the 16 members replace their toilets with low flush toilets with 6 litres per flush (although dual flush toilets can be as low as 4.5 litres per flush) and we use an average household of 3 people and 5 flushes per day, there is an estimated 16,800 litres of water savings p er week. (16 litres x 16 x 3 x 5 x 7) –(6 litres x 16 x 3 x 5 x7) = 16,800 litres

Installing a low flow showerhead Installing a low flow showerhead can save the average family 520 litres of water per week per person. 21 members have agreed to install low flow showerheads. There is an estimated 10,920 litres of water savings per week. (520 litres x 21) = 10,920 litres

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 39

The Watershed Stewardship Grant Program is a great contribution to the work of Alberta’s stewardship community. Please keep it up.

Stewards at work: Removing invasive plant species from those hard to reach places!

Photo credit: Andrew Stiles, Calgary Field Naturalists Society

Ripple Effects: ASN Watershed Stewardship Grant Program – Spring 2006 40