Appendix O - AEP - Government of Alberta

Transcription

AECOM
Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force
Appendix O - Environmental and
Geosciences Assessments for Scheme
LBR2
Appendix O
Environmental and Geosciences Assessments for Scheme LBR2
RPT2-2014-07-09-App_O_Environmental Geotechnical And Hydrogeological Assements_LBR2 And LB1.Docx
AECOM
LBR2
Table of Contents
page
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
Environmental Assessment ........................................................................................................ 3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.
Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Environmental Concerns ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 First Nations ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.2 Historical Resources ............................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Protected Areas ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.3.1
Key Wildlife Layers and Biodiversity Zones ......................................................... 6
2.2.3.2
Key Range Layers ................................................................................................ 6
2.2.3.3
Environmentally Significant Areas ........................................................................ 6
2.2.4 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.6 Ecological Factors .................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.6.1
Vegetation and Rare Plants ................................................................................. 9
2.2.6.2
Wildlife .................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.7 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.7.1
Fisheries ............................................................................................................. 14
2.2.7.2
Wetlands............................................................................................................. 16
2.2.8 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.9 Federal Legislation and Requirements ................................................................................. 17
2.2.9.1
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ......................................................... 17
2.2.9.2
Fisheries Act ....................................................................................................... 17
2.2.9.3
Navigable Waters Protection Act........................................................................ 18
2.2.9.4
Migratory Birds Convention Act .......................................................................... 18
2.2.9.5
Species at Risk Act ............................................................................................ 19
2.2.10 Provincial Legislation ............................................................................................................ 19
2.2.10.1 Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act .................................. 19
2.2.10.2 Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) ............................................... 20
2.2.10.3 Water Act ............................................................................................................ 20
2.2.10.4 Alberta’s Wetland Policy..................................................................................... 21
2.2.10.5 Historical Resources Act .................................................................................... 21
2.2.10.6 Public Lands Act ................................................................................................. 22
2.2.10.7 Wildlife Act .......................................................................................................... 22
2.2.10.8 Summary of Regulatory Requirements .............................................................. 22
2.2.10.9 Required Authorizations and Permits ................................................................. 24
Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 24
Review of Existing Information Geosciences .......................................................................... 26
3.1
3.2
4.
General ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Site Description and Project Details .................................................................................................... 1
Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Surficial and Bedrock Geology .......................................................................................................... 26
Regional Hydrogeology ..................................................................................................................... 26
Inferred Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................ 28
4.1
4.2
4.3
General .............................................................................................................................................. 28
Diversion Channel (LBR2) ................................................................................................................. 28
Dam Site (LB1) .................................................................................................................................. 29
AECOM
5.
Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations and Recommendations ........................................ 30
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.
5.1.1 Geotechnical Concerns ........................................................................................................ 30
5.1.2 Foundation Conditions .......................................................................................................... 30
5.1.3 Channel and Berm Slopes .................................................................................................... 30
5.1.4 Excavations and Temporary Dewatering.............................................................................. 31
5.1.5 Subgrade Preparation........................................................................................................... 31
5.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction ............................................................................................ 31
Dam Site (LB1) .................................................................................................................................. 32
5.2.1 Foundation Conditions .......................................................................................................... 32
5.2.2 Embankments Material ......................................................................................................... 32
5.2.3 Stability and Seepage analysis ............................................................................................. 32
5.2.4 Settlement and Deformation ................................................................................................. 34
Underground Utility Crossings ........................................................................................................... 34
Recommendations for Future Geotechnical Work ............................................................................ 34
5.4.1 Diversion Channel (LBR2) .................................................................................................... 34
5.4.2 Dam ...................................................................................................................................... 35
5.4.3 Borrow Areas ........................................................................................................................ 35
Hydrogeological Assessment ................................................................................................... 36
6.1
6.2
7.
LBR2
6.1.1 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................... 36
6.1.1.1
Regional Geology ............................................................................................... 36
6.1.1.2
Local Geology..................................................................................................... 36
6.1.2 Groundwater Conditions ....................................................................................................... 36
6.1.3 Hydrogeological Assessment ............................................................................................... 36
6.1.3.1
Groundwater Flow into the Channel ................................................................... 36
6.1.3.2
Groundwater Chemistry ..................................................................................... 37
6.1.3.3
Groundwater Impact Assessment ...................................................................... 37
Dry-Dam Hydrogeological Assessment ............................................................................................. 38
References ................................................................................................................................. 39
AECOM
LBR2
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Approximate Drop Location and Heights – Diversion Channel (LBR2) ...................................................... 2
Table 2-1: Summary of Environmental Issues Associated with the LBR2 Project Area .............................................. 4
Table 2-2: Dominant Soil Subgroup, Soil Series, Drainage, Landform, and Land Suitability Rating System
for Agriculture Crops (LSRS) for High River Southern Diversion Project Area.......................................... 8
Table 2-3: Wildlife Species Documented within the Project Area and Species Likely to Occur Within the
Project Area.............................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 2-4: Fish Species Identified in Major Water Bodies Affected by the LBR2 Scheme ........................................ 14
Table 2-5: Fish Species Identified in the Major Water Bodies Affected by the LBR2 ................................................ 15
Table 2-6: Summary of Regulatory Requirements ..................................................................................................... 23
Table 2-7: Timeline of Required Authorizations and Permits ..................................................................................... 24
Table 3-1: Summary of Groundwater Depths Compiled from Well Records – Diversion Channel (LBR2) ................ 27
Table 3-2: Summary of Groundwater Depths Compiled from Well Records – Dam Location (LB1) ......................... 27
Table 5-1: Preliminary Soil Parameters for Slope Stability and Seepage Analyses – Dam (LB1) ............................. 33
Table 5-2: Preliminary List of Underground Utilities – Diversion Channel (LBR2) ..................................................... 34
Table 6-1: Average Parameter Concentration by Lithology (mg/L) ............................................................................ 37
Table 6-2: Surface Water Chemistry – Station AB05AC0080 (mg/L) ........................................................................... 37
Appendices
Appendix O1
Appendix O2
Appendix O3
Appendix O4
Figures
Water Well Records – AESRD – On DVD in Appendix R
Slope Stability Analysis Results
Statement of Justification for Historical Resources Act Requirements for Projects Other than SmallScale Oil and Gas
List of Figures – Appendix O1
Figure O1-1
Figure O1-2
Figure O1-3
Figure O1-4
Figure O2-1
Figure O2-2
Figure O2-3
Figure O2-4
Figure O4-1
Figure O4-2
Figure O5-1
Site Location Plan
Surficial Geology
Bedrock Geology
Existing Water Well Locations
LBR2 Flood Area and Project Area
Wetlands and Historical Resources in the proposed LBR2 Project Area
Key Wildlife Layers, Key Range Layers and Species at Risk Historical Wildlife Observations in the
Proposed LBR2 Project Area
Environmentally Significant Areas, and Sensitive and Non-sensitive Element Occurrences in the
Geological Longitudinal Section – Diversion Channel Station 0+000 to 4+695
Geological Longitudinal Section – Dam and Reservoir Stations 32+000 to 49+191
Typical Dam Cross Section
AECOM
1.
1.1
LBR2
Introduction
General
This report presents results of a desk study for the proposed Little Bow River Flood Diversion Channel (LBR2) and
Little Bow River Dam (LB1). The proposed Little Bow River Flood Diversion Channel (diversion channel) is located
southwest of the Town of High River and the proposed Little Bow River Dam (dam) is located within the Foothills
Municipal District No. 31 in Alberta approximately 16 km southeast of High River. A site plan showing the locations
of the proposed diversion channel and the dam is presented in Appendix O1 (Figure O1-1).
The objectives of the desk study are to assess the anticipated environmental,subsurface soil, bedrock, groundwater
conditions along the proposed diversion channel alignment and at the dam site, and to identify major issues that may
impact the design and construction of the diversion channel and dam. It will also provide preliminary
recommendations to assist designers and planners in preparing preliminary design and feasibility of the project.
It should be understood that the recommendations provided in this report are based on the review of existing
information. A site specific investigation has not been conducted. The subsurface soil/bedrock/groundwater
conditions and recommendations provided in this report are preliminary and are subject to review and confirmation
during detailed design phase and after completion of site specific geotechnical investigations.
1.2
Site Description and Project Details
A diversion channel has been proposed southwest of the Town of High River to divert water from the Highwood
River to the Little Bow River during flood events. An embankment dam is also proposed to be constructed to store
water diverted from the Highwood River and release it at a safe rate to protect the infrastructure and population
downstream. The dam and reservoir are located south of Frank Lake in the SE ¼ of Section 31, Township 17,
th
Range 27, west of the 4 meridian, on Little Bow River. The locations of the proposed diversion channel and dam
are shown in Figures O1-2 to O1-4 in Appendix O1.
Based on the information provided during preparation of this report, the channel will be constructed in cut and fill
sections which will require the construction of the berms. A summary of the available channel information is
provided below:









Channel length – approximately 4700 metres (m)
Channel depth – generally varies from approximately 4.5 m to 6.5 m
Berm height – varies from approximately 1 m to 4 m, depending on the original ground elevation
Berm top width – 4 m
Depth of cut – varies from approximately 2 m to 6.2 m
Channel base width – 50 m
Channel side slopes – 4H:1V;
Berm side slopes – 4H:1V (interior slopes) and 3H:1V (exterior slopes)
Crossings - the channel will cross Range Road 293, Range Road 291, and 72 Street East
The channel will have several drops along its proposed alignment. Approximate locations and heights of the drops
are provided in Table 1-1.
1
AECOM
LBR2
Table 1-1: Approximate Drop Location and Heights – Diversion Channel (LBR2)
Drop No.
Stations (m)
Drop Height (m)
From
To
1
0+075
0+116
1.34
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0+345
0+528
0+600
0+942
1+385
2+020
2+410
2+700
3+220
4+140
0+375
0+548
0+630
0+972
1+415
2+050
2+440
2+735
3+250
4+170
0.65
1.16
1.09
0.63
1.70
1.84
2.00
2.36
1.02
2.02
Based on the information provided during preparation of this report, the proposed dam has crest elevation of 1010 m
and toe elevation of 988.5 m (dam height 21.5 m). The maximum reservoir elevation behind the dam is 1006.3 m for
1% design flood criterion.
For both proposed locations of the diversion channel and the dam, the majority of the current land use is agricultural.
1.3
Scope of Work
The required scope of work for this desk study is:



Review available information including publically available ecological databases and reports, geological maps,
water well logs, and previous geotechnical reports to assess the anticipated conditions at the proposed by-pass
channel location
Develop preliminary recommendations to support preliminary design and feasibility of the proposed diversion
channel and dam
Prepare a preliminary report documenting the findings of the review, providing a summary of the anticipated
conditions, and providing preliminary recommendations to support preliminary design and feasibility of the
proposed by-pass channel
2
AECOM
2.
2.1
LBR2
Environmental Assessment
Overview
An environmental overview desk study for the proposed LBR2 scheme located along the Highwood River was
conducted, which consisted of examining a variety of publically available ecological databases. The purpose was to
compile information on existing conditions and to provide recommendations for future works associated with the
scheme. However, this desk study does not follow the format of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) due to
the limited engineering, hydrological, geotechnical, hydrogeological, and geological information available for the
scheme and/or site location. Socioeconomic, First Nations, human health, noise, odour, and/or cost benefit
analyses are not discussed in this section due to their inclusion in the triple bottom line appendix and limited
available information. Instead, this is considered an environmental overview desk study report and is intended as a
general guidance document outlining some of the major environmental concerns and regulatory issues associated
with the Little Bow River Diversion scheme.
The project area consisted of a 100 m buffer from the proposed LBR2 project location and its’ flooding area in a 1%
(100-year) flood, including all quarter sections that were intercepted. Figure O2-1 in Appendix O1 illustrates the
Project Area. Within the project area, various sensitive species, protected areas, and historical resource listings
were identified. A summary of identified environmental issues, the dataset they were identified from, and impacted
species/impacted areas, applicable legislation, and restricted activities are provided below in Table 2-1.
Recommendations are supported by AECOM ecologists, with a variety of specializations including, but not limited to,
soils, vegetation, wildlife, fish and fish habitat, and wetlands. To date, no field investigations have been conducted.
As such, there is potential for permitting requirements to change once field conditions are confirmed and detailed
engineering information is provided.
3
AECOM
LBR2
Table 2-1: Summary of Environmental Issues Associated with the LBR2 Project Area
Dataset
Environmentally
Significant Areas
(ESA)
Key Range
Layers
Key Wildlife
Layers
Applicable
Legislation
Environmental Issues
Wilderness Areas, Project area occurs with
Ecological
within two ESAs of the
Reserves, Natural
Grassland Natural
Areas and
Region of Alberta
Heritage
Rangelands Act
Alberta Wildlife Act The Project area falls
within the Sensitive
Raptor and Sharp-tailed
Grouse Range
Alberta Wildlife Act Key wildlife zone exists
within the Project Area.
Restricted activity
periods apply.
Listing of
Historical
Resource
Historical
Resources Act
Historic Resource
Values of 4 and 5 within
Project areas.
Wetlands
Water Act
Permanent wetlands
exist within the Project
Area.
None
Rare species (as
determined by ANPC)
that are not protected
Alberta Wildlife
Act, Species at
Risk Act
Record of rare plants in
project area
ACIMS - NonSensitive EOS
Rare Plants
Wildlife
Fisheries
Alberta Wildlife
Migratory birds and
Act, Species at important wildlife habitat
Risk Act, Migratory
occur in the area;
Birds Convention
Species at Risk may
Act
occur at the project site
Alberta Wildlife
Act, Species at
Risk Act
Important sport fish and
Species at Risk may
occur in the area
Impacted
Species/Impacted
Areas
N/A
Sensitive Raptors and
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Restrictions
No restrictions
th
Limited work during March 15 –
th
June 15 during the Sharp-tailed
Grouse lekking season
Key wildlife zone exists
All areas identified as Key Wildlife
within the Project Area and Biodiversity zones located South
(primarily for protection
of HWY 1 and west of HWY 2 have
of ungulates).
timing restrictions between December
th
th
15 and April 30
HRV 4: Contain a historic
May have restricted activities,
resource
depending on historic resource value
HRV 5: Believed to
and if historical resources are found
contain a historic
resource
85.6 ha of marsh, and
Impacts to wetland will require
28.2 ha of open water
compensation.
occurs in the Project
Area.
Edith’s Copper (Lycaena
Mitigation strategies encouraged.
editha ), Californian
amaranth (Amaranthus
californicus)
Western blue flag (Iris
A rare plant survey will be required
missouriensis) and/or
prior to construction activities
other rare plant species
commencing. If rare plants are
found, mitigation will be required (i.e.
transplanting, taking seeds, etc.).
See Table 4-2
A variety of wildlife surveys will be
required prior to construction
commencing (breeding bird,
amphibian, bat, winter tracking,
remote wildlife camera, and/or
ungulate). Depending on the species
found on site, a variety of mitigation
measures may be required.
Bull Trout and Westslope Impacts to the Highwood River will
Cutthroat Trout
result in destruction of fish habitat,
important migration routes, and
access to spawning habitat. Habitat
compensation and mitigation will be
required.
4
AECOM
2.2
LBR2
Environmental Concerns
Some environmental concerns associated with the proposed LBR2 Diversion scheme are described below in the
following sections.
2.2.1
First Nations
There are no First Nations reservations or lands within the LBR2 Project Area. However, the Alberta Government
requires that all projects on Public Lands undergo a First Nations Consultation assessment request through Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD), as required by Alberta’s First Nations Consultation
Policy and Guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development at the start of the project to determine
consultation needs and requirements. It is likely that First Nations Consultation would be required for this project
due to the regulatory requirements.
2.2.2
Historical Resources
The Listing of Historic Resources (Current to March 2014), issued by the Government of Alberta every February and
August, was used to identify lands that contain or are believed to contain historical resources within the project area.
These areas contain predominantly archaeological and palaeontological sites, Aboriginal traditional use sites of a
historic resource nature, and historic structures (Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS) 2014). The Listing of
Historic Resources does not include all land that may contain historical resources, and the Minister of Alberta
Culture & Community Spirit may order that a site undergo a Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) if
activity is likely to threaten the integrity of a natural resource (ACCS 2014).
Each parcel of land in the Listing is assigned a Historical Resource Value (HRV) ranging from 1 to 5, and is defined
as follows (ACCS 2014):





HRV 1: Protected under the Alberta Historical Resources Act as Provincial Historic Resources, world heritage
sites, or lands owned by ACCS for resource protection and promotion
HRV 2: Designated under the Historical Resources Act as a Municipal or Registered Historic Resource
HRV 3: Contains a significant historic resource that will likely require avoidance
HRV 4: Contains a historic resource that may require avoidance
HRV 5: Believed to contain a historic resource
Each entry in the Listing also contains a corresponding letter which indicates the primary historic resource category,
and is defined as follows (ACCS 2014):






a – archaeological
c – cultural
gl – geological
h – historic period
n – natural
p – palaeontological
5
AECOM
LBR2
If a proposed development contains lands on the Listing, then a Historical Resources Act clearance must be
obtained (ACCS 2014). Figure O2-2 in Appendix O1 shows HRV values within the LBR2 Project Area. The
Statement of Justification (Appendix O4) concluded that the majority of the LBR2 project area is considered to have
either archaeological potential or palaeontological potential, and five previously recorded Historical Resource Sites
are within the construction impact zone (Appendix O4, Figure 3). It is recommended that HRIA’s be conducted prior
to construction in the LBR2 project area.
2.2.3
Protected Areas
2.2.3.1
Key Wildlife Layers and Biodiversity Zones
Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones are intended to prevent: (1) loss and fragmentation of habitat, (2) short and longterm all-weather public vehicle access, sensory disturbance during periods of thermal or nutritional stress on wildlife,
and (3) the development of barriers to wildlife corridors (e.g. stream crossings). Typically, Key Wildlife and
Biodiversity Zones are established along major river valleys. Such landforms have the topographic variation and site
productivity conditions that yield high levels of biodiversity and good winter browse conditions with adequate cover
(AESRD 2010a). Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones were identified within the LBR2 Project Area (Figure O2-3 in
Appendix O1). As per the recommended wildlife land use guidelines (AESRD 2010a), timing restrictions of no
th
th
construction between December 15 and April 30 are enforced due to the impacts on wildlife.
2.2.3.2
Key Range Layers
Key Range Layers serve to provide industrial operators, the government, and the general public with the most up to
date information available on the extent of wildlife sensitivities (AESRD 2013a). Range layers in Alberta are based
on the known or partial extent of a species range. Such information can assist with surveys for identification of a
feature, or identify where mitigation strategies are to be applied (AESRD 2013a). The LBR2 Project Area occurs
within two Key Range Layers: the Sensitve Raptor Range and the Sharp-tailed Grouse Range (Figure O2-3 in
th
Appendix O1). The Sharp-tailed Grouse range is subject to a limited work allowance during the March 15 to June
th
15 during the lekking (breeding) season.
2.2.3.3
Environmentally Significant Areas
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) represent places in Alberta that are important to the long-term
maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, or other natural processes, at multiple spatial scales (Government of
Alberta 2009). They are identified as areas containing rare or unique elements in the province or areas that include
elements that may require special management consideration due to their conservation needs. ESAs do not
represent government policy and are not necessarily areas that require legal protection, but instead are intended to
be an information tool to help inform land use planning and policy at local, regional, and provincial scales. Proposed
projects in ESAs may meet greater opposition because of the known high value of these areas with regards to biotic
and abiotic resources.
Within the LBR2 Project Area, two ESAs have been identified to contain the project area: ESA 235 and ESA 236
(Figure O2-4 in Appendix O1). ESA 235 has a Provincial significance rating, contains two elements of conservation
concern, important wildlife habitat, and intact riparian areas. ESA 236 has a Provincial significance rating, contains
important wildlife habitat, and intact riparian areas.
6
AECOM
2.2.4
LBR2
Land Use
The LBR2 project area is located within the Town of High River and its Intermunicipal Development Plan, as well as
the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31. While the actual LBR2 alignment travels only through the very southwest
area of the municipal boundary, the projected flood extent extends well into the municipality. The Town of High
River is a rapidly growing municipality and developing in this area may create future challenges for creating cohesive
with future land use objectives of the Town of High River. Dillon Consulting Limited (2009) provided future growth
recommendations to the Town of High River based on: existing land uses and man-made features, protection from
natural processes, and ensuring the natural environment and water quality are not negatively impacted. Using maps
from Dillon Consulting Limited (2009), the current and future land use within each project area was determined.
The land impacted within the project area includes agriculture, business/commercial, urban reserve, public service,
industrial, residential, and direct control. Future land use considerations include proximity to the High River Airport
and Meadow Estates. The LBR2 alignment begins close to the northeast tip of land slated for the development of
Meadow Creek Estates. Portions of the project area overlap the High River Airport to the south of High River. The
airport is physically located in the Municipal District of Foothills, but is owned by both the Municipal District of
Foothills and the Town of High River. Although the diversion is not physically through the airport, it may still cause
significant concerns because if its proximity to potential flooding extent.
2.2.5
Soils
A desktop review of spatial data obtained from the Alberta Soil Information Viewer (Alberta Soil Information Centre,
2001) was utilized, and attribute data was analyzed in ArcMap 10.1.
Soil subgroup and soil series attributes for each polygon within the Little Bow River riparian areas and land areas
adjacent to the Little Bow River were evaluated. Attribute information for the dominant soil subgroup and soil series
rd
was summarized using Canadian System of Soil Classification 3 ed. (CSSC; Soil Classification Working Group
1998) and the Alberta Soil Names File (Generation 3) (ASIC 2006).
The dominant soil subgroups found along the Little Bow River and adjacent to the River were dominantly Orthic
Black Chernozemic soils (O.BLC), with Orthic Regosol soil (O.R) found along the riparian areas of the river and
within the river valley (Table 2-2). The Academy and Lyalta soil series dominated the undulating landscape of high
relief adjacent to the Little Bow River, and the Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral soil series (Misc. Undiff.
Mineral) is significant along the riparian and valleys of the River (Table 2-2).
The dominant landforms surrounding the Little Bow River consisted of an undulating landform of high relief and
disturbed anthropogenic land to the east of the Little Bow Diversion (Table 2-2). Landforms within the riverine region
were characterized by wide valleys with one or more terraces (coulees included) and valleys with confined
floodplains (Table 2-2).
A general evaluation of land capability of the landscape surrounding the diversion and Little Bow River utilized the
Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops (LSRS) to identify the current capability of land within the basin
area for agriculture and plant growth (Agronomic Interpretations Working Group 1995). Land suitability of the region
demonstrated slight limitations due to inadequate heat units, slope, and moisture (Table 2-2). These areas
demonstrate suitability for the sustained production of spring seeded small grains (wheat, barley, and oats) and oil
seeds (canola and flax). Overall, the river valleys demonstrated moderate to severe limitation in the sustained
production of small grains and oil seeds, due to the limitation in water holding capacity of the silty loam soil and thin
to absent topsoil.
7
AECOM
LBR2
Table 2-2: Dominant Soil Subgroup, Soil Series, Drainage, Landform, and Land Suitability Rating System for
Agriculture Crops (LSRS) for High River Southern Diversion Project Area
Dominant Soil
Subgroup
Soil Series
Drainage
Dominant Landform
LSRS Description
O.BLC
ACADEMY
W
Undulating, High
Relief
90% Slight Limitation (inadequate heat units,
slope, and moisture) and 10% Very Severe
Limitation (Drainage)
O.BLC
ACADEMY
W
Undulating, High
Relief
100% Slight Limitation (inadequate heat
units, slope, and moisture)
R.BLC
HAPPY VALLEY
W
Undulating, High
Relief
100% Severe Limitation (water holding
capacity/texture)
O.BLC
LYALTA
W
Undulating, High
Relief
slope, and moisture) and 10% Moderate
Limitation (water holding capacity/texture)
O.BLC
LYALTA
W
Undulating, High
Relief
100% Slight Limitation (inadequate heat units
and slope, moisture)
O.BLC
LYALTA
W
Inclined and
Undulating, High
Relief
and moisture)
O.BLC
LYALTA
W
Undulating, High
Relief
and moisture) and 20% Very Severe
Limitation (Drainage)
O.BLC
MIDNAPORE
W
Undulating, High
Relief
moisture) and 10% Very Severe Limitation
(Drainage)
-
MISC.DISTURBED.LAND
-
Disturbed Land
100% Salinity and Rock
-
MISC.DISTURBED.LAND
-
Disturbed Land
100% Salinity and Rock
O.R
MISC.UNDIFF.MINERAL
W
Wide valley with one
or more terraces
(coulees included)
80% Moderate Limitation (inadequate water
holding capacity/texture) and 20% Very
Severe Limitation (Drainage)
O.R
MISC.UNDIFF.MINERAL
W
Valley with confined
floodplain, low relief
holding capacity/texture and Slope)
O.R
MISC.UNDIFF.MINERAL
W
Valley with confined
floodplain, low relief
holding capacity/texture and Slope) and 20%
Very Severe Limitation (Drainage) and 20%
Very Severe Limitation (Salinity, Inadequate
water holding capacity/texture, Drainage)
O.DBC
PULTENEY
W
Undulating, High
Relief
holding capacity/texture and Slope) and 10%
Very Severe Limitation (Drainage)
O.BLC
ROCKYVIEW
W
Undulating, High
Relief
and moisture)
O.DBC
WHITNEY
W
Undulating, High
Relief
holding capacity/texture) and 20% Very
Severe Limitation (Drainage)
Notes:
O.BLC – Orthic Black Chernozem
O,R – Orthic Regosol
O.DBC – Orthic Dark Brown Cheronzem
8
AECOM
2.2.6
Ecological Factors
2.2.6.1
Vegetation and Rare Plants
LBR2
The proposed project is in the Foothills Fescue Ecoregion of Alberta’s Grassland Natural Region, which is
characterized by hummocky and rolling to undulating mainly morainal terrain with significant lacustrine deposits.
Native grasslands are Mountain rough fescue on moister sites, and western wheatgrass on drier sites and wet areas
are often shrubby. Much of the Project Area has been disturbed by residential development, agriculture, and/or road
construction (Natural Regions Committee 2006).
A search of the provincial database, Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) Non-Sensitive
Element Occurrences, identifies Edith's Copper (Lycaena editha) and Californian amaranth (Amaranthus
californicus) as a potentially impacted rare species within the Project Area (Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation
2012; Figure O2-4 in Appendix O1). A search of ACIMS Sensitive Element Occurrences identified Western blue flag
(Iris missouriensis) as a potentially impacted rare species within the project area. A rare plant survey of the entire
area has not been completed and is required prior to construction. The presence of rare plants can cause delays to
construction if the plants have to be relocated or may require modifications to construction methodologies and/or
location if the rare plants species are listed as Species at Risk.
The riparian areas also contain cottonwood forests, which require periodic flood events to regenerate. Areas near
the Highwood and Bow Rivers may be impacted by a decrease in peak flows due to the LBR2 transfer of flood flows
from the Highwood to the Little Bow River. Effects on downstream riparian environments would have to be
assessed.
2.2.6.2
Wildlife
Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) data of recorded wildlife observations was
provided by AESRD for the LBR2 Project Area. In addition, a list of wildlife species that likely occur in the area was
compiled using a combination of FWMIS data (provided by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development; AESRD 2013b) and species ranges obtained from the following resources: the Birds of North America
online database (Poole 2005), the North American Mammals online database (Smithsonian 2014), the New Stokes
Field Guide to Birds Western Region (Stokes and Stokes 2013), the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North
America (Sibley 2011), Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), Mammals of North America (Reid 2006),
and Mammals of Alberta (Pattie and Fisher 1999).
In the Project Area, six species are listed by AESRD as “At Risk”. The Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) lists 15 species as “Special Concern” and seven species as “Threatened”. The
Species at Risk Act (SARA) lists seven species as “Special Concern” and five species as “Threatened”. Piping
Plover (Charadrius melodus) and Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) are listed as “Endangered” by COSEWIC and
SARA, and the Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) is listed as “Endangered” by COSEWIC.
All wildlife species identified within the Project Area, and species with the potential to occur within the Project Area
are listed in Table 2-3. If any of these species are found on site, they have the potential to delay or alter the plans
for the project. Specific mitigation is required for each Species at Risk, including restricted timing windows,
disturbance free zones, and the inability to destroy or alter specific habitat features. The same is true for migratory
birds. Figure O2-3 in Appendix O1 shows the location all wildlife species documented within the LBR2 Project Area.
9
AECOM
LBR2
Table 2-3: Wildlife Species Documented within the Project Area and Species Likely to Occur Within the
Project Area
Common Name
Birds
5
American Avocet
5
American Coot
5
American Crow
4
American Dipper
5
American Kestrel
4
American Robin
4
American White Pelican
5
American Wigeon
5
Baird’s Sparrow
4
Bald Eagle
5
Bank Swallow
5
Barn Swallow
5
Barred Owl
5
Barrow's Goldeneye
5
Belted Kingfisher
5
Black-backed Woodpecker
5
Black-billed Cuckoo
4
Black-capped Chickadee
5
Black-crowned Night-Heron
5
Black-necked Stilt
5
Black Tern
5
Blue-Winged Teal
5
Bonaparte's Gull
5
Brewer’s Blackbird
5
Broad-winged Hawk
5
Brown Creeper
5
Bufflehead
5
Burrowing Owl
5
California Gull
4
Canada Goose
5
Canvasback
5
Cinnamon Teal
5
Clark's Grebe
4
Cliff Swallow
5
Common Loon
5
Common Nighthawk
5
Common Raven
5
Common Redpoll
5
Common Snipe
5
Common Tern
5
Common Yellowthroat
5
Cooper's Hawk
5
Double-crested Cormorant
5
Eared Grebe
Scientific Name
Recurvirostra americana
Fulica americana
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Cinclus mexicanu
Falco sparverius
Turdus migratorius
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Anas americana
Ammodramus bairdii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Riparia riparia
Hirundo rustica
Strix varia
Bucephala islandica
Ceryle alcyon
Picoides arcticus
Coccyzus erythropthalmus
Poecile atricapillus
Nycticorax nycticorax
Himantopus mexicanus
Chlidonias niger
Anas discors
Larus philadelphia
Spizella breweri
Buteo platypterus
Certhia americana
Bucephala albeola
Athene cunicularia
Larus californicus
Branta canadensis
Aythya valisineria
Anas cyanoptera
Aechmophorus clarkii
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Gavia immer
Chordeiles minor
Corvus corax
Acanthis flammea
Gallinago gallinago
Sterna hirundo
Geothlypis trichas
Accipiter cooperii
Phalacrocorax auritus
Podiceps nigricollis
1
2
AESRD
COSEWIC
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Undetermined
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
At Risk
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
May Be At Risk
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Not Listed
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Secure
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not At Risk
Threatened
Threatened
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Endangered
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Threatened
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Not At Risk
Not Listed
3
SARA
Schedule
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Endangered
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No Schedule
N/A
No Schedule
No Schedule
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
AECOM
5
Eastern Kingbird
5
Eurasian Wigeon
5
European Starling
5
Ferruginous Hawk
5
Forster’s Tern
5
Franklin’s Gull
5
Gadwall
5
Golden Eagle
5
Gray Partridge
4
Great Blue Heron
5
Great Egret
5
Great Gray Owl
5
Great Horned Owl
5
Greater Yellowlegs
5
Green-winged Teal
5
Gyrfalcon
5
Harlequin Duck
5
Herring Gull
5
Hooded Merganser
5
Horned Grebe
5
Horned Lark
5
Killdeer
5
Least Flycatcher
5
Least Sandpiper
5
Lesser Scaup
5
Loggerhead Shrike
5
Long-billed Curlew
5
Long-eared Owl
5
Mallard
4
Marbled Godwit
5
Merlin
5
Mourning Dove
Nelson’s Sharp-tailed
5
5
Sparrow
Northern Flicker
5
Northern Goshawk
4
Northern Harrier
4
Northern Pintail
5
Northern Pygmy-owl
5
Northern Saw-whet Owl
5
Northern Shoveler
5
Northern Shrike
5
Olive-sided Flycatcher
5
Orange-Crowned Warbler
5
Osprey
5
Peregrine Falcon
5
Pied-billed Grebe
5
Pileated Woodpecker
5
Piping Plover
5
Prairie Falcon
Tyrannus tyrannus
Anas Penelope
Sturnus vulgaris
Buteo regalis
Sterna forsteri
Leucophaeus pipixcan
Anas strepera
Aquila chrysaetos
Perdix perdix
Ardea herodias
Ardea alba
Strix nebulosa
Bubo virginianus
Tringa melanoleuca
Anas crecca
Falco rusticolus
Histrionicus histrionicus
Larus argentatus
Lophodytes cucullatus
Podiceps auritus
Eremophila alpestris
Charadrius vociferous
Empidonax minimus
Calidris minutilla
Aythya affinis
Lanius ludovicianus
Numenius americanus
Asio otus
Anas platyrhynchos
Limosa fedoa
Falco columbarius
Zenaida macroura
Ammodramus nelsoni
Colaptes auratus
Accipiter gentilis
Circus cyaneus
Anas acuta
Glaucidium gnoma
Aegolius acadicus
Anas clypeata
Lanius excubitor
Contopus cooperi
Vermivora celata
Pandion haliaetus
Falco peregrinus
Podilymbus podiceps
Dryocopus pileatus
Charadrius melodus
Falco mexicanus
Secure
Accidental
Exotic
At Risk
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Exotic
Sensitive
Accidental
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Secure
May Be At Risk
Secure
Sensitive
At Risk
Sensitive
Sensitive
At Risk
Sensitive
LBR2
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not At Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Endangered
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Special
Concern
Not
Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special
Concern
Not
Listed
Not Listed
Endangered
Not Listed
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No Schedule
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
11
AECOM
5
Purple Martin
5
Red-necked Grebe
5
Red-tailed Hawk
5
Red-winged Blackbird
5
Redhead
5
Ring-billed Gull
5
Ring-Necked Duck
5
Rock Dove
5
Rough-legged Hawk
Ruby-throated
55
Hummingbird
Ruddy Duck
5
Ruffed Grouse
5
Rusty Blackbird
5
Sandhill Crane
5
Savannah Sparrow
5
Semipalmated Plover
5
Sharp-shinned Hawk
5
Sharp-tailed Grouse
5
Short-billed Dowitcher
5
Short-eared Owl
5
Snow Bunting
5
Solitary Sandpiper
5
Sora
5
Spotted Sandpiper
5
Sprague's Pipit
5
Swainson's Hawk
5
Trumpeter Swan
5
Tundra Swan
5
Upland Sandpiper
5
Vesper Sparrow
5
Virginia Rail
5
Western Grebe
5
Western Kingbird
5
Western Meadowlark
5
Western Tanager
5
Western Wood-pewee
5
White-breasted Nuthatch
5
White-winged Scoter
5
Willet
5
Wilson's Phalarope
5
Wood Duck
5
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
5
Yellow-headed Blackbird
5
Yellow Rail
Mammals
5
American Badger
5
Bobcat
5
Canada Lynx
5
Cougar
Progne subis
Podiceps grisegena
Buteo jamaicensis
Agelaius phoeniceus
Aythya Americana
Larus delawarensis
Aythya collaris
Columba livia
Buteo lagopus
Archilochus colubris
Oxyura jamaicensis
Bonasa umbellus
Euphagus carolinus
Grus canadensis
Passerculus sandwichensis
Charadrius semipalmatus
Accipiter striatus
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Limnodromus griseus
Asio flammeus
Plectrophenax nivalis
Tringa solitaria
Porzana Carolina
Actitis macularius
Anthus spragueii
Buteo swainsoni
Cygnus buccinators
Cygnus columbianus
Bartramia longicauda
Pooecetes gramineus
Rallus limicola
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Tyrannus verticalis
Sturnella neglecta
Piranga ludoviciana
Contopus sordidulus
Sitta carolinensis
Melanitta fusca
Tringa semipalmata
Phalaropus tricolor
Aix sponsa
Sphyrapicus varius
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Taxidea taxus
Lynx rufus
Lynx canadensis
Puma concolor
LBR2
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Exotic
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Undetermined
May Be At Risk
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
At Risk
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Undetermined
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Undetermined
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Not At Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not At Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special
Concern
Not
Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special
Concern
Not
Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Threatened
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special
Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No Schedule
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Schedule 1
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Secure
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
No Schedule
N/A
N/A
N/A
12
AECOM
4
Coyote
5
Deer Mouse
5
Ermine
5
Grizzly Bear
5
Hoary Bat
5
House Mouse
5
Little Brown Bat
5
Long-tailed Weasel
5
Meadow Vole
5
Mule Deer
5
Muskrat
Northern Grasshopper
5
5
Mouse
Northern Pocket Gopher
5
Red Fox
5
Wapiti
5
Prairie Shrew
5
Prairie Vole
5
Red Bat
Richardson’s Ground
5
5
Squirrel
Silver-haired Bat
5
Striped Skunk
5
Water Vole
5
White-tailed Deer
5
White-tailed Jack Rabbit
5
Wolverine
Amphibians
4
Boreal Chorus Frog
5
Long-toed Salamander
4
Northern Leopard Frog
5
Plains Spadefoot
5
Western Tiger Salamander
5
Western Toad
5
Wood Frog
Reptiles
5
Plains Garter Snake
5
Prairie Rattlesnake
5
Red-sided Garter Snake
5
Wandering Garter Snake
Notes:
LBR2
Canis latrans
Peromyscus maniculatus
Mustela ermine
Ursus arctos
Lasiurus cinereus
Mus musculus
Myotis lucifugus
Mustela frenata
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Odocoileus hemionus
Ondatra zibethicus
Onychomys leucogaster
Thomomys talpoides
Vulpes vulpes
Cervus elaphu
Sorex haydeni
Microtus ochrogaster
Lasiurus borealis
Urocitellus richardsonii
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Mephitis mephitis
Microtus richardsoni
Odocoileus virginianus
Lepus townsendii
Gulo gulo
Secure
Secure
Secure
At Risk
Sensitive
Exotic
Secure
May Be at Risk
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Secure
Sensitive
Not Listed
Sensitive
Secure
Sensitive
Secure
Secure
May Be At Risk
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Endangered
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
N/A
N/A
N/A
No Schedule
N/A
N/A
No Schedule
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No Schedule
Pseudacris maculata
Ambystoma macrodactylum
Lithobates pipiens
Spea bombifrons
Ambystoma mavortium
Anaxyrus boreas
Secure
Sensitive
At Risk
May Be At Risk
Secure
Sensitive
Not Listed
Not at Risk
Special Concern
Not at Risk
Special Concern
Special Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special
Concern
Not Listed
Not Listed
Special
Concern
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
No Schedule
Schedule 1
Thamnophis radix
Crotalus viridis
Thamnophis sirtalis
Thamnophis elegans
Sensitive
May Be At Risk
Sensitive
Sensitive
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
AESRD 2011
COSEWIC 2013
3
Species at Risk Public Registry (Government of Canada 2012)
4
Documented species within the Project Area (FWMIS; AESRD 2013b)
5
Species with the Potential to Occur within the Project Area
2
The project could potentially impact 72 Species at Risk, multiple species sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance, and
many migratory bird species. This has ecological ramifications and may result in project relocation and/or delays.
Mitigation efforts would be required that may include, but are not limited to, abiding to migratory bird and sensitive
species restricted timing windows, modifications to construction methodologies and/or schedule, and designing for
wildlife passage/use.
13
AECOM
2.2.7
2.2.7.1
LBR2
Aquatic Resources
Fisheries
The LBR2 option will impact a large area including the Highwood River and the Little Bow River. The focus of this
summary will be on these two water bodies, but it is important to note that others could be also affected. The Class
and Restricted Activity Period (RAP) as per AESRD are included in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Fish Species Identified in Major Water Bodies Affected by the LBR2 Scheme
Water Body
FWMIS Water Body ID
Mapped
Class
Restricted Activity Period
Highwood River
2065
Yes
C
May 1st to July 15th and September
16th to April 15th
Little Bow River
2095
Yes
C
April 1st to May 31st
Fish capture records available from the AESRD’s FWMIS database for the water bodies are summarized in
Table 2-5.
According to the AESRD FWMIS database, 24 species of fish have been captured in the water bodies affected by
the LBR2 Diversion (Highwood River and the Little Bow River,) representing sportfish (including trout, whitefish,
burbot, and pike) and non-sportfish (including minnows, suckers, trout-perch, and sculpins).
14
AECOM
LBR2
Table 2-5: Fish Species Identified in the Major Water Bodies Affected by the LBR2
Common Name
Scientific Name
Water
Bodies
Spawning
Season
Provincial
1
Status
COSEWIC
2
3
SARA
Sportfish
Brook Trout
Salvelinus fontinalis
HW
Fall
Exotic / Alien
Not Listed
Not Listed
Brown Trout
Salmo trutta
HW, LB
Fall
Exotic / Alien
Not Listed
Not Listed
Burbot
Lota lota
HW, LB,
Winter
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus
HW, LB,
Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarki
HW,
Lake Whitefish
Coregonus clupeaformis
LB
Mountain Whitefish
Prosopium williamsoni
HW, LB,
Northern Pike
Esox lucius
Rainbow Trout
Fall
Special Concern Threatened Not Listed
Spring
At Risk
Fall-Winter
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Fall
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
HW, LB,
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Oncorhynchus mykiss
HW, LB,
Spring-Summer
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Brook Stickleback
Culaea inconstans
LB,
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Flathead Chub
Platygobio gracilis
HW
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Fathead Minnow
Pimephales promelas
LB,
Spring-Summer
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Lake Chub
Couesius plumbeus
HW, LB,
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Pearl Dace
Margariscus margarita
HW, LB,
Spring-Summer
Undetermined
Not Listed
Not Listed
Longnose Dace
Rhinichthys cataractae
LB
Spring-Summer
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Longnose Sucker
Catostomus catostomus
HW, LB,
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Mountain Sucker
Catostomus platyrhynchus LB
Spring-Summer
Secure
Not at Risk Not Listed
White Sucker
Catostomus commersoni
HW, LB,
Shorthead
Redohorse
Spottail Shiner
Moxostoma
macrolepidotum
Notropis hudsonius
LB
Trout-perch
Percopsis omiscomaycus
HW, LB,
Spoonhead Sculpin
Cottus ricei
Yellow Perch
Walleye
Notes:
Non-Sportfish
Summer
LB
Threatened Threatened
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Spring-Summer
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Spring-Summer
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
HW
Spring
May Be at Risk
Perca flavescens
LB
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Sander vitreus
LB
Spring
Secure
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
1
AESRD 2011
COSEWIC 2013,
3
Species at Risk Public Registry (Government of Canada 2012),
HW= Highwood River,
LB= Little Bow River,
2
The following represent a non-exhaustive list of potential impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed LBR2
Diversion. The issues highlighted below may warrant further study and or potentially require a request for review
from the minister of Fisheries and Oceans and an Application for Authorization:



Augmentation of the flow pathway of a river through a diversion or dam.
During flood events, fish species may be flushed from the Highwood River into the Little Bow River, where
different quality of habitats exists that would not support certain species. The effects of this transfer of fish would
have to be assessed.
An increase in flow in the Little Bow River could result in increased bank erosion, significant fish habitat loss,
direct fish mortality, and damage to riparian vegetation communities. A Pike fishery in the river relies on the
bank vegetation for spawning.
15
AECOM





LBR2
Flushing and rearrangement of substrate within the Highwood River is required to maintain the value of
spawning areas. The reduction in flood peaks along both the Bow River and Highwood River could reduce
these activities. Further impact assessment will be required.
Water quality concerns caused by increased nutrient loading, sediment loading, and or contaminant flux.
Water quality concerns caused by the mixing of groundwater seeping from the diversion channel and freshwater
from the rivers.
Fish mobility may be impeded or severely impacted forcing fish to go where they would not have naturally gone.
Fish habitat loss, alteration or increased competition caused by the introduction of invasive species and nonnative species.
2.2.7.2
Wetlands
A review of existing site information was conducted using Alberta Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWCS)
Merged Wetland Inventory (AESRD 2012). Within the proposed LBR2 Project Area, 95 marshes and five open
water wetlands have been identified from the Wetland Inventory dataset acquired from AESRD (Figure O2-2 in
Appendix O1; Alberta Water Resources Commission 1993, Government of Alberta 2013a). In total, marshes cover
an area of 85.63 hectares (ha) and open water bodies cover 28.18 ha for a total of 113.81 ha. It is important to note
that this wetland dataset does not include ephemeral wetlands (Class I to III) and as such, a wetland inventory will
be required prior to construction.
Potential Project Impacts
Proposed projects in the basin have the potential to impact areas well beyond the basin. Downstream habitats can
be greatly affected by a change in flow rates and as a result, species adapted to this area can be harmed. To
address these potential impacts, the river system should be addressed at an ecosystem level, rather than looking at
specific habitat areas. The Natural Flow Paradigm is a system that takes into account that the “natural variability of
flow in terms of magnitude, duration, frequency and timing is beneficial to the ecosystem” (TWG 2002).
The Highwood and Sheep River Basin is the only unobstructed major tributary to the Bow River and is considered an
important spawning and rearing area for both local stocks and the Bow River. Periodic flooding of this area
maintains the riparian forests along the Bow River, and certain species, like cottonwood, have adapted to these flood
events and utilize them for recruitment. Ecosystem function relies on natural variability within the flow regime in all
rivers. Therefore, to assess potential impacts of projects to these rivers, an appropriate system to use is the Natural
Flow Paradigm (TWG 2002).
The Natural Flow Paradigm aims to conserve the native biodiversity and ecosystem integrity of all rivers by taking
into account the pattern of natural flow. Flow components have specific functions within a river system and
maintaining the connectivity amongst all components ensures both habitat and species diversity (TWG 2002). Over
many years, species have adapted to take advantage of these dynamic systems and a change to flow patterns could
impact these species and their habitat areas.
Studies have concluded that in order to set ecosystem objectives, the hydrology, geomorphology, biology, water
quality, and connectivity should all be considered, rather than single-flow recommendations, to better succeed in
protecting the integrity of aquatic ecosystems (TWG 2002). As any projects in the basin have the potential to impact
areas outside of the basin, these components should be incorporated in to any plans to ensure minimal disturbance
to downstream ecosystems.
16
AECOM
2.2.8
LBR2
Regulatory Setting
Below is a non-comprehensive list of regulatory agencies, regulations, and acts that are required to be consulted
and considered once more detailed project information is known. A summary of other potential environmental
legislation that may be required can be found in Alberta Transportation (2013). Information regarding regulatory
requirements and timing was obtained directly from the regulatory agencies. Project descriptions and maps were
provided to the agencies in order to gain assistance in determining which regulatory approvals would be required
and the approximate timelines that each approval would follow. Until detailed project descriptions are provided to
each regulatory agency, required regulatory approvals and timelines are not definite and are subject to change
based on alterations to the extent or scope of the project. There may be various other minor Federal, Provincial,
Municipal approvals or permits required for the project (e.g. burning permits, noise-bylaws). These should be
determined and looked at in further detail when the scope of the project is narrowed.
2.2.9
Federal Legislation and Requirements
Works associated with the proposed LBR2 scheme may involve the following federal legislation depending on the
final engineering design and reservoir capacity projects: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA),
Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA), and Species at
Risk Act (SARA).
2.2.9.1
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency establishes a process to assess the environmental effects of
projects requiring federal actions or decisions, and requires that the environmental effects of projects be considered
early in their planning stages (Government of Canada 2013a).
As per the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (SOR/2012-147; Government of Canada 2013b) under CEAA
(S.C. 2012, c. 19, s.52; Government of Canada 2013a), activities included in this Project are likely to be subject to
an environmental assessment. The proposed LBR2 project involves diverting during flood events more than
3
10,000,000 cubic metres (m ) per year of water from the Highwood River to the Little Bow River. This will be subject
to the need for an environmental assessment under CEAA, activity 6: “The construction, operation, decommissioning
6
3
and abandonment of a new structure for the diversion of 10 x 10 m /year or more of water from a natural water body
into another natural water body”. Additionally, the reservoir created by the LBR2 scheme would be subject to
Activity 4: “The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new dam or dyke that would result
in the creation of a reservoir with a surface area that would exceed the annual mean surface area of a natural water
body by 1,500 ha or more”.
Further analysis will be required to determine if the LBR2 flood extent exceeds the natural flood extent by 1,500 ha
or more.
2.2.9.2
Fisheries Act
The Fisheries Act (R.S. 1985, c. F-14) applies to all Canadian fisheries waters and Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO) has the responsibility to administer and enforce the conservation and protection of fish habitat on private
property, as well as on provincial and federal lands (Government of Canada 2013c). Section 36(3) of the Fisheries
Act prohibits the discharge of deleterious substances into a water body; Section 20(1) requires that any works
conducted in and around a water body accommodate fish passage; and Section 35(1) prohibits serious harm to fish,
which includes fish and fish habitat that are part of or support commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fisheries.
17
AECOM
LBR2
Serious harm is defined in the Fisheries Act as the death of fish, a permanent alteration to fish habitat, and/or the
destruction of fish habitat.
DFO has established a self-assessment tool outlining project activities and criteria that do not require DFO review.
DFO also provides Measures to Avoid Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat which is designed to avoid causing harm and
comply with the Fisheries Act. If a project does not meet the criteria established by DFO to avoid serious harm to
fish and effects cannot be mitigated, a Request for Review must be submitted for consideration by the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. If activities are determined to cause serious harm to fish, an Application for Authorization will
be required that will include a fish and fish habitat report, available design information, a description of effects on fish
and fish habitat, a description of measures and standards to avoid or mitigate serious harm to fish and an offsetting
plan. The Application for Authorization must also include a letter of credit (from the proponent) to ensure that, if
conditions of authorization are not completed, DFO can access funds to implement all remaining elements of the
mitigation plan. The amount of the letter of credit should be sufficient to complete the offsetting plan and any
required monitoring program. The LBR2 project will result in serious harm to fish and fish habitat, including fish
passage, access to spawning habitat, and potentially water quality. As such, the requirements discussed above will
need to be followed, fish and fish habitat studies will need to be completed, and a letter of credit will have to be
drafted. The process will take approximately one and a half years.
2.2.9.3
Navigable Waters Protection Act
The Transport Canada Navigable Waters Protection Program supports the regulation of works constructed or place
in, on, over, under, through, or across, navigable waters in Canada in accordance with the Navigable Waters
Protection Act (NWPA, R.S., 1985, c. N-22, Government of Canada 2009). As part of the Federal Government’s
2012 Bill C-45, amendments were made to the NWPA including implementation of a schedule listing major
waterways for which regulatory approval is required. The project is projected to commence construction after April
2014, when the amendments come into force; therefore, review will not be required by Transport Canada as both the
Highwood River and Little Bow River are not included in the Schedule of the Act. The amendment to the act still
allows proponents of works in non-scheduled waters to opt-in and seek approval of their proposed works. It is
recommended that the proponent consult with Transport Canada and seek approval on these proposed works as
they would significantly impact navigability.
2.2.9.4
Migratory Birds Convention Act
The Migratory Birds Convention Act [1994, amended in 2010, c.22; Government of Canada 2010a] (MBCA) and
Migratory Birds Regulation [2005, amended in 2009, c1035; Government of Canada 2013d] are administered by
Environment Canada. Under the MBCA, CWS has jurisdictional interest with respect to the management of
migratory birds and migratory bird populations, protecting nationally significant nesting habitats, and regulating the
hunting of migratory game birds such as ducks and geese. Section 6(a) of the General Prohibitions of the Migratory
Birds Regulations C.R.C., c. 1035, states that it is an offence to “disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, or nest shelter”
of a migratory bird. Additionally, Section 35(1) stipulates that “no person shall deposit or permit to be deposited oil,
oil wastes or any other substance harmful to migratory birds in any waters or any area frequented by migratory
birds”.
The MBCA and its associated regulation specify that efforts should be made to preserve and protect habitat
necessary for the conservation of migratory birds. This includes nesting and wintering grounds, migratory bird
corridors, and encompasses such activities as tree clearing, wetland consolidation, and temporary and permanent
disturbances occurring in proximity to migratory bird habitat.
18
AECOM
LBR2
In the southern Parkland and Boreal ecozones of Alberta, Environment Canada advises that habitat destruction
activities (e.g. vegetation clearing, flooding, draining, construction, etc.) in upland areas attractive to migratory birds
st
th
are prohibited between May 1 and August 20 . In wetland areas attractive to migratory birds, the window is
th
th
between April 15 and August 20 (Paul Gregoire, Environment Canada, personal communication). Migratory birds
will be encountered at the project site; therefore, mitigation to avoid construction (e.g. tree clearing and/or potential
nest habitat destruction) during migratory bird restricted timing windows will be required.
2.2.9.5
Species at Risk Act
The Species at Risk Act [2002, c.29; Government of Canada 2013e] (SARA) provides protection for Canadian
indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations and their critical habitats on federal lands, but does not
apply to lands held by the Province of Alberta or its private citizens unless “the laws of Alberta do not effectively
protect the species or the residences of its individuals”. The Minister may issue an order in council to protect
federally listed species that occur on provincial or private lands, but this has not occurred.
2.2.10
2.2.10.1
Provincial Legislation
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is responsible for evaluating impacts that a
project may have on the environment and for the administration of Alberta’s laws governing Environmental
Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The Environmental Assessment Regulation
and the Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulation provide direction on matters
related to the administration of the environmental assessment process. The purpose of Environmental Protection
and Enhancement Act (EPEA) (Government of Alberta 2013b) is to support and promote the protection,
enhancement and wise use of the environment.
The proposed LBR2 scheme will require an EIA through the following activities under the Environmental Assessment
(Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulations depending on the scheme(s) under consideration:


“The construction, operation or reclamation of a water diversion structure and canals with a capacity greater than
15 cubic metres per second”
“A project to construct a dam, reservoir or barrier to store water or water containing any other substance for
which an environmental impact assessment report has been ordered”
As the LBR2 project is considered a mandatory activity by the EPEA director (personal communication), an EIA will
be required and cannot be overridden by any government authority or process. The EIA process will start by
submitting a detailed project description to EPEA to determine if an EIA is required. Once that is confirmed, a Terms
of Reference (TOR) will be submitted to EPEA and Public Notice will occur (this takes 30 to 45 days). Modifications
are made to the TOR depending on the level of public comment (time frame ranging from one month to many
months) and an EIA is commenced. The EIA involves field work, analyses, and reporting and generally takes 72
weeks until the TOR is met. The next step is to refer the EIA to the Public Interest Board where the Natural
Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) determines if they need more information or if a hearing is required. During
the 72 week EIA process, an integrated application can be submitted to all regulatory agencies (EPEA, Water Act,
Public Lands, DFO, Transport Canada, etc.), but NRCB has to consider a decision before all other approvals are
issued. An EIA also cannot be submitted until a First Nations Consultation Plan has been approved. From start to
finish (meeting the requirements of the TOR), the EIA process takes two to three years.
19
AECOM
LBR2
When both federal and provincial environmental assessments are required for a project, the two governments act
together to minimize overlap and increase efficiency so the assessment will not take any additional time. This
process is laid out in the Canada-Alberta Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation (Government of
Canada 2013f).
2.2.10.2
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB)
The NRCB, established in 1991, is an agency independent from the Government of Alberta that reviews proposed
non-energy natural resource projects (NRCB 2014). The NRCB, under the Natural Resources Conservation Board
Act, considers social, environmental, and economic effects when reviewing resource projects before approval is
granted to the Proponent (Government of Alberta 2013c). The Alberta Environment Protection and Enhancement
Act (EPEA) determines which projects require EIAs and of those projects, EPEA determines which will also require a
review by NRCB (NRCB 2007). Reviewable projects include forest industry projects, recreational or tourist projects,
metallic or industrial mineral projects, water management projects and any other type of project prescribed in the
regulations (Government of Alberta 2013c). If a water management project requires an EIA under EPEA, it
automatically becomes an NRCB reviewed project as described in the Act. By definition, a “water management
project” means:
i)
ii)
A project to construct a dam, reservoir or barrier to store water or water containing any other substance for
which an environmental impact assessment report has been ordered, or
A project to construct a water diversion structure, or canal capable of conducting water or water containing any
other substance for which an environmental impact assessment report has been ordered.
Once an EIA meets its TOR, it is referred to the NRCB to determine if the NRCB requires more information or if a
hearing is required. The panel may refuse a project if it is deemed not in the public interest in terms of
environmental, social and economic factors. This process can take an additional one to two years above the EIA
timeline of two to three years.
2.2.10.3
Water Act
All water resources located within the province of Alberta are owned by the Provincial Government. AESRD
administers the Alberta Water Act, which is the primary legislation governing the use and management of Alberta’s
water resources, including wetlands (Government of Alberta 2013d). Alberta’s Water Act [R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3]
requires approval and/or attainment of a license before undertaking construction in a surface water body or activities
related to a water body which have the potential to impact the aquatic environment. Dams and water diversions
require Water Act Applications, and diversions also require a Water Act Licence. Section 36 of the Act stipulates
that an approval is required for all activities that may impact water and the aquatic environment.
The Approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (Alberta Environment 2006)
recommends that Alberta Environment no longer accept applications for water allocations in both the Bow, and
Oldman Sub-basins until the Minister of Environment specifies, through a Crown Reservation, how water currently
unallocated is to be used (Alberta Environment 2006). Water allocated to a Crown Reservation within these subbasins can only be used for the following purposes:


Water conservation objectives
Storage of peak flows to mitigate impacts on the aquatic environment and to support existing licenses (Alberta
Environment will assist the Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils in evaluations of the potential for onstream and off-stream storage)
20
AECOM


LBR2
Licenses and registrations that may be issued for applications and registrations pending at the date of the Crown
Reservation (This does not necessarily imply approval; but the pending applications and registration will be
reviewed)
First Nations Reserves
The LBR2 scheme may be considered an accepted use under one or more of the above depending on the final
design.
Also, under Section 16(1) of the Water Act, the Director may not issue or amend an approval, preliminary certificate,
or licence or approve a transfer of an allocation of water under a licence if the Director is of the opinion an
Environmental Assessment is required.
Because an EIA is required, all Water Act Approvals and Licences will occur simultaneously with the EIA approval
process. An approval will be required for this project. Depending on the final design of the dam, it is possible that a
licence may be required. All timelines listed in Table 2-6 were provided by the Water Act Approvals group within
AESRD.
2.2.10.4
Alberta’s Wetland Policy
AESRD released Alberta’s new Wetland Policy in September 2013 (Government of Alberta 2013a). This policy will
be phased in the summer of 2014. Until then, the “Wetlands Management in the Settled Area of Alberta – an Interim
Policy” (1993) provides a framework to conserve wetlands within Alberta (Alberta Water Resources Commission
1993). In addition to conserving wetlands, this document also introduces the mitigation of wetland impacts, as well
as the enhancement, restoration, or creation of ephemeral wetlands. In 2007, the Alberta Government released the
revised edition of the Provincial Wetland Restoration/Compensation Guide which provides recommendations to
achieve the policy’s goals, intent, objectives, and mitigation requirements.
The new wetland policy will apply to all wetlands in the province (no discrimination between wetlands located in the
green vs. white zone of Alberta) and will focus on conserving and minimizing wetland losses. Wetlands to be
impacted will need to be evaluated by a Qualified Wetland Aquatic Environment Specialist (QWAES) using a
standardized tool to determine Wetland Value. The score determined from the tool will be used in the decision
making process in order to avoid, mitigate, or replace wetland losses. Wetland Value will also be used to determine
wetland replacement/compensation ratios (Government of Alberta 2013a). This will occur in conjunction with the
EIA process.
2.2.10.5
Historical Resources Act
The Historical Resources Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. H-9; Government of Alberta 2013c) protects historic resources in
Alberta, including paleontological, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and certain cultural or natural objects, sites, or
structures (Government of Alberta 2013e). Pursuant to the Act, a Historical Resource Clearance is needed for
projects where effects on known and unknown historical resources could occur. The recommendation for this
project is that a Historical Resources Impact Assessment be conducted, which will occur concurrently with the EIA
process.
21
AECOM
2.2.10.6
LBR2
Public Lands Act
All Public Lands, including the bed and shores of all permanent watercourses and water bodies, are considered
Alberta Public Lands unless they are owned by the Government of Canada. As such, approvals under the Public
Lands Act [R.S.A. 2000, c. P-40] (Government of Alberta 2013f) are required for any activity on Public Lands or the
bed or shore of Crown owned rivers, streams, or lakes. Any activity that alters or occupies Public Lands or the bed
and shore of a water body requires written approval. As the projects occur on a water body and on terrestrial Public
Lands, multiple Public Lands dispositions will be required. This process would occur concurrently with the EIA
application.
2.2.10.7
Wildlife Act
On private land and Alberta’s Public Lands, the Alberta government has the responsibility for all wildlife, including
Species at Risk, as established by the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930. Alberta’s Wildlife Act (R.S.A. 2000,
c. W-10) designated endangered and threatened species, and provincially listed species potentially influenced by the
Project (Government of Alberta 2013g). Alberta’s Wildlife Act protects the residences of wildlife on private and
public lands. More specifically, a person must not wilfully disturb or destroy a house, nest or den of certain species.
Section 96 of the Wildlife Regulation (Government of Alberta 2013h) outlines the wildlife species, areas, and time of
year when the Act applies. All endangered wildlife, upland game birds, some migratory birds, snake and bat dens,
and beavers (in some instances) are covered under Section 36 of the Act. For most wildlife, disturbing the habitat of
these animals is prohibited year-round throughout Alberta. AESRD staff may recommend timing restrictions on
activities to minimize disturbance to the nests/dens/hibernaculum of breeding wildlife and birds. The Wildlife Act
also protects endangered plant species (both vascular and non-vascular) listed in the Wildlife Regulation. Project
delays and/or project related modifications may arise should any provincially listed Species at Risk occur within the
LBR2 Project Area. Mitigation measures, set back distances, and restricted timing windows will be required.
2.2.10.8
Summary of Regulatory Requirements
A summary of regulatory requirements applicable to this project is provided in Table 2-6.
22
AECOM
LBR2
Table 2-6: Summary of Regulatory Requirements
Legislation, Policy, or
Guidelines
Responsible
Authority
Description
Required Action
Federal Legislation
Canadian
To assess the environmental
Submission of a Project Description to
Environmental
effects of projects requiring federal
determine if an Environmental
Assessment Agency actions or decisions, and ensure
assessment under CEAA is required.
that the environmental effects of
As the project stands, an EA will be
projects be considered early in
required.
their planning stages.
Fisheries Act
Fisheries and Oceans Prohibits any harmful alteration, Fisheries Act Authorization or Letter of
Canada
disruption, or destruction of fish
Advice following Fish and Fish Habitat
habitat.
Assessment Report. DFO
Authorization will be required
Navigable Waters Protection
Transport Canada
Protects the public right to
Due to the recent changes to NWPA,
Act
navigate all navigable waterways
an application is not required for this
within Canada.
water body. However, a voluntary
application should be submitted due to
the scope of this project.
Migratory Birds Convention
Canadian Wildlife
Prohibits the killing, capturing,
Vegetation clearing restricted from
st
th
Act
Service
injuring, taking, or disturbing of
May 1 to August 20 . Disturbance of
migratory birds. Prohibits the
wetlands attractive to migratory birds
th
damaging, destroying, removing,
restricted from April 15 to August
th
or disturbing of all migratory bird
20 .
nests
Species at Risk Act
Environment Canada Prohibits the killing or harming or Activities must acknowledge speciesharassing of listed species, the
specific Protection and Recovery
damage and destruction of their
Plans.
residences, and the destruction of
critical habitat.
Provincial Legislation
Environment Protection and
AESRD
Support and promote the
Environmental Impact Assessment
Enhancement Act
protection, enhancement, and wise
due to the mandatory activity
use of the environment.
designation.
Water Act
AESRD
The Water Act focuses on
Water Act application for any impacts
managing and protecting Alberta's
to a water body. Will be required.
water, while streamlining
administrative processes.
Alberta’s Wetland Policy
AESRD
Manages the enhancement,
Wetland conservation and creation
restoration, or creation of
according to the wetland policy. Will
permanent wetlands.
be required if wetlands are impacted.
Alberta Historical Resources Alberta Culture and Provides a framework for Historical HRIA and clearance letter required.
Act
Community Spirit
Resource Impact Assessments
(ACCS) and the
(HRIA).
Royal Tyrrell Museum
of Palaeontology
Public Lands Act
AESRD
Any activity that alters or occupies
Public Lands Dispositions will be
the bed and shore of a waterbody required for any structures on Crownrequires written approval.
owned watercourses and/or land. A
Temporary Field Authorization will be
required for any temporary access on
public land.
Alberta Wildlife Act
AESRD
Prohibits the harm of residences of Consult with AESRD if species at risk
species at risk. Provides restricted are present. Vegetation clearing and
timing windows and disturbance
anthropogenic disturbance restricted
st
st
setback distances for species at
from March 1 to August 31 for
risk.
sensitive species, year-round for
others.
Natural Resources
Natural Resources
Reviews projects for social,
EIA to be reviewed by the NRCB
Conservation Board Act
Conservation Board
environmental, and economic
factors before granting approvals
Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act
23
AECOM
2.2.10.9
LBR2
Required Authorizations and Permits
A summary of required authorizations and permits applicable to this project, as well as their timelines is provided
below in Table 2-7. However, the EIA process allows for the concurrent submission of all applications and approvals
as a single process. During the 72 week EIA process, an integrated application can be submitted to all regulatory
agencies (EPEA, Water Act, Public Lands, DFO, Transport Canada, etc.), but NRCB has to consider a decision
before all other approvals are issued. If a water management project requires an EIA under EPEA, it automatically
becomes an NRCB approved project. If NRCB does not require more information or a hearing, the EIA process can
take two to three years. If NRCB requires more information or a public hearing, the EIA process can take an
additional 1 to 2 years for a total of 3 to 5 years. All timelines were obtained from the respective regulatory
agencies.
Table 2-7: Timeline of Required Authorizations and Permits
Regulatory Agency
Department of Fisheries and
Oceans
Alberta Environment and
Sustainable Resource
Development (AESRD)
Natural Resources Conservation
Board
Alberta Culture
Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency
Environment Canada
2.3
Approvals
Timeline
Fisheries Act Authorization
1 year if there is no HASS and 1.5 years if there is
HADD (occurs concurrently with EIA process)
EPEA Environmental Impact Assessment
2 to 3 years
Approval
Water Act Approval
2 to 3 months (occurs concurrently with EIA
process)
Temporary Field Authorization (TFA)
2 days to 2 weeks(occurs concurrently with EIA
process)
Dispositions
3 months to a year (occurs concurrently with EIA
process)
NRCB Approval
1 to 2 years (if required)
Statement of Justification (SoJ)
1 to 2 months (occurs concurrently with EIA
process)
2 months to a year (occurs concurrently with EIA
process)
Clearance Letter resulting from a
Historical Resources Impact Assessment
(HRIA)
Advice to Federal Government
2 to 3 years (if required; occurs concurrently with
Departments resulting from an
EIA process and NRCB Approvals). An EA under
Environmental Assessment
CEAA will most likely be required based on the
current design information
Species at Risk Act
6 months (occurs concurrently with EIA process)
Conclusion and Recommendations
The desktop review for the LBR2 Project Area identified several environmental concerns:


st
th
The Highwood River at High River is a Mapped Class C Water Body with dual RAPs of May 1 to July 15 and
th
th
September 16 to April 15
Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout have the potential to occur in the area. Cutthroat Trout and Bull Trout are listed
as “Threatened” by COSEWIC, which indicates that the species is facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
Cutthroat Trout are also listed under SARA as “Threatened”, which means a formal, legal review has been
conducted and they are protected under the Act.
The LBR2 Project Area occurs within Sensitive Raptor and Sharp-tailed Grouse Key Ranges, Key Wildlife and
Biodiversity Zones, Environmentally Significant Areas, and a variety of land use areas. Timing restrictions of no
th
th
construction between December 15 and April 30 are mandatory for the Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone.
24
AECOM
LBR2
A total of 72 wildlife Species at Risk have been identified with the potential to occur within the LBR2 Project Area
with general status AESRD listings ranging from ‘Sensitive’ to ‘At Risk’. Environment Canada restricts activities that
cause habitat destruction (e.g. vegetation clearing, flooding, draining, construction, etc.) in upland areas attractive to
st
th
th
migratory birds between May 1 and August 20 and in wetland areas the restriction occurs between April 15 and
th
August 20 .
Within the proposed Project Area, 95 marshes and five open water wetlands have been identified from the Wetland
Inventory dataset (Figure 2-2; Alberta Water Resources Commission 1993, Government of Alberta 2013b). Marshes
cover an area of 85.6 ha and open water bodies cover 28.2 ha.
If any of the proposed diversion scheme is approved, a full suite of field surveys for the Environmental Impact
Assessment will be required. The following is a list of required environmental surveys and assessments that must
be completed for approval prior to the commencement of any construction activities:










Aquatic surveys
Wetland assessments
Vegetation inventories
Rare plant surveys
Soil and terrain surveys
Wildlife and wildlife habitat surveys
Species at risk surveys,
Fish and fish habitat assessment
Historical resources impact assessment
All associated surveys required for an environmental impact assessment (geological, hydrogeological,
socioeconomic, air, hydrological, etc.)
Clearing activities associated with the LBR2 Project Area have the potential to impact local wildlife populations and
vegetation. Clearing will need to adhere to timing restrictions. Field surveys, as mentioned above, will be required
to determine if sensitive, protected, or rare species occur in this area. An HRIA will also be required for all areas
where Historical Resources have high potential to occur along this alignment. It is important to note that the
presence of protected birds, amphibians, mammals and/or plant species may restrict construction activities in the
proposed Project area at certain times of year.
25
AECOM
3.
3.1
LBR2
Review of Existing Information Geosciences
Surficial and Bedrock Geology
The surficial and bedrock geology of the High River Area is compiled from the geological maps of Alberta. The
surficial geology of the High River Area consists of Pleistocene and Holocene deposits (glaciolacustrine and fluvial),
undivided, inter-bedded uncomformably with Pleistocene deposits (glacial till). The Pleistocene and Holocene
overburden may consist of the following deposits:



Glaciolacustrine deposits - fine sediment (silt and clay)
Fluvial deposits - coarse sediment (gravel and sand, minor silt beds)
Fluvial deposits - fine sediment (fine sand, silt and clay, minor gravel beds)
The Pleistocene deposits (till) present in the High River Area may consist of glacial deposit that may comprise one of
the two moraines, as follows:


Draped Moraine - till of even thickness, with minor amounts of water sorted material and local bedrock
exposures; up to 5 m thick: includes local areas of undifferentiated sub glacially molded deposit with streamlined
features; flat to undulating surface reflecting topography of underlying bedrock and other deposits
Stagnation Moraine - till of uneven thickness, local water sorted material of up to 30 m thick, undulating to
hummocky topography reflecting variations in till thickness. Undulating topography, generally with relief less
than 3 m
The bedrock in the High River Area belongs to the Willow Creek Formation. However, the Porcupine Hills Formation
shows up west and southwest of the Town of High River. The Willow Creek Formation consists of grey, green, and
pink mudstone with calcareous concretions and friable pale grey, generally fine-grained sandstone, thick bedded
and coarse grained in its upper part. The Porcupine Hills Formation consists of olive brown mudstone inter-bedded
with fine to coarse grained brownish-grey, cross stratified sandstone and siltstone. Both bedrock formations are
non-marine.
Figure O1-2 and Figure O1-3 (Appendix O1) show the proposed diversion channel alignment and dam location
superimposed on the surficial and bedrock geology maps of the area, respectively. Figure O1-2 shows that the
diversion channel alignment lies within the fluvial deposits. The majority of the channel alignment lies in coarse
fluvial deposits comprised mainly of gravel, sand with some silt and clay beds. The southeastern part of the
proposed diversion channel alignment is within the fine fluvial sediment deposit which contains fine sand and silt.
The bedrock underlying the channel alignment consists of Porcupine Hills Formation under the northwest half and
Willow Creek Formation under the southeast half (Figure O1-3, Appendix O1).
At the proposed dam location, the overburden soils consist of Pleistocene deposits comprising stagnation moraine
till underlain by bedrock belonging to Willow Creek Formation (Figures O1-2 and O1-3, Appendix O1).
3.2
Regional Hydrogeology
Historical groundwater information was collected using an online search of existing water wells within the project
area. The search was conducted using Water Well Information database of AESRD. The database contains
individual water well drilling reports, stratigraphy, and pump test information. The well locations in the vicinity of the
proposed diversion channel alignment and dam site area are shown on Figure O1-4 in Appendix O1. A summary of
the compiled groundwater data in the vicinity of the diversion channel and dam site is provided in Tables 3-1 and 32, respectively.
26
AECOM
LBR2
Table 3-1: Summary of Groundwater Depths Compiled from Well Records – Diversion Channel (LBR2)
Well ID
296383
1555746
127760
166061
1115175
1555666
1610390
1610507
152777
147660
286198
286199
286200
289555
1555476
41484
285079
291395
Well
Location
(Latitude)
50.568339
50.568300
50.566541
50.568349
50.568300
50.568300
50.568200
50.571500
50.568349
50.568336
50.561104
50.564994
50.568336
50.561104
50.568300
50.553791
50.553781
50.557357
Well Location
Date Measured
(Longitude)
-113.925564
-113.926000
-113.916772
-113.902573
-113.903000
-113.914000
-113.908900
-113.915467
-113.902573
-113.890925
-113.890922
-113.885304
-113.890925
-113.879564
-113.891000
-113.868059
-113.867928
-113.874176
04/27/2001
11/13/2007
01/25/1981
03/24/1992
04/13/2009
05/21/2007
09/25/2007
08/07/2008
09/01/1990
05/06/1997
02/20/1997
10/10/1996
01/17/1997
05/12/1998
12/23/2003
09/04/2002
08/30/1996
04/08/1999
Completion Zone
Depth (mBGS)
7.32 – 10.36 / Bedrock
4.57 – 10.36 / Sand and
3.66 – Gravel
7.92 / Gravel
27.43 – 44.20 / Bedrock
15.24 – 22.86 / Gravel
3.05 – 5.49 / Till
27.43 – 30.48 / Bedrock
21.34 – 24.38 / Bedrock
12.19 – 35.05 / Bedrock
12.19 – 24.38 / Bedrock
6.71 – 12.80 / Sand/Gravel
25.91 – 44.81 / Bedrock
18.29 – 25.91 / Bedrock
6.10 – 9.75 / Gravel
8.53 – 11.58 / Sand and
Gravel
6.10 – 13.72
/ Sand and
Gravel
9.75 – 15.24 / Gravel
7.62 – 9.14 / Bedrock
Static Water
Level
(mBGS)
3.60
3.58
3.96
3.66
4.61
3.66
3.41
4.15
4.57
6.10
5.06
5.43
4.88
5.49
5.02
3.90
3.66
3.87
Approximate Distance
from Channel Centre
Line (m)
220
250
160
500
440
120
330
370
100
520
200
400
520
160
500
550
550
150
mBGS – meters below ground surface; Latitude and Longitude (NAD 83)
Table 3-2: Summary of Groundwater Depths Compiled from Well Records – Dam Location (LB1)
Well ID
131934
159442
1555082
293226
294609
127452
299277
154804
127459
1610062
1610070
1555749
Well
Location
(Latitude)
50.479126
50.480934
50.480900
50.475200
50.473689
50.488347
50.491000
50.488337
50.495600
50.488200
50.488200
50.510100
Well Location
Date Measured
(Longitude)
-113.664239
-113.661405
-113.673000
-113.717400
-113.718844
-113.741854
-113.754100
-113.776067
-113.742000
-113.765000
-113.776000
-113.799000
09/03/1982
09/06/1991
07/23/2005
11/10/1999
08/21/2000
10/21/1988
07/18/1986
02/26/1991
6/20/1988
6/11/2004
10/29/2004
12/11/2007
Completion Zone
Depth (mBGS)
9.1 – 13.72 / Bedrock
36.58 – 48.77 / Bedrock
48.77 – 67.06 / Bedrock
4.57 – 7.01 / Sand and
Gravel/ Bedrock
22.86 – 39.62
3.35 – 15.24 / Gravel
3.96 – 12.19 / Gravel
35.05 – 41.15 / Bedrock
28.96 – 77.72 / Bedrock
4.88 – 13.72 / Sandy
Gravel/ Bedrock
35.05 – 41.15
4.57 – 7.62 / Bedrock
Static Water
Level
(mBGS)
2.13
25.91
10.91
3.81
7.92
2.90
3.66
22.63
30.78
2.49
18.50
5.38
Approximate Distance
from Channel Centre
Line (m)
2000
660
370
3400
3600
5300
6200
6600
5500
7000
7700
9000
The available information indicates that the aquifers in this region generally occur within the following deposits:


Sand and gravel deposits above the bedrock
Near surface bedrock - sandstone or fractured shale
Regional groundwater flow is generally towards the proposed dam site (LB1).
27
AECOM
4.
4.1
LBR2
Inferred Subsurface Conditions
General
The subsurface stratigraphy along the proposed diversion channel alignment and at the proposed dam location was
inferred from existing water well records obtained from AESRD’s website. The water well records are presented in
Appendix O2. The water well records provide information on the nature of the sediment and bedrock encountered at
the well locations.
Geological longitudinal sections developed using the water well records along the proposed diversion channel and at
the proposed dam location are shown in Figures O4-1 and O4-2, respectively, in Appendix O1.
It should be noted that well elevations were not available on the well records. The wells were also offset from the
channel alignment as well as from the dam locations (Tables 3-1 and 3-2). For the purpose of this desktop
evaluation, it was assumed that the ground surface at the well locations coincides with the ground surface along the
channel alignment and at the dam location; however, this may not be the case. Hence, care must be taken in using
this information. It should also be noted that the information provided in this report is preliminary and is subject to
confirmation by conducting a site specific site investigation.
A summary of the inferred subsurface stratigraphy along the channel alignment and at the dam location is provided
in the following sections.
4.2
Diversion Channel (LBR2)
The subsurface stratigraphy inferred from the water well records along the diversion channel Stations 0+000 to
1+400 consisted of the following deposits in descending order:



Topsoil – topsoil was encountered at ground surface at the well locations. Thickness of topsoil varied from
approximately 0 to 2 m.
Gravel and Sand – gravel and sand was encountered at surface or below the topsoil. Based on the well
records, thickness of this soil deposit varied from 2 m to 6 m.
Bedrock – bedrock was encountered below the gravel and sand layer. Based on the well records, the bedrock
consists of grey shale and sandstone. The bedrock was reported at depths varying from 4 metres below ground
surface (mBGS) to 8 mBGS.
The subsurface stratigraphy inferred from the water well records along the diversion channel Stations 1+400 to
4+700 consisted of the following soil units in descending order.



Sandy/Silty Clay – sandy/silty clay was reported at surface and its thickness varied from 1.5 m to 3.0 m.
Gravel and Sand – gravel and sand was reported below sandy/silty clay. Thickness of the gravel and sand
varied from 2 m to 6 m.
Bedrock – bedrock was reported below the gravel and sand at depths varying from 6.5 mBGS to 11 mBGS.
Bedrock consists of shale and/or sandstone.
The static (non-pumping) groundwater depths reported from water wells screened above the maximum excavation
depth varied from 3.6 mBGS to 5.5 mBGS.
28
AECOM
4.3
LBR2
Dam Site (LB1)
The inferred subsurface stratigraphy from the water well records near the dam location may consist of the following
deposits in descending order:



Till – till consisting of sandy clay to clay with rocks was reported at surface. Thickness of the till varied from 1.5
to 8 m.
Gravel and Sand – gravel and sand varying in thickness from 0 to 2 m is expected below the till.
Bedrock – shale and/or sandstone is expected below the gravel and sand or till at depths varying from 3 mBGS
to 8 mBGS.
The inferred subsurface stratigraphy from the water well records near the middle of the reservoir upstream of the
dam may consist of the following soil deposits:



Till – till consisting of sandy clay to clay with rocks was encountered at surface. Thickness of the till varied from
5 to 12 m.
Gravel – sandy gravel or gravel containing boulders is expected below the till. Thickness of the gravel varied
from 0 to 4 m.
Bedrock – shale and/or sandstone is expected below the gravel or till at depths varying from 5 mBGS to 12
mBGS
Static (non-pumping) groundwater level within the wells near the proposed dam location may vary from
approximately about 2.13 m to 25.91 mBGS. The measured groundwater depths and dates are provided in
Table 3-2.
29
AECOM
5.
LBR2
Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations and
Recommendations
5.1
5.1.1
Geotechnical Concerns
The major geotechnical concerns for the proposed diversion channel alignment are:




Presence of sand and gravel at shallow depths – these soils are susceptible to erosion, scouring and piping. To
protect the channel against erosion and scouring, channel lining may be required.
Drop structures – There will be differential hydraulic head between the upstream and downstream sides of the
drop structures (Table 1-1). The drop structures should be properly designed to protect them against piping,
erosion, scouring and uplift pressure forces. Erosion and scours protection such as cut-off walls (or sheet pile
walls) on the upstream and downstream sides, as well as at intermediate points along the structure may be
required. Seepage analysis will be required during detailed design to evaluate the need of cut-off walls.
Bedrock excavation – bedrock may be present within the channel footprint at several locations. The bedrock
strength information is not available but the sandstone is expected to be medium strong to strong and shale is
expected to be weak to medium strong. Dozers equipment with rippers or break hammers may be required to
excavate the bedrock (if encountered at the channel bed).
Groundwater – the reported groundwater table depths are provided in Table 3-1 and discussed in Section 4.2.
The groundwater depths are expected to fluctuate seasonally and in response to precipitation and may be high
during construction. Dewatering of excavations may be required during construction of the channel.
5.1.2
Foundation Conditions
Based on the available information, the channel will be constructed in cut and fill. Berms will also be required to be
constructed. The base of the channel may be in sand and gravel, sandy/silty clay, and/or bedrock along the
alignment. The exposed subgrade after excavation to the design channel bed level is expected to be suitable for
channel construction from a bearing capacity perspective provided all unsuitable soils (topsoil, organics, peat,
soft/wet soils) are removed and replaced with general engineered fill compacted to 98% of the Standard Proctor
Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) within 2 % of the optimum moisture content (OMC). However, lining may be
required to protect channel from erosion and scouring and cut-off walls may be required to protect drop structures
from piping failures. The drop structures should also be designed with a proper stilling basin to protect the
downstream channel from scouring. Upstream and downstream launching aprons may also be required at the drop
structure locations.
5.1.3
Channel and Berm Slopes
It is understood the interior side slope of the berm and channel is 4H:1V for maximum height of 6.5 m and exterior
side slope of the berm is 3H:1V for maximum height of approximately 4 m. The proposed side slopes are
considered suitable from slope stability perspective on a preliminary basis. Slope stability and seepage analyses will
be required during detailed design when information on site specific soil/bedrock/groundwater conditions is available.
The channel and berm slopes may need to be revised depending on the site specific subsurface conditions and
results of seepage and slope stability analyses.
The native soils are susceptible to erosion and scouring; therefore, channel and berms should be protected against
erosion and scouring caused by flowing water.
30
AECOM
5.1.4
LBR2
Excavations and Temporary Dewatering
The anticipated soils at the proposed channel site deem suitable such that conventional hydraulic excavators may
be able to excavate these materials, although a ripper may be required to excavate seasonally frozen soil. Bedrock
excavation may also be required at site. The bedrock at the site may consist of weak shale and/or medium strong to
strong sandstone. The excavation in bedrock may require a dozer or an excavator equipped with ripper for weak
shale, however, excavation in sandstone may require a large dozer with single tooth ripper or an excavator with a
break hammer.
Construction should be in accordance with good practice and should conform to Occupational Health and Safety
guidelines. Excavations should be sloped or adequately shored. The appropriate side slopes for the excavations
will depend on the soil type, controlling groundwater flow into the excavations and the time the trench is left open.
The groundwater table is generally high in the area; therefore, dewatering may be required if excavations extend
below the groundwater table. Dewatering may be accomplished by installation of sumps and pumps or individual
large diameter wells depending on the rate of infiltration of the soil.
Temporary surcharge loads such as construction materials, equipment, or excavated soils should not be allowed
within a distance equal to the depth of excavation from the unsupported excavated face. Vehicles delivering
material should be kept back from excavation faces at a safe distance.
5.1.5
Subgrade Preparation
All vegetation, peat, organics, organic rich soils and topsoil should be stripped from within the footprint of the
channel and other structures. Surficial organic material should be stockpiled separately for site erosion and
sedimentation control.
Following organic stripping and excavations to achieve design grades, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to
a minimum depth of 150 mm, moisture conditioned to within 2% of the OMC and compacted to a minimum of 98% of
SPMDD. Following moisture conditioning and compaction, the subgrade should be proof-rolled to identify loose or
soft areas. Any loose or soft areas should be over-excavated and backfilled with general engineered fill
(Section 5.1.6) compacted to at least 98% of the SPMDD.
Cut sections should be avoided in areas of high groundwater table to reduce difficulties associated with construction
in such areas. Preparation of subgrade should be carried out within restricted areas to avoid loosening of the
prepared subgrade by site traffic before placement and compaction of pavement structure. The prepared subgrade
should not be left exposed for extended periods of time to avoid wetting, drying and freezing of the subgrade.
5.1.6
Fill Placement and Compaction
Following organic stripping and subgrade preparation, the fill can be placed in layers not exceeding 150 mm in
compacted thickness. The fill should be compacted to at least 98 % of the SPMDD at ± 2 % of OMC. The fill should
be placed in lifts that are compatible with the compaction equipment used. The ability of compaction equipment to
uniformly compact layers thicker than 150 mm should be confirmed with a test strip program.
Soils used for fill placement purposes may consist of general engineered fill or native inorganic sand and gravel, low
to medium plastic clay/clay till obtained from excavations at the site. Granular soils used as general engineered fills
should consist of clean, well graded mixture of sand and gravel. In general fill material should be compacted at ±
2% of OMC.
31
AECOM
LBR2
Inorganic soils obtained from excavations at the site may have natural moisture content different than their OMC
therefore, the soils should be properly moisture conditioned prior to using them as fill.
Use of geotextile or filters may be required to separate fine grained materials from coarse grained materials to
protect migration of fines; specifically in high groundwater conditions.
Fill materials should not be placed in a frozen state, or placed on a frozen subgrade. All lumps of materials should
be broken down during placement. The maximum particle size in fill material should not exceed half the layer
thickness. Fill material should not contain deleterious materials such as debris, organics, coal particles, wood
chunks, etc.
Bonding should be provided between backfill lifts if the previous lift has become desiccated. For fine-grained
materials, the previous lift should be scarified to the base of the desiccated layer, properly moisture conditioned and
re-compacted and bonded thoroughly to the succeeding lift. For granular materials, the surface of the previous lift
should be scarified to about a 75 mm depth followed by proper moisture conditioning and re-compaction.
5.2
Dam Site (LB1)
5.2.1
Foundation Conditions
The subsurface soil conditions at the dam site may consist of glacial till underlain by sand and gravel underlain by
bedrock. The soil strength data (Standard penetration tests, shear strength parameters, etc.) of the native soils are
not available but based on our experience with glacial till, the foundation conditions at the dam site from bearing
capacity perspective are considered suitable. However, the foundation soils may not be suitable from seepage
perspective. To protect the dam against the piping failures, use of cut-off wall (such as sheet pile wall) or extending
the compacted clay core into bedrock should be considered on preliminary basis.
5.2.2
Embankments Material
The embankment of the dam will likely consist of a central core of compacted clay/clay till buttressed by upstream
and downstream shells of random (common) fill. The random fill may consist of native soils excavated from site not
containing unsuitable soils (such as organics, debris, silt, soft/wet soils, etc.). Borrow investigation will be required to
identify potential borrow areas for obtaining soils for construction of dam core, shell, filter and drainage blanket.
Riprap may also be required to protect the dam from erosion. The riprap size may vary from 400 mm to 600 mm on
preliminary basis, depending upon the wave action, dam slopes, etc.
5.2.3
Stability and Seepage analysis
Preliminary slope stability and seepage analyses were performed to estimate the safe dam slopes. Three stability
conditions were analyzed to achieve the target Factor of Safety (FOS) against slope instability. The three conditions
are:



End of construction (short term) – a minimum FOS of 1.3 is recommended for end of construction scenario
Steady state seepage (long term) – a minimum FOS of 1.5 is recommended for steady state seepage scenario
Sudden drawdown (short term) – a minimum FOS of 1.3 is recommended for sudden drawdown conditions
32
AECOM
LBR2
The preliminary soil parameters used for seepage and slope stability analyses are provided in Table 5-1. The soil
parameters provided in Table 5-1 are preliminary and are estimated from the available information. These
parameters and results of the seepage and slope stability analyses are subject to review and revision after
conducting a site specific investigation.
Table 5-1: Preliminary Soil Parameters for Slope Stability and Seepage Analyses – Dam (LB1)
Unit Weight
3
(kN/m )
Angle of friction
(degrees)
Cohesion
(kPa)
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity (kh) at
Saturation (m/sec)
Random Fill
19
32
-
1E-6
1.0
0.0
Compacted Clay
Core
Native Till
19
30
4
1E-8
1.0
0.3
19
19
20
30
34
34
-
1E-7
1E-4
1E-10
1E-4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
Soil Type
Sand &Gravel
Bedrock
Filter
Anisotropic
ratio (kh/kv)
Pore Pressure
Coefficient
**
(B-bar)
*adopted from AGRA (1997); **for end of construction case
Stability analyses were conducted using SLOPE/W, Version 7.23 from GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. Slopes were
analyzed using the Morgenstern-Price method. Slope stability was assessed for circular failure surfaces with a
minimum slip surface depth of 1 m. For steady state condition, a seepage analysis was performed prior to the
stability analysis to calculate the final phreatic surface. The seepage analysis was carried out utilizing SEEP/W
Version 7.23 from GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
The recommended dam section used for all three scenarios is shown in Figure O5-1 in Appendix O1. The
recommended dam section consists of a compacted clay core covered by random fill obtained from excavations. To
control the seepage flow, the central core should be extended at least 2 m into the bedrock. Alternatively,
impermeable cut-off (sheet pile) walls may be installed; however, it may not be possible to drive the sheet pile wall
into sandstone bedrock.
It should be understood that the dam section provided in this report is preliminary and is subject to review and
revision during detailed design stage and after site specific investigation is conducted. The preliminary slope
stability analysis results are presented in Appendix O3.
The exposed subgrade within the dam footprint should be prepared as described in Section 5.1.5. The central core
should be constructed using suitable clay material. The clay should be compacted to at least 98 % of the SPMDD at
-8
moisture content 2 to 3 % above the OMC. The clay core should achieve a permeability of 10 m/s after
compaction.
The material used for shell construction may be obtained from excavations at site. The shell material should not
contain unsuitable material such as topsoil, organic, peat, soft/wet soils, debris, wood or roots, silt, etc. The shell
material should be compacted to 98 % of the SPMDD within 2 % of the OMC.
Groundwater seepage should be expected in the temporary excavations. Bedrock excavation should also be
expected within the dam footprint if central core is extended into bedrock. Recommendations for excavations,
temporary dewatering, fill placement, and compaction are provided in Sections 5.1.4 to 5.1.6.
33
AECOM
5.2.4
LBR2
Settlement and Deformation
It is anticipated that the main deformation under the dam will be the immediate settlement of the fill and the
underlying native soil above bedrock after placing the embankment fill. Fill is expected to settle approximately 1% of
its height. Settlement of the native soils cannot be estimated due to limited information on the soil type and
thickness of the overburden soils above bedrock. For preliminary design purposes, total settlement of the fill and
native soils may be assumed to be approximately 500 mm. Analysis will be required during detailed design stage to
estimate the deformation of the embankment and settlement of the native subgrade when the required soil
parameters for deformation and settlement analyses are available.
5.3
Underground Utility Crossings
The proposed alignment of the diversion channel will cross several underground utilities. The underground utilities
along the channel were identified by a search on the Abacus Datagraphics Ltd. website. A list of the underground
utilities along the channel is provided in Table 5-2. The list of the utilities provided in Table 5-2 is preliminary and
based on the online search. A detailed utility locate program should be implemented during detailed design and
construction to identify all the underground utilities along the channel and at dam/reservoir locations.
Table 5-2: Preliminary List of Underground Utilities – Diversion Channel (LBR2)
Utility
Utility Owner
Telephone Trench
Rural Distribution Gas Pipeline
Fibre Optic Trench
Telephone Trench
TELUS
ATCO Gas (south)
ATCO Gas (south)
ATCO Gas (south)
ATCO Gas (south)
TELUS
TELUS
ATCO Gas (south)
Approximate Station of
Intersection
0+200
0+400
0+800
1+100
1+200
3+550
3+750
3+950
At the dam location, two underground utilities (MFC Energy Corporation 168 mm natural gas pipeline; and, Direct
Energy Marketing Limited 168 mm natural gas pipeline) are expected based on the Abacus website.
5.4
Recommendations for Future Geotechnical Work
5.4.1
A detailed geotechnical investigation will be required during detailed design stage to determine the site specific
subsurface soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions along the proposed channel alignment. The geotechnical
investigation should consist of, but not limited to, the following:





Drill testholes along the channel at approximately 250 m spacing. The testhole depths may vary depending on
the final depth of the channel.
Install standpipe piezometers in all testholes to measure depth to groundwater table.
Conduct hydraulic conductivity testing at select piezometers.
Perform laboratory testing on soil and bedrock samples for soil classification purposes and determination of
engineering properties of soils/bedrock.
Perform slope stability and seepage analyses.
34
AECOM

LBR2
Prepare a geotechnical evaluation report providing recommendations to support design and construction of
channel, drop structures, and other geotechnical elements of the project.
5.4.2
Dam
A detailed geotechnical investigation will also be required for the proposed dam and reservoir site. The site
investigation should consist of, but not limited to, the following:






Drill testholes at the dam and reservoir locations. The testholes should be at approximately 200 m spacing. The
testholes should extend at least 15 m in bedrock.
Install standpipe piezometers in testholes to measure groundwater depths.
Conduct hydraulic conductivity testing at select piezometers.
Perform laboratory testing on soil samples to measure engineering properties of soils including shear strength
parameters, permeability, consolidation parameters, etc.
Perform seepage, settlement and slope stability analyses.
Prepare a geotechnical evaluation report providing geotechnical recommendations to support design and
construction of dam and other geotechnical elements of the project.
5.4.3
Borrow Areas
Site investigation may also be required to identify and characterize borrow areas of suitable fill material required for
construction of clay core, shells and filter of the proposed dam. The site investigation for borrow areas may consist
of the following:




Review of available information to identify potential borrow areas
Drill testholes or excavate test pits in the potential borrow areas to characterize soils
Perform laboratory testing for determination of engineering properties of soils
Prepare a report providing recommendations on suitability of borrow soils for different applications such as
construction of compacted clay core, filter, and upstream and downstream shells of the dam
35
AECOM
6.
LBR2
Hydrogeological Assessment
6.1
The purpose of this hydrogeological assessment was to estimate the amount of groundwater discharge that will
enter the Little Bow River diversion channel. Preliminary design of the diversion channel calls for excavation into the
existing ground near the Highwood River. The preliminary geological assessment identified coarse sediment in the
area of the diversion channel. Intersecting these sediments with the channel could lead to a continual groundwater
discharge; effectively a new stream will be created. In addition, groundwater chemistry is usually different than
freshwater river chemistry. This could affect the chemistry of the Little Bow River where the diversion channel
empties into the river. A major chemical change in the creek could affect the aquatic biota in that region.
6.1.1
Subsurface Conditions
6.1.1.1
Regional Geology
The regional geology has been described in Section 4.2
6.1.1.2
Local Geology
The local geology has been interpreted from the lithology seen in water wells drilled within the area. The channel
alignment has been divided into two sections for ease of description of the subsurface conditions. These two areas
are denoted by station with overall length being taken from the profile of the by-pass channel. The first section is
from Station 0+000 to Station 0+660, the second section is from Station 0+660 to Station 4+680.


Station 0+000 to Station 0+660: this section is dominated by coarse grained surficial deposits, such as gravel
and sand; overlaying bedrock, which consist of alternating layers of clayshale, siltstone, and sandstone.
Station 0+660 to Station 4+680: surficial deposits consisting of clay till, occasionally underlain by silt, underlain
by bedrock. The bedrock consisted of inter-bedded clayshale/claystone.
6.1.2
Groundwater Conditions
The groundwater elevations are expected to be similar to those seen in the monitoring wells installed in the
geotechnical evaluation of the High River by-pass channel (Option D3/E). In general from Station 0+000 to Station
0+660 the groundwater is expected to be approximately 3.2 mBGS while from Station 0+660 to the end of the
channel the groundwater is expected to be approximately 4 mBGS.
6.1.3
6.1.3.1
Hydrogeological Assessment
Groundwater Flow into the Channel
The hydraulic conductivity testing performed on the monitoring wells installed in the geotechnical investigation of the
High River by-pass channel (Option D3/E) can be used to estimate the hydraulic conductivities of the saturated
sediments that will be exposed in the Little Bow River diversion channel. The gravels observed in wells along the
-4
southern portion of the High River by-pass channel have an approximate hydraulic conductivity of 1.6x10 metres
per second (m/s). The weathered bedrock observed along proposed diversion has hydraulic conductivities on the
-7
order of 10 m/s.
36
AECOM
LBR2
On the basis of the interpreted geology interpreted for the LBR2 diversion channel, the cross sectional area of the
coarse sediments (gravel and sand) was calculated and the appropriate hydraulic conductivity assigned depending
on the location of the sediment (i.e., in the west near the Highwood River or on the eastern portion of the channel).
This allowed a determination of the amount of groundwater flow into the channel. This was found to be
3
approximately 0.08 cubic metres per second (m /s). The flow rate for the Little Bow River as measured at the
3
Highway 2 crossing ranges from 1.6 to 2.5 m /s. Thus the additional flow into the river is only 5% (or less) of the
normal flow.
Note although the diversion channel will lead to a lowering of the groundwater table for an undetermined distance
away from the channel, it is not expected to have an impact to users (human or ecological). This is due to no water
wells are installed in the shallow sediments that would be affected by the lowered water table and there are no
surface water features, other than the Little Bow River, that are groundwater fed in the near vicinity of the proposed
diversion channel.
6.1.3.2
Groundwater Chemistry
Groundwater samples were collected from the monitoring wells installed during the geotechnical investigation along
the Option D3/E by-pass alignment. As the main aquifers seen in those wells are expected to be the same seen
along the Little Bow River diversion, the results can be used in this assessment. The geochemical results show that
the groundwater is generally sodium bicarbonate type; with the exception of two wells near the Highwood River that
are a calcium-sodium bicarbonate type. Table 6-1 presents the average concentrations for sodium, chloride,
sulphate, total dissolved solids, alkalinity, and nitrate as nitrogen by lithology in the monitoring wells.
Table 6-1: Average Parameter Concentration by Lithology (mg/L)
Lithology
Average
Na
Average Cl
Average SO4
Average TDS
Average
Alkalinity
Average NitrateN
Gravel
Sand/Silt
130
255
26
48
154
241
564
917
282
478
1.64
1.48
Weathered
Bedrock
217
51
110
693
425
1.36
6.1.3.3
Groundwater Impact Assessment
The hydrogeological assessment indicates that a permanent groundwater discharge to the by-pass channel will
occur creating a small creek. This creek will have a flow that is roughly 5% or less than that currently seen in the
Little Bow River. The increased flow is unlikely to cause any issue in the river.
Table 6.2 presents the surface water chemistry of the Little Bow River for a monitoring station located at 50°32'28" N
and 113°49'39" W. This station is located approximately 3.1 kilometres from the proposed diversion channel
discharge point. The concentrations reported in Table 6-2 are from samples collected between 1982 and 2010.
Table 6-2: Surface Water Chemistry – Station AB05AC0080 (mg/L)
Station
Ca
Mg
Na
K
HCO3
CO3
Cl
SO4
TDS
Alkalinity
Nitrate-N
AB05AC008
0
54
15
7
1.3
206
7.5
1.5
43
222
167
0.007
37
AECOM
LBR2
The majority of groundwater discharge into the diversion channel will come from the gravels. Of the major
parameters, the sodium and nitrate concentrations seen in the Little Bow River are the most divergent. Research
into sodium effects on freshwater aquatic animals and plants indicates that concentrations need to be over
200 milligrams per litre (mg/L) before toxicity effects are observed to plants. Toxicity effects to aquatic animals at
concentrations over 400 mg/L.
The nitrate concentrations are three orders of magnitude higher in the groundwater than in the surface water in the
Little Bow River. The likely nitrate sources are fertilizer application on tilled fields and animal waste (stockyards
etc.). The nitrate concentration seen in the groundwater is approximately one half the guideline concentration for the
protection of aquatic life (the guideline is based on the effects of nitrate on lake trout). As such, direct harmful
effects, especially given the dilution of the concentration as it enters the creek, are not likely to occur. In addition the
dilution of the flow from the diversion channel entering the Little Bow River will be such that the nitrate loading will
not have an appreciable affect on the Little Bow River.
6.2
Dry-Dam Hydrogeological Assessment
The geology within the Little Bow River valley upstream of the dry dam location consists of clay and silt flood
deposits underlain by gravel and cobbles. The bedrock consists of sandstone and mudstone of the Willow Creek
Formation (Prior, et. al. 2013).
The surficial geology outside the Little Bow River valley consists of glacial moraine, specifically ice-thrust moraine
and stagnant ice moraine. The glacial moraine in the area mainly consists of ice-thrust moraine deposits. At the
proposed dam site and to the southwest of the dam are stagnant ice moraine deposits. The bedrock of the Willow
Creek Formation is beneath the surficial deposits and consists of sandstone and mudstone.
Aquifers in the area of the dry dam are the coarse sediments in the Little Bow River valley and sandstone bedrock
aquifers outside of the valley. Figure O1-4 in Appendix O1 presents the location of water wells in the study area
upstream of the dry dam. In general, the top of the aquifer accessed by wells completed in the surficial sediments in
the Little Bow River valley are 2.5 m below the ground surface. The bedrock aquifers are generally 19 m below
ground surface. At the dry dam location, the base of the valley is approximately 30 m below the surrounding area.
As such, the bedrock aquifers are likely intersected by the valley.
The flood water contained by the dry dam will, thus, infiltrate into the surficial aquifer within the valley and into the
bedrock aquifer exposed along the sides of the valley. This will increase the hydraulic head of the aquifers. For the
surficial aquifers, given that they are very shallow, the hydraulic head increase will likely make the aquifers artesian
causing problems with the seals in the wells. For the bedrock wells, the hydraulic head increase will dissipate with
distance from the valley (i.e. wells closer to the valley will see a bigger increase than wells more distant). At this
time, there is not enough data to quantify the hydraulic head increase in the wells.
As the surficial aquifer is recharged by the Little Bow River currently, the flood event will likely not affect the
chemistry of this aquifer. The chemistry of the bedrock aquifer will be different from the chemistry of the surficial
water, thus some mixing will occur within the aquifer. At this time, it is uncertain how much affect this will have on
the groundwater chemistry at any one location.
38
AECOM
7.
LBR2
References
AECOM (2013). Southern Alberta Flood Mitigation Feasibility Study, High River Flood Diversion (Draft Desktop
Report, Project No. 60309815 dated 2013-11-15).
AECOM (2014). High River Northern Bypass Diversion Channel. Appendix K – Geotechnical Investigation and
Assessment Report, Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force (Draft Report).
AGRA Earth and Environment (1997). Little Bow River Project Dam and Reservoir Component Design Memoranda.
Report Prepared in Association with EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. and Stanley Associates Engineering
for Alberta Public Works, Supply, and Services.
Agronomic Interpretations Working Group. (1995). Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops: 1. Springseeded small grains. Tech. Bull., Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Ottawa.
Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. (2014). Listing of Historic Resources Instructions for Use. Retrieved March 3,
2014 from: http://www.culture.alberta.ca/heritage/resourcemanagement/landuseplanning/default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2013a). Wildlife Sensitivity Maps – Data Sets.
Retrieved Dec 10, 2013, from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development:
http://srd.alberta.ca/MapsPhotosPublications/Maps/WildlifeSensitivityMaps/Default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2013b). Fisheries & Wildlife Management
Information System (FWMIS). Retrieved December 2013 from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/fwmis/default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2012). Alberta CWCS Merged Wetland
Inventory. (Government of Alberta; Ducks Unlimited Canada; Ducks Unlimited Inc.; United States Forest
Service; The PEW Charitable Trusts; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Alberta Pacific Forest
Industries Inc. (Al-Pac); Weyerhaeuser Company Limited; Suncor Energy Foundation; Imperial Oil
Resources; Lakeland Industry & Community Association (LICA); Shell Canada; EnCana Corporation;
Canadian Boreal Initiative; Environment Canada (EC); Canadian Space Agency (CSA): Funding Partners)
Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2011). Wild Species Status Search.
Retrieved from
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/GeneralStatusOfAl
bertaWildSpecies2010/SearchForWildSpeciesStatus.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2010a). Wildlife Land Use Guidelines.
Retrieved 2013, from Recommended Land Use Guidelines: Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones:
http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildlifeLandUseGuidelines/documents/WildlifeLandUseKeyWildlifeBiodiversityZones-Dec03-2010.pdf
Alberta Environment. (2006). Approved Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (Alberta).
Retrieved March 6, 2014 from: http://www.seawa.ca/reports/SSRB_Plan_Phase2.pdf
39
AECOM
LBR2
Alberta Soil Information Centre (ASIC) . (2006). Alberta Soil Names File (Generation 3), User’s Handbook. Edited by
M.D. Bock, J.A. Brierley, B.D. Walker, C.J. Thomas, P.E. Smith. Land Resource Unit, Research Branch,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
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, Food and Rural Development, Conservation and Development Branch.
Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. (2012). Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS).
List of All Tracked and Watched Elements. Alberta, Canada. Retrieved 2012, from
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/datarequests/docs/List_of_Tracked_and_Watched_Elements_20
11_MAY.xls
Alberta Transportation. (2013). Alberta Transportation Environmental Management System Manual (v.10). Retrieved
March 3, 2014 from:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType245/Production/EMSManualV10.pdf
Alberta Water Resources Commission. (1993, May). Wetland Management in the Settled Area of Alberta-- An
Interim Policy. Retrieved Jan 2012, from http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6169.pdf
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). (2013). Candidate Wildlife Species.
Retrieved December 2013, from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm
Dillon Consulting Limited. (2009). Town of High River Growth and Environmental Survey Final Report. Retrieved
March 3, 2014 from: http://www.highriver.ca/index.php/en/site-administrator/reportsandstudies#non-statutoryplans-reports-and-studies
Government of Alberta. (2013a). Alberta Wetland Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/documents/Alberta_Wetland_Policy.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013b). Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (S.A., c. E-12) Current as of
December 5, 2013. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Queen’s Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=E12.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779735495
Government of Alberta. (2013c). Natural Resources Conservation Board Act. Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/N03.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013d). Water Act (S.A. 2000, c.W-3) Current as of May 27, 2013. Alberta, Canada: Alberta
Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=w03.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779733651
Government of Alberta. (2013e). Historical Resources Act (S.A. 2000, c. H-9) Current as of June 12, 2013. Alberta,
Canada: Alberta Queen’s Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/h09.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013f). Public Lands Act (S.A. 2000, c.P-40) Current as of November 30, 2013. Alberta,
Canada: Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=P40.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779756162
40
AECOM
LBR2
Government of Alberta. (2013g). Wildlife Act (S.A. 2000, c.W-10) Current as of May 27, 2013. Alberta, Canada:
Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/w10.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013h). Wildlife Regulation. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved
2014, from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1997_143.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2014). Water Well Records from AESRD’s Water Well Information database.
Government of Alberta. (2009). Environmentally Significant Areas. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from Alberta
Tourism, Parks and Recreation: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/
Government of Canada. (2013a). Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s.52) Amended
November 25, 2013. Minister of Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C15.21.pdf
Government of Canada. (2013b). Regulations Designating Physical Activities (SOR/2012-147) Amended October
24, 2013. Minister of Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2012147.pdf
Government of Canada. (2013c). Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14) Amended on November 25, 2013. Minister of
Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf
Government of Canada. (2013d). Migratory Birds Regulations (C.R.C., c.1035) Amended on June 7, 2013. Canada.
Retrieved 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1035.pdf
Government of Canada. (2013e). Species At Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) Amended March 8, 2013. Department of
Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf
Government of Canada. (2013f). Canada-Alberta Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2005).
Retrieved March 7, 2014 from: https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=F93B8BF6-1
Government of Canada. (2012). Species at Risk Public Registry. Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm
Government of Canada. (2010a). Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22) Amended December 10,
2010. Department of Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/M-7.01.pdf
Government of Canada. (2009). Navigable Waters Protection Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-22) Amended on March 12,
2009. Minister of Justice. Retrieved December 2013, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-22.pdf
Natural Regions Committee. (2006). Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. (D. J. Downing, & W. W.
Pettapiece, Compilers) Government of Albert Publication No. T/852.
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). (2014). Retrieved from
https://www.nrcb.ca/AboutUs/Whatwedo.aspx
The Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). (2007). Retrieved from
http://www.lesaonline.org/samples/29_05_04_p1.pdf
Pattie, D., & Fisher, C. (1999). Mammals of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: Lone Pine.
41
AECOM
LBR2
Poole, A (Editor). (2005). The Birds of North America Online. Retrieved August 2013, from Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology: http:/bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/.
Prior, G.J., Hathway, B., Glombick, P.M., Pană, D.I., Banks, C.J., Hay, D.C., Schneider, C.L., Grobe, M., Elgr, R.
and Weiss, J.A. (2013): Bedrock geology of Alberta; Alberta Energy Regulator, AER/AGS Map 600, scale
1:1,000,000.
Reid, F. A. (2006). A Field Guide to Mammals of North America. (Fouth ed.). Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Sibley, D. A. (2011). The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (First ed.). New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Shetsen, I.E. 1987. Quaternary Geology of Southern Alberta, Alberta Research Council (Map 207)
Smithsonian. (2014). National Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 2014, from North American Mammals:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/search_name.cfm
Soil Classification Working Group. (1998). The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Agric. and Agri-Food Can.
Publ. 1646 (Revised).
Stebbins, R. C. (2003). A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Third ed.). Boston, New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Stokes, D. W., & Stokes, L. Q. (2013). The New Stokes Field Guide to Birds Western Region (First ed.). New York,
New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Technical Working Group (TWG) 2002. Highwood River Instream Flow Needs Final Report. Retrieved from
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/environmental-flows/documents/EFP-HighwoodRiver-InstreamFlowNeeds2002.pdf
42
AECOM
Appendix O1
Figures
LBR2
Last saved by: EROSC(2014-07-08) Last Plotted: 2014-07-08
Project Management Initials:
Filename: W:\PROJECTS-CALGARY-RAILWAY\60309815\900-WORK\910-CAD\20-SHEETS\B\FIG-00\60309815-FIG-00-0000-B-0001.DWG
Designer: JK
Checked: AA
Approved: AM
ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm
N
0
25000
50000
m
1:1000000
SOUTHERN ALBERTA FLOOD MITIGATION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALBERTA FLOOD RECOVERY TASK FORCE
Project No.: 60309815
SITE LOCATION PLAN
Figure: O1-1
LG
MS
MS
N
IO
RS
VE
DI
HIGHWAY 2
EE
UL
CO
MT
L
NA
CA
F
MS
LIT
TL
EB
OW
RIV
ER
M
DAM SITE LB1
F
F
MS
LG
MS
LEGEND
PROPOSED FLOOD DIVERSION CHANNEL
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
0
RIVER FLOW DIRECTION
STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
LITHOLOGY (MATERIAL)
LITHOGENSIS (ORIGIN OF MATERIAL)
F
FLUVIAL DEPOSITS
POORLY-TO WELL-SORTED, STRATIFIED-TO-MASSIVE SAND, GRAVEL, SILT, CLAY AND ORGANIC SEDIMENTS OCCURRING IN CHANNEL AND OVERBANK DEPOSITS. IN PLACES
INCLUDES A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS AS THESE TWO UNITS ARE INSEPARABLE AT 1 MILLION MAP
SEDIMENTS DEPOSITED BY STREAMS AND RIVERS; SYNONYMOUS WITH ALLUVIUM
LG
GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSITS
a) OFFSORE SEDIMENT; RHYTHMICALLY LAMINATED TO MASSIVE FINE SAND, SILT AND CLAY, LOCALLY DEBRIS RELEASED FROM FLOATING ICE. b) LITTORAL AND NEARSHORE
SEDIEMENTS; MASSIVE TO STRATIFIED, WELL-SORTED SILTY SAND, PEBBLY SAND AND MINOR GRAVEL.
PRIMARILY FINE-GRAINED, DISTAL SEDIMENTS DEPOSITED IN OR ALONG THE MARGINS OF GLACIAL LAKES
M
MORAINE
TILL A MIXTURE OF CLAY, SILT, SAND AND MINOR PEBBLES, COBBLES AND BOULDERS. LOCALLY, THIS UNIT MAY CONTAIN BLOCKS OF BEDROCK, PRE-EXISTING STRATIFIED
SEDIMENT AND TILL, AND/OR LENSES OF GLACIOLACUSTRINE AND/OR GLACIOFLUVIAL SEDIMENT
DIAMICTON (TILL) DEPOSITED DIRECTLY BY GLACIAL ICE
SYMBOL
MS
STAGNANT ICE MORAINE
SEDIMENT IS MAINLY TILL BUT LOCALLY INCLUDES STRATIFIED GLACIOLACUSTRINE OR GLACIOFLUVIAL SEDIMENTS
SEDIMENTS RESULTING FROM THE COLLAPSE AND SLUMPING OF ENGLACIAL AND SUPRAGLACIAL DEBRIS IN RESPONSE TO THE MELTING OF BURIED STAGNANT ICE NEAR THE
GLACIAL MARGIN. CHARACTERIZED BY LOW TO HIGH-RELIEF HUMMOCKY TOPOGRAPHY
MT
ICE-THRUST MORAINE
SEDIMENT MAY INCLUDE SYNGENETIC TILL, AS WELL AS MASSES OF PRE-EXISTING SEDIMENTS AND/OR BEDROCK
TILL FORMED FROM THE GLACIOTECTONIC DISPLACEMENT BLOCKS OR RAFTS IN A MORE OR LESS INTACT STATE. CHARACTERIZED BY HIGH TO MODERATE RELIEF
GLACIOTECTONIC MORAINES; INCLUDES HILL-HOLE PAIRS, RUBBLE MORAINE AND THRUST BLOCK MORAINE
1:80000
2000
4000
m
FEASIBILITY STUDY
HIGHWAY 23
FRANK LAKE
'S
LG
HIGH
RIVER
RANGE ROAD 291
W
H
HIG
R
IVE
DR
O
O
N
ME
WO
Designer: JK
F
N
DIVERSION
CHANNEL (LBR2)
72 STREET E.
RANGE ROAD 293
Checked: AA
Approved: AM
M
LG
Figure: O1-2
F
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
TOWNSHIP ROAD 191
AY 2A
HIGHW
ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm
LG
S
N'
DI
N
IO
RS
VE
HIGHWAY 2
EE
UL
CO
HIGHWAY 23
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
HW
HIG
HIGH
RIVER
RANGE ROAD 291
ME
WO
RIV
N
FRANK LAKE
72 STREET E.
Designer: JK
Checked: AA
Approved: AM
AY 2A
HIGHW
TKs
DIVERSION
CHANNEL (LBR2)
RANGE ROAD 293
ER
D
OO
TKw
L
NA
CA
Tph-l
LIT
TL
EB
OW
RIV
ER
DAM SITE LB1
TKw
LEGEND
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
TERTIARY
PALEOCENE
Tph-l
LOWER PORCUPINE HILLS FORMATION: pale grey. thick-bedded, cherty, calcareous sandstone; pale grey
calcareous mudstone; nonmarine.
TERTIARY AND CRETACEOUS
PALEOCENE AND UPPER CRETACEOUS
TKw
WILLOW CREEK FORMATION: pale grey, fine-grained, calcareous sandstone, thick bedded and coarse grained in
upper part; grey, green and pink bentonitic mudstone with abundant white-weathering calcareous concretions;
scattered thin limestone beds; nonmarine.
TKs
SCOLLARD FORMATION: grey feldspathic sandstone; dark grey bentonitic mudstone; thick coal beds; nonmarine.
0
1:80000
2000
4000
m
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure: O1-3
TOWNSHIP ROAD 191
Figure: O1-4
HIGHWAY 23
DIVERSION CHANNEL (LBR2)
5
FRANK LAKE
69
3+0
00
2+0
1555476
286200
286199
289555
291395
285079
41484
RS
VE
HIGHWAY 2
DI
EXISTING WATER WELL LOCATIONS
286198
RANGE ROAD 291
EE
UL
CO
O
72 STREET E.
WO
S
N'
H
HIG
A
AN
RANGE ROAD 293 ON C
I
ER
IV
DR
ME
WO
Designer: JK
1+
00
0
Checked: AA
1555746
127760
1115175
152777
147660
HIGH
RIVER
4+
32+000
L
1555749
34+000
LIT
TL
127459
39000
38+
+0
00
+0
293226
00
0
00
+
44
00
49+0
000
1610062
1555082
159442
49+191
43+
47
127452
48+000
DAM
SITE LB1
42+000
46+000
1610070
ER
0
45+00
154804
299277
RIV
41+000
OW
40+000
3
00
EB
000
37+
00
+0
0
5+
36
33+000
131934
294609
LEGEND
EXISTING WATER WELL LOCATIONS (ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - GROUNDWATER INFORMATION CENTRE)
0
1:80000
2000
4000
m
FEASIBILITY STUDY
00
296383
N
4+000
0+
00
0
1555666
1610390
166061
AY 2A
HIGHW
Approved: AM
TOWNSHIP ROAD 191
Town Of High River
LBR2 Project Area
LBR2
LBR2 Channel Extent
Little Bow River Valley
Flood Extent
LBR2 Flood Extent
720
0
720
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N
1,440
m
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Southern Alberta Flood Mitigation
Feasibility Study
LBR2 Flood Areas and Project Area
Last saved by: MAHEC (2014-07-09) Last Plotted: never
Project Management Initials: Designer:
Checked:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD PART 5\G001_60309815_01V2_SOUTHERNDIVERSIONSCHEMES.MXD
Approved:
Figure: O2-1
N
LEGEND
Marsh
Historic Resource Value
Open Water
1
2
4
5
725
0
725
1,450
m
Feasibility Study
Wetlands and Historical Resources in the
Checked:
Approved:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD PART 5\G002_60309815_01V2_WETLANDSHISTRESSOUTHDIVERSION.MXD
Figure: O2-2
N
LEGEND
Town Of High River
Alternative LBR2
Search Area
Wetlands
Figure: O2-3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
Key Wildlife Layers, Key Range Layers, and Species at Risk
Historical Wildlife Observations in the Proposed LBR2 Project Area
!
LEGEND
Town Of High River
LBR2 Project Area
Key Wildlife and
Biodiversity Zones
Avian Range
Trumpeter Swan & Piping Plover Full Extent Species at RIsk
Trumpeter Swan and
Piping Plover Waterbody
500m Piping Plover Buffer
800m Trumpeter Swan Buffer
Sharptailled Grouse and Colonial Nesting Birds
Sensitive Raptor* Range
Great Blue Heron
Sensitive Raptor Range
Peregrine Flacon
* Bald Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Golden Eagle and Prairie Flacon
725
0
725
!
!
!
!
!
1,450
m
Burrowing Owl
Ferruginous Hawk
Horned Grebe
Long-billed Curlew
Northern Leopard Frog
!
!
!
!
!
Peregrine Falcon
Piping Plover
Short-eared Owl
Trumpeter Swan
Yellow Rail
Feasibility Study
Checked:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD PART 5\G003A_60309815_01V2_KEYWILDLIFEKEYRANGEETC.MXD
Approved:
N
Checked:
Filename: P:\60309815\900-WORK\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\H\WORK FOR CALG_EDM OFFICE (KRISSY AND JAMIE KALLA)\MXD PART 5\G004_60309815_01V2_ENVSIGAREASSENSNONSEN.MXD
Town Of High River
LBR2 Project Area
Environmentally
Significant Areas (2009)
725
1,450
m
0
Environmentally Significant Areas, and Sensitive and Non-Sensitive
Element Occurrences in the Proposed LBR2 Project Area
LEGEND
Non-Sensitive EOs
Californian amaranth
Edith's Copper
Low Yellow Evening-primrose
Moss
Spatulate-leaved Heliotrope
Western False Gromwell
725
Feasibility Study
Feasibility Flood Recovery Task Force
Approved:
Figure: O2-4
N
Sensitive EOs
Western Blue Flag
Designer: JK
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
BOTTOM
CLAY
SAND AND GRAVEL
GRAVEL
TILL
SHALE
SANDSTONE
SHALE AND SANDSTONE
NOTES:
TOPSOIL
1.
SANDY CLAY
2.
SILTY CLAY
3.
4.
SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM THE ALBERTA WATER WELL RECORDS (AESRD)
INFORMATION DATABASE WEBSITE "GROUNDWATER.ALBERTA.CA/WATERWELLS/"
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS INDICATIVE ONLY. SOME ARE OFFLINE BY AS MUCH AS 500m. LOCATIONS
ARE SHOWN ON FIGURE O1-4.
R 537m = RIGHT OF CENTRELINE BY 537m.
GROUND SURFACE OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS LIDAR DEM.
0
375
0
18.75
750
m H = 1:15000
V = 1:750
37.5
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Checked: AA
1115175 - R 413m
152777 - R 418m
166061 - R 418m
1610390 - R 321m
127760 - L 166m
1555666 - R 109m
1555746
296383
Approved: AM
41484 - L 587m
285079 - L 587m
291395 - L 189m
289555 - R 138m
286199 - R 363m
286198 - L 196m
1555476 - R 537m
147660 - R 537m
286200 - R 537m
OLD
WELL
GEOLOGICAL LONGITUDINAL SECTION
PROPOSED DIVERSION CHANNEL (LBR2)
STA 0+000 TO STA 4+695
LEGEND
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE
TOP OF BERM (APPROXIMATE)
Figure: O4-1
LEGEND
SAND
CLAY
SANDY CLAY
SANDY CLAY AND SILT
SAND AND GRAVEL
TILL
SHALE
SANDSTONE
SHALE AND SANDSTONE
NOTES:
2.
3.
4.
SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM THE ALBERTA WATER WELL RECORDS (AESRD)
INFORMATION DATABASE WEBSITE "GROUNDWATER.ALBERTA.CA/WATERWELLS/"
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS INDICATIVE ONLY. SOME ARE OFFLINE BY AS MUCH AS 500m. LOCATIONS
ARE SHOWN ON FIGURE O1-4.
R 114m = RIGHT OF CENTRELINE BY 114m.
GROUND SURFACE OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS LIDAR15 DEM.
0
1250
0
62.5
2500
m H = 1:50000
V = 1:2500
125
FEASIBILITY STUDY
GRAVEL
1.
Elevation (m)
Designer: JK
127459 - R 912m
127452 - R 106m
299277 - R 114m
1610062 - L 269m
154804 - L 775m
1610070 - L 775m
1555749 - L 455m
131934
159442
1555082 - L 577m
293226 - R 134m
294609 - L 63m
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE
GEOLOGICAL LONGITUDINAL SECTION
DAM AND RESERVOIR
STA 32+000 TO 49+191
Elevation (m)
1060
1050
1040
1030
1020
1010
1000
990
980
970
960
950
940
930
920
910
900
890
880
870
860
850
Station
Checked: AA
Approved: AM
Figure: O4-2
Figure: O5-1
Approved: AM
Checked: AA
6m
EL: 1010.0 m
3
1
3m
DRAINAGE
FILTER
1
m
4.5
1.
5
1
TOPSOIL SEEDED TO GRASS
RANDOM FILL
MATERIAL
(COMPACTED TO 98% OF SPMDD)
TILL
1
SAND AND GRAVEL
RANDOM FILL
MATERIAL
IMPERVIOUS FILL
MATERIAL
1
EXISTING GROUND
EL: 988.5
PRELIMINARY DAM SECTION
RIPRAP
1
1
1
TILL
SAND AND GRAVEL
BEDROCK
BEDROCK
TYPICAL DAM CROSS SECTION (PRELIMINARY)
0
1:550
13.75
27.5
m
FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRAINAGE
BLANKET (1 m)
2m
Designer: JK
PIT RUN GRAVEL COMPACTED
TO 98% OF SPMDD
1:100 YEAR
WATER LEVEL
EL: 1006.3
AECOM
Appendix O2
Water Well Logs – AESRD
On DVD in Appendix R
LBR2
Water Well Drilling Report
The driller supplies the data contained in this report. The Province disclaims responsibility for its
accuracy. The information on this report will be retained in a public database.
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
Drilling Company Well ID
Date Report Received
127452
Well Identification and Location
Owner Name
MURASKI, SAJE
Location
1/4 or LSD
SE
Address
P.O. BOX 262 HIGH RIVER
SEC
02
1988/10/26
Measurement in Metric
TWP
018
Measured from Boundary of
m from
m from
RGE
28
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
Additional Description
4
GPS Coordinates in Decimal Degrees (NAD 83)
Latitude
50.488347
Longitude -113.741854
Elevation
m
How Location Obtained
How Elevation Obtained
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Drilling Information
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
ground level (m) Bearing
Lithology Description
Yield Test Summary
45.46 L/min
Recommended Pump Rate
Test Date
Water Removal Rate (L/min)
1.52
Sand
5.18
Gravel
Well Completion
7.62
Shale
1988/10/21
Static Water Level (m)
54.55
2.90
7.92
Sandstone
Total Depth Drilled Finished Well Depth
15.85 m
10.67
Shale
Borehole
14.33
Sandstone
15.85
Shale
Diameter (cm)
0.00
Start Date
1988/10/21
End Date
1988/10/21
From (m)
0.00
Surface Casing (if applicable)
Steel
Size OD :
14.12 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.396 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
15.85
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
5.49 m
Top at :
3.66 m
Bottom at :
15.85 m
Perforations
From (m)
3.35
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
To (m)
15.24
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
25.40
Torch
Annular Seal
Placed from
0.00 m
to
0.00 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
Contractor Certification
Name of Journeyman responsible for drilling/construction of well
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
NIEMANS DRILLING (1980) LTD.
Copy of Well report provided to owner
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:12:21 PM
Date approval holder signed
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
127452
Owner Name
MURASKI, SAJE
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
SE
1988/10/26
SEC
02
TWP
018
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.488347
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Additional Information
Distance From Top of Casing to Ground Level
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
Is Flow Control Installed
L/min
Describe
45.46 L/min
Recommended Pump Intake Depth (From TOC)
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Model (Output Rating)
Did you Encounter Saline Water (>4000 ppm TDS)
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Well Disinfected Upon Completion
Geophysical Log Taken
Submitted to ESRD
Sample Collected for Potability
Submitted to ESRD
Additional Comments on Well
Yield Test
Taken From Ground Level
Test Date
1988/10/21
Start Time
12:00 AM
Depth to water level
Static Water Level
2.90 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Method of Water Removal
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Depth Withdrawn From
54.55 L/min
9.14 m
If water removal period was < 2 hours, explain why
Water Diverted for Drilling
Water Source
Amount Taken
Diversion Date & Time
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:12:21 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
127459
Owner Name
MURASKI, SAJE
Location
1/4 or LSD
NE
Address
P.O. BOX 262
SEC
02
1988/10/26
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
28
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.495600
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
3.35
Sandy Clay & Rocks
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
1988/06/20
30.78
7.01
Clay & Rocks
Well Completion
8.23
Sandstone
18.90
Shale
112.78 m
19.81
Sandstone
Borehole
25.30
Shale
26.82
Shale & Sandstone
27.43
Shale
28.35
Sandstone
46.02
Shale
47.24
Sandstone
53.64
Shale
55.17
Sandstone
55.47
Sandstone
57.61
Shale
58.22
Sandstone
64.92
Shale
66.45
Sandstone
74.98
Shale
77.42
Sandstone
79.55
Shale
80.16
90.53
4.55
Diameter (cm)
0.00
End Date
1988/06/20
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
14.12 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1988/06/18
0.396 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
112.78
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
7.01 m
Top at :
3.35 m
Bottom at :
80.77 m
Perforations
From (m)
28.96
To (m)
77.72
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
20.32
Saw
Annular Seal Pushed
Placed from
0.00 m
to
4.57 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Sandstone
Hard Shale & Sandstone
108.51
112.78
Screen Type
Sandstone
Size OD :
Shale
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:05:50 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
127459
Owner Name
MURASKI, SAJE
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 262
1/4 or LSD
NE
1988/10/26
SEC
02
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
28
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.495600
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
1988/06/20
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
30.78 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
4.55 L/min
80.77 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:05:50 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
131934
Owner Name
HIGH RIVER COLONY
Location
1/4 or LSD
12
Address
GEN DEL, HIGH RIVER
SEC
33
1982/11/12
TWP
017
RGE
27
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.479126
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Stock
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
31.82 L/min
Test Date
1.52
Clay
3.35
Sand & Gravel
Well Completion
7.01
Shale
12.80
Shale & Sandstone Ledges
91.44 m
38.10
Borehole
56.69
Sandstone
61.57
71.63
Shale
81.08
Sandstone
91.44
1982/09/03
34.10
2.13
Diameter (cm)
0.00
End Date
1982/09/03
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
14.12 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1982/09/01
0.396 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
91.44
Well Casing/Liner
Steel
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.000 cm
4.57 m
Top at :
0.00 m
Bottom at :
85.34 m
Perforations
From (m)
9.14
36.58
67.06
To (m)
13.72
48.77
73.15
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.000
0.000
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
25.40
0.00
0.00
Torch
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
0.00 m
to
4.27 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/22/2014 8:52:04 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
131934
Owner Name
HIGH RIVER COLONY
Location
Address
GEN DEL, HIGH RIVER
1/4 or LSD
12
1982/11/12
SEC
33
TWP
017
RGE
27
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.479126
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
31.82 L/min
79.25 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS SOFT WATER
Yield Test
Test Date
1982/09/03
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
2.13 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
34.10 L/min
85.34 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/22/2014 8:52:04 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
154804
Owner Name
CALFET HLDG LTD/WESTVIEW
FARMS
Location
1/4 or LSD
SW
1991/03/13
Address
SEC
03
TWP
018
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1B0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.488337
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
11.58
Clay
19.81
Shale
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
1991/02/26
22.86
Well Completion
31.09
71.63 m
32.00
Sandstone
Borehole
33.53
Shale
40.23
Sandstone
41.76
Shale
43.59
Sandstone
21.64
Gray Sandstone
52.73
58.22
Sandstone
60.35
Shale
64.31
Sandstone
71.63
Black Shale
4.55
Diameter (cm)
0.00
End Date
1991/02/26
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
14.12 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1991/02/25
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
71.63
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
6.10 m
Top at :
4.57 m
Bottom at :
71.63 m
Perforations
From (m)
35.05
59.44
To (m)
41.15
71.63
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.000
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
15.24
0.00
Machine
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
0.00 m
to
6.10 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
0.00 cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Amount
Grain Size
0.00
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
GOODISON WATER WELL DRILLING
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:02:15 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
154804
Owner Name
CALFET HLDG LTD/WESTVIEW
FARMS
Location
1/4 or LSD
SW
1991/03/13
Address
SEC
03
TWP
018
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1B0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.488337
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
1991/02/26
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
22.86 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Bailer & Air
Removal Rate
4.55 L/min
0.00 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
GOODISON WATER WELL DRILLING
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:02:15 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555082
Owner Name
PLAMER, GEORGE
Location
1/4 or LSD
NE
Address
BOX 241
SEC
32
TWP
017
Town
VAUXHALL
RGE
27
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T0K 2K0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.480900
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
8.23
10.36
Sandy Clay & Rocks
Gray Shale
Yield Test Summary
13.64 L/min
Test Date
2005/07/23
10.91
Well Completion
24.38
Shale & Sandstone
32.00
Shale
97.54 m
65.53
Shale & Sandstone
Borehole
67.06
Blue Sandstone
76.20
Blue Gray Shale & Sandstone
83.82
Blue Coarse Grained Sandstone
97.54
Blue Shale
19.55
Diameter (cm)
20.00
End Date
2005/07/23
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.83 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
2005/07/21
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
97.54
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.630 cm
9.07 m
Top at :
6.10 m
Bottom at :
97.54 m
Perforations
From (m)
48.77
79.25
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.318
To (m)
67.06
85.34
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
20.32
20.32
Saw
Annular Seal Driven & Bentonite
Placed from
0.00 m to
9.07 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:29:05 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555082
Owner Name
PLAMER, GEORGE
Location
Address
BOX 241
1/4 or LSD
NE
SEC
32
Town
VAUXHALL
TWP
017
RGE
27
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T0K 2K0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.480900
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
45.72 cm
L/min
Describe
13.64 L/min
94.49 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
BOREHOLE DIAMETER - 7.875" & 6",
Yield Test
Test Date
2005/07/23
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
10.91 m
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
10.91
11.81
12.67
13.36
13.90
14.30
14.71
15.14
15.54
15.76
16.01
16.63
18.80
19.18
19.69
20.32
20.92
21.34
21.98
23.36
24.84
24.92
29.54
31.80
34.12
19.55 L/min
94.49 m
Recovery (m)
37.31
30.87
29.97
29.42
28.74
28.07
27.48
26.86
26.24
25.69
24.25
23.42
22.35
20.59
19.09
17.96
17.22
16.63
15.71
15.08
14.18
14.11
14.06
14.00
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:29:05 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555749
Owner Name
BECKER, GARTH
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
Address
P.O. BOX 5767
SEC
09
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
28
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1P3
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.510100
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
1.83
Clay & Rocks
Yield Test Summary
22.73 L/min
Test Date
2007/12/11
5.38
3.05
Brown Shale
Well Completion
3.66
Brown Shale & Sandstone
4.57
Brown Shale
60.96 m
5.79
Brown Sandstone
Borehole
6.40
Gray Shale & Sandstone
14.02
Gray Shale
15.54
Gray Sandstone
21.03
Gray Shale & Sandstone Ledges
22.86
Gray Sandstone
26.52
Gray Shale
27.43
34.75
Gray Shale
35.66
Gray Sandstone
42.06
45.72
Gray Interbedded Shale & Sandstone Ledges
60.96
43.19
Diameter (cm)
22.23
End Date
2007/11/08
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
21.91 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
2007/11/07
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
60.96
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
3.81 m
Top at :
3.05 m
Bottom at :
33.53 m
Perforations
From (m)
4.57
15.24
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.318
To (m)
7.62
22.86
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
15.24
15.24
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
3.81 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 4:52:50 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555749
Owner Name
BECKER, GARTH
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 5767
1/4 or LSD
NW
SEC
09
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
28
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1P3
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.510100
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
76.20 cm
L/min
Describe
22.73 L/min
24.38 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
4. 200' ALSO THIN SHALE & SANDSTONE LAYERS.
BOREHOLE DIAMETER 8.75" FOR CASING & 5.25" FOR LINER. WATER FOR DRILLING FROM NE-6-19-28-W4 2007/11/07 08:00 400 GALS.
FLOW RATE - 0-90 MINUTES 9.5 GPM, 90-120 MINUTES 7.5 GPM.
Yield Test
Test Date
2007/12/11
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
5.38 m
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
5.38
6.25
6.80
Removal Rate
43.19 L/min
24.38 m
9.70
10.09
10.44
10.76
11.04
11.51
11.93
12.43
12.79
13.38
14.05
14.54
15.06
16.20
17.82
22.77
23.50
23.50
23.50
MEASUREMENTS TAKEN FROM TOP OF CASING.
Recovery (m)
23.50
15.27
13.64
12.45
11.71
10.99
10.32
9.77
9.27
8.80
7.99
7.31
6.84
6.25
5.88
5.67
5.56
5.50
5.45
5.43
5.41
5.39
5.38
5.38
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 4:52:50 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
159442
Owner Name
HIGH RIVER COLONY
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
Address
HUTTERIAN BRETHREN CHURCH,
HIGH RIVER
SEC
33
1991/11/05
TWP
017
RGE
27
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1B0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.480934
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
2.13
Sandy Clay & Rocks
Yield Test Summary
54.55 L/min
Test Date
54.55
25.91
1991/09/06
54.55
25.91
2.74
Sandstone
4.88
Shale
Well Completion
5.79
Shale & Sandstone
7.01
Shale
121.92 m
7.62
Shale & Sandstone
Borehole
9.14
Shale
10.67
Sandstone
11.89
Shale
13.11
Sandstone
21.64
Shale
1991/09/06
Diameter (cm)
0.00
End Date
1991/09/06
From (m)
0.00
Plastic
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1991/09/02
0.800 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
121.92
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.630 cm
4.88 m
23.47
Shale & Sandstone
24.99
Sandstone
28.04
29.26
Sandstone
31.70
Shale
33.22
Sandstone
37.80
Shale
53.34
Sandstone
Perforated by
59.44
Shale & Sandstone
60.35
Sandstone
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
0.00 m
Top at :
2.44 m
Bottom at :
98.45 m
Perforations
From (m)
36.58
54.86
91.44
To (m)
48.77
67.06
97.54
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.000
0.000
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
20.32
0.00
0.00
Saw
to
4.88 m
Amount
62.48
Shale
63.70
Shale & Sandstone
72.54
Sandstone
81.08
Shale
87.78
Sandstone
Size OD :
96.93
Shale
From (m)
98.76
Sandstone
109.73
Shale
Attachment
121.92
Top Fittings
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Amount
Grain Size
0.00
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/22/2014 8:45:04 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
159442
Owner Name
HIGH RIVER COLONY
Location
Address
HUTTERIAN BRETHREN CHURCH,
HIGH RIVER
1/4 or LSD
NW
1991/11/05
SEC
33
TWP
017
RGE
27
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1B0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.480934
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
54.55 L/min
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
1991/09/06
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
25.91 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Bailer
Removal Rate
54.55 L/min
0.00 m
Yield Test
Test Date
1991/09/06
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
25.91 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
54.55 L/min
98.45 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/22/2014 8:45:04 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1610062
Owner Name
BLANCHARD, RANDY
Location
1/4 or LSD
SE
Address
23017-126 AVE
SEC
03
TWP
018
Town
MAPLE RIDGE
RGE
28
m from
m from
Province
BC
Country
CA
Postal Code
V2X 4P4
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
WEST WELL
Latitude
50.488200
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
2.13
6.71
18.29
Brown Sandy Clay & Silt
Sandy Gravel & Boulders
Yield Test Summary
68.19 L/min
Test Date
2004/06/11
136.38
2.49
Well Completion
18.29 m
Start Date
2004/06/09
End Date
2004/06/10
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
22.23
From (m)
0.00
Plastic
Size OD :
15.24 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.940 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
18.29
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
7.62 m
Top at :
6.10 m
Bottom at :
18.29 m
Perforations
From (m)
4.88
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
To (m)
13.72
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
17.78
Saw
Annular Seal Bentonite Chips/Tablets
Placed from
0.00 m to
4.88 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
PETER NIEMANS
Certification No
3631AD
Company Name
PETER NIEMANS WATER WELL DRILLING
Printed on 5/21/2014 4:58:30 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1610062
Owner Name
BLANCHARD, RANDY
Location
Address
23017-126 AVE
1/4 or LSD
SE
SEC
03
TWP
018
Town
MAPLE RIDGE
RGE
28
m from
m from
Province
BC
Country
CA
Postal Code
V2X 4P4
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
WEST WELL
Latitude
50.488200
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
45.72 cm
L/min
Describe
68.19 L/min
9.14 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
BOREHOLE DIAMETER ALSO 5.125 INCHES.
ADDITIONAL YIELD TEST: JUNE 10/04 W/RIG AIR(OPEN FLOW) @ 60 GPM FROM 60 FT FOR 1.5 HRS.
Yield Test
Test Date
2004/06/11
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
2.49 m
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
30:00
60:00
90:00
120:00
2.49
2.74
2.77
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.81
2.82
2.83
2.84
2.86
Removal Rate
136.38 L/min
9.14 m
Recovery (m)
2.86
2.59
2.57
2.54
2.51
2.49
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
PETER NIEMANS
Certification No
3631AD
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 4:58:30 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1610070
Owner Name
STRACK, KARL
Location
1/4 or LSD
SW
Address
P.O. BOX 5 SITE 3, RR 2
SEC
03
TWP
018
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
CAYLEY
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T0L 0P0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.488200
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
6.82 L/min
Test Date
2.44
Sandy Clay & Sand
8.53
Brown Clay & Rocks
Well Completion
9.45
Brown Shale
2004/10/29
18.50
9.75
Brown Sandstone
88.39 m
10.97
Brown Shale
Borehole
33.53
Gray Shale
34.14
Gray Sandstone
39.01
Gray Shale
40.23
Gray Sandstone
64.62
68.88
Gray Sandstone
73.15
Gray Shale
81.69
Gray Shale
82.30
Gray Sandstone
88.39
Gray Shale
9.09
Diameter (cm)
20.32
End Date
2004/10/27
From (m)
0.00
Plastic
Size OD :
15.24 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
2004/10/25
0.940 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
88.39
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
9.14 m
Top at :
6.10 m
Bottom at :
73.15 m
Perforations
From (m)
35.05
64.01
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.318
To (m)
41.15
70.10
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
17.78
17.78
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
30.48 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
PETER NIEMANS
Certification No
3631AD
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:03:25 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1610070
Owner Name
STRACK, KARL
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 5 SITE 3, RR 2
1/4 or LSD
SW
SEC
03
TWP
018
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
CAYLEY
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T0L 0P0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.488200
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
40.01 cm
L/min
Describe
6.82 L/min
68.58 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
BOREHOLE DIAMETER WAS ALSO 5.125 INCHES.
TEST HOLE FROM 240 TO 290 FT WITH A 4 INCHES BOREHOLE DIAMETER (NO MORE WATER) FILLED WITH BENTONITE BACK UP TO 240.
ADDITIONAL YIELD TEST: OCT 27/04 W/RIG AIR(OPEN FLOW)@ 2.5 GPM FROM 73 M FOR 3 HRS.
Yield Test
Test Date
2004/10/29
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
18.50 m
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
18.50
20.79
21.68
22.05
22.42
22.80
23.10
23.42
23.74
24.05
24.38
24.97
25.55
26.07
27.13
28.25
29.29
30.25
31.13
32.61
33.91
35.65
36.98
38.25
39.50
Removal Rate
9.09 L/min
70.00 m
Recovery (m)
39.50
36.96
35.15
34.50
34.07
33.50
33.07
32.50
32.07
31.51
31.22
30.40
29.51
28.75
28.20
27.11
26.02
24.68
23.50
22.22
21.54
20.80
20.31
19.94
19.65
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
PETER NIEMANS
Certification No
3631AD
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:03:25 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
293226
Owner Name
JONES, BRIAN
Location
1/4 or LSD
08
Address
SEC
36
2000/01/19
TWP
017
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1B3
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.475200
Elevation
m
Differential corrected handheld GPS 5-10m
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
0.91
Sandy Clay
1.52
Gravel
3.05
Sandy Clay
6.40
Fine Grained Sand & Gravel
8.84
Till
9.45
Shale
10.06
Soft Sandstone
10.97
Shale
11.89
Sandstone
15.54
Thin Shale & Sandstone Ledges
Yield Test Summary
45.46 L/min
Test Date
1999/11/10
181.84
3.81
Well Completion
15.54 m
Start Date
1999/11/09
End Date
1999/11/10
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
15.54
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.630 cm
9.14 m
Top at :
3.05 m
Bottom at :
15.54 m
Perforations
From (m)
4.57
5.79
To (m)
7.01
9.14
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.000
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
38.10
0.00
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
4.27 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:24:33 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
293226
Owner Name
JONES, BRIAN
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
08
2000/01/19
SEC
36
TWP
017
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1B3
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.475200
Elevation
m
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
45.46 L/min
12.19 m
Pump Installed Yes
Depth
Type SUB
Make
m
H.P. 1
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS DISTANCE FROM TOP OF CASING TO GROUND LEVEL: 2'. SH TRAP @ 14' & FILLED WITH BENTONITE. SH TRAP WITH BEVEL AT 31'. 055 MIN 45 GPM, 55-120 MIN 40 GPM.
Yield Test
Test Date
1999/11/10
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.81 m
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
120:00
3.81
4.88
5.03
5.18
5.33
5.49
5.64
5.79
5.94
6.10
6.10
6.17
6.17
6.32
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.55
6.63
6.71
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
181.84 L/min
13.72 m
Recovery (m)
5.26
5.03
5.03
4.95
4.88
4.88
4.88
4.88
4.80
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.65
4.57
4.57
4.50
4.42
4.27
4.11
3.96
4.19
3.81
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:24:33 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
294609
Owner Name
COUTTS, JIM
Location
1/4 or LSD
SE
Address
31 LOWTHER, ONT
SEC
36
2000/09/09
TWP
017
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.473689
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
2.44
Sandy Clay & Rocks
14.33
Sandy Clay & Rocks
Yield Test Summary
22.73 L/min
Test Date
2000/08/21
7.92
Well Completion
16.76
Shale
21.03
Shale & Sandstone
45.72 m
24.69
Sandstone
Borehole
32.92
36.58
45.72
Sandstone
34.10
Diameter (cm)
0.00
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
End Date
2000/08/18
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
14.12 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
2000/08/17
To (m)
45.72
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.556 cm
17.37 m
Top at :
14.94 m
Bottom at :
45.72 m
Perforations
From (m)
22.86
To (m)
39.62
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
25.40
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
17.37 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/26/2014 2:04:55 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
294609
Owner Name
COUTTS, JIM
Location
Address
31 LOWTHER, ONT
1/4 or LSD
SE
2000/09/09
SEC
36
TWP
017
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.473689
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
22.73 L/min
42.67 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS DISTANCE FROM TOP OF CASING TO GROUND LEVEL: 2.5'.
Yield Test
Test Date
2000/08/21
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
8.05
11.40
13.98
15.96
17.78
19.19
20.75
22.25
23.21
23.89
24.13
26.13
27.61
29.20
31.89
34.35
34.90
35.30
35.70
35.84
35.37
35.29
35.21
35.17
35.17
Static Water Level
7.92 m
34.10 L/min
42.67 m
Recovery (m)
30.50
28.14
25.01
22.40
19.65
17.30
16.17
15.10
14.21
13.48
13.05
12.78
12.49
11.91
11.48
11.21
10.99
10.69
10.42
10.11
9.79
9.61
9.52
9.43
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/26/2014 2:04:55 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
299277
Owner Name
AKITT, BRUCE
Location
1/4 or LSD
05
Address
SEC
02
1986/08/11
TWP
018
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.491000
Elevation
m
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic & Stock
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
1.83
Sandy Clay
6.40
12.19
Gravel
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
1986/07/18
295.50
3.66
Well Completion
12.19 m
Start Date
1986/07/18
End Date
1986/07/18
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
From (m)
0.00
Plastic
Size OD :
13.97 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.673 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
12.19
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
6.40 m
Top at :
4.57 m
Bottom at :
12.19 m
Perforations
From (m)
3.96
To (m)
12.19
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.000
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
0.00
Saw
Annular Seal Gravel Pack
Placed from
0.00 m
to
0.00 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:19:21 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
299277
Owner Name
AKITT, BRUCE
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
05
1986/08/11
SEC
02
TWP
018
RGE
28
m from
m from
Town
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.491000
Elevation
m
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
OWNER REPORTED ON DEC 5 01 THAT WELL AT SW-2 NOT NW-2.
Yield Test
Test Date
1986/07/18
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.66 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
295.50 L/min
0.00 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 5:19:21 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1115175
Owner Name
ROCHER, EMILE
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 5696
1/4 or LSD
NE
SEC
34
2009/05/25
TWP
18
m from
m from
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
Province
ALBERTA
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1M7
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Cable Tool
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
0.30
Gray Sandy Clay
6.40
Gravel & Boulders
7.01
21.64
Yes
24.38
27.28 L/min
Test Date
2009/04/13
27.28
4.61
Well Completion
Blue See Comments Shale & Sandstone
24.38 m
24.38 m
Light Gray Water Bearing Sandstone
Borehole
Cemented Gravel
17.98
Yield Test Summary
Diameter (cm)
19.05
13.97
Gray Shale
End Date
2009/04/13
From (m)
0.00
6.55
Steel
Size OD :
16.84 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
2009/04/07
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
6.55
24.38
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
6.55 m
Top at :
6.10 m
Bottom at :
24.38 m
Perforations
From (m)
15.24
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.792
To (m)
22.86
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
0.79
Machine
Placed from
0.00 m to
6.40 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
Driven
At (m)
6.40
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
WILLIAM F BAKER
Certification No
VA3657
Company Name
BAKER WATER WELLS
Yes
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:37:01 AM
2009/04/13
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1115175
Owner Name
ROCHER, EMILE
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 5696
1/4 or LSD
NE
2009/05/25
SEC
34
TWP
18
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
ALBERTA
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1M7
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
91.44 cm
L/min
Describe
27.28 L/min
22.86 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
LITH: 23' - 59' ALSO LIGHT GRAY SANDSTONE STRIPS. CASING HAS PLAIN END. RECOMMENDED PUMP RATE 6 - 8 IGPM.
Yield Test
Taken From Top of Casing
Test Date
2009/04/13
Start Time
1:30 PM
Drawdown (m)
Type Bailer & Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
5.53
5.72
5.81
5.87
5.92
5.97
6.02
6.06
6.09
6.12
6.15
6.19
6.23
6.26
6.30
6.35
6.37
6.39
6.42
6.45
6.47
6.50
6.51
6.53
6.53
Removal Rate
Static Water Level
4.61 m
27.28 L/min
22.86 m
BAILED @ 8 IGPM FROM 60'.
Recovery (m)
6.53
6.26
6.14
6.05
5.94
5.88
5.82
5.80
5.77
5.75
5.72
5.69
5.67
5.66
5.64
5.63
5.62
5.61
5.61
5.61
5.60
5.59
5.59
5.59
5.58
Water Source
TURNER VALLEY TOWN WATER
Amount Taken
1363.83
L
WILLIAM F BAKER
Certification No
VA3657
Company Name
BAKER WATER WELLS
Yes
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:37:01 AM
2009/04/13
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
127760
Owner Name
HAZEN, LLOYD
Location
1/4 or LSD
12
1982/02/08
Address
SEC
34
TWP
018
m from
m from
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.566541
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
Deepened
Proposed Well Use
Domestic & Stock
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
4.27
Old Well
6.40
Gravel
Well Completion
8.23
Clay
10.67
Shale
12.19 m
12.19
Sandstone
Borehole
1981/01/25
3.96
Diameter (cm)
0.00
Start Date
1981/01/18
End Date
1981/01/25
From (m)
0.00
To (m)
12.19
Size OD :
0.00 cm
Well Casing/Liner
Steel
Size OD :
Wall Thickness :
0.000 cm
Wall Thickness :
Bottom at :
0.00 m
14.12 cm
0.396 cm
Top at :
0.00 m
Bottom at :
7.92 m
Perforations
From (m)
3.66
To (m)
7.92
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
30.48
Torch
Annular Seal Loose
Placed from
0.00 m
to
0.00 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:09:06 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
127760
Owner Name
HAZEN, LLOYD
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
12
1982/02/08
SEC
34
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.566541
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
7.62 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
1981/01/25
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.96 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Unknown
Removal Rate
L/min
0.00 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:09:06 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
147660
Owner Name
MONTEITH, JOHN#3164
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
1997/07/31
Address
P.O. BOX 1 SITE 18 RR1, DE
WINTON
SEC
35
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 0X0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568336
Elevation
m
Field
Survey-Air
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
2.44
Yellow Sandy Clay
6.40
Gravel
7.62
Yellow Sand
9.14
Gray Hard Sandstone
15.24
Coarse Grained Sandstone
23.47
Blue Shale
24.38
Gray Hard Sandstone
Yield Test Summary
45.46 L/min
Test Date
1997/05/06
45.46
6.10
Well Completion
24.38 m
Start Date
1997/05/05
End Date
1997/05/06
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
24.38
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.531 cm
7.62 m
Top at :
6.10 m
Bottom at :
24.38 m
Perforations
From (m)
12.19
To (m)
24.38
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.478
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
15.24
Saw
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
7.01 m
to
7.62 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
AARON DRILLING INC.
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:58:43 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
147660
Owner Name
MONTEITH, JOHN#3164
Location
Address
WINTON
1/4 or LSD
NW
1997/07/31
SEC
35
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 0X0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568336
Elevation
m
Field
Survey-Air
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
45.46 L/min
18.29 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
WATER ANALYSIS TDS
400 IRON 0.5 HARD
11
Yield Test
Test Date
1997/05/06
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:01
0:02
0:03
0:04
0:05
0:06
0:07
0:08
0:09
0:10
0:15
0:20
0:25
0:30
0:40
0:50
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
5.82
5.82
5.82
5.98
6.01
6.01
6.01
6.01
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
Removal Rate
Static Water Level
6.10 m
45.46 L/min
0.00 m
Recovery (m)
5.80
5.80
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
6.09
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
AARON DRILLING INC.
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:58:43 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
152777
Owner Name
ROCHER, EMILE
Location
1/4 or LSD
NE
Address
SEC
34
1990/09/25
TWP
018
m from
m from
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568349
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
0.61
Clay
6.71
Sand & Gravel
Well Completion
10.67
Shale
11.58
Sandstone
38.40 m
12.80
Shale
Borehole
13.72
Sandstone
14.94
Shale
16.76
Sandstone
19.81
Shale
20.42
Sandstone
25.91
Shale
30.18
Shale & Sandstone
31.70
Shale
35.36
Shale & Sandstone
38.40
Shale
1990/09/01
36.37
4.57
Diameter (cm)
0.00
End Date
1990/09/01
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1990/09/01
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
38.40
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
6.71 m
Top at :
5.49 m
Bottom at :
38.40 m
Perforations
From (m)
12.19
To (m)
35.05
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
25.40
Saw
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
6.71 m
to
7.01 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
0.00 cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Amount
Grain Size
0.00
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:17:42 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
152777
Owner Name
ROCHER, EMILE
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
NE
1990/09/25
SEC
34
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568349
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
1990/09/01
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
4.57 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
36.37 L/min
0.00 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:17:42 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555476
Owner Name
TOWN OF HIGH RIVER
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
Address
309B, MACLEOD TRAIL, SW
SEC
35
TWP
018
m from
m from
RGE
29
Town
HIGH RIVER
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1Z5
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
Test Hole
Proposed Well Use
Municipal
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
L/min
Test Date
2.44
Clay
7.62
Sand & Gravel
Well Completion
8.53
Clay
16.15 m
13.11
16.15
Sand & Gravel
Gray Shale
2003/12/23
954.68
5.02
Start Date
2003/12/19
End Date
2003/12/22
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
15.24
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.83 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.556 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
16.15
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.655 cm
7.39 m
Top at :
0.00 m
Bottom at :
15.24 m
Perforations
From (m)
8.53
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.152
To (m)
11.58
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
5.72
Machine
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
0.00 m
to
7.39 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
Screen Type
At (m)
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
From (m)
8.53
To (m)
11.58
Slot Size (cm)
0.152
Attachment Unknown
Top Fittings Unknown
Bottom Fittings Unknown
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
CHAD NIEMANS
Certification No
46340A
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 10:09:52 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555476
Owner Name
TOWN OF HIGH RIVER
Location
Address
309B, MACLEOD TRAIL, SW
1/4 or LSD
NW
SEC
35
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
HIGH RIVER
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1Z5
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
38.10 cm
L/min
Describe
L/min
m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
PROPOSED WELL USE TOWN SUPPLY, ATTN. PETER SAWICKI.
Yield Test
Test Date
2003/12/23
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
120:00
5.02
5.43
5.44
5.44
5.44
5.45
5.45
5.46
5.46
5.46
Removal Rate
Static Water Level
5.02 m
954.68 L/min
9.14 m
Recovery (m)
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
CHAD NIEMANS
Certification No
46340A
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 10:09:52 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555666
Owner Name
BENNETT, CLAUDIA
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
Address
P.O. BOX 6062
SEC
34
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1P7
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
0.30
Topsoil
4.57
Sand & Gravel
Yield Test Summary
22.73 L/min
Test Date
2007/05/21
3.66
Well Completion
9.45
Brownish Gray Shale & Sandstone
41.45 m
11.89
Gray Shale
Borehole
37.19
41.45
8.84
Gray Shale
23.64
Diameter (cm)
20.00
End Date
2007/05/20
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
14.13 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
2007/05/19
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
41.45
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
8.69 m
Top at :
4.57 m
Bottom at :
41.45 m
Perforations
From (m)
13.72
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
To (m)
36.58
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
17.78
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
8.69 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:01:59 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555666
Owner Name
BENNETT, CLAUDIA
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 6062
1/4 or LSD
NW
SEC
34
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1P7
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
91.44 cm
L/min
Describe
22.73 L/min
38.10 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
BOREHOLE DIAMETER 7.875" FOR CASING & 5.125" FOR LINER, WATER FOR DRILLING FROM NE-6-19-28-W4 2007/05/19 09:00 600 GALLONS, FLOW RATE
= 0-15 MINS 5.2 GPM, 15-25 MINS 6.6 GPM, 25-40 MINS 7.5 GPM, 40-75 MINS 8.9 GPM, 75-120 MINS 14.3 GPM.
Yield Test
Test Date
2007/05/21
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.66 m
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
3.66
4.67
4.96
5.14
5.25
5.32
5.38
5.46
5.51
5.56
5.60
5.67
5.73
6.05
6.30
6.48
6.55
7.30
7.53
7.85
8.43
12.59
16.55
17.67
18.34
Removal Rate
23.64 L/min
38.10 m
MEASUREMENTS FROM TOP OF CASING
Recovery (m)
18.34
14.29
11.11
9.59
8.48
7.95
7.66
7.48
7.34
7.21
7.11
6.93
6.79
6.66
6.45
6.24
6.06
5.93
5.80
5.59
5.43
5.21
5.06
4.99
4.95
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:01:59 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555746
Owner Name
MARLEY, JEFF
Location
1/4 or LSD
NE
Address
P.O. BOX 6078
SEC
33
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1P7
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
0.61
Topsoil
5.49
Sand & Gravel
9.45
10.67
Gray Shale
Yield Test Summary
68.19 L/min
Test Date
2007/11/13
68.19
3.58
Well Completion
10.67 m
Start Date
2007/11/09
End Date
2007/11/10
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
20.00
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
14.13 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
10.67
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
5.79 m
Top at :
4.57 m
Bottom at :
10.67 m
Perforations
From (m)
4.57
4.57
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.635
0.318
To (m)
10.36
10.36
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
30.48
20.32
Saw
Annular Seal Shale Trap & Bentonite
Placed from
0.00 m to
3.05 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 10:22:04 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1555746
Owner Name
MARLEY, JEFF
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 6078
1/4 or LSD
NE
SEC
33
TWP
018
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
AB
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1P7
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568300
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
60.96 cm
L/min
Describe
68.19 L/min
7.62 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
PERFORATIONS ALSO WITH TORCH.
BOREHOLE DIAMETER 7.875" FOR CASING & 5.125" FOR LINER.
WATER FOR DRILLING FROM NE-6-19-28-W4 2007/11/09/09:00 400 GALS.
Yield Test
Test Date
2007/11/13
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.58 m
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
120:00
3.58
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
Removal Rate
68.19 L/min
9.14 m
Recovery (m)
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.59
3.58
3.58
3.58
3.58
3.58
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
BILL NIEMANS
Certification No
VA5635
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 10:22:04 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1610390
Owner Name
GORSCHE, DR. RON
Location
1/4 or LSD
14
Address
P.O. BOX 5580
SEC
34
TWP
18
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
ALBERTA
Country
CA
Postal Code
T1V 1M6
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568200
Elevation
m
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
3.66
Sandy Clay & Gravel
Yield Test Summary
20.46 L/min
Test Date
25.00
3.41
2007/09/27
20.46
3.41
6.10
Gray Shale
7.32
Gray Sandstone
Well Completion
9.14
Gray Shale
10.06
Gray Sandstone
59.44 m
15.85
Gray Shale
Borehole
16.46
Gray Sandstone
22.56
Gray Shale
23.77
Gray Sandstone
26.21
Gray Shale
26.82
Gray Sandstone
27.74
Gray Shale
29.26
Gray Sandstone
39.01
Gray Shale
40.23
Gray Sandstone
56.69
59.44
Gray Shale
2007/09/25
Diameter (cm)
20.00
End Date
2007/09/25
From (m)
0.00
Plastic
Size OD :
15.24 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
2007/09/24
0.991 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
59.44
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
6.10 m
Top at :
4.88 m
Bottom at :
59.44 m
Perforations
From (m)
27.43
48.77
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.318
To (m)
30.48
56.69
Perforated by
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
17.78
17.78
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
6.10 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type Unknown
Amount
Grain Size
Unknown
DOUG NIEMANS
Certification No
70092A
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:03:00 AM
Page: 1 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1610390
Owner Name
GORSCHE, DR. RON
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 5580
1/4 or LSD
14
SEC
34
TWP
18
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
HIGH RIVER
Province
ALBERTA
Country
CA
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568200
Elevation
m
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
Postal Code
T1V 1M6
59.99 cm
L/min
Describe
20.46 L/min
54.86 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
4. 12' ALSO SAND & BOULDERS.
BOREHOLE DIAMETER 7.875" FOR CASING & 5.125" FOR LINER.
WATER FOR DRILLING FROM TOWN OF HIGH RIVER 2007/09/24 08:00 1000 GALS.
YIELD TEST WITH AIR @ 5.5 GPM FOR 2 HRS, YIELD TEST WITH PUMP @ 4.5 GPM FOR 2 HRS.
DOUG NIEMANS
Certification No
70092A
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:03:00 AM
Page: 2 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
1610390
Owner Name
GORSCHE, DR. RON
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 5580
1/4 or LSD
14
SEC
34
TWP
18
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
ALBERTA
Country
CA
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568200
Elevation
Not Obtained
Start Time
12:00 AM
m
Yield Test
Test Date
2007/09/25
Postal Code
T1V 1M6
Static Water Level
3.41 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
25.00 L/min
59.44 m
TEST RUN FOR 2 HRS.
Yield Test
Test Date
2007/09/27
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
3.41
4.36
4.68
4.75
4.84
4.92
5.01
5.11
5.23
5.35
5.40
5.49
5.58
5.70
5.82
5.96
6.03
6.20
6.31
6.40
6.42
6.43
6.45
6.46
6.47
Removal Rate
Static Water Level
3.41 m
20.46 L/min
55.00 m
TEST RUN FOR 2 HRS.
Recovery (m)
6.47
5.52
5.23
5.20
5.17
5.14
5.09
5.01
4.90
4.79
4.65
4.50
4.39
4.31
4.20
4.11
4.06
4.02
3.99
3.95
3.92
3.89
3.87
3.85
3.83
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
DOUG NIEMANS
Certification No
70092A
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:03:00 AM
Page: 3 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
166061
Owner Name
ROCHER, EMILE
Location
1/4 or LSD
NE
Address
SEC
34
1992/05/21
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1B0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568349
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic & Stock
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
1.22
Silt
6.40
Gravel
Well Completion
8.23
Shale
16.76
50.29 m
17.68
Sandstone
Borehole
18.29
Shale & Sandstone
24.99
26.52
Shale
29.87
Sandstone
30.78
Shale & Sandstone
36.27
36.88
Shale
42.06
Sandstone & Shale Ledges
44.81
Sandstone
45.42
Shale
46.63
48.16
Shale
49.68
Sandstone
50.29
Shale
1992/03/24
54.55
3.66
Diameter (cm)
0.00
End Date
1992/03/24
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1992/03/23
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
50.29
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.544 cm
7.32 m
Top at :
5.18 m
Bottom at :
48.77 m
Perforations
From (m)
27.43
To (m)
44.20
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
25.40
Saw
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
0.00 m
to
6.40 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
0.00 cm
From (m)
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Amount
Grain Size
0.00
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:11:26 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
166061
Owner Name
ROCHER, EMILE
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
NE
1992/05/21
SEC
34
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1B0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568349
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
45.72 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
1992/03/24
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.66 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
54.55 L/min
48.77 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:11:26 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
285079
Owner Name
MACKLIN, PETER/SHIELA
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
Address
RR2, NANTON
SEC
25
1996/09/05
TWP
018
m from
m from
Town
RGE
29
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1R0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.553781
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
1.83
Clay
1996/08/30
54.55
3.66
2.44
Gravel
1996/08/30
227.30
3.66
3.05
Sand
Well Completion
6.40
Gravel
20.42 m
10.97
20.42
Sandstone
Fractured Sandstone
Start Date
1996/07/26
End Date
1996/07/26
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
20.42
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
7.01 m
Top at :
6.40 m
Bottom at :
15.54 m
Perforations
From (m)
9.75
To (m)
15.24
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
15.24
Saw
Placed from
1.52 m to
7.01 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:47:57 PM
Page: 1 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
285079
Owner Name
Location
Address
RR2, NANTON
1/4 or LSD
NW
1996/09/05
SEC
25
TWP
018
Town
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 1R0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.553781
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
1996/08/30
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
4:00
6:00
8:00
10:00
14:00
20:00
30:00
40:00
60:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
3.76
3.96
4.07
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.18
4.20
4.19
4.20
4.20
54.55 L/min
10.97 m
Yield Test
Test Date
1996/08/30
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.66 m
Recovery (m)
4.18
4.19
4.19
4.19
4.19
4.19
4.18
4.18
3.84
3.77
Static Water Level
3.66 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
227.30 L/min
0.00 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:47:57 PM
Page: 2 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
285079
Owner Name
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
Address
RR2, NANTON
SEC
25
m from
m from
1996/09/05
TWP
018
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.553781
Elevation
Postal Code
T0L 1R0
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:47:57 PM
Page: 3 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
286198
Owner Name
FAULBERT, MAURICE
Location
1/4 or LSD
SW
1997/03/06
Address
HIGH RIVER
SEC
35
TWP
018
m from
m from
Town
RGE
29
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.561104
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
45.46 L/min
Test Date
1.52
Silty Clay
3.35
Gravel
Well Completion
4.88
Sand
1997/02/20
68.19
5.06
8.53
Gravel
13.41 m
10.36
Till
Borehole
13.41
Shale
Diameter (cm)
0.00
End Date
1997/02/05
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1997/02/04
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
13.41
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
9.14 m
Top at :
7.32 m
Bottom at :
13.41 m
Perforations
From (m)
6.71
To (m)
12.80
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
15.24
Saw
Annular Seal Other
Placed from
0.00 m
to
9.14 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/26/2014 2:03:09 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
286198
Owner Name
FAULBERT, MAURICE
Location
Address
HIGH RIVER
1/4 or LSD
SW
1997/03/06
SEC
35
TWP
018
Town
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
Country
Postal Code
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.561104
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
45.46 L/min
9.14 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS DISTANCE FROM TOP OF CASING TO GROUND LEVEL: 2.5'.
Yield Test
Test Date
1997/02/20
Start Time
1:12 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
6:00
8:00
10:00
12:00
16:00
20:00
30:00
40:00
60:00
75:00
105:00
120:00
150:00
210:00
240:00
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.17
Removal Rate
Static Water Level
5.06 m
68.19 L/min
12.19 m
Recovery (m)
5.16
5.15
5.15
5.14
5.13
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.10
5.10
5.09
5.08
5.08
5.07
5.07
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/26/2014 2:03:09 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
286199
Owner Name
MONTEITH, JOHN
Location
Address
WINTON
1/4 or LSD
11
1996/10/23
SEC
35
TWP
018
30.48 m from South
4.27 m from East
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 0X0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.564994
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
0.91
2.44
Topsoil
Sandy Clay
Yield Test Summary
36.37 L/min
Test Date
1996/10/10
5.43
Well Completion
17.37
Brown Sandstone
48.77 m
21.34
Black Shale
Borehole
28.96
Gray Sandstone
6.40
Gravel
32.00
Shale
35.36
Gray Hard Sandstone
48.77
Shale & Sandstone
45.46
Diameter (cm)
0.00
0.396 cm
Bottom at :
End Date
1996/10/09
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1996/10/07
To (m)
48.77
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.635 cm
12.19 m
Top at :
3.05 m
Bottom at :
47.24 m
Perforations
From (m)
25.91
To (m)
44.81
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
25.40
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
12.19 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
WALKER DRILLING LTD.
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:11:19 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
286199
Owner Name
MONTEITH, JOHN
Location
Address
WINTON
1/4 or LSD
11
1996/10/23
SEC
35
TWP
018
RGE
29
30.48 m from South
4.27 m from East
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T0L 0X0
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.564994
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
36.37 L/min
30.48 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS DISTANCE FROM TOP OF CASING TO GROUND LEVEL: 20 CM.
Yield Test
Test Date
1996/10/10
Start Time
2:23 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
7.40
8.80
10.00
11.20
12.30
13.20
14.20
15.10
15.90
16.60
17.90
18.90
19.60
20.80
21.70
22.30
22.70
22.98
23.35
23.50
23.70
23.85
24.00
24.08
Removal Rate
Static Water Level
5.43 m
45.46 L/min
35.05 m
Recovery (m)
20.00
18.60
16.30
14.60
11.90
10.90
10.20
9.50
9.00
8.20
7.70
7.30
7.00
6.80
6.72
6.60
6.20
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
WALKER DRILLING LTD.
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:11:19 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
286200
Owner Name
HARRISON, KEN
Location
1/4 or LSD
NW
1997/03/06
Address
35 SHEPPARD RD, HIGH RIVER
SEC
35
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1H1
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568336
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
1.52
Silty Clay
Yield Test Summary
22.73 L/min
Test Date
1997/01/17
27.28
4.88
8.84
Sand & Gravel
Well Completion
14.02
Shale
17.98
Shale & Sandstone
30.18 m
20.12
Sandstone
Borehole
25.60
Shale & Sandstone
30.18
Diameter (cm)
0.00
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
End Date
1997/01/08
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
Start Date
1997/01/06
To (m)
30.18
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.655 cm
13.41 m
Top at :
11.58 m
Bottom at :
30.18 m
Perforations
From (m)
18.29
To (m)
25.91
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
15.24
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
13.41 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:59:38 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
286200
Owner Name
HARRISON, KEN
Location
Address
35 SHEPPARD RD, HIGH RIVER
1/4 or LSD
NW
1997/03/06
SEC
35
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1H1
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568336
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
22.73 L/min
25.91 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS DISTANCE FROM TOP OF CASING TO GROUND LEVEL: 2'.
Yield Test
Test Date
1997/01/17
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
4.96
6.92
7.61
8.19
8.67
9.05
9.40
9.71
9.98
10.22
10.44
10.81
11.12
11.35
11.73
12.09
12.36
12.60
12.79
13.03
13.22
13.43
13.60
13.75
13.91
Static Water Level
4.88 m
27.28 L/min
27.43 m
Recovery (m)
11.83
10.59
10.01
9.63
9.31
9.02
8.77
8.55
8.35
8.18
7.88
7.64
7.45
7.14
6.86
6.68
6.51
6.39
6.20
6.08
5.95
5.85
5.78
5.71
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 9:59:38 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
289555
Owner Name
FAUBERT, MARK
Location
1/4 or LSD
SE
Address
SEC
35
1998/06/26
TWP
018
m from
m from
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1M6
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.561104
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
Yield Test Summary
45.46 L/min
Test Date
1.83
Clay & Rocks
10.06
Gravel
Well Completion
12.19
Shale
12.19 m
1998/05/12
68.19
5.49
Start Date
1998/05/06
End Date
1998/05/06
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.478 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
12.19
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.630 cm
6.10 m
Top at :
1.52 m
Bottom at :
9.75 m
Perforations
From (m)
6.10
To (m)
9.75
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
12.70
Saw
Annular Seal Driven
Placed from
0.00 m
to
6.10 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:20:58 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
289555
Owner Name
FAUBERT, MARK
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
SE
1998/06/26
SEC
35
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1M6
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.561104
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
45.46 L/min
6.10 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS DISTANCE FROM TOP OF CASING TO GROUND LEVEL: 2'.
Yield Test
Test Date
1998/05/12
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
4:00
6:00
10:00
20:00
30:00
60:00
90:00
120:00
5.50
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.53
5.53
Static Water Level
5.49 m
68.19 L/min
7.62 m
Recovery (m)
5.50
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:20:58 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
291395
Owner Name
CLARK, WADE
Location
Address
RR2, HIGH RIVER
1/4 or LSD
16
1999/04/16
SEC
26
TWP
018
6.10 m from North
21.34 m from East
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1N2
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.557357
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
4.88
Clay & Boulders
Yield Test Summary
27.28 L/min
Test Date
1999/04/08
3.87
8.53
Gray Shale
Well Completion
8.84
Gray Sandstone
15.54
Gray Shale
24.38 m
16.76
Sandstone
21.34
Shale
22.25
Sandstone
24.38
Gray Shale
34.10
Start Date
1999/04/06
End Date
1999/04/07
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
From (m)
0.00
Plastic
Size OD :
15.24 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.940 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
24.38
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
5.18 m
Top at :
4.27 m
Bottom at :
24.38 m
Perforations
From (m)
7.62
15.54
To (m)
9.14
22.25
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.000
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
17.78
0.00
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
3.66 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:26:10 PM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
291395
Owner Name
CLARK, WADE
Location
Address
RR2, HIGH RIVER
1/4 or LSD
16
1999/04/16
SEC
26
TWP
018
RGE
29
6.10 m from North
21.34 m from East
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1N2
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.557357
Elevation
m
Map
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
27.28 L/min
15.24 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
DRILLER REPORTS DISTANCE FROM TOP OF CASING TO GROUND LEVEL: 0.2 M.
Yield Test
Test Date
1999/04/08
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
4:00
10:00
20:00
60:00
90:00
120:00
3.90
3.93
3.94
3.96
3.97
3.97
3.97
4.00
4.02
Removal Rate
Static Water Level
3.87 m
34.10 L/min
21.34 m
Recovery (m)
4.02
3.93
3.92
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:26:10 PM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
296383
Owner Name
BIBAULT, KEVIN
Location
1/4 or LSD
NE
2001/07/04
Address
P.O. BOX 5023
SEC
33
TWP
18
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
ALBERTA
Country
CANADA
Postal Code
T1V 1N3
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568339
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
1.52
Silty Clay
Yield Test Summary
9.09 L/min
Test Date
2001/04/27
3.60
4.57
Sand & Gravel
Well Completion
7.01
Shale
48.77 m
10.97
15.54
17.68
Thin Shale & Sandstone
Shale
Shale
48.77
Start Date
2001/04/24
End Date
2001/04/25
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
Thin Shale & Sandstone
18.59
15.00
From (m)
0.00
Steel
Size OD :
16.81 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.457 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
48.77
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
12.70 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.630 cm
0.00 m
Top at :
4.27 m
Bottom at :
47.55 m
Perforations
From (m)
7.32
13.72
28.96
To (m)
10.36
16.76
38.10
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
0.000
0.000
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
20.32
0.00
0.00
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
5.49 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/20/2014 11:10:19 AM
Page: 1 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
296383
Owner Name
BIBAULT, KEVIN
Location
Address
P.O. BOX 5023
1/4 or LSD
NE
2001/07/04
SEC
33
TWP
18
Town
HIGH RIVER
RGE
29
m from
m from
Province
ALBERTA
Country
CANADA
Postal Code
T1V 1N3
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.568339
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
76.20 cm
L/min
Describe
9.09 L/min
44.20 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
FROM 55-75 MIN PUMP SLOWED UP, IT FLOWED @ 2 GPM.
Yield Test
Test Date
2001/04/27
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
Removal Rate
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
40:00
50:00
60:00
75:00
90:00
105:00
120:00
3.60
4.31
5.34
6.52
7.60
8.63
9.69
10.20
11.00
11.92
12.42
13.81
15.01
16.14
18.19
20.24
21.76
23.12
24.27
25.27
22.72
20.50
24.83
26.90
28.13
Static Water Level
3.60 m
15.00 L/min
45.72 m
Recovery (m)
24.53
22.10
20.12
19.20
18.31
17.36
16.55
15.68
14.82
13.27
11.88
10.58
8.66
7.14
6.32
5.87
5.58
5.23
5.00
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/20/2014 11:10:19 AM
Page: 2 / 2
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
41484
Owner Name
HOWIE, JIM
Location
Address
1619 SUNSHINE WAY, HIGH RIVER
1/4 or LSD
NW
2002/11/19
SEC
25
TWP
018
m from
m from
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1S9
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.553791
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Method of Drilling
Rotary
Type of Work
New Well
Proposed Well Use
Domestic
Formation Log
Depth from
Water
1.83
Silty Clay
10.97
Sand & Gravel
15.85
Blue Gray Shale
Yield Test Summary
0.00 L/min
Test Date
2002/09/10
63.65
3.90
2002/09/04
113.65
3.90
Well Completion
15.85 m
Start Date
2002/09/04
End Date
2002/09/04
Borehole
Diameter (cm)
0.00
From (m)
0.00
Plastic
Size OD :
15.24 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.940 cm
Bottom at :
To (m)
15.85
Well Casing/Liner
Plastic
Size OD :
11.43 cm
Wall Thickness :
0.602 cm
11.28 m
Top at :
9.75 m
Bottom at :
15.85 m
Perforations
From (m)
6.10
To (m)
13.72
Perforated by
Diameter or
Slot
Width(cm)
0.318
Slot
Length(cm)
Hole or Slot
Interval(cm)
17.78
Saw
Placed from
0.00 m to
6.10 m
Amount
Other Seals
Type
At (m)
Screen Type
Size OD :
From (m)
0.00 cm
To (m)
Slot Size (cm)
Attachment
Top Fittings
Bottom Fittings
Pack
Type
Grain Size
Amount
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:47:02 PM
Page: 1 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
41484
Owner Name
HOWIE, JIM
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
NW
2002/11/19
SEC
25
TWP
018
RGE
29
m from
m from
Town
Province
Country
Postal Code
T1V 1S9
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.553791
Elevation
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
Is Artesian Flow
Rate
cm
L/min
Describe
0.00 L/min
0.00 m
Pump Installed
Depth
Type
Make
m
H.P.
Depth
m
Gas
Depth
m
Submitted to ESRD
Submitted to ESRD
Yield Test
Test Date
2002/09/10
Start Time
12:00 AM
Drawdown (m)
Type Pump
63.65 L/min
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
12:00
20:00
25:00
30:00
35:00
90:00
105:00
3.91
3.95
3.96
Removal Rate
3.97
13.11 m
3.98
3.98
3.99
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.02
Yield Test
Test Date
2002/09/04
Start Time
12:00 AM
Static Water Level
3.90 m
Recovery (m)
4.02
3.97
3.95
3.94
3.93
3.92
3.91
3.91
Static Water Level
3.90 m
Drawdown (m)
Elapsed Time
Minutes:Sec
Recovery (m)
Type Air
Removal Rate
113.65 L/min
15.85 m
Water Source
Amount Taken
L
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:47:02 PM
Page: 2 / 3
View in Imperial
Export to Excel
GIC Well ID
GoA Well Tag No.
41484
Owner Name
HOWIE, JIM
Location
Address
1/4 or LSD
NW
SEC
25
2002/11/19
TWP
018
m from
m from
RGE
29
Town
Province
Country
W of MER
Lot
Block
Plan
4
Latitude
50.553791
Elevation
Postal Code
T1V 1S9
m
Not Verified
Not Obtained
UNKNOWN NA DRILLER
Certification No
1
Company Name
Printed on 5/21/2014 2:47:02 PM
Page: 3 / 3
AECOM
Appendix O3
Slope Stability Analysis Results
LBR2
P:\60309815\400-Technical\404 Geotechnical\Desktop Study LBR2\Appendix P3\Stability analysis Figures - Appendix O3.xls
Name: Randam Fill
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 32 °
Name: Sand&Gravel
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 34 °
Name: Till
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 30 °
Name: Clay Core
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 4 kPa
Phi: 30 °
Printed: 7/11/2014, 9:25 AM
Elevation (m) (x 1000)
1.020
Crest
El. 1010 m
1.015
Sand and Gravel
1.010
1.96
Reservoir El. 1006.3 m
1.005
1
1.000
4.5
4.5
1
1
Random Fill
0.995
Name: Bed Rock
Model: Bedrock (Impenetrable)
Name: Filter
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 32 °
1
1
Clay Core1
Toe El. 988.5 m
0.990
Clay Till
0.985
0.980
Bedrock
0.975
0.970
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Distance (m)
PROJECT:
South Alberta Flood Mitigation Feasibility Study
TITLE:
Preliminary Stability Analysis for Steady State Condition
Dam Side slope 4.5H: 1V
CLIENT:
DATE:
JOB No.:
June 2014
60309815
DESIGN BY:
AYA
CHECK BY:
AM
FIGURE No.:
FIGURE O3-1
REV.
A
Nam e: Randam Fill
Model: Mohr-Coulom b
Unit Weight: 19 kN/m ³
Cohes ion: 0 kPa
Phi: 32 °
Piezom etric Line: 1
Add Weight: No
Nam e: Clay Core
Cohes ion: 4 kPa
Phi: 30 °
B-bar: 0.3
Add Weight: No
Printed: 7/11/2014, 9:25 AM
Nam e: Filter
Cohes ion: 0 kPa
Phi: 32 °
Add Weight: No
Nam e: Sand&Gravel
Cohes ion: 0 kPa
Phi: 34 °
Add Weight: No
Nam e: Till
Cohes ion: 0 kPa
Phi: 30 °
B-bar: 0.2
Add Weight: No
1.020
Cres t
El. 1010 m
Sand and Gravel
1.015
Nam e: Bed Rock
Model: Bedrock (Im penetrable)
B-bar: 0.2
Add Weight: No
1.010
Piezom etric Line
Res ervoir El. 1006.3 m
1.005
1.3
4.5
1
1.000
0.995
4.5
1
1
1
Random Fill
1
1
Clay Core
Toe El. 988.5 m
0.990
Clay Till
0.985
0.980
2m
Bedrock
0.975
0.970
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Distance (m)
PROJECT:
TITLE:
Preliminary Stability Analysis for End of Construction
Condition- Dam Side slope 4.5H: 1V
CLIENT:
DATE:
JOB No.:
June 2014
60309815
DESIGN BY:
AYA
CHECK BY:
AM
FIGURE No.:
FIGURE O3-2
REV.
A
Nam e: Randam Fil l
M odel : M ohr-Coul om b
Unit We ight: 19 kN/m³
Cohesi on: 0 kPa
Phi: 32 °
Piezom etri c Li ne: 1
Nam e: Clay Core
Cohesi on: 4 kPa
Phi: 30 °
Printed: 7/11/2014, 9:25 AM
Nam e: Fi lter
Nam e: Bed Rock
M odel : M ohr-Coul om b M odel : Bedrock (Im penetrabl e)
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m³ Piezom etri c Li ne: 1
Cohesi on: 0 kPa
Phi: 32 °
Nam e: Sand&Gravel
Cohesi on: 0 kPa
Phi: 34 °
Nam e: T il l
Unit We ight: 19 kN/m³
Cohesi on: 0 kPa
Phi: 30 °
Piezom etri c Li ne
1.020
Piezom etri c Li ne
1.015
1.3
Crest
El. 1010 m
1.010
1.005
1
1.000
0.995
4.5
4.5
1
1 Clay
Random Fil l
Sand and Gravel
1
1
1
Co re
T oe El . 988.5 m
0.990
Clay T i l l
0.985
0.980
Bedrock
0.975
0.970
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Distance (m)
PROJECT:
TITLE:
Preliminary Stability Analysis for Rapid Drawdown Condition
Dam Side slope 4.5H: 1V
CLIENT:
JOB No.:
DATE:
June 2014
60309815
DESIGN BY:
AYA
CHECK BY:
AM
FIGURE No.:
FIGURE O3-3
REV.
A
AECOM
LBR2
Appendix O4
Statement of Justification for Historical Resources Act Requirements
for Projects Other than Small-Scale Oil and Gas
Statement of Justification for Historical Resources Act Requirements
for projects other than small-scale oil and gas
This document contains sensitive information about Historic Resources that are protected under
provisions of the Alberta Historical Resources Act. This information is to be used to assist in planning the
proposed project only. It is not to be disseminated, and no copies of this document are to be made
without written permission of Historic Resources Management Branch, Alberta Culture.
Project Name or Project Identifier:
Little Bow River Diversion Alternative 2
Disposition Type & Number
Name: Walt Kowal
Corporate name of consulting company: The Archaeology Group
Address: 2526 Bell Court S.W.
Edmonton, Alberta
T6W 1J8
Phone number: (780) 438-4262
Fax number: (780) 439-4285
E-mail address: [email protected]
Name of proponent contact: Syed Abbas, P.Eng., Project Manager
Corporate name of proponent: Flood Recovery Task Force
Address: J.G. O’Donoghue Building
7000 – 113 Street NW
Edmonton, Alberta
Tel. (780) 903-659
E-mail:
Name of agent: Krissy Bird
Corporate name of proponent: AECOM
Address: 17007 – 107 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5S 1G3
Phone number: (780) 486-7630
Fax number: (780) 486-7070
E-mail address: [email protected]
Lands Affected
Legal Description
LSD’s 1 to 16 Sections 31 & 32-17-27-W4M
LSD’s 1 to 16 Section 36-17-28-W4M
LSD’s 1,2,9-16 Section 3-18-28-W4M
LSD’s 9,10,15,16 Section 4-18-28-W4M
HRV
Identifier
5 (p)
5 (p)
5 (p)
4 & 5 (a)
5 (a)
5 (p)
5 (p)
5 (p)
High Palaeontolgical Sensitivity
EcPk-19 and EcPk-20
EcPk-19 and EcPk-20
LSD’s 9,10,15,16 Section 17-18-28-W4M
LSD’s 1,2,7 to 16 Section 20-18-28-W4M
LSD’s 3-6,11-14 Section 21-18-28-W4M
LSD’s 3-6,11,12 Section 31-18-28-W4M
LSD’s 9,10,15,16 Section 24-18-29-W4M
LSD’s 1,2,7 to 16 Section 26-18-29-W4M
LSD’s 9,10,15,16 Section 33-18-29-W4M
5 (p)
5 (p)
5 (p)
4
4
N/A
N/A
4 & 5 (a)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 & 5 (a)
4 & 5 (a)
5 (a)
N/A
1, 2 (h)
5 (a)
EdPk-45
EdPk-45
N/A
N/A
EdPk-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
EdPl-10, EdPl-12, EdPl 50, EdPl59, EdPl-60
EdPl-12, EdPl-35 to 38
EdPl-35 to 38
N/A
CPR Station, High River Town
Office, Former Nurses Residence,
Museum of the Highwood, The
Lemuel Sexsmith Residence
EdPl-12
Activity type and Anticipated Ground Disturbance
The Little Bow River Diversion Alternative 2 (approximately 25 kilometre long ) is to be
constructed along the Little Bow River and connect to the Highwood River southwest of
the town of High River. The bypass would be designed to divert water from upstream to
a proposed diversion around the west and north sides of the town of High River where it
would be re-introduced to the Highwood river immediately downstream of High River.
The construction of the Little Bow River Diversion Alternative 2 will require land clearing,
excavation, and landscaping/stabilization, and it will result in significant ground surface
disturbance (see Figures 1 and 2).
Project size: Approximately 500 ha.
Existing Disturbance
Previous cultivation, road construction, and infrastructure emplacements.
Landscape and Environmental Information
The proposed project is in the Foothills Fescue Ecoregion of Alberta’s Grassland Natural
Region which is characterized by hummocky and rolling to undulating mainly morainal
terrain with significant lacustrine deposits. Soil is mainly black Chernozems except
for Gleysols in wetland areas. Native grasslands are Mountain rough fescue on
moister sites, and western wheatgrass on drier sites and wet areas are often
shrubby.
Archaeological Sites in Vicinity = EcPk-1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; EdPk-1, 3, 4,
6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 39, 42, 45, 48; EdPl-1, 10, 12, 13, 17 to 27, 32 to 38, 49, 50,
52, 54, 56, 59, 60 (see Figure 3)
Archaeological Sites Impacted = EdPl-1, EdPl-12, EdPk-4, EdPk-10, EdPk-15, EdPk-20,
EdPk-21, EdPk-42, EdPk-43, EdPk-45, EcPk-1, EcPk-5 (Mosquito Creek Outpost – RCMP),
EcPk-10, EcPk-16, EcPk-17, EcPk-18, EcPk,19, EcPk-20 (see Figure 3)
Historic Sites in Vicinity = None
Historic Sites Impacted = None
Registered Historic Structures in Vicinity = None
Registered Historic Structures Impacted = None
Previous Permits in Impact Area = Glenbow 1958, Glenbow 1962, 81-102, 84-040, 85080, 86-027, Trace 1991, 95-039, 95-086, 98-059, 99-156, 04-128, 04-256
Previous Permits in Vicinity: U of C 1970, Wilson 1975 and 1976, 77-008, ASA CRM 056,
81-102, 81-139, 84-040, 85-028, 85-080, 86-027, 88-001, 88-058, 88-087, 88-098, 89-035, Trace
1991, 91-080, 95-072, 96-052, 98-059, 05-295, 06-083, 11-079
Illustrative Materials
Figure 1.
Map showing the project location (after 1:50,000 NTS Maps 82-I/05 – Nanton
and 82 I/12 – High River).
Figure 2.
Satellite photo showing the area of impact for the Little Bow River Diversion
Alternative 2 Footprint (AECOM Draft Map).
Figure 3.
Map showing the location of previously located Historical Resources sites in
the project vicinity (after 1:50,000 NTS Maps 82-I/05 – Nanton and 82 I/12 –
High River).
Evaluation
The proposed Little Bow River Diversion Alternative 2 project extends from the Little Bow
River southeast of High River in Section 32-18-27-W4M and goes northwest following
the Little Bow River valley and crossing prairie level land at the northern end and ending
at the Highwood River southwest of the town of High River in Section 2-19-29-W4M.
Much of the proposed project will impact previously cultivated lands that have been
cultivated right up to the valley edge.
Fifty-seven Historical Resources sites have been previously recorded within 2.5
kilometres of the project area, and 18 have been found within the project search zone
(Figure 3). Of these, only sites EcPk-10, 16, 17, and 19; EdPl-12 appear to be in the
construction impact zone for the diversion project.
HRIA surveys were conducted in parts of the proposed impact zone by the Glenbow
Museum in 1958 and 1962 and under Archaeology Permits 81-102, 84-040, 85-080, 86027, Trace 1991, 95-039, 95-086, 98-059, 99-156, 04-128, 04-256.
Most of the Historical Resources sites found in the project search area are located along
or near the Little Bow River, on its flood plain or by other hydrologic features, and since
the northern end of the proposed diversion will be at the Highwood River it is suggested
that there is high potential for the presence of undisturbed Historical Resources sites
along all of the proposed diversion. The Significant Sites Listing shows that most of the
project lands are considered to have either archaeological potential or palaeontological
potential (see above for areas assigned HRV=4 and 5).
Few archaeological assessment studies have been done within the proposed project
lands, but a number of Historical Resources sites have been recorded in the past within
and in the vicinity of the project area. The presence of these sites plus similar
environmental features within the study area as those found in the previously located site
areas suggest that archaeological and palaeontological assessments appear warranted
for much or all of the project impact area.
Recommendations (Recommendations regarding archaeological resources must be made by
a professional archaeologist.)
Archaeological and palaeontological assessments (HRIA’s) are recommended for the
proposed Little Bow River Diversion Alternative 2 project area.
Recommendations made by:
Date:
June 11, 2014
Walt Kowal
N
Lit t le Bow River
Diversion Alt ernat ive 2
Dam
Alt ernat ive LBR2
Search Area
Figure 1.
Map showing the project location (after 1:50,000 NTS Maps 82-I/05 – Nanton and 82 I/12 – High River).
Figure 2.
Satellite photo showing the area of impact for the Little Bow River Diversion Alternative 2 Footprint (AECOM Draft Map).
Figure 3.
Map showing the location of previously located Historical Resources sites in the project vicinity (after 1:50,000 NTS Maps 82-I/05 –
Nanton and 82 I/12 – High River).

Appendix O - AEP - Government of Alberta

Transcription

Similar documents

SILVERTIPAREASTRUCTUR EPLAN Canmore, Alberta October

Certificate of Registration Xact Spec Industries LLC

Diagraphy drilling and geophysical logging

Certificate of Registration Xact Spec Industries LLC

RVDA of Alberta`s RV Learning Weekend

Case Study - Precision Drilling

· ··Certi!icati~"Botty.

Environment Challenges of Building and Maintaining Transmission

`Polar Bear`- Urecon Corporate Overview

Rathole Services - Express Energy Services