Appendix J Environmental Overview for Highwood River Basin

Transcription

AECOM
Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force
Appendix J
Environmental Overview for Highwood River Basin
Rpt-2014-07-04-App_J_Environmental Overview For Highwood River Basin .Docx
Environmental Overview for
Highwood River Basin
AECOM
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
page
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.
Grassland Natural Region ................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.1 Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion ....................................................................................... 4
Parkland Natural Region...................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion ..................................................................................... 4
Rocky Mountain Natural Region .......................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Montane Natural Subregion .................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Subalpine Natural Subregion .................................................................................................. 5
1.3.3 Alpine Natural Subregion ........................................................................................................ 5
Federal Legislation and Requirements ................................................................................................ 7
2.1.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ............................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Fisheries Act ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Navigable Waters Protection Act ............................................................................................ 8
2.1.4 Migratory Birds Convention Act .............................................................................................. 8
2.1.5 Species at Risk Act ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.6 Canada Wildlife Act ................................................................................................................ 8
Provincial Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Alberta Land Stewardship Act ................................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) ......................................... 9
2.2.3 Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) ................................................................. 10
2.2.4 Water Act .............................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.5 Public Lands Act ................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.6 Historical Resources Act ...................................................................................................... 12
2.2.7 Wildlife Act ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.8 Provincial Parks Act .............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.9 Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act ...... 12
Other Pertinent Regulatory-Related Information ............................................................................... 12
Protected Areas and Land Use ................................................................................................. 14
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Parks .................................................................................................................................................. 14
3.1.1 Provincial Parks .................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Wildland Provincial Parks ..................................................................................................... 14
3.1.3 Provincial Recreation Areas ................................................................................................. 14
Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands......................... 14
3.2.1 Natural Areas ........................................................................................................................ 15
3.2.2 Heritage Rangeland .............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.3 Ecological Reserves ............................................................................................................. 15
Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve ....................................................................................................... 15
Key Range Layers............................................................................................................................ 15
Key Wildlife Layers .......................................................................................................................... 16
Eastern Slopes Land Use Zones .................................................................................................... 16
Environmentally Significant Areas ................................................................................................ 17
AECOM
4.
Terrain and Soils ........................................................................................................................ 18
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.
5.2
5.3
Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 35
5.1.1 Desktop Review .................................................................................................................... 35
Characteristic Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................ 35
5.2.1 Grassland Natural Region .................................................................................................... 35
5.2.2 Parkland Natural Region ...................................................................................................... 36
5.2.3 Rocky Mountain Natural Region ........................................................................................... 36
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Vascular Plant Species and Environmentally Sensitive
Communities ...................................................................................................................................... 37
5.3.1 Historical Records of Rare Plant Species ............................................................................ 37
5.3.2 Rare Species Descriptions ................................................................................................... 38
5.3.3 Applicable Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 38
Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 42
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Methods: ........................................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Soil ........................................................................................................................................ 18
4.2.2 Soil Agricultural Capability .................................................................................................... 19
4.2.3 Soil Handling Issues ............................................................................................................. 22
4.2.4 Soil Suitability for Reclamation ............................................................................................. 22
4.2.5 Terrain .................................................................................................................................. 23
Results .............................................................................................................................................. 24
4.3.1 Terrain .................................................................................................................................. 25
4.3.2 Soil ........................................................................................................................................ 26
4.3.3 Agricultural Capability ........................................................................................................... 27
4.3.4 Soil Suitability for Reclamation ............................................................................................. 28
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 30
4.4.1 Soil ........................................................................................................................................ 30
4.4.2 Agricultural Capability ........................................................................................................... 30
4.4.3 Soil Suitability for Reclamation and Handling ....................................................................... 31
Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 35
5.1
6.
Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 43
6.1.1 Desktop Review .................................................................................................................... 43
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 43
6.2.1 Wetland Types ...................................................................................................................... 44
Applicable Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 45
Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................ 46
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 46
7.1.1 Desktop Review .................................................................................................................... 46
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 46
7.2.1 Species at Risk ..................................................................................................................... 46
Key Range Layers ............................................................................................................................. 51
Key Wildlife Layers ............................................................................................................................ 51
Sensitive Species .............................................................................................................................. 51
7.5.1 Birds ...................................................................................................................................... 51
7.5.2 Mammals .............................................................................................................................. 55
7.5.3 Amphibians ........................................................................................................................... 55
Wildlife Timing Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 56
AECOM
7.6.1
7.6.2
7.6.3
8.
General Guidelines ............................................................................................................... 56
Land Use Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 56
Migratory Bird Restrictions ................................................................................................... 57
Aquatic Resources..................................................................................................................... 59
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.
Desktop Review ................................................................................................................................. 59
Environmental Setting........................................................................................................................ 59
Fish Community ................................................................................................................................. 59
8.3.1 Water Body Classes and Restricted Activity Periods ........................................................... 60
8.3.2 Fish Culture Stocking............................................................................................................ 61
8.3.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................................. 62
Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 62
Potential Project Impacts ................................................................................................................... 63
Historical Resources ................................................................................................................. 64
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 64
Existing Condition .............................................................................................................................. 64
9.2.1 Predicting Historical Resource Potential .............................................................................. 64
9.2.2 Archaeological Site Potential ................................................................................................ 65
9.2.3 Environmental Setting........................................................................................................... 66
9.2.4 Cultural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 67
9.2.5 Previously Recorded Historical Resources .......................................................................... 67
Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 71
9.3.1 Archaeological Prediction Criteria Employed for the Highwood River Basin ....................... 71
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 72
10.
Environmental Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................. 73
11.
References ................................................................................................................................. 75
AECOM
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Study Area .................................................................................................................................................. 6
List of Tables
Table 4-1:
Table 4-2:
Table 4-3:
Table 4-4:
Table 4-5:
Summary of Suitability Classes for Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops (LSRS)
19
Description of LSRS Suitability Classes .................................................................................................... 20
Description of LSRS Subclasses (Limitation Type) ................................................................................... 21
Soil Suitability Rating from Martin and Spiess (1987) ............................................................................... 23
Definitions of Landscape Surface Form, Slope Gradient, and Surface Form Modifiers for
Highwood River Basin .............................................................................................................................. 24
Table 4-6: Percent Area of Soil Series within Highwood River Basin ........................................................................ 26
Table 4-7: Highwood River Basin Dominant Soil Series, Subgroup, Parent Material, and Landform for Each
Soil Series ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 4-8: Percent Area of Suitability Classes and Limitation Types for Highwood River Basin Agricultural
Region ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 4-9: Soil Suitability Rating for Soil Series within Highwood River Basin .......................................................... 29
Table 4-10: Properties of Soil Series for Soil Handling Operations............................................................................ 33
Table 5-1: Rare Species that have been Previously Identified within the Highwood River Basin .............................. 39
Table 6-1: Wetland Type and Area within the Highwood River Basin ........................................................................ 44
Table 7-1: Documented and Potential Wildlife Species at Risk in the Highwood River Basin ................................... 48
Table 7-2: Recommended Wildlife Timing Window Guidelines and Setback Distances within the Highwood
River Basin ............................................................................................................................................... 58
Table 8-1: Fish Species That Occur in the Highwood River Basin ............................................................................. 60
Table 8-2: Number of fish Introduced via Fish Culture Stocking in the Highwood River Basin ................................. 61
Table 9-1: List of Distinct Geographic Features used in the Assessment of Archaeological Potential ...................... 66
Table 9-2: List of Site Prediction Variables Used in the Assessment of Archaeological Potential ............................. 66
Table 9-3: Total Numbers of Historical Resources Sites within the Borden Blocks or Portions of Borden
Blocks Encompassed by the Highwood River Basin ............................................................................... 68
Table 9-4: List of Previously Located Historical Resources Site Types found in the Highwood River Basin............. 69
Appendices
Appendix J1
Appendix J2
Appendix J3
Appendix J4
Appendix J5
Appendix J6
Appendix J7
Protected Areas and Land Use
Terrain and Soils
Vegetation
Wetlands
Wildlife
Aquatic
Historical Resources
AECOM
Executive Summary
The Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force has retained AECOM Canada Limited (AECOM) to prepare a
water management plan for the Highwood River Basin (the basin), as part of the Southern Alberta Flood
Mitigation Feasibility Study. This report provides a broad desktop review of all applicable legislation,
protected areas, and environmental conditions within the Highwood River Basin.
The Highwood River Basin is comprised of three Natural Regions: Rocky Mountain, Parkland, and
Grassland, which are further divided into five Natural Subregions: Alpine, Subalpine, Montane, Foothills
Parkland, and Foothills Fescue. The desktop assessment identified numerous protected areas within the
basin including one Provincial Park, two Natural Areas, the OH Ranch Heritage Range Land, 17 Provincial
Recreation Areas, one Ecological Reserve, and the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve. The basin also falls
within key range and key wildlife layers including: Sharp-tailed Grouse, Sensitive Raptor Range,
Endangered and Threatened Plants Ranges, Mountain Goat and Sheep Areas, Grizzly Bear Zone,
Colonial Nesting Birds, and Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones. In addition, numerous Eastern Slopes
Land Use Zones and several Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) occur within the basin. Regulatory
bodies have established these ranges for the protection of critical areas and to preserve them from
development.
Terrain and soil resources within the basin are variable. Dominant landforms throughout the basin are
characterized by confined floodplains, valleys, steep slopes, and dominant high relief ridged landforms.
Dominant soil series observed within the Highwood River Basin include Orthic Black Chernozem (O.BLC),
Orthic Eutric Brunisol (O.EB), Orthic Luvisol, and Orthic Regosol (O.R.) soil subgroups. Agricultural
capability is restricted due to climate and soil limitations. Vegetation within the basin is highly variable and
primarily dependent on landform and elevation. In the east, the Foothill Fescue Natural Subregion is
dominated by level prairies dominated by grass species, which continue westward into the Foothill
Parkland Natural Subregion. The undulating foothills result in clusters of aspen on north and easternfacing slopes. The terrain within the Montane Natural Subregion is highly variable resulting in
microclimates that contribute to the complexity of the vegetation communities. In general, vegetation
communities become sparser, stunted, and less diverse with increased elevation in the Rocky Mountain
Natural Region. A total of 97 instances of rare plant species have been documented within the basin. The
ranges of two protected species, limber pine (Pinus flexilis) and whitebark pine (P. albicaulis), cover
western portions of the basin. Both of these species are considered endangered in Alberta under the
Wildlife Act due to various causes, but both share mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) as a
reason for population declines.
Wetlands occur throughout the basin, with the majority occurring within the Foothills Fescue Natural
Subregion. Within this Subregion, marshes are common in the level prairies and wetlands become less
common in the hillier foothill areas. Open water and marsh areas can be found in the Foothills Parkland
Natural Subregion. Wetlands are rare within the Montane Subregion with fens occasionally occurring in
seepage areas. In the Subalpine and Alpine Subregions, wetlands are uncommon due to terrain
complexity.
A total of 78 Species at Risk, designated by federal and provincial legislation, have the potential to occur
within the Highwood River Basin. Specifically, two species are ranked under the Alberta Wildlife Act as
Athene cunicularia) and the Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis). The
Burrowing Owl has been documented within the Foothills Fescue and Foothills Parkland Natural
Subregions of the basin, while the Ferruginous Hawk is limited to habitat within the Foothills Fescue.
Watercourses within the Highwood River Basin support a large variety of cold water fish. Class A, B, and C
1
AECOM
watercourses occur within the basin with specific Restricted Activity Periods (RAPs). Theses RAPs are set
to protect sensitive species and their habitat during key life stage phases, such as spawning. Three fish
Species at Risk have been reported within the basin: Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia;
under the Alberta Wildlife Act), Spoonhead Sculpin (Cottus ricei;
under the Alberta
Wildlife Act), and Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus;
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)).
Historical Resources have a high potential of occurring in areas adjacent to watercourses, as most
previously mapped archaeological sites within the basin have been located adjacent to major waterways.
Areas within the grassland, foothills, and mountainous areas are likely to have low archaeological
potential. Prehistoric, historic, and natural sites have been documented within the basin with variable
Historic Resource Values (HRVs).
Multiple environmental and historical resources assessments would need to be completed prior to any
development activities occurring. Both federal and provincial legislation, as well as land use guidelines,
must be included during the planning stages of any project and adhered to prior to development.
Mitigation strategies will have to be followed in areas identified as sensitive within the basin.
2
AECOM
1.
Introduction
The Highwood River Basin (the basin) is a sub-basin of the Bow River Basin and is located in southwest Alberta. It
begins on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, extends eastward to the Town of High River, and then goes
northward to where the Highwood River enters the Bow River south of Calgary (Figure 1). The Highwood River is
162 kilometres (km) in length and the basin drains an area of 2,412 square kilometres (km2; Bow River Basin
Council 2010). The Towns of High River, Longview, and Eden Valley are the major population centers within the
basin.
The primary uses of water in the Highwood River Basin include diversions to the Little Bow River and licensed
withdrawals for irrigation, livestock watering, and municipal purposes. Major concerns in the basin involve
increasing municipal waste water return flows and other non-point source loadings impacting the Highwood River.
Land-use within the basin consists of forestry, recreation, oil and gas operations, ranching, and agriculture. Popular
recreational uses of the basin include hiking, fishing, rafting, kayaking, wildlife viewing, and biking (Bow River Basin
Council 2010).
One of the major concerns in the Highwood River Basin is the management of water quantity and quality due to
diversions of the river into the Little Bow River watershed. These diversions have been occurring for nearly a
century and have had impacts on the Highwood River during low summer flows (Bow River Basin Council 2010).
This has led to the development of the Little Bow Project (2004) and a revised Highwood Diversion plan (2008),
which is part of the Phase 1 Highwood Management Plan (2008).
The Phase 1 Highwood Management Plan was developed to achieve balance between diversions for water supply
and protection of the Highwood River fishery. It outlines various recommendations with regards to irrigation
licences, communication, licensing for the Little Bow diversion, water licence allocation transfers, and a schedule for
review. The revised Highwood Diversion Plan (2008) sets the diversion rates and operating rules, which define the
upper and lower limits of operation for the Highwood Diversion.
The sport fishing industry relies heavily on the diversity and overall health of the Highwood River Basin. This area is
essential for sustaining sport fishing in the region and mitigation measures need to be taken to ensure this industry
remains sustainable.
The Highwood River Basin falls within the Rocky Mountain, Parkland, and Grassland Natural Regions of Alberta,
which are divided into the Alpine, Subalpine, Montane, Foothills Parkland, and Foothills Fescue Natural Subregions.
1.1
Grassland Natural Region
The Grassland Natural Region includes the flat lands and rolling hills that contain grasses and shrublands, which
make up the prairies. The Grassland Natural Region has long summers and warm winters. This Natural Region is
the driest region within Alberta and includes some of the most productive croplands. The majority of water located in
this natural region occurs as wetlands, rivers, and shallow lakes (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The
boundaries of the Subregions within the Grassland Natural Region are not clearly defined due to few native
vegetation communities. Instead, the boundaries were primarily delineated from soil characteristics and climate.
The Foothills Fescue Subregion is the only Subregion within the basin belonging to the Grassland Natural Region.
3
AECOM
1.1.1
Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion
The Foothills Fescue Subregion covers the easternmost portion of the basin and is characterized by grass
dominated communities. This Subregion receives the most precipitation within the Grassland Natural Region and
has the highest elevation, which ranges from 800 metres (m) to 1,500 m. This Subregion also has the warmest
winters and shortest growing season of Grassland Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
1.2
Parkland Natural Region
The Parkland Natural Region has been extensively cultivated since the late 1800s and is considered to be the most
densely populated Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Croplands are highly productive with native
vegetation restricted to islands of aspen and willows. Terrain within the Parkland Natural Region is generally level to
gently undulating with hummocky to rolling terrain in the foothills. The climate within this Region is variable. The
Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion is the only Subregion within the basin belonging to the Parkland Natural
Region.
1.2.1
Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion
The Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion is characterized by rolling to hilly native grasslands. This Subregion has
warm winters due to Chinooks and high levels of precipitation, but has the shortest and coolest growing season
(Natural Regions Committee 2006). Therefore, minimal cultivation occurs in the Subregion and it is covered
primarily by native vegetation. Dry areas of the Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion support grasslands, while
aspen and other woodland stands are found in cooler, moister areas. This Subregion contains less than 1% open
water (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
1.3
Rocky Mountain Natural Region
The Rocky Mountain Natural Region has the widest elevation range in all of Alberta (835 m to over 3,600 m). This
Natural Region is characterized by extreme slopes and rolling landscapes. It has the coolest summers, shortest
growing season, and highest mean precipitation on average. The vegetation is heavily influenced by elevation,
aspect, and substrate in the Cordilleran (an extensive area covering mountain ranges, basins, and plateaus) climate.
The Rocky Mountain Natural Region contains a wide array of habitat types for wildlife, with most species-rich areas
located at lower elevations. This Natural Region is subdivided into the Alpine, Subalpine, and Montane Natural
Subregions, all of which occur within the basin (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
1.3.1
Montane Natural Subregion
The Montane Natural Subregion occurs at the lower elevations of the Front Ranges of the Rocky Mountains. This
Subregion is important for mining and timber harvest and also provides vital habitat for wildlife (Natural Regions
Committee 2006). The Montane Subregion is the driest and warmest Natural Subregion within the Rocky Mountain
Natural Region. Summers are mild with high precipitation and winters tend to be warmer due to the frequency of
Chinooks. Terrain is more complex than topography within the Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion resulting in
pronounced microclimates. These microclimates contribute to the complex vegetation communities within the
Montane Natural Subregion and include coniferous forests, coniferous-deciduous forests, and grasslands (Natural
Regions Committee 2006).
4
AECOM
1.3.2
Subalpine Natural Subregion
The Subalpine Natural Subregion is higher in elevation than the Montane Subregion and lower than the Alpine
Subregion. This Subalpine is primarily dominated by open coniferous stands and herbaceous meadows at higher
elevations, with closed coniferous stands at lower elevations. Winters are long and cold and summers are short and
cool. This Natural Subregion receives the second-most amount of year round precipitation (the Alpine Natural
Subregion being the first) and provides important habitat for wildlife (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
1.3.3
Alpine Natural Subregion
The Alpine Natural Subregion is at the highest elevation in Alberta and consists of all the areas above the tree line in
the Rocky Mountains. The Subregion has a cold harsh climate, with long cold winters and short cold summers with
heavy precipitation. Snowfields and glaciers occur in this Subregion. Plant growth is found within microsites
scattered across the lower elevations of the Alpine, while the highest elevations are essentially barren. The Alpine
Subregion is largely protected by parks and wilderness areas.
This environmental overview report, which is an appendix to the Southern Alberta Flood Mitigation Feasibility Study
for the Highwood River Basin, has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) on behalf of the Alberta Flood
Recovery Task Force. This report details an in-depth desktop review of all current environmental conditions within
the Highwood River Basin. In addition, mitigation measures and restricted activity periods are described in order to
avoid disturbances to sensitive areas and/or species at specific times throughout the year.
5
Southern Alberta Flood Mitigation
Feasibility Study
Project No.: 60309815
Last saved by: GIROUXK (2014-06-18) Last Plotted: 2014-02-21
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-GIS\02_MXDS\OVERVIEW_FIGURES\WS_HIGHWOODRIVER_OVERVIEW.MXD
Overview Map
Project Management Initials:
Designer:
BRITIS H CO
Checked:
LUMBIA
Approved:
SASK ATCH EWAN
Figure: 1-1
ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm
AECOM
2.
Regulatory Setting
2.1
Federal Legislation and Requirements
Any works associated with the Highwood River Basin would be subject to the following federal legislation: Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), Migratory Birds
Convention Act (MBCA), Species at Risk Act (SARA), and Canada Wildlife Act.
2.1.1
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) is the agency responsible for the administration of
the regulations and legislation associated with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (S.C. 1992, c.37;
Government of Canada 2012a). Under the Act, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required for projects that
have been designated by regulation, Ministerial Order, or if the project is located on federal lands. The review
process considers only those areas with federal jurisdiction, such as Aboriginal peoples, fish and fish habitat
(Fisheries Act), aquatic species (SARA), and migratory birds (Migratory Birds Convention Act). A Project Description
is initially supplied to the Agency for initial comment. Upon initial review, the Minister of the Environment can refer a
designated project to a review panel or joint review panel (joint with Alberta, for example, under the Canada-Alberta
Agreement). It is important to note that the Minister may, however, designate a physical activity not identified in the
Regulation if it has the potential to cause adverse environmental effects or if public concerns related to those effects
warrant the decision.
2.1.2
Fisheries Act
The Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14; Government of Canada 2013a) applies to all Canadian fisheries waters
and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has the responsibility to administer and enforce the conservation and
protection of fish habitat on private property, as well as on provincial and federal lands. Section 36(3) of the
Fisheries Act prohibits the discharge of deleterious substances into a water body; Section 20(1) requires that any
works conducted in and around a water body accommodate fish passage; and Section 35(1) prohibits serious harm
to fish, which includes fish and fish habitat that are part of or support commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal
fisheries. Serious harm is defined in the Fisheries Act as the death of fish, a permanent alteration to fish habitat,
and/or the destruction of fish habitat.
DFO has established a self-assessment tool outlining project activities and criteria that do not require DFO review.
DFO also provides Measures to Avoid Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat, which are designed to avoid causing harm and
comply with the Fisheries Act. If a project does not meet the criteria established by DFO to avoid serious harm to
fish and effects cannot be mitigated, a Request for Review must be submitted for consideration by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. If activities are determined to cause serious harm to fish, an Application for Authorization will
be required that will include a fish and fish habitat report, available design information, a description of effects on fish
and fish habitat, a description of measures and standards to avoid or mitigate serious harm to fish and an offsetting
plan. The Application for Authorization must also include a letter of credit (from the proponent) to ensure that, if
conditions of authorization are not completed, DFO can access funds to implement all remaining elements of the
mitigation plan. The amount of the letter of credit should be sufficient to complete the offsetting plan and any
required monitoring program.
7
AECOM
2.1.3
Navigable Waters Protection Act
The Transport Canada Navigable Waters Protection Program supports the regulation of works constructed or placed
in, on, over, under, through, or across, navigable waters in Canada in accordance with the NWPA (R.S.C., 1985, c.
N-22; Government of Canada 2009).
-45, amendments were made
to the NWPA including implementation of a schedule listing major waterways for which regulatory approval is
required. If the project is projected to commence construction after April 2014, when the amendments come into
force, review will not be required by Transport Canada as the Highwood River is not included in the Schedule of the
Act. The amendment to the act still allows proponents of works in non-scheduled waters to opt-in and seek approval
of their proposed works. It is recommended that the proponent consult with Transport Canada if proposed works
would significantly impact navigability.
2.1.4
Migratory Birds Convention Act
The MBCA (S.C. 1994, c.22; Government of Canada 2010a) and Migratory Birds Regulations (C.R.C., c.1035;
Government of Canada 2013b) are administered by Environment Canada. Under the MBCA, Canadian Wildlife
Service has jurisdictional interest with respect to the management of migratory birds and migratory bird populations,
protecting nationally significant nesting habitats, and regulating the hunting of migratory game birds such as ducks
and geese. Section 6(a) of the General Prohibitions of the Migratory Birds Regulations states that it is an offence to
tionally, Section 35(1) stipulates that
The MBCA and its associated regulation specify that efforts should be made to preserve and protect habitat
necessary for the conservation of migratory birds. This includes nesting and wintering grounds, migratory bird
corridors, and encompasses such activities as tree clearing, wetland consolidation, and temporary and permanent
disturbances occurring in proximity to migratory bird habitat.
In the southern Parkland and Boreal ecozones of Alberta, Environment Canada advises that habitat destruction
activities (e.g. vegetation clearing, flooding, draining, construction, etc.) in upland areas attractive to migratory birds
are prohibited between May 1st and August 20th. In wetland areas attractive to migratory birds, the window is
between April 15th and August 20th (Paul Gregoire, Environment Canada, personal communication).
2.1.5
Species at Risk Act
The SARA (S.C. 2002, c.29; Government of Canada 2013c) provides protection for Canadian indigenous species,
subspecies, and distinct populations and their critical habitats on federal lands, but does not apply to lands held by
The Minister may issue an order in council to protect federally listed species that occur
on provincial or private lands, but this has not occurred within the basin.
2.1.6
Canada Wildlife Act
The Canada Wildlife Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. W-9; Government of Canada 2010b) establishes statutes in regards to the
wildlife within Canada and all provinces and territories located therein. It defines the powers, duties, and functions of
the Minister, as well as all agreements made under the Act. Endangered wildlife and acquisition of land are also
regulated. It further stipulates that the government may take such measures as deemed necessary for the
protection of any species of wildlife in danger of extinction.
8
AECOM
2.2
Provincial Legislation
2.2.1
Alberta Land Stewardship Act
The Highwood
Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2012 the Land Use Framework (LUF) mandated under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (S.A. 2009, c. A-26.8;
Government of Alberta 2009a). The purpose of the regional plan is to reconcile provincial policies and set regional
outcomes and objectives as they relate to land use (Government of Alberta 2014). The SSRP outlines many
objectives, some of which relate to the continued health and function of the river systems and water resources within
the South Saskatchewan River watershed. Key objectives include:
Continued use and review of the approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin,
which sets limits on water resource allocation within the Bow Basin and sub-basins.
this framework, water quality monitoring is compared against provincial guidelines and management responses
are implemented when guidelines have been exceeded.
Development of a comprehensive approach for groundwater management.
Improvement of the management of wetland and riparian areas.
Minimization of sedimentation of water bodies by encouraging the use of best management practices.
Continued requirement of drinking water safety plans.
Continuous improvements to the water management infrastructure system.
Continued focus on the Water for Life strategy and its objectives.
Development of approaches to address the variability in climate across the region, which includes better
understanding and planning of flood risk.
Creation of conservations areas to protect headwaters.
Continued focus on headwater management initiatives and collaboration with the watershed planning and
advisory councils.
The SSRP also highlights objectives that promote ecological conservation initiatives including:
Conserving and maintaining the benefits of biodiversity
Advancing conservation and integrated management of Crown land
Supporting and enabling stewardship and conservation on private lands
Advancing watershed management
Managing air quality through continued collaboration
Strengthening communities
unique cultural and natural heritage
Inclusion of aboriginal peoples in land-use planning
2.2.2
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) is the provincial ministry responsible for the
administration of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA; R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12; Government of
Alberta 2013a). This Act is one of the most faceted pieces of environmental legislation in Alberta.
9
AECOM
2.2.2.1
Environmental Impact Assessments
The EPEA covers the provincial Environmental Assessment Process. A Director appointed by the Minister is
responsible for reviewing project summaries submitted by the proponents. This initial review process will determine
if the project is Mandatory (requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report), Exempted (from the
Environmental Assessment Process), or Discretionary (an EIA not required, but other approvals may be required, or
more information is required for to make a determination). A list of Mandatory and Exempted activities can be found
in the most recent Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulation. Similar to the
CEAA process, the Director may decide that the potential for environmental impacts warrant further consideration
and can order an EIA to be undertaken for projects not listed as a Mandatory activity in the Regulation.
If an activity requires an EIA, the terms of reference are prepared by the proponent and are available to the public for
comment and review. The finalized terms of reference will be the guidance document for the preparation of the EIA
report. The completed and submitted EIA report is then reviewed by the Environmental Assessment Director,
Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) or Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB), multidisciplinary and expert
teams at AESRD, and if applicable, other federal agencies. Once the information gathering process is complete, the
final review and approval process begins.
2.2.2.2
Other Components
Activities that do not fall under the Environmental Assessment Process may still require approval or registration
under the EPEA. The Activities Designation Regulation lists activities that require an approval, registration, or
notification under EPEA. In addition, there may be other activities that related to the follow (this is not a
comprehensive list):
Release reporting requirements (should a substance be released in the environment in a high enough
concentration that may cause adverse effects)
Conservation and reclamation (for areas requiring a reclamation certificate)
Waste management and disposal
Remediation of contaminated sites (to follow Tier 1 and Tier 2 soil and groundwater remediation guidelines)
2.2.3
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB)
The NRCB, established in 1991, is an agency independent from the Government of Alberta that reviews proposed
non-energy natural resource projects (NRCB 2014). The NRCB, under the National Resources Conservation Board
Act, considers social, environmental, and economic effects when reviewing resource projects before approval is
granted to the Proponent (Government of Alberta 2013b). The Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Act (EPEA) sets which projects require EIAs, and of those projects, EPEA determines which projects will also
require a review by NRCB (NRCB 2007). Reviewable projects include forest industry projects, recreational or tourist
projects, metallic or industrial mineral projects, water management projects, and any other type of project prescribed
in the regulations (Government of Alberta 2013b). If a water management project requires an EIA under EPEA, it
automatically becomes an NRCB reviewed project as described in the Act.
i)
ii)
A project to construct a dam, reservoir or barrier to store water or water containing any other
substance for which an environmental impact assessment report has been ordered, or
A project to construct a water diversion structure, or canal capable of conducting water or water
containing any other substance for which an environmental impact assessment report has been
ordered.
10
AECOM
2.2.4
Water Act
All water resources located within the province of Alberta are owned by the Provincial Government. AESRD
administers the Alberta Water Act,
water resources, including wetlands.
Water Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3; Government of Alberta 2013c)
requires approval and/or attainment of a license before undertaking construction in a surface water body or activities
related to a water body which have the potential to impact the aquatic environment.
2.2.4.1
Water Act Codes of Practice
A notification to the department is required for activities that adhere to the Codes of Practice. There are four Codes
of Practice that require notification:
Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunications Lines Crossing a Water Body
Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings
Code of Practice for the Temporary Diversion of Water for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines
Code of Practice for Outfall Structures on Water Bodies
2.2.4.2
013 (Government of Alberta 2013d). This policy will
be phased in during the summer of 2014.
an
In addition to conserving wetlands,
this document also introduces the mitigation of wetland impacts as well as the enhancement, restoration, or creation
of ephemeral wetlands. In 2007, the Alberta Government released the revised edition of the Provincial Wetland
Restoration/Compensation Guide,
s goals, intent, objectives,
and mitigation requirements.
The new wetland policy will apply to all wetlands in the province (no discrimination between wetlands located in the
green versus white zone of Alberta) and will focus on conserving and minimizing wetland losses. Wetlands to be
impacted will need to be evaluated by a Qualified Wetland Aquatic Environment Specialist (QWAES) using a
standardized tool to determine Wetland Value. The score determined from the tool will be used in the decision
making process in order to avoid, mitigate, or replace wetland losses. Wetland Value will also be used to determine
wetland replacement/compensation ratios that are necessary for the Water Act approval process (Government of
Alberta 2013c).
2.2.5
Public Lands Act
All Crown land, including the bed and shores of all permanent watercourses and water bodies, are considered
Alberta Public Lands unless they are owned by the Government of Canada. As such, approvals from AESRD under
the Public Lands Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. P-40; Government of Alberta 2013e) are required for any activity on Public
Lands or the bed or shore of Crown owned rivers, streams, or lakes. A list of activities that require a Public Lands
Act approval is available from the AESRD website.
11
AECOM
2.2.6
Historical Resources Act
The Historical Resources Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. H-9; Government of Alberta 2013f) is administered by Alberta Culture.
The Act protects all historical resources in Alberta, including paleontological, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and
certain cultural or natural objects, sites, or structures. Pursuant to the Act, a Historical Resource Clearance is
needed for projects where effects on known and unknown historical resources could occur.
2.2.7
Wildlife Act
Wildlife Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. W-10; Government of Alberta 2013f) protects the residences of wildlife on
private and public lands. More specifically, a person must not wilfully molest, disturb or destroy a house, nest or den
of certain species. Section 96 of the Wildlife Regulation (Government of Alberta 2013g) outlines the wildlife species,
areas, and time of year when the Act applies. All endangered wildlife, upland game birds, some migratory birds,
snakes and bat dens, and beavers (in some instances) are covered under Section 36 of the Act applies to. For most
wildlife, disturbing the habitat of these animals is prohibited year-round throughout Alberta. AESRD staff may
recommend timing restrictions on activities to minimize disturbance to the nest of breeding wildlife and birds. The
Wildlife Act also protects endangered plant species (both vascular and non-vascular) listed in the Wildlife
Regulation.
2.2.8
Provincial Parks Act
Alberta Tourism, Parks, and Recreation are responsible for administering the Provincial Parks Act (R.S.A 2000,
c. P-35; Government of Alberta 2013i). The Act protects
disposition from the Minister is required prior to any construction activities within designated areas.
2.2.9
Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act
The Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act (R.S.A. 2000, c.W-9;
Government of Alberta 2009b) allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish any of the specialized areas
mentioned in its title. The collection, destruction and removal of plant and animal material, fossils and other objects
of geological, ethnological, historical, and scientific interest is prohibited. Furthermore, fishing, hunting, littering, and
starting fires are also prohibited.
2.3
Other Pertinent Regulatory-Related Information
The Highwood River Basin is part of the greater Bow River Basin. The Bow River Basin Council (BRBC) is a
charitable organization consisting of multiple stakeholders working in collaboration to develop programs and
activities to encourage recreation, education, and protection of the water within the watershed (Bow River Basin
Council 2012). In 2012, the BRBC published its second phase of the Bow River Basin Watershed Management Plan
which focuses on objectives related to land use, riparian lands, wetlands, as well as headwaters and other
hydrologically significant areas. More specifically, these objectives include:
Improving the number of municipalities that require:
o Best management practices for controls on sediment and erosion from new construction sites with the
overall goal of reducing sediment loading in water bodies
o Use integrated land management to review permit applications
o Integrate performance management during the land use decision making process
Establish no net loss of wetland and riparian areas and no net loss in the number of wetlands
12
AECOM
Improve riparian function in areas that have been degraded
Improve the number of municipalities with wetland and riparian conservation management initiatives
Ameliorate the human impact in headwater regions
Improve the number of municipalities that have:
o An inventory of all hydrologically significant areas
o Apply conservation measures to those areas.
Effectively use integrated land management to ameliorate impacts from new linear developments
There may be various other minor Federal, Provincial, Municipal approvals or permits required for the project
(e.g. burning permits, noise-bylaws, wildlife research permits, etc.). These can be determined once potential
projects and locations are known.
13
AECOM
3.
3.1
Parks
3.1.1
Provincial Parks
The Provincial Parks Act establishes Provincial Parks to preserve and protect
conservation of wildlife and plants, preserve natural features (that have geological, ecological, cultural, historical,
archaeological, and paleontological importance), promote outdoor recreation and education, and guarantee
protection of the land. The following activities are prohibited within provincial parks: the removal of any plant or
animal life, the excavation or removal of archaeological or paleontological material, the introduction of invasive
species, and the removal of natural material. Construction activities are restricted within Provincial Parks, but
disposition may be granted under certain circumstances by the Minister.
There is one Provincial Park within the Highwood River Basin. Peter Lougheed Provincial Park falls within the
Highwood River Basin (Appendix J1, Figure J1-1). This park provides recreational opportunities such as camping,
canoeing, cross country skiing, fishing, hiking, cycling, boating, sailing, and snowshoeing. Provincial parks are
established through the Provincial Parks Act and governed according to its associated regulations, which restricts
construction activities (ATPR 2013a).
3.1.2
Wildland Provincial Parks
Wildland provincial parks are specifically established to preserve and protect natural heritage while also providing
opportunities for backcountry recreation (Alberta Tourism, Parks, and Recreation (ATPR) 2013). Wildland Parks are
established through the Provincial Parks Act and governed according to the associated regulations, which restrict
construction activities. Two Wildland Parks fall within the Highwood River Basin: the Elbow-Sheep Wildland Park
and the Don Getty Wildland Park (Appendix J1,Figure J1-1). Elbow-Sheep Wildland Provincial Park has
backcountry camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mountain biking, and rock climbing recreational
opportunities. Don Getty Wildland Provincial Park has backcountry camping, fishing, hiking, hunting, mountain
biking, and wildlife viewing recreational opportunities (ATPR 2013a).
3.1.3
Provincial Recreation Areas
Provincial Recreation Areas (PRAs) are established under the Provincial Parks Act to provide outdoor recreation and
tourism for the residents and visitors of Alberta (ATPR 2013a). They provide recreational access to lakes, rivers,
reservoirs, and adjacent crown land. Activities prohibited in Section 3.1.1 are also prohibited in PRAs. The
Highwood River Basin is within the vicinity of 17 PRAs (Appendix J1, Figure 1-1): Mist Creek, Picklejar, Trout Pond,
Lantern Creek, Lineham, Cat Creek, Strawberry, Fitzsimmons Creek, Highwood compound, Highwood Junction,
Eyrie Gap, Fir Creek, Etherington Creek, Sentinel, Cataract Creek, Highwood, and Greenford.
3.2
Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands
The Lieutenant Governor in Council has the ability to designate any Public Land as Wilderness Areas, Ecological
Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands. The designation of these areas and their protection is
legislated under the Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands Act. The
Minister may grant dispositions, under certain circumstances, within Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands.
Dispositions will not be granted for proposed activities in Wilderness Areas or Ecological Reserves.
14
AECOM
3.2.1
Natural Areas
Natural Areas are established under the Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage
Rangelands Act (R.S.A. 2000, c.W-9; Government of Alberta 2009b). They are designed to preserve and protect
sites of local significance while providing opportunities for low-impact recreation and nature-appreciation activities.
These areas are typically small and have minimal to no facilities present (ATPR 2013a). Emerson Creek and
Highwood River Natural Areas fall within the Highwood River Basin (ATPR 2013a; Appendix J1, Figure J1-1).
Emerson Creek offers hunting opportunities, while Highwood River offers kayaking, fishing, and hunting.
3.2.2
Heritage Rangeland
The OH Ranch Heritage Range Land is within the Highwood River Basin (Appendix J1, Figure J1-1), which is
located on public land leased by the OH Ranch. Public access to the heritage rangeland requires permission from
the lessee (ATPR 2013a). The OH Ranch Heritage Rangeland is protected by the Wilderness Areas, Ecological
Reserves, Natural Areas, and the Heritage Act (ATPR 2013a). As per the OH Ranch Heritage Rangeland
Management Plan (Government of Alberta 2010), private land sections of Longview are placed under conservation
easement, which fall into the Highwood River Basin. The public land and private land will continue to be managed
as one cohesive unit (Government of Alberta 2010). The OH Ranch Heritage Rangeland is a significant site in the
Alberta Parks system that contributes to the protection of traditional ranching operations over the past century and
maintenance of the native grassland of the area. The primary management objective of Heritage Rangelands is to
sustain native rangelands, by maintaining grassland ecology through the use of grazing (Government of Alberta
2010).
3.2.3
Ecological Reserves
Ecological reserves are established to protect and conserve natural heritage in an undisturbed state while providing
opportunities for education and scientific research. Their primary function is strict preservation of natural
ecosystems, habitats, and their associated biodiversity. Ecological reserves can only be accessed by foot, and are
open to low-impact recreational activities such as photography and wildlife viewing. Plateau Mountain Ecological
Reserve is within the Highwood River Basin (Appendix J1, Figure J1-1).
3.3
Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve
The Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve (RMFR) was established under the Forest Reserves Act (S.A. 2000, c. F-20;
Government of Alberta 2004) and falls within the Highwood River Basin (Appendix J1, Figure J1-2). The RMFR was
established to protect forest vegetation, as well as maintenance of watershed function and water yields within the
reserve. This also acts as insurance to protect against soil erosion and minimize the danger of flash floods
(Government of Alberta 1957). The RMFR is important for the economy of the surrounding region, as the area is
utilized for timber harvest, grazing, scenery, fishing, and hunting (Government of Alberta 1957). In order to conduct
any development and to clear trees within the RMFR, a permit is required from the Minister under the Forest
Reserves Act.
3.4
Key Range Layers
The Highwood River Basin falls within several Key Range Layers developed by AESRD (Appendix J1, Figures J1-3
and J1-4). Key Range Layers serve to provide industrial operators, the government, and the general public with the
most up-to-date information available on the extent of wildlife sensitivities (AESRD 2013a). Range layers in Alberta
uch information can assist with surveys for
15
AECOM
identification of a feature, or identify where mitigation strategies need to be applied (AESRD 2013a). The Key
Range Layers affected by this project are Sharp-tailed Grouse, sensitive raptor range, and endangered and
threatened plants range (limber pine and whitebark pine). Work should be limited between March 15 th and June 15th
due to the Sharp-tailed Grouse lekking (breeding) season.
3.5
Key Wildlife Layers
Key wildlife layers are based on areas that are import
mitigation strategies are used to maintain the intent of these areas (AESRD 2013a). These wildlife feature layers
provide industry, government, and the public with the best information available on the range of wildlife sensitivities
in the Province (AESRD 2013a). Specific operating procedures apply to industrial activities in these zones in order
to reduce impacts to habitat and wildlife populations (AESRD 2013a). The key wildlife layers affected by this project
are mountain goat and sheep, grizzly bear, colonial nesting birds (Great Blue Heron [Ardea herodias]) and key
wildlife and biodiversity zones (Appendix J1, Figure J1-5). Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones are intended to
prevent loss and fragmentation of habitat, short and long-term all-weather public vehicle access, sensory
disturbance during periods of thermal or nutritional stress on wildlife, and the development of barriers to wildlife
corridors (e.g. stream crossings). Typically, Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones are established along major river
valleys. These landforms have the topographic variation and site productivity conditions that yield high levels of
biodiversity and good winter browse conditions with adequate cover (AESRD 2010a). As per the recommended
wildlife land use guidelines (AESRD 2010a), timing restrictions of no construction between December 15 th and
April 30th are enforced due to the impacts on wildlife.
3.6
Eastern Slopes Land Use Zones
Eastern Slope Land Use Zones (ELUZ) were developed to protect, manage, or develop areas along the eastern
urce management (Government of Alberta 1984).
High demand for resources in the area (water, scenery, timber, forage, wildlife, fisheries, and mineral resources)
created concern over environmental protection in the area and led to the development of A Policy for Resource
Management of the Eastern Slopes in 1977 (Government of Alberta 1984). The policy outlines priorities for resource
management, as well as more specific resource objectives in each regional plan. The ELUZ included within the
Highwood River Basin are nine Prime Protection Zones, six Multiple Use Zones, 10 critical Wildlife Zones, three
Agriculture Zones, and one Special Use Zone (Appendix J1, Figure J1-6).
The intent of a Prime Protection Zone is to preserve environmentally sensitive terrain and valuable ecological and
aesthetic resources for which this zone is highly valued. This can include high-elevation forests, as well as steep
slopes of the major mountain ranges within the Eastern Slopes. Bighorn sheep and mountain goats are found within
this zone, as it contains numerous critical wildlife zones. Regional objectives considered compatible with this zone
include those of watershed, fisheries, and wildlife management as well as recreational activities such as ski lift
operations (Government of Alberta 1984).
Multiple Use Zones provide for the development and management of all available resources, while still meeting the
objectives for protecting watershed function and environmental health in the long term (Government of Alberta
1984). This zone type accounts for 65% of the Eastern Slopes, excluding national parks. It is under heavy pressure
from both private and resource development sources as it contains a variety of natural resources (e.g. water, timber,
oil, gas, coal, scenic areas, forage, fish, and wildlife; Government of Alberta 1984). All regional objectives may be
achieved within a multiple use zone by only allowing a small area to be disturbed by resource development at any
one time. Commercial and residential development may occur on a limited basis as required (Government of
Alberta 1984).
16
AECOM
Critical Wildlife Zones protect both terrestrial and aquatic habitats that are vital to the maintenance of specific fish
and wildlife populations (Government of Alberta 1984). This can include areas that are important winter ranges,
migration routes, and calving areas that are essential to species such as mountain goats, bighorn sheep, elk, and
caribou, as well as spawning areas necessary for salmonids (Government of Alberta 1984). Restricted activities
within this area include intensive recreation, commercial development, industrial development, residential
subdivisions, and cultivation.
Special Use Zones are lands set aside for historic resources, scientific research, unique management requirements,
or legislative requirements. Guidelines for these zones are defined according to the purpose and need of each
specific site. One special use zone is located within the Highwood River Basin.
Agriculture Zones recognize lands that are currently utilized or considered suitable for cultivation or improved
grazing. Most of these lands are located along the eastern boundary of the region, and they consist of both public
leased and private lands. Land and resource use is governed by the owner in accordance with local land use orders
and bylaws. The Eastern Slopes Policy has no control over privately owned lands.
3.7
Environmentally Significant Areas
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) represent places in Alberta that are important to the long-term
maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, or other natural processes, at multiple spatial scales. They are
identified as areas containing rare or unique elements in the province or areas that include elements that may
require special management consideration due to their conservation needs. ESAs do not represent government
policy and are not necessarily areas that require legal protection, but instead are intended to be an information tool
to help inform land use planning and policy at local, regional, and provincial scales (Government of Alberta 2009c).
The Highwood River Basin contains ESAs within three different Natural Regions: Nine Rocky Mountain ESAs, four
Grassland ESAs, and one Parkland ESA (Appendix J1, Figure J1-7).
17
AECOM
4.
Terrain and Soils
4.1
Introduction
A desktop review of existing terrain and soil resources for the Highwood River Basin was performed for an area of
approximately 2,358 km2 (Appendix J2, Figure J2-1). Terrain and soil resources within the basin were evaluated for
current soil resources, agricultural capability, reclamation suitability, and potential soil handling limitations during site
preparation and construction operations in the area.
4.2
Methods
The review of existing terrain and soil resources found within the Highwood River Basin were completed using
existing reports, maps, and digital data. Potential impacts to terrain and soil resources were based on the
correlation of the physical and chemical characteristics of the resource with known procedures during site
preparation and construction operations.
Unmapped soil and terrain resources for the basin area were reviewed using a combination of satellite imagery and
the association of soil series within existing mapped areas for similar landscape forms.
4.2.1
Soil
A review of existing soil resources within the basin was performed using a combination of existing reports
(Wyatt et al. 1942; MacMillan 1987; Turchenek and Fawcett 1994; ASIC 2006) and digital spatial data from the
Alberta Soil Information Viewer (Alberta Soil Information Centre (ASIC) 2001) using ESRI ArcMap 10.1.
Soil characteristics within the basin were evaluated based on the dominant soil landscape model symbol for each
polygon, due to the high spatial variation of soil within the basin. The soil landscape model symbol combines the soil
series name and landscape model to characterize the dominant characteristic for each polygon. The benefit of using
the Alberta soil series classification system compared to the taxonomy of soil by subgroup level using the Canadian
System of Soil Classification (Soil Classification Working Group 1998) is the merging major soil formation factors,
and the physical/chemical characteristics of a soil found in a specific geographical region of Alberta using a
systematic approach.
The procedures used in the taxonomy of soil to the series level include:
Identify geographic location
Use of Soil Correlation Area (SCA) map from Alberta Soil Names File Generation
. (ASIC 2006)
Classify soil to the subgroup level
Assess the morphology of soil using the Canadian System of Soil
Classification
Classify parent material
Classification of parent materials according to mode of deposition, texture, and
chemical characteristics using the
18
AECOM
4.2.2
Soil Agricultural Capability
A general evaluation of the landscape within the Highwood River Basin using the Land Suitability Rating System for
Agricultural Crops (LSRS) system (Agronomic Interpretations Working Group 1995) was utilized to help identify the
current capability of land within the basin for agriculture and plant growth, since this rating system includes many of
the factors that affect plant growth. This information can be used as one of the many tools used in the evaluation of
land use for planning (Agronomic Interpretations Working Group 1995).
LSRS is a rating system for assessing land suitability for crop production and spring-seeded small grains (wheat,
barley, and oats), as well as hardy oil seeds, such as canola and flax (Agronomic Interpretations Working Group
1995). The LSRS system was developed in response to the shortfalls of the Canadian Land Inventory (CLI): Soil
Capability for Agriculture (Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act 1965). The rating system is based on
classes (Table 4-1), ranging from 1 to 7, based on the degree of land limitation for the production of spring seeded
small grains, and subclasses (Table 4-2 and 4-3), based on the kind of limitation (temperature, moisture, etc.).
Table 4-1: Summary of Suitability Classes for Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops (LSRS)
Suitability
Class
Index Points
Limitations for
Specified Crop*
1
80 - 100
None to slight
2
60 - 79
Slight
3
45 - 59
Moderate
4
30 - 44
Severe
5
20 - 29
Very Severe
6
10 - 19
Extremely Severe
7
0-9
Unsuitable
*Limitations are for production of the specified crops.
This does not imply that the land could not be developed for other crops or uses.
19
AECOM
Table 4-2: Description of LSRS Suitability Classes
Suitability Classes
Class 1
Land in this class has no significant limitations for production of the specified crops.
(80 - 100 index points)
Class 2
Land in this class has slight limitations that may restrict the growth of the specified crops or require modified management
practices.
Class 3
Land in this class has moderate limitations that restrict the growth of the specified crops or require special management practices.
Class 4
Land in this class has severe limitations that restrict the growth of the specified crops or require special management practices or
both. This class is marginal for sustained production of the specified crops.
Class 5
Land in this class has very severe limitations for sustained production of the specified crops. Annual cultivation using common
cropping practices is not recommended.
Class 6
Land in this class has extremely severe limitations for sustained production of the specified crops. Annual cultivation is not
recommended even on an occasional basis.
Class 7
Land in this class is not suitable for the production of the specified crops.
20
AECOM
Table 4-3: Description of LSRS Subclasses (Limitation Type)
Subclass Limitation
Description
CLIMATE (C):
Temperature (H)
This subclass indicates inadequate heat units for the optimal growth of the
specified crops.
Moisture (A)
This subclass indicates inadequate moisture for the optimal growth of the
specified crops.
SOIL (S):
Water holding capacity/texture (M)
This subclass indicates land areas where the specified crops are adversely
affected by lack of water due to inherent soil characteristics.
Soil Structure (D)
This subclass indicates land areas where the specified crops are adversely
affected either by soil structure that limits the depth of rooting or by surface
crusting that limits the emergence of shoots. Root restriction by bedrock and by
a high water table are considered separately (see Rock and Drainage).
Organic Matter (F)
This subclass indicates mineral soil with a low organic matter content in the Ap
or Ah horizon (often considered a fertility factor).
Depth of Topsoil (E)
This subclass indicates mineral soil with a thin Ap or Ah horizon (often resulting
from erosion).
Soil Reaction (V)
This subclass indicates soils with a pH value either too high or too low for
optimum growth of the specified crops.
Salinity (N)
This subclass indicates soils with amounts of soluble salts sufficient to have an
adverse effect on the growth of the specified crops.
Sodicity (Y)
This subclass indicates soils having amounts of exchangeable sodium sufficient
to have an adverse effect on soil structure or on the growth of the specified
crops. Use is restricted to reconstructed soils.
Organic Surface (O)
Drainage (W)
This subclass indicates mineral soils having a peaty surface layer up to 40
centimetres (cm) thick.
This subclass indicates soils in which excess water (not due to inundation) limits
the production of specified crops. Excess water may result from a high water
table or inadequate soil drainage.
Organic Soil Temperature (Z)
This subclass recognizes the additional temperature limitation associated with
organic soils, particularly where the regional climate has less than 1,600
Effective Growing Degree Days (EGDD).
Rock (R)
This subclass indicates soils having bedrock sufficiently close to the surface to
have an adverse effect on the production of the specified crops.
Degree of Decomposition or Fibre
Content (B)
This subclass identifies organic soils in which the degree of decomposition of
the organic material is not optimum for the production of the specified crops.
Depth and Substrate (G)
This subclass indicates shallow organic soils with underlying material that is not
optimum for the production of the specified crops.
Landscape (L)
Slope (T)
This subclass indicates landscapes with slopes steep enough to incur a risk of
water erosion or to limit cultivation.
Landscape Pattern (K)
This subclass indicates land areas with strongly contrasting soils and/or nonarable obstacles that limit production of the specified crops or substantially
impact on management practices.
21
AECOM
In summary, Classes 1 to 3 are suitable for the sustained production of crops, with Class 4 land considered
marginal. Classes 5 to 7 are not considered capable of supporting the sustained production of spring seeded small
grains or hardy oil seeds using current recommended practices.
The percent area (%) of each suitability class within the Highwood River Basin was calculated by dividing the total
area of the basin by the total area of each suitability class assigned to each polygon.
4.2.3
Soil Handling Issues
An inherent characteristic in the development of a soil under natural conditions is the horizontal segregation of soil
layers or horizons with varying physical and chemical properties. It is important that during site preparation and
construction activities in which soils of varying physical and chemical properties are segregated and stockpiled in
order to replace these horizons back to the similar condition that existed before disturbance, and for future
reclamation of the landscape.
Before site preparation and construction activities take place, it is important that the terminology used to describe
soil resources at a proposed location is standardized between the pedologist, planner, and construction crews
before stockpiling operations begin.
The typical physical (horizon thickness, color change to subsoil, etc.) and select chemical properties (organic
carbon), pH, EC, Sat%, and SAR) for the dominant soil series within the Highwood River Basin was based on
information from the Soil Series Information for Reclamation Planning in Alberta report (Pedocan Land Evaluation
Ltd. 1993). This information provides recommendations in the planning of topsoil stripping and replacement
operations, and possible limitations due to certain soil series characteristics.
4.2.4
Soil Suitability for Reclamation
The suitability of soil for future reclamation within the basin area is based on the known physical and chemical
characteristics of the dominant soil series found in each polygon from the Soil Series Information for Reclamation
Planning in Alberta (Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. 1993) and Soil survey of the Municipal District of Rocky View
No.44, Alberta (excluding the Calgary urban perimeter; Turchenek and Fawcett 1994). These physical and chemical
properties can be used in concert with soil quality guidelines to determine the range of soil suitability in the area for
reclamation planning and evaluation based on criteria defined by the Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance
and Reclamation (revised; SQC; Alberta Soils Advisory Committee 1987; Table 4-4).
Three categories of soil suitability are defined by the SQC, and one category for unsuitable areas (Table 4-4). The
soil suitability rating relies upon a number of physical and chemical parameters, each of which is interrelated, such
that the limiting parameter determines the overall soil suitability rating..
22
AECOM
Table 4-4: Soil Suitability Rating from Martin and Spiess (1987)
Category
Good (G)
Description
None to slight soil limitations that affect use as a plant growth medium.
Fair (F)
Moderate soil limitations that affect use, but which can be overcome by proper planning and
good management.
Poor (P)
Severe soil limitations that make use questionable. This does not mean the soil cannot be used,
but rather careful planning and very good management are required.
Unsuitable (U)
Chemical or physical properties of the soil are so severe reclamation would not be economically
feasible or in some cases impossible.
Soil suitability criteria differs between the three regions within Alberta (Appendix J2, Figure J2-1), due to unique
differences inherent for each region with respect to existing topsoil and subsoil quality and unique landscape
characteristics. The geographical area of the three regions is defined and illustrated below:
Plains Region which includes the Central Plains and Peace River Plains, and has a predominantly
agricultural land use
Eastern Slopes Region which includes the Lower and Upper Foothills and the Rocky Mountains to the
British Columbia border
Northern Forested Region which includes the remainder of the province
The Highwood River Basin is within both the Plains and Eastern Slopes regions of Alberta (Appendix J2,
Figure J2-1).
4.2.5
Terrain
Landscape Model attribute data from the Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database (AGRASID)
database, soil survey reports, and satellite imagery was used to characterize the dominant landscape surface form,
slope gradient, and surface form modifiers, used to denote unique landform characteristics of each polygon, within
the agricultural area of the Highwood River Basin (Table 4-5; Appendix J2, Figure J2-2).
23
AECOM
Table 4-5: Definitions of Landscape Surface Form, Slope Gradient, and Surface Form Modifiers for
Landscape Surface Form
Description
Slope Gradient
U1l
Undulating
Nearly level
(> 0.5 % to 2 %)
U1h
Undulating
Nearly level to very gentle slopes
(> 0.5% to 5 %)
IUl
Inclined and undulating of low relief
Very gentle slopes
(< 5 %)
IUh
Inclined and undulating of high relief
Very gentle slopes
(> 5 %)
R2m
Ridged (includes fluted terrain) of moderate
relief (Bedrock Controlled)
Gentle to moderate slopes
(> 5 % to 15 %)
R2h
Ridged (includes fluted terrain) of high relief
(Bedrock Controlled)
Moderate to strong slopes
(> 10 % to > 30 %)
H1l
Hummocky of low relief
Very gentle to gentle slopes
(> 2 % to 10 %)
FP3
Confined floodplain, possibly terraced
(> 0.5% to 5 %)
Level and terraced, not within modern stream
channels
(> 0.5% to 5 %)
Valley with confined floodplain
> 9 % side-slopes
L3
SC1h
SC2
Wide valley with one or more terraces (coulees included)
SC3
V-shaped valley with no terraces or
l3h
Inclined to steep, single slope landforms (ex.
fans, aprons) of high relief
Moderate to strong slopes
(> 10 % to > 30 %)
Surface Form Modifier
4.3
c
Channeled (< 50 cm, rill, re-occur at the same position year after year
d
Dissected (> 50 cm, gully, same position year after year)
Results
The Highwood River Basin encompasses the Foothills Fescue, Foothills Parkland, Montane, Sub Alpine, and Alpine
natural subregions (Natural Regions Committee 2006; Appendix J2, Figure J2-3). The Foothills Fescue Natural
Subregion comprises 36% of the Highwood River Basin (Appendix J2, Figure J2-3), where approximately 50% of the
Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion is under cultivation (Natural Region Committee 2006). The presence of Black
Chernozem soils (BLC) on cultivated land is what distinguishes this natural subregion from the other subregions
(Natural Region Committee 2006).
Adjacent to the Foothills Fescue Subregion is the Foothills Parkland Subregion, representing 9% of the basin
(Appendix J2, Figure J2-3). Climatically, this subregion is more similar to the Foothills Fescue and Montane Natural
Subregions than other Parkland Natural Subregions (Natural Region Committee 2006). The short growing season
restricts till cropping, resulting in the production of hay crops or the presence of native vegetation (Natural Region
Committee 2006). Orthic Black Chernozem (O.BLC) soils are associated with grassland and open woodland
vegetation areas, with topsoil (Ah) horizons > 15 centimetres (cm), while Orthic Dark Gray Chernozemic (O.DGC)
soils are associated with forested areas. The well oxygenated soils found in moister areas of the lower tow slope
24
AECOM
positions and depressions are classified as moist Chernozems, rather than Gleysols, whereas wetter soil regimes
which occur in poorly drained are classified as Gleysols (Natural Region Committee 2006).
The Montane Subregion represented 16% of the Highwood River Basin (Appendix J2, Figure J2-3), and is an
important wildlife habitat, recreational and domestic grazing land use (Natural Region Committee 2006). Due to its
close vicinity to the Rocky Mountains and mild climatic conditions, urban development has increased at suitable
locations within the subregion. Rolling and ridged terrain dominates the landscape in this natural subregion, and
undulating terraces in major river valley bottoms (Natural Region Committee 2006). Orthic Black Chernozems is the
dominant soil subgroup of the outside grassland perimeter of the Montane Subregion, and Orthic Dark Gray
Chernozems dominant in wooded areas (Natural Region Committee, 2006). Gray Luvisols are found in northern
slope and higher elevation areas, and the occurrence of bedrock exposures. Weakly developed soil, such as Eutric
Brunisols and Orthic Regosols are located on the fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits in the valley and fluvial terraces
adjacent to rivers and side slopes (Natural Region Committee, 2006). In stable areas of the valley sides, Luvisols
and Dystric Brunisols soil subgroups may be encountered.
Occurring along the midslope and lower slopes of the Front and Central Regions, the Subalpine Subregion makes
up 37% of the basin (Appendix J2, Figure J2-3). The Subalpine Natural Subregion provides important wildlife and
recreational opportunities (Natural Region Committee 2006). Timber harvesting is an important activity in the
subregion, however, low productivity and regeneration, coupled with steep slopes, makes harvesting difficult. The
use of disturbed areas and native rangelands within this region are used for cattle grazing. Orthic Regosols and
non-soils are associated in areas with steep slopes, exposed bedrock and colluvial deposits (Natural Region
Committee 2006). Eutric and Dystric Brunisols occur within the forested regions and the coarse, often unstable
parent materials over steeply sloping bedrock. Orthic and Brunisolic Gray Luvisols occupy 25% of the region, which
have developed on the lower relief areas (Natural Region Committee 2006).
The Alpine Subregion represents approximately 1% of the Highwood River Basin area (Appendix J2, Figure J2-3)
and is located within protected areas such as National Parks, Provincial Parks, and Wilderness Areas (Natural
Region Committee 2006). This region is an important watershed, providing important wildlife habitat and recreation.
The Alpine Subregion is characterized by a cold, harsh climate and steep unstable rock formations, active glaciers
and permanent snowfields (Natural Region Committee 2006). The landscape is dominated by steep exposed
bedrock landforms and collovium surface materials present in over 40% of the area. Lateral and terminal moraines
are associated with nearby glaciers (Natural Region Committee 2006). Weakly developed soils dominate areas with
harsh climatic regimes and unstable parent materials. Dominant soils include Eutric Brunisols and Dystric Brunisols
developed from acid loving vegetation. Regosols are common within this region, with Gleysols present in wet
locations (Natural Region Committee 2006).
4.3.1
Terrain
The dominant landforms within the Highwood River Basin vary from east to west (Appendix J2, Figure J2-4).
Dominant landforms within the eastern region of the basin consists of an undulating terrain of low to high relief, and
inclined to steep, single slope landforms (fans and aprons) of low to high relief (I3l, l3m, l3h, U1l, U1h) (Table 4-9;
Appendix J2, Figure J2-4). The landforms associated with the tributaries includes confined floodplains (FP3), valleys
with confined floodplains and steep side slopes (SC1), wide valleys with terraced floodplains (SC2), and steep
v-shaped valleys (SC3). The western region of the basin is dominated by high relief ridged landforms (R2m and
R2h). Wide terraced valleys (SC2) with confined floodplains (SC1h) are typical landforms associated with tributaries
in the western region of the basin. At select locations in the eastern and western region are high relief v-shaped
valley landforms associated with tributaries (Appendix J2, Figure J2-4).
25
AECOM
Inclined, to steep, single slope landform types, such as fans, aprons are found along the banks of tributaries at a
small number of locations. At select locations, hummocky landforms of low relief are located in areas adjacent to
tributaries, water bodies, and wetlands (Appendix J2, Figure J2-4).
4.3.2
Soil
The coverage of digital soil maps for the Highwood River Basin is limited to agricultural areas, which consist of a
total area of approximately 1,285 km2 or 54% of the basin. The agriculture area of the Highwood River Basin is
dominated by the Orthic Black Chenozem (O.BLC) soil subgroup (Table 4-6). The Dunvargan soil series is the
dominant soil series within the basin, comprising approximately 40% of the agricultural area. Orthic Regosol (OR)
soils, which are defined as the Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral soil series, were found in approximately 8% of
the basin (Table 4-6).
Table 4-6: Percent Area of Soil Series within Highwood River Basin
Soil Series
Soil Subgroup
Academy (ADY)
O.BLC
6
Beaupre (BPE)
O.EB
3
% Area
Beauvais (BVA)
O.DGC
8
Beddington (BED)
BL.SS
3
Birdseye (BD
O.DGC
4
Bow Valley (BOV)
O.BLC
3
Dunvargan (DVG)
O.BLC
40
Lyalta (LTA)
O.BLC
6
Maycroft (MFT)
O.BLC
3
Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral
(ZUN)
O.R
8
Dunvaragan series soils were associated with inclined and undulating (IU), ridged of moderate relief landform
surfaces (R2m) (bedrock controlled), and undulating landforms of high relief (U1h; Table 4-7). The Miscellaneous
Undifferentiated Mineral series is associated with a variety of landforms, such as valleys of confined floodplains
(SC1), wide valleys with one or more terraces (SC2), V-shaped valley with no terraces or flood plain (SC3), inclined
to steep, confined floodplain, possible terraced single slope landforms (e.g. fans, aprons) (l3), and inclined and
undulating landforms (IU).
26
AECOM
Table 4-7: Highwood River Basin Dominant Soil Series, Subgroup, Parent Material, and Landform for Each
Soil Series
Soil Series Name
Parent Material
Academy (ADY)
Medium Textured Till (L to CL)
U1h, IUl, R2m, H1l, IUh
Beaupre (BPE)
Dunvargan Till,
R2h, R2m
Beauvais (BVA)
Dunvargan Till
H1md, R2h, R2hd, R2m, l3md, IUh
Beddington (BED)
Delecor Till
IUh
Birdseye (BD
Till over soft rock
Bow Valley (BOV)
Dunvargan (DVG)
Lyalta (LTA)
Maycroft (MFT)
R2h, R2m, IUh, I3m
Gravels or gravely (cobbly/stony) FP3, L3, U1h, U1l
coarse textured material
Dunvargan Till
IUh, IUhc, IUhd, IUl, R2m, U1h
Moderately fine textured (CL, U1l, U1h, l3l, IUl
SCL, SiCL) sediments deposited
by water
Moderately fine textured (CL, IUl, U1h, IUh, IUhd
SCL, SiCL) sediments deposited
by water
Miscellaneous Undifferentiated
Mineral (ZUN)
4.3.3
Landform
Undifferentiated
SC1h, l3md, IUh, SC1l, SC2, SC3,
FP3, l3h,
Agricultural Capability
Suitability classes transitioned from Class 2 to 6 from east to west (Appendix J2, Figure J2-6). The agricultural
region of the Highwood River Basin was analyzed using LSRS data from the AGRASID 3.0 database (ASIC 2001).
Class 6 land suitability (extremely severe) with temperature and slope limitation types comprised the lowest percent
area (<1%). Class 4 land suitability (severe), with temperature, water holding capacity/texture limitation, and slope
limitations had the largest percent area (52%; Table 4-8). Suitability Class 2 and 5 land (slight limitations), with
subclass limitations of temperature, moisture, slope limitation, and drainage limitation each comprised approximately
16% of the basin. Approximately 17% of the agricultural area is rated as Suitability Class 3 (moderate limitation),
with subclass limitations of temperature, water holding capacity/texture limitation, and slope limitation.
27
AECOM
Table 4-8: Percent Area of Suitability Classes and Limitation Types for Highwood River Basin Agricultural
Region
Suitability Class
4.3.4
Subclasses (Limitation Type)
Percent Area
2
Temperature Limitation (H)
Moisture (A)
Slope Limitation (T)
16%
3
Water Holding Capacity/Texture Limitation (M)
17%
4
Water Holding Capacity/Texture Limitation (M)
52%
5
Drainage Limitation (W)
15%
6
<1%
Soil Suitability for Reclamation
4-9; Appendix J2, Figure J2-7). A small area of topsoil
that was rated as good for suitability was present in the eastern portion of the basin where Academy and Bow Valley
series soils were dominant (Table 4-9
Appendix J2,
Figure J2-7) in areas where Beauvais, Dunvargan, Maycroft, Beaupre, and Lyalta soil series were present. Poor
topsoil suitability was present in areas located adjacent to tributaries, such as the Highwood River and in high relief
regions of the foothills, subalpine, and alpine zones (Appendix J2, Figure J2-7). The dominant soil series with poor
suitability ratings included the Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral series based on the Frank soil series
(Table 4-13), and a number of low dominance soil series not listed below. These select soil series included the Twin
Bridge, Spruce Ridge, Fish Creek, McGillvary, Mesa Butte, Todd Creek, Hatfield, and Lundbreck. Unsuitable soils
were located in the western region of the agricultural area of the basin (Appendix J2, Figure J2-7).
The majority of the basin s subsoil was rated as fair (Academy, Bow Valley, Beaupre, Dunvargan, Lyalta, and
Maycroft soil series ; Table 4-9; Appendix J2, Figure J2-7). A small number of soil series not included in Table 4-9
included: Crowfoot, Delacour, Drywood, Hatfield, and Leighton Centre. Areas adjacent to tributaries and regions of
high relief had a poor subsoil suitability rating (Tables 4-9; Appendix J2, Figure J2-7), and were associated with the
Beauvais and Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral soil series. Additional soil series not included in the table
included the Birds Eye, Bellevue, Burmis, Beauvais, Frank, Fish Creek, Spruce Ridge, and Todd Creek. Mesa
Butte, Lundbreck-AA/Lundbreck, and Twin Bridge soil series were dominant in locations with an unsuitable rating
(Appendix J2; Figure J2-7).
28
AECOM
Table 4-9: Soil Suitability Rating for Soil Series within Highwood River Basin
Horizon
Ap
Bm
Ck
Horizon
Ahe
Ae
Bt1
Bt2
BC
Ck
Horizon
Ap
Bnt
Csk
Horizon
Ah
Bm
Ck
Horizon
Ah1
Ah2
Bm
BC
Ck
Horizon
Ap
Ah
Bm
Ck1
Ck2
Ck3
Soil Series
Bow Valley Series from Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993)
Horizon Consistence
Texture
O.C.
pH
EC Sat%
SAR
Depth
0 - 25
G
G
G
G
G
G
25 - 40
F
G
G
G
G
G
40 - 100
F
G
F
G
G
G
Beauvais Series from Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993)
Horizon Consistence
Texture
O.C.
pH
EC
SAR
Depth
0 - 13
G
G
G
F
G
G
13 - 17
G
G
P
G
G
17 - 50
F
G
P
G
G
50 - 90
F
F
P
G
G
90 - 120
F
G
P
G
G
120 - 130
F
G
G
G
G
Beddington Series from Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993)
Horizon Consistence
Texture
O.C.
pH
EC
Depth
0 - 22
G
F
F
U
22 - 40
P
G
F
U
40 - 100
F
F
P
P
Bow Valley Series from Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993)
Horizon Consistence
Texture
O.C.
pH
Depth
0 - 14
G
G
G
G
14 - 25
G
G
G
25 - 120
F
U
F
Dunvargan Series from Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993)
Horizon Consistence
Texture
O.C.
pH
Depth
0 - 14
G
F
G
F
14 - 25
G
F
G
F
25 - 51
F
F
G
51 - 70
F
F
G
70 - 95
F
F
F
Maycroft Series from Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993)
Horizon Consistence
Texture
O.C.
pH
Depth
0-7
G
F
G
F
7 - 24
G
F
G
F
24 - 58
F
F
F
58 - 64
G
G
F
64 - 90
G
G
G
90 - 105
F
F
F
Overall Rating
G (Topsoil)
F (Subsoil)
F (Subsoil)
Overall Rating
F
P
P
P
P
F
SAR
Overall Rating
P
U
U
U (Topsoil)
U (Subsoil)
U (Subsoil)
Overall Rating
G (Topsoil)
G (Subsoil)
U (Subsoil)
Overall Rating
F (Topsoil)
F (Topsoil)
F (Subsoil)
F (Subsoil)
F (Subsoil)
Overall Rating
F (Topsoil)
F (Topsoil)
F (Subsoil)
F (Subsoil)
G (Subsoil)
F (Subsoil)
29
AECOM
Beaupre Series from Turchenek and Fawcett (1994)
Coarse
Consistence
pH
EC
Fragments (%)
G
F
G
G
Horizon
Depth
0-5
Texture
Bm1
5 - 13
F
G
F
G
G
F (Subsoil)
Bm2
13 - 41
F
G
F
G
G
F (Subsoil)
Cca
41 - 61
G
G
G
F
G
F (Subsoil)
Ck
61 - 85
F
G
G
F (Subsoil)
R
85 - 100
Na
Na
F
Na
F
Na
Na
Na
Horizon
Ah
F
Overall Rating
F (Topsoil)
Lyalta Series from Turchenek and Fawcett (1994)
Horizon Horizon Consistence
Texture
O.C.
pH
EC
Overall Rating
Depth
Ap
0 - 16
G
G
G
F
G
F (Topsoil)
Bm1
16 - 42
G
G
G
F
G
F (Subsoil)
Bm2
42 - 70
G
G
G
G
G
G (Subsoil)
Ck
70 - 100
F
F
F
F
G
F (Subsoil)
Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral Series based on Frank Series from Turchenek and Fawcett (1994)
Horizon Horizon Coarse Fragments
Texture
O.C.
pH
Overall Rating
Depth
(%)
Ah
0-7
P
G
G
F
P (Topsoil)
Bm
7 - 33
P
G
G
F
P (Subsoil)
BC
35 - 55
P
G
G
P
P (Subsoil)
Ck
55 - 100
P
G
G
P
P (Subsoil)
4.4
Discussion
4.4.1
Soil
Dominant soil series observed within the Highwood River Basin were comprised of Orthic Black Chernozem
(O.BLC), Orthic Eutric Brunisol (O.EB), Orthic Luvisol, and Orthic Regosol (O.R.) soil subgroups. The Dunvargan
soil series was associated with the undulating and inclined landforms in the eastern most regions of the basin
(Appendix J2, Figure J2-5). The Beaupre, Spruce Ridge, Beauvais, and Frank soil series were associated with the
valley and ridged landforms of the western extents of the watershed. The Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral
(ZUN) soil series was the dominant series found along the tributaries, with a variety of soil series identified along the
floodplains and toe slopes of the tributaries (Appendix J2, Figure J2-5).
4.4.2
Agricultural Capability
The land suitability classes in the eastern region of the basin revealed none (Class 2) to slight limitations for the
production of spring seeded small grains or heavy oil seeds (Table 4-8; Appendix J2, Figure J2-6). These are
productive regions in the basin for agricultural production. They make up a small proportion of the basin area and
are associated with tributary flood plains, suitable climate, vegetation, and landforms (Appendix J2, Figures J2-4 and
J2-6).
The northern and southern perimeter of the basin were rated as having moderate limitations that restrict the growth
of the specified crops or require special management practices (Table 4-12, Appendix J2, Figure J2-6). A large area
of Class 4 land was associated with the less suitable climatic conditions, high relief, and vegetation of the area
(Appendix J2, Figures J2-4 and J2-6). Class 4 is rated as marginal for the sustained production of spring seeded
small grains or heavy oil seeds.
30
AECOM
The class 5 and 6 land areas within the basin have severe to extremely severe limitations where annual cultivation
using common practices is not recommended or not recommended on an occasional basis for spring seeded small
grains or heavy oil seeds (Appendix J2, Figure J2-6). The unmapped region of the basin has very severe to extreme
limitation and unsuitable land areas (land suitability Class 5 to 7), due to similar climate, terrain, and vegetation
subclass limitation characteristics of the existing mapped Class 5 and 6 land areas.
4.4.3
Soil Suitability for Reclamation and Handling
The stripping and stockpiling of soil resources prior to disturbance is an important step in the conservation and
reclamation of terrestrial resources. The evaluation and rating of suitability for the topsoil (A horizon) and subsoil (B
and C horizon) within the Highwood River Basin of the dominant soil series prior to the preparation of a development
plan will help determine the potential suitability of topsoil and subsoil within the basin for salvage and reclamation.
The interpretation of known soil properties for each soil series will help identify potential soil handling limitations
during stripping and stockpiling, prior to site preparation and construction activities. A summary regarding topsoil
and subsoil interpretations associated with soil salvage and soil handling operations for the dominant soil series was
performed based on information provided by Soil Series Information for Reclamation Planning in Alberta (Pedocan
Land Evaluations Ltd. 1993; Table 4-10).
4.4.3.1
Soil Suitability
The suitability of soil across a large portion of the basin was rated as fair, with small areas of poor suitability to
unsuitable topsoil (Appendix J2, Figure J2-7). In general, topsoil rated as fair suitability was associated with
undulating and inclined to steep, single slope landforms (Appendix J2, Figure J2-4). Tributaries and ridged and
undulating terrain of high relief were the landforms associated with a poor topsoil suitability rating (Appendix J2,
Figures J2-4 and J2-7). Relative to the total area of the basin, only a small percentage of topsoil suitability was rated
as good (Appendix J2, Figure J2-7). These areas were located on low relief flood plains adjacent to existing
tributaries and undulating landforms within the Foothills Fescue subregion (Appendix J2, Figures J2-3 and J2-4).
4.4.3.2
Soil Stripping
Based on topsoil and subsoil interpretations from Pedocan Land Evaluations Ltd (1993) for potential limitations
during soil stripping activities, extra effort to strip the topsoil to reach the subsoil will be required in areas within the
basin where Dunvargan (DVG) and Maycroft (MFT) soils were found (Table 4-10; Appendix J2, Figure J2-5). In
addition, extra storage space for stockpiles will be required to accommodate the additional quantities of topsoil.
Thin to absent topsoil found along the tributaries and high relief areas of the Foothills Parkland, Montane, Subalpine,
and Alpine subregions will limit stripping activities due to the difficulties that large machinery will have in accurately
stripping thin horizons off and replacing the layers in the future. Soil series within the basin with thin to absent
topsoil include the Beaupre (BPE), Lyalta (LTA), Spruce Ridge (SPR), and Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral
(ZUN and FRK) soil series (Table 4-10; Appendix J2, Figure J2-5). The separation of topsoil from subsoil will be
obvious for the majority of sites within the basin due to the contrasting black colors of the topsoil and yellowish
brown subsoil typical of the Orthic Black Chernozem soil subgroup (Table 4-10).
31
AECOM
4.4.3.3
Soil Stockpiling
The stockpiling of salvaged topsoil and subsoil is an important step in the conservation of soil. However, the
potential for soil degradation during stockpiling can be significant if soil characteristics and potential risks are not
included in the planning phase. A number of factors are responsible for the degradation of soil resources while
stockpiled, such as wind and water erosion.
Before the seeding of soil stockpiles or replaced soil, these areas represent bare and unprotected soil. Therefore,
risk ratings can be calculated and applied to various soil series based on typical soil properties of a series. The risk
of wind erosion for the Dunvargan and Maycroft series soil is low, with the Dunvargan series representing typical soil
characteristics for a significant area of the agricultural area within the basin (Table 4-10). Wind erosion risk is
moderate for the Academy, Beauvis, Beddington, Bow Valley, and Lyalta soil series (Table 4-10). The risk of wind
erosion for soils surrounding the tributaries are rated as high, due to a high percentage of fine materials.
The risk of water erosion for dominant soil series within the agricultural area is low for slopes ranging from <5% to
9%, based on Academy, Beauvais, Bow Valley, Dunvargan, and Lyalta soil series ratings (Table 4-10). The
Beddington and Beaupre soil series are rated as low to moderate for < 5% to 9% slopes (Table 4-10). Soil series
associated with the tributaries, Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral (ZUN), are at a high risk for water erosion for
all slope classes (Table 4-10; Appendix J2, Figure J2-5).
32
AECOM
Table 4-10: Properties of Soil Series for Soil Handling Operations
Academy Series
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Thickness RANGE
Rating
15 cm
10 - 25 cm
Subsoil Property
Seasonally High W.T.
Hard Bedrock
Presence
No
No
Color Change to subsoil
Obvious
Non-Sodic Softrock
No
Stripping Limitations
None
Sodic Softrock
No
Wind Erosion Risk
Moderate
Gravel
No
Water erosion k=
0.036
Stony Layer
No
Risk on < 5% Slope
Low
Face instability
No
Risk on 5 - 9% Slope
Low
Solonetzic B Horizon
No
High
Saline or Sodic Lower Subsoil
No
Important Texture Change
Beauvais Series
Subsoil Property
No
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Property
15 cm
Thickness Range
12 - 25 cm
Hard Bedrock
No
Color Change to Subsoil
Obvious
Non-Sodic Softrock
No
None
Sodic Softrock
No
Wind Erosion Risk
Moderate
Gravel
No
Water Erosion k=
0.034
Stony Layer
No
Risk on < 5% Slope
Low
Face Instability
No
Low
No
Moderate
No
No
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Thickness Range
Wind Erosion Risk
Water Erosion k=
Risk on < 5% slope
Risk on 5 - 9% slope
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Thickness Range
Wind Erosion Risk
Water Erosion k=
Risk on < 5% Slope
Beddington Series
Property
Subsoil Property
15 cm
10 - 25 cm
Hard Bedrock
NOT OBVIOUS
Non-Sodic Softrock
NONE
Sodic Softrock
MODERATE
Gravel
0.040
Stony Layer
LOW
Face Instability
MODERATE
HIGH
Bow Valley Series
Property
Subsoil Property
15 cm
10 - 20 cm
Hard Bedrock
Obvious
Non-Sodic Softrock
None
Sodic Softrock
Moderate
Gravel
0.017
Stony Layer
Low
Face Instability
Low
Moderate
Property
No
Property
SPR
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Property
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
33
AECOM
Dunvargan Series
Subsoil Property
Hard Bedrock
Non-Sodic Softrock
Sodic softrock:
Gravel
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Thickness Range
Wind Erosion Risk
Property
25 cm
15 - 35 cm
Obvious
Very thick
Low
Water Erosion k=:
0.026
Stony Layer
Risk on < 5% Slope
Low
Low
Moderate
Face Instability:
Property
25 cm
15 - 35 cm
Obvious
Very Thick
Low
0.032
Low
Low
Moderate
Maycroft Series
Subsoil Property
Hard Bedrock
Non-Sodic Softrock
Sodic Softrock
Gravel
Stony Layer
Face Instability
Property
< 10 cm
0 - 5 cm
Obvious
Very Thin
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
High
Beaupre Series
Subsoil Property
Hard Bedrock
Non-Sodic Softrock
Sodic Softrock
Gravel
Stony Layer
Face Instability
Topsoil Property
Typical thickness
Thickness range
Color change to subsoil
Stripping limitations
Wind erosion risk
Water erosion k=
Risk on < 5% slope
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Thickness Range
Wind Erosion Risk
Water Erosion k=
Risk on < 5% Slope
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Thickness Range
Wind Erosion Risk
Water Erosion k=
Risk on < 5% Slope
Topsoil Property
Typical Thickness
Thickness Range
Property
16 cm
Obvious
Very Thin
Moderate
Unknown
Low
Low
Low
Lyalta Series
Subsoil Property
Hard Bedrock
NON-Sodic Softrock
Sodic Softrock
Gravel
Stony Layer
Face Instability
Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral Series
Property
Subsoil Property
< 10 cm
Very Thin
Hard Bedrock
Not Obvious
Non-Sodic Softrock
Very Thin
Sodic Softrock
Property
No
No
No
No
Yes
(DVG-aa)
Yes
(DVG-aa)
No
No
No
No
Property
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Property
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Property
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Property
No
No
No
No
34
AECOM
5.
Vegetation
The objective of this desktop review was to determine the environmental conditions as related to the vegetation
ecology that exists within the Highwood River Basin.
5.1
Methods
5.1.1
Desktop Review
A review of existing site information was conducted using the following literature sources:
Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS)
Publically available datasets from GeoDiscover Alberta, Geogratis, and/or Geobase
Reference maps, including the outline of the Highwood River Basin
Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta (Natural Regions Committee 2006)
Other relevant literature sources such as previous biophysical reports
5.2
Characteristic Vegetation Communities
Rocky Mountains. The watershed includes five natural subregions: Foothills Fescue, Foothills Parkland, Montane,
Alpine, and Subalpine (Appendix J3, Figure J3-1). The vegetation communities within each natural subregion are
briefly discussed below.
5.2.1
Grassland Natural Region
5.2.1.1
Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion
The Foothills Fescue (FF) natural subregion is located within the Grassland natural region of Alberta. Of all the
grassland subregions, it has the highest overall elevation. Nearly half of the FF is cultivated level plains and much of
the upland areas in the southern district are dominated by native prairie. The following prairie species differentiate
the FF from other subregions within the grassland natural region: mountain rough fescue (Festuca campestris),
Parry oat grass (Danthonia parryi), and bluebunch fescue (Festuca idahoensis). More specifically, mountain rough
fescue was generally found in remnant prairie areas. Herbs commonly found throughout this subregion include:
silvery perennial lupine (Lupinus argenteus), sticky purple geranium (Geranium viscosissimum), three-flowered
avens (Geum triflorum), pasture sagewort (Artemisia frigida), and goldenbean (Thermopsis rhombifolia). Shrubs
such as buckbrush (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), silverberry (Elaeagnus commutata), prickly rose (Rosa sp.), and
Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia) are also commonly found in moderately well drained and moist areas. Riparian
zones along rivers generally support balsam poplar, aspen (Populus tremuloides), and plains cottonwood (Populus
deltoids). Poorly drained, depressional areas support moisture tolerant species including willows (Salix sp.), sedges
(Carex sp.), and tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa; Natural Regions Committee 2006).
35
AECOM
5.2.2
Parkland Natural Region
5.2.2.1
Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion
The Foothills Parkland (FP) natural subregion is located just west of the FF subregion and has a topography
consisting of rolling to hilly terrain. Grassland areas similar to those identified in the FF are often found on dry west
or south-facing slopes while aspen stands tend to occur on cooler and moister, east or north-facing slopes. These
aspen stands generally have understories of snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), silverberry, white meadowsweet
(Spiraea betulifolia), prickly rose, Saskatoon, and other herbs. In moister areas, balsam poplar (Populus
balsamifera) is more common while white spruce (Picea glauca) or Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) are found
occasionally. In areas where soils are imperfectly drained, dense thickets of beaked willow (Salix bebbiana)
dominate the tall shrub canopy with wild red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), wild white geranium (Geranium richardsonii),
and other forbs makeup the understory (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
5.2.3
Rocky Mountain Natural Region
5.2.3.1
Montane Natural Subregion
The Montane natural subregion occurs within the lower elevations of the Central Front Ranges of the Canadian
Rocky Mountains and extends into the major valleys within the Central Main Ranges. This area, in general, has mild
summers and warm winters largely due to Chinook winds that bring warm Pacific air into Alberta. The variability in
terrain, particularly aspect, creates many microclimates. As a result, vegetation communities within this subregion
can be variable and complex. Open stands of limber pine (Pinus flexilis) and Douglas fir occupy the uppermost
slopes with characteristic understories comprised of ground juniper (Juniperus communis), bearberry
(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), and mountain rough fescue. Dry south or west-facing slopes at lower elevations are often
dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), mountain rough fescue, and sedges. In moderately dry
areas, these slopes may consist of forests of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Douglas fir, aspen, and white spruce,
or grasslands consisting of mountain rough fescue, bluebunch fescue, and Parry oatgrass. High elevation areas
within the moister central mountain valley district are primarily dominated by stands of young lodgepole pine with
secondary instances of mixedwood or Douglas fir forests. In the moister foothill region, Douglas fir, aspen,
lodgepole pine, and white spruce dominate the forest canopy (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
5.2.3.2
Subalpine Natural Subregion
In terms of elevation, the Subalpine natural subregion is located below the alpine and above the Montane
subregions. Summers are generally short and cool while winters are long and cold. While the Alpine subregion
receives the most year-round precipitation, the Subalpine subregion receives the second-most precipitation of any
subregion in Alberta. The vegetation characteristics within this subregion can be subdivided into two zones: the
lower subalpine zone and the upper subalpine zone. Within the lower subalpine zone, lodgepole pine forests with
understories of bearberry and hairy wild rye (Leymus innovatus) dominate dry south and west-facing slopes. Mesic
sites in this zone are dominated by lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and subalpine fir (Abies
bifolia). Fire is a common disturbance in this zone and as such, lodgepole pine stands are often young and dense.
In very moist to wet areas, sedge fens, dwarf birch (Betula pumila)-tufted hairgrass, and/or Engelmann sprucehorsetail (Equisetum spp.) communities are common. In the upper subalpine zone, Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
forests are common and as a result of wetter conditions stands in this zone, are more mature than those found in the
lower counterpart zone. Understory species such as heather (Phyllodoce sp.), mountain-heather (Cassiope spp.),
willow, grouseberry (Vaccinium scoparium), and feather mosses are common. Located in the higher in elevations,
36
AECOM
near the tree-line, open stands of subalpine larch (Larix lyallii), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), subalpine fir, and
Engelmann spruce are common (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
5.2.3.3
Alpine Natural Subregion
The Alpine subregion includes high elevation areas that include areas above the tree-line. Precipitation is high in
these areas and winters are long and very cold, while summers are short and cold. Similar to the Subalpine zone,
the Alpine zone is subdivided into three different vegetation communities based on elevation and environmental
conditions. The community in the upper zone is sparsely vegetated due to the harsh climate and if vegetated, then
only lichens occur on the exposed bedrock. The vegetation communities within the middle zone, which is slightly
lower in elevation than the upper zone, are dependent on the snowpack amounts. Drier areas that are exposed to
wind tend to have low growing vegetation communities consisting of white mountain avens (Dryas octopetala), bog
sedge (Kobresia myosuroides), and alpine fescue (Festuca brachyphylla). Areas of average snowpack commonly
have dwarf shrub-heath communities while mountain-heather communities occur in imperfectly to moderately well
drained areas. Black alpine sedge (Carex nigricans)-forb communities occur in areas receiving a deep snowpack
where soils are poorly draining. Alpine meadows and/or willow-bog birch (Betula gladulosa) shrublands are common
in seepage areas. In general, the lower zone consists of willow, dwarf or bog birch, and island regions of krummholz
(particularly Engelmann spruce or subalpine fir; Natural Regions Committee 2006).
5.3
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Vascular Plant Species and Environmentally Sensitive
Communities
In Alberta, there are several ways that a plant could be considered a rare species. A particular species is
considered rare when:
protected federally by the Species at Risk Act (SARA; Government of Canada 2013c).
and is protected by the Alberta provincial Wildlife Act (Government of Alberta 2013f).
The Alberta Native Plant Council (ANPC) and Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS)
ot
protected by any federal or provincial legislation, information regarding their abundance and distribution is
submitted voluntarily and is collected and stored in the ACIMS database.
5.3.1
Historical Records of Rare Plant Species
Within the Highwood River Basin, there were 97 historical records of rare species, including both vascular and nonvascular plant species and one rare vegetation community (beaked willow/wild red raspberry/wild white geranium).
A detailed list of these species can be found in Table 5-1. Figure J3-2 in Appendix J3 illustrates the locations of
these rare species historical records within the basin. Rare species records were generally concentrated within the
Alpine and Subalpine subregions of the Rocky Mountain natural region. This is due to the numerous records of
whitebark and limber pine within these areas. Whitebark pine is protected under both SARA and the Alberta Wildlife
Act, whereas limber pine is protected under the Alberta Wildlife Act only. Figure J3-2 in Appendix J3 also illustrates
the range of both pine species, which are based on the interpolation of actual observations and buffered by 1,000 m
(ASRD 2013b).
37
AECOM
5.3.2
Rare Species Descriptions
5.3.2.1
Limber Pine
Limber pine (Pinus flexilis) is considered endangered in Alberta under the Alberta Wildlife Act and regulation.
Although this species is widely distributed in the western United States, in Canada, it exists only in pockets within the
Montane subregion of Alberta. Typically, this species is found on dry and windswept rocky ridges as well as on
steep south or west-facing slopes. It is a short tree (< 15 m) and due to harsh climate it is often found in, it can
develop a krummholz growth form. As its name suggests, the limber pine has very flexible young branches. It is a
pioneer species that reproduces from seeds born from cones that are most often dispersed by birds and/or rodents.
Nucifraga columbiana) is a primary seed dispersal agent for this species.
llect seeds from the cones, transport, and store them in a shallow underground cache.
The
population of limber pine in Alberta has been in decline largely because of mortality caused by white pine blister rust,
an exotic and invasive fungus. The population has also been impacted by the mountain pine beetle infestation,
which killed many individuals during the 1980s (AESRD 2007a).
5.3.2.2
Whitebark Pine
The whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is considered endangered in Alberta under the Alberta Wildlife Act and
Regulation as well as SARA. This species is generally restricted to high elevation areas in Alberta, British Columbia,
and the northwestern United States. In Alberta, it can be found on dry south and west-facing slopes and occurs from
tree line down to closed subalpine forests within Alpine and Subalpine subregions. This species is a small to
medium tree (5 to 20 m) that can live up to 500 years or more in undisturbed areas. This species only reproduces
from cones and surprisingly reaches sexual maturity relatively late at the age of 25 to 30. Similar to limber pine, the
its seeds in the soil. Populations of
whitebark pine in Alberta have been in decline primarily due to white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetle, fire
suppression, and climate change (ASRD 2007b).
5.3.3
Applicable Guidelines
Setback distances are required by both federal and provincial governments for rare plant species designated under
the federal Species at Risk Act as well as the provincial Wildlife Act. For provincially designated rare plant species,
a minimum setback distance of 30 m is required for low and medium level disturbances and 300 m for high level of
disturbance activities (ASRD 2011b). For federally designated rare plant species, Class 1 disturbances (e.g. walking
or grazing) are considered unrestricted activities, Class 2 (e.g. above-ground transmission lines, mowing, etc.)
require a minimum setback of 30 m, while Class 3 disturbances (e.g. pipelines, ROWs, excavations, etc.) require
setback distances of at least 300 m (Canadian Wildlife Service 2011).
38
AECOM
Table 5-1: Rare Species that have been Previously Identified within the Highwood River Basin
Scientific Name
Common Name
ESRD
Species at
Risk1
Alberta
Wildlife Act3
SARA
Status2
Srank4
Grank4
Agoseris lackschewitzii
Pink False Dandelion
-
-
-
S2
G4
Alectoria sarmentosa ssp. vexillifera
Witch's Hair
-
-
-
SU
G5TNR
Alopecurus alpinus
Alpine Foxtail
-
-
-
S2?
G5
Amaranthus californicus
Californian Amaranth
Exotic
-
-
S1S2
G4
Amblyodon dealbatus
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G3G5
Antennaria aromatica
Scented Everlasting
May Be At Risk -
-
S2
G4
Arabis lemmonii
Lemmon's Rock Cress
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Arnica longifolia
Long-leaved Arnica
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Arnica louiseana
Lake Louise Arnica
Secure
-
-
S1S2
G3
Bacidia hegetschweileri
Dot Lichen
-
-
-
S1
G2G4
Boloria epithore
Western Meadow Fritillary
-
-
-
S2
G5
Botrychium lanceolatum
Lance-leaved grape Fern
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Botrychium pinnatum
Northwestern Grapefern
Sensitive
-
-
S3
G4?
Brachythecium plumosum
Moss
Undetermined
-
-
S2
G5
Brachythecium rutabulum
Moss
Secure
-
-
S2?
G5
Bryum algovicum
Moss
Secure
-
-
S2
G4G5
Bryum amblyodon
Moss
-
-
-
S1
G5?
Bryum calophyllum
Matted Bryum
Undetermined
-
-
S1
G5?
Buellia concinna
Button Lichen
-
-
-
S1
GNR
Calicium trabinellum
Yellow Collar Stubble Lichen
-
-
-
S2
G4G5
Calypogeia muelleriana
Liverwort
-
-
-
S2
G5
Campanula uniflora
Alpine Harebell
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G4
Carex adusta
Browned Sedge
May Be At Risk -
-
S1
G5
Chaenotheca xyloxena
Stubble Lichen
-
-
-
S1
GNR
Cirriphyllum cirrosum
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5?
Collema subparvum
Jelly Lichen
May Be At Risk -
-
S1
GNR
Collema undulatum var. granulosum
Jelly Flakes
-
-
-
S2S3
G4G5TNR
Desmatodon leucostoma
Moss
-
-
-
S2
G2G4
Desmatodon systylius
Moss
-
-
-
S2
G4G5
Dicranella crispa
Curl-leaved Fork Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G3G5
Dicranella subulata
Awl-leaved Fork Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5?
Didymodon fallax
Fallacious Screw Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Draba macounii
Macoun's Whitlow-grass
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G3G4
Draba porsildii
Porsild's Whitlow-grass
May Be At Risk -
-
S1S2
G3G4
39
AECOM
Draba ventosa
Whitlow-Grass
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G3
Elymus scribneri
Scribner's Wheat Grass
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Endocarpon pusillum
Scaly Stippled Lichen
May Be At Risk -
-
S2S4
G5?
Endocarpon tortuosum
Stippled Lichen
-
-
-
S2
GNR
Epilobium clavatum
Willowherb
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Erigeron lackschewitzii
Front-Range Fleabane
May Be At Risk -
-
SU
G3
Erigeron pallens
Pale Alpine Fleabane
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G4
Grimmia alpestris
Alpine Grimmia Moss
Undetermined
-
-
S2
G3G5
Grimmia donniana
Donian Grimmia Moss
Secure
-
-
S2
G4G5
Grimmia teretinervis
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S1
G3G5
Grimmia torquata
Twisted-leaved Grimmia Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G3G5
Homalothecium nevadense
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G4
Hypnum procerrimum
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G4
Jaffueliobryum wrightii
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G4G5
Juncus biglumis
Two-glumed Rush
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Juncus parryi
Parry's Rush
Secure
-
-
S2
G4G5
Larix occidentalis
Western Larch
May Be At Risk -
-
S2
G5
Lecanora saligna
Rim-Lichen
-
-
-
S1
G3G5
Lecidella anomaloides
Disk Lichen
-
-
-
S1
GNR
Lewisia pygmaea var. pygmaea
Dwarf bitter-Root
-
-
-
S2
G5T5
Limprichtia cossonii
Moss
Undetermined
-
-
SU
GU
Lithophragma glabrum
Rockstar
May Be At Risk -
-
S2
G4G5
Lopadium pezizoideum
Urn-disk Lichen
-
-
-
S1
GNR
Lycaena editha
Edith's Copper
-
-
-
SH
G5
Lycaena phlaeas
Little Copper
-
-
-
S2
G5
Melanelia commixta
Intermingled Camouflage Lichen
Secure
-
-
S2S3
GNR
Melanohalea infumata
Smoked Camouflage Lichen
Secure
-
-
S2S3
GNR
Micarea assimilata
Assimilative Dot Lichen
-
-
-
S2
G3G5
Mnium ambiguum
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Ochrolechia frigida
Arctic Saucer Lichen
-
-
-
SU
G3G5
Oenothera flava
Low Yellow Evening-Primrose
May Be At Risk -
-
S2S3
G5
Onosmodium molle
Western False Gromwell
May Be At Risk -
-
S2S3
G4G5
Packera contermina
Arctic Butterweed
Secure
-
-
S3
G3G4
Pedicularis flammea
Flame-colored Lousewort
May Be At Risk -
-
S2
G3G5
Pellaea gastonyi
Gaston's Cliff brake
May Be At Risk -
-
S1
G2G3
Pellia neesiana
Liverwort
-
-
-
S2
G5
Penstemon fruticosus var. scouleri
Shrubby Beardtongue
-
-
-
S2
G5T5
Phaeophyscia nigricans
Shadow Lichen
May Be At Risk -
-
S2
G4
40
AECOM
Pinus albicaulis
Whitebark Pine
May Be At Risk Endangered
Endangered
S2
G3G4
Pinus flexilis
Limber Pine
May Be At Risk -
Endangered
S2
G4
Pinus flexilis scree woodland
Limber Pine Scree Woodland
-
-
-
S1S2
G3Q
Pohlia drummondii
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G3G4
Potentilla multisecta
Smooth-leaved Cinquefoil
Sensitive
-
-
S2
GNR
Pseudoleskea patens
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Pseudoleskea stenophylla
Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5?
Ranunculus glaberrimus
Early buttercup
May Be At Risk -
-
S2S3
G5
Rinodina archaea
Brown Pepper-spore Lichen
-
-
-
S2
G4G5
Salix bebbiana / Rubus idaeus / Geranium
richardsonii
Beaked Willow / Wild red raspberry / WILD
white Geranium
-
-
-
S2
GNR
Salix stolonifera
Willow
May Be At Risk -
-
S1
G4G5
Scouleria aquatica
Moss
Secure
-
-
S2
G4
Sedum divergens
Spreading Stonecrop
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5?
Seligeria donniana
Donian Beardless Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G4G5
Silene involucrata
Alpine Bladder Catchfly
May Be At Risk -
-
S1S2
G5
Splachnum vasculosum
Large-fruited Splachnum Moss
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G3G5
Stereocaulon rivulorum
Snow Foam Lichen
Sensitive
-
-
S2
G5
Suckleya suckleyana
Poison Suckleya
May Be At Risk -
-
S1S2
G5
Tayloria acuminata
Point-leaf Small-kettle Moss
Sensitive
-
-
SU
G3G4
Tetraplodon urceolatus
Alpine Lemming Moss
Secure
-
-
S2
G3G5
Thrombium epigaeum
Epigeal Clot lichen
-
-
-
S2
G4G5
Umbilicaria americana
American ROCK Tripe Lichen
May Be At Risk -
-
S2S3
G5?
Umbilicaria lyngei
Rock Tripe
-
-
-
S1?
G3
Veronica catenata
Water Speedwell
-
-
-
S2S3
G5
Xanthomendoza montana
Sunburst Lichen
Undetermined
-
-
SU
GNR
Xylographa parallela
Black woodscript Lichen
-
-
-
S2S4
G5
NOTE:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing 2010 (ASRD 2012)
Species at Risk Public Registry (Government of Canada 2012b)
Species listed as endangered or threatened in the Alberta Wildlife Regulation associated with the Alberta Wildlife Act (Government of Alberta 2013h)
NatureServe (2013) rankings as listed in ACIMS (ATPR 2013b)
41
AECOM
6.
Wetlands
Wetlands are defined as areas on land whereby soils have been saturated with water long enough to promote the
growth of hydrophytic vegetation, alter soil composition, and enable other biological activities associated with wet
and/or aquatic environments (Government of Alberta 2013d). Wetlands provide a number of ecosystem services
such as water filtration, storage of water during flood events, sequestration and storage of CO 2, and provide quality
habitat for amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals. In addition, wetlands also provide social benefits. These include
non-consumptive uses such as for recreational and educational purposes or consumptive uses such as for fishing,
hunting, or as a water source (Bond et al. 1992; Government of Alberta 2013d). In Alberta, wetland management is
regulated under Section 36 of the Water Act (Government of Alberta 2013c). As such, a Water Act approval will be
required prior to any works that may result in impacts wetlands.
Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2012reconcile provincial policies and set regional outcomes and objectives as they relate to land use (Government of
Alberta 2014). The draft plan emphasizes the importance of wetlands within the South Saskatchewan Region and
as such will continue to support wetland management under the Alberta Wetland Policy. Furthermore, the plan
encourages municipalities to incorporate watershed planning when evaluating land use applications. The draft plan
outlines the following requirement and recommendations for municipalities as they relate to wetland areas:
Municipalities will aim to diminish the negative effects on water resources by incorporating measures outlined by
the draft plan
Key water resource features should be mapped out by Municipalities; including wetland areas
Land-use patterns must be appropriate for those areas surrounding water resources
Impacts at both the local scale and watershed scale must be considered
The protection of identified water resources must be considered
To reduce future flood risks, developments currently within the flood hazard area should be assessed for long
term re-development
Public access and enjoyment of water features should be facilitated to the extent possible
Where appropriate, municipal planning should be supported by guidance from water and watershed planning
initiatives
The Highwood River Basin is part of the greater Bow River Basin. The BRBC is a charitable organization consisting
of multiple stakeholders working in collaboration to develop programs and activities to encourage recreation,
education, and protection of the water within the watershed (Bow River Basin Council 2012). In 2012, the BRBC
published its phase two of the Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan, which identified wetland and riparian areas
as key priorities that need attention. The key measurable objectives of the plan are:
No further net loss of wetland area
No further net loss of wetland numbers
Percentage of municipalities within the Bow Basin that have wetland conservation guidelines or policies
The following are a list of strategies and recommended actions put forward within the Plan to achieve desired
outcomes using the measureable objectives mentioned above:
Wetland conservation and management policies and bylaws should be developed based on no further loss of
wetland areas and tools and strategies should be created in order to measure and implement, within municipal
boundaries, no net loss
42
AECOM
Wetland conservation restoration and management guidelines should be created; policies and/or bylaws should
be developed based on no additional loss of wetland areas and creation of strategies and tools for measuring
and executing no net loss within agricultural areas
Finalize the provincial wetland policy and release document
Host workshops with experts to:
o Identify areas of high priority within the basin for future wetland and riparian inventories
o Outline an approach to be used to identify all significant wetland and riparian lands within the basin
o Decide if additional management actions are needed
Maintain the efforts to restore and/or reclaim lost or degraded wetlands
In order to maintain and protect important wetland and riparian areas, work between landowners/key
stakeholders and land trusts should continue
Best management practices should be applied to all wetland and riparian lands
A single wetland classification system should be finalized and released for use throughout Alberta
Present workshops to increase awareness of existing conservation and management tools regarding wetlands.
Create a strategy to target the loss of wetland in agricultural areas
Continue with research into groundwater recharge and how wetland function relates to it, as well as surface
water quantity relationships in wetland functions (Bow River Basin Council 2012)
6.1
Methods
6.1.1
Desktop Review
A review of existing site information was conducted using the following literature sources:
Publically available datasets from GeoDiscover Alberta, Geogratis, and/or Geobase
o Alberta Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWCS) Merged Wetland Inventory (AESRD 2012a)
o 2005 Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta
Reference maps, including the outline of the Highwood River Basin
Other relevant literature sources such as previous biophysical reports
Wetland areas within each subregion in the Highwood River basin were determined from the Alberta CWCS wetland
inventory mentioned above using ArcGIS (ESRI 2012).
6.2
Existing Conditions
Wetland data exists for the portions of the Highwood River Basin that fall within the Grassland natural region, as well
as the lower portions of the Montane subregion of the Rocky Mountain natural region, therefore, data was available
for approximately half (54%) of the Highwood River Basin. The wetland dataset acquired from AESRD identified
wetland areas that were classified using the Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWCS; National Wetlands
Working Group 1997). More specifically, permanent or semi-permanent mashes and/or open water bodies were the
only two wetland types that are mapped within the Highwood River Basin (Appendix J4 Figure J4-1). Calculated
wetland areas within each subregion can be found in Table 6-1.
43
AECOM
Table 6-1: Wetland Type and Area within the Highwood River Basin
Subregion/Wetland Type
Foothills Fescue
Area (ha)
1742
Marsh
1545
Open Water
198
Foothills Parkland
791
Marsh
584
Open Water
207
Montane
44
Marsh
16
Open Water
27
Other
1
2577
Total
6.2.1
Wetland Types
6.2.1.1
Marsh
Marshes are shallow wetlands that are prone to fluctuating water levels due to influxes of water (largely from
precipitation and surface runoff) and evaporative fluxes. Marshes are minerotrophic wetlands that have a tendency
to be dominated by graminoid species. Hydrophytic species common to marshes include rushes, reeds, grasses,
sedges, as well as shrubs (namely willows; National Wetlands Working Group 1997). Species composition in
marshes is often grouped in concentric patterns around the deepest portion of the wetland. These species
groupings are based gradient, water depth, frequency of drawdowns or disturbance, and water chemistry (National
Wetlands Working Group 1997).
Marsh wetlands found within the Grassland natural region can also be classified using the Stewart and Kantrud
(1971) wetland classification system for the glaciated prairie region. This classification system accounts and
separates the wetland classes based on the concentric species patterns mentioned above. However, for simplicity
and for the purpose of this report, only the CWCS will be discussed.
6.2.1.2
Open Water
Open water wetlands (or shallow water wetlands) are wetlands that are in transition between being seasonally wet
and being deep permanent water bodies, such as lakes. These wetlands are generally permanently flooded and
typically have a water depth of less than 2 m. The open water portion of the wetland usually accounts for 75% of the
water body. Groundwater is generally responsible for the influx of water into this type of wetland (National Wetlands
Working Group 1997).
6.2.1.3
Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion Wetlands
Wetland areas are common in depressions and landscape lows across the Foothills Fescue natural subregion.
Marshes are generally the most common type of wetland in the area, especially in the level prairie portions of the
subregion. Wetlands are less common in the hillier foothills area.
44
AECOM
6.2.1.4
Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion Wetlands
Open water and marsh do occur within this subregion, but they are less common than in the Grassland natural
region. Wetlands are generally uncommon in the foothills area. Wetlands frequently tend to occur in seepage areas
on lower slope positions.
6.2.1.5
Montane Natural Subregion Wetlands
Wetlands are generally rare within the Montane subregion due to the complexity in terrain. Marshes and open water
wetlands that do occur tend to be found within low-lying floodplains of rivers. Seepage areas can also give rise to
rich calcareous fens.
6.2.1.6
Subalpine Natural Subregion Wetlands
Wetlands are generally uncommon within this subregion due to terrain complexity. The wetland inventory dataset
does not extend into this subregion and as such, wetland areas could not be determined for the purpose of this
study. If wetlands do occur within this subregion, they tend to be found in valley bottoms. Seepage is common
along lower valley slopes (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
6.2.1.7
Alpine Natural Sub-Region Wetlands
Similar to the Subalpine subregion, wetlands tend to be uncommon in the Alpine subregion due to complexity in
terrain. If wetlands occur, they tend to be very small in size. The wetland dataset also excludes this subregion in its
inventory and as such, wetland areas could not be determined.
6.3
Applicable Guidelines
Water Act. Therefore, a Water Act
approval is required prior to any works that may impact a wetland. Compensation for wetland impacts may be
required under the Water Act and the Public Lands Act. Section 2.2.3.2 provides details of the new Wetland Policy
that will be implemented in summer 2014, which should be used for future development planning (Government of
Alberta 2013d).
45
AECOM
7.
Wildlife
The objective of the desktop review was to determine the existing environmental conditions pertaining to wildlife and
wildlife habitat within the Highwood River Basin. The following section summarizes the findings with regards to
wildlife and wildlife habitat.
7.1
Methods
7.1.1
Desktop Review
Information about the Highwood River Basin was obtained through a review of the relevant literature for the site:
Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS)
Reference maps of the Highwood River Basin and surrounding area
Relevant regulatory publications
Publically available Wildlife Sensitivity Datasets (AESRD 2013a)
Relevant literature and electronic sources as described in Section 7.2.1
7.2
Existing Conditions
The Highwood River Basin covers an area of approximately 235,900 hectares. Figure J3-1 in Appendix J3 depicts
the area of the Highwood River Basin and illustrates the extent of the natural subregions. Several wildlife species
are known to occur with the highly diverse and complex mosaic of habitats founds within the Highwood River Basin.
A list of possible wildlife species and records of previously detected species within the Highwood River Basin is
provided in Table J5-1 in Appendix J5.
7.2.1
Species at Risk
A Species at Risk refers to a species of concern officially designated at either the federal or provincial legislation
level. Potential Species at Risk within the Highwood River Basin were compiled from FWMIS data provided by
AESRD. The FWMIS dataset consisted of several bird, mammal, amphibian, and reptilian observations. In addition
to the FWMIS dataset, range distributions of potential species that could occur within the Highwood River Basin
were determined from the following resources: the Birds of North America online database (Poole 2005), the North
American Mammals online database (Smithsonian 2014), the New Stokes Field Guide to Birds Western Region
(Stokes and Stokes 2013), the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2011), Western
Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), Mammals of North America (Reid 2006), and Mammals of Alberta (Pattie
and Fisher 1999).
Based on provincial distributions and the presence of available wildlife habitat, a total of 78 Species at Risk (56
birds, 13 mammals, five amphibians, and four reptiles) have the potential to occur within the Highwood River Basin.
These species, along with their provincial species code, and their rankings are listed in Table 7-1. The locations of
documented Species at Risk within the Highwood River Basin (provided by AESRD) are illustrated in Figures J5-1 to
J5-8 in Appendix J5.
In the Highwood River Basin, six species are ranked under SARA) Government of Canada 2013c) as Special
Concern , five species as Threatened , and one species as Endangered . COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2013) lists 12
46
AECOM
species as Special Concern , six species as Threatened , and two species as Endangered . Under the Alberta
Wildlife Act (Government of Alberta 2013g) and associated Wildlife Regulation (Government of Alberta 2013h), four
species are ranked as Threatened and two are listed as Endangered . A total of six species are listed in Alberta at
the general status level (AESRD 2011a) as At Risk and five are listed as May Be At Risk . In Alberta, the
provincial general status level ranking serves to identify species that should be considered for designation as a
Species at Risk under the Alberta Wildlife Act (Table 7-1).
47
AECOM
Table 7-1: Documented and Potential Wildlife Species at Risk in the Highwood River Basin
Common Name
Scientific Name
Species Code
1
AESRD
2
3
COSEWIC
SARA
Alberta Wildlife Act
4
Schedule
Birds
American Bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus
AMBI
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
American Kestrel
Falco sparverius
AMKE
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
American White Pelican
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
AWPE
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Ammodramus bairdii
BDSP
Sensitive
Special Concern
No Status
-
No Schedule
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BAEA
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Baltimore Oriole
Icterus galbula
BAOR
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Barn Swallow
Hirundo rustica
BRSW
Sensitive
Threatened
No Status
-
No Schedule
Barred Owl
Strix varia
BAOW
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Black Tern
Chlidonias niger
BLTE
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Black-backed Woodpecker
Picoides arcticus
BBWO
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Black-crowned Night-heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
BCNH
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Black-necked Stilt
Himantopus mexicanus
BNST
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Spizella breweri
BWSP
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Broad-winged Hawk
Buteo platypterus
BWHA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Brown Creeper
Certhia americana
BRCR
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Athene cunicularia
BUOW
At Risk
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Schedule 1
Dendroica tigrina
CMWA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Clark's Nutcracker
Nucifraga columbiana
CLNU
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Common Nighthawk
Chordeiles minor
CONI
Sensitive
Threatened
Threatened
-
Schedule 1
Common Yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
COYE
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Ferruginous Hawk
Buteo regalis
FEHA
At Risk
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Schedule 1
Forster's Tern
Sterna forsteri
FOTE
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Aquila chrysaetos
GOEA
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Ardea herodias
GBLH
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Strix nebulosa
GGOW
Sensitive
Not At Risk
-
-
-
Anas crecca
GWTE
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Histrionicus histrionicus
HADU
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
5
5
5
Burrowing Owl
Cape May Warbler
5
5
Golden Eagle
5
Great Blue Heron
Great Gray Owl
5
Green-winged Teal
Harlequin Duck
5
5
48
AECOM
Horned Grebe
Podiceps auritus
HOGR
Sensitive
Special Concern
No Status
-
No Schedule
Least Flycatcher
Empidonax minimus
LEFL
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Aythya affinis
LESC
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Lanius ludovicianus
excubitorides
Numenius americanus
LOSH
Sensitive
Threatened
Threatened
-
Schedule 1
LBCU
Sensitive
-
Schedule 1
Accipiter gentilis
NOGO
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Circus cyaneus
NOHA
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Anas acuta
NOPI
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Glaucidium gnoma
NPOW
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Contopus cooperi
OSFL
May Be At Risk
Threatened
Threatened
-
Schedule 1
Pandion haliaetus
OSPR
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
PEFA
At Risk
Threatened
Schedule 1
Pied-billed Grebe
Podilymbus podiceps
PBGR
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Pileated Woodpecker
Dryocopus pileatus
PIWO
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Falco mexicanus
PRFA
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Progne subis
PUMA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Euphagus carolinus
RUBL
Sensitive
-
Schedule 1
Grus canadensis
SACR
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Tympanuchus phasianellus
STGR
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Asio flammeus
SEOW
-
Schedule 1
Porzana carolina
SORA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Anthus spragueii
SPPI
Sensitive
Threatened
Threatened
-
Schedule 1
Buteo swainsoni
SWHA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Trumpeter Swan
Cygnus buccinator
TPSW
At Risk
Not at Risk
-
Threatened
-
Upland Sandpiper
Bartramia longicauda
UPSA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Western Grebe
Aechmophorus occidentalis
WEGR
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Western Tanager
Piranga ludoviciana
WETA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Western Wood-pewee
Contopus sordidulus
WWPE
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
White-faced Ibis
Plegadis chihi
WFIB
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Lesser Scaup
5
Loggerhead Shrike
Long-billed Curlew
Northern Goshawk
5
5
Northern Harrier
Northern Pintail
5
Northern Pygmy-owl
5
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Osprey
5
5
5
Prairie Falcon
Purple Martin
Rusty Blackbird
5
Sandhill Crane
5
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Short-eared Owl
5
5
Sora
5
Special Concern Special Concern
May Be At Risk Special Concern Special Concern
Mammals
49
AECOM
American Badger
Taxidea taxus taxus
BADG
Sensitive
Special Concern
No Status
-
No Schedule
Bobcat
Lynx rufus
BOBC
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Canada Lynx
Lynx canadensis
CALY
Sensitive
Not At Risk
-
-
-
Fisher
Martes pennanti
FISH
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Ursus arctos
GRBE
At Risk
Special Concern
No Status
Threatened
No Schedule
Lasiurus cinereus
HOBA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Myotis lucifugus
LBBA
Secure
Endangered
No Status
-
No schedule
Long-tailed Weasel
Mustela frenata longicauda
LTWE
May Be At Risk
Not At Risk
-
-
-
Red Bat
Lasiurus borealis
REBA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Neotamias ruficaudus
RTCH
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Lasionycteris noctivagans
SHBA
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Microtus richardsoni
WAVO
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Gulo gulo
WOLV
No Status
-
No Schedule
Grizzly Bear
Hoary Bat
5
5
Little Brown Bat
5
Red-tailed Chipmunk
Silver-haired Bat
5
5
Water Vole
5
Wolverine
May Be At Risk Special Concern
Amphibians
5
Columbia Spotted Frog
Rana luteiventris
SPFR
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Long-toed Salamander
Ambystoma macrodactylum
LTSA
Sensitive
Not at Risk
-
-
-
Northern Leopard Frog
Lithobates pipiens
NLFR
At Risk
Threatened
Schedule 1
Western Tiger Salamander
Ambystoma mavortium
TISA
Secure
Special Concern
-
No Schedule
Anaxyrus boreas
BOTO
Sensitive
-
Schedule 1
5
5
Western Toad
No Status
Reptiles
5
Plains Garter Snake
Thamnophis radix
WPGS
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Prairie Rattlesnake
Crotalus viridis
PRRA
May Be At Risk
-
-
-
-
Thamnophis sirtalis
RSGS
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Thamnophis elegans
WGSN
Sensitive
-
-
-
-
Red-sided Garter Snake
5
Wandering Garter Snake
Notes:
1 = AESRD 2011a, 2 = COSEWIC 2013, 3 = Government of Canada 2012, 4 = Government of Alberta 2013g, 5 = FWMIS species documented within the Highwood River Basin
50
AECOM
7.3
Key Range Layers
The Highwood River Basin falls within two Key Range Layers: the Sharp-tailed Grouse Range and the Sensitive
Raptor Range (Appendix J5, Figure J5-1). Sensitive Raptors include the Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), Prairie
Falcon (Falco mexicanus), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Golden
Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; AESRD 2013a).
7.4
Key Wildlife Layers
Key Wildlife Layers that exist in the Highwood River Basin include the following: the Grizzly Bear Zone, Mountain
Goat and Sheep Areas, Colonial Nesting Birds, and the Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones. Colonial Nesting Birds
include the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) and the American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos;
Appendix J5, Figure J5-1).
7.5
Sensitive Species
Sensitive species refers to wildlife species that fall under one or more of the following criteria: (1) species that are
legally listed under the provincial Wildlife Act and/or under SARA as Endangered or Threatened , (2) species that
are designated as a Species of Special Concern via the provincial detailed status assessment or SARA, and
(3) species that are ranked as At Risk , May Be At Risk , or Sensitive
process (Government of Alberta 2013j). Sensitive species are easily disturbed by human activity, noise, or visual
impacts.
For the purpose of this report, only species with the potential to occur within the Highwood River Basin and are
under provincial and federal legislation (i.e.
Alberta Wildlife Act and SARA) are briefly discussed below. Details concerning their conservation, habitat, threats,
and presence within the Highwood River Basin are highlighted. However, it is important to recognize the importance
of other provincially listed species, particularly those listed in the Wildlife and Range Layers that will be sensitive to
disturbance.
7.5.1
Birds
7.5.1.1
Burrowing Owl
The Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) is federally listed by SARA as Endangered under Schedule 1 and is
designated as
Wildlife Act. Burrowing Owls are migratory birds known to breed in the
open prairies of Alberta, specifically within the Grassland Natural Region (ASRD and ACA 2005). In Alberta, the
Burrowing Owl population has shown a steep and continual population decline from 243 breeding pairs in 1991 to
approximately 35 to 57 pairs between 2003 and 2010 (AESRD 2012b). Threats to the species include habitat loss
and modification, mortality of adults on the breeding grounds, low productivity, mortality on migration or wintering
grounds, human disturbance, and industrial development (AESRD 2012b). Within the Highwood River Basin, a total
of 19 Burrowing Owl records were identified from data provided by AESRD dating back to 1990. The most recent
sightings were in 2008 and 2010. All observations were located within the Foothills Fescue and Foothills Parkland
subregions, and occurred within the Sensitive Raptor Range and the Sharp-tailed Grouse Survey Areas
(Appendix J5, Figures J5-3 and J5-5).
51
AECOM
7.5.1.2
Common Nighthawk
Under federal legislation (SARA) the Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) is listed as
under
Schedule 1. The Common Nighthawk is a migratory bird, which occurs in all Canadian provinces/territories, with the
exception of Nunavut, and has a breeding range that includes all of North America (COSEWIC 2007a). This species
has the potential to occur within all natural regions in Alberta, but it is most commonly found in the Grassland Natural
Region (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007). Important breeding habitat includes open areas where the ground
is lacking vegetation, such as forest clearings, burned areas, beaches, peat bogs, rocky outcrops, prairies, and
pastures (COSEWIC 2007a). The population of Common Nighthawks in Canada is showing a significant long-term
decline (1968 to 2005) of 4.2% per year (COSEWIC 2007a). The most prevalent threat to the species is habitat loss
and alteration; specifically, reforestation, fire suppression, intensive agriculture, and the reduction of flat gravel
covered rooftops (COSEWIC 2007a). No records of Common Nighthawk were found not identified within the
FWMIS dataset for the Highwood River Basin. However, this sensitive species is likely to occur within the area.
7.5.1.3
Ferruginous Hawk
Wildlife Act
ird of prey that is strongly associated with
native grasslands and the Grassland Natural Region in Alberta (AFHRT 2009). Between 1992 and 2000, a severe
population decline occurred within the province (AFHRT 2009). In 2010, there were approximately 643 breeding
pairs in Alberta. Although the population had stabilized since 2000, the number of breeding pairs is still significantly
lower than in 1992 (Moltzahn 2010). Threats to the Ferruginous Hawk include habitat loss and alteration, pest
control on and loss of habitat for their prey species, lack of elevated nest sites, and cumulative impacts of industrial
and infrastructure developments (AFHRT 2009). The Ferruginous Hawk was not documented in FWMIS records
within the Highwood River Basin, but there is potential for the species to exist within the area.
7.5.1.4
Loggerhead Shrike
The Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides
ersed shrubs for nesting. It is
predominantly found in the Grassland Natural Region of Alberta (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). Populations within the
province have been declining since the 1950s (Prescott 2009). The 2008 Loggerhead Shrike survey reported an
estimated 7,721 breeding pairs within Alberta, a 7.3% decline from values reported in the 2003 survey (Prescott
2009). Threats to the Loggerhead Shrike population are largely uncertain, but may include conversion of native
habitat to cultivated land, reduction of prey species, and human disturbance (Prescott and Bjorge 1999). One
FWMIS record for the Loggerhead Shrike was identified within the Highwood River Basin. The observation occurred
within the Foothills Fescue subregion and fell within the Sensitive Raptor Range and Sharp-tailed Grouse Survey
Areas (Appendix J5, Figure J5-3). The observation was of a reproductively mature adult, suggesting that this
species breeds within the area.
7.5.1.5
Long-billed Curlew
Federally, the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus
Schedule 1. Long-billed Curlews are migratory birds known to primarily breed in short-grass or mixed-grass prairies
within the Grassland Natural Region. However, there are some breeding records within the Parkland region (Hill
1998). Long-term declines are thought to be the result of loss of habitat and overhunting in the 1800s. Although
their numbers are greater in Alberta than anywhere else in Canada, Long-billed Curlews may be at risk of declining
in Alberta due to reduced habitat quality caused by drought, and slow population growth. These birds are known to
52
AECOM
have low reproductive outputs and suffer from heavy predation resulting in a naturally slow-growing population (Hill
1998). The Long-billed Curlew was not documented within the FWMIS data, but it is possible for the species to exist
within the Foothills Fescue Natural subregion of the Highwood River Basin.
7.5.1.6
Olive-sided Flycatcher
The Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)
is a migratory bird that breeds throughout much of forested Canada and in the western and the northeastern United
States (COSEWIC 2007b). Within Alberta, the Olive-sided Flycatcher is commonly found in the northern and central
regions, as well as the Rocky Mountain and Foothills Natural Region in the south (Federation of Alberta Naturalists.
2007). It prefers open areas with tall trees or snags to perch on, with forested habitat typically consisting of
coniferous or mixed-coniferous (COSEWIC 2007b). The species has shown a significant and widespread decline
throughout North America and Canada, with a 4% annual decline from 1968 to 2006 (COSEWIC 2007b). The
limiting factors and threats to the Olive-sided Flycatcher are largely uncertain, but may be related to habitat alteration
on their breeding or wintering grounds (COSEWIC 2007b). The Olive-sided Flycatcher was not identified within the
FWMIS dataset for the Highwood River Basin, but there is potential for the sensitive species to occur within all
natural regions of the basin. There are probable and confirmed breeding records in the area (Federation of Alberta
Naturalists 2007).
7.5.1.7
Peregrine Falcon
Wildlife Act, the Peregr
. Peregrine Falcons are migratory birds that are known to nest on
cliffs or banks along major river systems. The majority of the Alberta population is found within the Parkland Natural
Region. This population has increased from one pair in 1991 to 12 pairs in 2001 (Corrigan 2002). Threats to the
species include pesticide pollution, hunting, and human disturbance (Alberta Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team
2005). Within the Highwood River Basin, one Peregrine Falcon was identified within the FWMIS dataset. The
sighting was documented within the Foothills Fescue Natural subregion, and occurred within the Sensitive Raptor
Range, the Sharp-tailed Grouse Survey Area, and the Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (Appendix J5, Figure J5-5).
There is a confirmed breeding record near the basin (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007).
7.5.1.8
Rusty Blackbird
Under federal legislation (SARA) the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus
preferred habitat of the Rusty Blackbird is wet coniferous
forests, specifically peat bogs, swamps, slow-moving streams, beaver ponds, and pasture edges (COSEWIC 2006).
Within Alberta, the species is commonly found in the Boreal Forest, Parkland, and Foothills Natural Regions
(Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007). Globally, 70% of the breeding population is located within Canada
(COSEWIC 2006). Analyses has shown a significant decline in the population, with a 5.1% annual decline from
1966 to 2006 (COSEWIC 2006). The Rusty Blackbird is not protected in Canada under the federal Migratory Birds
Convention Act (Government of Canada 2010) and is often controlled as a pest. Main threats to the population
include the conversion of wetlands into developed lands and bird control programs in the southeastern United States
(COSEWIC 2006). One FWMIS record for the Rusty Blackbird was identified within the Highwood River Basin. The
observation was documented within the Foothills Fescue Natural subregion, and fell within the Sensitive Raptor
Range and the Sharp-tailed Grouse Survey Area (Appendix J5, Figure J5-3). The species sighting was of a
reproductively mature adult, indicating the species could possibly be breeding in the area.
53
AECOM
7.5.1.9
Short-eared Owl
The Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus
Schedule 1. This species is a nomadic owl known to breed in all non-mountainous Natural Regions of Alberta
(Clayton 2000). The Short-eared Owl nests on the ground, most often in mixed-grass prairies. Nesting selection is
predominately determined by abundance of prey in an area. Specific surveys have not been completed for the
Short-eared Owl, but Breeding Bird Surveys suggest a long-term population decline in the province (Clayton 2000).
Threats to the species include habitat loss and degradation, food abundance, and pesticide use (Clayton 2000).
Three Short-eared Owl records were found within the FWMIS dataset for the Highwood River Basin. The population
size is currecntly unknown and the irruptive nature of populations makes population trend assessments extremely
difficult (AESRD 2010b). All observations were detected within the within the Foothills Fescue Natural subregion
and Sensitive Raptor Range and Sharp-tailed Grouse Area (Appendix J5, Figures J5-3, J5-5, and J5-6), with one
sighting located adjacent to a Colonial Nesting Bird and a Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (Appendix J5, Figure
J5-6). Short-eared Owls are known to breed in the region (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007).
7.5.1.10
Anthus spragueii) population of the Canadian prairies (including Alberta) is federally listed as
SARA
. The Alberta population is
considered to be one of the highest density populations of the pipit, but the Alberta population has been
decline has been attributed to anthropogenic habitat alteration and habitat loss from the farming industry. The
suitable cover. As such, cultivated lands do not provide a suitable alternative habitat for the species (Government of
River Basin, has the potential to occur within the Foothills Fescue Natural subregion of the basin. They have been
found in the area during both breeding bird atlases (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007).
7.5.1.11 Trumpeter Swan
The Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) is legally designated and protected as a Threatened species under the
Alberta Wildlife Act based on a very small breeding population (AESRD 2013c). Historically, the Trumpeter Swan
experienced population declines and were believed to be extirpated on a national level in the early 1900 s (James
2000). Trumpeter Swans that breed in Alberta comprise 30% of the Rocky Mountain population, which has recently
demonstrated population growth and range expansion (AESRD 2013c). The Trumpeter Swan has steadily
recovered as a result of breeding/reintroduction programs across Canada and conservation efforts. Recovery efforts
continue through population monitoring and habitat conservation (James 2000). Results from the 2010 Trumpeter
Swan survey revealed that most swans (92%) that breed in Alberta are located within the north western section of
the province (AESRD 2013c), but smaller flocks can be found at appropriate aquatic habitat throughout the province.
Threats to the species include human-cause disturbance of breeding pairs, wetland drainage and alteration, natural
quality wintering habitat (in the United States), and swan collisions with power lines (AESRD 2013c). The Trumpeter
Swan was not identified within the FWMIS dataset for the Highwood River Basin, but it is possible for the species to
occur within the area, particularly on migration.
54
AECOM
7.5.2
Mammals
7.5.2.1
Grizzly Bear
The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is ranked as Threatened under the Alberta Wildlife Act. Presently there is no
federal listing under SARA. The provincial Wildlife Act ranking was based on the small population size of the
anthropogenic activity (ASRD 2008). Human-caused mortality of grizzly bears includes hunting (both licensed and
illegal) and self-defence kills, which are linked to an increase of human activity in the species range. The grizzly bear
has a large diverse home range, with a significant portion occurring within the Rocky Mountain Natural Region
(ASRD and ACA 2010). Although there is no reliable grizzly bear population size estimate in Alberta, there is
concern that the population may be in decline (ASRD 2008). Historically, this species ranged throughout Alberta, but
2008). FWMIS records for the Highwood River
Basin show that the grizzly bear has been observed within the three subregions of the Rocky Mountain Natural
Region and within the Foothills Parkland and Foothills Fescue subregions. Eighteen observations were found to
occur within a mixture of Key Range and Key Wildlife Layers (Appendix J5, Figures J5-2, J5-4, J5-5, J5-7, and J5-8).
7.5.3
Amphibians
7.5.3.1
The prairie population of the northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens
Wildlife Act.
The northern leopard frog population in Alberta historically ranged throughout the Parkland, Foothills, and Grassland
Natural Regions and has experienced drastic declines since the 1970s with little recovery success. Factors thought
to be associated with the northern leopard frog's declines include drought, disease and habitat loss or fragmentation
(Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Team 2005). The northern leopard frog has been found in southern
Alberta along major rivers and tributaries, including areas of the Foothills Parkland Natural subregion at lower
elevations (ASRD 2003). Within the Highwood River Basin, there were four northern leopard frog records from data
provided by AESRD. All sightings were located within the Sensitive Raptor Range and Sharp-tailed Grouse Area
(Appendix J5, Figures J5-3 and J5-8), with the majority of the observations occurring within Key Wildlife and
Biodiversity Zones. All records fell within the Foothills Fescue Natural subregion. The northern leopard frog
observations ranged from reproductively immature to reproductively mature adults.
7.5.3.2
Western Toad
The western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) is federally listed under SARA as Special Concern under Schedule 1. This
species has a large range throughout North America, and can be found in western Alberta as one of few amphibians
that inhabit the Alpine Natural subregion (COSEWIC 2002). Western toads utilize a variety of habitats including
forests, wetlands, clear cuts, and grasslands (COSEWIC 2002). Provincially the western toad is listed as
, the species has seen rapid declines and extirpations throughout the United States (COSEWIC 2002).
Threats to the western toad population include red-leg disease, fungal agents that attack toad eggs, and UV
radiation. The species is susceptible to mass die-offs at the toadlet stage, and can be heavily impacted by spring
storms, summer drought, and early freezing (COSEWIC 2002). Two FWMIS records for the western toad (larval and
young of the year) were identified within the Highwood River Basin, however, this species is known to be more
common the in the area. Both observations were recorded within the Alpine Natural subregion (Appendix J5,
Figure J5-4) and fell within the Grizzly Bear Zone and the Mountain Goat and Sheep Area.
55
AECOM
7.6
Wildlife Timing Guidelines
From the desktop review, a number of environmental conditions pertaining to wildlife and wildlife habitat were
identified within the Highwood River Basin. Several sensitive and key wildlife areas exist (e.g. Grizzly Bear Zone,
Sensitive Raptor Range, Colonial Nesting Birds, etc.), and a number of Species at Risk occur or have the potential
to occur. As such, multiple wildlife surveys, as defined by the Species at Risk ranges in the Landscape Analysis
Tool (LAT), will be required prior to any works being conducted within the Highwood River Basin (Alberta Energy
Regulator 2013). Wildlife surveys and wildlife sweeps will be required for the identification of potential key wildlife
sites. As per the Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines (Government of Alberta 2013j) wildlife surveys need to be
conducted at the proper time of year for species detection. The following sections highlight key timing windows and
setback guidelines.
7.6.1
General Guidelines
Pre-disturbance surveys must be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist or technician experienced with the survey
methods for the targeted species (Government of Alberta 2013j). All surveys should follow the Sensitive Species
Inventory Guidelines (Government of Alberta 2013j) and Class Protocols outlined by AESRD. Prior to surveys, a
search of relevant government resources should be conducted to determine if sensitive species have the potential to
occur in the area (Government of Alberta 2013j). These sources include: FWMIS for species occurrences, biological
staff at the local AESRD office, the LAT for Species at Risk ranges, and the Habitat Suitability Index Model Tool to
evaluate habitat values (Government of Alberta 2013j, Alberta Energy Regulator 2013). All Species at Risk found on
site should have appropriate setback distances and mitigation measures implemented (Government of Alberta
2013j).
7.6.2
Land Use Guidelines
Timing windows and setback guidelines (Table 7-2) apply to various land use/surface disturbance activities, and
were developed by AESRD to protect and maintain key wildlife areas/sites (ASRD 2011b). Such timing windows
and setback guidelines were developed using the best available knowledge on the seasonality of species breeding,
nesting, and rearing activities, in order to identify when the risk of disturbing these species is particularly high (ASRD
2011b). In instances where young or nests are found outside of the restricted activity period, the timing windows
may be extended (ASRD 2011b). Setback guidelines are based on the distance at which human disturbance is
thought to cause degradation and possible site abandonment, and are set according to the impact of the activity.
The recommended wildlife timing windows and setback distances presented in Table 7-2 have been modified from
the AESRD Recommended Land Use Guidelines for Protection of Selected Wildlife Species and Habitat within
Grassland and Parkland Natural Regions of Alberta (ASRD 2011b) to highlight species with the potential to occur
within the Highwood River Basin.
Mountain goat and bighorn sheep are alpine ungulates that flee predator/human disturbances by running along
steep mountain slopes (AESRD 2010c). Several minimum requirements for industrial land use within and adjacent
to mountain goat and bighorn sheep ranges have been developed by AESRD. Some of these minimum
requirements include: industrial land use cannot create new ground access to alpine ranges, industrial activity can
only occur between the timing window of July 1st and August 22nd, is subject to limited geophysical exploration, and
is subject to flight guidelines (AESRD 2010c).
Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones are areas considered key winter ungulate habitat and high biodiversity habitat
(AESRD 2010a). They are typically established along major river valleys and are intended to prevent loss and
fragmentation of habitat, prevent sensory disturbance during periods of thermal or nutritional stress on wildlife, and
56
AECOM
prevent the development of barriers to wildlife corridors (e.g. stream crossings; AESRD 2010a). As per the
recommended wildlife land use guidelines (AESRD 2010a), timing restrictions of no construction between
December 15th and April 30th are enforced due to the impacts on wildlife.
7.6.3
Migratory Bird Restrictions
The MBCA prohibits the harm of migratory birds, their nests, eggs, and habitat. Environment Canada recommends
timing restrictions and setbacks to help identify when the risk of contravening the MBCA is particularly high. In the
southern Parkland and Prairie ecozones of Alberta, Environment Canada restricts activities that cause habitat
destruction (e.g. vegetation clearing, flooding, draining, construction, etc.) in upland areas attractive to migratory
birds between May 1st and August 20th. In wetland areas attractive to migratory birds, this timing window is between
April 15th and August 20th (Environment Canada, Personal Communication 2012).
7.6.4
Alberta Provincial Wildlife Regulation
Wildlife Regulation (Section 96) provides for management and protection of nests and dens of endangered species,
upland game birds, migratory birds, and snake and bats hibernacula. AESRD staff may recommend timing
restrictions on activities to minimize disturbance to the nest of breeding wildlife and birds. Habitat disturbances or
destruction activities (e.g. vegetation clearing, flooding, etc.) should avoid clearing activities from March 15 th to
July 31st at a minimum to reduce disturbance to early nesting species. Timing may be adjusted dependent upon
sensitivity of the species in question. Surveys to determine nesting may be required prior to activity commencing
(AESRD, Personal Communication 2012).
57
AECOM
Table 7-2: Recommended Wildlife Timing Window Guidelines and Setback Distances within the Highwood River Basin
Species
Location
Timing Window
Level of Disturbance
Low
Medium
High
March 15 - July 15
1000m
1000m
1000m
July 16 - March 14
50m
100m
1000m
April 1 - August 15
200m
500m
500m
August 16 - October 15
200m
200m
500m
October 16 - March 31
50m
100m
500m
April 1 - March 31
1000m
1000m
1000m
Birds
Bald Eagle
Burrowing Owl
Nesting Sites
Nesting Sites
Colonial Nesting Birds: American White Pelican1,
Great Blue Heron1
Nesting Sites
Ferruginous Hawk
Nesting Sites
Golden Eagle
Long-billed Curlew
Nesting Sites
September 1 - March 31
100m
100m
1000m
March 15 - July 15
1000m
1000m
1000m
July 16 - March 14
50m
100m
1000m
March 15 - July 15
1000m
1000m
1000m
July 16 - March 14
50m
100m
1000m
Active Nest and Surrounding Habitat
April 1 - July 15
100m
100m
100m
Peregrine Falcon
Nesting Sites
March 15 - July 15
1000m
1000m
1000m
Prairie Falcon
Nesting Sites
Sharp-tail Grouse
Leks
July 16 - March 14
50m
100m
1000m
March 15 - July 15
1000m
1000m
1000m
July 16 - March 14
50m
100m
1000m
March 15 - June 15
500m
500m
500m
June 16 - March 14
100m
100m
500m
Short-eared Owl
April 1 - July 15
100m
100m
100m
Sprague's Pipit
April 1 - July 15
100m
100m
100m
Upland Sandpaper
April 1 - July 15
100m
100m
100m
Upland Areas Nesting Areas
May 1 - August 20
Wetland Nesting Areas
April 15 - August 20
Migratory Birds
Contact Local Wildlife Biologist
Amphibians
Plains Spadefoot
Breeding Ponds
Year Round
100m
100m
100m
Class III Wetlands on Native Prairie
Year Round
100m
100m
100m
Hibernacula
Year Round
200m
200m
500m
Rookery
March 15 - June 15
200m
200m
500m
November 1 - March 14
50m
50m
500m
Reptiles
Prairie Rattlesnake
Miscellaneous
Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones
Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones (mapped zone)
December 15 - April 30
Mountain Goat and Sheep
Mountain Goat and Sheep Ranges (mapped area)
August 23 - June 30
Notes: Information modified from AESRD (2010a, 2010c, 2011b) and Environment Canada personal communication (2012)
58
AECOM
8.
Aquatic Resources
The objective of this assessment was to describe the existing conditions in the Highwood River Basin. The aquatic
environment will be outlined in this section with specific details on the fisheries community and composition.
8.1
Desktop Review
Information about the Highwood River Basin was obtained primarily from AESRD Fisheries and Wildlife
Management Information System (FWMIS; AESRD 2013d). Fisheries data collated by AESRD is available upon
request and represents fishing effort from 1968 to 2012.
Additional literature sources include:
Maps of the proposed Project as provided by AECOM
Reference maps of the proposed Project area
Relevant regulatory publications
Relevant literature sources
8.2
Environmental Setting
A detailed review of the historic aquatic environment of parts of the Highwood River and some important tributaries
is summarized in the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Little Bow Project/Highwood Diversion Plan
(Golder 1995). Computer models were used to analyze historic habitat data to aid in the assessment of fisheriesrelated impacts due to the proposed Highwood Diversion. Given that historical fisheries and habitat data has been
summarized by Golder (1995), this current report will focus on data collated by FWMIS including indicator species
presence and their distribution.
The Highwood River and associated tributaries support a predominantly cold water salmonid fishery with Rainbow
Trout, Brook Trout, Bull Trout, Cutthroat Trout, and Mountain Whitefish. The Highwood River Basin provides very
successful spawning, rearing, and wintering habitat that supports the fish within the Highwood River and Bow River
systems (Golder 1995). Water management and water quality are of great importance for fish, wildlife, and human
use of the Highwood River system. Severe weather events in recent years have severely affected aquatic,
terrestrial, and human environments in the Highwood River Basin. The full extent of the impact of events such as
these on fish communities and fish habitat is unknown.
8.3
Fish Community
Fishing data for 100 water bodies in the Highwood River Basin was provided by FWMIS. These water bodies are
represented by a variety of sizes, capacities, and importance. Fifty-two water bodies are unnamed. No fish were
captured at 44 of the sampling locations.
Twenty-one species were represented in the FWMIS data (Table 8-1; Appendix J6, Table J6-1). Fish were collected
using a variety of methods including electrofishing, nets, angling, and telemetry studies. Electrofishing was
conducted in 93 water bodies, representing the majority of survey effort. Cutthroat Trout were caught in 41 water
bodies and Rainbow Trout were found in 21 water bodies. Brook Stickleback, Brown Trout, Burbot, Emerald Shiner,
Flathead Chub, and Northern Pike were only represented in only one water body.
59
AECOM
The Highwood River had the highest diversity of fish species present (n = 16) with trout, minnows, suckers, and
sculpin present. Tongue Creek had the second highest diversity of species (n = 10). The majority of water bodies
supported few species. Of the water bodies that did have fish collected, only two unnamed water bodies (FWMIS
Water Body ID 26151 and 26171) did not have representatives from the salmonid family. This data reinforces that
the Highwood River system as a valuable cold water system.
Table 8-1: Fish Species That Occur in the Highwood River Basin
Common Name
Scientific Name
Spawning Season
Brook Stickleback
Brook Trout
Culaea inconstans
Salvelinus fontinalis
Summer
Fall
Brown Trout
Salmo trutta
Fall
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus
Fall
Burbot
Lota lota
Winter
Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarki
Spring
Cutthroat X Rainbow Trout hybrid
Spring
Emerald Shiner
Onchorhynchus clarki X
mykiss
Notropis
atherinoides
Late Spring
Fathead Minnow
Pimephales promelas
Spring
Flathead Chub
Platygobio gracilis
Spring
8.3.1
Lake Chub
Couesius plumbeus
Spring
Longnose Dace
Rhinichthys cataractae
Spring
Longnose Sucker
Catostomus catostomus
Spring
Mountain Sucker
Catastomus platyrhynchus
Late Spring
Mountain Whitefish
Prosopium williamsoni
Fall
Northern Pike
Esox lucius
Spring
Pearl Dace
Margariscus margarita
Spring-Summer
Rainbow Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Spring-Summer
Spoonhead Sculpin
Cottus ricei (Nelson)
Spring
Sucker Family
Catastomidae
Various
Trout-perch
Percopsis omiscomaycus
Spring-Summer
White Sucker
Catostomus commersoni
Spring
Water Body Classes and Restricted Activity Periods
AESRD presents Water Body Classes throughout Alberta to provide guidelines for when work can be conducted in
specific water bodies. The Water Body Classes are presented in the Code of Practice (CoP) Area Maps which can
be found on the AESRD website (AESRD 2013d). A large number of water bodies in the study area were either
unmapped (n = 64) or uncoded (n = 74). Within the CoP there are guidelines around how to classify water bodies
that are either uncoded or unmapped. For the purposes of this report and associated tables and figures, uncoded
and/or unmapped water bodies were given the same Class as the water body into which it flowed. Given the large
area and vast number of sample locations and water bodies represented in this basin, this solution was deemed to
provide the most conservative representation of the unmapped and/or uncoded water bodies. Some of the water
bodies may be a lesser Class but will not be a higher Class than presented.
60
AECOM
The Class of Water Body presented in the CoP Management Area Map (AESRD 2013d) and represented in
Appendix J6, Table J6-2 and Figure J6-1 also correlates to a Restricted Activity Period (RAP). The RAP is designed
to protect sensitive habitats and species during key life stage phases such as spawning.
Storm Creek is the only Class A water body identified in the Highwood River Basin. Storm Creek has been
classified as a Class A due to the presence of Bull Trout spawning habitat. There is no RAP for Class A water
bodies as work within, under, over, or adjacent to the channel to protect the important habitat. Recommendations
from a qualified aquatic environmental specialist and consultation and collaboration with AESRD are required when
proposing activities around Class A water bodies.
Flat Creek and Sullivan Creek are Class B water bodies with Rainbow Trout spawning habitat. The AESRD Codes
of Practice must be consulted when proposing work in Class B water bodies. The RAP for Flat Creek and Sullivan
Creek is between May 16th to August 15th and September 1st to April 30th.
The remainder of water bodies in the Highwood River Basin are Class C. There are four RAPs identified depending
on the water body. Water bodies are colour coded according to Class and RAP in Figure J6-1 of Appendix J6. This
figure only includes water bodies for which FWMIS data was available.
8.3.2
Fish Culture Stocking
The Alberta Government stocks fish to assist native species populations, establish new populations in suitable
locations, provide diversity in angling experiences and provide trout fishing. Stocking of Bull Trout, Rainbow Trout,
and Cutthroat Trout within the Highwood River Basin has occurred from 2001 to 2010 in six water bodies.
Figure J6-2 of Appendix J6 illustrates where stocking programs have occurred and Table 8-2 summarizes the
number of fish stocked during each year. It should be noted that locations identified in Figure J6-2 of Appendix J6
correspond to the waypoints provided by FWMIS. Any deviation from the identified waterways on the NTS map is an
artifact of that reported GPS location. Within one decade, over 2 million fish have been stocked in the Highwood
River Basin. The number of fish stocked varies depending on the capacity of the water body and available habitat.
The Chain Lakes Reservoir has been stocked annually with thousands of Rainbow Trout to provide and support an
active recreational trout fishery.
Table 8-2: Number of fish Introduced via Fish Culture Stocking in the Highwood River Basin
Water Body
Species
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
3181
2008
2009
2010
Chain Lakes
Reservoir
Bull Trout
Etherington Creek
Cutthroat Trout
3000
Highwood River
Cutthroat Trout
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Lake of the Horns
Cutthroat Trout
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
Loomis Lake
Cutthroat Trout
350
350
350
Odlum Lake
Cutthroat Trout
400
400
400
Rainbow Trout
214175 204087 208618 120604 217478
207069
205231 240017 213659 207720
3000
3000
61
AECOM
8.3.3
Protected Species
8.3.3.1
Provincial
The Government of Alberta has a provincial database for Species at Risk. Within the Highwood River Basin there
five fish species that have been reported in FWMIS and are listed on the database. Figure J6-3 in Appendix J6
illustrates the water bodies within which each species can be found. The blue lines on the figure represent the
waterways in which none of the listed species have been reported and therefore no data for provincially listed
species is available.
at the provincial general status level and are ranked as
under the Alberta Wildlife Act (AESRD 2010b, 2011a). Sensitive species are not at risk of extinction, but
may require special attention or protection. Overharvesting and/or habitat loss have led to decline sin the
population. Some stocking has occurred historically.
Alberta Wildlife Act (AESRD 2010b
Wildlife Act. Native Cutthroat
Trout populations are threatened by stocking of Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout, which have hybridized leading
to a decline in native Cutthroat Trout populations.
b, 2011a) because there is a risk of extinction or
extirpation and it is therefore, a candidate for a detailed risk assessment. Spoonhead Sculpin are small benthic fish
that live in small populations. Flow regulation or increased sedimentation might cause them to lose advantage to
predators and increase their vulnerability to predators.
b, 2011a).
have been introduced as a result of human activities. Brown Trout are native from Iceland to the White Sea area
and Morocco through Algeria to Turkey and the Caspian and Aral seas (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Brook Trout are
native to northern Manitoba, the Ungava Bay area, Newfoundland, and south to the Carolinas and some Mississippi
headwaters (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Brook Trout and Brown Trout have been successfully introduced throughout
western Alberta, including the Bow River system.
8.3.3.2
Federal
The Species at Risk Act [2002, c.29] (SARA) provides protection for Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and
distinct populations and their critical habitats on federal lands. SARA is a Government of Canada commitment to
protection of wildlife from extinction. The SARA established the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC), which determines the national status of wildlife species based on science and Aboriginal or
community knowledge. A public registry is available to assist in decisions surrounding Species at Risk.
, which indicates that the species is facing
formal, legal review has been conducted and they are protected under the Act.
8.4
Mitigation Measures
AESRD provides a CoP for Pipeline and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body, Watercourse Crossings,
and Outfall Structures on Water Bodies. Each CoP provides recommendations for avoiding negative impacts to
62
AECOM
water bodies and outlines the regulatory requirements depending on the class of water body. The RAP should be
complied with to further avoid impacts to waterways during sensitive spawning periods. Additional information on
CoP is provided in Section 2.2.1.
Under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act (Government of Canada 2013a), DFO provides protection for fish from
Across Canada DFO has established Timing Windows within which time work in or around water should be avoided
to protect fish species during sensitive times, such as spawning. However, in Alberta, DFO defers to the RAP
outlined by AESRD. Additionally, Measures to Avoid Harm are provided by DFO to ensure serious harm to fish and
fish habitat is avoided.
Additionally, updating the model utilized by Golder (1995) with current fisheries and habitat information would be
recommended for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for any future work in the area to predict impacts to
fish and fish habitat. Species distribution and habitat is likely to have changed since 1995, particularly given the
recent severe flood events.
8.5
Potential Project Impacts
Proposed projects in the basin have the potential to impact areas well beyond the basin. Downstream habitats can
be greatly affected by a change in flow rates and as a result, species adapted to this area can be harmed. To
address these potential impacts, the river system should be addressed at an ecosystem level, rather than looking at
flow in terms
The Highwood and Sheep River Basin is the only unobstructed major tributary to the Bow River and is considered an
important spawning and rearing area for both local stocks and the Bow River. Periodic flooding of this area
maintains the riparian forests along the Bow River, and certain species, like cottonwood forests, have adapted to
these flood events and utilize them for recruitment. Ecosystem function relies on natural variability within the flow
regime in all rivers. Therefore, to assess potential impacts of projects to these rivers, an appropriate system to use
is the Natural Flow Paradigm (TWG 2002).
The Natural Flow Paradigm aims to conserve the native biodiversity and ecosystem integrity of all rivers by taking
into account the pattern of natural flow. Flow components have specific functions within a river system and
maintaining the connectivity amongst all components ensures both habitat and species diversity (TWG 2002). Over
many years, species have adapted to take advantage of these dynamic systems and a change to flow patterns could
impact these species and their habitat areas.
Studies have concluded that in order to set ecosystem objectives, the hydrology, geomorphology, biology, water
quality, and connectivity should all be considered, rather than single-flow recommendations, to better succeed in
protecting the integrity of aquatic ecosystems (TWG 2002). As any projects in the basin have the potential to impact
areas outside of the basin, these components should be incorporated in to any plans to ensure minimal disturbance
to downstream ecosystems.
63
AECOM
9.
Historical Resources
The objective of the Historical Resources Overview of the Highwood River Basin was to assess the potential for
archaeological, historical, or palaeontological sites to occur on lands that could be impacted by any proposed
projects or land altering activities in the basin area.
9.1
Methods
The Archaeological Survey of Alberta views the major objective of an overview study to be the provision of a
resource potential sensitivity model that may be used to structure an archaeological resources impact
assessment. On the basis of historical, archaeological, ecological, geographic, and other relevant data, a
predictive model of land use patterns, site locations, and densities can be formulated.
The overview included the following:
An examination of site data files maintained by the Archaeological Survey, Historical Resources Management
Branch, Alberta Culture for archaeological and historic sites and sensitivity maps for palaeontological concerns
(Site Files on file with the Archaeological Survey, Historical Resources Management Branch, Alberta Culture)
Evaluation of known sites within the development zone with a particular focus on site location and function
variables
Developing a model of historical resources potential for the impact area based on known data, topographical
potential, models of land use, and site distribution
Since developments can cause significant disturbances, any archaeological sites within a particular development
area could be destroyed. Historical Resources are recognized in the Province of Alberta as non-renewable
resources, subject to protective measures and defined under the Historical Resources Act (Government of Alberta
2013f). Historical resource sites are considered fragile and precious, and easily suffer damage or destruction from
such activities as road and pipeline construction, route realignments, construction activities, landscaping, soil and
gravel removal, recreational activities, and landfill development. Once the context is disturbed or destroyed, the
information and interpretive value of historical resources are seriously affected, and in some cases, lost forever.
9.2
Existing Condition
9.2.1
Predicting Historical Resource Potential
The assessment of Historical Resources potential involves the evaluation of previously recorded sites, coupled with
information from models of settlement patterns (ethnography and history), local topography, and biogeoclimatic
features of the region. From these studies, a set of prediction variables can be selected which are used to
characterize a defined area of interest.
Predicting the occurrence of historic period sites is an exercise not usually undertaken because the distribution of
historic sites is generally known. Historic period sites are, for the most part, visible features such as buildings,
farms, or cabins. In areas that have been settled for many years, sites of this type are well known, mapped, and
documented, and in some cases recorded as provincially designated sites.
The prediction of palaeontological resources is also different from that of archaeological sites. Palaeontological
resources are associated with fossil bearing geological formations. The distributions of these formations for the
most part are known. Therefore, predicting the occurrence of palaeontological resources can at times be achieved
by knowing the existence of fossil bearing strata. Another important consideration regarding palaeontological sites is
that developments usually only impact the upper sediments, thereby missing the fossil bearing formations found
below the surface of the earth. In such cases, concern for palaeontological resources is unnecessary since
64
AECOM
potentially sensitive areas will not be impacted. In general, any development activity that affects bedrock formations,
especially in the valley breaks of any major waterway, will require a Palaeontological consultant to evaluate the area.
Otherwise, developments that will not disturb the surficial geological strata that contain the fossil bearing formations
are not of concern.
9.2.1.1
Previously Recorded Resources
As of December 2013, there have been over 25,000 archaeological sites, over 2,000 palaeontological sites, and
over 70,000 historic sites recorded within the Province of Alberta (Site Files on file with the Archaeological Survey,
Historical Resources Management Branch, Alberta Culture). The majority of the historic sites are standing
structures found within existing settlements and are not commonly of concern to land developments that occur
outside of recently or historically settled areas. Of the three historical resource site types, archaeological sites are
most often of concern when land areas are to be altered or disturbed.
While a large number of historic sites have been recorded in Alberta, only some are deemed to be historically
significant due to the large numbers of similar sites or structures. Those sites or structures that are considered to be
significant must be unique or are associated with significant historic personages or events.
In the case of archaeological sites, the knowledge of prehistoric settlement patterns is partially based on
ethnographic accounts of native settlement within a region, which is derived from previously recorded sites in any
given area.
Expectations of palaeontological site occurrence are based on known distributions of fossil bearing landforms.
9.2.2
Archaeological Site Potential
The assessment of archaeological site potential within a defined development area involves two main objectives:
(1) characterization of the development area in relation to relevant past research and (2) evaluation of the existence
of specific characteristics of site prediction within the development zone. The purpose of the first objective is to
identify specific characteristics of a site location, including known patterns of native settlement, prehistoric settlement
patterns, and characteristics of the development area that may be considered good indicators of past and historic
cultural settlement.
The aim of the second objective is to identify the existence of the above site location predictors within the proposed
development area. These include distinct geographical situations that can be linked to settlement patterns and
resource use to determine archaeological potential (Table 9-1). The most commonly applied variables used to
determine archaeological site potential in Alberta are listed in Table 9-2.
65
AECOM
Table 9-1: List of Distinct Geographic Features used in the Assessment of Archaeological Potential
Feature
Stream Valley
Potential
Moderate
Stream Terrace
High
Lake Margin
High
Upland Grasslands
Low
Upland Forest
High
Glacial Terrace
Moderate
Remnant Dune
High
Prominent Hill
High
Disintegration Moraine
Moderate
Table 9-2: List of Site Prediction Variables Used in the Assessment of Archaeological Potential
Variable
Potential
Slope > 20°
Elevated areas near water sources
Low to None
Moderate to High
Proximity to resources
Proximity to water
Moderate to High
Moderate to High
Proximity to known archaeological site(s)
Well-drained sediments
High
Moderate to High
Poorly-drained sediments
Aspect - South Facing
Aspect - North facing
None
High
Low
No distinctive geographic or topographic
features
Proximity to historic settlement
Previous or existing disturbance
None
High
Low
Based on the sets of variables listed above, the determination of the potential of archaeological sites in a project
area can result in one of two possible recommendations being selected. Either no further work is necessary or an
Historical Resources Impact Assessment is required.
9.2.3
The changing physical environment, including geomorphological features and resource availability, plays a role in
the selection of areas that were used by animals and humans in the past. An understanding of the environmental
settings and changes through time allow us to predict in part where archaeological, historic, and palaeontological
sites are most likely to occur. Certain landforms and geomorphological features are commonly found in association
with prehistoric, historic, and palaeontological sites. For example, archaeological sites are frequently found along
streams and near lakes. During prehistoric times, these locations provided fresh water and transportation, were
focal points for wildlife, and were the source of other food resources. The beneficial attributes of these areas would
be just as attractive in the past as they are today. In the same manner, flat, well-drained terrain, and sunny, warm
southern exposures would also be considered important criteria for the location of habitation sites.
66
AECOM
9.2.4
Cultural Setting
The earliest evidence for human occupation in Alberta dates to the end of the last glaciation (approximately 12,000
years BP; Peck 2011). The Prehistoric Period spans the time from the earliest occupations up to the arrival of the
first Europeans. The Prehistoric Period includes the period of time before direct contact occurred between
Europeans and native peoples where European culture modified native culture through trade and the introduction of
new ideas, well before the first Europeans set foot in the region.
Prehistoric sites in the province of Alberta are divided into various categories that reflect site function. The categories
include:
Isolated finds where generally a single artifact is not found in association with any other archaeological materials
or features
Scatters, which are usually small assemblages of lithic material from which it is difficult to draw conclusions
about the site's original function
Campsites which contain a variety of materials and possibly features
Stone features that are present without artifacts
Workstations where a specific task, such as butchering, plant processing, or stone tool manufacture, took place
Kill sites
Quarries where lithic material for stone tool manufacture was mined
Rock art
Human burials
Ceremonial sites
These typological classifications are commonly used by archaeologists to develop chronological understandings
of prehistoric peoples. However due to the small size of many of the archaeological assemblages, artifact
collections are often poorly preserved or are from poorly understood contexts, which limits the information that
can be determined from these collections. Research has produced some useful information about the
distribution of archaeological sites on the landscape, but much of the prehistory of Alberta remains unknown.
9.2.5
Previously Recorded Historical Resources
Archaeological sites in the Province of Alberta are recorded in the Archaeological Site Inventory Data files of the
Archaeological Survey, Historical Resources Management Branch, Alberta Culture (Alberta Culture 2014). Site
location information is maintained using a geographical system known as the Borden System , which relies on
existing zones of longitude and latitude (Borden and Duff 1952). Each longitude and latitudinal zone is divided into
smaller areas which are identified by individual numbers, called Borden Blocks (e.g. GbQh). The capital letters refer
to units that are two degrees of latitude by four degrees of longitude in size. These units are further divided into
units which are ten minutes on a side, identified by the lower case letters. Sites found within these Block areas are
given sequential numbers, such as GbQh-1, GbQh-2, etc. All previously identified archaeological sites are
geographically recorded using this system. .
The Borden Blocks pertinent to the Flood Recovery Task Force Highwood River Basin project area are: EaPp,
EaPq, EbPn, EbPo, EbPp, EbPq, EcPm, EcPn, EcPo, EcPp, EcPq, EcPr, EdPk, EdPl, EdPm, EdPn, EdPo, EdPp,
EdPq, EdPr, EdPs, EePk, EePl, EePm, (Table 9-3 and Appendix J7, Figure J7-1). Appendix J7 (Table J7-1 and
Figures J7-2 to J7-25) shows the number of previously recorded sites in the Borden Blocks within the Highwood
River Basin.
67
AECOM
Table 9-3: Total Numbers of Historical Resources Sites within the Borden Blocks or Portions of Borden
Blocks Encompassed by the Highwood River Basin
Borden Block
Number of Previously
Recorded Sites
EaPp
0
EaPq
0
EbPm
0
EbPn
8
EbPo
5
EbPp
63
EbPq
10
EcPm
2
EcPn
22
EcPo
1
EcPp
29
EcPq
24
EcPr
0
EdPk
2
EdPl
61
EdPm
6
EdPn
19
EdPo
4
EdPp
0
EdPq
7
EdPr
11
EdPs
0
EePk
58
EePl
97
EePm
0
Total number of sites
429
While a large number of sites have been previously recorded within the basin, not all are considered to be significant
by Alberta Culture. Sites that are considered to have little information potential beyond their presence in a given
area are assigned an Historical Resources Value = 0. Table 9-4 lists all the site types that have been previously
recorded in the Highwood River Basin
68
AECOM
Table 9-4: List of Previously Located Historical Resources Site Types found in the Highwood River Basin
Site Types
HRV=1 HRV=3 HRV=4 HRV=0 N/A Total Number of
Sites
Prehistoric Sites
Campsite
Campsite, stone feature
Campsite, burial, collection
Campsite, collection
Campsite, killsite
Campsite, quarry
Campsite, structure
Campsite, workshop
Collections
Isolated finds
Isolated find, collection
Killsite
Quarry
Rock art
Scatter
Scatter campsite
Scatter, stone feature
Scatter, campsite, stone feature
Scatter, workshop
Scatter, collection
Stone feature
Stone feature, settlement
Stone feature, religious, ceremonial
Workshop
Prehistoric Total
124
5
13
1
1
7
5
1
112
1
1
1
17
1
4
26
2
7
1
5
2
1
1
23
1
1
1
1
1
191
16
7
1
2
1
6
1
1
4
211
1
1
236
6
1
1
30
1
1
8
4
26
2
12
2
1
21
9
2
1
2
1
29
2
1
6
405
Historic Sites
Burial (historic)
Canal entry gate
Coal mine
Historic feature/remains
Homestead
Police posts
Ranch
Structure remains
Trading posts
Historic Total
4
16
4
1
1
1
6
3
2
1
1
4
20
Palaeoenvironmental
Palaeontological
Paleo Total
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
4
208
218
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
1
1
Paleo-Sites
Total of all sites
1
1
1
429
69
AECOM
Most of the archaeological sites found within the Highwood River Basin have been found in close proximity to major
rivers or their tributaries, and only a few of the sites have been found more than 1 km from a water resource
(Anderson and Poole 1976; Balcom and Hoffert 1990; Bobrowsky and Gibson 1986; Borden and Duff 1952; Brewer
1991a, 1991b; Clavelle 1999; Cockle 1993; Federchuk 1986; Forbis and Rogers 1973; Gillespie 2010; Gryba
1982,1994, 2002; Haley 1984; Hanna 2000, 2001; Head and Calder 1979; Heitzmann 1984; Heitzmann et al. 1980;
Light 1987, 1994a, 1994b, 2002; McCullough 1979; McCullough and Reeves 1978a and 1978b; McFee 1979; Peach
2004; Peck 2011; Pollock 1984; Poole and Reeves 1974; Ramsay 2010; Reeves and Short 1997; Reeves and Head
1976; Siegfried and Ramsay 2004; Vivian 2006; Vivian et al. 1997; Wilson 1979; Wood 1979; Wyman 2007; Wyman
and Spicer 2007). Most of the sites previously located are in the eastern part of the basin in Borden Blocks EdPl,
EePk, and EePl (Appendix J7, Figures J7-2 to J7-25). These locations are where significant road, pipeline,
infrastructure, and housing developments have occurred in and around Okotoks and High River.
The earliest sites recorded in the Highwood River Basin were recorded by the Glenbow in 1958, 1960, and 1961,
which consisted of two campsites, one campsite/kill site, one rock art site, six stone feature sites, and one kill site.
Most of the sites previously located in the basin were located during archaeological surveys undertaken in 1970,
1971, 1973, and 1974 by archaeologists from the Archaeology Department at the University of Calgary (Forbis and
Rogers 1973). The University of Calgary surveys were surface surveys and no subsurface examinations were
undertaken. A total of 270 sites were recorded (Gryba 1982; Heitzmann et al. 1980). Few sites have been recorded
at any distance away from water courses.
driven, and most of these surveys have been in the eastern half of the study area.
The majority of the sites previously located in the basin were campsites (236; Table 9-4). Campsites are sites that
contain at least two of the following items: lithic artifacts, bone, fire-cracked, hearths, and/or rock features such as
tipi rings. The next most numerous site types are scatters (with or without additional cultural items or features),
campsite/kill sites, stone features (cairns and tipi ring), and isolated finds. The most significant sites recorded in the
study area are an HRV=1 site (a rock art site (EcPp-1)), which is now a Designated Historic Site that consists of
pictographs on rock face on a rocky ridge, and an HRV=3 site (a ceremonial site) that consists of rock circles and
associated stone features (the Highwood Medicine Wheel).
The historic sites found within the study area consist of an historic native burial, cabin, homestead, or other structure
remains, police posts, early trading posts, an old coal mine, a canal gate, and an historic ranch. The
palaeontological sites identified in Table 9-3 consist of bison remains eroding out of creek bank (EdPl-5), a bison
bone eroding from a gravel bed (EbPp-37), gastropods and bison bone on glaciolacustrine material (EePl-2), and a
volcanic ash layer approximately 1 m below surface (EePk-12).
All sites of historic significance are listed by the Archaeological Survey, Historical Resources Management Branch,
Alberta Culture in a Listing of Significant Sites that is updated and issued each year by Alberta Culture.
The Significant Sites Listing assigns Historical Resources Values from 1 to 5 for each site or legal land titles area
that Alberta Culture has identified as being significant:
HRV=1 means that there is a designated site or protected area present. These areas are rarely if ever allowed to
be impacted.
HRV=2 means there is a registered historic site present and these too would not normally be allowed to be
impacted.
HRV=3 means there is significant Historical Resources site present and these may be allowed to be impacted,
but only following instructions from Alberta Culture regarding required mitigative measures (excavations).
HRV=4 means there is a site or sites present that have not been fully assessed and these are required to have
an Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) performed. They have to be revisited and assessed, and
based on the findings of the HRIA it may be deemed necessary to conduct mitigative studies for these sites.
70
AECOM
HRV=5 means that there is high potential for the presence of Historical Resources sites in this area
(archaeological, historic, palaeontological) and an HRIA may possibly be required for these areas depending on
the project and its degree of impact.
It should be noted that unlike the previously located Historical Resources sites which can be given an HRV=0 if they
are deemed not significant (HRV range 0 to 4), all of the sites or areas identified in the Significant Sites Listing are
considered to hold archaeological potential, and an HRV=5 is given to areas that appear to have potential, but which
have not been previously assessed.
The Historical Resources sites and Legal Land Title areas identified in the Significant Sites Listing as having an HRV
of 1 to 5 are presented in Appendix J7 (Table J7-2 and Figures J7-26 to J7-49). Areas of significance are identified
down to the Legal Sub-Division (LSD). Depending on the sites and terrain found in any given location, individual
LSDs can have more than one HRV if two or more sites of differing significance are located in the same LSD or if the
LSD has both palaeontological significance and archaeological significance. For the purposes of this study the
-2 in Appendix J7.
highest value is assigned to
9.3
Mitigation Measures
9.3.1
Archaeological Prediction Criteria Employed for the Highwood River Basin
Archaeological site prediction for the Highwood River Basin is based upon a defined set of descriptive variables. For
each segment of the basin, the occurrence of these variables determines archaeological potential. These variables
commonly include: cultural and biogeoclimatic zones, distinct geographic or topographic features, slope, aspect,
proximity to water sources, sedimentation/drainage, elevation, proximity to open meadows, proximity to known
archaeological sites, and proximity to historic settlements.
Based on the review of the known sites located in the basin and a review of Historical Resources survey reports
done for work within the basin, coupled with the known environmental and topographic data, we formulated a set of
variables or criteria that tend to be associated with previously located archaeological sites.
While the archaeological information currently available for the study area is insufficient to accurately predict site
densities, water availability is the overwhelming environmental predictor of archaeological site potential. Most sites
that have been found in the study area tend to be located near existing or extinct sources of water, particularly in and
along river or stream valleys. It may be that this is an artifact of research bias given the fact that these are the
areas, which yield the most sites throughout Alberta and elsewhere, and these areas have therefore been the focus
of previous studies. Another possibility is that river valley areas may have more areas of exposure caused by
erosion than more protected areas. As such, finding sites is more difficult on the open grasslands and in the forests
of the foothills and mountains.
9.3.1.1
The prediction of historical resource locations, and in particular archaeological sites, is in part based on
environmental descriptions of known site locations. Site locations in different regions display different environmental
variables and are essential for predictive studies.
71
AECOM
9.3.1.3
Geographic Variables
The geographical variables that appear to be most commonly associated with the occurrence of archaeological sites
in the study area are:
Areas immediately surrounding present-day lakes, especially flat, well-drained and south-facing
terraces
Major river valley terraces, especially flat and well-drained landforms
Major river valley rims, especially high promontories along the valleys and flat, well-drained
sections which hold the potential for containing stratified cliff-top dune deposits
Confluences of major and minor streams and rivers, especially flat and well-drained landforms in
the immediate vicinity
Creek and stream terraces, especially flat, well-drained and south-facing sections
Mountain passes that may have been used as prehistoric transportation routes
It should be noted that the pattern suggested by the above characteristics, and the limited number of sites recorded
away from waterways, is prejudiced by the fact that traditional archaeological survey often focused on the
examination of lakes, streams, their associated features, and easily accessible areas. This practice is particularly
common where access is difficult and site visibility is greatly reduced by heavily wooded areas. Locations in the
basin that display the same biogeoclimatic character or environmental features may similar levels of archaeological
potential to previously known sites. While previous archaeological investigation in most of the Highwood River Basin
has not been comprehensive, known sites suggests that there is potential for undisturbed Historical Resources sites.
A list of areas considered to have medium to high Historical Resources potential are presented in Appendix J7
(Table J7-2 and on Figures J7- 26 to J7-49).
Most of the archaeological sites previously recorded in the study area have been located in the vicinity of water
resources. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the areas we consider to have archaeological potential are
along water courses or by small lakes in the basin. Grassland areas away from water resources are considered to
have low to no potential, and due to cultivation, the probability of undisturbed cultural resources is low. The forested
areas of the foothills and mountainous areas away from water resources also are considered to have low potential
because shrubs and trees reduce the chance of discovering archaeological sites. In the mountainous areas severe
slopes diminish archaeological potential.
9.4
Summary
The areas identified in the Significant Sites Listing as having
of 1 to 5 indicate some level of archaeological or
palaeontological assessment will be needed in each identified area before any form of development can proceed.
This assessment can be in the form of an Historical Resources Overview (Statement of Justification), Historical
Resources Impact Assessment, Historical Resources Mitigation, or palaeontological overview, all of which must
comply with Alberta Culture requirements. The most minor form of assessment (Historical Resources Overview Statement of Justification) would be required for areas given an HRV of 5. Once Submitted, Alberta Culture would
either issue a Clearance to proceed with the project, or would issue a Requirement Letter indicating that further
archaeological or palaeontological assessment work is required.
The areas identified as having medium to high archaeological potential should be considered to be in the same
category as the HRV=5 areas, which at a minimum require an Historical Resources Overview (Statement of
Justification) for each area that will be affected by any development. It should be noted that Alberta Culture has the
final say regarding the need for Historical Resources Assessments in any given area, and each development is
evaluated individually (Government of Alberta 2013f).
72
AECOM
10.
Environmental Conclusions and Recommendations
The desktop review of the Highwood River Basin identified a number of environmental concerns. Several sensitive
areas exist within the basin, and have been established to protect and to preserve areas from development. Such
areas include: one Provincial Park, two Natural Areas, the OH Ranch Heritage Rangeland, 17 Provincial Recreation
Areas, one Ecological Reserve, and the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve. Furthermore, numerous Eastern Slopes
Land Use Zones, 14 Environmentally Significant Areas, key range layers (Sharp-tailed Grouse, Sensitive Raptor
Range, and Endangered and Threatened Plants Ranges) and key wildlife layers (Mountain Goat and Sheep Areas,
Grizzly Bear Zone, Colonial Nesting Birds, and Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones) occur within the basin.
Development restrictions and guidelines exist for some of the aforementioned designated areas. Detailed
information pertaining to these restrictions and guidelines are highlighted in Sections 2, 3, and 7.7.
The Foothills Fescue and Foothills Parkland Natural Subregions are areas where a large portion of the landscape
within the basin supports the growth of spring-seeded small grains and oil seeds. Conversely, lands within the
Rocky Mountain Natural Region are poorly suitable for agricultural uses due to the moderate to high slope classes,
thin to absent topsoil, and inadequate climate. In general, landforms and soils associated with major tributaries
demonstrated the least suitable land for agricultural use. The dominant suitability of topsoil and subsoil within the
basin for reclamation operations was rated as fair. Soils within the vicinity of existing tributaries are poorly suited for
reclamation operations due to thin or absent topsoil horizons and poor soil texture. The risk of soil erosion by wind
and water is greatest near existing tributaries and lowest in areas associated with Orthic Black Chernozemic soils,
which dominate the eastern portion of the basin.
Setback distances are required by both federal and provincial governments for rare plant species designated under
the federal Species at Risk Act as well as the provincial Wildlife Act. For provincially designated rare plant species,
a minimum setback distance of 30 m is required for low and medium level disturbances and 300 m for high level of
disturbance activities (ASRD 2011b). For federally designated rare plant species, Class 1 disturbances (e.g. walking
or grazing) are considered unrestricted activities, Class 2 (e.g. above-ground transmission lines, mowing, etc.)
require a minimum setback of 30 m, while Class 3 disturbances (e.g. pipelines, ROWs, excavations, etc.) require
setback distances of at least 300 m (Canadian Wildlife Service 2011).
Wetlands provide many ecosystem services within the basin, most notably for flood attenuation. Any activities that
have the potential to impact wetland resources within the basin will require a Water Act approval prior to
construction.
A total of 78 wildlife Species at Risk have the potential to occur within the basin, with federal and provincial rankings
established by the provincial government to protect and maintain key wildlife species and areas. These guidelines
and setback distances, specific to the basin, are summarized in Table 7-2. Furthermore, Environment Canada
restricts activities that cause habitat destruction (e.g. vegetation clearing, flooding, draining, construction, etc.) in
upland areas attractive to migratory birds between May 1st and August 20th, and in wetland areas, the restriction
occurs between April 15th and August 20th (Environment Canada, Personal Communication 2012). All wildlife
surveys must be conducted at the proper time of year to ensure species of interest are detected.
Class A, B, and C watercourses, as defined under the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings, exist within the
basin and have set guidelines indicating when works can be conducted. Restricted Activity Periods (RAPs) are
determined by know spawning habitat and potential fish species presence. The RAP is designed to protect sensitive
habitats and species during key life stage phases (e.g. spawning). RAPs may extend over a spring-summer period,
and/or during a fall-winter period. Special attention should be given to the class of individual water bodies during the
73
AECOM
planning stages of a project to ensure that works do not interfere with critical spawning activities, and in the case of
Class A water bodies, if works are allowed. A total of three fish Species at Risk have been reported within the basin:
the Cutthroat Trout, Spoonhead Sculpin, and Bull Trout. Cutthroat Trout are ranked under the Alberta Wildlife Act
evel. Spoonhead Sculpin and Bull
Historical Resources are recognized in Alberta as non-renewable resources that are defined under the Historical
Resources Act and are subject to protective measures (Government of Alberta 2013e). Previously mapped
archaeological sites within the basin have been identified near major waterways, many of which were classified as
campsites. Prehistoric sites (n = 405), historic sites (n = 20), and natural sites (n = 4) have been documented in the
area with variable HRVs, most of which were located in the eastern part of the basin. Areas with HRVs of 1 to 5
indicate that some level of archaeological or palaeontological assessment will be required prior to any development.
Multiple environmental and historical resource assessments will need to be completed for any proposed
development activities within the basin. Federal and provincial legislation as well as land use guidelines must be
included during the planning stages of any project and adhered to prior to development. Mitigation strategies are
encouraged in areas identified as sensitive within the Highwood River Basin.
74
AECOM
11.
References
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. 1965. Canada Land Inventory. Soil Capability Classificaton for
Agriculture. Dept. of Forestry and Rural Development. Ottawa: Reprinted by Dept. of Environment in 1969 and 1972.
Agronomic Interpretations Working Group. 1995. Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops: 1. Springseeded small grains. Tech. Bull., Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Ottawa.
Alberta Culture. 2014. Archaeological Sites Inventory, Archaeological Survey, Historical Resources Management
Branch, Alberta Culture.
Alberta Energy Regulator. 2013. Integrated Standards and Guidelines Enhanced Approval Process (EAP). Retrieved
2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/enhanced-approval-process/eap-manualsguides/documents/EAP-IntegratedStandardsGuide-Dec01-2013.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013a. Wildlife Sensitivity Maps
Sets. Retrieved 2014, from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development:
http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx
Data
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013b. Endangered and Threatened Plant
Ranges (Shapefile). Retrieved 2014, from Wildlife Sensitivity Maps:
https://extranet.gov.ab.ca/srd/geodiscover/srd_pub/LAT/FWDSensitivity/EndangeredAndThreatenedPlantsRanges.zi
p
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013c. Alberta Trumpeter Swan Recovery
Plan 2012-2017. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/speciesat-risk-publications-web-resources/birds/documents/SAR-TrumpeterSwan-RecoveryPlan-Mar2013.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013d. Fisheries & Wildlife Management
Information System (FWMIS). Retrieved December 2013 from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/fwmis/default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2012a. Alberta CWCS Merged Wetland
Inventory. (Government of Alberta; Ducks Unlimited Canada; Ducks Unlimited Inc.; United States Forest Service;
The PEW Charitable Trusts; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (Al-Pac);
Weyerhaeuser Company Limited; Suncor Energy Foundation; Imperial Oil Resources; Lakeland Industry &
Community Association (LICA); Shell Canada; EnCana Corporation; Canadian Boreal Initiative; Environment
Canada (EC); Canadian Space Agency (CSA): Funding Partners) Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2012b. Alberta Burrowing Owl Recovery
Plan 2012-2017. Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 21. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/birds/documents/SARBurrowingOwlAlberta-RecoveryPlan-Oct2012.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2011a. Recommended Land Use
Guidelines for Protection of Selected Wildlife Species and Habitat within Grassland and Parkland Natural Regions of
Alberta. Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-useguidelines/documents/WildlifeLandUse-SpeciesHabitatGrasslandParkland-Apr28-2011.pdf
75
AECOM
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2011b. Wild Species Status Search.
Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/wild-species-status-search.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2010a. Recommended Land Use
Guidelines: Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones. Retrieved 2014, from Recommended Land Use Guidelines:
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-use-guidelines/documents/WildlifeLandUseKeyWildlifeBiodiversityZones-Dec03-2010.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2010b. General Status of Alberta Wild
Species 2010. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWi
ldSpecies2010/Default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2010c. Recommended Land Use
Guidelines for Mountain Goat and Bighorn Sheep Ranges in Alberta. Retrieved 2014, from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-use-guidelines/documents/WildlifeLandUseMountainGoatBighornSheepRange-Oct30-2010.pdf
Alberta Ferruginous Hawk Recovery Team (AFHRT). 2009. Alberta Ferruginous Hawk Recovery Plan 2009-2014.
Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 17. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/birds/documents/SARRecoveryPlanFerruginousHawkAlberta-Feb2009.pdf
Alberta Native Plant Council (ANPC). 2012. Rare Vascular Plant of Alberta. (L. Kershaw, J. Gould, D. Johnson, & J.
Lancaster, Eds.) Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press.
Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Team . 2005. Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Plan 2005-2010.
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta. Species at Risk Recovery Plan No.
7. Edmonton, AB. 26 pp.
Alberta Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 2005. Alberta Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan 2004-2010. Alberta
Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 3. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/speciesat-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/birds/documents/SAR-AlbertaPeregrineFalconRecoveryPlanMar2005.pdf
Alberta Soil Information Centre (ASIC). 2006. Alberta Soil Names File (Genera
M.D. Bock, J.A. Brierley, B.D. Walker, C.J. Thomas, Land Resource Unit, Research Branch, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada.
Alberta Soil Information Centre (ASIC). 2001. AGRASID 3.0: Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database
(Version 3.0). (T. M. J.A. Brierley, Ed.)
Alberta Soils Advisory Committee. 1987. Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation (revised).
Prepared by the Soil Quality Criteria Working Group. Alberta Agriculture. Reprinted .
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association (ASRD and ACA). 2010. Status
of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta: Update 2010. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved 2014, from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-webresources/mammals/documents/SAR-StatusGrizzlyBearAlbertaUpdate2010-Feb2010.pdf
76
AECOM
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association (ASRD and ACA). 2005. Status
of the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Alberta: Update 2005. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved 2014, from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/birds/documents/SARStatusBurrowingOwlAlberta-Sep2005.pdf
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2012. Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing - 2010.
Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/albertas-species-at-risk-strategy/generalstatus-of-alberta-wild-species-2010/documents/SAR-2010WildSpeciesGeneralStatusList-Jan2012.pdf
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013.
Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-riskpublications-web-resources/mammals/documents/SAR-GrizzlyBearRecoveryPlan2008-2013-Dec2008.pdf
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2007a. Status of the Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis) in Alberta.
Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 62. Retrieved 2014, from Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 62:
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/plants/documents/SARStatusLimberPine-Jun2007.pdf
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2007b. Status of the Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) in
Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 63. Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-atrisk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/plants/documents/SAR-StatusWhitebarkPineAlberta-Nov2007.pdf
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2003. Status of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) in
Alberta: Update 2003. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 9 (Update 2003). Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-webresources/amphibians/documents/SAR-StatusNorthernLeopardFrogAlberta-Mar2003.pdf
Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation (ATPR). 2013a. Legislation & Regulations. Retrieved December 10, 2013,
from Alberta Parks: http://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/legislation-regulations.aspx
Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation (ATPR). 2013b. Alberta Conservation Information Management System
(ACIMS). List of All Tracked and Watched Elements. Alberta, Canada. Retrieved 2014, from
http://albertaparks.ca/media/387336/list_of_all_elements.xls
Anderson, R. and C. Poole. 1976. Heritage Resource Inventory and Assessment of Proposed Highways Plains
Region 1976. Permit Report 75-015 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Balcom, R.J. and T. Hoffert 1990. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Okotoks-Mazeppa Gas Pipeline. Permit
Report 90-012 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Bobrowsky, P.T. and T.H. Gibson. 1986. 1985 Alberta Transportation and Parks and Recreation Projects Historical
Resources Impact Assessment. Permit Report 85-030 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Bond, W. K., Cox, K. W., Heberlein, T., Manning, E. W., Witty, D. R., & Young, D. A. 1992. Wetland Evaluation
Guide. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/WEG_Oct2002_s.pdf
Borden, C.E. and Duff, W. 1952. A Uniform Site Designation Scheme for Canada. Anthropology in British Columbia
3: 44 48.
77
AECOM
Bow River Basin Council. 2012. Bow Basin Watershed Management Plan . Retrieved 2014, from
http://www.brbc.ab.ca/index.php/about-us/core-activities/bbwmp-2012
Bow River Basin Council. 2010. Bow River Basin State of the Watershed Summary. Retrieved January 21, 2014
from http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8298.pdf
Brewer, G. 1991a. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Millarville Subdivision Final Report, Permit 91-12.
Permit Report 91-12 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Brewer, G. 1991b. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Sandstone Ridge Subdivision Heritage Developments
Inc. Permit Report 91-095 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Canadian Wildlife Service. 2011. Activity Set-back Distance Guidelines for Prairie Plant Species at Risk. Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada: Environment Canada. Retrieved 2014, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/BA6052B1136B-45C6-9BCD-38F160A80475/ActivitySetBackDistanceGuidelinesForPrairiePlantSpeciesAtRRisk.pdf
Clavelle, C. 1999. Historical Resources Impact Mitigation Excavations at EePl-215 and EdPl-246 Okotoks,
Alberta.Permit Report 98-81 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Clayton, K. M. 2000. Status of the Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) in Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 28.
Edmonton , Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publicationsweb-resources/birds/documents/SAR-StatusShortEaredOwlAlberta-Apr2000.pdf
Cockle, D.L.1993. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Fenalta Lands Ltd. Campbell Subdivision. Permit Report
93-065 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2013. Wildlife Species Search. Retrieved
November 2014, from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007a. COSWEIC Assessment and Status
Report on the Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) in Canada. Edmonton , Alberta. Retrieved from
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_chordeiles_minor_e.pdf
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status
Report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_olivesided_flycatcher_0808_e.pdf
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2006. COSWEIC Assessment and Status
Report on the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_rusty_blackbird_0806_e.pdf
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and Status
Report on the Western Toad (Bufo Boreas) in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_western_toad_e.pdf
Corrigan, R. 2002. Peregrine Falcon Surveys and Monitoring in the Parkland Region of Alberta, 2001. Alberta
Species at Risk Report No. 34. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-
78
AECOM
risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/birds/documents/SAR034-PeregrineFalconSurveysParklandFeb2002.pdf
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2012. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.1. Redlands, California.
Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta: a Second Look. Federation of
Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, AB. 626 pp.
Federchuk, G.J. 1986. Missinglink Site: Kananaskis Country. Permit Report 86-21 on file at the Archaeological
Survey of Alberta.
Forbis, R.G. and Rogers, J.L. 1973. An Archaeological Site Inventory of the Sheep River Basin and portions of the
Elbow River Basin, Alberta. Permit Report 73-011 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Gillespie, J. 2010. Historical Resources Impact Assessment for the Canera Pipeline from 14-20-18-2-W5M to 15-2018-2-W5M to 10-20-18-2 W5M. Permit Report 10-106 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Golder Associates Ltd. 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Assessment. Volume 3. Proposed
Little Bow Project/Highwood Diversion Plan. Draft. Prepared for Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services. Civil
Projects Division. Edmonton, AB.
Government of Alberta. 2014. Draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014-2024. Retrieved 2014, from
https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/SSRP%20Draft%20SSRP%202014-2024_2013-10-10.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2013a. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (R.S.A. c. E-12) Current as of
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=E12.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779735495
Government of Alberta. 2013b. Natural Resources Conservation Board Act. Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/N03.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2013c. Water Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3) Current as of May 27, 2013. Alberta, Canada:
Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=w03.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779733651
Government of Alberta. 2013d. Alberta Wetland Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/documents/Alberta_Wetland_Policy.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2013e. Public Lands Act (R.S.A. 2000, c.P-40) Current as of November 30, 2013. Alberta,
Canada: Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=P40.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779756162
Government of Alberta. 2013f. Historical Resources Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. H-9) Current as of June 12, 2013. Alberta,
//www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/h09.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2013g. Wildlife Act (R.S.A. 2000, c.W-10) Current as of May 27, 2013. Alberta, Canada:
Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/w10.pdf
79
AECOM
Government of Alberta. 2013h. Wildlife Regulation. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved
2014, from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1997_143.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2013i. Provincial Parks Act (R.S.A 2000, c. P-35) Current as of May 27, 2013. Alberta
.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2013j. Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines April 2013. Retrieved 2014, from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/documents/SensitiveSpeciesInventoryGuidelines-Apr182013.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2010. OH Ranch Heritage Rangeland Management Plan. Retrieved Dec 9, 2013, from
Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation: http://www.albertaparks.ca/media/447228/ohranchmgmtplan.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2009a. Alberta Land Stewardship Act (S.A. 2009, c. A-26.8). Current as of December 11,
2013. Alberta Queens Printer. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/a26p8.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2009b. Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and heritage Rangelands Act
(R.S.A. 2000, c.W-9). Retrieved February 10, 2014, from: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/W09.pdf
Government of Alberta. 2009c. Environmentally Significant Areas. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from Alberta
Tourism, Parks and Recreation: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/
Government of Alberta. 2004. Forest Reserves Act (S.A. 2000, c. F-20) Current as of March 11, 2004. Alberta,
Canada: Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/F20.pdf
Government of Alberta. 1984. A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes Revised 1984. Edmonton.
Government of Alberta. 1957. Albertas Forests. Department of Lands and Forests
Government of Canada. 2013a. Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14) Amended on November 25, 2013. Minister of
Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf
Government of Canada. 2013b. Migratory Birds Regulations (C.R.C., c.1035) Amended on June 7, 2013. Canada.
Retrieved 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1035.pdf
Government of Canada. 2013c. Species At Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) Amended March 8, 2013. Department of
Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf
Government of Canada. 2012a. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (S.C. 1992, c.37) Amended November
25, 2013. Department of Justice. Retrieved February 2014, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-15.21/page1.html#h-1
Government of Canada. 2012b. Species at Risk Public Registry. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm
Government of Canada. 2010a. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22) Amended December 10,
2010. Department of Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/M-7.01.pdf
Government of Canada. 2010b. Canada Wildlife Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. W-9) Amended on December 10, 2010.
Minister of Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/W-9.pdf
80
AECOM
Government of Canada. 2009. Navigable Waters Protection Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-22) Amended on March 12,
2009. Minister of Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-22.pdf
Extension in S 23-20-29-W4M near Okotoks, Alberta. Permit Report 02-089 on file at the Archaeological Survey of
Alberta.
Gryba, E.M. 1994. Historical Resources Impact Assessment of AGT Ltd. Fibre Optics Cable Line Right-of-way
between Highway 22X and Turner Valley near Calgary, Alberta. Permit Report 94-110 on file at the Archaeological
Survey of Alberta.
Gryba, E.M. 1982. Final Report of the 1982 Archaeological Survey of Alberta Highways and Recreation area
developments. Permit Report 82-072 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Haley, S.D. 1984. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Alberta Transportation Turner Valley Ranches Gravel
Pit. Permit Report 84-08 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Hanna, D. 2001. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Gateway of Turner Valley, S ½-6-20-2-W5M. Permit
Hanna, D. 2000. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Highway 2A Upgrades, Okotoks Sheep River Crossing.
Head, T. and J. Calder. 1979. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Kelwood Corporation Properties Okotoks,
Alberta. Permit Report 79-52 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Heitzmann, R.J. 1984. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Western Decalta (1977) Limited Diamond Valley
Project Gas Pipelines. Permit Report 84-05 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Heitzmann, R.J., Priegert J. and Smith S.S. 1980. Historical Resources Inventory, Proposed Southern Alberta
Highway Construction Projects, 1980. Permit Report 80-096 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Hill, D. P. 1998. Status of the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) in Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report
No. 16. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-riskpublications-web-resources/birds/documents/SAR-StatusLongBilledCurlewAlberta-Oct1998.pdf
James, M. L. 2000. Status of the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) in Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No.
26. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publicationsweb-resources/birds/documents/SAR-StatusTrumpeterSwanAlberta-Jan2000.pdf
Light, J.A. 2002. Historical Resources Impact Assessment of the Arrowhead Property Turner Valley, Alberta. Permit
Light, J.A. 1994a. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Sheep River Ridge, Okotoks. Permit Report 94-023 on
file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Light, J.A. 1994b. Excavations at EePl-243 Sheep River Ridge, Okotoks. Permit Report 94-061 on file at the
Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
81
AECOM
Light, J.A. 1987. Historical resources impact assessment Porcupine Hills Pipeline final report (ASA 86-080) Permit
MacMillan, R. 1987. Soil survey of the Calgary urban perimeter. Alberta Soil Survey Report No.45. Alberta
Research Council, Edmonton, AB.
Martin, T. C. and Spiess D.J., 1987. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch; Alberta Agricultrue, Food
and Rural Development,
Conservation and Development Branch. Available: Alberta
McCullough, E.J. 1979 Historical Resources Impact Assessment Allarco Developments Ltd. Okotoks Subdivision.
McCullough, E.J. and Reeves B.O.K. 1978a . Historical Resources Impact Assessment, Dome Petroleum Limited,
Waterton to Cochrane Ethane Pipeline. Permit Report 78-020 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
McCullough, E.J. and Reeves B.O.K. 1978b. Archaeological Conservation Studies, Waterton to Cochrane Ethane
Pipeline. Permit Report 78-064 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
McFee, R.D. 1979. Historical Resources Impact Assessment, Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Alberta Segment 7, the
Western Leg. Permit Report 78-075 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Moltzahn, A. J. 2010. The 2010 Ferruginous Hawk Inventory and Population Analysis. Alberta Species at Risk
Report No. 139. Edmonton , Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-riskpublications-web-resources/birds/documents/SAR139-2010FerruginousHawkInventory-Jan2011.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.nrcb.ca/AboutUs/Whatwedo.aspx
The Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.lesaonline.org/samples/29_05_04_p1.pdf
National Wetlands Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System. Retrieved 2014, from
http://www.gret-perg.ulaval.ca/fileadmin/fichiers/fichiersGRET/pdf/Doc_generale/Wetlands.pdf
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. (D. J. Downing, & W. W. Pettapiece,
Compilers) Government of Albert Publication No. T/852.
NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Conservation Status. Retrieved 2014, from
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm
Nelson, Joseph S. and Paetz, Martin J. 1992. The Fishes of Alberta. The University of Alberta Press.
Pattie, D., & Fisher, C. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: Lone Pine.
Peach, K. 2004. Historical Resources Impact Assessment ATCO Pipelines Turner Valley to Black Diamond Pipeline
in 20-2-W5M. Permit Report 03-143 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
82
AECOM
Peck, T.R. 2011. Light from Ancient Campfires, Archaeological Evidence for Native Lifeways on the Northern Plains.
AU Press, Athabasca University, Edmonton.
Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. 1993. Soil Series Information for Reclamation Planning in Alberta. Edmonton, AB:
Alberta Conservation and Reclamation Council Report No. RRTAC 93Pollock, J. 1984. Historical Resources Mitigative Excavations at Site EiPs-7 on Highway 940:14 at Fallentimber
Creek and Sites EdPq-15 and EdPq-16 on the Gorge Creek Trail (North Fork Road), Sheep River Wildlife
Sanctuary, Kananaskis Country. Permit Report 83-044 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Poole C.P. and Reeves B.O.K. 1974. Heritage Resource Inventory Alberta Highways and Transport 1974, 1975
Proposed Highway Construction Projects Southern Alberta. Permit Report 74-08 on file at the Archaeological Survey
of Alberta.
Poole, A. 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Retrieved August 2013, from Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology:
http:/bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/.
Prescott, D. R. 2009. The 2008 Loggerhead Shrike Survey in Alberta. Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 127.
Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-webresources/birds/documents/SAR127-2008LoggerheadShrikeSurveyAlberta-Jul2009.pdf
Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.abconservation.com/go/default/assets/File/Programs/AWSR/Bird%20Reports/Status%20of%20Sprague's%20Pipit%20i
n%20Alberta_1997.pdf
Prescott, D. R., & Bjorge, R. R. 1999. Status of the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in Alberta. Edmonton,
Alberta. Retrieved from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-webresources/birds/documents/SAR-StatusLoggerheadShrikeAlberta-Oct1999.pdf
Ramsay, C. 2010. Historical Resources Impact Assessment for a proposed residential development near Okotoks,
located in Part of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 22-20-1 W5M. Permit Report 99-106 on file at the
Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Reeves, B. and Short M. 1997. Historical Resources Impact Assessment Westend Regional Sewage Services
Turner Valley Sewage Transfer Line. Permit Report 96-025 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Reeves, B.O.K. and Head, T. 1976. Heritage Site Impact Report, Proposed Arctic Gas Pipeline System, Section 2C,
Caroline-Crowsnest. Permit Report 75-042 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Reid, F. A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America. (Fouth ed.). Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Sibley, D. A. 2011. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (First ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Siegfried, E.V. and Ramsay, A.M. 2004. United Communities, Historical Resources Impact Assessment for
proposed Gowdi-Okotoks lands LSD 10 in Ne 1/4 -27-20-29-W4M, Okotoks, Alberta. Permit Report 04-229 on file at
the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
83
AECOM
Smithsonian. 2014. National Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 2014, from North American Mammals:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/search_name.cfm
Soil Classification Working Group. (1998). The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Agric. and Agri-Food Can.
Publ. 1646 (Revised).
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Third ed.). Boston, New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Stewart, R. E., & Kantrud, H. A. 1971. Classification of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie
Region. Resource Publication 92. Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Retrieved from
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/pondlake/index.htm
Stokes, D. W., & Sokes, L. Q. 2013. The New Stokes Field Guide to Birds Western Region (First ed.). New York,
New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Technical Working Group (TWG) 2002. Highwood River Instream Flow Needs Final Report. Retrieved from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/environmental-flows/documents/EFP-HighwoodRiver-InstreamFlowNeeds-2002.pdf
Turchenek, L. A. & Fawcett. 1994. Soil survey of the Municipal District of Rocky View No.44, Alberta (excluding the
Calgary urban perimeter). Edmonton, AB: Alberta Research Council.
Vivian, B.C. 2006. Historical resources impact assessment of the once proposed Painted Horse residential
subdivision and golf course development. Permit Report 05-215 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Vivian, B.C.; K. Bosch, and B. Reeves 1997. Archaeological Investigations EePn-86 Turner Valley Sewage Transfer
Line. Permit Report 96-053 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Wilson, M. 1979 . Archaeological Excavations at the Donald Site (EePl-218), A processing pit feature in downtown
Okotoks, Alberta. Permit Report 77-007 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Wood, W.J. 1979. Historical Resources Survey and Assessment Golden West Farms Okotoks. Permit Report 79032 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Wyatt, F. A, Newton, J.D., Bowser, W.E., and Odensky, W. 1942. Soil Survey of Blackfoot and Calgary Sheets
Bulletin No. 39. University of Alberta College of Agriculture.
Wyman, D.R.K. 2007. Historical Resources Impact Mitigation Double D Development Ltd. Gateway of Turner Valley:
EdPn-47 and EdPn-53 Stage I HRIM. Permit Report 06-559 on file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
Wyman, D.R.K. and G. Spicer. 2007. Historical Resources Impact Mitigation ATCO Pipelines Turner Valley #2
Replacement 17-22-1-W5M to 18-20-2-W5M Stage I HRIM and Construction Monitoring. Permit Report 07-295 on
file at the Archaeological Survey of Alberta.
84
AECOM
Appendix J1
Figure: J1-1
Town of
Okotoks
Peter Lougheed
Provincial Park
Appendix J1
Parks and Protected Areas in the Highwood River Basin
Town of
Black Diamond
Town of
Turner Valley
Town of
High River
Elbow-Sheep
Wildland Park
OH Ranch
Heritage
Rangeland
Village of
Longview
Don Getty
Wildland
Park
LEGEND
Alberta Parks & Protected Areas
Ecological Reserve
Heritage Rangeland
Natural Area
Provincial Park
Provincial Recreation Area
5
0
5
10
km
Wildland Park
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Feasibility Study
Last saved by: CLOUSTONC (2014-06-26) Last Plotted: 2014-02-11
Project Management Initials: Designer:
Checked:
Approved:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD\G001_60309815_01V1_PARKS_AND_PROTECTED_AREAS_HIGHWOODRIVER_J1.MXD
N
Checked:
Approved:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD\G006_60309815_01V1_ROCKYMTNFORESTRESERVE_HIGHWOODRIVER_J1.MXD
Town of
Turner Valley
Town of
High River
Village of
Longview
5
0
5
10
km
Appendix J1
Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve and Forest Protection Area
in the Highwood River Basin
Town of
Black Diamond
LEGEND
Highwood River
Basin
Rocky Mountain
Forest Reserve
Forest Protection Area
Feasibility Study
Figure: J1-2
N
Town of
Okotoks
Figure: J1-3
Town of
Black Diamond
Town of
Turner Valley
Town of
High River
Village of
Longview
Appendix J1
Sensitive Raptor Key Range Layer in the Highwood River Basin
Town of
Okotoks
LEGEND
Sensitive Raptor Ranges
Peregrine Flacon
Bald Eagle
Ferruginous Hawk
Prairie Falcon/Golden Eagle
5
0
5
10
km
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Feasibility Study
Checked:
Approved:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD\G002_60309815_01V1_KEY_RANGE_LAYERS_B_HIGHWOODRIVER_J1.MXD
N
Checked:
Approved:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD\G002_60309815_01V1_KEY_RANGE_LAYERS_A_HIGHWOODRIVER_J1.MXD
Town of
High River
Village of
Longview
LEGEND
Sharp Tailed Grouse Survey
Sharp Tailed Grouse
Endangered Threatened Plant Ranges
5
0
5
10
km
Limber Pine
Whitebark Pine
Appendix J1
Key Range Layers in the Highwood River Basin
Town of
Turner Valley
Feasibility Study
Figure: J1-4
N
Town of
Okotoks
Town of
Black Diamond
Checked:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD\G003_60309815_01V1_KEY_WILDLIFE_HIGHWOODRIVER_J1.MXD
Town of
Turner Valley
5
0
5
Town of
High River
Village of
Longview
American White Pelican
Grizzly Bear Zone
Type- Core
Mountian Goat & Sheep Areas
Southern Rockies Herd
10
km
Appendix J1
Key Wildlife Layers in the Highwood River Basin
Town of
Black Diamond
Feasibility Study
Approved:
Figure: J1-5
N
Town of
Okotoks
LEGEND
Key Wildlife and Biodiversity
Zones
Colonial Nesting Birds
Great Blue Heron
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD\G004_60309815_01V1_ESAS_HIGHWOODRIVER_J1.MXD
Town of
Turner Valley
Town of
High River
Village of
Longview
5
0
5
10
km
Appendix J1
Environmentally Significant Areas in the Highwood River Basin
Town of
Black Diamond
LEGEND
Sheep River Basin
ESAs 2009 NR
Grassland
Parkland
Rocky Mountain
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Flood Recovery Task Force
Checked:
Approved:
Figure: J1-6
N
Town of
Okotoks
Checked:
Approved:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD\G005_60309815_01V1_EASTERNLANDUSEZONES_HIGHWOODRIVER_J1.MXD
Town of
Turner Valley
Town of
High River
Village of
Longview
LEGEND
Critical Wildlife
Facility
General Recreation
Industrial
Multiple use
5
0
5
10
km
Prime Protection
Special Use
Appendix J1
Eastern Slopes Land Use Zones in the Highwood River Basin
Town of
Black Diamond
Feasibility Study
Figure: J1-7
N
Town of
Okotoks
Highwood River
Basin
Types of Land Use
Unknown
Agriculture
AECOM
Appendix J2
Terrain and Soils
Figure J2-1. Land Regions of Alberta from (Alberta Agriculture, Food
and Rural Development 1987)
Figure J2-2. Landscape Model Attribute Data (Expert Committee on Soil Survey 1982.)
HIGHWOOD RIVER BASIN
ECOLOGICAL SUBREGIONS
ALPINE
SUBALPINE
MONTANE
FOOTHILLS PARKLAND
5
0
5
NAD 1983 CSRS UTM Zone 11N
10
km
FOOTHILLS FESCUE
MIXEDGRASS
Feasibility Study
Appendix J2
Ecological Subregions
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-GIS\02_MXDS\SOIL_TERRAIN\HIGHWOOD_APPENDIX_J2\WS_HIGHWOODRIVER_FIG03_APPJ2.MXD
Designer: MM
Checked: MM
Approved: KB
Figure J2-3
N
LEGEND
DL
R2m
SC1h
SC1l
SC2
SC3
U1h
5
0
5
10
km
U1l
W3
DOMINANT LANDFORMS
Feasibility Study
Appendix J2
Dominant Landforms
LEGEND
Designer: MM
Checked: MM
Approved: KB
Figure J2-4
N
FP3
H1l
H1m
HR2m
I3h
I3l
I3m
IUh
IUl
L3
R2h
5
0
5
10
km
ADY
HPV
BDY
LNB
BEV
LNBaa
BOV
LTA
BPE
LTC
BUR
MFT
BVA
MGV
BZR
MSB
CCR
SPR
CRW
TBR
DEL
TDC
DRW
TDCzz
DVG
ZGW
DVGaa
ZSZzbl
DWT
ZUN
FRK
ZWA
DOMINANT SOIL SERIES
Feasibility Study
Appendix J2
Dominant Soil Series
LEGEND
Designer: MM
Checked: MM
Approved: KB
Figure J2-5
N
FSH
HFD
LEGEND
LIMITATION CLASSES
2
3
4
5
5
0
5
10
km
6
Feasibility Study
Appendix J2
Land Suitability Classes
Designer: MM
Checked: MM
Approved: KB
Figure J2-6
N
LEGEND
TOPSOIL SUITABILITY
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
5
0
5
10
km
UNSUITABLE
Feasibility Study
Appendix J2
Topsoil Suitability Rating
Designer: MM
Checked: MM
Approved: KB
Figure J2-7
N
LEGEND
SUBSOIL SUITABILITY
FAIR
POOR
5
0
5
10
km
UNSUITABLE
Feasibility Study
Appendix J2
Subsoil Suitability Rating
Designer: MM
Checked: MM
Approved: KB
Figure J2-8
N
AECOM
Appendix J3
Vegetation
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-GIS\02_MXDS\VEG_WETLAND\HIGHWOOD_APPENDIX_J3\WS_HIGHWOODRIVER_FIG01_APPJ3.MXD
5
2A
È
22
È
40
532
È
0
5
10
km
Figure J3-1
È È2
È
È7
È
543
È
22
È
540
È
È
NATURAL SUBREGIONS
È
ALPINE
SUBALPINE
MONTANE
FOOTHILLS PARKLAND
FOOTHILLS FESCUE
MIXEDGRASS
Copyright:© 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Approved: KB
549
Appendix J3
Natural Subregions
Checked: KG
È
Feasibility Study
Designer: KG
È
N
762
È
552
549
547
È
799
È
È
23
È2
22
533
È
533
LEGEND
LEGEND
HISTORICAL RARE PLANT RECORDS
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANTS RANGES
LIMBER PINE
5
0
5
10
km
WHITEBARK PINE
Feasibility Study
Appendix J3
Key Ranges and Historical Locations
of Rare Plant Species
Designer: KG
Checked: KG
Approved: KB
Figure J3-2
N
AECOM
Appendix J4
Wetlands
LEGEND
WETLANDS
5
0
5
10
km
EXTENT 0F WETLAND INVENTORY
Feasibility Study
Appendix J4
Wetland Areas
Designer: KG
Checked: KG
Approved: KB
Figure J4-1
N

Appendix J Environmental Overview for Highwood River Basin

Transcription

Similar documents

RVDA of Alberta`s RV Learning Weekend

Beyond the doors of the Stollery`s pediatric emergency department

management essentials - University of Alberta

FOL-1-FORMA 1 - Service Alberta

Highwood Historical Society

SC_Ins_Sep05.qxd

1961 Canadian Junior Championships

RVDA of Alberta Christmas Edition E

the newsletter - Prairie Land Regional Division No. 25

www.canaltacentre.com Job Title: Custodial Attendant Department