Appendix 23 - City of Grande Prairie

Transcription

CITY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE
MAPPING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE (ER) AND
SCIENCE BASED SETBACKS FOR ER
O2 Planning + Design
September 12 | 2012
Prepared for:
The City of Grande Prairie
ER Mapping and Setback Model
2012-09-04
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of the Mapping of Environmental Reserve (ER) and Science Backed Setbacks for ER
project was to map riparian areas, wetlands and other environmentally significant natural features both
within Grande Prairie and in the surrounding Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) annexation area. The
desired outcomes included the identification of priority areas and the definition of science based
setbacks to manage and conserve these areas. Natural feature mapping and the identification of priority
conservation areas were conducted in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project respectively. Phase 3
recommended science based setbacks for the identified areas. Phase 4 of the project was a field survey
phase, tentatively scheduled to ground-truth the results of Phase 2. The City of Grande Prairie applied
for an Alberta Conservation Association grant (Conservation Support and Enhancement) to conduct
Phase 4 but was not successful in the award. The intention is to apply again in 2013 using the results of
this study to establish a more specific scope and to identify significant links with urban fisheries.
This report is the summary of deliverables for each phase of the project. Phases 1 and 2 are summarized
in Appendix A, including the report and mapping that was finalized on May 16, 2012, and presented to
city council on May 23, 2012. The results of Phase 3 are located in Appendix B and C and include the
companion document to the recently-developed Riparian Setback Matrix Model and the Riparian
Setback Matrix Model Developers Guide, respectively, as modified for the City of Grande Prairie. The
results of Phase 3 and this report will be presented to the City of Grande Prairie Environment Committee
on September 10, 2012.
2012-09-04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................. 5
3.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
1.
2012-09-04
INTRODUCTION
Riparian areas, wetlands and other connected natural features are a vital component of what is often
termed the ‘ecological infrastructure’ of cities and regions. Networks of well connected natural areas
provide valuable ecological goods and services including slope stabilization, clean water, flood control,
wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Municipalities are increasingly recognizing the value of
such areas and are making efforts to incorporate, integrate and restore them by creating designated
environmental reserves (ERs).
In response to rapid growth and increasing development pressures on natural areas, the City of Grande
Prairie identified a requirement to perform detailed mapping and evaluation of riparian zones, wetlands
and other sensitive natural features both within the City boundary and in the neighbouring areas of the
County identified in the IDP as short-term and long-term annexation areas. This will help to inform the
Municipal Development Plan which emphasizes a sustainable growth framework and preservation of the
natural environment, while also informing intermunicipal planning with the surrounding County of Grande
Prairie as well as a long-term growth strategy for the City.
The Municipal Government Act (MGA) provides municipalities with the authority to establish ERs when
private lands are subdivided. Under the MGA, ER may be established on lands that consist of: (a) “a
swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course”, (b) “land that is subject to flooding or is, the
opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable”, or (c) “a strip of land, not less than 6 metres in width,
abutting the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water for the purpose of
preventing pollution or providing public access to and beside the bed and shore” (Section 664(1)).
Although a minimum setback of 6 m is specified, municipalities can establish additional setbacks to
conserve riparian areas and associated buffer strips if it can justify this based on supporting studies. It
is critical that any recommendations on additional setbacks be based on a solid defensible scientific
framework.
Facing increasing development pressure, the need to protect and restore riparian areas within the City of
Grande Prairie has become a requirement. Riparian areas are water enriched vegetation zones beside a
stream, river, lake or pond. Riparian areas are critical to plant and animal communities and to reduce the
negative effects of various land-uses on adjacent waters. The Riparian Setback Matrix Model (RSMM)
was created to help prevent development impacts on surface water bodies. The model is an effective
tool to establish adequate riparian buffer setbacks to aid in the protection of shorelines, water quality
and riparian lands while allowing for development to occur in a sustainable manner.
The purpose of the Riparian Setback Matrix Model and the Riparian Setback Matrix Model Developers
Guide (located in Appendix C) is to help those in the development industry to apply the RSMM (as
modified for use in the City of Grande Prairie) in a stepwise manner and to identify those qualified
professionals required to apply the model. This guide also reinforces the need for Environmental Reserve
(ER) protection to maintain healthy and functional riparian areas for the purpose of preventing aquatic
pollution, while providing public access that will not impede natural functions. The RSMM will be used
by the City of Grande Prairie administration to determine and enforce appropriate Environmental
Reserve setback dedications located adjacent to bodies of water, including lakes, streams, brooks,
creeks and intermittent water inflows during the development process.
2.
2012-09-04
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project was initiated by the City of Grande Prairie on November 25, 2011 with the submission of
Mapping of Environmental Reserve (ER) and Science Based Setback Requirements For ER RFP-32-10311. O2 Planning + Design Inc. (O2) was awarded the contract on January 6, 2012 and a start-up
meeting was conducted in Grande Prairie on January 24, 2012. Following a data transfer process, the
ERs of the IDP areas were mapped using ArcGIS. Inadvertently, additional areas extending outside the
IDP were mapped. After client review, the modelling process was initiated and the priority
environmentally significant areas were presented to the City on May 23, 2012. Additional feedback was
provided to O2 in June 2012, whereby the base maps were updated with supplementary information, but
the significance models were not rerun. The maps have been updated and the edits have been included
Appendix A. All GIS data was transferred to the City of Grande Prairie for use in future planning
exercises.
Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. (Aquality) was subcontracted by O2 to provide the Riparian
Setback Matrix Model (RSMM) to the City of Grande Prairie, considering the results of the mapping and
modelling process. The draft RSMM and Developer’s Guide were reviewed, and all the deliverables of
the project have been appended to this report. The results of this study will be used to obtain funding for
ground-truthing and riparian health surveys of environmentally significant areas in the summer of 2013.
The purpose of this study was to map riparian corridors, wetlands and other environmentally significant
natural features, identify priority sites for protection and establish science based setbacks for
environmental reserves. The environmentally significant areas, along with the RSMM will be used to
establish unique environmental reserve setbacks to lakes, streams, brooks, creeks, wetlands and
intermittent water drainage courses during the development process under authority of Part 17 of the
MGA to sustain watershed and/or watercourses in balance with developmental pressure. The intention
is that the results of this study, along with the developers guide, be used to direct future city planning
policies.
3.
2012-09-04
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are three areas that the City of Grande Prairie may wish to view as being environmental priorities
or ESAs:
•
Bear River Corridor - City South ESA (South End)
•
Bear River Corridor – SE Annexation Area
•
Flyingshot Lake and Wetland Region
These areas, in addition to having high biophysical scores, are facing current or imminent development
threats. They also represent opportunities for the maintenance of important regional corridors while
providing future recreation potential.
The City of Grande Prairie may consider integrating the digitized natural features from Phase 1 and the
identified ESAs from Phase 2 with existing municipal GIS data. This strategy is used by other
jurisdictions including the City of Red Deer to assist in planning efforts which consider important
ecological areas.
Use of the information when planning future development as well as parks and protected areas can help
to meet multiple urban sustainability goals related to recreation, water management, and biodiversity
protection, while also providing amenity values, neighbourhood identity or “sense of place”, and
economic values such as enhanced property values in close proximity to open spaces. A wide range of
policy tools may be required to achieve and maintain a high quality connected open space network
during planning and development. Although a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this project, the
spectrum of tools might include:
•
Strongly discouraging development in areas within identified ESAs
•
Planning future development nodes away from areas within or near identified ESAs
•
If and when subdivision and development of land parcels occurs, zoning as much of the
identified ESAs as possible as Environmental Reserve, Municipal Reserve, or Conservation
Easements
•
Encouraging and/or requiring clustering of lots within developments
•
Using density transfer and/or transfer of development rights
•
Using additional open space dedications combined with higher density in remaining areas
With respect to overall watershed protection, construction and development could also be mitigated
using Low Impact Development stormwater source control techniques (e.g., overland swales, rain
gardens, decentralized local detention ponds, green roofs, permeable pavement). Conventional
stormwater ponds and constructed wetlands could also be used.
Future work may include:
•
Field validation of the significance and values of the identified ESAS
•
A detailed hydrological analysis to refine the existing model
•
Field surveys for provincially and federally listed species, and rare communities
•
Field surveys to determine wetland classification
•
Evaluating recreation values in the IDP
The RSMM has been provided in Appendix B to address the preservation and management of the ESAs
and identified natural areas. The RSMM will be used by the City of Grande Prairie administration to
determine and enforce appropriate Environmental Reserve setback dedications located adjacent to
bodies of water, including lakes, streams, brooks, creeks and intermittent water inflows during the
development process.
APPENDICES
2012-09-04
2012-09-04
APPENDIX A:
City of Grande Prairie
Mapping of Environmental Reserve (ER) and Science Based Setbacks for ER
Phase 1 and 2 Report
O2 Planning + Design
May 16 | 2012
Prepared for:
The City of Grande Prairie
CITY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE
MAPPING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE (ER) AND
SCIENCE BASED SETBACKS FOR ER
Mapping of ER and Science Based Setbacks
Phase 2 Report- 2012.05.16
ABBREVIATIONS
DEM ............................................................................................................... Digital Elevation Model
ER ................................................................................................................. Environmental Reserve
ESA ................................................................................................ Environmentally Significant Area
GIS ................................................................................................... Geographic Information System
HA........................................................................................................................................Hectares
IDP ................................................................................................ Intermunicipal Development Plan
LIDAR ................................................................................................... Light Detection and Ranging
MD .......................................................................................................................... Municipal District
O2 ............................................................................................................ O2 Planning + Design Inc.
O2 Planning + Design Inc.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Scope and Objectives .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Structure ................................................................................................................ 1 2. METHODS............................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Land Cover Mapping ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Natural Feature Mapping .............................................................................................. 3 2.2.2 Regional Land Cover Classification............................................................................. 5 2.3 Net Loss of Wetlands and Forest (1997 – 2010).............................................................. 6 2.4 ESA Identification .............................................................................................................. 7 2.4.1 Background and Rationale ........................................................................................... 7 2.4.1.1 Large Patches ................................................................................................................ 7 2.4.1.2 Connectivity ................................................................................................................... 8 2.4.1.3 Riparian Corridors and Hydrologic Functions ............................................................ 8 2.4.2 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 9 3. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Land Cover Mapping ....................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Natural Features Mapping .......................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Regional Land Cover Classification........................................................................... 15 3.2 Net Loss of Wetlands and Forest (1997 – 2010)............................................................ 18 3.3 ESA Identification ............................................................................................................ 20 3.3.1 Identified Regional ESAs............................................................................................. 20 3.3.2 Comparison of Outputs with the Provincial ESAs.................................................... 22 3.3.3 Regional ESA Conservation Priorities ....................................................................... 22 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 25 4.1 Applications...................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 26 4.2.1 Natural Features GIS Data .......................................................................................... 26 4.2.2 Riparian Corridors ....................................................................................................... 26 4.2.3 Ridges and Escarpments ............................................................................................ 26 4.2.4 Natural Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 27 4.2.5 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.6 Water ............................................................................................................................. 27 4.2.7 Parks and Open Space................................................................................................ 28 4.3 Data Gaps and Limitations ............................................................................................. 29 4.4 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 30 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 31 O2 Planning + Design Inc.
iii
APPENDIX A: MAPS ...................................................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF REGIONAL LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND ESA
IDENTIFICATION METHODS ........................................................................................................ 1 B.1. Regional Land Cover Classification ................................................................................ 1 B.2. ESA Criterion #1: Natural Patch Size ............................................................................... 3 B.3. ESA Criterion #2: Landscape Context / Connectivity .................................................... 4 B.4. ESA Criterion #3: Hydrologic Functions .......................................................................... 8 APPENDIX C: REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND RECOMMENDED BEST
PRACTICES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN ALBERTA ............................................................ 10 C.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10 C.2 Calgary Metropolitan Plan .............................................................................................. 11 C.2.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 11 C.2.2 Riparian Buffers ........................................................................................................... 12 C.2.3 Regional Corridors ...................................................................................................... 12 C.2.4 Large Natural Vegetation Patches ............................................................................. 12 C.2.5 Ridges and Escarpments ............................................................................................ 13 C.3 City of Calgary.................................................................................................................. 13 C.3.1 Water ............................................................................................................................. 13 C.3.2 Air .................................................................................................................................. 14 C.3.3 Land .............................................................................................................................. 15 C.4 City of Edmonton ............................................................................................................. 15 C.4.1 Natural Areas ............................................................................................................... 16 C.4.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 16 C.4.3 North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System ............................................ 17 C.4.4 Parks and Open Space................................................................................................ 17 C.4.5 Water ............................................................................................................................. 18 C.4.6 Air .................................................................................................................................. 18 C.5 City of Red Deer............................................................................................................... 19 C.6 Environmental Partnership Programs ........................................................................... 20 C.6.1 Nose Creek Watershed Partnership .......................................................................... 20 C.6.2 Bow River Basin Council............................................................................................. 22 C.6.3 Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership ........................................................ 24 C.7 C.7.1 Alberta Provincial Policies .............................................................................................. 24 Alberta Environment and Water – ‘Stepping Back from the Water’ ....................... 25 O2 Planning + Design Inc.
iv
1.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to map riparian corridors, wetlands and other environmentally
significant natural features, identify priority sites for protection and establish science based
setbacks for environmental reserves. The scope and objectives of the study are summarized
below.
1.1
Project Scope and Objectives
The goal of this project is to map in detail riparian areas, wetlands and other environmentally
significant natural features both within Grande Prairie and in the surrounding Intermunicipal
Development Plan (IDP) annexation area. The desired outcomes include the identification of
priority areas and the definition of science based setbacks to manage and conserve these areas.
Natural feature mapping and the identification of priority conservation areas represent Phase 1
and Phase 2 of this project respectively. Phase 3 will recommend science based setbacks for
the identified areas.
Riparian areas, wetlands and other connected natural features are a vital component of what is
often termed the ‘ecological infrastructure’ of cities and regions. Networks of well connected
natural areas provide valuable ecological goods and services including slope stabilization, clean
water, flood control, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Municipalities are
increasingly recognizing the value of such areas and are making efforts to incorporate, integrate
and restore them by creating designated environmental reserves (ERs).
In response to rapid growth and increasing development pressures on natural areas, the City of
Grande Prairie identified a requirement to perform detailed mapping and evaluation of riparian
zones, wetlands and other sensitive natural features both within the City boundary and in the
neighbouring areas of the County identified in the IDP as short-term and long-term annexation
areas. This will help to inform the Municipal Development Plan which emphasizes a sustainable
growth framework and preservation of the natural environment, while also informing
intermunicipal planning with the surrounding County of Grande Prairie as well as a long-term
growth strategy for the City.
The Municipal Government Act (MGA) provides municipalities with the authority to establish ERs
when private lands are subdivided. Under the MGA, ER may be established on lands that consist
of: (a) “a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course”, (b) “land that is subject to
flooding or is, the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable”, or (c) a strip of land, not less
than 6 metres in width, abutting the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of
water for the purpose of preventing pollution or providing public access to and beside the bed
and shore (Section 664(1)). Although a minimum setback of 6 m is specified, municipalities can
establish additional setbacks to conserve riparian areas and associated buffer strips if it can
justify this based on supporting studies. It is critical that any recommendations on additional
setbacks be based on a solid defensible scientific framework.
1.2
Report Structure
Section 1 (Introduction) provides project background information. Section 2 (Methods) describes
the approaches applied to land cover mapping in the study area and the modelling approach
used to identify priority conservation areas (termed ESAs or Environmentally Significant Areas
throughout this report). Section 3 (Results) summarizes key results of the study. Section 4
1
(Discussion) briefly presents the results, discusses limitations and proposes next steps including
recommended future research. All the maps referenced in the text are provided in Appendix A.
Appendix B provides technical information related to the GIS mapping and modelling methods
undertaken. Appendix C contains a review of environmental policies and best practices for the
conservation of environmental reserves from other jurisdictions in Alberta.
2
2.
METHODS
This section outlines the methods used to conduct land cover mapping and related biophysical
analyses. Section 2.1 outlines the study area boundaries and key characteristics of landscapes
in the study area. Section 2.2 describes the geomatics technology used to digitize riparian
zones, wetlands and other natural features. Section 2.3 describes how the results from natural
feature mapping were used to calculate net loss of wetland and riparian areas between 1997
and 2010. Section 2.4 describes the identification of conservation areas and a ranking
methodology for their prioritization.
2.1
Study Area
The 209.9 km2 (20,991 ha) study area (Map 1) includes land within the City of Grande Prairie
boundary (73.4 km2 / 7,344.8 ha) and land within the neighbouring County of Grande Prairie
identified in the IDP as (short and long term) annexation areas (136.5 km2 / 13,646 ha). The
study area is located in the Peace River Watershed and is almost entirely located within the
distinctive Peace River Parkland Natural sub-region.
Land use within the City boundary is primarily associated with a mix of residential, commercial
and industrial development. Cropland and pasture characterize most undeveloped lands within
the current City boundary. These are primarily in the outer northwest and northeast parts of the
City. Forested areas within the city boundary are closely associated with the Bear River1 riparian
corridor. The largest patches of forest cover are found along the southern edge of the City
boundary. Land in the annexation areas are primarily agricultural cropland and pasture
interspersed with farms, rural residences and a few rural industrial uses. The southern edge of
the annexation area has the highest proportion of forest cover.
Several important aquatic and terrestrial habitats occur throughout the study area. Of particular
note is the Bear River corridor which traverses the study area from the northwest to the
southeast. Significant lakes include Hermit Lake, Hughes Lake, Flyingshot Lake and Wood Lake.
Other significant features include several riparian corridors associated with small streams as well
as numerous stands of forest and patches of shrubland. Several large wetlands are located in
the southwest and southeast of the annexation area. Numerous small wetlands of various
classes occur over the entire study area. This is typical of the distinctive prairie pothole
landscape that characterizes the majority of the study area.
2.2
Land Cover Mapping
2.2.1 Natural Feature Mapping
Natural feature mapping formed the majority of work performed in Phase 1 of this project and
was performed through Geographic Information System (GIS) digitizing from digital airphoto
data. Primary features of interest were riparian corridors, wetlands, lakes and other natural
features such as patches of natural forest and shrubland. Colour digital orthophotos provided
by the City of Grande Prairie were the primary data source for conducting the analysis. This
imagery, flown in 2010, was provided at 10cm resolution for the majority of the study area
except for the southwest and southeast of the annexation area where 1m resolution data was
1
The Alberta hydrological database classifies the area locally known as Bear Creek as a river, therefore; for
the purposes of this environment study this area will be referred to as the ‘Bear River corridor’. O2 Planning + Design Inc.
3
provided. The City of Grande Prairie provided several other GIS datasets that were used to
guide natural feature mapping. These included LIDAR data covering the Bear Creek area, as well
as stream and contour GIS data.
A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyst used ArcView 9.3.1 software to manually
digitize feature polygons interpreted from the airphoto data, segmenting the study area into
areas of common colour, texture, and brightness. Boundaries of riparian areas, wetlands,
forested, shrub and open water lakes and ponds were captured and land cover attribute
information was added to the resulting vector dataset. Polygon capture and modifications were
performed within an ArcMap edit session. Generally, the Auto Complete Polygon and Cut
Polygon tools were used to demarcate polygons. The map scale at which features were
captured depended on the resolution of the underlying airphoto data. Where 10cm imagery was
available, features were captured at a scale of 1:2500. A coarser 1:5000 scale was used in areas
where only the 1m imagery was available.
The output of the digitizing operation is a natural features dataset comprising a broad
landscape characterization within which a more detailed natural feature classification is nested.
The landscape characterization is based on a combination of natural feature types and
topographic position. This classification scheme is shown below.

Open Water – Includes Lakes, Ponds and River or Stream classes

River or Stream Corridor – Includes Forested, Shrub and Grassland classes that fall
below river corridor top-of-bank crest lines as interpreted from LIDAR and contour data

Upland Vegetation – Includes Forested, Shrub and Grassland classes that are located
above river corridor top-of-bank crest lines as interpreted from LIDAR and contour data

Wetland – Includes Open Water, Marsh, Wet Cropland and Dugout wetland classes

Non Vegetated – Corresponds to the Exposed Ground class
The natural feature classification is nested within this broad landscape characterization and
includes the following classes:

River or Stream – Includes open water areas of Bear River, Spring Creek and several
unnamed intermittent creeks

Lake – Large natural or semi-natural water bodies. For the purpose of the assessment
this included artificial lakes and/or stormwater ponds in some newer residential
developments

Pond – Small open water areas deemed to be distinct from open water wetlands. May
include artificial features constructed for ornamental, aesthetic or water storage
purposes. Industrial tailings or settling ponds were not digitized.

Forested – Patches or remnants of natural woodland. Planted features such as
landscaping trees or wind breaks are generally excluded from this class

Shrub – Low vegetation often observed surrounding forest stands, wetlands or along
the river banks in riparian corridors

Grassland – Digitized along the Bear River corridor only. These areas are presently not
being used for agricultural purposes and potentially present some higher natural habitat
4
values in terms of connectivity. No distinction is made between native grassland,
invasive species or manicured grass.

Exposed Ground – Features interpreted as being steep or eroded slopes. These are
primarily located in the southeast part of the Bear River corridor outside of current city
limits but within the proposed annexation area

Open Water Wetlands – Open water wetland zones with no sign of emergent marsh
vegetation

Marsh Wetlands – Wetlands that are untilled and contain visible emergent marsh
vegetation

Wet Cropland – Tilled cropland around wetland margins and in depressions that
seasonally collect water

Dugout – Man-made pits, usually rectangular in shape, created to collect water for
agricultural uses
The relationship between broad landscape class, detailed land cover class and topographic
rules is shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Landscape Characterization and Natural Features Relationship
Landscape
Characterization
Topographic Rule
Corresponding Natural Feature
Classes
Open Water
N/A
Lake
Pond
River or Stream
River or Stream Corridor
Features downslope from top-of-bank
as interpreted from LIDAR and contours
Forested
Shrub
Grassland*
Upland Vegetation
Features upslope from or behind top-ofbank as interpreted from LIDAR and
contours
Forested
Shrub
Grassland*
Wetland
N/A
Open Water Wetland
Marsh Wetland
Wet Cropland
Dugout
Non Vegetated
N/A
Exposed Ground
*Grassland was digitized along the Bear River corridor only
2.2.2 Regional Land Cover Classification
A regional land cover classification was created to optimize the Phase 2 Environmentally
Significant Area (ESA) models – specifically the landscape context / connectivity model. This
model views the natural features digitized in Phase 1 in the context of surrounding land cover
5
types. These can be non natural such as anthropogenic features and cropland or semi-natural
such grassland or pasture. The spatial relationship between natural, non natural and seminatural land cover types is critical in establishing ESA parameters such as the degree of
connectivity in existing natural areas and their vulnerability to fragmentation by development.
The regional land use classification also provided a useful mapping layer and allowed Phase 1
natural feature statistics to be evaluated in the context of other land cover types in the study
area. A number of existing and digitized datasets were combined and layered to form the
regional land use mosaic. When multiple data sources were used, the finest scale data always
took priority. Because of the fine scale at which they were digitized (1:2,500 to 1:5,000) the
Phase 1 natural features formed the highest priority component. A description of other input
datasets and the methods used to combine and prioritize them is contained in Appendix B.
2.3
Net Loss of Wetlands and Forest (1997 – 2010)
One of the goals of Phase 1 of the study was to quantify the degree to which the rapid pace of
recent development has impacted wetlands and other natural areas. To achieve this, the Phase
1 natural features layer was compared to 1997 imagery.
The City of Grande Prairie provided 1997 panchromatic digital orthophotos at 10cm resolution.
This imagery was used to establish the historical baseline of wetland and other natural land
cover types. The area coverage of the 1997 imagery was limited to a 43 km2 area inside the
current City boundary (representing only 59% of the extent of the current City boundary);
however, most of the changes in the development footprint since 1997 have occurred within this
area. For example, several major residential subdivisions were constructed in this area over the
13 year time span represented by the two sets of airphotos.
A GIS analyst used ArcView 9.3.1 software to manually digitize wetland and riparian feature
polygons interpreted from the 1997 imagery. The completed Phase 1 natural features layer was
displayed as a reference and mask layer to ensure that only 1997 features subsequently lost to
development could be viewed and digitized. Boundaries of 1997 riparian and wetland features
were captured using the methods outlined in Section 2.2.1. Attribute entries were made
indicating 1997 imagery as the interpretation source. The panchromatic 1997 imagery
presented some challenges in feature interpretation, whereby texture replaced colour as the
dominant interpretation cue. The 1997 features were assigned the same landscape
characterization and detailed land cover classes (Table 1).
A new description field was added which was populated with interpreted cause of loss (loss to
development, conversion to pond / dugout, natural variability). Loss to development was
relatively easy to detect. Wetlands or riparian features which were visible in 1997 imagery, but
which had changed to housing and roads in 2010 imagery were the most common and obvious
examples. Major visual differences in wetland appearance between 1997 and 2010 which could
not be attributed to development or conversion could possibly be due to seasonal or interannual variations in rainfall and ground moisture. These were not included in the net loss GIS
layers or statistics.
6
2.4
ESA Identification
This section outlines the methodology used to identify Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs)
in the study area. ESAs are the priority areas for conservation as identified by the output of
natural patch, connectivity and hydrologic function GIS models. Section 2.4.1 provides a
condensed literature review of key criteria typically used to identify and delineate ESAs at
multiple scales. Section 2.4.2 provides details on the specific methodology applied to identify
local ESAs in the study area.
2.4.1 Background and Rationale
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) represent places in Alberta vital to the long-term
maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, or other natural processes at multiple scales, and
can be used as a strategic conservation tool for land-use planning and policy (ATPR 2009). A
coarse provincial-scale map and GIS database of ESAs in Alberta based on quarter-sections
was recently updated on behalf of Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation (ATPR 2009). This
provincial-scale study defined and mapped ESAs of international, national, and provincial
significance using seven criteria. Although this dataset is a useful screening tool to identify major
ESAs in the study area, further analyses at finer scales are required to refine ESA boundaries, as
well as to identify regionally or locally significant ESAs. Significant limitations exist when
applying the provincial ESA data set at a municipal scale. In particular, the data is too “blocky”
and coarse to identify boundaries of relevance to municipal planning. In addition, the provincial
data set misses many local or regional ESAs of importance to municipal authorities that are
important to flag when planning appropriate land uses. For these reasons, the provincial ESA
data set (ATPR 2009) is useful but insufficient for municipal planning applications.
The theory of landscape ecology is a useful framework to bridge scientific and planning
approaches in identifying regional and local municipal ESAs to inform strategic land use
planning. Landscape ecology identifies a network of structural and functional terrestrial and
aquatic landscape features critical for maintaining and conserving valued elements, including
biodiversity, ecosystem services, recreational and scenic opportunities, and water resources. A
well designed network forms an ‘aggregate-with-outliers’ pattern in which land uses are
aggregated, yet corridors and small patches of nature are scattered throughout developed areas
(Forman 1995). According to Forman (1995), key components of the network should include the
following “indispensable landscape patterns”:

large patches of natural vegetation

connectivity through corridors or stepping stones

well-vegetated riparian corridors

heterogeneous remnants of natural patches derived from a large patch nearby.
2.4.1.1 Large Patches
Large patches support higher biodiversity by providing microhabitat diversity, higher population
sizes, a buffer against extinctions, and core habitat for animals with large home ranges
(MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Freemark and Merriam 1986; Forman 1995). In turn, biodiversity
supports long-term ecosystem stability (Tilman et al. 2006) and sustained high primary
productivity (Naeem 1996; Tilman 1996; Cardinale et al. 2007). Larger patches can also provide
higher insect predator diversity which lowers the risk of insect pest outbreaks (Loyn 1983;
7
Forman 1995; Wilby and Thomas 2002; Cardinale et al. 2003). In a watershed, larger patches
maintain the connectivity of a hydrologic network to reduce sediment mobilization and pollution
(Forman 1995).
In an urban/peri-urban context, small mammals make use of patches ranging from 1 to 10 ha in
size (Kennedy et al. 2003). For sensitive grassland birds and nesting wetland species, patch size
targets of 20-100 ha are more appropriate (Herkert 1994; Fitzgerald et al. 1999). This information
was used to construct intervals of natural patch sizes (Table 1 + Appendix B).
2.4.1.2 Connectivity
Connectivity, or "the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among
resource patches" (Taylor et al. 1993), affects the movement of resources and organisms among
natural patches in a landscape (Turner and Gardner 1991). Generally, greater landscape
connectivity is achieved in the landscape with: (i) corridors and (ii) stepping stones. A corridor is
a linear landscape element that differs in composition from the surrounding matrix (Fleury and
Brown 1997; Hilty et al. 2006). A stepping stone is a habitat patch where an animal can stop
while moving along a heterogeneous route (Forman 1995). Natural habitat corridors and stepping
stones facilitate movement between patches for foraging, migrating, mating, and escaping from
predators or natural disturbances. Connectivity reduces the effect of habitat fragmentation on
wildlife by connecting patches too small to contain viable populations over the long-term and
enhancing gene flow between populations (Moilanen and Hanski 1995; Fahrig 2002; Dykstra
2004). Over longer time scales, connectivity can also facilitate species’ range shifts in response
to climate change (Forman 1995; Beier and Noss 1998; Hostetler and Drake 2009). Riparian
corridors in particular provide valuable connectivity in amounts disproportionate to their surface
area (Turner and Gardner 1991; Forman 1995; Hilty et al. 2006).
2.4.1.3 Riparian Corridors and Hydrologic Functions
Hydrologic functions that maintain water quality, water quantity, and timing of flows in
watersheds are important to maintain aquatic ecosystem health and water supplies for a range
of uses. Well-vegetated riparian corridors are one of the most critical landscape elements for
watershed conservation. Riparian areas are important in achieving water quality benefits through
erosion control, bank stabilization, filtration, and the uptake of phosphorus, nitrate, and a wide
range of other pollutants (Castelle et al. 1994; Worrall et al. 2003; Mayer et al. 2006; Brauman et
al. 2007). Floodplains are also critical areas that deserve protection due to the importance of
these areas in preventing flood damage and erosion and improving water quality.
Additional hydrologic functions are performed by other landscape elements as well. In particular,
wetlands have been identified as important in providing particulate retention, water quality
improvement, groundwater recharge, flood attenuation, drought mitigation, and so on (Casey
and Klaine 2001; Shan et al. 2002; Olewiler 2004; Gilbert et al. 2006; Maltby 2009). In addition,
alluvial soils can function as indicators of underlying alluvial aquifers with groundwater under the
direct influence of surface water (GUDI). Natural land cover types such as forests, native
grasslands, and shrubland can also help conserve pre-development hydrology due to deep root
systems that encourage infiltration during rainfall, high soil organic matter, and high waterholding capacity (Naeth et al. 1991; Self-Davis et al. 2003) (Forman 1995).
8
2.4.2 Methods
The ESA identification process consisted of applying landscape ecological theory towards
quantitative landscape pattern analysis and modelling using GIS.
The literature review presented above on landscape ecology and hydrologic functions was
condensed into a simple scoring system that ranked areas using three criteria:

natural patch size

landscape connectivity

hydrologic functions
Table 2 summarizes the scores assigned in the GIS model to each of the three criteria. For the
purposes of the model, “natural patches” were considered to include all the detailed classes
from the digitized Phase 1 natural features (Table 1). Appendix B provides a more detailed
discussion of the GIS methods applied. Additional details on the relationship between the ESA
criteria used in this study and the criteria used in other pertinent studies and initiatives area also
contained in Appendix B.
9
Table 2.
ESA Identification: Scoring Criteria*
Criterion #1: Natural Patch Size
Score Assigned
100-500 ha
4
10-100 ha
3
2-10 ha
2
<2 ha
1
Criterion #2: Landscape Context / Connectivity
Score Assigned
High: Natural cover type within a local scale natural complex which contains more
than 10 ha of natural cover
3
Moderate: Natural cover type within a regional scale natural complex which contains
more than 10 ha of natural cover
2
Low: Natural cover type within a regional scale natural complex which contains more
1
None: Natural cover type within a regional scale natural complex which contains less
0
Criterion #3: Hydrologic Functions
Score Assigned
Extremely High: Spatial Intersection of all 5 input variables (Alluvial Soil, Floodplain,
Wetlands/ Lakes, Forest and Riparian Corridor)
5
Very High: Spatial Intersection of 4 out of 5 input variables (Alluvial Soil, Floodplain,
Wetlands/ Lakes, Forest or Riparian Corridor)
4
High: Spatial Intersection of 3 out of 5 input variables (Alluvial Soil, Floodplain,
3
Moderate: Spatial Intersection of 2 out of 5 input variables (Alluvial Soil, Floodplain,
Low: Only 1 input variable is present (Alluvial Soil, Floodplain, Wetlands/ Lakes,
Forest or Riparian Corridor)
None: No input variables occur in this location (Alluvial Soil, Floodplain, Wetlands/
Lakes, Forest or Riparian Corridor)
2
1
0
* Landscape connectivity at different scales facilitates the movement of wildlife and plant propagules between habitat
patches to promote natural ecosystem processes and biodiversity. Based on a synthesis of existing research,
connectivity between patches was assessed at two scales: local scale natural complexes, and regional scale natural
complexes. Local scale complexes are given a higher rating score due to greater connectivity between habitat patches
compared to the regional scale complexes. More details on associated assumptions are found in Appendix B
Table 3.
Interpretation of Average Score for ESA Identification
Average Score
Interpretation
>3.5
ESAs of highest significance
2.5 to 3.5
ESAs of high significance
1.5 to 2.5
ESAs of moderate significance
10
The overall ESA significance score was calculated as the average across all three criteria. Areas
with average scores >3.5 were considered to be of utmost importance and were assigned the
highest priority overall for conservation. Areas with average scores between 2.5 and 3.5 were
considered highly important ESAs that should also be conserved as open space. Areas with an
average score between 1.5 and 2.5 were deemed to be ESAs of “moderate” priority that should
also be conserved if possible.
A subset of the ‘highest’ and ‘high’ significance areas was created and grouped spatially to
create priority ESAs for conservation consideration.
11
3.
RESULTS
This section presents the study results, including a summary of land cover results from the
natural features mapping (Section 3.1), net loss calculations (Section 3.2) and results of the ESA
identification developed from the models (Section 3.3).
3.1
Land Cover Mapping
3.1.1 Natural Features Mapping
Map 2 shows the results of the landscape characterization and Map 3 shows the detailed natural
feature mapping. Although the study area extent is the currently proposed short term and long
term annexation boundaries these two maps show the mapped features up to the IDP area
boundary (as a semi-transparent layer) in order to provide context. Maps 3a to 3e are finer scale
views of mapped natural features along the Bear River corridor. Summary statistics of the land
cover classifications are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. All maps and statistics reflect the
ground condition in 2010 as interpreted from air photos provided by the City of Grande Prairie.
Although Phase 1 natural features were mapped up to the IDP boundary, the statistics presented
here are for lands within the City boundary and adjacent annexation area only.
Table 4 shows the landscape characterization statistics for City land and the annexation area.
Mapped natural features included river corridors, upland vegetation stands, wetlands, lakes and
the natural vegetation that occurs within or surrounding them. Combined, they represent
12.25% of the total land area within the City boundary and 20.95% of the total land area inside
the annexation boundary. For the entire study area, mapped natural features account for 17.9%
of the total 209.9 km2 (20,991 ha) land area.
Table 4.
Natural Feature Cover in the Study Area – Landscape Characterization Classes Landscape
Characterization
Class
Area of Land in
City Boundary
(ha)
% of Land in
City Boundary
Area of Land in
Annexation Area
(ha)
% of Land in
Annexation Area
Open Water
90.34
1.23%
317.47
2.33%
River or Stream
Corridor
291.86
3.97%
408.59
2.99%
Upland Vegetation
425.66
5.80%
1504.03
11.02%
Wetland
91.76
1.25%
625.37
4.58%
0
0%
3.39
0.03%
899.63
12.25%
2858.85
20.95%
Non Vegetated
Total
Within the City boundary, the majority of mapped features are broadly classified as upland
vegetation landscape types includingforested, shrub and grassland classes that are located
outside of riparian corridors. Upland vegetation represents 426 ha or 5.8% of the total land area
within the City boundary. The majority of mapped features inside the annexation area are also
12
broadly characterized as upland vegetation (1,504 ha or 11.02%). For the study area as a whole,
upland vegetation landscapes account for 9.19% of total land area.
Mapped features broadly classified as river or stream corridor landscape types represent 292 ha
or 3.97% of the total area of land within the City boundary. River or stream corridors in the
annexation area cover a greater total area (409 ha) compared to those within the City boundary
but their coverage as a proportion of total land area inside the annexation region is lower at
2.99%. For the study area as a whole, 700 ha or 3.14% is characterized as river or stream
corridors.
Areas within the City boundary characterized as open water (rivers, ponds and lakes) represent a
very small amount (1.23%) of total land. In the annexation area this figure is slightly larger
(2.33%). For the study area as a whole open water classes account for 1.94% of all land.
Wetlands of all classes represent a very small fraction of the total land area within the City
boundary (1.25%), but a significantly larger proportion within the annexation area (4.58%). Over
the entire study area, wetlands of all classes cover 717 ha or 3.42% of the 209.9 km2 (20,991 ha)
total land area.
Table 5 shows the detailed natural feature classification statistics for both land within the City
boundary and the annexation area. In both areas, forested land is by far the dominant mapped
class. It represents 7.56% and 12.13% of total land area within City and annexation boundaries
respectively. Over the entire 209.9 km2 (20,991 ha) study area, forest cover represents 2,211 ha
or 10.5% of all lands. The majority of forest cover (1,711 ha or 77%) occurs in upland areas
outside of riparian corridors and401 ha or 18% occurs within the Bear River corridor. The
remaining 5% of forest cover occurs along small stream corridors or wetland boundaries.
Table 5.
Natural Feature Cover in the Study Area – Detailed Natural Feature Classes Natural Feature Class
Area of Land in
City Boundary
(Ha)
% of Land in
City Boundary
Area of Land in
Annexation Area
(Ha)
% of Land in
Annexation Area
River or Stream
18.94
0.26%
19.67
0.14%
Lake
62.37
0.85%
294.77
2.16%
Pond
9.04
0.12%
3.03
0.02%
Forested
555.39
7.56%
1655.77
12.13%
Shrub
72.61
0.99%
225.04
1.65%
Grassland*
89.52
1.22%
31.81
0.23%
0
0%
3.39
0.02%
Open Water Wetland
14.89
0.20%
64.60
0.47%
Marsh Wetland
37.29
0.51%
507.99
3.72%
Wet Cropland
28.28
0.39%
48.99
0.36%
Dugout
11.30
0.15%
3.79
0.03%
Exposed Ground
Total
899.63
12.25%
2858.85
20.95%
*Grassland was only digitized along the Bear River corridor and does not differentiate between natural,
semi-natural and manicured grass types.
13
Land covered by shrubs occurs throughout the study area. It accounts for about 1.4% of the
study area and comprises numerous small patches, including along the edges of forested areas
and wetlands.
Open water lakes, including Flyingshot Lake, Hughes Lake, Hermit Lake, Crystal Lake and
Wood Lake, account for just 0.85% of the land area within the City boundary but a significantly
larger proportion (2.16%) of lands within the annexation area.
Wetlands of all classes are more prevalent in the annexation area than within the City boundary.
This is expected given the much higher level of development within the City. Wetlands within
the City boundary total 98 ha or 1.25% of all land. Wetlands in the annexation area total 626 ha
or 4.58% of all land.
Table 6 presents a statistical summary of wetlands in the study area.
Table 6.
Detailed Wetland Classification within City Boundaries and Annexation Area Wetland
Count
Wetland
Area - Total
(Ha)
Wetland
Area –
Mean (Ha)
Std Deviation
Wetland Area as %
of Report Area
Open Water
Wetland
68
14.89
0.22
0.33
0.20%
Marsh Wetland
54
37.29
0.69
1.20
0.51%
Wet Cropland
37
28.28
0.76
1.06
0.39%
Dugout
14
11.30
0.81
0.95
0.15%
Total
173
91.76
0.53
0.93
1.25%
Open Water
Wetland
264
64.60
0.24
0.93
0.47%
Marsh Wetland
161
507.99
3.16
16.67
3.72%
Wet Cropland
79
48.99
0.62
1.29
0.36%
Dugout
33
3.79%
0.11
0.10
0.03%
Total
537
625.37
1.16
9.26
4.58%
Total Study Area
710
717.14
1.01
8.11
3.42%
City Boundary
Annexation Area
14
A total of 710 wetlands were identified over the entire study area. Of these 332 (47%) were open
water wetlands and a further 215 (30%) were marsh wetlands. Wet cropland and dugouts
totalled 116 (16%) and 47 (7%) respectively.
Approximately 75% of all wetlands are located in the annexation area. This is to be expected
given that the annexation area is almost twice the size of the area of land within the City
boundary and is impacted by less development. The total area of all wetlands in the annexation
area is almost seven times greater than that within the City boundary and the average size of
wetlands in the annexation area is twice that of wetlands within the City boundary.
There are almost four times more open water wetlands in the annexation area than inside the
City boundary but their average size is similar. There are over three times more marsh wetlands
in the annexation area than inside the City boundary. The average size is over 500 ha compared
with 37 ha inside the City boundary.
3.1.2 Regional Land Cover Classification
Map 4 shows theresults of the regional land cover classification. The regional land cover map
uses nine broad classes. Each of the nine classes is sourced from a number of sub-classes
derived from multiple GIS data sources as outlined in Section 2.2 and described in more detail in
Appendix B. Map 5 shows the origins of all component data.

Anthropogenic

Annual Cropland

Perennial Cropland or Pasture

Non Vegetated

Grassland

Open Water

Wetland

Shrub

Forested
15
Table 7 contains a statistical summary of the relative proportion of each class over the entire
study area.
Table 7.
Regional Land Cover Classification Statistics – Study Area
Regional Land Cover Class
Area (Ha)
% of Study Area
Anthropogenic
4292.28
20.45%
Annual Cropland
9507.75
45.29%
1956.98
9.32%
Exposed Ground
3.39
0.02%
Grassland
1049.93
5%
Open Water
407.83
1.94%
Wetland
722.32
3.44%
Shrub
726.16
3.46%
Forested
2326.05
11.08%
The regional land cover statistics show that annual cropland is by far the dominant land cover
type for the study area as a whole. Annual cropland represents 45.29% of total land cover.
Perennial cropland and pasture represents 9.32% of land. When combined, annual and
perennial cropland or pasture represent 54.61% of all land cover in the study area.
The anthropogenic land cover class includes built up urban areas and other non natural surfaces
such as runways, roads, rail and rural residential housing. Anthropogenic features represent
20.45% of all land cover in the study area.
Of the natural cover types, forested areas are dominant at 11.08% of land cover. Wetlands
represent 3.44% and open water represents 1.94%, most of which is associated with several
large open water lakes outside the City boundary.
16
Table 8 contains a statistical summary of the relative proportion of each class within the City of
Grande Prairie boundary.
Table 8.
Regional Land Cover Classification Statistics – City of Grande Prairie
Area (Ha)
% of Land within City
Anthropogenic
3467.53
47.21%
Annual Cropland
1927.53
26.24%
247.25
3.37%
Exposed Ground
0
0%
Grassland
756.03
10.29%
Open Water
90.34
1.23%
Wetland
91.76
1.25%
Shrub
176.47
2.4%
Forested
587.88
8.00%
Within the City boundary the distribution of regional land cover classes is very different. As
expected, the anthropogenic class is dominant and represents 47.21% of land cover. This
indicates that natural features in currently undeveloped parts of the City may be threatened by
development soon require and may require more active conservation strategies.
There is still a significant proportion of cropland within the City boundary. Annual cropland
accounts for 26.24% of land. Area of agricultural land use increases to 29.61% when combined
with the perennial cropland or pasture class.
Grassland accounts for the majority (10.29%) of natural land cover types. Much of this is
contained in City parks and other undeveloped areas. There is also a significant amount of
grassland along the Bear River corridor. Note that no distinction is made between native, seminatural and manicured grass for this class. Forested areas represent 8% of land cover and are
primarily concentrated along the Bear River corridor, especially in the south end of the City.
Table 9 contains a statistical summary of the relative proportion of each class within the
annexation area boundary.
17
Table 9.
Regional Land Cover Classification Statistics – Annexation Area
Area (Ha)
% of Annexation Area
Anthropogenic
823.95
6.04%
Annual Cropland
7580.25
55.55%
1709.68
12.53%
Exposed Ground
3.39
0.02 %
Grassland
293.45
2.15%
Open Water
317.47
2.33%
Wetland
630.57
4.62%
Shrub
549.71
4.03%
Forested
1738.25
12.74%
The 136.5 km2 (13,646 ha) annexation area is overwhelmingly rural in nature. Annual cropland
and perennial cropland / pasture together account for 68.08% of all land cover. Development is
limited to rural residential properties, farmsteads, and roads. These land uses account for only
6.04% of total land. The natural land cover is 12.74% forested. Wetlands account for 4.62% of
land cover, primarily due to the presence of several large marsh wetlands in the western part of
the annexation area. The challenge in the annexation area will not be finding sufficient land for
development but finding suitable land that does not adversely impact ecologically significant
areas or displace valuable agricultural land.
3.2
Net Loss of Wetlands and Forest (1997 – 2010)
An overview of wetland and natural areas lost to development between 1997 and 2010 is shown
on Map 6. Detailed views are provided in Maps 6a, 6b and 6c. Analysis revealed the wetlands
were the dominant natural features lost between 1997-2010. Some forests have also been lost
over this time span. The maps identify each lost wetland by a unique identifier code. These
codes can be cross-referenced to the Excel spreadsheet of statistics for each individual lost
wetland. This file is named SummaryTable_WetlandLoss_1997-2010.xls and was provided as a
deliverable with this report.
A summary of net loss statistics is provided in Table 10. The total area lost is shown in hectares
and the number of wetland and forested features lost is shown in parenthesis. Statistics are
provided for both feature class lost and the cause of loss as interpreted from the airphoto
analysis.
18
Table 10.
Net Loss of Wetlands and Forest –1997 - 2010 Type of Feature Lost
Area (ha) /
Count* Lost
to
Development
Area (ha) /
Count*
Converted to
Pond)
Area (ha) /
Count*
Converted to
Dugout
Total Area (ha) /
Count* Lost
Wetland (Open Water)
0.42 (5)*
0 (0)*
2.78 (2)*
3.19 (7)*
Wetland (Marsh Wetland)
4.70 (13)*
0 (0)*
2.68 (1)*
7.39 (14)*
Wetland (Wet Cropland)
6.67 (16)*
0 (0)*
0 (0)*
6.67 (16)*
Wetland (Dugout)
0.11(2)*
0.71 (1)*
N/A
0.83 (3)*
Total Wetland Loss
11.90 (36)*
0.71 (1)*
5.46 (3)*
18.08 (40)*
Forested Riparian Buffer
Zone
10.02 (4)*
N/A
N/A
10.02 (4)*
5.46 (3)*
28.10 (44)*
Total Wetland and Forest
21.93 (44)*
0.71 (1)*
Loss
*Indicates number of individual wetlands / forested areas lost
A total of 40 wetlands were lost between 1997 and 2010. Of these, 36 were lost directly to
development through the construction of roads and housing. Most of the development loss was
associated with completed developments, but some former wetlands were located on land that
appeared to have been cleared and graded for future development as observed from 2010
airphotos. The remainder of lost wetlands may have been either converted to dugouts or
designated as ponds due to more standing water in that year.
The total area of lost wetlands was 18 ha, 11.9 ha of which was due to development. 5.5 ha was
converted to dugouts and 0.71 ha was converted to ponds. A total of 7 open water wetlands
with a total area of 3.19 ha were lost. There were 14 marsh wetlands lost with a total area of 7.39
ha. The combined area of lost open water and marsh wetlands accounted for 59% of the total
area of all lost wetlands.
Specific lost wetlands of interest include W01, W02 and W03 (Map 6a). These formed a
relatively large (total area of 5.5 ha) collection of open water and marsh wetlands in 1997. By
2010 they had been converted to dugouts.
Housing development surrounding Crystal Lake resulted in the loss of 5 wetlands (Map 6a), the
most notable being W06. In 1997 this was part of a marsh wetland corridor feeding into Crystal
Lake. By 2010 a road had been built across this corridor to promote hydrologic conductivity to
the lake.
W28 was a small dugout in 1997 (Map 6c). By 2010 it had been converted into a larger
stormwater pond in a residential area. This new stormwater pond likely provides important water
quality and runoff rate improvement functions for the new residential community. Therefore, in
this case the stormwater pond featuremay be more valuable overall than the dugout it replaced.
However, natural habitat values of this area were likely low for both pre and post development.
In addition to lost wetlands, comparison of 1997 and 2010 airphotos also revealed several
forested areas that had been lost to development (Map 6b). These were all located along top of
bank locations above the Bear River corridor. Although technically upland vegetation, their
19
proximity to the contiguous riparian river corridor classifies them as transitional or riparian buffer
features tha were part of the riparian corridor system.
A total of 4 forested stands were cleared along the top of east facing ridges above the Bear
River corridor. Three small forest stands (0.6 ha) along the west side of 102nd St north of 68th
Avenue had been lost to residential development by 2010. The fourth patch (9.4 ha) was
formerly located south of the intersection of Kateri Drive and 68th Avenue. By 2010 it had been
cleared and graded by 2010 in preparation for new development, presumably housing.
3.3
ESA Identification
This section reviews the results of the ESA identification. Section 3.3.1 summarizes the results of
the GIS modelling conducted as part of this study.
3.3.1 Identified Regional ESAs
ESA identification and ranking was based on the synthesis of three separate analyses: ‘Natural
Patch Size’ (Map 7), ‘Connectivity of Natural Patches’ (Map 8) and ‘Hydrologic Function’
(Map 9). The average of these three models was then used to rank each area with regards to its
environmental significance. The ESA rank map (Map 10) summarizes the results of the GIS
identification of ESAs, including the partitioning of ESAs into three categories: “Highest”, “High”,
and “Moderate” significance. Areas with ‘Highest’ and ‘High’ designations that fell within the
same relative geographic area were grouped together into one of seven priority areas
(Map 11). These include a diverse range of natural wetlands, river corridors, forest patches,
riparian areas, and habitat complexes (Table 11).
20
Table 11.
ESAs of High Priority in the Study Area
ESA Characteristics
Feature
Natural Patch Size
Connectivity
Hydrology
Bear River
Corridor – City
North
Moderate (10-100 ha) patch
sizes along Bear River
valley.
Highest connectivity score
(3) throughout most of the
area indicates little
fragmentation of habitat
overall
Scores moderate (2) to
very high (4) due to the
intersection of forest
stands in a riparian
corridor with potential
alluvial soils and a
floodplain.
Overall ESA
Significance:
Generally intact regional
corridor despite urban
surroundings.
High
Bear River
Corridor – City
South
Overall ESA
Significance:
High
Very High in the
South
This area contains one of the
largest natural patches in the
study area at the south edge
of the City. Conversely
some of the smallest most
fragmented patches occur
between the 100th Ave road
bridge and the railway bridge
200m further south
Patch size increases in the
less developed
southernmost part of the City
Bear River
Corridor – NW
Annexation Area
Large (10-100 ha) patch
sizes along Bear River
valley.
(3) indicates little
except between Muskoseepi
Park and the railway bridge
where a sudden decrease to
moderate connectivity occurs
Generally intact regional
corridor despite urban
surroundings.
(3) indicates little
Major regional corridor with
high landscape connectivity.
Frequent high (3) to
very high (4) scores
along the river corridor
due to the intersection
of forest stands in a
riparian corridor with
potential alluvial soils
and a floodplain.
Lower scores occur
between Muskoseepi
Park and the railway
bridge
high (3) due to the
alluvial soils.
Bear River
Corridor – SE
Annexation Area
This ESA consistently
maintains some of the
largest natural patches in the
study area along its entire
length
High connectivity scores but
evidence of fragmentation of
the forest cover by rural
residential encroachment
high (3) due to the
alluvial soils.
Flyingshot Lake
and Wetland
Region
Contains both the largest
lake and the largest marsh
wetland in the entire study
area. Patch size decreases
along a narrow corridor
before joining the Bear River
inside the south edge of the
City boundary
(3) in most of the area
despite some narrow
connections between the
largest natural patches.
Intersections of
wetlands, lakes,
riparian corridors and
alluvial soils result in
scores ranging from
low to high depending
on location
Evidence of fragmentation
caused by housing
developments along the
shoreline of Flyingshot Lake
21
ESA Characteristics
Feature
Natural Patch Size
Connectivity
Hydrology
West Annexation
Lakes and
Wetlands
Large lake (Hughes Lake)
and open water wetland
features but a very large
number of small and very
small (<2 ha) features
This ESA has the greatest
range of connectivity scores
from high (3) for the large
lake and open water wetland
features to several low (1)
scoring isolated patches
Low (1) with some
moderate (2) scores
Riparian Stream
Corridors - NE
Although narrow and linear
in shape, natural patches
generally exceed 10 ha
Despite narrow corridors,
connectivity scores are
consistently in the highest
class (3)
Low (1) to high (3)
where sporadic
forested areas coincide
with the riparian
corridor and alluvial
soils
3.3.2 Comparison of Outputs with the Provincial ESAs
The ATPR (2009) study identified three ESAs in the study area: the internationally significant
Boreal ESA 556 (Grande Prairie Important Bird Area), the provincially significant Boreal ESA 685
(Grande Prairie Dunes Unique Landforms) and the provincially significant Parkland ESA 411
(Important Wildlife Areas).The Provincial ESA GIS data indicate clearly that the provincial ESAs
overlap considerably with many of the ESAs identified in this study (Map 12) but the resolution of
the ESAs identified in this study is much finer.
The coarse resolution of the ATPR 2009 ESAs is a reflection that this data does not identify local
or regional ESAs and nor does it purport to (ATPR 2009). Therefore, the fine scale analysis
conducted here is critical to identify local or regional ESAs of importance to municipal
authorities. All ESAs regardless of their classification (e.g. nationally, provincially, regionally
significant) should be considered by municipal authorities when planning and managing
appropriate land uses and potential future development.
3.3.3 Regional ESA Conservation Priorities
Although all seven identified regional ESAs scored ‘high’ or ‘highest’ in rank (Map 10) there are
three that the City of Grande Prairie may wish to view as being priorities. These areas, in
addition to having high biophysical scores, are facing current or imminent development threats.
They also represent opportunities for the maintenance of important regional corridors while
providing future recreation potential
The three priority ESAs are:

#1 Bear River Corridor - City South ESA (South End)
This area ranks first because it was the only ESA to contain areas with a “highest’ overall
ranking (Map 10). It contains some of the largest patches of non fragmented urban
forest in the City.
22
The south area of this ESA has seen forest cover lost to development. Net loss analysis
between 1997 and 2010 showed 10 ha of top-of-slope forest had been cleared for
development. Implementation of science based setbacks would likely help to protect
remaining upland vegetation from further fragmentation.
The north end of this ESA also presents some possible opportunities for improvement
and restoration. Table 11 describes a notable ‘pinch point’ in the one-half kilometre
length of the Bear River between Muskoseepi Park and the CN railway bridge. This
pinch point is very apparent on ESA maps as the most significant breach of the
otherwise relatively intact regional corridor that follows the Bear River. Within this
stretch, natural patch, connectivity and hydrological function scores all decline
noticeably. Recognizing that it is impractical to completely re-naturalize a pre-existing
urban park complex, there may be some opportunity for substantial urban forest and
riparian improvements in this short stretch of urban river.

#2 Bear River Corridor – SE Annexation Area
This area ranks second because it scored consistently high on each ESA input variable,
while showing some vulnerability to development. It was noted that several large forest
patches have experienced varying degrees of edge and interior fragmentation from rural
residential development.
It is recognized that this heavily forested south facing escarpment area may be highly
desirable for residential development due to its scenic and aesthetic values as well its
close proximity to the City. Implementation of setbacks in this ESA should focus on the
protection of a strip of top-of bank forest. Development should be guided along the
outer edge of this strip if possible.

Setbacks and development guidelines in this ESA will also offer great opportunities to
extend the current Bear River corridor trail network out into this part of the region. There
are existing natural trails in this location on both sides of the river. It completes a loop
from South Bear Creek to Resources Road via Wedgewood and County Industrial Park.
Although a scenic assessment was not part of this project, this ESA in particular appears
to offer enormous scenic and recreational potential due to the deeply incised river valley
that defines its southern edge.

#3 Flyingshot Lake and Wetland Region
This area ranks third because although it scored consistently high on each ESA input
variable, there were concerns that links within the ESA and between it and other ESAs
are narrow and tenuous. Of particular concern is the impact that development may have
on the narrow riparian corridor that links Flyingshot Lake to the Bear River corridor
It was noted that existing riparian vegetation surrounding Flyingshot Lake is being
eroded from the outside by rural and recreational properties. It was also noted that the
large marsh land directly northwest of the Lake appears to be under agricultural use
right up to its edge with little or no remaining riparian buffer.
It is recognized that science based setbacks along the shores of Flyingshot Lake and
the narrow riparian corridor that links it to the Bear River corridor will serve the dual role
23
of both maintaining and improving biophysical function while adding significant
recreational opportunities to the expanding southwest part of the City.
It is recognized that these three areas were selected largely from the results of a desktop GIS
analysis exercise. The City of Grande Prairie may be aware of specific development pressures
elsewhere that may favour prioritizing other ESAs identified in this study.
24
4.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This section provides a high-level discussion pertaining to the study results. Section 4.1
provides a brief overview of potential applications of the study. Section 4.2 presents some
specific recommendations. Section 4.3 discusses data gaps and limitations of the study. Section
4.4 suggests next steps and avenues for future research.
4.1
Applications
The Phase 1 natural area and the regional land cover classification GIS data provide highresolution land cover information for the study area. This data and the accompanying maps can
also be retained on file and used as a source of information for planning, modelling, and
decision-making for future applications at multiple scales.
The identification of local ESAs within the study area provides a good indication of specific areas
most important to protect as open spaces during the municipal development process.
Segmentation of the identified ESAs into three levels of priority also provides a useful tool for
analysis and planning. The local-level boundaries identified in this study were based on highresolution land cover data and are therefore more useful for municipal government planning
purposes than the coarse-scale provincial ESA data. In addition, some of the regional ESAs
identified at more local scales were not addressed by the provincial study. This fills an important
information need for local municipal governments when pursuing more detailed land use
planning and development in the future.
Use of the information when planning future development as well as parks and protected areas
can help to meet multiple urban sustainability goals related to recreation, water management,
and biodiversity protection, while also providing amenity values, neighbourhood identity or
“sense of place”, and economic values such as enhanced property values in close proximity to
open spaces. A wide range of policy tools may be required to achieve and maintain a high
quality connected open space network during planning and development. Although a detailed
analysis is beyond the scope of this project, the spectrum of tools might include:

Strongly discouraging development in areas within identified ESAs

Planning future development nodes away from areas within or near identified ESAs

If and when subdivision and development of land parcels occurs, zoning as much of the
identified ESAs as possible as Environmental Reserve, Municipal Reserve, or
Conservation Easements

Encouraging and/or requiring clustering of lots within developments

Using density transfer and/or transfer of development rights

Using additional open space dedications combined with higher density in remaining
areas
With respect to overall watershed protection, construction and development could also be
mitigated using Low Impact Development stormwater source control techniques (e.g., overland
swales, rain gardens, decentralized local detention ponds, green roofs, permeable pavement).
Conventional stormwater ponds and constructed wetlands could also be used.
25
4.2
Recommendations
The following sections identify recommendations and opportunities that would serve to fulfill the
requirements of the Municipal Development Plan, of providing a sustainable growth framework
and conservation of the natural environment. Natural features provide valuable ecosystem goods
and services, and the Province of Alberta is currently investigating ways to quantify the value of
natural areas for conservation, mitigation and compensation purposes. These recommendations
are in alignment with current views of Alberta Environment.
4.2.1 Natural Features GIS Data
The City of Grande Prairie may consider integrating the digitized natural features from Phase 1
and the identified ESAs from Phase 2 with existing municipal GIS data. This strategy is used by
other jurisdictions including the City of Red Deer (Appendix C.5) to assist in planning efforts
which consider important ecological areas.
4.2.2 Riparian Corridors
The City of Grande Prairie may wish to consider adopting setback best practices similar to those
outlined in the Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan in areas where it would not
adversely affect desired housing targets. These setback best practices (Appendix C.6) would
consider flood zones, meander belts and escarpments in the calculation of setbacks, rather than
just the flood zone alone.
Following the example of the City of Edmonton river valley and ravine system (Appendix C.4), the
City of Grande Prairie may want to consider integrating riparian corridors into existing open
space and ensuring that recreational activities within riparian corridors are primarily passive and
low intensity. Acquisition of riparian corridors prior to development and designation of such
areas for future parks is another recommended strategy.
Assessment and evaluation of the recommendations in the Bow River Basin Council’s
‘Protecting Riparian Areas: Creative Approaches to Subdivision Development in the Bow River
Basin’ is recommended (Appendix C.6). Adoption of some of the recommendations where they
do not impinge upon growth management targets should be considered.
The City of Grande Prairie could also coordinate riparian protection efforts with the surrounding
County to ensure that the integrity of regional corridors are preserved. One way of achieving this
is to protect the lower reaches of riparian corridors that form tributaries with the larger regional
corridor. Protection of riparian corridors on the regional scale can also reduce the need for
expensive stormwater infrastructure.
The City’s current MDP policy probiting alteration of land levels (excavating and filling) the flood
fringe areas of the 1:100 year flood plain is consistent with best practice which supports the
above principles.
4.2.3 Ridges and Escarpments
Consistent with similar recommendations provided in the Calgary Metropolitan Plan and the topof-bank policies adopted by the City of Edmonton, the City of Grande Prairie may aim to
preserve ridges and escarpments as natural open space wherever possible. They facilitate the
movement of wildlife, maintain landscape connectivity and represent areas of high scenic value
and recreational potential. Ridge top setbacks can serve the dual goal of protecting riparian
26
corridors, while providing recreational opportunities. Where practical, the Nose Creek Watershed
Water Management Plan setback recommendations may be considered (Appendix C.6). These
recommendations calculate setback width as a function of slope height and proximity to riparian
corridors.
4.2.4 Natural Vegetation
The City could make efforts to preserve any large patches of natural vegetation and prevent
further losses to development such as the documented loss of 10 hectares of forest described in
Section 3.2 (and shown on Map 6b). The most vulnerable areas are the forested buffers that run
along the top of the escarpments each side of the Bear Creek corridor both inside and outside of
the City boundary. Because large portions of forest fall behind existing areas that quality as ER ,
clearing them for development is liable to be interpreted as acceptable practice. The City should
look to establish large connected open spaces in these areas not only through ER dedication,
but also through other tools such as strategic placement of MR and the other tools listed in
Section 4.1.
While it is recognized that a manicured landscape can be desirable and appropriate for some
areas, the City may choose to opt for ‘naturalized’ landscaping in new developments. Various
species of non-native grasses can be used to form a naturalized landscape that is adapted to
the climate and moisture regime of the region. Such landscaping requires lower maintenance,
offers a better protection against soil erosion and riparian damage and is more in keeping with
the character of the rural landscape outside City boundaries. Naturalized landscaping can
reproduce on a small scale the natural habitats found in non-developed rural areas. It is also
valuable in simulating the runoff characteristics of non-developed areas thereby helping to offset
the negative hydrological impacts of large areas of impervious developed surfaces.
4.2.5 Wetlands
The City should aim for no net loss of wetlands, including avoiding wetlands, mitigating impacts
to wetlands were unavoidable, and compensating for unavoidable impacts, while recognizing
site-specific needs The documented loss of 40 wetlands (21 of which were open water or marsh)
described in Section 3.2 is likely just a portion of the total amount lost due to the limited size of
the analysis area. Where possible, it would be beneficial to preserve a buffer of vegetation
around wetlands. Buffer widths should be calculated based on local site conditions, but a 30m
width is often considered best practice. Integration of existing wetlands into the stormwater
management infrastructure is a policy that has been adopted into the MDP, whereby a forebay is
constructed to ensure high sediment loads from urban areas are reduced prior to entry into a
more natural wetlands. High sediment loads often smother invertebrates and affects the entire
food chain in wetlands. Phase 3 will further identify appropriate buffer widths appropriate for the
Grand Prairie area.
4.2.6 Water
Maintaining the quantity and quality of water in the Bear River and its tributaries should be the
primary goal of any water policies. The City of Edmonton (Appendix C.4) has adopted policies
that form a useful framework in this regard. These include strict ecological design standards for
27
new developments, stormwater best management and participation in activities and supporting
organizations that work to maintain water quality in the local area and the wider watershed.
4.2.7 Parks and Open Space
Recommendations for parks and open space planning include the acquisition of undeveloped
riparian corridors as future park space. In addition, planning the park and open space network to
link with existing natural areas will help to maintain ecological connectivity and wildlife corridors.
The City has an existing comprehensive urban tree management program and may wish to
consider expansion of the urban forest. Although a review is out of scope for this study, there
are several studies that provide examples of the cost savings that can be realized by investing in
the urban forest.
The results of this study demonstrate that it would be beneficial for the Bear River and the
Muskoseepi Park to continue to form the central corridor in the parks and open space system.
Ecologically significant areas adjacent to the corridor identified in this study can be set aside as
open space as much as possible, recognizing site-specific needs and constraints. The more
challenging issue will be the management strategy for Bear Creek Corridor Open Space within
developed areas of the City (Maps 3b, 3c and 3d). Since these areas are already confined by
surrounding development it is not possible to implement the same open space plans here as
could be adopted in newly-acquired land. The best strategy for these areas would maintain or
increase connectivity of existing trails and pathways and promote more passive recreational
uses. The identified 0.5 km ‘pinch point’ in the Bear River corridor between Muskoseepi Park
and the CN Railway bridge offers many challenges and opportunities when it comes to
maintaining and improving the connectivity of the Bear River as a regional corridor.
The Muskoseepi Park Master Plan identifies the naturalization and reforestation of previously
manicured areas. The goal is to reduce high maintenance practices and increase ecological
goods and services. Specialized parks staff considers the best practices of mowing/turf
maintenance, tree management, integrated pest management, ornamental species
management, and collaboratively determine the most appropriate areas for naturalization. Bear
Creek North, in its current state, will be developed and planned using the best management
practices of low-impact design. Hard and impervious facilities such as park facilities, soccer
fields, and ball fields will not be considered in this area.
28
4.3
Data Gaps and Limitations
Throughout the course of the study, a number of data gaps and limitations were identified.
These include:

Further field work and analysis is required to confirm the importance of ESAs for values
such as wildlife habitat, rare plant habitat, and hydrologic values. Data on habitat quality
obtained from field work may influence the final score and priority rank of ESAs
identified by this study. However, the ESA criteria applied are likely relatively robust for
use in a screening process to identify areas important to conserve as open space. Field
validation has been identified as the potential focus of Phase 4 of this project pending
future funding.

A more detailed analysis of hydrology, including alluvial aquifers, source water zones,
wetland hydrologic function assessments, groundwater hydrology, and so on would be
beneficial to refine the ESA scoring system with respect to priorities for open spaces to
protect watershed values and drinking water source areas.

Field work conducted by a professional wildlife biologist to observe and identify wildlife
species and wildlife habitat potential would provide enhanced data on the relative
importance of different habitat types identified in the study area and the potential
occurrence of provincially or federally listed species. This could be incorporated into
Phase 4 pending future funding.

Field work conducted by a professional botanist to observe and identify plant species
and habitat potential would provide enhanced data on the location of native grassland
patches. This could be incorporated into Phase 4 pending future funding.

Field work by a professional botanist could also help to identify the importance of
habitat types, the degree of native understory in forest and shrub communities, as well
as Stewart-Kantrud (1971) wetland classification based on vegetation indicators. This
could be incorporated into Phase 4 pending future funding.

An analysis of the landscape specifically with regard to recreation values, including
recreation features, visual quality, aesthetics, and desired recreational experience would
provide additional useful information to support open space planning.

Human usage intensity within each natural area would aid in directing management
towards those areas most commonly accessed and impacted.

The analysis of structural connectivity between natural patches using a GIS cost surface
should ideally be supplemented by more detailed analyses of functional connectivity for
specific species (e.g., focal species, species at risk, flagship species, etc.) to further
refine the model.
29
4.4
Next Steps
The key findings of this report will be compiled into a presentation that will be delivered by a
representative from O2 Planning + Design to Grande Prairie City Council. This has been
scheduled for May 23rd, 2012.
Phase 3 of this project will develop science based setback requirements for environmental
reserves and compile the results (including this report) in a final document. A final presentation
will be made to City Council on the results and recommendations of the setback analysis.
Pending additional funding, it is recommended that the field validation component (Phase 4)
proceed in the summer of 2013. O2 will coordinate with The City of Grande Prairie to ensure
that all data and documents required for the efficient completion of the field surveys are
provided to the field assessment team. The field assessment will include Riparian Health
Assessments based on site specific information.
30
REFERENCES
Alberta Environment. 1999. Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta.
(Available online at http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6786.pdf
ATPR (Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation). 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas:
Provincial Update 2009. Fiera Biological Consulting, prepared for Alberta Tourism, Parks, and
Recreation, 1655 pp.
Angold, P. G. 1997. The Impact of a Road Upon Adjacent Heathland Vegetation: Impacts on
Plant Species Composition. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 409-417.
Baguette, M. and H. van Dyck. 2007. Landscape connectivity and animal behaviour: functional
grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecology 22: 1117-1129.
Beier, P. and R. F. Noss. 199). Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology
12: 1241-1252.
Bostock, H.S. 1970. Physiographic subdivisions of Canada. In: Geology and economic minerals
of Canada. R.J.W. Douglas, (ed.); Geological Survey of Canada, Economic Geology Report No.1,
pp.9-31.
Bow River Basin Council. 2002. Protecting Riparian Areas: Creative Approaches to Subdivision
Development in the Bow River Basin. A Guide for Municipalities, Developers and Landowners.
(Available online at http://www.brbc.ab.ca/pdfs/brp_w.pdf)
Brauman, K. A., G. C. Daily, et al. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: An
overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 6798.
Cardinale, B. J., C. T. Harvey, et al. 2003. Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a
multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem. Ecology
Letters 6(9): 857-865.
Cardinale, B. J., J. P. Wrigh, et al. 2007. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production
increase through time because of species complementarity. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(46): 18123-18128.
Casey, R. E. and S. J. Klaine. 2001. Nutrient attenuation by a riparian wetland during natural and
artificial runoff events. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 1720-1731.
Castelle, A., A. Johnson, et al. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements-a review.
Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878-882.
City of Calgary. 2007. Southwest Regional Policy Plan. The City of Calgary Land Use Planning &
Policy.
City of Calgary. 2007a. The City of Calgary’s Environmental Action Plan (The City of Calgary’s
Environmental Policy (Policy Number UEP001)). (Available online at
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/environmental_management/environmental_action_plan.pd
f)
City of Calgary. 2007a. The City of Calgary’s Environmental Action Plan (The City of Calgary’s
Environmental Policy (Policy Number UEP001)). (Available online at
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/environmental_management/environmental_action_plan.pd
f)
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company, New York. 818 pp.
31
Dykstra, P. R. 2004. Thresholds in Habitat Supply: A Review of the Literature. British Columbia
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Ecosystem Conservation Section, Ministry of
Water, Land, and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Wildlife Report No. R-27, Victoria, B.C. pp.
Ernst, C. 2004. Protecting the Source: Land Conservation and the Future of America's Drinking
Water. The Trust for Public Land and American Water Works Association, 56 pp.
Fahrig, L. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: A synthesis.
Ecological Applications 12(2): 346-353.
Fitzgerald, J. A., D. N. Pashley, et al. 1999. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the
Northern Mixed-grass Prairie (Physiographic Area 37). American Bird Conservancy, pp.
Fleury, A. M. and R. D. Brown. 1997. A framework for the design of wildlife conservation
corridors with specific application to southwestern Ontario. Landscape and Urban Planning 37:
163-186.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995a. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. xx + 632 pp.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995b. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape
Ecology 10(3): 133-142.
Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, et al. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press,
Washington, D.C. pp.
Freemark, K. E. and H. G. Merriam. 1986. Importance of Area and Habitat Heterogeneity to Bird
Assemblages in Temperate Forest Fragments. Biological Conservation 36(2): 115-141.
Gilbert, M. C., P. M. Whited, et al. 2006. A Regional Guidebook for Applying the
Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of Prairie Potholes. Wetlands
Research Program, Engineer Research and Development Center, US Army Corp. of Engineers.
ERD/EL Report TR-06-5, 170p., 170 pp.
Griffiths, M.B. 2010. Lamb Buddha's Migrant Workers: Self-assertion on China's Urban Fringe.
Journal of Current Chinese Affairs: 39(2): 3-37.
Herkert, J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern bird communities.
Ecological Applications 4(3): 461-471.
Hilty, J. A., W. Z. Lidicker, et al. 2006. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking
Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 323 pp.
Holmes, T., R. Knight, et al. 1993. Responses of wintering grassland raptors to human
disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 461-478.
Hostetler, M. and D. Drake 2009. Conservation subdivisions: A wildlife perspective. Landscape
and Urban Planning: 90: 95-101.
Jacques Whitford AXYS. 2009. West Macleod Area Structure Plan Biophysical Inventory Update.
Prepared for West Macleod Owners Group, Calgary, AB. Prepared by: Jacques Whitford AXYS
Ltd. 305 pp.
Kampf, H. and F. Stavast. 2005. Committee of Experts for the Development of the PanEuropean Ecological Network: Report on the Implementation of the Pan-European Ecological
Network, The Netherlands. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Ede, NL. 22 pp.
Kennedy, C., J. Wilkinson, et al. 2003. Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners.
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. 64 pp.
Lamoureux, R. G., G. G. Chow, et al. 1983. Environmentally Significant Areas Study: Phase Two
Report. Prepared for the Calgary Regional Planning Commission, 257 pp.
32
Loyn, R. H., R.G. Runnalls, G.Y. Forward, J. Tyers. 1983. Territorial bell miners and other birds
affecting populations of insect prey. Science 221(1411-1413).
MacArthur, R. H. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. pp.
MacMillan, R. A. 1987. Soil Survey of the Calgary Urban Perimeter. Alberta Soil Survey Report
No. 45. Terrain Sciences Department, Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, AB., 120 pp.
Maltby, E. 2009. Functional Assessment of Wetlands: Towards evaluation of ecosystem services.
Woodhead Publishing Ltd. and CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. pp.
Mayer, P. M., S. K. Reynolds, et al. 2006. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen
Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. Online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ada/download/reports/600R05118/600R05118.pdf. Accessed November 7,
2008.
MD of Foothills. 2010. Municipal Development Plan. Municipal District of Foothills No. 31.
Moilanen, A. and I. Hanski. 1995. Habitat destruction and coexistence of competitors in a
spatially realistic metapopulation model. Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 141-144.
Naeem, S., K. Hakenson, J.H. Lawton, M.J. Crawley, L.J. Thompson. 1996. Biodiversity and
plant productivity in a model assemblage of plant species. Oikos 76(259-264).
Naeth, M. A., A. W. Bailey, et al. 1991. Water holding capacity of litter and soil organic matter in
mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems of Alberta. Journal of Range Management 51:
496-500.
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural regions and subregions of Alberta. Natural Regions
Committee. Government of Alberta, Alberta Environment, Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development, Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece, [Edmonton], vi + 254 pp.
The Nose Creek Watershed Partnership. 2008. The Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan.
Prepared by Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. (Available online at
http://www.nosecreekpartnership.com/documents/NCWMP/2008%20Plan/2008%20Nose%20
Creek%20Watershed%20Water%20Management%20Plan.pdf)
O2. 2010a. Intermunicipal Development Plan Biophysical Mapping Study. Presented to: City of
Calgary and Rocky View County, by O2 Planning + Design Inc.
O2. 2010b. Calgary Annexation Territory Open Space Study: Final Compilation. Presented to City
of Calgary Parks. Presented by: O2 Planning + Design Inc. May, 2010.
O2., 2008. Ecological Infrastructure – The Green Network. Internal Review Document.
O2. 2006. Draft Final Report for National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative: Development of
Habitat-Based Biodiversity Standards. O2 Planning + Design Inc., in association with Elutis
Modelling and Consulting Inc. and Aquila Applied Ecologists, prepared for Environment Canada,
538 pp.
Olewiler, N. 2004. The Value of Natural Capital in Settled Areas of Canada. Published by Ducks
Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, 36 pp.
Poston, D., M. Ealey, et al. 1990. Priority migratory bird habitats in Canada's prairie provinces.
Canada Wildlife Service, Edmonton, 107 pp.
Potvin, M. J., T. D. Drummer, et al. 2005. Monitoring and habitat analysis for wolves in upper
Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4): 1660-1669.
33
Romero, S., J. F. Campbell, et al. 2009. Movement behaviour in response to landscape
structure: the role of functional grain. Landscape Ecology 24: 39-51.
Schultz, C. B. and E. E. Crone. 2005. Patch size connectivity and thresholds for butterfly habitat
restoration. Conservation Biology 19(3): 887-896.
Self-Davis, M. L., P. A. Moore, et al. 2003. Forage species and canopy cover effects on runoff
from small plots. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(6): 349-359.
Shan, B., C. Yin, et al. 2002. Transport and retention of phosphorus pollutants in the landscape
with a traditional, multipond system. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 139: 15-34.
Singleton, P. 2008. Landscape Linkage Modeling. US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research
Station. Prepared for the State-wide CCLC Meeting, July 28, 2008, 38 pp.
Singleton, P., W. Gaines, et al. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington:
a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. USDA
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Paper 549: 1.
Smith-Fargey, K. 2004. Shared Prairie-Shared Vision: The Northern Mixed Grass Transboundary
Conservation Initiative. Conservation Site Planning Workshop Proceedings and Digital Atlas.
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Regina, SK.
Stevens, C. and T. Council 2008. A Fish-based Index of Biological Integrity for Assessing River
Condition in Central Alberta. Alberta Conservation Association, Sherwood Park, Alberta &
Lethbridge, Alberta. Technical Report T-2008-001.
Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrigh, et al. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos
68: 571-572.
Tilman, D., D. Wedin, J. Knops 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in
grassland ecosystems. Nature 379: 718-720.
Tilman, D., P. B. Reich, et al. 2006. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long
grassland experiment. Nature 441(7093): 629-632.
Turner, M. and R. H. Gardner, eds. 1991. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. New York,
Springer.
Wilby, A. and M. B. Thomas. 2002. Natural enemy diversity and pest control: patterns of pest
emergence with agricultural intensification. Ecology Letters 5(3): 353-360.
Worrall, F., W. T. Swank, et al. 2003. Changes in stream nitrate concentrations due to land
management practices, ecological succession, and climate: Developing a systems approach to
integrated catchment response. Water Resources Research 39(7): 14.
34
APPENDIX A: MAPS
Map 1 - Study Area
Bear Lake
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
Hermit Lake
Hughes Lake
Crystal Lake
Muskoseepi Reservoir
Wood Lake
Flyingshot Lake
0 0.5 1
Background Imagery is City and IDP airphoto data
acquired in 2010.
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 2 - Natural Landscape Characterization - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
Bear Lake
Hermit Lake
Hughes Lake
Open Water
Crystal Lake
River or Stream Corridor
Upland Vegetation
Wetlands
Non Vegetated
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
Wood Lake
Flyingshot Lake
Classification is based on City and IDP airphoto imagery
acquired in 2010.
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Kilometres
30 August 2012
Map 3 - Natural Features Mapping - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
Bear Lake
Hermit Lake
Rivers, Streams, Lakes, Ponds
Forested
Hughes Lake
Shrub
Crystal Lake
Grassland
Exposed Ground
Open Water Wetlands
Marsh Wetland
Wet Cropland
Dugout
City Boundary
Wood Lake
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
Flyingshot Lake
0 0.5 1
Classification is based on City and IDP airphoto imagery
acquired in 2010.
2
3
4
Kilometres
30 August 2012
Map 3a - Detail Map 1 - Natural Features Mapping - Bear River Corridor
Forested
Shrub
Grassland
Exposed Ground
Open Water Wetlands
Marsh Wetland
Wet Cropland
Dugout
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0
250
500
1,000
Meters
30 August 2012
Map 3b - Detail Map 2 - Natural Features Mapping - Bear River Corridor
Forested
Shrub
Grassland
Exposed Ground
Open Water Wetlands
Marsh Wetland
Wet Cropland
Dugout
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0
250
500
1,000
Meters
30 August 2012
Map 3c - Detail Map 3 - Natural Features Mapping - Bear River Corridor
Forested
Shrub
Grassland
Exposed Ground
Open Water Wetlands
Marsh Wetland
Wet Cropland
Dugout
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0
250
500
1,000
Meters
10 May 2012
Map 3d - Detail Map 4 - Natural Features Mapping - Bear River Corridor
Forested
Shrub
Grassland
Exposed Ground
Open Water Wetlands
Marsh Wetland
Wet Cropland
Dugout
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0
250
500
1,000
Meters
10 May 2012
Map 3e - Detail Map 5 - Natural Features Mapping - Bear River Corridor
Wood Lake
Forested
Shrub
Grassland
Exposed Ground
Open Water Wetlands
Marsh Wetland
Wet Cropland
Dugout
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0
250
500
1,000
Meters
10 May 2012
Map 4 - Regional Land Cover Classification - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
Land Cover
Anthropogenic
Annual Cropland
Non Vegetated
Grassland
Open Water
Wetland
Shrub
Forested
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0 0.5
1
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 5 - Regional Land Cover Classification - Component Data Origins
Land Cover Data Origins
Road and Rail GIS Vectors
Natural Areas Mapping (O2-Phase 1)
Developed Areas / Park Space (O2)
Geobase LCC 2000 Land Cover
Data Gaps - Filled and Classified (O2)
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0 0.5
1
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 6 - Overview Map - Wetlands and Forest Lost to Development Between 1997 and 2010
W11
W02
W01
W03
W10
W08
W06
Wetland Loss identified by comparison of
1997 and 2010 airphoto imagery
W07 W09
Crystal Lake
1997/2010 Net Loss Analysis Area Extent
W05
W04
1997 Open Water Wetlands Lost by 2010
1997 Marsh Wetlands Lost by 2010
W12
1997 Wet Cropland Lost by 2010
1997 Dugouts Lost by 2010
1997 Forested Area Lost by 2010
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
W40
W39
IDP Area Boundary
W38
W37
W13
W36
W14
W35
W34
W15
Wood Lake
W32
W31
W33
W30 W29
W17
W16
W28
W26 W24
W27
Flyingshot Lake
W23
W25
1997 Airphoto (black and white image) Extent
W18 W19 W20
W21 W22
0
250 500
1,000
Metres
1,500
2,000
10 May 2012
Map 6a - Detail Map 1 - Wetlands and Forest Lost to Development Between 1997 and 2010
W11
W01
W02
W10
W03
W08
W06
W07
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
W09
W04
W05
IDP Area Boundary
Crystal Lake
W12
0
250
500
Metres
1,000
10 May 2012
Map 6b - Detail Map 2 - Wetlands and Forest Lost to Development Between 1997 and 2010
W13
W14
W15
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
W17
W16
W23
W24
W25
W18
W20 W21
W19
W22
0
250
500
Metres
1,000
10 May 2012
Map 6c - Detail Map 3 - Wetlands and Forest Lost to Development Between 1997 and 2010
W38
W40
W39
W37
W36
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
W32
W35
W33
W34
W31
W30 W29
W26
W23
W24
W28
W25
Flyingshot Lake
0
W27
250
500
Metres
1,000
10 May 2012
Map 7 - Natural Patch Size Classes - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
Natural Patch Size Rating
1 <2 ha
2 2-10 ha
3 10-100 ha
4 100-500 ha
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0 0.5
1
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 8 - Connectivity of Natural Patches - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
Connectivity Rating
0 - None
1 - Low
2 - Moderate
3 - High
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
Connectivity classes show the
relative ranking of natural patches
by their effective proximity to other
natural patches. High scores indicate
close proximity to large amounts of
natural habitat, lower scores indicate
fragmentation and isolation of
natural patches.
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 9 - Hydrologic Functions - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
0 - Very Low Water Resource Values
1- Some Water Resource Values
2 - Moderate Water Resource Values
3 - High Water Resource Values
4 - Very High Water Resource Values
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
Hydrologic function scores are based
on the number of intersections between
the following inputs:
Alluvial Soil Potential
Floodplain
Riparian Corridor
Natural Welands (Open Water and Marsh)
Lakes
Forested Areas
Each input is assigned a value of 1
Hydrologic function score is the sum value
of all inputs in any given location
No Inputs intersect = score of 0
2 Inputs intersect = score of 2
Example: Forested area on a floodplain
that is also an alluvial soil area would
score 3
0 0.5
1
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 10 - Environmentally Significant Areas - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
ESA Rank
1 - Moderate
2 - High
3 - Highest
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0 0.5
1
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 11 - Environmentally Significant Area Systems - City of Grande Prairie and Annexation Area
Priority ESAs
Bear River Corridor - City North
Bear River Corridor - City South
Bear River Corridor - NW Annexation Area
Bear River Corridor - SE Annexation Area
Flyingshot Lake and Wetland Region
Riparian Stream Corridors - NE
West Annexation Lakes and Wetlands
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
Kilometres
10 May 2012
Map 12 - Provincial Environmentally Significant Areas (ATPR 2009)
ESA Priority Areas (O2 Study)
Provincial ESAs 2009
ESA 411 - Parkland - Important Wildlife Area
ESA 556 - Boreal - Important Bird Area
ESA 685 - Boreal - Unique Landforms, Intact Riparian Areas
City Boundary
Annexation Boundary
IDP Area Boundary
0 0.5 1
2
3
4
5
Kilometres
10 May 2012
APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF REGIONAL LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND ESA
IDENTIFICATION METHODS
This appendix summarizes additional technical details related to the development of the regional land
cover classification. Also included in this appendix is information related to the literature and
assumptions used to construct the ESA identification model for the three criteria, including a justification
of scoring criteria intervals selected, and the GIS modeling procedures applied to run the analysis.
B.1.
Regional Land Cover Classification
A regional land cover classification was created to optimize the Phase 2 Environmentally Significant Area
(ESA) models – specifically the landscape context / connectivity model. This model views the natural
features digitized in Phase 1 in the context of surrounding land cover types. A number of existing and
digitized datasets were combined and layered to form a regional land use mosaic. This mosaic includes
the Phase 1 digitized natural areas and allows them to be viewed in the context of other non-natural or
semi-natural land cover types. Map 5 shows the origins of the component data sources.
Geobase LCC 2000 (Land Cover, Circa 2000) was used as the base classification layer. LCC 2000 is a
LandSat derived classification that has approximately 25 to 30m resolution. It is a public domain data
source that is available for free download from www.geobase.com. This data was refined to exclude
developed land and water classes. This forms the lowest priority layer in the classification
Digitized polygons of developed areas were created by O2. A GIS analyst used the 2010 imagery to
draw polygons around built-up areas both within and outside the City boundary. In the annexation area,
polygons were used to capture rural residences and farm buildings. Some private rural driveways were
able to be resolved as thin polygons, but this was not always possible given the limitations of time and
budget. A digitizing scale of 1:10:000 was used to capture small development footprints in the
annexation area. Consequently they are not as accurate as the Phase 1 natural features which were
digitized at a scale range of 1:2,500 to 1:5,000).
Within the City boundary, vector outlines of parks and open space were cut in to the developed area
polygons. Any additional large, natural or semi-natural open spaces in the City boundary were also cut
into the developed area polygons. This included the large expanses of open grass along each side of
the CN rail yard in the south part of the City. The final polygon was classified into ‘anthropogenic’ and
‘grassland’ and merged into those same class designations assigned to data pulled from other sources.
This layer has a higher priority than the Geobase LCC and overwrites the LCC classes in the event of a
conflict
The Phase 1 natural features mapping layer is the highest priority layer in the classification. ‘Forested’
and ‘Shrub’ classes designations were retained in the regional land cover classification schemes. All
wetland classes (open water, marsh wetland, wet cropland and dugout) were merged into a single
‘Wetland’ class. Similarly, lakes, ponds and river classes were merged into a single ‘Open Water’ class.
Road and rail vectors were cut into the classification layer as the final input. They were buffered to a
total width of 10m and 5m respectively and assigned the ‘Anthropogenic’ classification. A regional land
cover classification map was generated along with statistics showing the relative distribution of land
cover types both within the City boundary and in the annexation area.
Table B-1.
Regional Land Cover Map Component Datasets
Land Cover Class
Input Data Type
Data Source *(listed by priority)
Anthropogenic
(Built Up Areas and
Transportation)
GIS Road Vectors
Geobase Road Network (Public Domain Data)
GIS Rail Vectors
City of Grande Prairie GIS Rail Layer
Digitized Polygons of
Built-up Areas, Rural
Residences, Farms etc.
Digitized by O2
Annual Cropland
Land Cover Polygon
‘Cover Type 122’ from
Geobase Land Cover, Circa 2000
(Public Domain Data)
Perennial Cropland or
Pasture
Land Cover Polygon
‘Cover Type 121’ from
Exposed Ground
(Primarily Steep Slopes)
Digitized Natural
Feature Polygons
Digitized by O2 (Phase 1 Mapping Layer as
Described in Section 2.2.1)
Grassland
Digitized Natural
Feature Polygons
(Grassland Mapped
Along Bear River
Corridor Only)
Digitized Polygons of
City Parks, Open Space
and Other Undeveloped
Natural / Semi Natural
Areas
Digitized by O2
Open Water
(Rivers, Streams, Lakes
and Ponds)
Digitized Natural
Feature Polygons
Wetland (All Wetland
Classes)
Digitized Natural
Feature Polygons
Land Cover Polygon
‘Cover Type 81’ (Treed Wetland) from
Digitized Natural
Feature Polygons
Land Cover Polygon
‘Cover Type 100’ (Herb) from
Digitized Natural
Feature Polygons
Land Cover Polygon
‘Cover Type 221’ (Broadleaf Forest - Dense) from
Shrub
Forested
B.2.
ESA Criterion #1: Natural Patch Size
Map 7 shows the results of the natural patch analysis. The input dataset for the analysis was the Phase 1
digitized natural features layer (Map 3). Prior to running the natural patch size class analysis, adjacent
natural polygons were merged in the GIS to form contiguous natural patches (e.g., immediately adjacent
open water, wetland, and shrub habitats were considered as a single natural patch). Scoring and ranking
intervals were based on several prior studies performed in similar urban and urban-rural boundary
landscapes surrounding Calgary. Table B-1 below outlines the assumptions and rationale for each of the
selected patch size intervals.
Table B-2.
Patch Size GIS Layer: Assumptions and Rationale
Criterion #1: Natural Patch Size
>100 ha
Score
Assigned
4
10-100 ha
3
Rationale
Patches >100 ha provide suitable habitat for a
very wide range of bird species as well as
relatively intact interior plant communities
(Fitzgerald 1999; Kennedy et al. 2003)
Patches >10 ha support native small mammals
and relatively high bird diversity
(Kennedy et al. 2003)
Consistent with prior biophysical mapping studies
in similar landscapes
2-10 ha
2
Patches >2 ha can support representative seedeating bird communities and native vegetation
communities
(Kennedy et al. 2003)
Consistent with prior biophysical mapping studies
in similar landscapes
<2 ha
1
Consistent with the prior biophysical mapping
studies in similar landscapes
0
Areas degraded by anthropogenic activities with
low connectivity
B.3.
ESA Criterion #2: Landscape Context / Connectivity
Map 8 shows the results of the landscape context / connectivity analysis. The input data set for this
analysis was the regional land cover model (Map 4). The landscape was classified into four connectivity
classes (3=high, 2=moderate, 1=low, 0=none) using an automated GIS model of structural landscape
connectivity. This method is well suited to the nature of available data at this scale, and allows for
repeatable, consistent evaluation of relative connectivity. The model identifies and ranks natural habitat
patches in terms of their contribution to local and regional connectivity.
A weighted cost-distance approach was adopted, an approach which has been used extensively in
studies of conservation value using the theories of landscape ecology (Singleton et al. 2002). Using this
approach, land-cover polygons are assigned a friction value by cover type. This represents the likelihood
that movement through those cover types will be negatively impacted, due to increased mortality risk or
reduced habitat quality. The greater the magnitude of human impact, the greater the likelihood that the
cover type will functionally fragment the landscape. Values were adopted in accordance to Singleton
(2008). The strong cost associated with anthropogenic areas is in accordance with the known effects of
human footprints such as direct habitat loss, higher mortality from roads, habitat quality reduction
through edge effects such as increased light, noise and sediment runoff (Angold 1997; Forman et al.
2003).
Because organisms have been shown to operate over a range of dispersal distances (Kennedy et al.
2003), two scales are adopted for the definition of natural complexes, the local and regional scales,
chosen to mimic the dispersal distances seen in natural settings, ~200m for small birds and mammals
(Kennedy et al. 2003; Bampf and Stavast 2005) and ~1000m for larger birds and mammals (Kampf and
Stavast 2005; Schultz and Crone 2005). Complexes defined at the local scale are assumed to be more
directly connected together than complexes defined at regional scales. Furthermore, as diversity
increases with area, large natural patch complexes are more highly valued than smaller patches. So as
to represent the minimum functional habitat grain size (Baquette and van Dyck 2007; Romero et al.
2009) natural patches smaller than 0.01 ha are first removed from consideration as the majority of
animals require much larger patch sizes) Kennedy et al. 2003.
The steps below outline the general procedure applied:
1. The friction surface was calculated using the following land-cover classes from the regional land
cover classification (Map 4):
Friction Value Assigned (cost unit)
Anthropogenic
99
Annual Cropland
5
Perennial Cropland and Pasture
3
Grassland
3
Open Water
1
Wetland
1
Shrub
1
Forested
1
2. A cost-distance raster was calculated, spreading from each natural cover type polygon
exceeding 0.01 ha in size, using the friction surface to limit spread across costly cover-types.
3. The cost-distance raster was reclassified using two thresholds, 100 cost units and 500 cost
units (in a completely natural setting, these would correspond to 200m and 1000m buffers,
respectively). These reclassified layers are converted into polygons delimiting the "natural
complex extent" at the two scales, the 'local scale natural complex', and the 'regional scale
natural complex'.
4. The two natural complex polygon layers are intersected with the natural cover type polygons
(over 0.01 ha), identifying which complex contains each natural cover type polygons.
5. The total area of natural patches found within each natural complex is calculated, and used to
define the connectivity class of the complex, as follows:
'High' score 3: assigned to all natural cover type polygons within a local scale natural complex
which contains more than 10 Ha of natural cover.
'Moderate' score 2: assigned to all natural cover type polygons within a regional scale natural
complex which contains more than 10 Ha of natural cover.
'Low' score 1: assigned to all natural cover type polygons within a regional scale natural
complex which contains more than 2 Ha of natural cover.
'None' score 0: assigned to all natural cover type polygons within a regional scale natural
complex which contains less than 2 Ha of natural cover.
Figure B-1 shows the connectivity model in the form of flow chart diagram.
Figure B-1.
Connectivity Classification Methodology Flowchart
It should be noted as a caveat that connectivity modelling is a complex, technical subject that is
currently evolving rapidly in the scientific literature. Our approach provides an overview for the purpose
of landscape prioritization for ESA identification. Although the model is sufficiently sophisticated and
calibrated to address most aspects of landscape connectivity at this scale, as a structural connectivity
model it may present some limitations. In contrast, functional connectivity models would vary based on
individual species’ behaviour as well as their perception of the landscape. The use of more detailed
functional connectivity models examining species-specific behaviour of dispersing organisms was
beyond the scope of this study. However, such issues should ideally be carefully examined to provide
more precision for any species-specific conservation strategies in the area.
B.4.
ESA Criterion #3: Hydrologic Functions
Hydrologic functions of land cover types were assessed by assigning values to the following landscape
features that tend to perform critical watershed functions:

Riparian Corridors

Natural Wetlands and Lakes

Floodplains

Forested Areas

Potential Alluvial Soils
Riparian corridors were defined as a 50 m buffer on either side of all stream centrelines in the Geobase
National Hydrological Network. Natural wetlands (open water and marsh wetland classes) and lakes
were sourced from those classes in the digitized Phase 1 natural features layer. Forested areas were
also based on the Phase 1 natural features layer. Floodplains were defined as the 1-in-100 year
floodplain as mapped by Alberta Environment in downloaded shape files. Potential alluvial soils were
extracted from AgraSID soil polygons that intersected continuous (perennial) stream vectors as identified
in the Geobase dataset.
Hydrologic function scoring system and rationale is outlined in Table B-4. The total hydrologic function
score is the sum total of the number of overlapping inputs in any given location. For example, a forested
area located within a riparian corridor on top of a potential alluvial soil zone would have a total
hydrologic function score of 3.
Table B-4.
ESA Identification: Scoring Criteria for Hydrologic Function
Criterion #3: Hydrologic Functions
Score
Assigned
Rationale
Riparian corridors
1
Importance of riparian areas in erosion control
and filtration and uptake of pollutants (Castelle
et al. 1994; Worrall et al. 2003; Mayer et al.
2006; Brauman et al. 2007).
Natural Wetlands and Lakes
1
Importance of wetlands in water quality
improvement, groundwater recharge, flood
attenuation + drought mitigation (Casey and
Klaine 2001; Shan et al. 2002; Olewiler 2004;
Gilbert et al. 2006; Maltby 2009)
Forested Areas
1
Forests, native grasslands, and shrublands play
hydrologic roles due to deep root systems, high
soil water-holding capacity, evapotranspiration,
etc.(Forman 2003; Ernst 2004).
Floodplains
1
Floodplains prevent flood damage + erosion
and improve water quality (Dunne and Leopold
1978; Brauman et al. 2007)
Potential Alluvial soils
1
Permeable soil texture that increases the
susceptibility of groundwater contamination by
development. Often associated with alluvial
aquifers containing groundwater under the
direct influence (GUDI).
Total Hydrologic Function Score
Spatial Sum of Above Inputs
APPENDIX C: REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND RECOMMENDED
BEST PRACTICES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN ALBERTA
C.1
Introduction
The degree to which the importance of ecologically sensitive areas is valued by municipalities is
reflected in the management policies in place to protect them. Some of these policies may specify
minimal requirements to reduce development impacts, while others may reflect an in-depth
understanding of the importance of natural features and the interactions between them.
Before exploring management practices utilized by municipalities, it is worthwhile to summarize why the
protection of natural features and the interactions between them is so important. The concept of
‘ecological infrastructure’ or ‘green networks’ is useful in this regard.
The ecological infrastructure is a collection of natural features such as stream corridors, forested areas,
ridges and wetlands. While important in their own right, the interactions and linkages between them
provide functions and services of greater value. In this section an overview of the concepts of ecological
infrastructure and green networks are provided and the key components of these networks are
identified. While it is not in the scope of this study to model the level of ecological services provided by
identified ecological inventory hotspots, an understanding of the linkages between ecological inventory
elements helps inform the ranking process and underscore the importance of best management
practices to protect such areas.
Ecological infrastructure refers to a network of well-vegetated and well connected lands and wetlands
that operate both within urban centres and rural areas. They differ from simple open space because they
are multi-functional and provide essential ecological services such as clean water, clean air, wildlife
habitat and recreation (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2008).
Examples of ecological services provided by ecological infrastructure include:

Protecting and recharging water supplies

Managing peak flows and providing flood control

Filtering and conveying storm water runoff

Fostering and protecting biodiversity

Allowing species movement through the landscape

Recycling of nutrients

Removing / absorbing particulate pollution and other gaseous pollutants from the air.

Sequestering and storing atmospheric CO2

Moderating the heat island effect of urban areas
Municipalities are increasingly recognizing the importance of integrating the ecological infrastructure into
the urban infrastructure. This is reflected in the environmental policy provisions of their Municipal
Development Plans and in wider regional plans. The following sections provide an overview of some of
the environmental policies and best practices in place as part of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan and also
by the cities of Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer.
C.2
Calgary Metropolitan Plan
The Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP) sets out broad policies and best practices for the management of
environmentally sensitive areas. Member municipalities are encouraged to adopt these best practices in
areas not subject to existing municipal policies. The Draft CMP outlined several general environmental
goals and best practices. The final plan was adopted in June, 2009.
Ecological Infrastructure
CMP and member municipalities acknowledge the effect that population growth and development
pressures have on the environment and will endeavour to align and coordinate local, regional and
intermunicipal plans to protect the region’s identified ecological infrastructure.
Landscape Connectivity
Wherever possible, member municipalities should work together to maintain or enhance landscape
connectivity across the region to ensure the health and integrity of the ecological system.
Riparian Areas
As a region, member municipalities must protect and enhance the ecological functioning of riparian
areas.
Watershed Protection
CMP will identify and pursue options and opportunities to support member municipalities in their efforts
to actively protect critical watershed areas for the benefit of the region.
Ecosystem Diversity
CMP and member municipalities will strive to maintain the diversity of species and ecosystem types in
the region.
Five major regional ecological infrastructure elements were referenced in the draft Calgary Metropolitan
Plan (CMP).

Wetlands

Riparian Buffers

Regional Corridors

Large Patches of Natural Vegetation

Ridges and Escarpments
In the greater Calgary region some lands containing these elements are protected by existing parks and
the provincial green zone. In the study area for this project, most of these features are in private
stewardship.
C.2.1
Wetlands
Wetlands and their buffer areas serve multiple ecological functions. They serve as a connection between
surface and ground water, slow soil erosion, re-charge aquifers and help control floodwaters. Wetlands
provide productive habitat for both local and migratory bird species. Of particular importance are
clusters of multiple wetlands known as wetland complexes. These areas have high biodiversity and
provide functions similar to that of large patches of natural vegetation.
The CMP recognizes the vital role of wetlands and has stressed that a ‘no net loss of wetlands’ policy be
adopted by its member municipalities. This approach aims to plan development that avoids, minimizes
and mitigates impacts to wetlands. Recommended actions include the provision of permanent
vegetation in buffer areas. Natural vegetation buffers are preferable and the width of the buffer is
dependent on the type of wetland, the sensitivity of the landscape and the local conditions of the site.
C.2.2
Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers are the vegetated areas adjacent to rivers and streams. The benefits they provide are
similar to wetlands. Riparian buffers maintain water quality by filtering out dissolved substances.
Riparian buffers also have runoff control functions and as such are important in flood control. Because
of their linear nature riparian corridors provide effective corridors to facilitate wildlife movement.
Similar to wetlands, the CMP recommends that riparian areas be protected with a buffer of natural
vegetation. Member municipalities are encouraged to establish buffers as wide as possible and
discourage development within those buffered areas. Ideally riparian buffers should include the
floodplain, valley slopes and some adjacent dry upland areas (O2 Planning and Design, 2008).
C.2.3
Regional Corridors
Regional corridors follow major river and stream valleys, often including areas with sensitive alluvial soils.
Major river and stream courses have important influences on water quality and also form a broad
network of connectivity for many species of wildlife. Cottonwood forests thrive in regional corridors and
provide unique habitat for a range of plant and animal species. Because large sections of regional
corridors are located in privately owned land, landowner support is needed to encourage preservation of
these features and provide education about the importance of maintaining connections across multiple
land uses at the regional scale.
CMP policy encourages municipalities to protect and restore regional corridors and discourage building
development in such areas due to the vulnerability of alluvial soils to contamination. As with riparian
corridors, the width of regional corridors depends on local topography and vegetation. Minimum
recommended protection widths should include the floodplain, valley sides and upland areas.
C.2.4
Large Natural Vegetation Patches
Large patches of natural vegetation provide important habitat and biodiversity functions in areas outside
of riparian and regional corridors. Species which avoid human disturbance are dependent on these large
patches. Fragmentation of large patches by roads and other development reduces habitat and impedes
movement of wildlife populations across the landscape. Fragmentation of large patches increases the
proportion of edge habitat relative to interior habitat. Interior habitat tends to support rare species that
are often of conservation importance. Different species have different natural patch size tolerances
based on the size of their home range.
The CMP encourages all municipalities to work together to protect patches of natural vegetation over
1000 hectares in size. Development should be avoided in these areas but if this is not possible the
following approaches should be considered:

Develop on the outer boundary of the patch. This preserves the ratio of edge to interior habitat.

Cluster development to limit disturbances to smaller contained areas rather than dispersing it
through the patch.

Re-vegetate disturbed areas with native species to limit the spread of invasive species

Build roads and linear disturbances on the edge of the patch rather than through it.
C.2.5
Ridges and Escarpments
Ridges are similar to stream corridors in that they are continuous linear landscape features that provide
natural corridors for wildlife movement and landscape connectivity. In addition they are areas of high
scenic value.
The CMP recommends the protection of ridge tops and escarpments for reasons of public safety,
erosion control, protection of scenic quality and wildlife movement.
C.3
City of Calgary
The City of Calgary's Environmental Policy was originally approved in 1992, and was amended and
updated again in 2001 and 2007. The 2007 revision was titled "The City of Calgary's Environmental
Action Plan"(City of Calgary, 2007a). Its recommendations are broad and most of the detailed policies
which influence specific development policies near ecologically sensitive areas are outlined in City
bylaws.
The City of Calgary's Environmental Action Plan (EAP) focuses on five theme areas:

Water

Air

Land

Materials and Waste Management

Community Sustainability
Each theme area outlines goals, targets, policies, and activities for ensuring that the City of Calgary
continues to grow in a sustainable manner. Of most relevance to this study are the first three areas:
water, air and land.
C.3.1
Water
The City of Calgary’s environmental policy theme for water is focused on the protection of water
resources. This recognizes the necessity of clean water for human health and the health of ecosystems.
The City of Calgary has a commitment to protecting the safety and long-term sustainability of its water
supply while showing environmental leadership in its water conservation programs. Specific goals
include:

Conserve water.

Reduce per capita water demand to 350 litres per day by 2033.

All residential units metered by 2014.

Keep peak demand to less than 1,000 mega-litres per day to 2033.

Reduce water losses from City operations and distribution systems.

Ensure and protect water quality.

Provide safe, reliable quality drinking water that meets or exceeds standards
established by Health Canada and the Government of Alberta.

Meet effluent standards established by the Government of Alberta.

Keep Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loading at or below the 2005 level.

Maintain dissolved oxygen in the Bow River at the level required by fish life.

Protect regional watersheds.
The City’s guiding policy on water management contains some specifics on ongoing and new activities
that illustrate best practices management near ecologically sensitive areas. The Council has initiated
retrofits to existing stormwater systems including the evaluation of source control retrofit opportunities
and Alberta Low Impact Development Retrofit pilot projects.
City Council also supports ongoing research and partnership projects relating to green roofs, water
reuse and bio-retention, erosion and sediment control training and enforcement and the promotion of
Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership practices.
In terms of regional water management, the City of Calgary is a member of several multi-stakeholder
watershed protection partnerships including the Bow River Basin Council, Elbow River Watershed
Partnership and Nose Creek Watershed Partnership.
Consistent with the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, the City’s Wetlands Conservation Plan calls for no net
loss of significant wetlands. Ongoing efforts under this plan call for wetlands to be considered during the
development process and the mitigation of the loss of wetland function. Where possible, the policy
recommends integrating wetlands into the City’s open space system and the acquisition of wetlands
through Environmental Reserve dedication and other means.
In May 2007, City Council approved an Environmental Reserve Setback policy to protect streams, rivers
and wetlands from pollution. The policy requires variable setback widths for development to be applied
to water bodies qualifying as environmental reserve. The new policy replaces previous practice of
providing a minimum six metre buffer width adjacent to water bodies. The new policy provides for
setback widths from six to fifty metres based on water body type, local conditions and current best
practices recommendations relating to watershed protection.
C.3.2

Air
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.


Reduce City of Calgary corporate greenhouse gas emissions to 50 per cent below
the 1990 level by 2012.
Protect and improve air quality.

Meet federal and provincial ambient air objectives for priority air contaminants.

Provide a level of transit service competitive with vehicle travel.

Build and maintain a network of pathways and bikeways to provide a seamless
recreation and transportation system for non-motorized modes.
C.3.3


Land
Efficient use of land

Increase intensification of land use.

Provide mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Support sustainable development and building practices.

Rehabilitate contaminated land.
Maintain and protect local ecosystems.

Ensure no net loss of significant wetlands.

Plant one tree for every two citizens.

Maintain the integrity of a high-quality and diverse park and open space system.
In terms of land management, the City of Calgary’s Environmental Action Plan calls for increased density
and infill development to reduce the impacts of urban sprawl on surrounding land. These initiatives are
guided by Calgary’s Municipal Development Plan (The Calgary Plan) which specifies new residential
development densities at a minimum of seven units per acre and intensification through infill
development.
The Environmental Development Review Policy is an ongoing strategy that seeks to ensure all land-use
development applications consider environmental conditions and determine the environmental suitability
of intended uses as part of the planning approval process.
Currently in development is the City of Trees – Urban Forest Strategic Plan whose goal is to continue
partnerships with local organizations to plant trees on public land and grow the urban forest by one
percent per decade to a 20 percent city-wide canopy cover. City Council environmental priorities include
an ongoing commitment to restore and repair riparian environments through tree planting.
The City of Calgary makes its Environmental Policy accountable through use of the EnviroSystem (an
ISO 14001-registered Environmental Management System) to manage environmental risks and ensure
that environmental considerations are integrated into corporate policy development and decision
making. EnviroSystem is also used to regularly audit and evaluate regulatory compliance through annual
reports to the council, administration and the public (City of Calgary, 2007b).
C.4
City of Edmonton
The 2008 Municipal Development Plan (MDP) for the City of Edmonton included the following natural
environment statement:
"Edmonton protects, preserves and enhances its natural environment by maintaining the
integrity and interconnectivity of its natural areas, river valley, water resources, parks
and open spaces, recognizing that these elements for a functioning ecological network
within the Capital Region."
Edmonton’s natural environment policy recognizes the importance of ecologically sensitive areas as a
whole, rather than a series of separate elements. It also acknowledges the risks presented by
development to such areas. The City’s natural environment policy focuses on six key areas:

Natural Areas

Wetlands

North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System

Parks and Open Space

Water

Air
In each case, broad objectives are stated and are supported by a list of policies in place to support that
objective.
C.4.1
Natural Areas
The City’s policy objectives for natural areas are as follows:

Protect, preserve, and enhance a system of conserved natural areas within a functioning and
interconnected ecological network.

Restore ecologically degraded and or damaged ecological systems and linkages to protect,
expand and enhance biodiversity.
Examples of policies to support these objectives include the following:

Acquire and manage the most ecologically sensitive areas in Edmonton.

Determine appropriate buffer areas around the periphery of natural areas identified for
protection.

Acquire critical natural linkages and buffer zones to ensure natural areas of ecological value
remain sustainable within an urban context.

Work with the Capital Region Board and adjacent municipalities to acquire, protect and restore
natural systems and linkages, recognizing that Edmonton’s ecological network is part of a larger
regional network.

Require new developments adjacent to natural areas to demonstrate that they have incorporated
ecological design best practices to mitigate negative consequences.

Lands and features that meet the definition of environmental reserve, but are not claimed by the
Province should be taken by the City as environmental reserve and protected.
C.4.2
Wetlands
Edmonton’s policy objective for wetlands is as follows:

Protect, manage and integrate natural wetlands into new and existing developments as key
assets in Edmonton's ecological network.
In addition to all natural area policies, specific wetland policies to support this objective include the
following:

Cooperate with the Government of Alberta to actively support and complement its wetland
policy through the following actions:

In partnership with the Province, the Capital Region Board and adjacent municipalities, develop
a comprehensive plan for wetland conservation and the integration of wetlands into the urban
environment.

Where appropriate, acquire wetlands, riparian areas and buffers according to the Municipal
Government Act definition of Environmental Reserve.

Work with land owners to see that compensation required by the Province as a result of the
alteration or destruction of wetlands is carried out within City boundaries.
C.4.3
North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System
The City of Edmonton’s policy objectives for river valley and ravines are as follows:

Protect, preserve and enhance the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System as
Edmonton's greatest natural asset.

Protect, preserve, promote and improve the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine
System as an accessible year round place for recreation and activity for people of all ages.

Mitigate the impact of development upon the natural functions and character of the North
Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System.
Policies to support these objectives include the following:

The City will work in partnership with local, regional and provincial organizations to conserve,
protect, restore and enhance the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System for its
ecological, recreational, aesthetic, educational and natural resource value.

Ensure that the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System remains integrated and
connected with other natural areas across the city

Ensure that the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System remains primarily an area
of unstructured, low intensity and passive recreation.

Ensure that lands within the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System Area
Redevelopment Plan boundary will be acquired for natural areas protection and parks purposes.

Maintain adequate separation between new urban development and the North Saskatchewan
River Valley and Ravine System through the City’s Top of Bank Policy with viewscapes and
public access to the River Valley preserved.

Require development projects within the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System to
undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment as specified in the North Saskatchewan River
Valley Area Redevelopment Plan (Bylaw No. 7188).
C.4.4
Parks and Open Space
Edmonton’s policy objectives with respect to parks and open space are as follows:

Utilize parks and open spaces to complement and enhance biodiversity, linkages, habitat and
the overall health of Edmonton's ecological network.

Expand and enhance Edmonton's inventory of parks and open spaces for the ecological, health,
recreation and educational benefits they provide.
Specific policies to support these objectives include:

Link parks and open spaces with natural systems through development and design to
strengthen the connectivity of Edmonton’s ecological network, where feasible.

Maintain a healthy urban forest by continuing to invest in and expand the City’s tree inventory,
and adopt a ‘no net loss’ approach to the replacement of public trees.

Design parks and open spaces to include and maximize the use of ecological design bestpractices.

Actively explore and seek out new ways of acquiring, funding and managing parks and open
spaces.
C.4.5
Water
The City’s policy objectives for water are as follows:

Mitigate impacts upon Edmonton’s water resources by ensuring that new developments in
Edmonton embody an exemplary standard of ecological design.

Protect, maintain and continually enhance the water quality of the North Saskatchewan
watershed.

Water resources are conserved and used efficiently by the public, industry and the City of
Edmonton.
Policies to support these objectives include:

Require new development to demonstrate that it has incorporated ecological design best
practices into the design of neighbourhoods and buildings to reduce stormwater runoff.

Work proactively with provincial, regional and municipal neighbours, citizens and non-profit
groups, such as the River Valley Alliance, by participating in activities and supporting
organizations that work to maintain the integrity of the North Saskatchewan watershed.

Support the best management practices and principles of Edmonton’s Stormwater Quality
Control Strategy.

Integrate indigenous vegetation, specifically low-maintenance drought tolerant species into City
landscaping.

Design, arrange and locate new infrastructure and buildings to mitigate impacts upon the water
system.
C.4.6
Air
Edmonton’s policy objective for air is to monitor and improve air quality. Policies in place to support this
objective include:

Collaborate with other orders of government and stakeholders to protect air quality for future
generations by supporting public transportation, car pooling, walking or cycling.

Support a reduction in residential, industrial, institutional and commercial building emissions
through the promotion of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
C.5
City of Red Deer
Red Deer’s Municipal Development Plan contains goals and policies for environmental and ecological
management. The environmental and ecological management goals of the Red Deer MDP are:

To preserve and integrate significant natural areas into the open space system

To foster the creation and maintenance of attractive, clean and ecologically responsible natural
and built environments

To recognize and promote environmental sustainability initiatives and trends in land
development
The City of Red Deer MDP contains a number of environmental and ecological management policies
which, while broad in scope, do indicate some specific management practices. Many of the policies
refer to the City’s Natural Area / Ecospace Classification and Prioritization System as one of the key
elements of City planning. This is a broad-based classification of natural areas into stream, treed,
wetland and other natural features. Key environmental and ecological policies include:

The City shall continue to use the Natural Area / Ecospace Classification and Prioritization
System as one of the key elements in land use planning for Red Deer as it pertains to:

Significant natural features – decisions on how to treat these features shall be made
in detailed plans,

Working with Red Deer County, Lacombe County and other interested parties in
creating and implementing a regional approach to the conservation of key natural
areas and functions,

Expanding the Natural Area / Ecospace Classification and Prioritization System to
identify continuous wildlife corridors and key wildlife habitat and greenways in and
around Red Deer that should be protected as growth and development occurs.

The timing of conservation planning and efforts – ensure that planning efforts to
conserve natural features in and around Red Deer are initiated in advance of urban
expansion or development of the surrounding lands.
The City of Red Deer MDP does specify the requirement for environmental reserves and setbacks in
areas unsuitable for development. However, the exact widths of such setbacks are not specified in the
MDP.
Red Deer has specific policies for the maintenance of green infrastructure, implementation of an
ecological management system and urban forestry:

The City should incorporate significant natural features as part of the overall infrastructure
systems. This should include using existing wetlands as storm water management facilities and
planning and preserving shrubs and trees to preserve air quality.

The City shall develop and refine an ecological management system that is incorporated into a
citywide geographic information system (GIS) to help plan for, manage and establish the values
of natural capital features with a view towards:

Providing an integrated and sustainable approach to manage ecological features in
established and new growth areas


C.6
Developing tools to better analyze information such as natural habitat features in
areas of projected growth
The City shall structure its urban forestry initiatives to ensure that it continues to play a
significant role in the future landscape and form of the urban forest in new land developments.
Environmental Partnership Programs
Many of the environmental policies adopted by municipalities are guided by their membership in various
environmental partnership programs. It is from the diverse membership within these programs that best
management practices are developed and refined.
C.6.1
Nose Creek Watershed Partnership
The Nose Creek Watershed Partnership is a multi-stakeholder group whose stated goal is “to protect the
riparian areas and to help improve water quality in Nose Creek to its natural levels.” The Partnership’s
strategies for achieving this goal include conducting water quantity and quality research, identifying
contamination and initiating clean up and stewardship measures. Partnership members include Alberta
Environment, City of Calgary, City of Airdrie, Rocky View County, Bow River Basin Council and others.
One major goal of the Partnership is to address inconsistencies in the level of protection afforded to
Nose Creek by the various municipalities through which it flows. Riparian setbacks range from 6m
(Municipal Government Act), 15m (City of Airdrie Landuse Bylaw) to 30m for undeveloped land within
Calgary (City of Calgary Landuse Bylaw). Until recently there were no province-wide riparian setback
guidelines to guide development along portions of Nose Creek that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The
recently-released Alberta Environment and Water “Stepping Back from the Water” report addresses this
with specific setback recommendations (Appendix C.7)
The 2008 Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan outlines several objectives, recommendations
and implementation strategies (Nose Creek Watershed Partnership, 2008):

Water Conservation Objectives

Integrated Stormwater Management

Protection of Natural Features

Riparian Protection

Water Quality Protection

Source Water Protection

Mitigation, Compensation, Restoration

Cumulative Effects
Of these, the protection of riparian areas and natural features is of most relevance to this study. The
study recommends specific best practices for the protection of natural hydrology, escarpments and
wetlands. Of specific interest to the protection of hydrology and riparian corridors are the best practices
recommendations for setbacks. The Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan proposes the
following setbacks to mitigate the impacts of development:

The riparian setback width should be determined on a site-specific basis based on the greatest
of three criteria: the 1:100 year floodplain, the meander belt (20xthe full bank width) and the
width of escarpments (slopes >15%) that lie adjacent to the meander belt and/or floodplain. The
setback should be applied to both perennial and intermittent streams.
Within this defined setback zone, the Study recommends no further development or site alteration be
allowed. Permitted uses within the zone include existing development, agriculture, recreational areas,
natural areas and pathways. Public access within the riparian zone should be controlled so as to
mitigate negative effects on riparian function. Specific recommendations include the use of pervious
materials for pathways, confining pathways to areas above the 1:100 year floodplain; and limiting or
avoiding bridges in active channel areas.
The Study has specific recommendations to mitigate the effects of developments near steep slopes with
considerations for their proximity to watercourses. The base recommendation is that all land with 15%
or greater slopes should be designated as environmental reserve. This recommendation is consistent
with MDP policies.
When slopes form part of riparian corridors, the Study recommends the following best practices:

Where land is situated adjacent to or includes the banks of any watercourse, including coulees,
ravines, gullies, valleys and where the slope of the bank adjacent to any watercourse is in excess
of 15%, buildings or other structures should not be permitted:

12m from the top of bank where the height of bank is less than 6m

A distance equal to 2x height of bank from the top of bank where the height of bank
is between 6m and 23m

46m from the top of bank where the height of bank is more than 23m
The Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan offers specific setbacks for wetlands as a minimum
of 30m. Best practice recommendations for vegetation and erosion control focus on minimizing the
disturbance to existing vegetation and re-vegetating developed areas as soon as possible. This study
recommends implementation of sediment and erosion control best practices according to the City of
Calgary’s Sediment and Erosion Control Manual.
The Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan also offers recommendations on best practices for
new developments to mitigate negative environmental effects. This study recommends that the following
planning and design criteria be incorporated into new developments:

Preserve existing topography and natural features

Protect surface water and groundwater resources

Adopt compact development forms

Adopt alternative site development standards

Re-Create natural habitats within development areas.
One criticism of the environmental protection recommendations in these types of studies is that the
increased slope, wetland and riparian setbacks reduce the area of developable land. In some cases the
reduction may be sufficient to impinge upon the municipalities’ existing growth management goals.
Some concern has been expressed that the reduction in developable land due to increased setbacks
requirements may actually encourage urban sprawl.
One way to address the apparent conflict between accommodating growth while increasing setback
provisions is to use compact development forms. The Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan
provides examples of compact neighbourhood designs such as clustered single dwellings, medium
density townhouses, low rise and high rise apartments. These can compensate for the reduction in
developable land due to recommended environmental best practice implementation because they allow
the same population density while enabling the protection of natural features.
C.6.2
Bow River Basin Council
The Bow River Basin Council (BRBC) is a multi-stakeholder, charitable organization dedicated to
conducting activities for the improvement and protection of the waters of the Bow River Basin,
considering riparian zones, aquatic ecosystems, water quality and quantity and the effects of land use
on surface and groundwater. Many BRBC initiatives can be applied to other watersheds. Of specific
interest are recommendations regarding subdivision development (Bow River Basin Council, 2002).
The 2002 BRBC Report entitled ‘Protecting Riparian Areas: Creative Approaches to Subdivision
Development in the Bow River Basin’ provides applicable information on why protection of riparian areas
is important, the benefits of such protection and more specifically, how the thoughtful design of
subdivisions can be compatible with riparian area preservation.
This report stresses the value of riparian areas, not just in ecological terms, but in terms of financial
benefits to municipalities. Recognizing financial savings through the preservation of riparian zones is
important as it places a tangible value on natural features that can be conveyed to municipalities and
developers more easily than ecological values.
Benefits to preserving natural riparian areas include the following (Bow River Basin Council, 2002):

Lower development costs due to fewer disturbances

Less infrastructure and associated maintenance

Reduced need for herbicides through preservation of natural vegetation

Appeal to homebuyers with concern for environment

Buyers prepared to pay fair market value for land, will pay substantially more than for
conventional lots

Natural areas add visual diversity to a development

Conservation agencies interested in riparian habitats may provide technical and financial
assistance

Riparian wooded areas may provide financial value through carbon dioxide emissions credits
The BRBC ‘Protecting Riparian Areas’ Report identifies best management practices for protecting
riparian areas, that while not as specific as those outlined in the Nose Creek report, can be applied to
mitigate development impacts in any riparian area:

Endeavour to maintain a balance amongst all uses, while preserving the natural beauty and
wildlife of the area

Prevent / minimize soil erosion associated with land use activities

Prevent disturbance (i.e. construction, cultivation, deepening, additional ponding etc.) within
riparian area

Retain slopes in their natural state. Construction and earth moving on slopes could result in
landslides, mudflows and property damage. As a result, riparian areas in the proximity of slopes
could be adversely affected

Minimize the use of drainage channels for culverts because these destroy riparian habitat and
streams. Even minor changes to wetland drainage will cause habitat loss
The stormwater best management practices outlined by the Bow River Basin Council are based on
Provincial recommendations that can be applied to developments in any watershed. The goal of
stormwater management best practices is to retain as much of the ‘natural’ runoff characteristics and
infiltration components of the undeveloped system as possible and reduce or prevent water quality
degradation (Alberta Environment, 1999).
The most desirable stormwater management practice is the preservation of naturally vegetated
streamside forests (Bow River Basin Council, 2002). The widest possible forested buffer is the preferred
practice. The wider the buffer, the greater the opportunity for sediments and contaminants to be
captured before entering the watercourse. The most effective buffer structure consists of three zones,
streamside to top-of-bank, middle zone (inland from top-of-bank) and outer zone (between middle zone
and the nearest permanent structure). The streamside buffers provide habitat, control erosion and
provide noise and visual screening. The middle zone provides for groundwater recharge and pollutant
capture. The outer zone absorbs runoff and captures sediment.
Preserving natural shrubs and trees is the top priority for the streamside zone. The best practice for the
middle zone is to designate its extent as the 1:100 year flood plain width plus any adjacent steep slopes
(Bow River Basin Council, 2002). This is also consistent with best management practices recommended
in the Nose Creek Watershed Water Management Plan Study. Also consistent with the Nose Creek
study are recommended land uses for the outer zone. The BRBC report describes suitable land use in
this zone as including open unpaved space, playing fields, gardens, playgrounds and other common
activity areas.
Other stormwater management best practices include the preservation of natural wetlands and the
construction of artificial wetlands to manage overland runoff.
The Bow River Basin Council report contains best management practices for the construction stage of
new developments. The goal of these practices is to reduce erosion and control sediment discharge into
streams and riparian zones. The key best management practice is to ensure that an erosion and
sediment control plan is in place prior to the start of land clearing and development for a new
subdivision. Components of this plan should include the following (Bow River Basin Council, 2002):

Stockpiles should be located away from watercourses and environmentally sensitive areas

Control on-site drainage through temporary storage facilities

Use dust control measures such as water trucks, mulching or temporary vegetation

Establish rainfall and water erosion controls using structural options such as sediment traps and
basins, inlet filters, straw barriers, sand bags, terracing, paving, blankets and non-structural
such as temporary and permanent seed planning, mulching, sod installation, netting, erosion
control blankets and weed control.
Upon completion of subdivision development there are a number of riparian management and protection
best management practices that should be implemented. These include maintaining natural vegetation
on stream banks or replanting with native shrubs and trees in areas that have been disturbed. Replanting
with non-native species should be avoided. Other best management practices include using mulch to
reduce water and maintenance needs, fencing off sensitive areas or areas being re-established and
educating surrounding homeowners to respect and use riparian areas carefully (Bow River Basin
Council, 2002).
C.6.3
Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership
The Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership focuses on public education and outreach to enable
various levels of government and other stakeholders to implement low impact development initiatives.
Low impact development (LID) initiatives are one way to balance urban growth with the need to protect
the natural environment.
Low impact development is not a land use planning strategy. It is instead a series of practical techniques
that can be applied to new or existing developments to address issues of water quantity and quality.
Implementation of LID practices can aid in the protection of riparian areas, maintenance of water quality
and management of runoff.
Conservation landscaping is a key principle of LID best practices. Specific examples include:

Rain Gardens

Use of indigenous vegetation or plans that thrive without irrigation (xeriscaping)

Absorbent landscaping (e.g. thicker soil depths up to 12 inches)

Bio-retention areas

Permeable pavement

Bio/vegetated swales

Green roofs

Integration of stormwater management to irrigate landscaped areas (e.g. parking lots designed
to drain to vegetated islands)
In terms of stormwater capture and re-use, key LID best practices include:
C.7

Industrial capture and re-use

Purple pipe systems (flushing toilets with re-used water)

Rainwater harvesting

Stormwater harvesting in storm ponds for re-use as irrigation water or other non-potable use
Alberta Provincial Policies
Land use planning in Alberta has generally been addressed by policies at several scales from provincial
to municipal. In many cases there is no consistent policy framework to guide local development to
conform to a broad regional land use plan. The new Provincial Land Use Framework is a significant step
in addressing this issue.
Provincial environmental acts and legislation include those under the jurisdiction of Alberta Environment,
and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. These are well documented and can be reviewed
online.
C.7.1
Alberta Environment and Water – ‘Stepping Back from the Water’
Of most relevance to this project is the newly-released publication from Alberta Environment and Water
entitled ‘Stepping Back from the Water: A Beneficial Management Practices Guide for New Development
Near Water Bodies in Alberta’s Settled Region’.
This report can be viewed online at http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8554.pdf
This study represents the first comprehensive provincial set of guide lines and setback
recommendations. The report contains numerous information and guidelines of direct relevance to this
project. Perhaps the most applicable are the setback (‘Vegetated Filter Strip’) recommendations
presented on page 19 of the report and summarized below

Permanent Water Bodies (Lakes, Rivers, Streams, Seeps, Springs, Class III-VII Wetlands
Setback / Filter Strip width is 20m if substrate is glacial till
Setback / Filter Strip width is 50m if substrate is coarse textured sands and gravels or alluvial
sediments
Slope modifiers apply to 20m buffers based on the following rule: “If the average slope of the
strip is more than 5%, increase the width of the strip by 1.5m for every 1% of slope over 5%”.
Slopes exceeding 25% are not credited toward the filter strip

Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams, Gullies
Setback / Filter Strip is a 6m strip of native vegetation / perennial grasses adjacent to the stream
channel crest
Slope modifier is based on the following rule: “If the average slope of the strip is more than 5%,
increase the width of the strip by 1.5m for every 1% of slope over 5%. Maintain continuous
native vegetation along channels and slopes”

Class 1 and II Wetlands
Setback / Filter Strip is a 10m strip of willow and perennial grasses adjacent to water body.
Maintain and conserve native wetland or marshland plants on legal bed and shore
The report details several modifiers to the above specifications based on combinations of substrate
materials and the level of development in the riparian areas.
APPENDIX B:
The Riparian Setback Matrix Model
The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta
Phase 3 Report
2012-09-04
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The Riparian Setback Matrix Model The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Prepared for: The City of Grande Prairie PO Bag 4000 Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6V3
August 2012 Prepared by: Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. #204, 7205 Roper Road NW Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6B 3J4 Writers: Joshua Haag, B.Sc. Jay White, M.Sc., P.Biol. Original Model Developers: Joshua Haag, B.Sc. Melissa Logan B.Sc., P.Biol Michelle Gray B.Sc., B.I.T. Judy Stewart, LLB Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 1 Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge Gerry Haekel, Judy Stewart, Barry Kolenosky, Krystle Fedoretz, the Bow River Basin Council and Urban Systems for their contributions towards the development of this Riparian Setback Matrix Model. We would also like to acknowledge the Alberta Conservation Association for providing funding for the development of the original model. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 2 Executive Summary Municipalities across Alberta are facing unprecedented development pressure. In many instances, this has increased the difficulty of balancing between the needs of development and the protection of the natural environment. To assist in protecting aquatic ecosystems, many municipalities have enacted land use bylaws that take environmental reserve or establish development setbacks from water bodies. However, in many jurisdictions, these bylaws have been challenged because of the perceived arbitrary nature of the setback distances. The Riparian Setback Matrix Model (RSMM) was developed by Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. as a scientifically and legally defensible method for establishing Environmental Reserves and development setbacks. Rather than using a prescribed setback distance across an entire jurisdiction, the model takes into account variation in conditions both between and within sites. The RSMM seeks to balance the protection of the natural environment and the needs of developers, taking only the minimum setback or Environmental Reserve required to protect aquatic environments from pollution. The Environmental Reserve created through this process will also provide other significant functions such as public access, but the determination of ER width under the RSMM is based only on requirements for pollution protection. Pollution can be defined as substances such as sediments, nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, parasites or toxic chemicals that reach a watercourse by surface or subsurface flow. Riparian areas reduce the amount of pollution reaching a watercourse by providing a physical buffer between upland (dry) and wetland (wet) areas. Riparian areas, as defined by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, are the areas of water-‐loving vegetation beside a stream, river, lake or pond (Alberta Environment, 2008). The reduction in pollution reaching the watercourse is highly correlated with the characteristics of the adjacent riparian lands. Depending on the characteristics (slope, vegetation cover, soil, bank height) a 90% reduction in pollutants can be achieved by having adjacent riparian lands 25 –
60 m wide. As formulated for the City of Grande Prairie, the RSMM takes into account four factors: •
slope of the land, •
vegetation cover, •
groundwater risk, and •
soil characteristics. Setbacks are reduced in areas where conditions provide good protection for the aquatic environment and increased in areas where conditions provide poor protection for the aquatic environment. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Conditions Page 3 Protection of aquatic environment low slopes, high cover of robust vegetation, low groundwater risk, and/or low soil erosion risk Good high slopes, little vegetation cover, high groundwater risk, and/or highly erodible soil Poor Additionally, the model for the City of Grande Prairie also takes into account the presence of Environmentally Significant Areas, determined from a variety but most notably landscape connectivity. In addition to providing improved protection of the aquatic environment from pollutants, contiguous natural habitats are valued for their aesthetic value and their roles in providing recreational usage and wildlife corridors. Under the model, when Environmental Reserves are dedicated, setbacks may range between 10 m and 90 m, and are defined on a site-‐by-‐site basis to achieve a 90% reduction in pollutants entering the aquatic environment. This approach ensures adequate protections for the aquatic environment, while minimizing the limitations on developments where possible. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 4 Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 5 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Riparian Areas .............................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Environmental Reserves .............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Environmental Reserve Easements and Conservation Easements ............................................ 11 1.5 Building/Development Setbacks ................................................................................................ 12 1.6 Environmental Legislation and Policy ........................................................................................ 12 2 Development of the Riparian Setback Matrix Model ...................................................... 16 2.1 Slope and Height of Bank ........................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Groundwater Risk ...................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Vegetation Cover ....................................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Soil Texture and Type ................................................................................................................ 22 2.5 Environmentally Significant Areas ............................................................................................. 24 2.6 Professional Requirements ........................................................................................................ 25 3 The Riparian Setback Matrix Model ............................................................................... 26 3.1 Setback Determinations ............................................................................................................ 26 3.2 How to use the Riparian Setback Matrix Model ........................................................................ 27 3.3 The Riparian Setback Matrix Model ........................................................................................... 29 3.4 Riparian Setback Matrix Model Field Sheet ............................................................................... 33 4 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 34 5 Vegetation Definitions ................................................................................................... 38 1.1
List of Figures Figure 1. Illustration of lake bed and bank which is public land and owned by the Province and the Environmental Reserve land that is owned by the Municipality. .............................................................. 10 ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 5 Figure 2. Major Federal and Provincial legislation used to protect riparian habitats. ............................. 15 Figure 3. Potential pathways for nutrient and pollutant input from sloping lands to surface water: (A) surface runoff, (B) subsurface flow, and (C) groundwater (Taken from Li et al 2006). ........................ 18 Figure 4. Nitrogen removal effectiveness in riparian buffers by buffer vegetation type and water flow path. Blue boxes indicate surface water flow (on top of the ground) and red boxes indicate subsurface (groundwater) flow through five (5) different vegetation cover types listed along the x-‐axis. The center vertical line of the box and whisker plot marks the median of the sample. The length of each box shows the range within which the central 50% of the values fall. For example, a grass vegetation cover with surface flow (blue) had a nitrogen removal effectiveness range of -‐25 % to +75%. 50% of the samples had a nitrogen removal range of 0 % to 45 %. The median of all the samples for grass cover with a surface flow was 35 %. Taken from Mayer et al (2005). We do not use wetland or forested wetland cover type in our model. ........................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 5. Soil texture as determined by the relative proportions of sand, silt, and clay present in the soil sample. The texture of a given soil (with known sand, silt, and clay contents, is determined by moving directly to right from the appropriate percentage on the clay (left) axis, down and left from the appropriate percentage on the silt (right) axis, and up and left from the appropriate percentage on the sand (bottom) axis. The determination of the texture for a soil with 20 % clay, 40 % sand, and 20 % silt (a loam soil) is shown by the coloured lines on the figure. ....................................................................... 23 Figure 6. Schematic view of riparian setback determination at three points within a property. ............. 28 1.2
List of Tables Table 1. Legislation and policy involving riparian land management. ...................................................... 14 Table 2. Professional requirements for site assessments ........................................................................ 25 ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 6 1 Introduction 1.1
Purpose The City of Grande Prairie is one of the fastest growing mid-‐size urban centres in Canada (Statistics Canada). Over 13 years (1994-‐2007) the City’s population increased 72 percent. The 2011 municipal census enumerated 55,027 residents. The City of Grande Prairie is moving towards a watershed/landscape based approach to planning as a basis for a more sustainable growth framework (MacIntyre, 2011). Preserving the natural environment is a guiding principle of the City’s Municipal Development Plan (January 25, 2010, pp. 32-‐34). The purpose of this report is to develop science based standards for development setback requirements from wetlands and riparian areas. The report will outline characteristics that are used to determine minimum development setback distances and will be accompanied by a setback guide that can be used by the City and developers alike. Grande Prairie is located in the Peace River Watershed. Bear Creek, a nearly 75 kilometre tributary of the Wapiti River, meanders through the City of Grande Prairie (MacIntyre, 2011). The Wapiti River is the source of the City’s drinking water, and it flows into the Smoky River, a tributary of the Peace River. Adjacent wetlands and several small ponds ranging from 5 to 40 hectares in area have been preserved around the City (MacIntyre, 2011). Riparian areas are the areas of water-‐loving vegetation beside a stream, river, lake or pond. Riparian areas are critical to plant and animal communities and in reducing the negative effects of various land-‐
uses on adjacent waters (Alberta Environment, 2008). The Riparian Setback Matrix Model (RSMM) is a tool that was developed in 2007 by Aquality for Lac La Biche County (formerly Lakeland County) and has subsequently been incorporated in their municipal bylaws. Aquality has modified the model to meet the development needs and conservation objectives of the City of Grande Prairie. The most important of these modifications has been to include the presence of Environmentally Significant Areas as a determinant of riparian buffer width. These ESAs were developed by O2 Planning + Design Inc. (2012; see Appendix A) as part of the current project, and include landscape connectivity as a major component of environmental significance. Landscape connectivity had not been previously addressed in the RSMM, but it is important for the protection of the aquatic environment, and for other riparian functions such as wildlife corridors and recreational usage. The original RSMM creates unique, defensible Environmental Reserve setbacks based on slope, height of bank1, groundwater table level, and vegetation/ground cover. It has since been updated to include 1
included in the current RSMM by requiring geotechnical surveys for slopes >15% to ensure sufficient protection for unstable areas ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 7 groundwater risk (which takes into account both water table depth and the hydraulic conductivity of the overlying geological formations) and soil type and texture. These development setbacks will help to protect riparian lands2 and maintain the ecological goods and services that healthy and functional riparian areas provide for future generations’ benefit. The purpose of this document is to help municipalities and developers determine the appropriate area of an Environmental Reserve (ER) to maintain healthy and functional riparian areas free from pollution3 while providing public access that will not impede natural functions. The RSMM can be used to determine appropriate development setbacks and land uses for all private lands located adjacent to environmentally sensitive and or significant lands within a municipality, even in cases where subdivision will not be occurring and Environmental Reserve is not taken. In addition to the protection of the aquatic environment from pollutants, the creation and preservation of riparian buffers will have other benefits to the City of Grande Prairie. Effective riparian buffers will aid in stormwater management by reducing peak flow volumes of sheet runoff, and reduce the total loadings of various pollutants into the City's various water bodies, especially Bear Creek. The designation of riparian areas as environmental reserve is in line with the City's plan for the use of municipal reserves for stormwater management (City of Grande Prairie, 2004). The creation of contiguous riparian buffers along major water bodies such as Bear Creek could also have significant benefits to the City for overall, long-‐term urban planning. 1.2
Riparian Areas Vegetation in riparian areas is different from that of uplands. Riparian areas stay green longer and produce more biomass than uplands, partly due to soil types but mostly due to an elevated water table. The types and abundance of vegetation can help to identify riparian areas. The vegetation is attractive to livestock, wildlife and humans. Riparian areas are highly productive and can be reliable producers of forage, shelter, fish, wildlife and water. These areas are especially useful when droughts or flooding occurs by attenuating flood waters and reducing erosion (Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society, 2006). 2
“Riparian land” means the lands adjacent to a watercourse where the vegetation and soils show evidence of being influenced by the presence of water. Riparian areas are the green zone around a watercourse. They are the vital transitional zone between surface water and the drier uplands and play a vital role in the healthy functioning of both. For the purposes of this model, riparian lands are taken to start at the bank or ordinary high water mark of a body of water 3
“Pollution” means any non-‐point source impacts on the environment from substances such as sediments, nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, parasites or toxic chemicals that reach a watercourse by surface or subsurface flow though adjacent land, and the unauthorized release of any “deleterious substance” as defined in the Fisheries Act (Canada), or the unauthorized release of any substance whether non-‐point or otherwise that may cause an adverse effect under provisions of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 8 Riparian zones act as buffers that function to protect water quality. Contaminants are absorbed onto sediments, taken up by vegetation and transformed by soil microbes into less harmful forms (Klapproth and Johnson 2000). They have long been proven effective in reducing nutrients, sediments and other anthropogenic pollutants that enter surface waters via overland and subsurface flow (Klapproth and Johnson 2000; Lee and Smyth 2003; Mayer et al 2005). In addition to protecting surface waters, riparian areas are valuable wildlife and plant habitat. They provide nesting sites for several bird species, habitat for reptiles and amphibians and safe corridors for several species of mammals such as deer and moose (Wenger 1999). Although riparian areas make up only a small fraction of our landscape, they are disproportionately important to fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture, and society in general. As much as 80% of Alberta's wildlife relies in whole or in part on riparian areas to survive (Alberta Riparian Management Society, 2006). The health and functioning of riparian areas can be influenced by human activities including road construction, resource extraction, agriculture, urban or rural development, and recreation. Unfortunately, most riparian lands are privately owned and therefore difficult to protect unless a municipality enacts development setbacks in riparian lands from a body of water such as a river or lake. Defining a riparian area (riparian buffer strip) that is far enough from a receiving water body to effectively protect the water and the aquatic ecosystem has been the subject of much debate. A “one size fits all” approach has traditionally been used by provincial regulators and is still being used today in some areas of the province. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that water bodies require a unique set of guidelines to define appropriate riparian buffer widths and development setbacks. This is reflected in the variable width riparian buffers suggested in "Stepping Back from the Water", the Government of Alberta's (2012) beneficial management practice guide for setbacks within the settled region. However, this document is a guideline rather than a regulation, and as such is not directly enforceable. Without enforceable riparian setback regulation for the province, it is essential that municipalities establish appropriate land uses adjacent to bodies of water, including wetlands, to avoid or minimize development impacts of our valuable water resources, as provided in the provincial Land Use Policies. The importance of establishing and protecting a properly-‐sized buffer strip is extremely important for source water protection. 1.3
Environmental Reserves During subdivision of a parcel of land, under conditions prescribed in the Municipal Government Act (MGA), a municipality has the ability to acquire "reserve lands". Reserve lands include "environmental reserves" which are essentially "undevelopable" lands that must be left in their natural state or used as a public park, and “municipal reserves”, “school reserves”, or “municipal and school reserves”, which are dedications of up to 10% of the remaining "developable" lands in the parcel after the removal of environmental reserves and any lands required for roads and public utility lots. If insufficient land is ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 9 available, municipalities can require the developer to provide a monetary payment equivalent to the market value of up to 10% of the developable lands (cash in lieu). Dedicated reserves become property of the municipality in which they are located. A municipality is not required to compensate the landowner for any lands taken as “reserve” during the subdivision process. As stated in the MGA, a municipal council can require the dedication of ER if the lands proposed for subdivision abut the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water (Figure 1). When such reserves are taken for the purposes of preventing pollution or providing public access to or beside the bed and shore, the reserve taken must be not less than 6 metres in width, allowing that these objectives may require greater ER widths (Municipal Government Act; Stewart, 2006). In addition, environmental reserves may also be taken on land that consists of a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course, or that is subject to flooding or is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable. In the latter two cases, the reserves will comprise the entirety of these lands, and may be wider than the minimum 6 metres required for pollution prevention or access. When ER is dedicated to protect provincially owned beds and shores and water resources from "pollution," the definition of "pollution" that a municipality adopts in its Land Use Bylaw must specify what constitutes "pollution" in their community. For prairie lakes already high in nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, added nutrients may impair water quality causing noxious algal blooms, taste and odour problems, anoxic conditions and even fish kills. Phosphorus has been identified in several studies as causing water quality problems across the Province (Schindler et al. 2004, White and Prather, 2004), though recent work has also indicated that nitrogen alone may be limiting or both phosphorus and nitrogen together may be colimiting in some water bodies (Irvine and Jackson, 2006; Finlay et al., 2010; Lewis et al., 2011; ). Nutrients, therefore, can be defined by the City of Grande Prairie as pollution and steps will be taken to protect aquatic systems from additional nutrients making their way into watercourses via point and non-‐point source discharges. Other pollutants such as suspended sediments, hydrocarbons, salts, and metals are frequently problematic in urban areas, both from point and non-‐
point sources, and should be similarly defined as pollutants. One of the most effective ways to protect aquatic ecosystems and prevent pollution is to ensure that riparian areas are intact, healthy and functional. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 10 Figure 1.Illustration of lake bed and bank which is public land and owned by the Province and the Environmental Reserve land that is owned by the Municipality. Sometimes, residents think that their property rights allow them to use adjacent ER parcels for exclusive, private purposes. They landscape, cut down trees, mow vegetation along streams, and plant gardens outside their lot lines with invasive species of flowers, shrubberies and trees. ER shore lands are often fenced or barricaded or restricted against the natural flow of people and floodwaters even when ER strips lie between their property and the bed and shore of a river or lake. Environmental Reserves are sometimes littered with lawn clippings, leaves, tree branches stumps and other debris, while ravines and river valleys are littered with garbage wastes that are non-‐biodegradable and do not readily decompose in the natural environment. People compete with wildlife for ER adjacent to rivers and lakes which act as wildlife corridors or migratory bird habitat, and provide shade, shelter, food and water for flora and fauna. Some citizens consider ER private playgrounds to walk dogs, cycle, and ride all-‐terrain vehicles. These activities create ad hoc pathway systems, adversely affecting the natural ground cover and vegetation, pollution, erosion of escarpments and ravines, and sedimentation of adjacent watercourses and bodies of water. When ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 11 conflicts arise among ER users with different values, complaints are made directly to the municipality about erosion, fencing, litter, illegal dumping, off-‐leash dogs and pet wastes. As the owner of ER, a municipality has the responsibility to control access and use to ensure that these sensitive landscapes are sustained for current and future generations. This can be done through a Reserve Bylaw or policy sanctioned by the municipality. Environmental Reserves can also be required to provide public access to the beds and shores and the water, creating an inherent conflict between users who value ER for equally important, but competing functions. Riparian development setbacks should have as few channels and walking paths as possible. Channels and walking paths will increase the amount of surface runoff that reaches surface waters and decrease the effectiveness of the setback. Surface runoff from adjacent lands, depending on the land use, may contain sediment, nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, parasites, toxic chemicals and other pollutants. Functional and intact riparian areas remove these pollutants and prevent them from entering a waterbody, but paths through these areas decrease their effectiveness. The role of ER and riparian land protection is particularly important around waterbodies that serve as a drinking water source for communities. Community access points to provincial beds and shores can minimize cumulative detrimental effects. Communal beach, dock and swimming areas are recommended as alternatives to allowing multiple points of access. Communal access in areas with the least environmental sensitivity, with the lowest quality riparian or wildlife habitat (i.e. non-‐fish spawning habitat) or land that is already disturbed will help protect intact, sensitive and healthy habitat. Developers and regulators should work together to identify areas that are more suited for public access such as boat launch or dock that will minimize habitat loss or environmental damage. 1.4
Environmental Reserve Easements and Conservation Easements It is important to recognize that since 1994 when the MGA was enacted, a municipality may enter into an agreement with an owner of a parcel of land that is subject to a proposed subdivision to create an "environmental reserve easement" for the lands that would otherwise be dedicated as ER for "protection and enhancement of the environment". An ER easement is registered under the Land Titles Act and is a covenant on the land ensuring that lands are left in their natural state, and the easement is enforced by the municipality. Under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, landowners can voluntarily enter into a legal agreement called a conservation easement to preserve habitat while retaining title to the property. The landowner relinquishes certain ownership rights in order to protect the landscape’s natural character. Qualified easement holders include local land trusts, municipalities or other provincial, regional or national conservation groups such as Ducks Unlimited Canada or the Nature Conservancy of Canada. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 1.5
Page 12 Building/Development Setbacks A municipality is responsible for the planning and development of private lands within its geographical boundaries. The Municipal Government Act requires municipalities to enact a Land Use Bylaw4, the provisions of which can be used to control the development of "buildings" on land subject to flooding or subsidence or that is low lying, marshy or unstable; or, land adjacent to or within a specific distance of the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water. What constitutes a “building” is defined in the MGA to include all structures except highways and bridges. Controlling development of buildings within prescribed development setback areas can be done through policy statements and land use bylaw provisions. The opportunity to create appropriate development setbacks and land uses in riparian areas is underutilized by municipal governments. The RSMM presented here will assist the City of Grande Prairie to create a defensible “natural environmental reserve” land use designation with associated permitted and discretionary land uses. The natural riparian function of each landscape that a municipality wishes to preserve will determine the extent of the development setback required. The RSMM will assist municipalities to adopt appropriate development setback policy and enact appropriate Land Use Bylaw provisions inclusive of Area Structure Plans or Watershed Management Plans, integration of policies and directives. For the City of Grande Prairie, determination of Environmental Reserves is also closely tied to the use of municipal lands (such as existing wetlands and riparian areas) for stormwater management, as per the City's Storm Drainage Master Plan (2004). 1.6
Environmental Legislation and Policy The MGA and Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act are not the only pieces of legislation that protect environmental reserves and riparian buffers. There are at least twelve Municipal, Provincial and Federal Bylaws and Acts that serve to protect these sensitive areas (Table 1), some with very broad powers of application (Figure 3). Several Provincial policies and strategies are also in place in Alberta to protect the aquatic environment including the Strategy for the Protection of the Aquatic Environment, Water for Life Strategy and others that are consistent with Alberta’s Commitment to Sustainable Resource and Environmental Management and Land Use Framework. The new Framework for Watershed Management Planning should provide municipalities with a suite of mechanisms to work with partner stakeholders, landowners and other jurisdictions to ensure that water resources are protected for future generations. Our common challenge will be to understand and implement these various pieces of legislation for the benefit of environmental protection within long term development integration. In addition, several policy initiatives are underway or have been completed with the ultimate goal of effective riparian protection across the Province. These include the Alberta Water Council's "Riparian 4
MGA 640(1) ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 13 Land Conservation and Management Project" (initiated in 2011), and the Province's Beneficial Management Practices Guide "Stepping Back from the Water" (Government of Alberta, 2012). The latter document advocates a variable setback much like the Riparian Setback Matrix Model, and lays out many of the potential factors that may contribute to riparian buffer effectiveness. This includes rule-‐of-‐
thumb widths for riparian buffers that depend upon slope, whether or not the buffer is vegetated, and soil texture. However, the approach laid out differs from the RSMM in that it uses an additive model, whereas the RSMM defines a setback based on the most sensitive parameter. Both additive and most-‐
sensitive-‐parameter models for setbacks will protect the aquatic environment adequately if properly parameterized. However, if an additive model is parameterized to provide adequate protection in all cases, it will often result in larger setback distances than are necessary for pollution protection in some circumstances, since even when the largest possible distance and best possible protection are selected for a given parameter, additional distance will be added as a result of the other parameters. A most-‐
sensitive-‐parameter approach, on the other hand, recognizes that selecting a setback distance based on the parameter that is at greatest risk will, by definition, also provide more than adequate protection for other parameters. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 14 Table 1.Legislation and policy involving riparian land management. FEDERAL Level Legislation/policy Regulatory Authority Fisheries Act Fisheries and Oceans Canada Regulates and enforces on harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat in Section 35. Transport Canada Governs the construction of any structures on the bed and shores of navigable waterways within Canada Alberta Environment and Governs the diversion, allocation and use of water. Regulates and enforces actions that Sustainable Resources affect water and water use management, the aquatic environment, fish habitat protection Development (AESRD) practices, in-‐stream construction practices, storm water management. AESRD Management of contaminated sites, storage tanks, landfill management practices, hazardous waste management practices and enforcement. AESRD This legislation supports implementation of the Land-‐use Framework. It creates the seven land-‐use regions, establishes the Land-‐use Secretariat and gives authority for regional plans, creation of Regional Advisory Councils and addresses the cumulative effects of human and other activity. Natural Resources Regulates and enforces on confined feedlot operation and environment standards for Conservation Board livestock operations. Alberta Culture and Concerns any work of humans that is primarily of value for its prehistoric, historic, cultural Community Spirit or scientific significance, and is or was buried or partially buried in land or submerged beneath the surface of any watercourse or permanent body of water. Alberta Municipal Affairs Provides municipalities with authorities to regulate water on municipal lands, (AMA) management of private land to control non-‐point sources, and authority to ensure that land use practices are compatible with the protection of aquatic environment. AESRD Regulates and enforces on activities that affect Crown-‐owned beds and shores of water bodies and some Crown-‐owned uplands that may affect nearby water bodies. AMA Regulates and enforces septic system management practices, including installation of septic field and other subsurface disposal systems. Alberta Health RHA have the mandate to promote and protect the health of the population in the region and may respond to concerns that may adversely affect surface and groundwater. AESRD Regulates and enforces on protection of wetland-‐dependent and wetland-‐associated wildlife, and endangered species (including plants). AESRD and Alberta Used to minimize the harmful effects of land use activities on water quality and aquatic Community Development resources in and adjacent to parks and other protected areas. AESRD and Alberta Used to minimize the harmful effects of land use activities on water quality and aquatic Community Development resources in and adjacent to parks and other protected areas. Navigable Waters Protection Act Water Act Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act Alberta Land Stewardship Act PROVINCIAL Agricultural Operations Practices Act Historical Resources Act Municipal Government Act Public Lands Act Safety Codes Act Regional Health Authorities Act Wildlife Act Provincial Parks Act Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserve & Natural Areas Act Description ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 15 Figure 2.Major Federal and Provincial legislation used to protect riparian habitats. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 16 2 Development of the Riparian Setback Matrix Model To develop the RSMM primary scientific studies, grey literature, and existing riparian setback guidelines from other jurisdictions were reviewed. Based on the review of the literature and other documents, a decision-‐making matrix was designed that includes: •
slope, •
vegetation cover, •
groundwater risk, •
soil characteristics, and •
environmentally significant areas Each of these five variables was subdivided into categories or ranges, and setback weights were recommended for each. Baseline Setback The baseline setback is determined by calculating slope, vegetation cover, and groundwater table depth. The RSMM seeks to protect aquatic environments from pollution based on the most sensitive factor. Slope, vegetation cover and groundwater table depth are all calculated individually, and the final setback is determined from the largest of the individual setbacks. Then two setback multipliers are applied. Setback Multipliers Soil texture and type is a special case, because it interacts strongly with each of the other factors to determine risk to the aquatic environment. Soil texture is thus incorporated into the model as a multiplier on the other setbacks (see Section 2.4). The presence of Environmentally Significant Areas(as identified by O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2012; see Appendix C) will also be included as a multiplier, to increase the degree of protection afforded to these sensitive and significant areas from aquatic pollutants (see Section 2.5). The determination of setbacks should not be undertaken without enlisting the assistance of professionals with qualifications appropriate for the conditions and complexity of the site. See section Table 2 in section 2.6 for professional requirements to apply model. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 2.1
Page 17 Slope and Height of Bank RECOMMENDATION: •
Establish the minimum setback for slope at 10 metres, with a linear increase in the setback distance of 1.5 metres for every degree in slope. •
Require a geotechnical study when the slope is ≥ 15 percent, to ensure that the resultant setback is sufficient to protect unstable areas from development. Slope is an important factor in determining an appropriate riparian setback width. Steeper slopes are more susceptible to erosion and can increase the velocity of overland flow (runoff) and reduce buffer contact time (Wenger 1999; Li et al 2006). Dillaha et al (1988, 1989) found that as buffer slope increased from 11 % to 16 %, sediment removal efficiency declined by 7-‐38 %. Li et al (2006) also found that as slope gradient increases, that loss of nutrients also increases. Fox and Bryan (2000) found that flow velocities increased with increased slope, with the rate of increase following an approximately linear relationship over the range of slopes considered by this model. The Connecticut Association of Wetland Scientists (2004) suggested a minimum buffer width of 25 feet (~8 m) with a width increase of 3 feet (~1 m) for every degree of slope. Others have suggested that there be minimum buffer of 30 m with an increase of 0.61 m for every 1 % increase in slope (Wenger 1999; Sasson 2003). The City of Calgary (2006) recommends that the development setback distance should increase by 1.5 m for every 1 % increase in slope after 5 %. Based on these and other documents, the minimum setback for slope was established at 10 m, with a linear increase in the setback distance of 1.5 m for every degree in slope. Bank height was addressed in the Draft Watershed Management Plan for the Nose Creek Watershed (Palliser, 2005). It was suggested that where there is ≥15 % slope, an additional setback from the top of the bank should be added to the riparian development setback. This would provide a stable slope allowance (Palliser, 2005). These recommendations were adopted into our matrix model by requiring that there be a valid geotechnical study conducted when the slope is ≥15 %, to ensure that the resultant setback is sufficient to protect unstable areas from development. In order for the model to be legally defensible the slope and height of bank should be determined by a geotechnical engineer recognized by APEGA. 2.2
Groundwater Risk RECOMMENDATION: Apply groundwater risk within the RSMM based on depth to water table. For the purposes of the RSMM, depth to water table can be determined from the nearest well for which a static water level has been determined. In the case of new developments where wells have been drilled for geotechnical study or to provide a domestic water source, recent information may be available from the property in question. Otherwise, water table depths should be determined from well data taken ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 18 from the Alberta Groundwater Well Information Database (available online at http://www.envinfo.gov.ab.ca/GroundWater/; Government of Alberta, 2012). Well information is to be taken from the nearest well(s) in the database; where multiple wells are equidistant from the property and have static water levels, the minimum depth to the water table will be used. Groundwater and subsurface flows can also contribute nutrients and pollutants to surface waters (Figure 4), and groundwater itself can become compromised when polluted runoff infiltrates through the soil. Protecting shallow groundwater sources from nutrients and other pollution, therefore, is an important part of protecting surface water bodies. Devito et al (2000) found that a lake located in a regional recharge or local discharge area received proportionally greater phosphorus inputs from surface and near-‐surface flows, and were therefore more susceptible to disturbances in the watershed. It was also found that in deeper water tables with primarily subsurface flows, phosphorus is more readily absorbed to the soil and taken up by plant roots. However, in shallower water tables where soil is often waterlogged, overland flow is more common and there was little phosphorus removal (Devito et al, 2000). Deeper groundwater has generally had a longer residence time in the soil (Li et al, 2006) and allows more water to be absorbed by soil particles (Devito et al, 2000). Water that has longer contact with soil has more time for physical, chemical and biological breakdown of pollutants. Shallower water tables are more likely influenced by the immediate surroundings and the water will have had a shorter residence time; additionally, it is more likely to discharge into the surface waters of concern. Figure 3. Potential pathways for nutrient and pollutant input from sloping lands to surface water: (A) surface runoff, (B) subsurface flow, and (C) groundwater (Taken from Li et al 2006). ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 19 Because this process generally occurs more rapidly in the absence of uptake by plants, areas with higher risk for groundwater contamination should have wider riparian buffers. These buffers serve a dual purpose in this case. First, they protect surface water bodies from pollution by removing nutrients from shallow subsurface flows. Second, they protect groundwater sources by removing them from shallow subsurface flows, before they have an opportunity to infiltrate deeper groundwater. A number of studies have addressed the riparian zone buffer widths required for the removal of nutrients and other pollutants. Peterjohn and Correll (1984) found that buffers approximately 20 m in width removed 53 – 87 % of nitrate, ammonia and total particulate phosphorus, while buffers twice that width removed 75 – 89 % of those same parameters. Lowrance (1992) found that buffers between 10 and 40 m widths resulted in the removal of 77 – 89 % of nitrate from subsurface flows, with that number rising to 94 % for buffers wider than 50 m. Snyder et al. (1998) found lower rates of reduction, with wooded buffers up to 120 m wide removing 48 % of nitrate concentrations from subsurface flows. Yamada et al. (2007) and Duchemin and Hogue (2009) both used planted buffers incorporating mixtures of both trees and herbaceous vegetation, and found nitrate reductions of 63 – 79 % across buffers 5 to 25 m in width. Generally, buffers were much less effective at removing phosphorus (especially total and total dissolved phosphorus) from subsurface flows, with reductions ranging from 8 to 23%. Groundwater risk is applied within the RSMM based on depth to water table. Information on water table depth is commonly available from recent regional groundwater assessments produced by Hydrogeological Consultants in association with Agriculture and Agri-‐Food Canada, but unfortunately no such report is available for the Grande Prairie Region. An earlier report (Hackbarth, 1977) contains some information on depth to the water table, but the resolution of the data in that report is not sufficient to determine the extent of variability in water table depth within the City of Grande Prairie, only on a regional basis, and does not reflect more recently available data. For the purposes of the RSMM, depth to water table can be determined from the nearest well for which a static water level has been determined. In the case of new developments where wells have been drilled for geotechnical study or to provide a domestic water source, recent information may be available from the property in question. Otherwise, water table depths should be determined from well data taken from the Alberta Groundwater Well Information Database (available online at http://www.envinfo.gov.ab.ca/GroundWater/; Government of Alberta, 2012). Well information is to be taken from the nearest well(s) in the database; where multiple wells are equidistant from the property and have static water levels, the minimum depth to the water table will be used. 2.3
Vegetation Cover RECOMMENDATION: Have an additive model for vegetation cover, each vegetation type will have a different weight to ensure the removal of a consistent percentage of pollutants regardless of cover type at a given location. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta •
Trees – 0.1 m per % cover •
Shrubs – 0.2 m per % cover •
Herbaceous – 0.30 m per % cover •
Bare ground – 0.40 m per % cover •
Impermeable surfaces – 0.40 m per % cover Page 20 When impermeable surfaces are present within the vegetation plot, it is recommended that the setback distance be extended by an amount equal to the width of the impermeable surfaces encountered. For instance, if a 3 metre wide paved pathway runs parallel to the shore of the waterbody, the final setback distance would be increased by 3 metres. Vegetation slows the velocity of overland water flow and allows increased infiltration and sediment deposition (Connecticut Association of Wetland Scientists 2004). Once in the soil, chemical, biological and physical processes remove pollutants through filtering and absorption (Connecticut Association of Wetland Scientists 2004). Plants and microflora also remove nutrients and pollutants through absorption (Connecticut Association of Wetland Scientists 2004). In an extensive review of the literature, Mayer et al (2005) found that grassed buffers were the least effective at removing nitrogen from surface and subsurface flows, whereas forested buffers were the most effective (Figure 4). Wenger (1999) reported that both grass and forested buffers were effective for sediment and nutrient removal, but that shrub or forested buffers were more effective for bank stabilization and decreasing erosion. Gilliam (1997) reported that forested buffers were more effective than grass for sediment and nutrient removal, and that a combination of grass and forest was the most effective buffer. The presence of emergent vegetation enhanced the effectiveness of the riparian setback. Based on these and other documents, we designed the matrix so that herbaceous (grasses etc.) buffers would have the largest distance adjustment. The matrix was designed with vegetation of different types having additive effects. The aim of the model is to remove a specified percentage of pollutants from runoff. Since each vegetation cover type is capable of removing pollutants at a different rate, the use of an additive model with different weights for each vegetation class will ensure the removal of a consistent percentage of pollutants regardless of cover type at a given location. Although certainly not as effective as vegetation cover at slowing and removing pollutants from surface runoff, bare ground does still allow infiltration into the shallow groundwater, where such pollutants may adsorb onto soil particles or eventually be removed by plant growth. However, impermeable surfaces such as asphalt and concrete pavement confer no such advantage. When impermeable surfaces are present within the vegetation plot, it is recommended that the setback distance be extended by an ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 21 amount equal to the width of the impermeable surfaces encountered, to maintain as best as possible the protection provided by the vegetated buffer. Figure 4. Nitrogen removal effectiveness in riparian buffers by buffer vegetation type and water flow path. Blue boxes indicate surface water flow (on top of the ground) and red boxes indicate subsurface (groundwater) flow through five (5) different vegetation cover types listed along the x-‐axis. The center vertical line of the box and whisker plot marks the median of the sample. The length of each box shows the range within which the central 50% of the values fall. For example, a grass vegetation cover with surface flow (blue) had a nitrogen removal effectiveness range of -‐25 % to +75%. 50% of the samples had a nitrogen removal range of 0 % to 45 %. The median of all the samples for grass cover with a surface flow was 35 %.Taken from Mayer et al (2005). We do not use wetland or forested wetland cover type in our model. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 2.4
Page 22 Soil Texture and Type RECOMMENDATION: Include soil texture and type in the model as a modifier of the setbacks determined from the other parameters. Five categories for soil type and texture have been included in the RSMM. Each soil type receives a weighting value based on its potential for erosion, with more erodible soil receiving higher values. The multipliers for the various soil types/textures are as follows: •
Peat – 1.0 •
Clay soils – 1.10 •
Sandy soils – 1.25 •
Silty soils – 1.50 The setbacks calculated for each of the other parameters in the model is multiplied by the weight value, resulting proportionally increased setback distances for sites with highly erodible soil. Soil texture for a given location is to be determined from the AGRASID soils information database (Alberta Soil Information Centre, 2001). The type and texture of soil present at a site may have a strong influence on the ability of a riparian habitat to remove pollutants from surface runoff. Soil type is determined by the “parent” material or original substrate that the soil developed on (e.g. bedrock of various types, glacial till, ancient river or lakebeds), while texture is determined by the relative proportions of sand, silt and clay that are present in the soil. For the RSMM, we have focused primarily on soil texture and type as they pertain to erodibility, as this factor has the potential to strongly influence pollutant loadings into adjacent waterbodies. Low erodibility can be beneficial because it reduces loadings of solids and other potential pollutants into waterbodies, whereas high erodibility can actually increase loadings due to surface flow. Another potentially important effect of soil on surface water is hydraulic conductivity, as high conductivity can allow rapid infiltration and slow the flow of surface runoff. However, as discussed in Section 2.2, shallow subsurface flows can contribute substantial loadings of pollutants to surface water bodies, so in some cases lower hydraulic conductivity may be a preferable state. Since this parameter has been largely addressed by the groundwater risk parameter, the model for the City of Grande Prairie will be calibrated to focus on soil erodibility. Broadly speaking, soil texture is determined by the relative proportions of sand (particles 2.0 to 0.05 mm in diameter), silt (particles 0.05 to 0.002 mm in diameter) and clay (particles smaller than 0.002 mm in diameter) (Figure 5; Brady and Weil, 2007). Soil that is dominated by clays tend to suffer less from erosion because of strong physical and chemical bonds that hold the individual clay particles together in a coherent mass (White, 2006), although their small mass allows them to be suspended and carried large distances by runoff when they are detached. At the other end of the soil particle size spectrum, ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 23 the cohesive forces holding sand particles together tend to be extremely weak (White, 2006); however, because of the larger particle mass, it takes greater energy in surface runoff to detach them from the surface, and they settle out of the water column much more quickly than smaller particles (O’Green et al., 2006). Silt, which lies in the middle of the soil particle size spectrum, lacks the separate benefits conveyed to clay and sand. They are large enough to have low cohesion between individual particles, and are thus easily detached from each other, but are small enough to have low resistance to movement and do not settle out of the water column quickly (O’Green et al., 2006). Figure 5. Soil texture as determined by the relative proportions of sand, silt, and clay present in the soil sample. The texture of a given soil (with known sand, silt, and clay contents, is determined by moving directly to right from the appropriate percentage on the clay (left) axis, down and left from the appropriate percentage on the silt (right) axis, and up and left from the appropriate percentage on the sand (bottom) axis. The determination of the texture for a soil with 20 % clay, 40 % sand, and 20 % silt (a loam soil) is shown by the coloured lines on the figure. Soil erodibility interacts strongly with other factors included in the model, as water erosion rapidly increases when high slopes are present or where soil lacks vegetation to anchor the soil in place. Because of this, we have included soil texture and type in the model as a modifier of the setbacks determined from the other parameters. Each soil type receives a weighting value based on its potential ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 24 for erosion, with more erodible soil receiving higher values. The setbacks calculated for each of the other parameters in the model is multiplied by this value, resulting proportionally increased setback distances for sites with highly erodible soil. Based on resistance to soil erosion, five categories for soil type and texture have been included in the RSMM. While the determination of soil texture excludes the fraction of organic matter in soil, this factor can have important influences on hydraulic conductivity, erodibility and the ability of a soil to support plant life. Naturally formed peat deposits can be highly beneficial in riparian zones, due to their high capacity for absorbing water and nutrients and supporting plants (Cohen, 1997). Because of the benefits conferred by soil organic matter and peat in resisting erosion, peat soil is included separately. Mineral soils are broken down into three categories: sandy soil (including sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, and sandy clay loam), silty soil (silt, silt loam, loam, silty clay loam, and clay loam), and clayey soil (clay, silty clay, and sandy clay). In order of increasing distance adjustment, the four categories are ranked as peat < clayey soil< sandy soil <silty soil. 2.5
Environmentally Significant Areas RECOMMENDATION: Include Environmental Significant Areas (ESA) in the City’s model as a modifier of the setbacks determined from the other parameters. Apply multiplier to the base setback distance, with larger multipliers for increasingly significance values. The multiplier weights for the various rankings of Environmentally Significant Areas are as follows: •
None – 1.0 •
Moderate– 1.10 •
High – 1.25 •
Highest – 1.50 Environmentally Significant Areas within the City have been identified in the report entitled “City of Grande Prairie Mapping of Environmental Reserve (ER) and Science Based Setbacks for ER – Phase 2 Report” (O2 Planning + Design Inc., 2012; see Appendix A). These areas have been identified based on natural patch size, landscape context and connectivity, and hydrologic functions. Because these areas represent a potentially synergistic interaction of sensitive factors, additional measures must be taken to protect these areas from aquatic pollution. We recommend that development in the ESAs be completely avoided through the creation and application of development restrictions through land-‐use bylaws. However, in cases where development will not or cannot be avoided within ESAs, larger setbacks will be included within the RSMM to provide better protection of sensitive and significant habitats from aquatic pollution. If an ESA is adjacent to the body of water in question, a multiplier will be applied to the base setback distance, with larger multipliers for increasingly significance values. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 2.6
Page 25 Professional Requirements Although every effort has been made to make the RSMM accessible to as wide an audience as possible, the determination of setbacks should not be undertaken without enlisting the assistance of professionals with qualifications appropriate for the conditions and complexity of the site (Table 2). Table 2. Professional requirements for site assessments Condition Professional Requirements for setback determination Low slope, obvious transition from aquatic to upland vegetation, groundwater table known from nearby wells Complex vegetation communities with no obvious transition from aquatic to upland vegetation Professional biologist Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialist (QAES) or Qualified Wetland Aquatic Environment Specialist (QWAES) Moderate slopes (5-‐15 %) Professional biologist + Geotechnical engineer Steep slopes (>15 %) Extensive river meander* or presence of flood plain Unknown water table depth Professional biologist + Geotechnical engineer QAES/QWAES + Geotechnical professional Hydrogeologist * -‐ The turns in a river associated with meander result in large, potentially overlapping riparian setback areas. Meander often indicates bank instability, channels that vary in position from year to year, and generally results in a larger area than would otherwise be expected being incorporated into riparian areas. The model as currently formulated is not designed to handle this case, and requires a geotechnical assessment of bank/channel stability, and a QWAES assessment to determine the long-‐
term/historical high water marks and extent of riparian vegetation. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 26 3 The Riparian Setback Matrix Model 3.1
Setback Determinations As discussed in sections 1.3 – 1.5 of this document, the RSMM may be used by a municipality, under the authority of the Municipal Government Act, to establish: •
Environmental Reserves, •
Environmental Reserve Easements, •
Conservation Easements and •
Development setbacks for buildings All of which are included hereafter as “riparian setback”. The amount of riparian setback to be taken will be determined by using the RSMM. Riparian setback distances will be determined at several sites along the water’s edge, and as such the area determined as riparian setback will vary throughout the site; some areas will require greater setbacks and others will require much less. The riparian setback will vary throughout the parcel of land depending on slope of the land, height of any banks present, groundwater influence, soil type and vegetative cover. The RSMM is meant for all types of bodies of water in the City of Grande Prairie, including rivers, streams, lakes, and permanent wetlands. Parameters that may require a special consideration include: •
steep slope, •
impermeable surface cover, and •
extensive river meander or wide flood plains. The model may be applied to either determine the width of Environmental Reserve that will be taken during the subdivision process, or to determine the setbacks required for the development of lands and the construction of new buildings. Under the RSMM for the City of Grande Prairie, the baseline setbacks (determined from slope, vegetation cover, and groundwater table depth) fall within the range of 10 – 40 m. If soil conditions or Environmentally Significant Areas are present, these setbacks are subject to a multiplicative factor to increase protection to the aquatic environment. Under “worst case” conditions for the protection of the aquatic environment from pollution, the maximum setback is increased to 90 m (40 m baseline setback × 1.5 soil multiplier × 1.5 ESA multiplier). ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 3.2
Page 27 How to use the Riparian Setback Matrix Model The amount of property bordering the water’s edge will affect how riparian setbacks are determined. Steps to use the Riparian Setback Matrix: 1. Establish setback points. The number of points used to determine riparian setbacks will vary based on the area to be developed and the length of shoreline present. 2. Measure/calculate model parameters at each setback point. •
slope, •
groundwater risk, •
vegetation cover, and •
soil texture, 3. Determine overall setback. For areas with more than one setback, the ER is determined by joining the individual setback points with straight lines (Figure 6). ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 28 Figure 6. Schematic view of riparian setback determination at three points within a property. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 3.3
1.
Page 29 The Riparian Setback Matrix Model Establish the number of setback points required. 1.1.
Whereas the length of land bordering the water body, stream or wetland is: 1.1.1.
Less than 50 metres – One (1) setback point will be required at the discretion of the City of Grande Prairie. Please contact the City of Grande Prairie administration to determine the location of this setback point. Upland property Ordinary High Water Mark Water Body 1.1.2.
←<50m→ ● 200 metres to 50 metres – Two (2) setback points will be required equal distance apart and equal distance from each end of the property, along the boundary between the property and the water body. ←――――― 50-‐200m ―――――→ Upland property Ordinary High Water Mark Water Body 1.1.3.
Equal spacing ←――――→ ←――――→ ←――――→ ● ● Greater than 200 metres – The outside setback points will be no more than 100 metres from each end of the property, along the boundary between the property and the water body. If the distance between these setback points is more than 200 metres, additional setback points will be required. These must be equally spaced from each other and the two outside setback points, and no more than 200 metres apart along the boundary between the property and water body. Upland property ←―――――――――― >200m ――――――――――→ 100m max Equal spacing, 200m max 100m max ←――→←―――――→ ←―――――→ ←―――――→←――→ ● ● ● ● Ordinary High Water Mark Water Body 2.
Establish the location setback points 2.1.
Whereas the location of the point will be: 2.1.1.
At the boundary of the bed and shore between the private and crown-‐owned property (ordinary high water mark), as delineated by a legal land surveyor; or, 2.1.2.
If the property has not been delineated by a legal land surveyor, the point where evidence of surface water influence on the soil ends and where vegetation (living ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 30 or dead) characteristic of an aquatic environment (including but not limited to sedges, cattails, and bulrushes) end changes to that of upland vegetation; or, 2.1.3.
If no vegetation exists, the point at the current edge of water. 3.
Vegetation Cover for the site is determined based on a single 1 m x 10 m plot at each setback point: 3.1.
From each setback point, determine the vegetation type perpendicular to the water body, stream or wetland, by creating a 1 m x 10 m plot. 3.2.
Determine the percent of the plot that is herbaceous/graminoid, shrub, forested, impermeable and bare ground. Total cover must add up to 100 %. 3.3.
Multiply the percentage of each vegetation cover class by the respective distance adjustment for each type. 3.4.
Put the required adjusted distance beside the respective vegetation cover. 3.5.
Add up the setback requirements from all vegetation cover types to obtain the total vegetation cover setback. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 4.
Page 31 Slope of the land must be determined by a geotechnical engineer at each of the setback points. From each setback point, determine the slope of the land perpendicular to the water body, stream or wetland. The base setback distance for slope is calculated as follows: 4.1.
The minimum setback distance based on slope is 10 m. 4.2.
For slopes in the range of 0 to 15 %, the setback distance will be 10 m + 1.5 m for every 1 % slope. 4.3.
If the slope is >15 %, then a geotechnical study is required for the site. The total setback required for this site will be determined by a registered professional. The determined setback must take into account the slope, height of bank, groundwater influence, soil type and vegetative cover, and must be no less than the setback calculated based on the other parameters in the RSMM. Setback requirements will be subject to the approval of the subdivision authority. 4.4.
Record slope, under measured slope in Step 2 and enter the calculated distance adjustment in the TOTAL box in Step 2. 5.
Groundwater table depth is determined from nearby water wells/boreholes: 5.1.
If boreholes or wells have been drilled on the property for geotechnical investigations or domestic water supply use, the static water level from the closest well shall be used as the depth to the water table. 5.2.
Otherwise, water table depths will be determined from the nearest wells with static water level information available from the Alberta Groundwater Well Information Database will be used. If multiple wells at the same nearest location have static water level information available, the shallowest depth will be used. 5.3.
Put a check mark next to the appropriate groundwater depth in Step 3. 5.4.
Identify and enter the required distance adjustment in the TOTAL box in Step 3. 6.
Determine the baseline setback based on slope, groundwater risk and vegetation cover. 6.1.
If any of the setbacks calculated from steps 3 – 5 are equal to 40 m, the baseline setback for that point is 40 m. 6.2.
Otherwise, the baseline setback is the maximum of the setbacks determined in steps 3 -‐ 5. 7.
Soil type and texture for the site is determined from soil samples or cores. 7.1.
The soil type and texture is determined from the AGRASID soils information database. 7.2.
Use the type (peat or mineral soil) and texture category (clay, sand, or silt soils) of the soil at the location to determine the setback soil multiplier. 8.
Environmentally Significant Areas on the property are determined based on the maps and report from O2 Planning + Design (2012; Appendix A). ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 8.1.
Page 32 If an ESA exists adjacent to the body of water anywhere within the boundaries of the property in question, the setback ESA multiplier is determined based on the significance ranking of the ESA in question. 9.
Multiply the distance obtained in step 6 by the soil multiplier determined in step 7, and multiply this result by the ESA multiplier determined in step 8. This is the final setback for the site. 10.
To establish riparian setbacks, determine setback distances from each setback point. Connect setback points. Setbacks at the property line will be set at the same distance from the body of water as the nearest determined setback point. See the attached Riparian Setback Matrix Model Developers’ Guide (including sample worksheets) for more information (Appendix C). ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 3.4
Page 33 Riparian Setback Matrix Model Field Sheet Water Body Name: Location (1/4 – Sec – Rng – Twp – Mer): Setback point location (UTM Coordinates): Land Owner: Field Personnel: Date and Time: 1. VEGETATION Cover Type (% cover) Forest Shrub Herb/graminoid Bare ground Impermeable* TOTAL SLOPE SETBACK 2. Slope Category (%) 0 -‐ 15% >15% TOTAL GROUNDWATER RISK 3. Groundwater depth >20 m 10 – 20 m <10 m TOTAL SOIL SETBACK 4. Soil Texture*** Peat Clayey soils Sandy soils Silty soils TOTAL 4. ESA SETBACK Environmentally Significant Area Rank None Moderate High Highest TOTAL OVERALL SETBACK Baseline Setback Soil texture coefficient ESA coefficient Total Setback Coefficients 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.40 Vegetation cover (%) (calculate) Baseline Setback Measured slope (%): Baseline Setback (calculate) Coefficients 10 25 40 Check one: ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ Baseline Setback Coefficients 1.00 1.10 1.25 1.50 Check one: ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ Coefficients 10 m + 1.5 m / % geotechnicalstudy** Soil Texture Coefficient Coefficients 1.00 1.10 1.25 1.50 Largest from #1-‐3: Value from #4: Value from #4: Check one: ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ a) b) c) Multiply a through c: ESA Coefficient (calculate) Overall Setback * -‐ Setback must be sufficient that no more than 5% of the total setback distance consists of impermeable surfaces ** -‐ In cases where the slope exceeds 15%, a geotechnical study must be conducted to ensure that the calculated setback protects potentially unstable lands *** -‐ Peat soils are defined for these purposes as having a minimum 50% soil organic matter, highly organic mineral soils are defined for these purposes as having more than 5% soil organic matter, regardless of sand, silt, or clay content; clayey soils include clay, silty clay, and sandy clay; sandy soils include sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, and sandy clay loam; and silty soils include silt, silty loam, loam, silty clay loam, and clay loam. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 34 4 Bibliography Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2000. Soil Organic Matter. Agri-‐Facts Agdex 536-‐1. Edmonton, Alberta. Alberta Soil Information Centre. 2001. AGRASID 3.0: Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database (Version 3.0). Edited by J.A. Brierley, T.C. Martin, and D.J. Spiess.Agriculture and Agri-‐
Food Canada, Research Branch; Alberta Agriculture and Food, Conservation and Development Branch. Alberta Environment. 2008. Glossary of Terms Related to Water and Watershed Management in Alberta. Partnerships and Strategies Section.58 pp. Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society.Cows and Fish Website. http://www.cowsandfish.org/ [accessed 25 January 2007]. Brady, NC and Weil, RR. 2007. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 14th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.960 pp. Chambers P.A., Culp J.M., Glozier N.A., Cash K.J., Wrona F.J., and Noton L. 2006. Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative: Nutrients and dissolved oxygen -‐ issues and impacts. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113: 117–141. City of Calgary. 2006. Environmental Reserve Setback Guidelines Discussion Draft. http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/water_services/water_quality/environmental_reserve_se
tback_guideline.pdf [accessed 30 January 2007]. City of Grande Prairie. 2004. Storm Drainage Master Plan. Report prepared for the City of Grande Prairie by Associated Engineering Alberta Ltd. Cohen, R. 1997. Fact Sheets: Functions and Values of Riparian Areas. Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement. Connecticut Association of Wetland Scientists. 2004. Vegetative buffers for water quality protection: An introduction and guidance document, Draft Version 1.0. http://www.ctwetlands.org/Draft%20Buffer%20Paper%20Version%201.0.doc [accessed 11 Jan 2007]. Devito, K.J., Creed, I.F., Rothwell, R.L. and Prepas, E.E. 2000. Landscape controls on phosphorus loading to boreal lakes: implications for the potential impacts of forest harvesting. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 57: 1977 – 1984. Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mostaghimi, V.O. Shandholtz. 1988. Evaluation of Vegetative Filter Strips as a Best Management Practice for Feed Lots. J. Water Pollution Control Federation. 60:1231-‐1238 ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 35 Dillaha, T.A., R. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative Filter Strips for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. Transactions of the ASAE Vol. 32(2): 513-‐519. Duchemin, M, and Hogue, R. 2009. Reduction in agricultural non-‐point source pollution in the first year following establishment of an integrated grass/tree filter strip system in southern Quebec (Canada). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment131:85-‐97. Finlay, K., Patoine, A., Donald, D.B., Bogard, M.J. and Leavitt, P.R. 2010. Experimental evidence that pollution with urea can degrade water quality in phosphorus-‐rich lakes of the Northern Great Plains. Limnology and Oceanography, 55(3): 1213-‐1230. Fox, DM, and Bryan, RB. 2000. The relationship of soil loss by interrill erosion to slope gradient. Catena 38(3):211-‐222. Gilliam, J.W., D.L. Osmond, and R.O.Evans. 1997. Selected Agricultural Best Management Practices to Control Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin 311, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Government of Alberta.Alberta Water Well Information Database.Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta.Available online at http://www.envinfo.gov.ab.ca/GroundWater/. Hamilton, H.R. 1985. Impact assessment of sewage discharges to Field Lake, Alberta. HydroQual Consultants report. 33 pp. Huggenberger, P., E. Hoehn, R. Beschta, and W. Woessner. 2002. Abiotic aspects of channels and flood plains in riparian ecology. Freshwater Biology 40(3):407-‐425. Irvine, R.L. and Jackson, L.J. 2006. Spatial variance of nutrient limitation of periphyton in montane, headwater streams (McLeod River, Alberta, Canada). Aquatic Ecology 40(3):337-‐348. Klapproth, J.C. and Johnson, J.E. 2000. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Effects on Water Quality. Virginia Cooperative Extension. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/forestry/420-‐151/420-‐151.html [accessed 11 Jan 2007] Lee, P. and C. Smyth. 2003. Riparian forest management: paradigms for ecological management and practices in Alberta. Report produced by the Alberta Research Council (Vegreville, Alberta) and the Alberta Conservation Association (Edmonton, Alberta) for the Northern Watershed Project Stakeholder Committee. Northern Watershed Project Final Report No.1. 117 pp. Lewis, Jr., W.M., Wurtsbaugh, W.A. and Paerl, H.W. 2011. Rationale for control of anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus to reduce eutrophication of inland waters. Environmental Science and Technology, 45:10300-‐10305. Li, Y., Wang, C., Hongliang, T. 2006. Research advances in nutrient runoff on sloping land in watersheds. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 9: 27–32. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 36 Lowrance, R. 1992. Groundwater Nitrate and Denitrification in a Coastal Plain Riparian Forest. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:401-‐405. MacIntyre, M. 2011. Riparian Ecosystem Management and Municipal Sustainability.A Case Study of Urban Communities in Alberta.Master of Arts Thesis, Royal Roads University. Mayer PM, Reynolds, SK Jr., Confield, TJ. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600R05118/600R05118.pdf [accessed 11 Jan 2007] Mitchell, P. 1998. The impact of aerated sewage lagoon effluent on water quality in Field Lake. Alberta Environmental Protection report.21 pp. Mitchell, P. 2000. Effect of Field Lake outflow on water quality in Red Deer Brook. Alberta Environmental Protection report.22 pp. Mitchell, P. 2001. Lac la Biche: water quality and phosphorus sources. Patricia Mitchell Environmental Consulting report.18 pp. O’Green, AT, Elkins, R, Lewis, D. 2006. Erodibility of agricultural soils, with examples in Lake and Medocino Counties. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, California. Palliser Environmental Services Ltd. 2005. Draft Watershed Management Plan for the Nose Creek Watershed. Nose Creek Watershed Partnership. http://www.airdrie.com/Content/environment/nosecreek/images/Draft%20WMP%20-‐
%20November%207.pdf [accessed 30 January 2007]. Peterjohn, WT and Correll, DL. 1984. Nutrient Dynamics in an Agricultural Watershed: Observations on the Role of A Riparian Forest. Ecology 65(5):1466-‐14775. Sasson, A. 2003. Points to include in determining riparian buffer requirements for Big Darby Environmentally Sensitive Development Area. http://utilities.ci.columbus.oh.us/project/docs/031120%20Points%20to%20include%20in%20de
termining%20riparian%20buffer%20requirements%20for%20the%20Big%20Darby%20ESDA.doc [accessed 25 January 2007]. Schindler, D.W., R. Freed, A. Wolfe, S. Neufeld and R. Vinebrooke. 2004. Water Quality in Lac la Biche: A Preliminary Assessment of Past and Present Conditions. Unpublished report submitted to the Lac la Biche Watershed Steering Committee. 27 pages. Snyder, N.J., Mostaghimi, S, Berry, DF, Reneau, R.B., Hong, S, McClellan, P.W, and Smith, EP.1996. Impact of riparian forest buffers on agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Journal Of Tile American Water Resources Association 34(2):385-‐395. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 37 Wenger S. 1999. A Review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation.Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8ZQTRzNpLZQJ:outreach.ecology.uga.edu/tools/buffers
/lit_review.pdf+riparian+buffer+width+and+phosphorus+removal&hl= [accessed 11 Jan 2007] White, J.S. and C.M. Prather. 2004. State of the Lac la Biche Watershed 2004: Summary of Current Information. Report prepared by Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd., Edmonton, August 2004. 43 p. White, R.E. 2006. Principles and Practice of Soil Science: The Soil as a Natural Resource, 4th ed. Wiley-‐
Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. Yamada, T, Logsdon, SD, Tomer, MD, and Burkhart, MR. 2007. Groundwater nitrate following installation of a vegetated riparian buffer. Science of the Total Environment 385:297-‐309. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 38 5 Vegetation Definitions TERM Aquatic DEFINITION Plants that grow in water or in saturated soils (i.e. bulrushes, sedges, cattails, rushes, willows). Vegetation Bare An area where the soil is exposed. There may be sporadically occurring plants present, especially weedy Ground/Cleared or colonizing species. Forest An area with a canopy created by one or more woody-‐stemmed trees with an average height of at least 2 m and an associated understory Herbaceous An area with cover provided by plant species without woody above-‐ground structures. Includes both graminoids (such as grasses, sedges, and rushes) and forbs (leafy plants). Impermeable An area devoid of vegetation with the ground surface covered with a substance that prevents the infiltration of water, such as concrete or asphalt Shrub An area with a canopy of woody or semi-‐woody plants with low stature (<2m), often though not always producing several basal shoots instead of a single trunk. Tree seedlings (saplings) <2m will also be considered as shrubs for the purposes of the model. ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. ER Mapping and Setback Model
APPENDIX C:
Developer’s Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model
For Use by the City of Grande Prairie
Phase 3 Report
2012-09-04
Developer’s Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model For Use by the City of Grande Prairie Prepared for: The City of Grande Prairie August 2012 Prepared by: Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. #204, 7205 Roper Road NW Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6B 3J4 Writers: Joshua Haag, B.Sc. Jay White, M.Sc., P.Biol. Original Model Developers: Joshua Haag, B.Sc. Melissa Logan B.Sc., P.Biol Michelle Gray B.Sc., B.I.T. Judy Stewart, LLB Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page i Executive Summary The following is a companion document to the recently-‐developed Riparian Setback Matrix Model as modified for the City of Grande Prairie for use on all water bodies within the City. The current document has been prepared to give an overview of model application for those working in the development industry. The Riparian Setback Matrix Model is used to establish unique environmental reserve setbacks to lakes, streams, brooks, creeks, wetlands and intermittent water drainage courses during the development process under authority of Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act to sustain watershed and/or watercourses in balance with developmental pressure. For more details, you can request a copy of the Riparian Setback Matrix Model from the City of Grande Prairie Land Use Planning Department office by contacting: Development Services Land Use Planning Department 3rd Floor, City Service Center 9505 -‐ 112 Street Grande Prairie, Alberta T8V 6H8 (780) 538-‐0421 Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ii 1 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 What is the Riparian Setback Matrix Model? .............................................................................. 3 1.2 What is an Environmental Reserve? ............................................................................................ 5 1.3 When do I need to dedicate reserve lands? ................................................................................ 6 1.4 What is the purpose of an Environmental Reserve? ................................................................... 6 1.5 How much land will be taken as an Environmental Reserve? ..................................................... 7 1.6 Development Setbacks for Buildings ........................................................................................... 8 1.7 Flood Plains and Flood Risk .......................................................................................................... 8 Riparian Setback Matrix Model ........................................................................................ 9 2.1 How to use the Riparian Setback Matrix Model .......................................................................... 9 2.1.1 3 Steps of the Riparian Setback Matrix Model ..................................................................... 11 2.2 Riparian Setback Matrix Model Field Sheet ............................................................................. 15 2.3 Professional Requirements ........................................................................................................ 16 Vegetation Definitions ................................................................................................... 17 List of Figures Figure 1. Illustration of lake bed and bank which is public land and owned by the Province and the Environmental Reserve land that is owned by the Municipality. ................................................................ 5 Figure 2. Schematic view of riparian setback determination at three points within a property. ............. 10 List of Tables Table 1. Professional requirements for site assessments ........................................................................ 16 ©2012 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 3 1 Introduction Facing increasing development pressure, the need to protect and restore riparian areas within the City of Grande Prairie has become a requirement. Riparian areas are the areas of water-‐loving vegetation beside a stream, river, lake or pond. Riparian areas are critical to plant and animal communities and to reduce the negative effects of various land-‐uses on adjacent waters. The Riparian Setback Matrix Model (RSMM) was created to help prevent development impacts on surface water bodies. The model is an effective tool to establish adequate riparian buffer setbacks to aid in the protection of shorelines, water quality and riparian lands1, while allowing for development to occur in a sustainable manner. The purpose of this guide is to help those in the development industry to apply the RSMM (as modified for use in the City of Grande Prairie) in a stepwise manner and to identify those qualified professionals required to apply the model. This guide also reinforces the need for Environmental Reserve (ER) protection to maintain healthy and functional riparian areas for the purpose of preventing aquatic pollution2, while providing public access that will not impede natural functions. The RSMM will be used by the City of Grande Prairie administration to determine and enforce appropriate Environmental Reserve setback dedications located adjacent to bodies of water, including lakes, streams, brooks, creeks and intermittent water inflows during the development process. 1.1
What is the Riparian Setback Matrix Model? The RSMM is a scientifically-‐based, legally defensible model that allows municipalities to take adequate precautions to prevent the most common forms of pollution, instead of establishing arbitrary setbacks. This policy and procedure is applied under direction from the Municipal Government Act (Sections 663 and 664).To obtain the required information (slope, soil texture, groundwater influence and vegetation data) required for the RSMM, applicants will need to retain the services of a qualified professional, registered in the province of Alberta with an organization that is part of the Joint Environmental 1
“Riparian land” means the lands adjacent to a watercourse where the vegetation and soils show evidence of being influenced by the presence of water. Riparian areas are the green zone around a watercourse. They are the vital transitional zone between surface water and the drier uplands and play a vital role in the healthy functioning of both. For the purposes of this model, riparian lands are taken to start at the bank or ordinary high water mark of a body of water. 2
“Pollution” means any non-‐point source impacts on the environment from substances such as sediments, nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, parasites or toxic chemicals that reach a watercourse by surface or subsurface flow though adjacent land, and the unauthorized release of any “deleterious substance” as defined in the Fisheries Act (Canada), or the unauthorized release of any substance whether non-‐point or otherwise that may cause an adverse effect under provisions of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 4 Professional Practice Board3 to undertake a geophysical assessment of the proposed development. Please see the section entitled “Professional Requirements for Site Assessments” for a guide to the types of professional affiliation that are required for different site conditions based on a cursory initial assessment. 3
Includes Alberta Institute of Agrologists (AIA), Alberta Society of Professional Biologists (ASPB), Association of the Chemical Profession of Alberta (ACPA), Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), Association of Science and Engineering Technology Professionals of Alberta (ASET), College of Alberta Professional Foresters (CAPF), and College of Alberta Professional Forest Technologists (CAPFT) Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 1.2
Page 5 What is an Environmental Reserve? An Environmental Reserve (ER) is a buffer of natural land that lies between developed/developable land and environmentally sensitive areas such as lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands (Figure 1). During subdivision of a parcel of land, under conditions prescribed in the Municipal Government Act, a municipality can acquire "reserve lands". Environmental Reserve is "undevelopable" land that must be left in its natural state, or used as a public park or for public access to the area (Sec 671 MGA). The strip of land determined by the model will be dedicated to the City of Grande Prairie as Environmental Reserve (where the City takes ownership), or, placed under an Environmental Reserve Easement, at the discretion of the City. Under this latter form of protection, the City may specify additional conditions on the land, in addition to restricting development. The use of environmental reserve parcels for exclusive, private purposes is not permitted. As the owner of environmental reserve, the City of Grande Prairie has the responsibility to control access and use to ensure that these sensitive landscapes are sustained for current and future generations. Figure 1. Illustration of lake bed and bank which is public land and owned by the Province and the Environmental Reserve land that is owned by the Municipality. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 1.3
Page 6 When do I need to dedicate reserve lands? As stated in the MGA, a municipality can require the dedication of ER if the lands proposed for subdivision abut the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water4 (Figure 1). When such reserves are taken for the purposes of preventing pollution or providing public access to or beside the bed and shore, the reserve taken must be not be less than 6 metres in width, allowing that these objectives may require greater ER widths (Stewart, 2006). In addition, environmental reserves may also be taken on land that consists of a swamp, gully, ravine, coulee or natural drainage course, or that is subject to flooding or is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, unstable. In the latter two cases, the reserves will comprise the entirety of these lands, and may be wider than the minimum 6 metres required for pollution prevention or access. By preventing nutrients from entering a fresh water body, algal and aquatic vegetation growth is minimized. Other benefits of ER dedication include public access to the water body, wildlife attracting habitat as well as shoreline erosion prevention. When the RSMM is applied through zoning bylaws, there is no transfer of ownership, though development within the setback area can still be prevented through landowner education and the enforcement of the bylaw by the City. The trend of residing in an urban subdivision in a rural setting is increasing nationally. As the population shifts to these desirable rural subdivisions, more pressure is placed on the environment. The Riparian Setback Matrix Model gives the community the ability to benefit from the environmental social and economic services of the land. 1.4
What is the purpose of an Environmental Reserve? The strip of land abutting a lake or other watercourses are taken as ER for two purposes: to prevent pollution, or to provide public access to and beside the bed and shore. Environmental Reserve is dedicated to protect provincially owned beds and shores and the aquatic environment5 from "pollution". Therefore, the definition of pollution that a municipality adopts constitutes pollution in their community. Nutrients are defined by the City of Grande Prairie as pollutants (as are other compounds such as suspended sediments, hydrocarbons, salts, and metals), and steps will be taken to protect aquatic systems from additional nutrients from making their way into watercourses via point and non-‐
point source discharges. One of the most effective ways to protect aquatic ecosystems and prevent pollution is to ensure that riparian areas are intact, healthy and functional. Sometimes, residents think that their property rights allow them to use adjacent ER parcels for exclusive, private purposes. They landscape, cut down trees, mow vegetation along streams, and plant 4
“water body” means any location where water flows or is present, whether or not the flow or the presence of water is continuous, intermittent or occurs only during a flood, and includes but is not limited to wetlands and aquifers … Water Act, S1, RSA 2000 5
(h) “aquatic environment” means the components of the earth related to, living in or located in or on water or the beds or shores of a water body, including but not limited to (i) all organic and inorganic matter, and (ii) living organisms and their habitat, including fish habitat, and their interacting natural systems. Water Act, S1 RSA2000
Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 7 gardens outside their lot lines with invasive species of flowers, shrubberies and trees. ER shore lands are often fenced or barricaded or restricted against the natural flow of people and floodwaters even when ER strips lie between their property and the bed and shore of a river or lake. People compete with wildlife for ER adjacent to rivers and lakes which act as wildlife corridors or migratory bird habitat, and provide shade, shelter, food and water for flora and fauna. Some citizens consider ER private playgrounds to walk dogs, cycle, and ride all-‐terrain vehicles. These activities create ad hoc pathway systems, adversely affecting the natural ground cover and vegetation, pollution, erosion of escarpments and ravines, and sedimentation of adjacent watercourses and bodies of water. Riparian zones act as buffers and protect water quality. Contaminants are absorbed onto sediments, taken up by vegetation and transformed by soil microbes into less harmful forms. Defining a riparian area (riparian buffer strip) that is large enough to effectively protect the water and the aquatic ecosystem is necessary. Each water body requires unique set riparian buffer widths and development setbacks. It is essential that municipalities determine appropriate land uses adjacent to bodies of water, including wetlands, to avoid or minimize development impacts of our valuable water resources, as stated in the provincial and municipal Land Use Bylaws. The importance of identifying and protecting a properly-‐sized buffer strip is critical for source water protection. 1.5
How much land will be taken as an Environmental Reserve? The RSMM seeks to balance the protection of the natural environment and the needs of developers, taking only the minimum setback or Environmental Reserve required to adequately protect aquatic environments from pollution. The Environmental Reserve created through this process will also provide other significant functions such as public access, but the determination of ER width under the RSMM is based only on requirements for pollution protection. Pollution can be defined as substances such as sediments, nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, parasites or toxic chemicals that reach a watercourse by surface or subsurface flow. Riparian areas reduce the amount of pollution reaching a watercourse. The reduction in pollution reaching the watercourse is highly correlated with the characteristics of the adjacent riparian lands, depending on the site characteristics such as slope, vegetation cover, soil and bank height. The amount of land the City of Grande Prairie will require to be dedicated as Environmental Reserve will range from 10 -‐ 90 metres. The amount of land required will vary with the changing slope, soil texture, groundwater risk, and vegetative cover present on the land. Setbacks are reduced in areas where conditions provide good protection for the aquatic environment and increased in areas where conditions provide poor protection for the aquatic environment. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Conditions Page 8 Protection of aquatic environment low slopes, high cover of robust vegetation, low groundwater risk, and/or low soil erosion risk Good high slopes, little vegetation cover, high groundwater risk, and/or highly erodible soil Poor Additionally, the model for the City of Grande Prairie also takes into account the presence of Environmentally Significant Areas, determined from a variety but most notably landscape connectivity. In addition to providing improved protection of the aquatic environment from pollutants, contiguous natural habitats are valued for their aesthetic value and their roles in providing recreational usage and wildlife corridors. 1.6
Development Setbacks for Buildings A municipality is responsible for the planning and development of private lands within its geographical boundaries. The Municipal Government Act requires municipalities to enact a Land use Bylaw6, the provisions of which can be used to control the development of "buildings" on land subject to flooding or subsidence or that is low lying, marshy or unstable; or, land adjacent to or within a specific distance of the bed and shore of any lake, river, stream or other body of water. What constitutes a “building” is defined in the MGA to include all structures except highways and bridges. Controlling development of buildings within prescribed development setback areas can be done through policy statements and land use bylaw provisions. The opportunity to create appropriate development setbacks and land uses in riparian areas is underutilized by municipal governments. The RSMM presented here will assist the City of Grande Prairie to create a defensible “natural environmental reserve” land use designation with associated permitted and discretionary land uses. The natural riparian function of each landscape that a municipality wishes to preserve will determine the extent of the development setback required. The RSMM will assist municipalities to adopt appropriate development setback policy and enact appropriate Land Use Bylaw provisions inclusive of Area Structure Plans or Watershed Management Plans, integration of policies and directives. 1.7
Flood Plains and Flood Risk The RSMM was designed with the aim of reducing pollution into bodies of water, per the Municipal Government Act7. It does not directly address issues such as flood plain instability, inundation, or flood frequency. 6
7
MGA 640(1) MGA 640(1)(c) Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 9 2 Riparian Setback Matrix Model The amount of ER taken by the City will be determined by using the Riparian Setback Matrix Model. Environmental Reserve will be determined at several sites starting at the transition to upland vegetation (i.e. upper edge of the riparian area). The area dedicated as Environmental Reserve will vary throughout the site as it follows this edge. Some areas will require wider Environmental Reserve and others will require much less, all based on site conditions. The Environmental Reserve will vary throughout the parcel of land depending on existing features: slope of the land, soil texture, groundwater influence and vegetative cover. The RSMM is meant for all types of bodies of water in the City of Grande Prairie. Parameters or measurements that may lead to intervention or modification of the prescribed setbacks by municipal administrators are highlighted in yellow; parameters or measurements requiring special surveys or other technical considerations are highlighted in red. Parameters that may require special consideration include steep slope, impermeable surface cover, and extensive river meander or wide flood plains. The model may be applied to either determine the width of Environmental Reserve that will be taken during the subdivision process, or to determine the setbacks required for the development of lands and the construction of new buildings. Under the RSMM for the City of Grande Prairie, the baseline setbacks (determined from slope, vegetation cover, and groundwater table depth) fall within the range of 10 – 40 m. If soil conditions or Environmentally Significant Areas are present, these setbacks are subject to a multiplicative factor to increase protection to the aquatic environment. Under “worst case” conditions for the protection of the aquatic environment from pollution, the maximum setback is increased to 90 m (40 m baseline setback × 1.5 soil multiplier × 1.5 ESA multiplier). 2.1
How to use the Riparian Setback Matrix Model The amount of property bordering the water’s edge will also affect how riparian setbacks are determined. To start using the Riparian Setback Matrix, setback points will need to be established. The number of points used to determine riparian setbacks will vary based on the area to be developed and the length of shoreline present. At each setback point, each parameter in the model is measured or calculated (slope, groundwater risk, vegetation cover, and soil texture), and the overall setback is determined. For areas with more than one setback, the ER is determined by joining the individual setback points with straight lines (Figure 2). Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 10 Figure 2. Schematic view of riparian setback determination at three points within a property. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 2.1.1
Page 11 Steps of the Riparian Setback Matrix Model 1.
Establish the number of setback points required. 1.1.
Whereas the length of land bordering the water body, stream or wetland is: 1.1.1.
Less than 50 metres – One (1) setback point will be required at the discretion of the City of Grande Prairie. Please contact the City of Grande Prairie administration to determine the location of this setback point. Upland property Ordinary High Water Mark Water Body 1.1.2.
←<50m→ ● 200 metres to 50 metres – Two (2) setback points will be required equal distance apart and equal distance from each end of the property, along the boundary between the property and the water body. ←――――― 50-‐200m ―――――→ Upland property Ordinary High Water Mark Water Body 1.1.3.
Equal spacing ←――――→ ←――――→ ←――――→ ● ● Greater than 200 metres – The outside setback points will be no more than 100 metres from each end of the property, along the boundary between the property and the water body. If the distance between these setback points is more than 200 metres, additional setback points will be required. These must be equally spaced from each other and the two outside setback points, and no more than 200 metres apart along the boundary between the property and water body. Upland property ←―――――――――― >200m ――――――――――→ 100m max Equal spacing, 200m max 100m max ←――→←―――――→ ←―――――→ ←―――――→←――→ ● ● ● ● Ordinary High Water Mark Water Body 2.
Establish the location setback points 2.1.
Whereas the location of the point will be: 2.1.1.
At the boundary of the bed and shore between the private and crown-‐owned property (ordinary high water mark), as delineated by a legal land surveyor; or, 2.1.2.
If the property has not been delineated by a legal land surveyor, the point where evidence of surface water influence on the soil ends and where vegetation (living or dead) characteristic of an aquatic environment (including but not limited to sedges, cattails, and bulrushes) end changes to that of upland vegetation; or, 2.1.3.
If no vegetation exists, the point at the current edge of water. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 12 3.
Vegetation Cover for the site is determined based on a single 1 m x 10 m plot at each setback point: 3.1.
From each setback point, determine the vegetation type perpendicular to the water body, stream or wetland, by creating a 1 m x 10 m plot. 3.2.
Determine the percent of the plot that is herbaceous/graminoid, shrub, forested, impermeable and bare ground. Total cover must add up to 100 %. 3.3.
Multiply the percentage of each vegetation cover class by the respective distance adjustment for each type. 3.4.
Put the required adjusted distance beside the respective vegetation cover. 3.5.
Add up the setback requirements from all vegetation cover types to obtain the total vegetation cover setback. EXAMPLE: Plot at is covered by 20% herb/graminoid, 30% shrubs, 40% forested and 10% bare ground. Herb/graminoid (20 x 0.30) = 6.0 m Bare ground (10 x 0.40) = 4.0 m Shrub (30 x 0.20) = 6.0 m TOTAL Vegetation Setback = 20 m
Forested (40 x 0.10) = 4.0 m 4.
Slope of the land must be determined by a geotechnical engineer at each of the setback points. From each setback point, determine the slope of the land perpendicular to the water body, stream or wetland. The base setback distance for slope is calculated as follows: 4.1.
The minimum setback distance based on slope is 10 m. 4.2.
For slopes in the range of 0 to 15 %, the setback distance will be 10 m + 1.5 m for every 1 % slope. 4.3.
If the slope is >15 %, then a geotechnical survey is required for the site. The total setback required for this site will be determined by a registered professional. The determined setback must take into account the slope, height of bank, groundwater influence, soil type and vegetative cover, and must be no less than the setback calculated based on the other parameters in the RSMM. Setback requirements will be subject to the approval of the subdivision authority. 4.4.
Record slope, under measured slope in Step 2 and enter the calculated distance adjustment in the TOTAL box in Step 2. EXAMPLE: If your slope is equal to 12%: it falls in the 0 – 15 % category. The setback distance will be 10 m + 18 m for the 1.5 m per slope % (1.5 m x 12 = 18 m). Your total baseline setback for slope is 28 m. 5.
Groundwater table depth is determined from nearby water wells/boreholes: Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 5.1.
Page 13 If boreholes or wells have been drilled on the property for geotechnical investigations or domestic water supply use, the static water level from the closest well shall be used as the depth to the water table. 5.2.
Otherwise, water table depths will be determined from the nearest wells with static water level information available from the Alberta Groundwater Well Information Database will be used. If multiple wells at the same nearest location have static water level information available, the shallowest depth will be used. 5.3.
Put a check mark next to the appropriate groundwater depth in Step 3. 5.4.
Identify and enter the required distance adjustment in the TOTAL box in Step 3. 6.
Determine the baseline setback based on slope, groundwater risk and vegetation cover. 6.1.
If any of the setbacks calculated from steps 3 – 5 are equal to 40 m, the baseline setback for that point is 40 m. 6.2.
Otherwise, the baseline setback is the maximum of the setbacks determined in steps 3 -‐ 5. 7.
Soil type and texture for the site is determined from soil samples or cores. 7.1.
The soil type and texture is determined from the AGRASID soils information database. 7.2.
Use the type (peat or mineral soil) and texture category (clay, sand, or silt soils) of the soil at the location to determine the setback soil multiplier. EXAMPLE: If your soil type is high in clay (clay, silty clay, or sandy clay), it has a coefficient of 1.15. Write this number under the soil texture coefficient column. You will use this coefficient number in step9. 8.
Environmentally Significant Areas on the property are determined based on the maps and report from O2 Planning + Design (2012). 8.1.
If an ESA exists adjacent to the body of water anywhere within the boundaries of the property in question, the setback ESA multiplier is determined based on the significance ranking of the ESA in question. EXAMPLE: If the setback point falls within an ESA of highest ranking, it has a coefficient of 1.5. Write this number under the Environmentally Significant Area coefficient column. You will use this coefficient number in step 9. 9.
Multiply the distance obtained in step 6 by the soil multiplier determined in step 7, and multiply this result by the ESA multiplier determined in step 8. This is the final setback for the site. EXAMPLE: If the baseline setback you obtained from Step 6 28 m, on clay soils with a highest-‐ranking Environmentally Significant Area present, you would multiply 28 by 1.15 (soil coefficient), and multiply this result by 1.5 (ESA coefficient).28 m x 1.15 x 1.5 = 48.3 m. Your setback at this setback point is 48 m. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 10.
Page 14 To establish riparian setbacks, determine setback distances from each setback point. Connect setback points. Setback sat the property line will be set at the same distance from the body of water as the nearest determined setback point. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 2.2
Page 15 Riparian Setback Matrix Model Field Sheet Water Body Name: Location (1/4 – Sec – Rng – Twp – Mer): Setback point location (UTM Coordinates): Land Owner: Field Personnel: Date and Time: 1. VEGETATION Cover Type (% cover) Forest Shrub Herb/graminoid Bare ground Impermeable* TOTAL 2. SLOPE SETBACK Slope Category (%) 0 -‐ 15% >15% TOTAL GROUNDWATER RISK 3. Groundwater depth >20 m 10 – 20 m <10 m TOTAL SOIL SETBACK 4. Soil Texture*** Peat Clayey soils Sandy soils Silty soils TOTAL 4. ESA SETBACK Environmentally Significant Area Rank None Moderate High Highest TOTAL OVERALL SETBACK Baseline Setback Soil texture coefficient ESA coefficient Total Setback Coefficients 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.40 Vegetation cover (%) (calculate) Baseline Setback Measured slope (%): Baseline Setback (calculate) Coefficients 10 25 40 Check one: ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ Baseline Setback Coefficients 1.00 1.10 1.25 1.50 Check one: ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ Coefficients 10 m + 1.5 m / % geotechnical survey** Coefficients 1.00 1.10 1.25 1.50 Largest from #1-‐3: Value from #4: Value from #4: Soil Texture Coefficient Check one: ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ a) b) c) Multiply a through c: ESA Coefficient (calculate) Overall Setback * -‐ If impermeable surfaces are present, the setback distance must be increased by the width of the impervious surfaces encountered. ** -‐ In cases where the slope exceeds 15%, a geotechnical survey must be conducted to ensure that the calculated setback protects potentially unstable lands *** -‐ Peat soils are defined for these purposes as having a minimum 50% soil organic matter, highly organic mineral soils are defined for these purposes as having more than 5% soil organic matter, regardless of sand, silt, or clay content; clayey soils include clay, silty clay, and sandy clay; sandy soils include sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, and sandy clay loam; and silty soils include silt, silty loam, loam, silty clay loam, and clay loam. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta 2.3
Page 16 Professional Requirements Although every effort has been made to make the RSMM accessible to as wide an audience as possible, the determination of setbacks should not be undertaken without enlisting the assistance of a professional(s) with qualifications appropriate for the conditions and complexity of the site (Table 1). Table 1. Professional requirements for site assessments Condition Professional Requirements for setback determination Low slope, obvious transition from aquatic to upland vegetation, groundwater table known from nearby wells Complex vegetation communities with no obvious transition from aquatic to upland vegetation Professional biologist Moderate slopes (5-‐15 %) Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialist (QAES) or Qualified Wetland Aquatic Environment Specialist (QWAES) Professional biologist + Geotechnical engineer Steep slopes (>15 %) Professional biologist + Geotechnical engineer Extensive river meander* or presence of flood plain QAES/QWAES + Geotechnical professional Unknown water table depth Hydrogeologist * -‐ The turns in a river associated with meander result in large, potentially overlapping riparian setback areas. Meander often indicates bank instability, channels that vary in position from year to year, and generally results in a larger area than would otherwise be expected being incorporated into riparian areas. The model as currently formulated is not designed to handle this case, and requires a geotechnical assessment of bank/channel stability, and a QAES/QWAES assessment to determine the long-‐
term/historical high water marks and extent of riparian vegetation. Developers Guide to the Riparian Setback Matrix Model – The City of Grande Prairie, Alberta Page 17 3 Vegetation Definitions TERM Aquatic DEFINITION Plants that grow in water or in saturated soils (i.e. bulrushes, sedges, cattails, rushes, willows). Vegetation Bare An area where the soil is exposed. There may be sporadically occurring plants present, especially weedy Ground/Cleared or colonizing species. Forest An area with a canopy created by one or more woody-‐stemmed trees with an average height of at least 2 m and an associated understory Herbaceous An area with cover provided by plant species without woody above-‐ground structures. Includes both graminoids (such as grasses, sedges, and rushes) and forbs (leafy plants). Impermeable An area devoid of vegetation with the ground surface covered with a substance that prevents the infiltration of water, such as concrete or asphalt Shrub An area with a canopy of woody or semi-‐woody plants with low stature (<2m), often though not always producing several basal shoots instead of a single trunk. Tree seedlings (saplings) <2m will also be considered as shrubs for the purposes of the model.

Appendix 23 - City of Grande Prairie

Transcription

Similar documents

Environment Challenges of Building and Maintaining Transmission

SILVERTIPAREASTRUCTUR EPLAN Canmore, Alberta October

RVDA of Alberta`s RV Learning Weekend

view - City of Fort Collins Public Records

Ducks Unlimited Canada - Red Deer River Watershed Alliance

Dice J. L., Ecot J. R., Olegario S. P., Abdon S. A. P., Celeste L. A. A.

México 2006 IV Foro Mundial Del Agua

August 2015 ECRC-Parent Link Centre Stepping Stones Society

From Street to Stream presentation and

Beyond the doors of the Stollery`s pediatric emergency department