Full text of "Guidelines for the approval and design of natural and constructed treatment wetlands for water quality improvement"

See other formats

DRAFT

GUIDELINES FOR THE APPROVAL AND DESIGN
OF NATURAL AND CONSTRUCTED TREATMENT
WETLANDS FOR WATER qAwITy
IMPROVE

v \ Vs

\ . -V Lk

- '

FEBRUARY 1998

Standards and Guidelines Branch
Environmental Assessment Division
Environmental Service

Pub. No.: T/397

ISBN: 0-7785-0017-9

More information regarding the “Guidelines for the Appeal and Design of Natural and
Constructed Treatment of Wetlands for Water Qua! ^Wf^^menf , may be obtained
by contacting:

Standards & Guidelines Branch

Environmental Assessment Division

Environmental Service

Alberta Environmental Protection,

6th Floor, 9820 - 1 06th Street j, ?*/

Edmonton, Alberta

T5K2J6

Phone: (4Q3) 427-6102% f /

jxW • ■*:

'IIP

, -N -

Primary Contact;, ^

Ka ru C hfriniati \ ' ^

Standards lirid Guide I i n es Branch :
Alberta Environmental Protection
6th Floors 9820 - 106* Stmet %
Edmonton, Albert^lS?ISl^
T5Ki)6

Foreword and Acknowledgements

Use of wetlands for water quality improvement is increasingly popular. This manual contains
guidelines for the evaluation, design and operation of natural and constructed treatment wetlands
for water quality improvement. The guidelines are intended to assist both the regulator and the
designer. To the regulator, they are a means of specifying certain requirements Jpfrc are considered
critical in the evaluation and the approval of wetlands for water qj|y|y irf?ovement. To the
designer, they provide useful guidance as to what the regulator :erms of the overall

design of the facility.

ruary J

fgjjHfs from

This manual is considered a draft/working document fof^ne year
During this period, Alberta Environmental Protection w|il f>e pleas
users of the document. The final version of the manual wSkbe .Dp5lished in Mai

The document was prepared by CH2M Gore & Storrie Unilbcf^der contract. We wish to thank
CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited for developing a fairly cQinpf©hefl$iye report under a very limited
budget. <£/ * 'oS*

Alberta Environmental Protection also formed an^^j^ory / Group to provide guidance

and direction in the development of the document We acknowledge^With gratitude, the following
who participated in the process:

Chinniah, Karu
Lang, Pat
Lungle, Ken
Rayner, Marilyn
Stewart, Gary

^SV.V.V.V.'.V.V.'

Williams, Larry

Environmental >|gsessmeg|Divi^qriT. Afofe&a Environmental Protection

Environme

Divisiqf, Alberta Environmental Protection

- Wildlife Mandgemer^; division, Alberta Environmental Protection

- ResObrc^/Data Division, Alberta Environmental Protection

- Dtfcka yli^ited

Regi&^at Services, Alberta Environmental Protection

^ :

csi co Tt

Contents

Section

Forward and Acknowledgements

1. Introduction.

Approach

Questionnaire.

Preliminary Feasibility of Treatment Wetlands j

Natural Wetlands

Surface Flow (SF) Constructed Wetlands
Subsurface Flow (SSF) Constructed Wetlands .Jp|

5. Guidelines for Functions to be Evaluated foi\AppFOv|l of Candidate

Site for T reatment Wetland .

6. Design

Constructed Treatment Wetlands Design

Natural Treatment Wetlands Design ' • • S’.

Treatment Wetlands: Design Considera|^ft$i|;i^

Treatment Wetlands Operation
Capital, Operation, and Maintenan^Costs^

Public Participation .Jjjf. XiX

Page

Appendices

• • :#

A Wetland Applications^ i / /.

• \ o:' •' t .. ...

B Example Calculation Tables for SF 'ilftPSF Wetlands

X:.- • • • : -X ; X

C References foe Wetland Evalu^ion Guidelines and Other Appendices

D PotentiaT^vi^ and Mitigating Measures

E Rare#lahTS]^ciesJ7:X "r

F < landscape Types and localities Potentially Indicative of Significant Plant Species
G / / Habitat Matrix for^reieding Fishes, Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals of

Alberta

^Significant Animal Species of Alberta

Anootatedsibliography for Wetland Evaluations

ods to Design and Construct Wetland Systems
Questions and Concerns that Have Been Raised About Wetlands

PAGE II

Tables

Number Page

3. 1 Description of Candidate Wastewater T reatment Wetland - Alberta 3-2

4.1 Alberta Environmental Protection - Wetlands Guidelines: Surface Fit
Treatment Wetland - Preliminary Feasibility Calculation Sheet...

4.2 Alberta Environmental Protection - Wetlands Guidelin^pmibsu

Flow (SSF) Treatment Wetland - Preliminary Feasibil^^culatio^^Nf^f^'^. 4-3 J

4.3 Summary of North American Treatment Wetland 0|^ational ipPTormahl
for Systems Receiving Municipal and Industrial Wa^t^y.gter::^rfd Stormwat*

(Kadlec and Knight, 1996) V— — .'^v^.4-5

4.4 Average Livestock Treatment Wetland Performance of BOD5,

TSS, NH4-N, and TN (Knight, Payne, Pries, B o re r XSfa r ke\1 997) < > k, 4-6

5.1 Summary Sheet for Evaluation of Ecological

Site (check appropriate boxes after complying eyal

Figures

Number

Ik,

i h

Page

1-1 Preliminary ByaluatiSi|^i$#Chart for Approval of Constructed

Wetlands Imph^ement 2-2

.Ik

m v

PAGE III

1. Introduction

Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) occasionally receives requests from municipalities and
consultants to use natural wetland areas such as marshes, swamps, and sloughs for polishing
of treated municipal wastewater. There has also been considerable interest in the use of
constructed treatment wetlands for water quality improvement. This manual wa^ prepared to
provide standardized guidelines for the approval of candidate treatment wetlanpiites by the
Alberta Environmental Protection Regional Services Engineers and toj^vide^sign guidance
to agencies and consultants for natural and constructed wgilands f^|®tpvater polishing. A
brief description of several potential wetland applications is'^sente^^A|^pJ^ix A.

This manual is not intended to be a comprehensive ^j^ument, sii^lt covers uch a wide
spectrum of information related to treatment wetlandd\ Several volumes Wbuid be heeded to
fully cover each topic. It is, however, intended to provide to the AEP a means\f sj50c|^ng the
requirements that are considered necessary for the Iflatment or polishing of ’Wife water in
constructed or natural treatment wetlands. The manual also provides municipalities and
consultants with an outline of the expectations of the AEP in terms of overall system design and
in terms of procedures that must be followed in selecting wetlands for the treatment or polishing
of wastewater. \

win De requirea ai ine ounei ot ine wetiaj|ps.

To provide the maximum protection fbr natgspT wetlands "that are under consideration for
conversion to treatment wetlands* the" hydraulic and nprient loading to the wetland will be
minimized to reduce the poterirff for n strive impacts on the wetland. The wastewater
treatment plant discharge to^he Zetland will be., required to consistently meet tertiary or high
quality secondary effluent standards before consideration will be given for discharge to a
natural wetland* Tptensfve ^ monitoring anB^regular reporting will be required to protect the
integrity of the wetlaqd. V

The wastewaterlr^tn^nt planf-yiluent feat is being considered for discharge to a constructed
treatment wetland vffi be required"^ meet primary or secondary effluent standards

before confldefatTon^ will bo^cjiverffor construction of the treatment wetland. Intensive
monitorjnf^and regularmpo^ be required for this type of system as well to protect the
integr&f of the wetland. '' %V /'*'

.■■■* i > >. -

Siiii V

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 1-1

2. Approach

This document will enable the AEP to screen projects that are presented for approval and
provide preliminary guidance for the design process. To accomplish this, a step-by-step
approach to the evaluation and design process has been prepared. This allows for an
evaluation process that will begin with the least-cost stages that are, for the most|jpart, desktop
evaluations and move to those stages that are more labour-intensive ara^tequire field
investigations.

The document is divided into several tasks as follows:

naire ot

• Task 1 - Questionnaire: The first tasklprovides a
information required to assess the feasi|li&y of usin&ifeatrm

.-xW1'

• Task 2 - Preliminary Feasibility: The infermation gathered in Ta§^#wj|-6'e used
in the second task to determine the feasibility Of using a treatment" wetland for
the application that is being investigated.

• Task 3 - Evaluation Guideline: An evSRation'of && proposed site will follow to
determine if the proposed wetlan&s$&e is of locat ^SjMcipal, or provincial
significance due to factors s u pto a$ . : fb^bgc u r r e n cSjoljafi endangered wildlife
species, the existence of a henp^ry'o^the plbjgerty, existence of a cultural
heritage site within the boundaries ojph^ prbpd$^d|^etland site. Support for this
latter effort will likely be/equired. tom the prcyidcial government to properly
implement the evaluatiofrprocessy

J§H . • > x

• Task 4 - Design GUfdarrfce: Basic guidanjpfor the design of a treatment wetland
system in the forrp #f a cher&fist of critical factors to consider is provided in the

^ last task. Frequent/reference is macfe.tb the design guidance manual “Treatment
Wet I a n d s”/ co-autho red by®^;Rgbiirt Kadlec (Wetland Management Services)

1C. ancLDr. Robert Knight (CH2^TT!tL) who are internationally recognized treatment
• wetfdr^s experts* .i.Tfls, text is considered to be the most comprehensive
wetlaf^sjdocurpent published to date and is the main source of
iriftHrnatiq|i^or the development of this manual.

The first three tasks'^ the guideline document will be similar for both the constructed and
natural treatment wetlahd ihltfai ^valuation. The fourth task will reflect the design differences for
constructed treatment wetlands' and engineered natural wetlands.

Figirl 1-1 provides a flqp diagram of the evaluation process as described above.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 2-1

2. APPROACH

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Figure 1-1

Preliminary Wetland Evaluation Flow Chart for Approval of Constructed Wetlands
for Water Quality Improvement

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 2-2

3. Questionnaire

The questionnaire presented in Table 3.1 documents the basic information required to
determine the feasibility of using a treatment wetland for polishing of a wide variety of industrial,
agricultural, and municipal wastewater discharges. Included is site location, type of wastewater
pretreatment, pretreated water quality, hydraulic loading, soil conditions, lan^ availability,

effluent water quality objectives (must the discharge criteria be met
wetland or at the point of outflow?), current land use, topography,
natural wetland is considered for treatment purposes
required includes the type of wetland, dominant ve
wastewater input sources, soil conditions (soils map),
and/or an outflow structure if required.

nflow to the
factors. If a
on that may be
mwater and/or
jng an infljfF

Upon completion of the questionnaire, the collected
loadings determined and compared to provincial
warranted if a particular contaminant is determined to t>l
wastewater may be required prior to inflow to the:; . Attend systejm either in the existing
wastewater treatment plant or as a separate treatmenWnit. \, . . /K.

conprn inant
Further investigatfdn will be
rn. Further treatment of the

It must also be determined if portions of the treatment wetland syst^rti^fbe accessible to the

public. This will have some bearing on the
the treated wastewater source. Control ofipbblic
partially treated wastewater may result iprjtness.
the outflow end of the system and wilrtikely b^%uitable
wildlife viewing. J!-: "f

The types of wetlands that are biff suited #li|the a pupations in Alberta are presented in the
next task.

etlan^piat will be most suited to
s.^iuired where exposure to
osure is minimized toward
blic enjoyment for hiking and

• ^ < *

X'liir

v;.;

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 3-1

3. QUESTIONNAIRE

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Table 3.1 - Description of Candidate Wastewater Treatment Wetland - Alberta

Potential Wetland Location Site Data

Site Name:
City/Community:
Wastewater Source:
(describe)

Population:

Municipal:

Industrial:

Other:

Other Anticipated Wetland Uses: nature study hunting aquaculture

Key/sensitive wildlife habitat:

Wastewater Pretreatment:

Stormwater: Watershed Area:

Runoff Coefficient

Design Flow:

- ■ ■ ■ ■ :p

Site Substrate Material (eg. sand, clay, muck, sandy clay, clayqg
Permeability:

% Vegetation Cover: submergent

Land Area Available:

emergent meadotf forest

7~\.

' v> ;n Units:

Proximity to Water/Wastewater Source:

" 1

Current Site Land Use:

/mm g; i

''‘^pHership:

Adjacent Land Use (north):

„ ;^oning^ i

-iJv

^Qwnership:

Adjacent Land Use (east):

M Zoni#

pF Ownership:

Adjacent Land Use (south):

•• -a -

MV*

Ownership:

Adjacent Land Use (west): j§|

jfpng:

Ownership:

Presence of: Existing or Limiting£and Use (^Environmentally Sensitive Area)

Protected ^psjtfes j&S&ricai or Archae logical Resources On or Near Site

Aquifej^f Aquitanfe Natural Wetlands

% g^'Avaikble Land by Natura%Wet(af>.ds:

Wetland** Open Water Floating Aquatic

-\ Forest Unknown

; dfe:,,;-;, {jpscribe)

Exi^jig t)ischargfe^:^^^^al Wetland (describe):

Topography: :: : ;*• ' ;>:%•

-2

fts the wetland landlocked^;.!^ No

If no, what water bod ji|frll/3oes the treatment wetland discharge to?
Water body classifio^ibn:

. Wetland outlet lo.(?||ion and description:

Jgfefine wate^^border:

one description:

Area:_

Width:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 3-2

3. QUESTIONNAIRE

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Monitoring - Average Data - Potential Discharge to the Treatment Wetland
Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent/Stormwater Discharge

Table 3.1 (Continued) - Description of Candidate Wastewater Treatment Wetland - Alberta

Operating Season (months)
Period of Record :

Years in Service:

Average Flow (m3/day):

Parameter

bod5

TSS
TDS

Turbidity

Total Nitrogen
TKN

Organic Nitrogen
Total P
Filtered P
Dissolved Oxygen
Redox Potential
Sulfate/Sulfide
Conductivity
Alkalinity
pH

Temperature

Chloride \

'■

Pesncidv^Hrc&cldes
(lis&^"^

pDrganics (list)

Fecal Coliform
ii£.coli

Additional Contaminants Not Listed

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 3-3

3. QUESTIONNAIRE

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Table 3.1 (Continued) - Description of Candidate Wastewater Treatment Wetland - Alberta

Monitoring - Average Data - Existing Natural Wetland Outflow

Period of Record :
Average Flow (m3/day):

Parameter

bod5

TSS

TDS

Turbidity

nh4-n

no3-n+no2-n

Total Nitrogen
TKN

Organic Nitrogen
Total P
Filtered P
Dissolved Oxygen
Redox Potential
Sulfate/Sulfide
Conductivity
Alkalinity

pH z

Temperature

Chloride,*,

MetaJ$'{fest} \ 4

Start (Year)

End (Year)

Concentration

Units

mg/L

mg/L | jp

mg/L \

m2/hmrn^.

mg/U,y %

1 °C

SS:,

Pesticides/Kerbicides

(list)

ics (list)

||ecal Col i form
EXoli

vX-Jy

col/100ml
col/1 00ml

H ^i|^^j^&^|iurininants Not Listed:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 3-4

3. QUESTIONNAIRE

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Table 3.1 (continued) - Description of Candidate Wastewater Treatment Wetland - Alberta

Treatment Wetland System Outflow Targets

Discharge criteria to be met at wetland inflow
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L):

PH;

BOD5 (mg/L):

TSS (mg/L):

NH4-N (mg/L):

Total Nitrogen (mg/L):

TP (mg/L):

Fecal Coliform (col/100 mL)

Approved Flow (per day, week, month, year)

Approval Duration: annual seasonal monthly <

or wetland outflow

Treatment Wetland Contact Details

Last Name:

!l.

First Name:

\ - X

Role: Operator Eng.Design/Study Research «fe._J9!©^3^pent Pe'l^CKaBJee|i^t>nitoring

Organization: - 'X

Address:

Jt M'

X ,'s: 0\

Phone#:

Fax#:

— 3#

Climatic Factors

— Jill

Avg # o|:JFrost-free Days

f /

Av^Annusd^emperatyjre
Atfg Winter Temperature '

■"K v ^

Units:

' ' X

Units:

Annual Snowfall :\

\ • v

Units:

Annual Ram^dl ‘

Units:

Annual PreclpiMtOA' '• X,

Units:

ElevgpX

Units:

Cjlpnents:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 3-5

4. Preliminary Feasibility of Treatment
Wetlands for Wastewater Polishing

In this task, a portion of the information that was gathered in the first task will be processed.
The wetland area requirement will be determined and areal and contaminant loa||pg rates will
be compared with reported values from other treatment wetland systems. Atjpf point, it will
likely be determined whether the land area available will provide adi^^e^Patment to meet
the effluent objectives. If the total land area required is nc^gavailabj^ Ophite for reducing the
wetland footprint required, such as determining the effe$i^ enhafK^-i^l^eatment on tip
wetland area requirement, are presented. A copy of a J|pcal spregepiJ^tt for d^rmining^
wetland area required for wastewater polishing is presetted in Ta.bp%.1
system and Table 4.2 for a subsurface flow (SSF|systemv^|Dpendix B^^r^im^mple
completed spread sheets. m

It will be necessary to determine whether a SF or SSF
the two, is the best option for the application. Fac|gfi
availability, funding, and potential for physical contact by an
process.

Three types of treatment wetland systems
Alberta include:

etland, or a combination of
ered include land area
s with the treatment

Natural wetlands

Surface flow con struotfedfwet I a n|f?
Subsurface flow cqOstftitted wHtands

dered Jdf wastewater polishing in

Each of these alternatives briefI^|f&escribe<fb^ow+

Natural Wetlands

Natural wetlahdo h&^sjDeen Lfsed for fee treatment and disposal of secondary wastewater
effluent for many -Tljere m$fiy existing discharges to natural wetlands nationwide.
While most of these., ^ system^ were\-not designed for wastewater and stormwater treatment,
studies of .some naturttwettattl&have led to an understanding of the natural ability of wetland

ecosysfifris for pollutant^s^mifalion and to the design of new natural water treatment systems.

m ' w

■ < w

The proper use of a ngpral wetlands system for the treatment of secondary wastewater or
stormwater involves ajpmber of considerations. Research indicates that matching hydraulic
loads To the hydropefbd requirements and tolerances of the dominant wetlands vegetation
species reduces th%p6tential for vegetation changes. At high organic and nutrient loadings, some
natural wetfahds^m^y be significantly degraded. Plant species are likely to shift to herbaceous
mar^>speaes ^uch as cattails ( Typha spp.). Optimal treatment occurs when the pretreated water
is weil-SfsTributed throughout the wetland and travels through as sheet flow. Ideally, alternative
discharge areas or "treatment cells" are used to reduce the hydraulic and nutrient loadings that
might otherwise affect the vegetation community in the treatment cells.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 4-1

4. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF TREATMENT WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER POLISHING

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Table 4.1 - Alberta Environmental Protection - Wetlands Guidelines
Surface Flow (SF) Treatment Wetland - Preliminary Feasibility Calculation !
Instructions: Fill in the single outline boxes with data gathered in Section 1, then calculate the values for the i
Location:

Design Flow, m3/d

Influent Concentration

Target Effluent Concentration

Wetland background limit, mg/L

for TSS, C* = 7.8 + 0.063C,
for BOD, C* = 3.5+0.053C;
Areal rate constant @ 20°C, m/yr.
Required wetland area, ha

A =

0.0365 x Q
k

inf^

\C.-

Effluent concentration, mg/L
via k-C* model

k =
A =

maximum calculated^.

</ • . ,<!§?

C„ @.^$prnum area = ^;:||| || ||

1 036fr«£

\ N

' ^

• , -X

• •••• .:$k.

Ik,

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 4-2

4. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF TREATMENT WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER POLISHING

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Table 4.2 - Alberta Environmental Protection • Wetlands Guidelines
Subsurface Flow (SSF) Treatment Wetland - Preliminary Feasibility Calculation Sheet
Instructions: Fill in the single outline boxes with data gathered in Section 1, then calculate the values for the doub||^i^Led j^jlKs.
Location:

Design Flow, m3/d

Influent Concentration

T arget Effluent Concentration

Wetland background limit, mg/L

for TSS, C* = 7.8 + 0.063C,
for BOD, C* = 3.5+0.053C;
Areal rate constant @ 20°C, m/yr.
Required wetland area, ha

TSS BOD

FC JS

i i feiwr i i

1 1 l^pk.1 1

_I 1

A =

^0.0365 x Qj

x ln|

f C, - C I
^Ce-C*J

Effluent concentration, mg/L
via k-C* model

Cc @ maxifttoW'area =

i.o "■

Pill

x i

■

<4 s'

V ■

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 4-3

4. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF TREATMENT WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER POLISHING

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Definitive studies of the performance of natural wetlands for water quality enhancement have
been completed. These studies demonstrate that, through careful design, some natural
wetlands can consistently and cost-effectively provide advanced treatment of wastewater and
stormwater constituents.

Surface Flow (SF) Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands usually are shallow, man-made impoundments
rooted vegetation. These wetlands may be planted manually or naturall
plant communities. Some constructed wetlands contain moQ^eulture
bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), while others are planted with morfBiferse
greater stability under changing seasonal and water

emergent,
by "volunteer"
(Typha spp.) or
ities that hav&s

the

to regulate \^t«r d^!h and
ent design. Also,!fie design of

Unlike a natural wetlands system in which hydrology is
existing plant community, a constructed wetland can t m
residence time, two of the most important factors in wetla
constructed wetland systems can feature parallel cells or iC^ies. Such a system can be
operated to rotate discharge points or to use slightly different t^afee^liqapabilities of the various
available plant species groups. SF constructed wetlands hMS^aively low construction,
operation, and maintenance costs compared with cc^'vSttqnal advajhii&ir^fment technologies.

The emergent plants of SF wetlands are not harvested to remove nutnfnts. Instead, the natural
assimilative capacity of the microbial flora bacteria #<j::fungi) that attach to the plants provides
efficient and reliable removal of biodegradable qgpnics and nitrogen (ammonia and nitrate).
Metals and phosphorus can be sequestered in gjpFit materials and wetland sediments. Because
much of the treatment that occurs^ Vgetlands )s from microbial, physical, and chemical action
rather than plant uptake, these systems continue to functMii during winter. The processes that rely
on microbial action, such as nitrogen removal, contin4%but at a slower rate. The processes that
rely on physical, and chemicaf&cti|n will continue unaffected by the change in water temperature
below theJCe surface. If the treated waste^ltt^dtinues to flow through the winter months, the
snow arid, ice cover can 'provide ap effective temperature buffer that will allow continued

treatment.

six

•X

\ v • v — /•

Subsurface Flow (SSF) Constructed Wetlands

SSF welSands are graved orsojMBased wetlands in which the wastewater passes through the
porous substrate rather thai\.above an impermeable substrate. The large surface area of the
medisand the plant rootjlprovides ample sites for microbial activity. SSF systems use many of
the same emergent plant species as SF systems. When treating an equivalent volume of flow,
gfavel-based SSF wetlands use less acreage than SF constructed wetlands.

SSF wetland systems have an advantage in cooler climates because so much of the treatment

occurs below, tbe ground surface. These systems are therefore less affected by cold air
tempefttffes. Also, gravel-based systems may be relatively low in maintenance requirements and
are less likely to have odour and mosquito problems than are lagoons. When properly designed,
gravel-based wetland systems have high efficiency rates for removing biodegradable organic
matter and nitrate-nitrogen from wastewater.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 4-4

4. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF TREATMENT WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER POLISHING

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

A consideration that makes the SSF system attractive, especially for small communities and
individual residences, is the reduced potential for human contact with partially treated sewage and
the related health implications. This is an important consideration especially when there is public
access to a treatment facility for wildlife viewing or other related outdoor activities. The use of an
SSF system as a pretreatment step followed by an SF system is an option to consider.

Major disadvantages of SSF constructed wetland systems include their tendency for plugging and
overall system costs, which can be five times more than an SF system for a certain Jputant mass
removal.

Table 4.3 summarizes the North American treatment w
systems receiving municipal and industrial wastewater a
that the summary table represents data collected fromj
design target loadings.

nd op
rmw
ting sys;

performance for
portant to notg?
s not reflect'

Table 4.3

Summary of North American Treatment Wetland OPERAtiOtokPiRFORMANCE for Sy$T£mI
Receiving Municipal and Industrial Wastewater and Stormwater ^Kadlec and Knight, 1996)

Average Concentration (mg/Lyp

\ Averse Mass (kg/ha/d)

Parameter

Wetland jn

Type

Out

Eff.t%>^\ Loadft$^j

iMtoval

Eff (%)

BOD5

SF 30.3

SSF 27.5

8.0

8.6 ,

•X'

t?V 7.2 1

:^9-2 ^

IF 5.1

18.4

TSS

SF 45.6

13.5#

SSF 48.2

10jf

35.3

nh4-n

SF 4.88

^t§3

JF 54

W ~

.35

SSF 5.98

& 25 i

f 7.02

.62

no2+no3-

SF 5.56 , /

2.15 ,

K \ 61

. '••X 1 1

| >£SF

1.35 J

:r' jj?

3.1

1.89

ORG-N ’

\ 1.85 46

.51

• itH|

B°3

7.28

4.05

TKN

X.SF • 7.6 v\

4.3'lx

2.2

1.03

'1 :S*2i \

liy

9.3

3.25

. s.&3

%$7

1.94

1.06

JT SSF

8.41

13.19

5.85

O-P

1.11

.29

.12

■i-f

SSF gWr

Tlg^f

SF Jf3 78

1.62

0.17

SSF 4.41

2.97

5.14

1.14

Rackfia

I . , .

T" —

SF ...:V

2 log reduction
2 log reduction

S?~5-dsy Sto^imical Oxygen Demand
w pe nd ed Solids

NH4-N*=Ammonia Nitrogen
N02+N03-N = Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen
ORG-N = Organic Nitrogen
TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

TN = Total Nitrogen
O-P = Ortho Phosphorous
TP = Total Phosphorous
ND = No Data
SF = Surface Flow
SSF = Subsurface Flow

Average livestock treatment wetland concentration performance data for selected parameters is
presented in Table 4.4. This data was prepared as part of a report that summarized livestock

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 4-5

4. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY OF TREATMENT WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER POLISHING

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

treatment wetlands performance in Canada and the U.S. It was noted during the preparation of
the livestock treatment wetlands performance document that the nutrient and solids loading to
many of the systems in the database was far in excess of the loadings to the municipal and
industrial systems as reported in Table 4.3. Also, many systems were under-designed and
therefore produced a relatively poor quality effluent when compared to typical Environment
Ministry discharge criteria. However, the overall impact of installing the treatment wetland was
the reduction of the contaminant loading to the receiving water. The construction of such a
system, even if somewhat undersized, provides sufficient treatment to merit con^pration.

Table 4.4

Average Livestock Treatment Wetland Performance for

andTN

(Knight, Payne, Pries, Borer, Clarke, 1997)

Wastewater Type

Average Inflow
Concentration (mg/L)

BODs

Cattle Feeding

113

Dairy

404

Poultry

153

'll 5 v

Swine

TSS

Cattle Feeding

Dairy

Swine

291

914 J

107 Jp

Jl|pk

-' Ik ^

nh4-n

Cattle Feeding
Dairy
Poultry
Swine

5.V*' t
74#f-
74:’ ^

« 2§&6 |

■<m

•*7

‘

f >v

3 <0

^Jmo. 6

59.6

Dairy.

Poufoy

Swine'"5

12SL2

ill®

47.7

69.7
210.8

•. . .• 7 : * •'****>•.

v4’.- '• • v-

V >

\ " >* v>^

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 4-6

5. Guidelines for Functions to be

Evaluated for Approval of Candidate
Site for Treatment Wetland

Wetlands in Alberta serve functions which benefit the ecosystem an
humans (e.g. D.A. Westworth and Associates Ltd., 1993, Usher

ds to,
buld

because^

from w|pfewater^)ws, ^3f^,;>oepa\Jse
ptheppie altered inwderto ipCrease

nd indirectly,
1990, Alberta
,ered as candidate
even by waiter

Water Resources Commission 1993a, 1993b). Natural
sites may already serve several important functions,
which has undergone primary or secondary treatm
because of the general increase in water levels resul
certain areas of the wetland may have to be deepene||
treatment efficiency. \

Table 5.1 lists the issues or functions which should, examined when investigating the
possibility of using a natural wetland or other naturak&rba wastewater treatment and is the
final summary sheet to be used to summarize all funcfions examined during investigation of the
candidate site. Functions summarized in this table Se, those v^ich ha\fe been found to be
important in maintaining biodiversity, particute^m

landscapes where habitat diversity
tends to be gradually eroded and biodiver^^'declir^s, Checksheets following Table 5.1 should
be used to guide inventories, which are .^signed y'revteal indicators of biodiversity, and assist
in determining whether use of the candidate sita.#r wastewater treatment would impair existing
functions. Appendixes C to I provi^i^ormatjdi' and references to aid in determining whether
indicators found are significant. / /f

The checksheets which make J|p> the bulk p|xth.i,S/ Section summarize a work program to be
followed in Prder to determine. Whether fie candidate site serves functions significant at the
provincial level' The candidate sle may also.. serve functions important at a regional level; for
example, .the presence of regionally significant species can indicate an unusual habitat or
landform in a .region %Jiiich inB^^s fegjonal biodiversity. Significant species and habitats may
vary considerably with legion. R^tonatslgnificance of features found in investigations should
also be examined as part ^candidate site evaluations.

Ilx,,.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-1

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Table 5.1

Summary Sheet for Evaluation of Ecological Functions of a Candidate Site (check

APPROPRIATE BOXES AFTER COMPLETING EVALUATION)

Habitat Functions

Desktop Field

Evaluation Assessment

Significant Significant

Features Noted Features Noted

Negative

Impacts

Likely?

Mitigation
Likely to be
Successful?

Basis for
Denial Noted

Yes

5.1: Flood storage
capability

4pi

x XxV

5.2: Water quality improve-
ment

• ‘X

' \

5.3: Habitat for rare plants
or plant communities

5.4: Significant habitat for
breeding waterfowl

-V

5.5: Significant habitat for
migrating waterfowl or
shorebirds

. •>

\ . >. • ••
'V

5.6: Habitat for breeding
area- and disturbance-
sensitive fauna

SvW

r '

5.7: Corridor for floral or
faunal distribution

'' 4

5.8: Fisheries habitat

/ \

*....

ill!

:: • *

5.9: Habiti$^:^|^ffi<^t
animal Speoes

"...y

5.10: Social or economk?
benefit

: ,-X

i •

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-2

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.1: Function: Flood Storage Capability

Rationale: Wetlands function in flood and erosion control, water storage, and protection of groundwater
recharge and discharge.

Methods for Evaluation

Office evaluation-document the following

Conduct preliminary calculation to determine the area of the wati
Calculate wetland area (if wetland mapping is digitized, thy
otherwise a polar planimeter may be used ).

Calculate catchment area.

Calculate average monthly rainfall (Reference Environmer$$|anada 1|$^Appendix
Multiply average monthly rainfall by catchment area (minuliSAicfiiar^iWhe wetland).

Multiply by an appropriate runoff coefficient. •'

Add this figure to figure for effluent volume: assume the wetland tear* average of 1 m deep.

Is this wetland large enough to hold both natural and s^en1s|r^ts^?"
If wastewater inputs total 10% or more of natural infill, condOci
flooding probabilities more accurately. Note ratio Q^V^^f^ewate r to'
further studies if needed.

_ studies to determine
iMrijSsate, and recommend

\ •• ••

Determine probability of flood ing#u^ng a 1 in&O year eveg|i
(mitigation may be required^ p||b'ability is \

CompaseTlpoding wiMhd Witb&Jt effluentli

□ Wastewig^p^|tp^crease frequency of flooding. Impact on flood control function is not

a basis fon^©fs®i;:ai^Batment wa$Ja*«L :

n / r:- A V"/

LJ Wa n i t u d e Sr frequency of flooding. Proceed to evaluation of mitigation.

If Irrywfcts Predicted, P<$tntial for Mitigation

' Can a control structur^ i)tt.j^cted? Yes □ No □

Describe: If

4CL

Cm StOFSgejpapacity for water be increased (i.e. by underground or above ground storage structures)?
fiote; ^consider possibilities of impacts on other wetland functions as a result of increasing storage.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-3

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Final Analysis: Predicted Net Impacts and Action
Mitigation Potential:

Conclusions:

ONo negative impact likely. Impact on flood control is not ajaasis for derii§ of treatment wetland.
□Negative impact likely. Impact on flood control is a basis fcraepial of treatment wetland.

.«::y

Jl?

f \

%|;j |;||||:
\

f'/

^ •• :•••■ :v\

x x

v.--

Wo vr'/\

y f

< *

M W
#

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-4

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.2: Function: Water Quality Improvement

Rationale: Wetlands function to store and transform certain chemical elements which could otherwise
affect downstream surface or groundwater quality. Additional inputs from effluent may result in
unacceptable water quality downstream.

Increases in water flow can affect this function by reducing the hydraulic retention time in the wetland,
(thereby reducing treatment time), and by keeping sediment suspended or resuspen<J|g settled
material.

Groundwater can become contaminated by recharge from contaminated surfic
Methods for Evaluation (note water quality measurements are part oilbe initi

Measure water quality entering and leaving wetland (as repo|fei8irprelimina
Table 1 Section 1). Note where measurements taken (map Jf|pcessary)

‘Note: in wetlands where inflow or outflow is dispersed, j
points. |V: :%

List the following water quality parameters : I? -

Phosphorus:

Nitrogen:

Suspended solids:

lnflow_

Inflow

Outflow,

Outflow

everail^

List other potential contaminating inputs (ie. feedlot. operations, storm water riimpff, industries; note
both point and non-point sources of contamination), ' ; .

AiS'N*

Recommend other water quality pa'rameters ^hich should be measured based on potential for
contamination from surrounding '^a. I . V'

1. Assess wheth&8^^ already play $:>a significant role in improving surface water quality from

surrounding inputs.:

Explajn;:^''^

.....

P ."Wetland does not recd|e significant inputs. Negative impacts on this function are not a basis for denial
/.• | of treatment wetland, ' f

Q ^Wetland significantt|ilreats water from incoming sources. Proceed to evaluation of impacts.

■ , tf-wetland currently provides significant water quality improvement, determine potential for
Section 2 calculation),
ts from increase in hydroperiod:

Predict impacts from increased nutrient loading:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-5

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

2. Assess potential for contamination of the groundwater table through recharge of surface water
Determine soil type from existing soils data or obtain soil core from the wetland:

Estimate:

Conclusions:

ive impact likely. Impact on water quality is not a basis for denial of treatment wetland.
Negative impact likely. Impact on water quality is a basis for denial of treatment wetland.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-6

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.3: Function: Provision of Habitat for Rare Plants or Plant Communities

Rationale-. Some plant communities, for example, native prairie, have been almost eliminated by
development for agriculture, etc. Rare plants and plant communities are often highly sensitive to
changes in nutrient and moisture regimes.

*Note: In some areas where soil disturbance and a high proportion of "weeds" is th^norm, pre-
dominantly native plant assemblages can be considered significant.

Methods for Evaluation
Office Evaluation

Contact and document correspondence with agencies ^ipfare specif
Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resoui^H Service
Museum of Natural History). Jj

Contact and document correspondence with local sources;:
landowners).

S;FAN, botany groups, local

Refer to examples of significant landscajp types localifffelRC^ppfendix F. Note whether site falls
into categories listed as potentially s^ggpcant. jp'

Refer to Packer and Bradley (1984fi^pendix QfPor comprejjpisive list of rare plants and dot maps of
distribution. o' & W

•v. \

□ Sufficient 'stJfV^i::4s|N^xist^ inventory of site. No significant plant species, community

found (see ^ f9.r rare pla#t:$pecies). Site is not in an area or landscape noted for potential

signifi©peeAt:A:b^^^^|li^esencP6f significant plant species is not a basis for denial of treatment

w|phl. 'V , X

Q^^trfficient survey data do;not ^plt. Proceed to preliminary field evaluation.

/"'Preliminary field evaMioo^rhust be conducted if no inventory exists, or if the site falls into area or
/ 7 landscape categoriesonbteS for their potentially significant vegetation (see Appendix F).

Pfp&ninary Field Evaluation (to be conducted by a qualified vegetation specialist)

§ _ Summarize frph|*leld notes habitat conditions at the site which may indicate presence of significant
•pfe*?t$ or^plantcommunities.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-7

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Summarize from field notes indicators of significant plants or plant communities at the site (e.g. certain
plant species, soils or landform coupled with absence of disturbance by tilling or intensive grazing;
history of fire); or presence of significant plant species in similar habitat nearby).

If such indicators are found, particularly if the site is in an area or landscape noted for

potentially significant flora (Appendix F), conduct intensive field evalufj^p anc rationale

for conducting full inventory.

Intensive Field Evaluation

Botanical Inventory (conducted on at least two visits: appra»r^(|^|^pciding with summer and fall.
Woodlands should be additionally evaluated in spring). - - \

sy \ " x

From field notes, list significant species or plant communities foundNNote ratio of native plant species
to total species. Append plant community mapping, plar&ftst *

.;'7

l gMii* ■■■ rW

If indicator detected, determine potiittiil for impact: refer tqlpble of impacts and mitigation found in
Appendix D. ^

i it

1 Summarize features wh^liK^pontribute tdthe presante of significant species or communities.

2 Deter^^-l6nt-^i»#:l^a®|.s may M expected, and:

v W ' ' '

A. A$pss expected imp**c$$ #OR|;'^ncrease in hydroperiod (e g. potential replacement of extant plant
Communities by comniumtiesfnore tolerant of inundation).

m a m

| • B. Assess expeot$Ct.4inpacts from increased nutrient loading (e g. potential invasion by fast-growing non-
, x . t^^>sptfdi^^hange in vegetation, change in water quality, decrease in species diversity).

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-8

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

C. Assess expected impacts from earthworks, if proposed.

□ No impact likely. Impact on significant plant species or communities is not a basis for denial of

□ No negative impact likely. Impact on significant plant species or communities is not a basis for denial of
treatment wetland.

□ Negative impact likely. Impact on significant plant species or communities is a basis for denial of treatment
wetland.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-9

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.4: Function: Significant Habitat for Breeding Waterfowl

Rationale: Even small wetlands have been shown to be important in waterfowl production, particularly
in prairie and parkland ecoregions. Initiatives like the North American Wetland Management Program
(NAWMP) recommend protection of potholes.

Methods for Evaluation
Office Evaluation:

Contact Ducks Unlimited; Department of Environmental Protection Natural ^^^jr^^ervice for pre-
existing information re: breeding waterfowl. Note whether site i^ubject to,^\^^Pl^reement.

Refer to the following references (Appendix C): Strong §^ss$P^I 993) on value of

wetlands in the Settled Area to waterfowl, Nietfield et a(J^^5) for list^^^^&^lii^^production
habitat in Alberta, and Refer to D.A. Westworth & Associ||j|fe (1990) fo|?^^ifical
Boreal Forest region J|& jiy ' ••••••

Document known level of significance: f %. ;:y-|

V:t;N

Contact local sources (Naturalist clubs, FAN, ^b^a Pi$^jnd GameS^s^'tion). List or append
sources including name, phone number of of habpjr"

Document level of significance from these $$Jrces: \„ ; N

£F i

.> &&

j&p

. •• •=■» jjv* Jij

□ Wetland is not considered signPd&ht and haSijbeen evalyplld within past 5 years. Significant habitat

for breeding waterfowl is not a/basis for^cterfcl of tre^ffient wetland. If information not available,
conduct preliminary field-visit.- .<••• • •• '•

□ W^tfeP^%considered Pgp^caht. Procee(|p:avpoiaf§ potential for impact.

If avaiifatjle* conduct preliminary field visit to determine potential significance.

P re I i m i n ary field vlsH;

\ > -X

Note followfeg vadabJes^ x

□ 50m (diameter). or Stand i n g vifeifer until late summer

Q Concealing vegetation i

□ Jpscrete areas of sh^ gresipfce plants
3/ Submerged or floati^i^uaiic vegetation

Shrubby areas ff

m Check if other wetlands with standing water (as above) are within 5 km; linked by natural habitat;
JX::;:p linked by agricultppi land, i.e. not separated by ecological barrier

If ,§ ta n d i %afe r plus three or more of these conditions apply, a field evaluation must be
'note whether field evaluation advised.

No □

Q Wetland is not considered significant, and preliminary field visit does not indicate potential
significance. Habitat for breeding waterfowl is not a basis for denial of treatment wetland.

Q Wetland is considered significant. Habitat for breeding waterfowl is a basis for denial of treatment
wetland.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-10

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Intensive field evaluation (to be conducted by a qualified waterfowl biologist)
Conduct and provide record of one of the following waterfowl surveys:

Conduct observational and nest (dragging) surveys in late April to June.
Conduct surveys of downy young and post-breeding adults in May-July.

Estimate number and species of waterfowl pairs observed
Assess significance of habitat

As estimated from field surveys:

In consultation with agencies noted above :

□ Wetland is not considered significant. Breeding habitat
treatment wetland.

LI Wetland is considered significant. Determine and record Iplpotentialjp^mpact

Determination of Potential for Impact
1 . Assess factors contributing to significance of habitat based on: • x

• Factors noted above

• High percentage of wetlands in the region

• Large and undisturbed habitat tract

• Other

2. Determine zone where impacts may be expected, &nd:
A Predict impacts from increase in jpffoperiod/

iix.

potenpl for positive impact from

increase in permanence of water, apb of wetlafp, etcl^l Refer to Wble of impacts in Appendix D.

B Predict impacts from increased nutrierttiblding. • ' y-‘

x Ilf -i ' ' • x ' '

'Lvw'-i

C expected in^&$ from'sarthworks, if proposed:

*v X X" 1 \

I x

If potept^f negative impact expected , examine potential for mitigation:

xfltfer to table of im|3scts^a^ techniques in Appendix D and habitat matrix (Appendix G) to

/ aid in determining impacts drie to vegetation shifts.

/ / Potential for mitigatiilji offlred by creating habitat.

"• • f ;

V‘ ' "

Poteptiafi for mitigation offered by further pretreatment of wastewater.

Assess potential for success of mitigation:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-11

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Summary of net impacts after mitigation:

Final Analysis: Suggested Net Impacts and Action

^ No negative impact likely. Impact on waterfowl breeding Jjiilitat is not j|jp'sis foi
wetland

□ Negative impact likely. Impact on waterfowl breeding^bs^ebM^ basis for denial^
wetland. \, .. \

Conclusions:

1%,

: ::

^ I

"V*

a ■£# d

' : x

-#r

i s#

v x

x ,.\

§ •- igfcr.

x, :

■<■ ■■

f.i

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-12

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation
5.5; Function: Significant Habitat for Migrating Waterfowl or Shorebirds

Rationale: Migrating shorebird and waterfowl populations are vulnerable to human interference, since
they concentrate in great numbers in only a few locations along migratory pathways (Dickson and Smith
1991).

Methods for Evaluation

‘Note: Field evaluation of significance of habitat for migrating waterfowl and shorebirdyjf sufficiently
complex to be beyond the scope of this evaluation. Evaluation of this criterion ji^be g^^ral and based
on existing information only.

Office Evaluation:

Contact agencies re. Mapping of significant staging areas (e
Natural Resources Service, Canadian Wildlife Service
contact person, phone number and date of call.

Note published reports listing significant staging areas
1985, Poston et al. 1990; Appendix C).

* Dickson and Smith (1991) note that Regional Shorebird ^agfeg^eserves are those which have at
least 20,000 using the site annually or at least 5% of a specie$:%way population.

I Protection J|

kagenc^
MeM #4.

□ No significant shorebird or waterfowl stagjpfarea norf' N:P||sence of staging area is not a basis for

denial of treatment wetland.

>x :i

□ Significant migratory staging area not^Proceed tj^(aminatio|ytmpacts and mitigation.

If staging area noted, determine potentN&for imp|p:

Refer to table of impacts and mit^ton techni^el, Append^©.

* ;• / ' • ^ v. A

1 . Summar^e features which mntflbijte to sigr^b^f^:^:«|i^taging area:

\ : i:\"% t

□ .^ik^h^&. open wSter and concealing

□ Preset of tatae areas'sf mud Hater short grass-like vegetation.

Comments;'

□ Other \

2. Detetpine zone of i^trertee-w^ce impacts can be expected, and:

.jr V —y

:.#y '■.•• • • . .•

A Predict impacts fron$ fapfe'ase in hydroperiod (e g. particularly inundation of mud flats, or extension
/ of inundation time|pthN consequent failure of forage species to germinate and/or loss of inverte-
* ' brates). . If

1*,,

B. Predict impacts from increased nutrient loading (e.g. rapid growth of suboptimal non-native forage
species, elimination of some invertebrates).

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-13

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

C. Predict impacts from earthworks, if proposed:

□ No negative impact likely. Impact on significant staging area is not a basis for denial of treatment

i|No negative impact liic^y. Impact on significant staging areas is not a basis for denial of treatment
, ^wetland. J§>

Q Negative impact lik#p Impact on significant staging areas is a basis for denial of treatment wetland.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-14

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.6: Function: Habitat for Breeding Area - and Disturbance-Sensitive Fauna (see list of
species in Appendix G).

*Note: This part of the evaluation should be completed only in developed or agricultural areas where
habitat is highly fragmented.

Rationale: Some wildlife species appear to require large expanses of habitat (or many connected
patches of habitat) at a distance from human development. These species ar^becoming
increasingly rare in settled landscapes.

Office Evaluation

Contact agencies re. species lists for area (e.g. Alberta D|^gtment
Natural Resource Service). List sensitive species recordecy||lj^ in App
recorded in contiguous or structurally similar habitat withijtfffin.

Contact local sources (naturalist clubs, FAN, birding groups) fc
or structurally similar habitat within 1 km. Summarize findings.

in area or in contiguous

□ Sufficient data exist; no significant fgpa found. ^no data atvaila^S, but habitat consists of small («
5 ha), isolated patches of natuj^-^getatioalfi a landscape which consists of <10% of natural
habitat. , ^

Presence of area-, disturbance^ isolatiob-|ensitive s||l1es is not a basis for denial of treatment

wetland.

Q Insufficient Data exist (Lel:pp,surveys

): conduct field evaluation

Field Evatuatldo (to be <^ndU0t£&%der the fd

' 'k -^|.

circumstances);

ife^pareas (>S.,fta) -pf grassland, woodland or wetland persist in an otherwise highly

^^^pjfl^ndscaf^^1 >' •

• If is one^dimahylr^ments of habitat which together comprise greater than 10%

of i^Ptfal.^e^ipn in thel^tdscape.

*|gp§f In ma %, cases,: requirement for inventories to detect rare species will provide the

^^portunity for concuncPt $ui$teys for these species.

f Note habitat cond^p^;:-%^ch indicate the possible presence of area- or disturbance- sensitive
species (e.g. above^ci^t).

.Ccs^dcl breeding bird, amphibian and reptile, and mammal species as indicated for rare species
"function. Note area- or disturbance-sensitive indicator species found (refer to list in Appendix G):
summarize findings.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-15

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

□ Sensitive species not found. Presence of sensitive species is not a basis for denial of treatment
wetland.

□ Sensitive species found. Proceed to evaluation of impacts.

If indicator detected, determine potential for impact (refer to Appendix D for summary of impacts
and Appendix G for habitat matrixes which aid in determination of affects of shifts in vegetation):

1 . Summarize features which likely contribute to the presence of sensitive species.

• Large and undisturbed habitat tract:.

High percentage of habitat cover in the region
Other

2. Determine zone where impacts may be expected, and:

A. Predict impacts from increase in hydroperiod (e.g. re^p^ffent of tre<!
tolerant species; see Appendix D for summary of imp&lp):

C. Predict impacts from earthwor^llproposej

B. Predict impacts from increased nutrient loading '(e.g. changg:is yejjet^tion, change in water
quality, decrease in plant species diversity):

□ No negative impact lik^kl|li$tact on areEa%<^^an^- or isolation- sensitive species is not a basis

fo^illlal of treatment weSaroi %'•"

Impact likely. .Prace^fo examinln&n of mitigation.

If potential Httpaci determined, examine potential mitigation of impacts; e.g. by creation of
corridors ltd ofheif Suitable habitat, restoration of habitat outside area affected by creation of
wetland to maintain habitat size, etc.).

ilk

M-

■k.

Fii^J Analysis: Suggested Net Impacts and Action
MTitifation Potential:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-16

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Summary of Net Impacts after Mitigation:

Conclusions:

□ No negative impact likely. Impact on area- , disturbance- o||plation-sensj!!c^ sp«

denial of treatment wetland. J|f|

□ Negative impact likely. Impact on area-, disturbance- or ip^sl^-sep^/e species

of treatment wetland: i •

asis forff?'

* •. ^

N:- x

V • ' ’f
t- W

\ . K

i x \ -y "
m

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-17

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.7: Function: Provision of Significant Habitat for Floral or Faunal Distribution and

Persistence Within the Landscape

Rationale: Wetlands and other natural areas being considered as candidate sites may be linked to
other patches of habitat. Without the pattern of nodes and linkages, habitat becomes fragmented and
generally supports lower biodiversity.

Methods for Evaluation
Office Evaluation

Obtain up-to-date aerial photographs of the site and approxim
discrete patches of vegetation (nodes) and patterns of natural

Note and record whether candidate site forms a node or p||fbf a linka;

Note and record whether linkage takes the form of a potertl&f. stone" rather than a direct

connection.

Note predominant land use surrounding nodes and linfc&ges>;

Contact agencies (as suggested for other ||pfions) to
known to use the site or surrounding habjpfas a cor$§8r. Li

large animal populations are
pjjborted.

- ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ .*'??!!??!?!? x*. .«T.w .

^ No linkage is evident. Impact on_.}5KXf^:^r linkag&function is nJjFa basis for denial of treatment wetland.
□ Linkage is evident; or large a nimaf x po p u I ati ons| u se the as a corridor. Proceed to evaluation of
impacts. f ,\ "V*

If candidate site forms part of a node or a linkage* Ovafuate potential for impacts:

1 . Sy^inarteSlnain feat^es ctml^buting to sig%f8e^oce of nodes or linkages e.g.

Linkages provide the oriiy^atU^ Corridor through otherwise intensively farmed agricultural land or
urban dayefOpm©t% Yes □ fto Q\

Comment \ \. X

_ is L.

x "r

, r
X

/> Site contributes to natlpPlpfdscape significant for size, configuration, links: Yes □ No □
M | Comment: m

iX,,

£vafuate zbne of influence, and:

A. Predict impacts from increase in hydroperiod:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-18

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

B. Predict impacts from increased nutrient loading:

C. Assess expected impacts from earthworks, if proposed:

□ Jp> negative impact lil^^pif^ict on significant node or linkage is not a basis for denial of treatment
•• wetland. | i \/

£j - Negative impact likelylimpact on significant node or linkage is a basis for denial of treatment wetland.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-19

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.8: Function: Provision of Habitat for Fish

Rationale: Though treatment wetlands will not be permitted to affect major fish habitats such as
lakes, rivers and streams, pools in some wetlands can provide habitat for some small fish species.
Proposals to alter fish habitat are subject to the federal Fisheries Act.

Methods for Evaluation
Office Evaluation

Contact agencies such as the Alberta Department of Environmental Pro|
Service for existing survey data on the candidate site and h^rologica
List survey data, note significant findings (Refer to list of sigrwi®^ fish

Contact local fishermen (through angling groups, etc.),
of contact. Note findings.

„ p&one number, address and date

"Ilk.

Refer to D. A. Westworth and Associate^ 990) for Jilts <$^nifjcant fish habitat in the boreal forest
region. JP* *

-M

□ Suftaf>M^nformatiop'^)<lstS> t%sh habita^jS tjot^.fbund on the site, nor is the site hydrologically
largervwatef iboites^The pre'sittSe of fish habitat is not a basis for denial of treatment

□ I nfo r I a b I ^o. field evaluation.

Field Evaluation (to l^«^ducte^l^^^|^iified fisheries biologist)

in pcffitial habitat on site (this is most effectively done with an
eJ^foshocker)’ :;i^ifUjmB^^and species offish seen.

I;';- . . •* P e t e rm i n e ca n d i d a te site contains the following habitat variables:

pbipiSe water connection with larger water body containing fish.

^ Areas of emergent vegetation adjacent to larger water body subject to flooding in spring.
Q Fish are present in the wetland, or habitat variables apply. Proceed to evaluation of impacts.

□ Fish are not present, or habitat isolated from larger water bodies containing fish. Negative impact on
fish habitat is not a basis for denial of treatment wetland.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-20

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Evaluation of Impacts

Refer to table of impacts and mitigation, Appendix D, and habitat matrix to aid in determination of impacts
due to vegetation shifts, Appendix G).

1 Assess factors contributing to presence of fish in water bodies on candidate site (noting whether the
population in these water bodies is likely killed off in some years and some seasons but maintained
by colonization by fish from adjacent habitat).

llr

Ar-

2 Determine zone where impacts may be expected and:

A. Predict impact of increased nutrient levels (i.e. not||perance to
fish species present: also consider tolerance of pr j||j:ems):

tges

B. Predict impact of increased hydroperiod (i.e. potential intfoductfen :iof predatory species
increased flow rates through habitat): ^ Jk • ‘

iir

C. Predict impacts of earthvi^s^if propo^t:

SM.

U P otept$ai trr^abtjp red i cted^JPrpce^ examination of mitigation.

□ No nega%e:»^p^t;jikely. Ii^f|^to?i^eries habitat is not a basis for denial of treatment wetland.

* ".X

If potef$al impact de^fmbeds examine potential mitigation of impacts:

./•’/ iry — ■

/ | Restoration of hab|p i.e. creation of sheltered pools, protective structures, fish barriers:

aJsartfier pretreatment of incoming wastewater:

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-21

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Final analysis: suggested net impacts and action
Mitigation potential:

X
XIII
, ■ ■ ^ ^ ;

PP'

Ps.

P>,. .4$

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-22

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment Wetland Evaluation

5.9: Function: Habitat for Significant Animal Species

Rationale: Wetlands provide breeding and foraging habitat for a large proportion of the province's
significant species; particularly in grassland regions.

Methods for Evaluation
Office Evaluation

• Contact agencies re rare species mapping for area (e.g. Department of
Natural Resource Service; Provincial Museum of Alberta). Li§tli|j&ifican
lists of significant animal species, Appendix H.

1 #

tal Protection,
ded. Refer to

Contact local sources (local naturalist clubs, FAN, birding grot^s)J t>st sources including name,
phone number of contact, and significant species sighted. Pefe^lpli^dfSjgnificant animal species,

Appendix H.

-:;1

kSk ■

□ Sufficient data exists (surveys within t||§f>ast 5 ye0t), and nQ.:S^f^eant animal species found.
Presence of significant species is is&t:# basis fokllnial of tre Jihent wetland.

□ Insufficient data exist. Proceed jtfig^l^valuatfb.tf.

Field Evaluation (scoped to reflect ejfpt req u i red as dhte rrrubgd^y questions answered in the office) to be

conducted by .g:

Refer to provmejaliy signiff^snt^fe^fiiammal, Ite^k^nd amphibian species (Appendix H for lists).

% • \ "k ^

,.vXvX^- v

U^h'abitat conclii§TO indicate rare species. Refer to habitat matrices, Appendix G and

, habitat notes in Appep<f&ti ;■>

| i "Conduct bjae^mg bird surveys (generally from last week in May to first week in July, but certain
% • /?. . Frt&yfce better inventoried earlier, e g. raptors, waterfowl - conspicuous displays in late April).

7 Masy species can be detected by song and call identification, so there is a high return in detecting a
^^^Jaige^diversity of species with least effort. List significant findings from field notes. Append complete
species list.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-23

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

• Conduct scoped breeding amphibian and reptile surveys (surveys of frogs in late evening through
April to July bring high return because frogs can be discerned by call; surveys of amphibian eggs or
larvae are time-consuming and require uncommon expertise; generally searches under debris can
be conducted during other surveys, but bring low return for effort). List significant species from field
notes. Append complete species list.

Conduct mammal surveys if likelihood of rare mammals is techn
mammal signs (generally reveals only a few common speci^ip^riamm
if strong indications rare mammals may be present and t^ip|€fetermina
effort is low, expertise required high and mortality of trapj^p animals hi
from field notes. Append complete species list.

JgrmMMm.

_ i i. —

\ ■ \

□ No significant species detected. Significant animal specils is not a1^}$&f w&(al of treatment
wetland.

□ Significant species detected. Proceed to evalualu&ofj

.....V.

If indicator detected, determine potential for i|ppact:

1. Summarize features which probablyxC^itribute fc#presenc& pfsfgnificant species (see habitat

matrices, Appendix G; habitat notes, Appsfdix H): , jjf

ip-

large and undisturbed habitat .fcaqf-f
specific vegetation type;£ik. f;*:
otteer: Ik

'%■ • \ ' x

2. Assess 2H>fie:wih!^impacf» can fee- expected, and:

A. Predict i rrtp«<gbS: as ^ od (e.g. replacement of treed habitat by more water-

tolerant species; sae Appendix D fef ipfhmary of impacts and mitigation, Appendix G (habitat matrix)
to aid# defermN^:ifflE^e^due to Vegetation shifts).

.4r-

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-24

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

B. Predict impacts from increased nutrient loading (e.g. potential invasion by fast-growing exotic
species, change in vegetation, change in water quality, decrease is species diversity).

C. Predict impact from earthworks, if proposed.

□ No negative impact likely. Impact on significant an^»A specie^fp^ not a ba^/jp depal't$

treatment wetland. | <V;

□ Negative impact likely. Proceed to examination of mitigates,. T

CP v ppxk

If potential impact determined, examine potential mitigation of Impacts.

... '

Restoration of habitat (e g. peripheral planting, creation of nesting* foraging, -or wintering habitat
structures): ^

pp- p:, V '

vX.lv^V^

Further pretreatment of incoming wastawafer: J

x i *

.. s '• >' •. $»-

Final

d Net I

Mitigation PotenfsaJi

ction

V -

Nummary of Net I m paps After Mitigation:

\ — 1

Pc. - •

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-25

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Conclusions:

□ No negative impact likely. Impact on significant animal species is not a basis for denial of
treatment wetland.

□ Negative impact likely. Impact on significant animal species is a basis foj^denial $£§> atment
wetland.

Mm-.

• :;;x \ - * v

"X X- -: " V

<. • V;?- ••• • *

v •-... -X X' - *

.r . ,rX. %

. • 'jr

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-26

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection Treatment wetland evaluation

5.10: Function: Provision of Significant Human Economic or Social Benefits

Rationale: Humans derive social and economic benefits from natural areas such as passive and active
recreation, derivation of marketable goods and agricultural use.

Methods for Evaluation

Office Evaluation

Contact the following potential users to determine passive recreational use^ jralist clubs,

trail clubs, etc. List sources including names, phone numbers.

Contact agencies and non-governmental organizations su^a^Eppjrtment of EnvironmentaLP'rotection
(Natural Resource Sen/ice), Ducks Unlimited, Alberta Fish -m& Association to determine active
recreational use; document as above. - * * ", Y\

Contact agencies, NGO's and local band^Suncils re^^s^ a I u ch as trapping, fishing, peat

extraction, wild rice harvest, livestock u||f haying, fjpfstry.

. ML.

1 1

□ No information available: condapf p re I i m i n aliy Held . vistL'"/

□ Contacts inform that s&e i$ nbl used for Ipr^n purposes. Negative impact on social and economic

berfeSts 1$ riot ^a basiS-f*# ds«M.b^ .

P re I i m i rtiiy . IFIefd

Note the following in tfeQ-fj^ld:

*•*%. *

□ Presep€^:a^?>8i^:;S&^^^nowmdt^e paths

□ Shotgun shells % ;

□ jlfnage

^ -Wild Rice (harvest to determined from contact with above sources)

Jlf' Signs of peat extract^

/a Grazing, trampling ^livestock; haying
; Q\ Forestry . "/

\ Q detectable. Proceed to public consultation or evaluation of potential mitigation.

Mo l»RtBn.'tJse is detectable. Proceed to public consultation (Option 1).

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-27

5. GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED FOR APPROVAL OF CANDIDATE SITE FOR TREATMENT
WETLAND DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Option 1: Preliminary (optional) public consultation

If the site is used to treat sewage, it will become inaccessible to the public.

Conduct preliminary Public Information Centre or distribute information to inform potential users of
benefits and impacts of using site for constructed wetland. Obtain public comment. Append
summarized responses.

*Note: The most important impact of using the site for a treatment wetland is that it will no longer be
accessible for public use: evaluation of other impacts is not necessary.

Q Public concerns not resolved. Proceed to evaluation of potential mitigation
□ Public concerns resolved. Negative impact on social and/or economic benefj
of treatment wetland

Option 2: Proceed directly to evaluation of potential mitigation.

Mitigation of Potential Impacts
Refer to table of impacts and mitigation, Appendix D.

1 . Determine zone where impacts can be expected, and: «

Assess potential for relocation of passive recreation

is for denial

Assess potential for relocation of active recj^atib^i^iiiSiiere:

*jm jr if

ri*!* w

Assess potential for relocata ble activities elsewhere:

/"I

2. Mandatory public consultation:: Present benefits of proposed treatment wetland, projected impacts and
proposed n^gatioQ at PubTibipfbfl^’i^ Centre.

Sumr^f^epjip^commef^appefjdTesponses

mu mm

-MV

f Hold subsequed|:Jneetings to resolve individual concerns
i. Summarize comfnents and responses:

□

Public concerns can be resolved. Negative impacts on human social and economic benefits is not a
basis for denial of treatment wetland.

Public concerns cannot be resolved because negative impacts on social and economic benefits of site
are likely. Negative impacts on human social and economic benefits of site is a basis for denial of
treatment wetland

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 5-28

6. Design

Upon completion of the first three stages, if indications are that the chosen site is appropriate
for use as a treatment wetland, then the preliminary design will begin. The requirements for the
constructed and the natural treatment wetlands begin to diverge at this point. Each is presented
in the following sections.

It is important to note that at the design stage, it is critical to have
published treatment wetlands design documents as wel| as e
treatment wetlands designers who are up-to-date on the mdsfcjece
of success of the treatment wetland will be depende^6n these
document does not provide the level of information required to o
wetland design. However, a listing of the critical c®B%)onentj|nat mus
provided and appropriate design documents are referenced^ summary of^tj^i^^clesign
guidelines is presented in Appendix J. \

to recently
competent
The level
evaluatiolf

treatment

Constructed Treatment Wetlands design

It is anticipated that the constructed treatment wetiapdifijl be destgpeds0ptimarily for treatment
purposes. The typical relatively high nutrient loadings to these sy|tpfhs, when compared to
natural wetlands, provides conditions that tencTto faVptlr ar mAo.-puftfre of high nutrient-tolerant
emergent plant species such as cattail. Jp ^ ^

The design guidance provided in the'guidelinesls of a general nature only. References for and
approaches to design are found and profile an outline of the level of design

guidance required to carry the project to a firiahdesign,s&ge.

One alternative approach to provide a 'workshop to present an overview on the treatment
wetland’siunctibn and design principles f<kgfg#l5y a design workshop. Arrangements for this
approacfroan be made by'tsMm CO&S.

Natural Treatment Wetlands Design

The design of a natural tre&lment wetland requires an additional evaluation to determine
whether, the existing wetland Jp^remain relatively unchanged or if reduction in the diversity of
flora .and fauna will have a. severe negative impact on the wildlife community or generate public
opposition. The natural wetlands may be well suited to being divided into a series of wetland
ceiis,frhe cells closest.t© the wastewater source will receive the highest loading and maintain
the bwest plant diversity whereas the wetland cells further downstream will be able to maintain
a greater plant and Wildlife diversity. The design guidance provided in Appendix J is of a general
ntere wfc^f5%efice to treatment wetlands documents for details. These documents are
referf peed . at the end of Appendix J.

Treatment Wetlands: Design Considerations

General considerations for the design of a treatment wetland are summarized below. It is
important to note that these are intended to provide the wetland designer with a very basic

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 6-1

6. DESIGN

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

overview of a typical treatment wetland design. However, each system is site-specific and the
assistance of an experienced treatment wetland designer or careful review of a treatment
wetland design manual such as Treatment Wetlands’ (Kadlec and Knight, 1996) is critical to
the success of a treatment wetland project.

General design considerations are as follows:

Design and implement with designated objectives constantly and clparly in mind

Pretreatment of the wastewater, to at least primary an(||^efer|^^to secondary
quality with emphasis on suspended solids removal

Soils should be suited to support wetland \gi|p§tion

Vegetation can be cost effectively tran|jpnted frorif
ditches maintained by the Department qf %ghwa
small pocket wetlands are to be removed

'C - V V.

Freezing conditions during the winter months (gll not adversely affect the
wetland community (plants, microbes) but treatment efficiency of parameters that
rely on bacterial action for concentration reduction tp'reduced

Design more for function than for A number forms can probably meet
the objectives, and the form tq::\iplGh f m evol\^:>may not be the planned
one. )'r\r

Design relative to the nafgfal referppe sysi

ind do not over-engineer.

Design with the landscape, not .against it. Take advantage of natural topography,
drainage patterns,.

sir'

Design the wetlaad as an ecoforte. Incorporate as much “edge” as possible, and
design in:,::C^jtlh<|ion with a and the surrounding land and aquatic

systems. | N Xw^

.. Des^d;:tp protect the we&qnd from any potential high flows and sediment loads

• ‘ 3k.

Plan on enq.ugh time for the system to develop before it must satisfy the
>bffectiye& Attempts to short-circuit ecological processes by over-management
will proBabtyiaii?%

/;•* Design foks^i-austainability and to minimize maintenance

Considerations for the sip and configuration of the wetland are:

} . • Active treatment depth is 0.1 to 0.6 m with an average permanent wetland water

depth at 0.3 m. 1 m deep zones to be excavated perpendicular to the flow for
flow" redistribution and for fish and submerged or floating aquatic vegetation
'habitat

Minimum hydraulic retention time for a SF wetland is 7 to 10 days, for SSF
wetland 2 to 4 days, and for a natural wetland 14 to 20 days

Average hydraulic loading should be approximately 3 cm/d or 3.3 ha/1,000
m3/day

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 6-2

6. DESIGN

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Length to width ratios can be as low as 1:1. Lower length to width ratios result in
lower construction costs.

Shape and location of the treatment cell(s) can vary and depends on land-
scaping features required for attracting wildlife and for public enjoyment, and
relief of available land.

Flow regime and control recommendations are as follows:

• Gravity flow is the preferred method of movement of w
of the treatment wetland

Bottom slope of less than 0.1% is recomr

and

ough, and out

-side bottom J©

promote sheet flow through the system

If 4®^

• Vertical flow is discouraged and a liner W8tbe reqju§e£d for soif&y^ih les^tWn 10'

6 permeability |

• Incorporate a bypass that will collect fi rtf: flows in the wetland and divert

high flows during extreme rainfall wetland if high inflow/

infiltration is evident in the existing sanitary sewer . \

V- A > V

• Adjustable inflow and outflow struc&tres are requiredkfo Pe^ilate flow into and out

of the system and to regulate ^ *

• Winter operation under freezing conditions winter months may require

raising of the water level$£ allow fgfthe s pace r£qu i re m e n t for the ice cover

Ancillary benefits that increase the value of the wetland

{■■ ^ mw

• Landscaped features can profile an attractive park-like setting

pji;P ' \ % v

• /xWildlife habi^. w|dlife viewing opportunities, hiking areas, educational oppor-
^•xJ^ities, arid restoration of 'ks^wdfiand areas that can be incorporated into the

Wfciand de£i||
Nuisance controls th^shou

considered are:

\ • " V - w

,> ^.O^ptO;tt^trol irf crudes providing habitat for baitfish (fathead minnows),
" dragon IpeSt purple martins, swallows, and bats

Odour control is dot required since the treatment wetlands, if designed properly,

do not ge|# rats odours

Nuisance-wildlife including carp and muskrat will require control since they will
destroy dr consume the wetland vegetation and will, in the case of the carp, re-
suspetid settled materials

Treatment Wetlands Operation

The Canadian experience to date has been that most treatment wetlands in northern climates
receive stored wastewater from a lagoon on a seasonal basis for optimum contaminant removal
efficiency. Wetland systems can be operated through the winter months but must be over

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 6-3

6. DESIGN

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

designed to compensate for the reduced contaminant removal rates during cold weather
operation, particularly for nitrogen concentration reduction.

Continuous dischargers must concern themselves at the design stage with providing sufficient
insulation to keep the treatment wetland from freezing. This has been accomplished by
designing enough freeboard in the system to allow the water level to be raised in the fall,
allowing the surface to freeze, and lowering the water level. The dead vegetation stalks will act
as support structures for the ice sheet. The snow/ice/air gap can provide sufficiejlpisulation to
allow continuous flow through the winter months, especially if the j|isteWjgg|f* discharge is
sufficiently warm. The construction of a SSF system will also reduce
the wastewater freezing. Layers of snow, ice, dead plant jdhjerial
0.1 to 0.2 m of the gravel bed will provide an insula$l|@plDarri<
continuous discharge and meet discharge criteria, it wilj i&o be im
with a hydraulic retention time sufficient to reduce ;fhe nitro;

concentrations under cold water temperature conditions^his

the potential of
gap in the top
. To maintain
the sygffri
ant
area

as compared to a seasonal system that would op^mtC W..er warmer water terhperatu re
conditions. s\

In climates similar to that of many parts of Alberta, yea^rouriti tteppnt wetland systems have
been installed and have demonstrated high removal eftciencie^lrt ifi^vyhere risk of freezing
the system due to low or no flow will not allow for year-round disc!Nar§et 4 storage lagoon will
be required. Based on the Canadian Climate^ocmats published by' Environment Canada, the
monthly average temperatures indicate Jftit, fog^ieA^aL^ltecharge system, treated
wastewater can be discharged to the.: wetland JJbnrf approximately April to October since
average ambient air temperatures are aSbve fregpng. ThPpSPf discharge season will depend
on depth of ice cover in the wetjp&f thawigp* of inflow and outflow structures, and water
temperature above approximately j^C. For iiigh nitr|pen removal efficiencies under cold
weather condition, the hydrauli^jp'ding rate must be reduced at low water temperatures if the
wetland has been designed.for warm water operation/ :

\ \ • \

Capital, Operation, and Maintenance Costs

\ \ . X.. .. ... ...

Wetland construction costs are

by the cumulative cost of land, earthwork, planting,

design, monitofing amj maintenance. Surface flow constructed wetlands in the United States
typically f 50, 000 per hectare, depending upon system size (Kadlec

and Knigptr 1996). Wetland construction costs that fell outside this range included those where a
liner wp required, special attention was given to the removal and subsequent replacement of the
topsoil, economy of scalf was lost due to the small size of the installation, and/or special
architectural features wpe incorporated into the wetland design so that it would be a more
attractive feature for thi^urrounding community. The high cost of gravel fill can raise the price per
hectare of subsurface flow wetlands to as much as about four times the cost of surface flow
wetlands. However/subsurface flow wetlands can handle greater contaminant loading rates than
sddpeiow wetlands reducing the land requirements.

Operation and maintenance costs depend upon the extent of monitoring data collection, exotic
plant control, burrowing animal activity into the berms (animal control, berm repair), and water
management.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 6-4

6. DESIGN

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Public Participation

It is critical to maintain open communication with the communities adjacent to the chosen
treatment wetland site. There is considerable misinformation and a lack of understanding of the
benefits of treatment wetlands that could lead to strong opposition to this option for wastewater
polishing. A public meeting with qualified environmental and treatment wetlands experts will
provide a forum where questions about the natural treatment approach can ^addressed.
Questions and concerns that have been raised over the years include issues sugjps:

• What about mosquitoes? .

• Do we know enough about this relatively y^Wiechnol^py to &hgonfident in ou$*

design of the system? jlr

• Will it continue to function in the winter? > \ Qss/

• Will wetlands treat all contaminants and be applicable to all wastew'&tef streams?

• Are there any large scale applications? „

iltation process. Responses

and sediment and

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 6-5

Appendix#*

Wetland App

A. Wetland Applications

The intent of this publication is to provide municipal planners and the farming community
with enough information to consider wetlands treatment as a wastewater treatment alterna-
tive. However, there is a potential for applying this technology to a wider spectrum of waste-
water and stormwater sources. Federal and provincial lands could benefit cojpderably from
this technology since it offers a low cost alternative to mor^^onvjJlSnal forms of
wastewater and stormwater treatment. A brief description of sev^®|J^e potential uses
is listed below.

Municipal Wastewater Treatment

'y.y* 'yy ...

Successful treatment of primary and secondary both activated sludge and

lagoon systems, landfill leachate and septic tank ^u5%using wetlands is well docu-
mented. Typically, these systems are applied to smalt ^hiirtynities where land is readily
available at a reasonable cost. Many of the Canbbiaftv^ that have been con-

structed in the colder climates have been designed for se^^on^l. Ifc&ph a rge or to meet the
regulatory guidelines prior to discharge to the:,w^8^jds and pnoyi^ng tertiary treatment
to the wastewater stream.

Farm Feedlot/Agricultural Blinoff

Approximately 20 projects are Underway jposs Canada where constructed wetlands are
being used to curb the runoff fibp#arm fe^cllots into Vpen ditches that eventually flows into
nearby water courses or percolates into ttie ground affecting the groundwater quality. The
cost associated with cop^rilcfing a wellapd; hs&jllen estimated to be as little as one tenth
of that of building a Jqufd ifcanure t &nk> Mapy of these systems are designed for zero
discharge, retying o^qyapqi^tjqn and%rigafion for the disposal of the water. Providing a
buffer^ge tbbt, : a Hows- o|rea#h,xri.ve r and pond banks to naturally vegetate and preventing
cattle frdm.gr^^ in an^4rbund>:th.p water edge provides treatment for field and feedlot

rUnOff. ”v .

•••■ • ■ \ %

The usejstf treatment .W^andsN:tfes in very closely with municipal wastewater treatment
wherpIKe farming community and villages, towns, and cities share a common watershed.
The^regulating autlidr&tes-Jh Ontario, for example, consider nutrient ‘swapping’ as an
jjiernative to upgrading ^municipal wastewater treatment plant. The municipality provides
/: source controls for selected portions of the farming community equal to or greater than the
S' anticipated loading: Increase by the wastewater treatment plant. A treatment wetland is one
of many sourcejepSrols that are available to the farming community.

Natlpjnal/P rovi n c ia I Pa rks

Campsites within national and provincial parks could benefit from the wetland technology
from several standpoints. Since most parks operate on a seasonal basis, the design of
these systems would not require that they be built to meet winter operation criteria and could
easily be modified in the future if year-round operation was desired. Wetlands could be
incorporated into the environmental education program although care would have to be

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGEA-1

A. WETLAND APPLICATIONS

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

taken to reduce the risk of campers coming into contact with the wastewater and the
pathogens it may contain. Wetlands may be of particular interest to campsites located in the
northern areas of Canada.

First Nation Lands

Native settlements are often in remote locations and are frequently poorjy served by
acceptable wastewater treatment facilities. Wetlands offer an opportunity fQ|f|?wastewater

and stormwater treatment alternative that will blend into the natur
tion and management of these systems would provide jn empl
local residents as well as full control over every aspel
Providing wildlife habitat would be seen as another a

Northern Communities

ent. Construc-
portunity for the
atment project,
d system. jfF

Currently, many northern communities are using facuMve Stqrage lagoons for their waste-
water treatment needs. Most have permits to discharge the lagoon contents during the
summer months. A growing number of communities Yu&bfy Northwest Territories,

northern BC, and northern Alberta are incorporating wetlandslnfo th&wastewater treatment
to provide a better quality effluent and, in sorne-dSleeiJo extend the discharge period.

Stormwater T reatment Wetlands

0 #

Stormwater wetlands are constructed' wetlandiPthat impish# water quality, modify flow rates
by storing water temporarily ig/yhallow pjodls that clpte growing conditions suitable for
emergent and riparian wetland plants, attenuate flow'and reduce downstream scouring and
erosion (MOEE.1992 and Shuffer, 1992)+ $hueler C&scribes five basic stormwater wetland
designs: shallow marshrpond/wetlandt extended' detention, pocket wetlands, and fringe
wetland£:M,are essentially &irface flow syslerfis, with varying emergent marsh and deep
pool habitat- and hydfauiiQ cdpicjty, residence time, and travel routes.

In recenhyeare, interest has ShiftedJrom providing stormwater attenuation with retention
ponds alone,, to incorporating vegetated wetland cells into the design to provide greater
attenuation and contaminant removal The accompanying database indicates those com-
munities with installed wetlands as part of their stormwater management system and several
that are awaiting apprb^rftpi the regulating authorities or are in the predesign or design

Sludge Drying/Biosolids Management

| Management .,pf sludge solids from an activated sludge system has been carried out in the
1 U.S. and in Europe. This is being done to replace or improve sand drying beds. Reed beds
'<:^ave beon found to provide shorter dewatering times and reduced sludge volumes and
organic" material.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE A-2

Appendixes

Example Calcula
for SF ANOSS

■' "• V

.v & <i‘

/\ : I

/ \ \ ' ' V

\ • \ X' ' 'vx

V- x'Hv \ i

>: \ /
a '

B. EXAMPLE CALCULATION TABLES FOR SF AND SSF WETLANDS

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Appendix B - Alberta Environmental Protection - Wetlands Guidelines
Surface Flow (SF) Treatment Wetland - Preliminary Feasibility Calculation Sheet - Example
Instructions: Fill in the single outline boxes with data gathered in Section 1, then calculate the values for the double outlined boxes.
Location:

Design Flow. m3/d

120

TSS BOD TP TN NH4-N Org-N

Influent Concentration

Target Effluent Concentration

C,=

15 30

29#f 25

200,000

8.5

6 K 02

200

Wetland background limit, mg/L

for TSS, C* = 7.8 + 0.063C,
for BOD, C* = 3.5+0.0530,
Areal rate constant @ 20°C, m/yr.
Required wetland area, ha

Effluent concentration, mg/L
via k-C* model

Co = C * +(C. - C *)exp

kAn

k =
A =

A = |

( 0.0365 x Qj

X In

vC=-C v

0.05

1000 I $4 '^^12

1.5

maximuq»i|Siiculate(r^^fioltt:abjW^%boxes (A^J =

C„ @ maximum area =

0.0365 x Q.

,.<v'\ k- -4

w St

ifc

:? :k

- ; xx

-X

.pp

■■■ <>

X>.,

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH PAGE B-1

B. EXAMPLE CALCULATION TABLES FOR SFAND SSF WETLANDS

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Appendix B - Alberta Environmental Protection - Wetlands Guidelines
Subsurface Flow (SSF) Treatment Wetland - Preliminary Feasibility Calculation Sheet - Example
Instructions: Fill in the single outline boxes with data gathered in Section 1, then calculate the values for the double outlined boxes.

Location:

Design Flow, m3/d Q= | 120

TSS BOD TP TN NH,-N Org-N FC

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE B-2

Appendix*;

References For Wet^nd Evaluation
Guidelines ANi#0%Hi#AF#ENDiCES

••-V M

.. • >

▼

Ji:W

A" $

:;'v

C. References for Wetland Evaluation
Guidelines and Other Appendices

Alberta Department of Environmental Protection 1995. Alberta’s Statement of the
Environment: a Comprehensive Report. Publication 1/583, Alberta EnvironmenW Protection.

Settled Area of

Alberta Water Resources Commission. 1993a. Wetland Manage
Alberta: an Interim Policy. Alberta Water Resources CotAissio

Alberta Water Resources Commission. 1993b. Alb
Wetlands: a Background Report. Alberta Water Re

^Settled AtM

Allen, L. 1991. Status of Plant Conservation in Alb^fi^n H^oyd, G.L., G^Purhs ^ H.C.
Smith. 1991. Proceedings of the Second Endan^red%pecies and Pra i rie^Cense rvati on
Workshop. Provincial Museum of Alberta Natural His'tory bcoasional Paper No. 5.

. ‘v... •"

Atkinson, D.W., Taylor, D., and Cheung, P. Stompatdr, Management Guidelines for the
Province of Alberta. 1 997. v mmmtasfa

Berry, D. 1995. Alberta’s Walleye Management and Recovery f^anMlberta Environmental
Protection, Natural Resources Service, Fi^maM^riagBjment Dijlion.

Bramm, S. 1992. Protecting Ecosystgps in Al j$prta Government Mechanisms.
Environmental Council of Alberta, E0\ o nto n jibe rta .

>•' £ #>•?'

D.A. Westworth and Associated $§p., 19gp Functiojff and Values of Alberta’s Wetlands.
Report for Wetlands Management Steegt||f Committee. North Petroleum Plaza, Edmonton,
Alberta. * f / f:- \

.y. ^

D.A. WeStwqrth and. AssdbiAes Ltd. ^1890. ^Significant Natural Features of the Eastern
Boreal Forest F^e g i o e c h R§pbtf for Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife.

Dicksori>HX. ansNVR. Sn^^l^kjhe Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
and the Pralde §ffer:pbird Holroyd, G.L., G. Burns and H.C. Smith. 1991.

Proceedings *# the Second Endangered Species and Prairie Conservation Workshop.
Provincial Museum of AldSfta Natural History Occasional Paper No. 5.

Enypnment Canada? 1982>y/'

/ ■'

Kadlec, R.H. and R.Ll|<nrtjht. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers. 1996.

Knight, R.L., Payne(V., Pries, J.H., Borer, R., Clarke, R. Constructed Wetlands for Livestock
Wastewater Management - Literature Review, Database, and Research Synthesis. Gulf of
Mexico Program/1997.

Wilk, K. Woolnough and B. Hoskins. 1985. Wildlife Habitat Requirement
Summaries for Selected Wildlife Species in Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources
(ENR Technical Report T/73), Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton.

Packer, J.G. and C.E. Bradley. 1984. A checklist of the Rare Vascular Plants of Alberta.
Provincial Museum of Alberta Occasional Paper No. 5.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRACH

PAGE C-1

C. REFERENCES FOR WETLAND EVALUATION GUIDELINES AND OTHER APPENDICES

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Paetz, M.J. and J.S. Nelson. 1970. The Fishes of Alberta. Government of Alberta,
Edmonton. 282 pp.

Posey, M. 1992. Saving the Strands of Life. Alberta’s Biodiversity. Environmental Council of
Alberta, Edmonton.

Poston, B., D.M. Ealey, P.S. Taylor and G.B. McKeating. 1990. Priority Migratory Bird
Habitats of Canada’s Prairie Provinces. Habitat Conservation Section, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Western and Northern Region, Environment Canada, Edmonton,

Pries, J.H. Wastewater and Stormwater Applications of Wetlands
No. 1994-1. North American Wetlands Conservation Cojgfecil (Ca

. Issues Paper,

Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The Atlas of Breeding I IPof Albe pn of Albeitf

Naturalists, P.O. Box 1472, Edmonton, Alberta.

Smith, H.C. 1993. Alberta Mammals: an Atlas arfl^jide^rovincial M Cfi^p^^oT^erta ,
Edmonton, Alberta. t \ *

Strong, W.L., B.K. Calverley, A.J. Richard and 1993. Characterization of

Wetlands in the Settled Areas of Alberta. Regorl Management Steering

Committee, Edmonton, Alberta. <v '

4|h£n3ank. Environmental

Usher, R. and J. Scarth. 1990. Alberta’s
Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

v...^

S0W ''' " "

Wallis, C. 1987. Critical, Threatened. 0t6 Enda^gerecf Hayfatsin Alberta. In Holroyd, G.L.,
P.H.R. Stepney, G.C. Trottier, W.8/MacGp#ray, i®^;€a!ey and K.E. Eberhart. 1987.
Endangered Species in the Prefer# Provings. ProvijpFaT Museum of Alberta Occasional
Paper No. 9. ^

< : m

Wildlife Management Divisional 996. Tbe Status Of Alberta Wildlife. Alberta Environmental
Protection^ Natural Resources Service, Edmonton/

'"1

I/:,

if:'::;::-!

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE C-2

(

D. Potential Adverse Environmental
Impacts and Mitigating Measures

Direct effects

Indirect Effects

Mitig^on

Increase in nutrient input A.

Replacement of plants adapted to
nutrient-poor conditions (e.g. bog,
fen, shoreline and prairie plants;
many rare) with plants adapted to
nutrient-rich conditions (e.g.
cattails, bulrushes; generally more
common spp.).

Weedy species which out-compete
native species may invade and
establish dense stands.

Increase in nutrient input may result in eradi- Fur
cation of some native plant communities^ ws
which are often adapted to a narrow^
nutrient conditions; weedy species^
compete native species may invac

lent of incoming waste-
jnulti-cell treatment
reduce nutrient
ills to levels typSgil
ions.

Characteristically low sedge broc
foraging habitat for waterfowl, sh<
aquatic mammals may be replacedP$|||s
tall stands; possible positive impac$|pr
increasing concealing cover.

tl®

Algal blooms shade out floating and Forage species for some wj
submergent species. impacts on rare submej;

may reduce public a £
wetland.

Contaminated surface water may
enter local aquifer through
recharge.

Change in
decrease
organi

General decre
diversity.

lations may
quatic organisms
hese animals

rease in wildlife species

$||fessity of restncting acce
si* wetland.

Possible negative affects on public accep-
tance; but positive affects for wildlife.

Further pretreatmehl^|:»^g*nTng
wastewater; weed contra unlikely to be
ffective; construct multi-cell treatment
land in series to reduce nutrient
^ s in the initial cells to levels typical
|||||£^§^stewater conditions.

further pretreatment of
stewater; construct multi-cell
wetland in series to reduce
t loadings in the initial cells to
s typical of pre-wastewater condi-

Ensure constructed wetland is not in an
area of significant recharge, or place liner
to increase retention time before water
enters aquifer; further pretreatment of
incoming wastewater.

Further pretreatment of incoming waste-
water; construct multi-cell treatment wet-
land in series to reduce nutrient loadings
in the initial cells to levels typical of pre-
wastewater conditions.

Restoration of habitat by creating low
grade slopes (no more than 1:10) in
some areas where a variety of plants can
recolonize, replanting shrubs and trees in
areas peripheral to the wetland; confine-
ment of impacts to least diverse areas.

Education and signage; provision of
public access in acceptable (e.g. peri-
pheral) parts of the wetland; enhance-
ment of access elsewhere by provision of
trails, other amenities.

nd to be killed off
herbaceous

species.

Reduction of habitat for forest-dependent
species; potential elimination of habitat for
species requiring large tracts of unbroken
habitat (i.e. protected interior areas away from
forest edge); potential effect on rare forest
species.

Enlarge habitat by tree-planting or
allowing vegetation at forest edge
(increasing the area of forest-interior);
improve linkage with other habitats;
incorporate upland areas that will support
woody species into wetland design.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE D-1

D. POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Direct effects

Indirect Effects

Mitigation

Tree removal will affect the amount of sunlight
reaching water and affect plant productivity
and increase watercourse temperatures.

Plant trees in strategic parts of the
wetland to minimize impact on water
temperature; incorporate upland areas
that will support woody species into
wetland design.

Increase in flooded area; water
levels are more consistent, with
fewer fluctuations.

Potential positive impact for waterfowl by
increasing permanence of wetland, area of
standing water.

Flooding of lower littoral zone and
potential elimination of zone of
annual plant species (often rare)
which germinate when water levels
fall.

Creation of larger, deeper water
body.

Flooding of nests over or near water, flo^
of low bank burrows/nests; erosion of I

Downstream flooding at periphery oj
with attendant social cost; reducec
of treatment wetland.

Elimination of brood habitat, mudi
foraging areas by shorebirds, wate
increase in inundation time may elingr*
some invertebrates.

Invasion by larg^pj^datory i
aquatic specie^jimich may e«riina
species; e.g^mfrogs mayJpT a caus
decline in Ij^Sterd frogs;j»rp have wic
impactaiNitetland veg^rltion.

j mg

id Calcu
bptance if wi

If waterfowl are to be discouraged from
using the site due to stringent effluent
requirements, desigi^k wetland to
minimize open waj|j|||frazing, nesting,
and brjS&jng are

CrezmgAm>lat above the floodline;
spe^^^^^^ra lost habitat.

:ects and deter
nt to receive

raterl^||^|^^Guts; cq&pftct
age to inci^^:a^!^^$||^PtTigure
Outflow area to in§l^^^|^^^pacity.

Engineer shoreline (apj^wpnery of wet-
land or on created habitat islands) with
|dual grade (no more than 1:10) to
>te zonation of emergent plant
jrovide storage or alternate
some seasons to simulate
level fluctuations; divert
>id mud flats and areas of
^mating vegetation.

carp barriers as appropriate;
jnfigure outflow area to increase
Outflow capacity and reduce water levels.

Construction activities to improve tre^^^^wipabil^^^

Soil disturbance promotes invasion^ P|^ftial elimina^^^hortj^i^ual
by non-native^species, which te>]|^^v^ptation or provide

to elimina^l^^species and br^^^TO^^rwaterfowl,

Plant native vegetation soon after con-
struction is finished, confine soil distur-
bance to already disturbed areas if
possible.

SiltationV^^i^a^^^unng^^^^i^^qerminating plants, fish,
construction ^^^^^^^mpacts on organisms at higher

"smothered" plal^l^^ppAls due trOTS^Ias^^
to the deposition^^J^^^

Control siltation during construction with
standard construction techniques.

Blasting m^^S^^%ii^^pi^^y'oxicityli^many organisms,
mineral^mcould pote
conta^prate surface water

Conduct geochemical analysis of bed-
rock, avoid blasting in contaminated
areas.

Cowruction may impact ^)s^^plCeduction in population

j^HSrbance-sensitive speciesfp ^

£i £

Avoid construction during times when
most sensitivity to disturbance occurs
(mainly during breeding season).

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE D-2

E. Rare Plant Species

A complete list of Alberta’s rare flora (360 species) is found in Packer and Bradley (1984).
This listing is being revised, but revisions are not yet complete. The following notes signi-
ficant wetland species listed by D.A. Westworth and Associates Ltd., 1993.

PartI

Significant Plants of Alberta Wetlands

Plant Species

Braun's Quillwort )lsoetes echinospora)

Floating Bur-reed ( Sparganium fluctuans)
Blunt-leaved Pondweed ( Potamogeton obtusifolius )
Widgeon-grass ( Ruppia maritima)

Flowering quillwort ( Ulaea scilloides)

Broad-leaved Arrowhead ( Sagittaria latifolia)

Tall Manna Grass ( Glyceria elata)

Prairie Cord Grass ( Spartina pectinata)

Porcupine Sedge ( Carex hystricina)

Kellog’s Sedge ( Carex kelloggii)

Nevada Bullrush ( Scirpus nevadensis)

Geyer's Wild Onion ( Allium geyeri)

Western Blue Flag ( Iris missouriensis
Small White Water-lily ( Nymphaea t\

Waterwort ( Elatine triandra)

Low Yello^^ening-primro^^S^^hena flav,
Lance^esved C^sestrifeA^li^k/anceo/a,
Watersp^edyn ^xosonica 0
Downingia fi i > l^0^aeta)

Tall Beggar1 s-TW^GS^m^frondo,

Sj^pmm^nd Marshes
Marsl

Streak banks/Lake margins
ine Pond Margins
'et Meadows/Stream Banks
Wet meadows/stream banks
Ponds

Muddy shores/shallow water
Wetland margins/clay flats
Lake and Pond margins
Lake and pond margins
Alkaline margins of ponds
Lake and pond margins

d with immediate extinction or extirpation because of human actions.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE E-1

E. RARE PLANT SPECIES

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Part 2

Plant species of Threatened or Endangered Status in Alberta

Species

Status

Habitat

Reason for decline

Southwestern Alberta

Allium geyeri

Castilleja cusickii
Cypripedium montanum
Ins missouriensis
Astralagus lotifloms

E (Allen 1991)1 Wet meadows and stream banks

Restricted distribution
and habaht destruction

E (Allen 1991)
E (Allen 1991)
E (Allen 1991)
T (Allen 1991)

Moist meadows and grasslands .
Moist woods
Moist meadows
Dry slopes and

Sand Dunes of Prairies and Parklands

Cypems schweinitzii

Tradescantia occidentalis
Abronia micrantha
Chenopodium subglabrum
Lygodesmia rostrata
Legend:

T = Threatened: species likely to become
them vulnerable are not reversed.

E = Endangered: species threatened with i
1 Allen, 1991 (Appendix C)

E (Allen 1991)

E (Allen 1991)
T (Allen 1991)
T (Allen 1991)
T (Allen 1991)

n or natural causes making
because of human actions.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDEUNES BRANCH

PAGE E-2

Landscape Typ
Potentia
Significant

F. Landscape Types and Localities
Potentially Indicative of Significant
Plant Species

PartI

Relative Occurrence of Landscape Types based on the Pf^-Europe
Alberta

(from Cottonwood Consultants Inc., 1983; in Wallis,

Landscape Type

Status |

Grassland and Parklan|i

Mixed Grassland
Upland

I. Glaciolacustrine
3. ground moraine
5. dune field

7. solonetz/blow-outs

Wetland
9. wet meadow

I I . deep marsh/open water
Valley (R)

13. meandering river, terrace
15. eroded bedrock marine
17. prote
19. in
21. s'

1 marsh/open water
13. fresh/sl. alkali lake

Valley (R)

15. meandering river terrace
17. eroded bedrock
19. inactive terrace

16. sinuous river terrace
18. protected slope
20. abandoned channel

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE F-1

F. LANDSCAPE TYPES AND LOCAUTIES POTENTIALLY INDICATIVE OF SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIESDRAFT - FEBRUARY

Part 1

Relative Occurrence of Landscape Types based on the Pre-European Extent of Each Type in
Alberta

(from Cottonwood Consultants Inc., 1983; in Wallis, 1987)

Landscape Type

Status

Landscape Type

Status

21. springs: fresh
Other (R)

23. clear stream
25. permanent stream

Plains (C)

I . glaciolacustrine (fine)

3. ground moraine

Valley/Hill (C)

5. unglaciated

7. N or E-facing slope

9. sinuous river terrace

Wetland (O)

I I . wet meadow

13. deep marsh/open water

15. seepage/springs

Other (R)

16. clear stream

18. permanent stream

22. springs: alkali

Other (R)

23. clear stream
25. intermittent stream

24. permanent stream

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDEUNES BRANCH

PAGE P-2

F. LANDSCAPE TYPES AND LOCALITIES POTENTIALLY INDICATIVE OF SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIESDRAFT - FEBRUARY IS

PartI

Relative Occurrence of Landscape Types based on the Pre-European Extent of Each Type in
Alberta

(from Cottonwood Consultants Inc., 1983; in Wallis, 1987)

Landscape Type

Plains (O)

1. glaciolacustrine (fine)

3. ground moraine

Valley/Hill (C)

5. meandering river terrace
7. eroded bedrock

9. protected slopes

Wetland (O)

1 0. wet meadow

12. deep marsh/open water

14. seepage/springs

Other (R)

15. clear stream

Legend:

R = Rare
O = Occasional
C = Common

Status

Landscape Type

Status

Foothills Parkland Ecoregion

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE F-3

O O

F. LANDSCAPE TYPES AND LOCAUTIES POTENTIALLY INDICATIVE OF SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIESDRAFT- FEBRUAR

Part 2

Examples of Individually Noted Significant Landscapes or Plant Communities in Grassland,
Parkland, and Boreal Regions (Wallis, 1987; D.A. Westworth & Associates, 1990, Bramm,
1992: see Appendix C))

Feature

The largest corr
range: unglagjj

Vegetation g

Neutral Hills-Goosberry Lake-1

Miquelon L#ke Provincial P

Dry P n

Mixed Grass

Milk River-L

Location

Foothills Parkland/Foothills Grassland

Southernmost portion of the foothills parkland in
the Waterton/Paine Lake area

Little Bluestem prairie located northwest of Fort
MacLeod

Wet meadow site in Police Outpost Provincial Park Wet mea

The Ross Lake area of the Milk River Ridge
Mineral Springs along Boundary Creek
Oldman and Belly Rivers

Big Hill Springs Provincial Park
Central Parkland
Hummocky moraine near Rumsey
Sounding Lake and Reflex Lake sand plain

Wainwright-David Lake-Ribstone Cre

Middr Sand Hills Sand

e aspen parkland in the world

sand plain, dune field, non/weak
ropen water, fresh/sl. alkaline lake

jih diversityjgflandform as well as rare slope fens, shrub

ms with rail plant species, active blow-outs

—

^zeabl^lpas of Central Parkland on morainal landscapes
^ '"the best closed forest in the Cooking Lake Moraine

Diverse section of Red Deer River Valley including
coniferous forest, badlands and slump block features

last remaining ungrazed vegetation associated with springs
and creeks; numerous plants at northern edge of range;
Mountain Plover breeding habitat

Largest sand dune area in grassland region; numerous rare
or restricted species in excellent condition; landscape of
Canadian significance

!<■ Between the Milk River j^fnyon and Suffield areas: Wide variety of landscape types (including dunes, wetlands,
|§:$t|$/ash/sand plain bedrock outcrops, streams) with attendant wide diversity of

jiP' plant communities.

The only active sand dunes in the Grassland region outside
Suffield Military Reserve; habitat for high quality native
vegetation

McTaggart Coulee and Black Butte

Porphyry with rare lichens

Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park

extensive areas of massive sandstone outcrops with rare
plant and animal species

Dinosaur Provincial Park

High variety and quality of badlands and riparian vegetation;
one of the few examples of ungrazed riparian woodland in
the Grassland region

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE F-4

F LANDSCAPE TYPES AND LOCALITIES POTENT! ALL Y IN PICA TIVE OF SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIESDRAFT- FEBRUARY IS

Part 2

Examples of Individually Noted Significant Landscapes or Plant Communities in Grassland,
Parkland, and Boreal Regions (Wallis, 1987; D.A. Westworth & Associates, 1990, Bramm,
1992: see Appendix C))

Location

Feature

Terraces along lower Red Deer near Bindloss

Largest in Grassland Region;
variety and quality of riparian^
springs with rareASSOciate<;

>st exteyagpe and diverse
atsJiijberta; Alkali
laple woodlands

South of Empress along the South Saskatchewan
River

Best example^gjpsmitoba
understorey J|praining rare

id with rich

Duchess Springs

Most exter

|§§e spring w<j

glpiinds i eg i <^:|P

Douglas Creek adjacent to the Red Deer River

Extensive!

of s®#i

r seepage

— : . . .

Northern Fescue Grassland

regions orr

in Plains

Little Fish-Hand Hills-Wintering Hills area

Last large,
represer

in of i

lem Fescue Grassland; good
re plants

Cypress Hills

plateau ur
&nct Montar
st-glaciaf

Fejflpfes cons*g^p|eherally significant include
o^TJtrophic msTkarst features

s known about significant features in this
1992)

are plant species

and dunes among the largest in the world; diverse
forms, palaeodunes and kames; plant species not
found elsewhere in Alberta

area in the plains of
jn with southern
"flora

ed for a wide variety of reasons
iates, 1990)

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE F-5

Habitat Matri
Amphibians
Ma

g Fishes,
T Birds, and

BERTA

HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 1: HABITAT MATRIX FOR FISHES OF ALBERTA

Wetland Habitat

Open water habitat

Special Needs (an asterisk in this
column indicates that the species is
unlikely to be affected by a treatment
wetland under guidelags proposed
here) x

1 Marsh

| Swamp

*ln this column
indicates area-or
d isturba nee -se nsitive
species

cattail

graminoid

low shrub

-Q

tall shrub

coniferous

deciduous

pond

river

|Changes expected as a result of wastewater inflow J||f

Habitat before inflows

i «

Habitat after inflows

1ZM

Species

<>«vX

Lake Sturgeon

~~ *~

'~r"

1 &&!$:

Arctic Grayling

'“j

jfF

Cisco

Shortjaw Cisco

Lake Whrtefish

Mountain Whitefish

Lake Trout

# 5

Bull Trout

F *

Brook Trout

1 Jf**

* '

k ^

clear, cold water

Brown Trout

~r~

~~s~

clear, cold water

Cutthroat Trout

~r~

”*1

clear, cold water

Rainbow Trout

~T~

cool water

Golden Trout

IfF

clear, cold water

Kokanee

□

w—

cool water

•

spawn in shallow, seasonally
flooded marshes

- %

:SKi

iiK*&

— * —

LonqnoS^p^^^m~

s —

Flathead

ih—

" V ’’ ’•

often inhabit river margins

Lake Chub

Pearl Dace

WJv.

~s~

" T~

~~ 5 r"

Redsi^BTiiner “

~s~

Nor$J»rn Redbelty Dace

spawn over aquatic plants

Ftffilifccale Dace

_j|

~r~

fl^thead Mnnow

S&nerald Shiner

Foyer Shiner 4

sandy or gravelly substrate

Sfotail Shiner

Mnnow

-s_

* intolerant of turbid water

_7_

orse

Northern Redhorse

Longnose Sucker

White Sucker

_r~

spawn on sandy substrate

Largescale Sucker

Mountain Sucker

-r~

' swift-flowing mountain streams

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-1

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 1: HABITAT MATRIX FOR FISHES OF ALBERTA

Wetland Habitat

special Needs (an aswiiak in mis
column indicates that the species is
unlikely to be affected by a
treatment wetland Wider guidelines
Open water habitat proposed here)

Marsh

Swamp

*ln this column
indicates area-or
disturbance-sensitive
species

cattail

graminoid

low shrub

tall shrub

coniferous

deciduous

pond

river

Stonecat

Burbot

1 rout-Herch

Brook Stickleback

^ ^ |]L

Ninespine Stickleback

Iowa Darter

Yellow Herch

Sauger

Walleye

Mottled Sculpin

Slimy Sculpin

Spoonhead Sculpin

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGEG-2

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 2: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

Lowland Habitat

1 Upland Habitat

Special Needs

Marsh

Swamp

Open

woodland

*ln this column
indicates area-or
disturbance-sensitive
species

cattail

graminoid

low shrub

CT>

-O

tall shrub

coniferous

deciduous

grassland

scrubland

young

deciduous

mixed

mature

deciduous

young

coniferous

mature

coniferous

Changes expected as a result o

wastewater ini

low

Habitat before inflows

Habitat after inflows

Species

\!L

Great Plains Toad

4K1

}?|^gcte|^reas in spring t^£|

Northern Leopard Frog

Wood Frog

★

"-x* 1

y ★

★

Floode^^^ffiSifi^reeding

Plains Spadefoot Toad

Flooded areas for breeding

Spotted Frog

★

Montane areas; flooded
areas for breeding

Canadian Toad

iilll

Water bodies

Boreal toad

■

‘\

1 *

Flooded areas for breeding

Chorus Frog

★

xgjigi

Flooded areas for breeding

Long-toed Salamander

¥ %

d!f>

Riparian areas in mountains

Tiger Salamander

c- : :

Concealing cover (debris)

Short-horned Lizard

Western Hognose Snake

::y'\

Prairie Rat^lisoake*

.*:• :

:-y'

River valley slopes tor
hibernation

WestS% Panted Turtle

‘

Permanent standing water

Bull Snak^y

W5:

Winter den sites

Plains Garter '

Generally near water

Red-sided Garti^^^^pg

Permanent water

Wandering

:::?4 :

^ y

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-3

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 3: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING BIRDS OF ALBERTA (information adapted from Semenchuk, 1992)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

(Tpen

woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

ffi

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous

Mature Coniferous

Special Needs

Changes expected as a result of wastewater inf

ow ,>fe& fefepi

Habitat before inflows

Habitat after inflows

jf*

Species

Red-throated Loon*

III

Deep v .v

Pacific Loon*

■■

Northern^N^:#!^^

Common Loon*

‘ ‘

Large, deep'ia^S^"

Pied-billed Grebe*

Large, deep lakes

Horned Grebe

:V:' V.:'

•

Large, marshy lakes

Red-necked Grebe*

Colonial: marshy lakes

Eared Grebe*

&$rge, shallow lakes

Western Grebe*

Cdfonial: marshy lakes

Clarke’s Grebe*

Selonial: marshy lakes

American White Pelican*

Irfe”’

III

,y •

Ill

■1 1 1

Colonial: on islands in lakes
with fish

Double-crested Cormorant*

y$:&

Colonial: on islands in lakes
with fish

American Bittern*

Tall vegetation

Great Blue Heron*

Open marsh nearby

Black-crowned Night Heron*

""I'

Open marsh nearby

White-faced Ibis*

Mudflats

Trumpeter Swan

' -f

;

Large, marshy lakes

Canada GdbSftx.

..pfe

.. *■

Usually open water

Wood. .Puck fefefe.

Large dead trees, brood habitat

Green-\s^tged

Open water nearby, brood
habitat

Mallard

* '

Open water nearby, brood
habitat

Northern Pintail „

JfF" fe.

life

Open water nearby, brood
habitat

Blu^jphged Teal '%

• \

Open water nearby, brood
habitat

$«£namon Teal i

m 1

:fe.

Open water, brood habitat
nearby

Jlbrthern Shoveler Jp

Open water, brood habitat
nearby

Gadwaii

Open water, brood habitat
nearby

American Widgeon*

Water, brood habitat nearby

(^aihvasback*

Water, brood habitat nearby

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-4

6. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES , AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES , BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 3: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING BIRDS OF ALBERTA (information adapted from Semenchuk, 1992)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

Open

Woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous

•£

Special Needs

||k

Redhead

XvH;:*:

ftfeSiSpiljIakes

Ring-necked Duck

lii

Lesser Scaup

uiarsf^iakes N'*

Harlequin Duck *

| §

1#'

Fa^mottftta<ii:^^ams

Surf Scoter*

Open r

White-winged Scoter*

* 3

Open wate^;:fetda4l^i¥at;
undisturbed

Common Goldeneye*

Large dead trees, brood habitat

Barrow’s Goldeneye*

:v: .

Large dead trees, brood habitat

Bufflehead

x::;*k

Large dead trees, brood habitat

Hooded Merganser

:£a{.ge dead trees, deep water

Common Merganser

yrfgpe dead trees, deep water

Red-breasted Merganser*

* ’

, *

iSK'orelines, deep water

Ruddy Duck

Open water, brood habitat

Turkey Vulture*

fc:,.

Rocky outcrops, near water

Osprey*

* •:

V-S

IxV”'

Tall structures, near fish

Bald Eagle*

ri#

Tall structures, near fish

Northern Harrier*

Open country

Sharp-shinned Hawk

W *

Cooper's Hawk*

Often near water

Northern Goshawk*

,|§|

Broad-winged Hawk*

-:k

* i

Swainson'fiHawk

• *>

Tall trees

Red-tarfed Hawk •

Open country nearby

Ferruginous Waiwk*

Sparsely treed areas

Golden Eagle* \

iPP

Sparsely treed areas, slopes or
plateaus

American Kestref

Open country nearby, nest
cavities

Merlin %

'w>:;

•>X

Open country nearby i

Pereg$*£ Falcon*

CTiffi

Prairie 'Falcon*

CiifFi

Gray Partridge

• -■

Adjacent woods

Mjs'g-necked Pheasant ]

Spruce Grouse*

$#ie Grouse* ./

Mountains

Willew Ptarmigan*

Above timberline

Alpine meadows

Ruffed Grouse #r

Small openings

$age Gfous®*

Sagebrush, dense river
bottoms

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-5

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES , AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 3: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING BIRDS OF ALBERTA (information adapted from Semenchuk, 1992)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

open

woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous

Mature Coniferous

^ Special Needs

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Wild Turkey

pf^°Alberta m

Yellow Rail*

Virginia Rail

117“

Sora

Y’

American Coot

Open wafer — - ^

Sandhill Crane*

>>X

Whooping Crane*

Semipalmated Plover*

Sand, gravel shores

Piping Plover*

■!v

Sandy shores of saline lakes

Killdeer

Stand and gravel

Mountain Plover*

vXvIw

Sk?

i|g$t grassland

Black-necked Stilt*

Ipjdflats

American Avocet*

|§||

Mudflats

Greater Yellowlegs*

J&i

Lesser Yellowlegs*

★

Water, brood habitat

Solitary Sandpiper*

Willet

Water

Spotted Sandpiper

..j:

Upland Sandpiper*

Long-billed Curlew*

Brood habitat

Marbled Godwit*

§&

Low grass, water

Least Sap#ijg.r*

Short-psd Poacher* ~

Low vegetation

;iW

*>>>:£.

Open areas nearby

Wilson's PfoatafOpe \

Open water

Red-necked

vxfeiv

Open water j

Franklin's Gull*

i S3*

SlSx*

Open water

Bonaparte's-

h>.

Open water

Mew Gwp?" £J j

. i;1:

Open water

Ring.^ped Gull 1

Islands, open water

Cafibrnia Gull )

Rocky islands in lakes

JSgfring Gull

• $ J

Rocky islands in lakes; colonial

iCjjspian Tern

Rocky islands in lakes

0
E

Sandy shores of lakes

p»$lgr's Tern*

ffcxfc Dove

Nests in human structures

Often near water

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-6

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES , AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 3: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING BIRDS OF ALBERTA (information adapted from Semenchuk, 1992)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

Open

Woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous

£ .
3 i

§8

Special Needs

Black-billed Cuckoo

“11

■

H^^ynderbrush

Great Horned Owl

* ;

*ij

{S 5

Northern Hawk Owl*

Northern Pigmy Owl

Pzpp

Adj^ksrf^rings^'

Burrowing Owl*

■

nVivft

Barred Owl*

Nest cavil^':^|^:s^‘

Great Gray Owl*

W&-.

Long-eared Owl

Near water

Short-eared Owl*

Boreal Owl

Northern Saw-whet owl

Hg§t cavities

Common Nighthawk

£:£:£:v

Oggh ground

Black Swift*

jlpintane cliffs near waterfalls

Ruby-throated Hummingbird

grjxj#

Open woodlands

Calliope Hummingbird*

•v.v

.X;

Open montane woodlands

Rufous Hummingbird

§p

Adjacent to openings with
flowers

Belted Kingfisher

Burrows near water

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

■V

Nest cavities near openings

Red-naped Sapsucker

Nest cavities

Downy woodpecker

:4.

Nest cavities

Hairy Woodpecker*

Ik.

ijjjgk

Nest cavities

Th ree-top# pecke r*

Nearby openings; nest cvities

Blackjacked Woodpecker*'’

•x

Dense forest; nest cavities

Northern Flicker

•

Nest cavities

Pileated

Nest cavities

Olive-sided F lye^ter*" " '

Semi-open forest near water

Western Wood-Peweft

Alder pitcher

Near water

Willo*#lycatcher *

Usually near water

Least Flycatcher

Open woodland

pi^rimond's Flycatcher*

iiasky Flycatcher* J

Open woodland

^brdilleran Flycatcher

Open woodland

^aOtern Phoebe .

Structures near water

^ay^iJhoebe*

Sheltered area with overhang

&f&at Crested Flycatcher

Nest cavities

Western Kingblra

Tall perches

Eastern f«dng bird

Tall perches, openings

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-7

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 3: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING BIRDS OF ALBERTA (information adapted from Semenchuk, 1992)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

Open

Woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

Bog

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous

</)

3 <

Special Needs

Horned Lark

*11

H^a»y|ound

Purple Martin

llll^il^en areas ^ s

Tree Swallow

ffe£tcavitifc3?«ear water;

Violet-green Swallow

★

NiiTc^

openings

Northern Rough-winged
Swallow

Banks and opiSrfctafid near
water

Bank Swallow

*; •

Banks near water

Cliff Swallow

* ::

Cliffs near water

Barn Swallow

• *

Structures near water

Gray Jay*

Dense Forests

Steller's Jay*

Montane and lower subalpine
regions

Blue Jay

Clarke's Nutcracker

Openings

Black-billed Magpie

y *

Nest trees

American Crow

Common Raven*

Sr*

Black-capped Chickadee

* i

Nest cavities

Mountain Chickadee*

lijijik

Nest cavities; open woods

Boreal Chickadee*

01;

Red-breaa^ii^ythatch*

...id*

Wh i te^teas^i^Wi atch

Brown dMpttjP1

Rock Wren*,. 1 '>

" • ,

Areas with sparse vegetation;
rock outcrops

House Wren ,

XvljKv:

Nest cavities

Winter Wreft*, "m,mm

Sedge Wpin %

*■

,N\

Near water

Marsft^ren* i;

lli&ly.

African Dipper*

1 I Ml

Rock ledges over flowing water

$pden-crowned Kinglet* ,

ligby-crowned Kinglet* M

Eastern Bluebird

Nest cavities

Western Bluebird* ,, : T

Snags; sparse tree cover

iM§ir[Biueb^p^

Nest cavities, openings

Mountains and foothills

Shrubby understory

Iv^^dh's Thrush*

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-8

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 3: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING BIRDS OF ALBERTA (information adapted from Semenchuk, 1992)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

Open

Woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous

(VJature Coniferous

Special Needs

Hermit Thrush*

■v'fl

American Robin

* ■

Varied Thrush*

iPf,

l^^^^pli^pry

Gray Catbird

Northern Mockingbird

Sage Thrasher*

Sagebrush^ ^

Brown Thrasher

infill

American Pipit*

Above timberline

Sprague's Pipit*

•X.

Bohemian Waxwing*

* \

yy+r\-_

Openings

Cedar Waxwing

Northern Shrike*

ft*

•■A;

6pen woods

Loggerhead Shrike*

Thorn bushes

European Starling

' '

Cavities; highly adaptable

Solitary Vireo*

•Vv

$** *

Warbling Vireo

‘x

»l]

“V"

Philadelphia Vireo*

A!"

,■>

Red-eyed Vireo

Tennessee Warbler*

Orange-crowned Warbler*

Nashville Warbler

Yellow Warbj.er

IP.

Chestnut-SBS^iWarbler

Magn^^t&J^x *

!ii|:

Cape lUi&y

Tall song perches

Yellow-rurripad Waitfiefe-

■

Some deciduous trees; open
woods

Townsend's W^fotef*

Dense canopy, water nearby

Black-throated -

Warbler*!!^

js?h,

Blackburnian Warbler* ^

PagbWarbler*

. ^

.^^breasted Warbler*

iickpoll Warbler* ,J

&|ck-and-white Warbler*/',

i&^rica n Red sta rt . ••• ' /

^ekgj/d* a. v- y

Sparse understory

Near water

^t»tdteuti^yier*
•■>■■■

Sparse understorey

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-9

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 3: HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING BIRDS OF ALBERTA (information adapted from Semenchuk, 1992)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

Open

Woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous

2 N

ail

Special Needs

Mourning Warbler

$^|§anopy; dense

MacGillivray's Warbler*

QpftS© tffHKfcstory

Common Yellowthroat

Wilson's Warbler*

* $

Near

Canada Warbler*

❖:

Near wate^ - • . • ^

Yellow-breasted Chat

Western Tanager*

Open woodlands

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

<,;k

Black-headed Grosbeak

•

Lazuli Bunting

*'*'

&gnse undergrowth

Rufous-sided Towhee

.jS

ft,*

\ M

jft#-

American Tree Sparrow*

j£

Chipping Sparrow

iftv

Clay-coloured Sparrow

Brewer's Sparrow*

:-:;xk

Sagebrush

Vesper Sparrow

Lark Sparrow*

xj:;.;

•J

Lark Bunting*

Savannah Sparrow

I-Xy?-*

Baird's Sparrow*

•|;!i

; ,4

Abundant matted grasses;
intolerant of grazing

G ra ss h oppeYSpa rrow*

•w.-.v.-.

■•I

LeCopte's Sparrow

ili

|||

*>:**•'

S h a rp-kaj '&pam^,.

sv-:|

Fox Sparrow*

Song Sparrow s

'"V"

y *

Lincoln's Sparrow^

Swamp SpatfOW ' x

NS:?

White-tttfpaied Sparrow %

Gol.^e^crowned Sparrow*1!

Montane habitats

Wftjffe-crowned Sparrow* \

, H^k-eyed Junco J

:j ij$ibCown's Longspur* M

Short grass

Chestnut-collared
Ldhgspur* 4/

5 jBofcOjink

$e&wmged eiacKbfrd

: Western Mea^iark*

V-^Wt.heS'ded Blackbird

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-10

6. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA
DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Marsh

Swamp

Open

Woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-
sensitive species

Cattail

Graminoid

Low shrub

Bog

Tall shrub

Coniferous

Deciduous

Grassland

Scrubland

Young Deciduous

Mixed

Mature Deciduous

Young Coniferous
Nature Coniferous

fl>

</>

Rusty Blackbird*

Brewer's Blackbird*

Common Grackle

Brown-headed Cowbird

Op^^t^Paras^#'

Northern Oriole

■

!v ^

i;, 'S, .t . . . . ' ' ^

Rosy Finch*

>" Outcrops

Pine Grosbeak*

Purple Finch

Cassin's Finch

;.J| ^ * Open montane forests

House Finch

Red Crossbill*

White-winged Crossbill*

Common Redpoll*

»■■■»»

^SL.^

Pine Siskin

■ / y:

win

American Goldfinch

.-1

Evening Grosbeak*

.......

"i1-1

House Sparrow

Human habitation

S:,

111, '"1

• • • \

W :••• • r

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-11

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 4: HABITAT MATRIX FOR MAMMALS OF ALBERTA (adapted from Smith 1993)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Special Needs

Marsh

Swamp

Open

woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-sensitive
species

cattail

graminoid

low shrub

-Q

tall shrub

coniferous

deciduous

grassland

scrubland

young

deciduous

mixed

mature

deciduous

young

coniferous

maiuie

coniferous

Changes expected as a result of wastewater inflow

Habitat before inflows

Habitat after inflows

'? „ ;

Species

tlj s

Masked Shrew

* -

★

Prairie Shrew*

Dusky Shrew*

* $

■i

Wandering Shrew*

, \

Water Shrew*

gijiigj

Creeks, ponds and lakes

Arctic Shrew*

„ *

Pygmy Shrew*

Little Brown Bat

is*.

Caves for hiberacula

Northern Long-eared Bat*

’"ifcv.

.Caves for hibernacula

Long-eared Bat*

!. * •;

:!w!sp‘

Sheltering rock outcrops

Long-legged Bat*

| : :

' *

^ '

Rocky outcrops and
caves

Western Small-footed Bat*

rock outcrops and
crevices in badlands

Silver-haired Bat*

SSSil

Big Brown Bat

■

Caves and crevices,
buildings

Red Bat

ik.

.;0»:v

v *

Hoary Bat*,^ j

‘ip1

★

Pika* ^

::•»*

Rock slides and talus
slopes

Nuttal's \

:».

River bottomland and
rocky valleys

Snowshoe Hare-* 1

★

White-tailed J^ck

Open areas

Least

Yello#pine Chipmunk* ‘v

Mountains: forest
openings and clearings

lip-tailed Chipmunk* JfJ

■ : ■

between IbOu and 210U
metres

§§bodchuck |if

Yellow-bellied Marmot* j|f

Rocky outcrops

j||ary Marmot* . ' 'f

Mountains

fbchardson’s Grou^ptiuirrel

Gravelly or sandy soils

Ceforfihian <£piii& Squirrel*

Mountain meadows and
bottomlands

Ground Squirrel*

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel*

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-12

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 4: HABITAT MATRIX FOR MAMMALS OF ALBERTA (adapted from Smith 1993)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Special Needs

Marsh

Swamp

Open

woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-sensitive
species

cattail |

graminoid

low shrub

-Q

tall shrub

coniferous

deciduous

grassland

scrubland

young

deciduous

mixed

mature

deciduous

yuuny

coniferous

inaiuie

coniferous

Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel*

Mounted

Gray Squirrel

Red Squirrel

* <

Northern Flying Squirrel*

,lhM

$est Cavities

Northern Pocket Gopher*

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse*

*.v

liiyo'i Jl

Ord's Kangaroo Rat*

v.:A

$$$¥$«& sparse

Beaver

De^Q^iS^E^'

Western Harvest Mouse*

* -S:

Deer Mouse

1 4

Northern Grasshopper Mouse*

Sagebrush

Bushy-tailed Woodrat*

Kock slides, caves and
crevices

Southern Red-backed Vole*

•r

ISSiSSS

Heather Vole*

★

M|:!:

:*:*:**:•:•

Meadow Vole

Long-tailed Vole*

ill

Mountains

Taiga Vole*

Horsetails

Prairie Vole*

|if

'■§;

t|F

Habitat enclosed by
aspen

Water Vole*

-y

Alpine meadows near
streams

Sagebrush Vole*

Sagebrush

Muskrat

Permanent water

Brown Lerry|iyig* J

Mountains

NortherpiBog jamming* _ ~

; *

mi*

Black.^t • ' ' \

Human habitation

Norway^lt " \

Human habitation

House Mouse"""""""""^

Human habitation

Meadow J u m p ^

Western J u rriping fttoasg* ||

Porcupine^- w'

★

Coyote-.' ' |

GragiWolf* \

/j$pc Fox* '0 '

Open areas

IpJ Fox Jf

i^ift Fox* Jf

Gihay Fox*

Black Bear*

&rkzf?Beqr:v.

Raccoon ;

★

Fisher1

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-13

G. HABITAT MATRIX FOR BREEDING FISHES, AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES, BIRDS, & MAMMALS OF ALBERTA
DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

APPENDIX G

PART 4: HABITAT MATRIX FOR MAMMALS OF ALBERTA (adapted from Smith 1993)

Lowland Habitat

Upland Habitat

Special Needs

Marsh

Swamp

Open

woodland

*ln this column indicates
area-or disturbance-sensitive
species

cattail |

graminoid

low shrub

-Q

tall shrub

coniferous

deciduous

grassland

scrubland

young

deciduous

mixed

mature

deciduous

young

coniferous

inaiuie

coniferous

Ermine

Least Weasel*

Long-tailed Weasel*

★

Black-footed Ferret*

,Hv-"

Mink*

Wolverine*

Badger*

xeJP’’

Striped Skunk

River Otter*

River^^r#^p«fhd ponds

Cougar*

Mountains and foothills

Canada Lynx*

' : ;

Bobcat*

Wapiti*

Mule Deer*

White-tailed Deer

* 1

.""V"

•XV

Moose*

;Y*'

Lakes, bogs and streams

Caribou*

r v

ill

Pronghorn*

Bison*

►

Mountain Goat*

Rocky terrain

Bighorn Sheep*

;:S;*

Rocky terrain

' f

' X

ill

- ■

"V'

Ik.

..gKik

: r i-;-

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE G-14

Appendix#?

Significant An
of Alb

m wm

M-i 'MM'

H. Significant Animal Species of
Alberta

PartI

Significant herptile (reptile and amphibian) species of Alberta

Species

Status

Habitat and

Wetlands

Long-toed Salamander
Grey Tiger Salamander
Great Plains Toad

Re5; SASR2;R3
RFP3

Re5; PCAP1;
SASR2; E3

Mountain woodlan<||||equires pom
Variety of habitats||§ar lakes

Short-grass prairif|:ft%jires sptfghs, ditches for

breeding

Boreal and parkland dramatic decline in parkland regions

Meadowlands, fiefc&r reqi^$:^^ water for breeding;

reasons for recerticleclines>tpt>^^$^d
Shortgrass praiPi&djtches, slotogfos $a»d ffe$eded fields required for

breeding/./.;- - , /Jk v '

RockyJ^duntaih^affjd foothills

yv!v|v^'

Maiphs of str^^^jt^w^f-SEfcps and lakes; forages in adjcent
yijpods and naj&dows^ ^ % i

Western Painted Turtle B1; PCAP^EnV/kcurs orgpn Milk Ri\&&^r!fiage; permanent water bodies

,c.s?:-v • Sa d j a ce nfe$y sandy uplaips

Canadian Toad

Northern Leopard Frog

Plains Spadefoot Toad

Boreal Toad
Spotted Frog

Re5; PCAP1;
SASR2; T3
B5; PCAP'.T3

B1; PCAP1
B5

Uplands

Short-horned Lizard

SASp.y3 Bare; sapdy grotmd and south-facing coulees in southeastern

*. /?h:. hr/ Alberta '

Westerq-Fib^pse Snake /^A^lEn3 Sh^t-gra^pfairie

Prairie Rafttesrratei k

Localized habitat; key habitats (winter dens) vulnerable

Legend:

RFP = Recomhiem&d; ft^ptectiorl/

SASR = Species #Seffca$T&sk
R = Rare. ,;

Re = RjpTList: species ^fcfisk; populations have declined, or believed to have declined, to non-viable
lev^|pDr show a rate of ^If^siiipticating that they are at immediate risk of declining to non-viable levels in
Alberta

JBP Blue List: species wh&i' mly be at risk: species which are particularly vulnerable because of non-cyclical
jSi|clines in population or Ipbitat or reductions in provincial distribution.

|;\V*= Vulnerable: speciesliw in number or found only in very restricted areas and therefore, while not in
|§ foftfhediate danger, cobtd become so at any time.

J ,T.^lJ»reatened: sp^cfes likely to become endangered if the pressures from human or natural causes making
|.y.:1b^%ln^^le%e not reversed.

« Sh.(lart9erad: species threatened with immediate extinction or extirpation because of human actions

p6j^= Prairie Conservation Action Plan: listed species are those which are considered as species of concern
due to population or habitat declines

1 D.A. Westworth and Associates Ltd., 1993 (Appendix C)

2 Alberta Environmental Protection, 1995 (Appendix C)

3 Posey, 1992 (Appendix C)

4 Allen, 1991 (Appendix C)

5 Wildlife Management Division, 1996

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE H-1

H. SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Part 2

Significant Breeding Bird Species of Alberta

Species

Status

Breeding Habitat and background

Wetlands

Whooping crane

Piping Plover

Eskimo Curlew
Long-billed Curlew

Cooper's Hawk

Short-eared Owl

Great Gray Owl

American White Pelican

Bald Eagle

Osprey

Caspian Tern

Trumpeter Swan

American Avocet

Marbled Godwit

Wh ite-fae^:

En , Re ;

SASR

Vast open marshes: declines due to hunting, egg-collecting, habitat
destruction

En1,2,3; Re5; Sandy shores: recreational use of beaches threat* g habitat.

SASR2

En1, B1 Tundra; possibly extinct: unlikely to be a

B5, T1, R1; Prairie : declines due to ove|||^ting a
SASR2

V1, PCAP1 Dense, pure or mixed d^duous and co?

habitat destruction, pe||pdes, past s£

B5 Grassland habitat: cab$i§ of popu||pfi declines un£

V1, PCAP1 Undisturbed boreal fdr^i ^^i|j^:pea r water: at risk becauWof unknown or
declining numbers. Reas*^lbP:<feCltnes unknown

B1 3, PCAP1 Colonial breeder on tree$es$:^^$:!n^iarge lakes, remote from human
activity. \ -*■.

vy* \ % A

B \ PCAP Tall trees near a large body of disturbance:

declines dueJ^:j0Sp:i^ot«ng, hab'tat|3S$, J^S&Sfdes

B1 Tall nest e water 6^>;:ip'ast declnes due to shooting,

pesticides- ife&iiy.

l^rtd&.in'farge lakes; usually colonial: rare

B5, En12,3, ^ .fallow, iso(|^d, marshy ^^^past declines due to hunting and habitat
PCAP1; SASR2 loss, focus intense rest|jption efforts

PCARi* ^»^parsely|l|egetated isla^t near mudflats: colonial breeder: declining
northefft;Hbrt of its rar

common elsewhere

BordS^iof^kes.esi^otiLighs: in short native prairie: Declines probably due to

'> i habsat

Marshes dijafgfe'r lakes: sensitive to marsh drainage, human disturbance,

pestiaoifr

Willet

PCAP : Common in grassland and parkland regions

Uplands
Peregrine Falcon

Baird's Jjprrow

BuiTbWmg Owl

$$$

Ferruginous Hawk

Sage Grouse

l?iW,

wmmmm

Upland Sandpiper

Bay-breasted Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler

\ ; >

^ Re5, En1^; - Cliffs: unlikely to be affected by treatment wetland
\£ASR2 "W

*R2 Tall, open grassland: declines due to habitat destruction; intolerant of heavy
grazing

Level, open shortgrass areas with colonial rodents and nest burrows:
declines due to habitat and prey species destruction

On cliffs or tall structures in sparsely treed dry mixed prairie: declines due to
encroachment of aspen, spread of agriculture; population recovering

Restricted to sagebrush-grassland habitat, currently being degraded;
population declining rapidly

Lightly wooded river valleys and coulees: reason for decline not understood

Large areas of short grasslands: declines due to large-scale habitat
destruction

Wide expanses of open, grassy uplands: declines due to loss of grassland
habitat; trends unclear

Declining, dependent on old-growth forest; intolerant of harvest
Dependent on old-growth coniferous forest: intolerant of harvest

•• En2 3;

1 1 V SASR2
• / B5, En2; SASR2

SASR2
En2; SASR2

SASR2

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE H-2

H. SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES OF ALBERTA

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Part 2

Significant Breeding Bird Species of Alberta

Species

Status

Breeding Habitat and background

Sprague’s Pipit
Cape May Warbler

B5 Depends on grasslands; dramatic population declines

B5 Depends on old-growth forest

Legend:

R = Rare

SASR = Species at Serious Risk

Re = Red List: species at risk: whose populations have declined, or believed to
levels, or show a rate of decrease indicating that they are at immedia.t&risk of ds
Alberta

B = Blue List: species which may be at risk: species which are
declines in population or habitat or reductions in provincial distrifc
V = Vulnerable: species few in number or found only in very res
immediate danger, could become so at any time.

T = Threatened: species likely to become endangered if the pr^s^^4rc
them vulnerable are not reversed ,x

En = Endangered: species threatened with immediate extinction 'bc^ir^^.because of human actions
Ex = Extinct v ... \

PCAP = Prairie Conservation Action Plan: listed species are t^ese whi<%3^ as species of concern

due to population or habitat declines r %•. . gj*,

1 D.A. Westworth and Associates Ltd., 1993 (Appendix \ :

2 Alberta Environmental Protection, 1995 (Appendix C>^': V'1::‘2V '%

3 Posey, 1992 (Appendix C)

4 Allen, 1991 (Appendix C) J

5 Wildlife Management Division, 1996 (Appencl^pl

Ilf

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE H-3

H. SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Part 3

Significant Mammal Species of Alberta

Species Status

Habitat and Background

Wetlands

Yellow-cheeked Vole

Wandering Shrew
River Otter

Brown Lemming

Re1; SASR2

Upland areas along rivers near stands of horsetails: found only along the
Athabasca River; possibly extirpated.

Collected only at one site along a mountain stream in a coni^^s forest

Large tracts of wooded or brushy habitat: senj||^ to hy^ptn disturbance and
habitat fragmentation

Shrub-sedge meadow in si orest i^GB^tasfWW^portion of Rocky

111

Mountains: limited in distri

Uplands
Swift Fox

Wood Bison

Woodland Caribou

Grizzly Bear
Ord's Kangaroo Rat
Red-tailed Chipmunk
Wolverine

Re5, En123;
SASR2

Re5, En1'2'3;
SASR2

Open grasslands: form^|||extirpatedu|pi^roductions,to^!!?Q:;«5::j
Sensitive to habitat fragpffjj^ion, d^pffe in prey specie^

Sensitive to hunting, hab^desfea^on and fragmentation; erfo&fe^erta
population in captivity; disea$e:$Oi?qipBS in northern Alberta

Extensive mature coniferou&fOre^ and lichen production: sensitive

to hunting, fire, loggingt fra§mertts$Oft

Threatened by loss of wtderness hdftpsts. ^

Very localized, d^pqsi^ii^pn sand dun<!
Population lQ#|^^^j^^|^bitat loss
Possibly ofttyTOOO s

::;,r

Legend:

R = Rare

SASR = Species at Serious Risk ^ ^ ^ ^

Re = Red List: species at risk: whose populations h^ip declined, dibelieved to have declined, to non-viable
levels, or show a rate of decrease indiesftng that they are at imrppfiate risk of declining to non-viable levels in
Alberta M / :|

B = Blue List: species which na&y bfept risk: spebles which ar^particularly vulnerable because of non-cyclical
declines population or hab&etor reductions iifp^^

V = Vujaefal^^pecies feiw p rpfl^r or foundohl^fft vdry restricted areas and therefore, while not in

T = ThreatehedjspeGies likely tp bepmapridangered if the pressures from human or natural causes making
them vulneha^«)^:h^reverse^\, "v\

En = Endangef^^^0^fe|hreaterSf^p^i^fediate extinction or extirpation because of human actions
Ex = Extinct \

PCAP = Plafiflisted species are those which are considered as species of concern

due to ippLiTation or hdl$ai:d6.Cllhe$

D.A|pVestworth and As'%xfete$iy. 1993 (Appendix C)
4(prta Environmental Profe^ioafl 995 (Appendix C)

:;P0sey, 1992 (Appendix W
fallen, 1991 (Appendix CV
||i/ildlife Management gpsion, 1996 (Appendix C)

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE H-4

H. SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES OF ALBERTA

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Part 4

Significant Fish species of Alberta

Species Status

Habitat

Ex?

Clear rivers
Lakes and large rivers with clean bottoip
Cooler depths of well-oxyc ' A

Banff Longnose Dace
Western Silvery Minnow
Lake Sturgeon
Shortjaw Cisco
Blackfin Cisco
Shorthead Sculpin
Bull Trout
Walleye

Legend:

R = Rare

Re = Red List: species at risk: whose populations have decline<$!pr fo|&A&^ve declined, to non-viable
levels, or show a rate of decrease indicating that they are at if^yediate^|:^d#|feiHng to non-viable levels in
Alberta

B = Blue List: species which may be at risk: species whiGh'iiafiB-p^rticularly vufQ$f^e::|^ause of non-cyclical
declines in population or habitat or reductions in p . \ -

V = Vulnerable: species few in number or found 0{^^:VeT^3fesfelefel^reas andjierefore, while not in
immediate danger, could become so at any times- V ' .

T = Threatened: species likely to become endppfjered if tl|$f>re'§fcg$
them vulnerable are not reversed J|f

En = Endangered: species threatened wMmmediate.:^inction orjp
Ex = Extinct f ^ ,V' j|;

PCAP = Prairie Conservation Action j||p%ted spikes are thqsliiwhich are considered as species of concern
due to population or habitat declines, J f

1 D.A. Westworth and Associates lidif 1993 (AppefwdkvQ)

2 Alberta |$wronmental Proteelbnl:.:t995 (AppendkQ.:

jTRfpErman or natural causes making
ation because of human actions

Posey* 199&l$ppendixp)

4 Alien* 1391 ^Appendix C) x

5 Wildlife^na^p&nt Branch, 1931

6 Berry, 1 99f jP^o^C)

ndix C)

▼

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE H-5

H. SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES OF ALBERTA

DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Part 5

Sensitive species not currently believed to be at risk; but which may require special
management to address concerns related to low natural populations, limited provincial
distribution or demographic/life history features that make them vulnerable to human related
changes to the environment particular biological needs (designated “Yellow” status by
Wildlife Management Division, 1996, includes Yellow A and B).

Amphibians
Long-toed Salamander

Reptiles
Bull Snake
Plains Garter Snake
Red-sided Garter Snake
Wandering Garter Snake
Western Painted Turtle

Birds

American Arocet
American Bittern
American Dipper
American White Pelican
Baird’s Sparrow
Bald Eagle
Barred Owl
Black Swift
Black Tern

Black-crowned Night-heron
Black-backed woodpecker
Black-necked Stilt
Black-and-white Warbler
Bobolink
Boreal Owl
Brewer’s Sparrow
Broad-wing^ Hawk
Brown Cfeefje^

Ere* r T'tf&sner
Canada Watfefer \
Caspian
Chestnut-sidecl
Clarke’s Crebep .
Clarke’s Nyte^ctaB^Jt
Clay-coloured Sparrow,.
CoofpplHawk \

Double-crested Cormorant
Fdiper’s Tern <.

.Gofden Eagle

/ G<$den-crowned Sparrow-/
pGrasshopper Sparrow , '
Gnetat Blue Heron , = ' ^
pGrea^crested Flycatcfier
| Great Gray Qw|
\HarteqtBn Duck'
HbmfiijLGfiBe
Herring Gull
Lark Sparrow
Lesser Yellowlegs
Loggerhead Shrike

Birds (cont’d)

Marsh Wren
Mountain Plover
Mourning Warbl
Nod®fC) Gos

Harrier
5rey

fed-Billed

Ipecker

\Red^b|ed Grebe

Pheasant

f i ■ -

... ^an^lCtiha\.

VSedge YVmn x

^:^^Sharp-tailSt|G«>U$fe
• Bwa in son’s • p

•Co-il^psend’s
^ - ::T^%Vulture.#^

^te^andpiper

igitebe
ern Meadowlark
V$|6tern Tanager
Ipnter wren
$Vhite-faced Ibis
/ N •••/" Willet

/ • P Winter Wren

Yellow-breasted Chat

Mammals

Badger

? Bobcat

Canada Lynx

Cougar

Fisher

Hoary Marmot
Long-tailed Weasel
Mountain Goat
Northern Flying Squirrel
Northern Grasshopper Mouse
Nuttall’s Cottontail
Pronghorn (Antelope)
Richardson’s Ground Squirrel
Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel
Wandering Shrew
Water Vole

Western Harvest Mouse
Western Small-footed Bat

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE H-6

APPENDBff

Annotated Bibu
WetlanoEValu,

111

'X1

A if

X ' : K

I. Annotated Bibliography for
Wetland Evaluation

A. General

Alberta Environmental Protection. 1995. Alberta's state of
hensive report. Publication 1/583, Alberta Environmental £rotectio

Alberta Environmental Protection. 1993.

compre-

• Summarizes the services provided;' |y the Dj
Protection. Jbj^ |

Alberta Water Resources Commission. 1993. Beyond Wiirie Potholes: a diilfFpolicy for
managing Alberta’s peatlands and non-settled area. w&Mftds: for discussion purposes.
Alberta Water Resources Commission, Edmonton. - -- x -

in the settled area of
ton.

Alberta Water Resources Commission. 1993. Welland Ma
Alberta: an interim policy. Alberta Water Resg^f^pll^immissi

Alberta Water Resources Commission. ^ji.993.\Alb£ftS
wetlands: a background report. Alberta;;Plter R#^m6$i:

Alberta Water Resources Commisjln. 199

Alberta: a summary of public comments. Albifta Wateiltesources Commission, Edmonton

Alberta Water Resources Cglpftssion.ifto. Wetlpid management in the settled area of
Alberta: a background forlp^licy deye^j^meat'^lberta Water Resources Commission,
Edmonton*

s and non-settled area
sion, Edmonton.

in the settled area of

s:>.

•\ : • :•?

Albefti W$l|yReso&^^ . Wetlands: values and options: a draft policy

for the management of ^etlanc^in the settled area of Alberta. Alberta Water Resources
Commission, Edmonton . x\- :

Bramm, S, 1992. PfOl&cting ecosystems in Alberta: a survey of government mechanisms.
Environmental Council of AJJberta. •

Bramfn, S. 1992. Protec^lng^cosy stems in Alberta: a survey of government mechanisms.
EH/ironmental Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

/ ./ i l N"

f:; | • Sumjmarizes Long Range Integrated Resource Planning Program for Alberta.

Coupland, R.T. 19&7. Endangered prairie habitats: the mixed prairie. In Holroyd, G.L.,
Trottier, W.B. McGillivray, D.M. Ealey and K. E. Eberhart. 1987.
^E^af^ef^species in the prairie provinces. Provincial Museum of Alberta Natural History
x<^a$ionat Paper No. 9.

Indicates the decline of woodland on prairie in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

D.A. Westworth and Associates Ltd. 1993. Functions and values of Alberta’s wetlands.
Report for Wetlands Management Steering Committee. North Petroleum Plaza, Edmonton,
Alberta.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

PAGE 1-1

I. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR WETLAND EVALUATION

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

• Summarizes function and values of wetlands, including social, economic,
hydrologic habitat, heritage and water quality improvement functions.

D.A. Westworth & Associates Ltd. 1990. Significant natural features of the eastern boreal
forest region of Alberta. Tech. Rept. for Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife.

• details locations of regionally, provincially and nationally significant significant
features; significance based on analysis of hydrology, landform, jrare flora and
fauna, fisheries, wildlife corridors, wintering areas for mo^y habitat for
furbearers, and waterfowl staging.

Dyson, I.W. 1993. Implementing the Prairie Conservati
- two years of progress. In Holroyd et al. 1993 (above^^

• This paper describes the role of
Committee and provides examples
Action Plan goals.

WML

Dyson, I.W. 1993. Public land management approaches' for conserving native prairie
environments - some Alberta examples. In Holroyd et aL,1993.

W V- ' X

• The need to work cooperatively with landovto^ers din&^ll the players in the
prairie landscape mosaic is imj^&fllk

Environmental Council of Alberta. 1g§
affecting Alberta’s future. Environment#0ounciy

omic jid environmental trends
‘ *"g document, Edmonton.

Government of Alberta. 1992. SpeoM place§|fD00: natural heritage. Completing

Alberta's endangered spaces afetWork (cj|Sft). Albeip Tourism, Parks and Recreation,

Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. / X X?>

Holroyd, G., G. Burns and Smith,:irtiS9, Endangered species and prairie conservation
workshojgyproceedings. pr^sefited by fid ;S^%tcih e wa n Natural History Society. Provincial
Musey^of Alberta QpcasionalPaper.

Holroyd, G.L, Burns. ;ahd:; Smith. 1991. Proceedings of the second endangered

species and prairtd, co n se v&rkshop. Provincial Museum of Alberta Natural History
Occasional X. : . /

s \ .X

u m rrfa rize s papers discussing legislation, habitat conservation,
f etc. ihfhe prairie provinces.

/tf' y

Ijliroyd, G.L., H.L. lip^en, M.Regnier and H.C. Smith. 1993. Proceedings of the third
f|?^irie conservationjand endangered species workshop. Provincial Museum of Alberta
Occasional Paper Ntf 19.

Nietfield, M., J..Wilk, K. Woolnough and B. Hoskin. 1985. Wildlife habitat requirement
- I ected wildlife species in Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources

\.(ENRTechntbal Report T/73), Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton.

Pachal, D. 1992. Wild Alberta. Environmental Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

• Tabulates significant natural areas proposed for protection, and rationale for
protection.

Pachal, D. 1992. Wild Alberta. Environmental Council of Alberta.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 1-2

/. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR WETLAND EVALUATION

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

• Lists and maps significant natural areas proposed for protection, provides
rationale for them.

Posey, M. 1992. Saving the strands of life: Alberta’s biodiversity. Environmental Council of
Alberta, Edmonton.

Strong, W.L., B.K. Calverley, A.J. Richard, and G.R, Stewart. 1993. Characterization of
wetlands in the settled areas of Alberta. Rept. for Wetlands Management Steering
Committee, Edmonton, Alberta.

Summarizes wetland characteristics of the 34
the Settled Area of Alberta; including vari$||s me;
as climatic vulnerability, arable land numf

average wetland size, degree of water "^rmanenc^
km2, percent developed land and number of dray ^

occur within
vulnerability; such
per km§
fate rf owl

pro]

Usher, R. 1990. Alberta's wetlands: water in the bank. Envir^mental Coun<

' -- \

Summarizes benefits and functions of^t£aftd*X

Usher, R. and J. Scarth. 1990. Alberta’s wetlands: jpfer rf^the Environmental Council
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. r N N

It for Alberta Forestry,

Wildlife Management Branch. 1991. The states of
Lands and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Division*

• Assigns status to

arr|piDran$t taras^and mammals of Alberta.
Summarizes habitat ^rametej#and ba^gfisrfid in species designated red,
yellow and blue; tj|||iree higyjpist categ.lies of significance.

Wildlife Management Branch, 1$9*1. The 'sfaut of A||Irta Wiildlife. Alberta Forestry, Lands
and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife M^agemehl Branch, Edmonton.

. v lif .< ' <?'

y Divide&A^Mans, replies, bWi, and mammals into four status categories
Recording to t&fc &pgree ofihteff attached to their persistence.

Sill \

B. Plants and Plant Communities

Achuff, P.L. 1987. Ram vascular phnts in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta. In: Holroyd et al.
1987 . 'X ^

.<? • Shows -djofrib^i on of rare plants within the three montane ecoregions of
Alberta * '

• ?' 00

^Alberta Energy, Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 1992. Alberta plants and fungi: a master
species list and sggpes list group checklists. General Services Division, Editorial Services.

J AitetVX 199 1v IJfeStus of plant conservation in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al. 1991 (above).

Areas known to have a concentration of species on the rare plant list include
the Cordillera, the Canadian Shield, the southern grasslands, and a diverse
area in the southwest corner of the province where several natural regions
converge.

Brown, L.P. 1993. Holistic stewardship of prairie fragments. In: Holroyd et al. 1993 (see
section A).

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 1-3

.rt&WW;

I. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR WETLAND EVALUATION

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Discusses rationale for preserving small patches of prairie in order to
conserve biodiversity.

Griffin, D. 1987. Provincial perspectives on public lands-Alberta. In: Holroyd et al. 1987.
(above).

Morgan, J.P. 1993. Restoring native prairie ecosystems. In Holroyd et al. 1993 (above).

Moss, E.H. 1983. Flora of Alberta. Second Edition revised by J.G. Packer,
Toronto Press, Toronto.

Moss, E.H. 1983. Flora of Alberta. Second Edition,
Toronto Press, Toronto.

Packer, J.G. and C.E. Bradley. 1984. A checklist
Provincial Museum of Alberta Occasional Paper No jjf

^sed by

iversity of
University of

Lists the 360 species of plants consi

Purdy, B.G. and S.E. MacDonald. 1992. Status sand stitchwort Stellaria

arenicola. Committee on the Status of Endangered iri. a

• Restricted endemic of Athabasca s:apd dunesi^at d$|ipnation required.

Smith, B. 1993. Status report on the Draba kananaskis.

Committee of the Status of Endangered V^ldfTfe ^

Smith, B. and C. Bradley. 1992. St#us repo^on 'the. smppfh goosefoot ( Chenopodium
subglabrum). Committee on the Sfa|p of En^ffgered in Canada, Ottawa.

• Few sites, smal^^ptllations^ihreatene^tatus recommended

Smith, B. and C. Bradley, 1$p. Status riport pf*;;lhe sand verbena ( Abronia micrantha).
CommitteSLon the S t a t qs dt Erfd a n g e r e*J j^C a n a d a , Ottawa.

l|H a bitai Threa

atus recommended

Smith, B. CXgradlepJp2+ Status report on the western spiderwort. Tradescantia
occidental isy.Qommh^.e on Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottwa.

s-f' -r 4 ' =-\ V*'

• . • reatened by invasive weeds and exploration for oil:

- ^ endangers# itatus recommended

Smith, B. 1993. Status .f^pprf on the little barley ( Hordeum pusillum) in Canada. Committee
omthe Status of Endattgeifed Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.

. • Insufficient information to award status

Wallis, C.L. 196^ Critical, threatened and endangered habitats in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al.

$ib©

^ lists significant landscape types in mixed grassland, northern fescue
grassland, foothills grassland, central parkland and foothills parkland. Notes
that 66% of the mixed grassland and 95% of upland central parkland and
northern fescue grassland has been lost.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 1-4

I. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR WETLAND EVALUATION

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

C. Fisheries

Berry, D. 1995. Alberta's Walleye management and recovery plan. Alberta Environmental
Protection, Natural Resources Service, Fisheries Management Division.

Roberts, W. 1987. The bull trout-endangered in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al. 1987 (above).

Excessive angler harvest is the major factor in decline of bull trout.

Roberts, W. 1991. The bull trout: vanishing from the prairie and parl^and of<

In: Holroyd et al 1991 (above).

Alberta.

D. Herpetiles

Butler, J.R., and W. Roberts. 1987. Consideration^
amphibians and reptiles in Alberta. m

• Of eighteen species of amphibians!

uncommon enough to be recognizedKas ppli^|[ally threatened. The majority
of these species and populations un^isnceflKare associated with prairie
environments. <b/' \

Powell, G.L. and A.P. Russel. 1993. The range ^and^tatus c short-horned lizard

in the Canadian prairies. In Holroyd et. al. 19&3 |ai?owk

v “ \

• Summarizes distributiorypra status of tf^^speetes, recommends strategies

for protection. x/ \ ? - .

■

Roberts, W. 1987. The northerny&i§pard frq$ pndangejia in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al. 1987
(above).

Discusses th^:0cline of \i
are uncleab. ; /

I Kin i

ard .frogs in Alberta, but suggests the causes

E. Birds;

CadmanMM.D. t§§3. StaW repobon the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) in Canada.
Committee bp tha j|Ntus of &b0ahge|ad Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.

Canadian Burrowing Qs^fRecov&fy Team. 1995. National recovery plan for the Burrowing
Owl. RENEW Canada Rejxfo>No. 13.

Cannings, R.J. 1992, Status report on the Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus in
Canada. Committee m thS Stauts of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.

*•

' ' \ » Smalpopulation in restricted range in threatened habitat: endangered status

\ recommended.

Colwell* MA,;>4991. Effects of fluctuating wetland conditions on prairie shorebirds. In :
' at 1991 (above).

Shorebirds are adapted to a narrow range of water fluctuations; prey species
and nesting habitat may decline if water levels vary outside normal
perturbations. Habitat and underlying food resources for prairie shorebirds
are much less predictable, owing largely to seasonal and annual variations in
climate.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 1-5

I. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR WETLAND EVALUATION

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

De Smet, K.D. 1992. Status report on the long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus in
Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.

• undisturbed short and mixedpgrass prairie: recommended status vulnerable

Dickson, H.L. and A. R. Smith. 1991. The western hemisphere shorebird reserve network
and the prairie shorebird program. In: Holroyd et al. 1991 (above).

Lists proposed regional shorebird reserves in the prairie proving^

Erickson, G. 1987. Status of Burrowing Owls in Alberta. In: Holroydj|yil. iyp7. (aboove)

Discussion of population and status of B.yi|awing erta.

Goossen, J.P., et al. 1993. Canadian Baird's Sp
Report No. 3., 95-01621

Goossen, J.P. 1991. Prairie Piping Power consefvafe
Wildlife Service, Edmonton. 1|

naul Report

James, P.C. 1993. Habitat fragmentation and Burrowing Owls '^Saskatchewan. In Holroyd
et al. 1993 (above) // v *•

Larger pastures contain more bree^ir^pairs z |p*sist longer

communities in aspen

Johns, B.W. 1993. The effects of hab§
parklands. In Holroyd et al. 1993 (abovgfP

• This paper discusseslme incn
increased habitat iMpi size.,/

Kuyt, E. 1987. Whooping Crane Jn^ Holroyd et al. (aJ$|Ve).

ichness and abundance with

M ooret D^Av -1,987 .

Discusse^uplers and.man^eri^iit of Whooping Cranes.

m v~/. 4 ^

us HawilB^fBerta. In: Holroyd et al. 1987 (above).

Maintenance of undisturbed grasslands appears essential for the survival of

\ this Species.

•v"">

Moyles, Dr t The floater Chicken in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al. (above).

Lists^ocjssibfe'reasons for the extirpation of this species.

The mairKr^quirement for reestablishment would be a minimum of 2000 to
4000 j|l of grasslands.

Nudds, T.D. and R;Q* Clark. 1993. Landscape ecology, adaptive resource management and
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). In Holroyd et al (above)

fe paper presents an experimental protocol which may contribute to

- ^ resolving unanswered questions about the efficacy of intensive versus
extensive management

Poston, B., D.M. Ealey, P.S. Taylor, and G.B. McKeating. 1990. Priority migratory bird
habitats of Canada's Prairie Provinces. Habitat Conservation Section, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Western and Northern Region, Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 1-6

/. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR WETLAND EVALUATION

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Lists migratory bird habitat in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba

Schmutz, J.R. 1993. Grassland requirements by Ferruginous Hawks. In Holroyd et al. 1993
(above)

Schmutz, J.K. 1991. Population dynamics of Ferruginous Hawks in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al

Schmutz, J.K. 1987. Factors limiting the size of
Hawks. In: Holroyd et al. (above).

Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The atlas of breeding |
Naturalists, P.O. Box 1472, Edmonton, Alberta. T5J

Wershler, C.R. 19#" The Mountain Plover in Canada. In: Holroyd et al. 1987 (above).

I- ■ \

V ^ •" jpi'scusses habitat, population, limiting factors, etc. of this endangered

^ species; an example of a species with requirements for grassland-interior
habitat.

Wershler, C., W.W. Smith, and C. Wallis. 1991. Status of the Bairds Sparrow in Alberta-
1987/1988 update with notes on other grassland sparrows and Sprague's Pipit. In: Holroyd
et al. 1991 (above).

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH PAGE 1-7

Ferruginous hawks are generally common where a ranching land use prevails

1991 (above).

• The most comprehensive surveys to dpe A£$erta s avitauna.

Review of previously suggested n

Hawks.

Canadian breeding population of Trumpeter Swans, In: Holrt^^rf^bove).

Shandruk, L. 1987. A review of habitat requirerawits aTtfi maria§ement priorities for the

Smith, W.W. 1991. The Logglrfriad Sh#ifin Albert|: In: Holroyd et al. 1991 (above).

Discusses distribution aglf habitat of this Weatejtfed /endangered species in
Alberta : the species is cqn^lderr^cf to significant because of its

requirement for continuous j^fbts of grassland; one of the most

endangered ecosystems in $pfth Americi.

WerPhler, C.R. 1987.vTNe jptping plover in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al. 1987. (above).

m *y

Discuipes habitat, population, limiting factors, etc.

/. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR WETLAND EVALUATION

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Wershler, C. 1991. A management strategy for Mountain Plovers in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al
1991 (above).

• Discusses relationship of grazing pressure to distribution of grassland
sparrows.

F. Mammals

Barclay, R.M.R. 1993. The biology of prairie bats. In Holroyd et al. 1993

• Summarizes biology and habitat, makes recommend

Barrett, M.W. 1987. History and management of the r:

1987 (above).

Discussion of management issues a

Culbert, D. 1987. Legal status of endangered sp|
(above).

Dubois, J.1987. Small mammals. In: Holroyd et al. 1887^1

further study.
Holroyd et al.

: Holrbyd et at 1987

Discusses mammal species of concern in the prairie provinces.

Edmonds, E.J. 1987. Current status and pr<^$ed fPar^gemenl%Ela^^ for woodland caribou
in Alberta. In: Holroyd et al. 1987 (above^^^l

• Four major management probferns^ro^^ consideration and

resolution: the destg|Kion aQ|[lalteration of'Caribou habitat, the increased
access to caribopAl^es residing frorr$ridustrial roads, the continued loss of
caribou to hupfipp -despite fclosed seasons, and the high levels of wolf
predation in west central Alberta.

Johnson^-, McFetridge* Ryi| and W.Runge, 1993. Status report on the prairie long-tailed
weasel { Mtistela fref^aM^$Gauda) ik,fi&oada. Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife Canada, Ottawa. \

% X

• % population appears to* be secure and stable in Alberta: no designation

NeitfieJ^,~WT, "Woolnough and B. Hoskin. 1985. Wildlife habitat requirement

summaries for selected wildlife species in Alberta. ENR Tech. Rep. T/73; Alberta Energy
anifslatural Resources, .Fieff and Wildlife Division.

**sx

• Provides summaries of key habitat requirements for mule deer, white-tailed
deer, fhoose, elk, woodland and mountain caribou, pronghorn antelope, rocky
k mountain bighorn sheep, mountain goat, grizzly bear, beaver, river otter,

... * jpeirten, sharp-tailed Grouse, Ring-necked Pheasant, Sage Grouse, resident
reeding dabbling ducks, breeding Canada Geese, and moulting, staging and
migrant waterfowl.

Reynolds, H.W. 1987. The Canadian Wildlife Service program to restore wood bison. In:
Holroyd et al. 1987 (above).

Smith, H.C. 1993. Alberta Mammals: an atlas and guide. Provincial Museum of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.

W*:,,

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE 1-8

Append^

Methods to O

Construct jfliRLA*

r IMP

EMS

J. Methods to Design and Construct
Wetland Systems

Overview of Design Criteria

fiapS'tion, size, water
criteria co nt i n u a 1 1 y being

es included in#iis manual ar
design and constrl^jpn plans pj

Wetland design criteria requires careful
source, soils, and vegetation. Wetland design
improved. The wetland designer should review the n
obtain reviews from senior wetland design engineers j
to proceeding with construction. Ii

Type

The type of constructed wetland system desired upon the feasibility of using

natural wetlands for treatment, treatment perform anc&-:|^^t^ments, estimated cost, and
availability of required land area, among other s ite^^ecifi^^Ot^itjcif^^ Surface flow wetlands
and subsurface flow wetlands each have distinct Vantages b%subsuilajge flow wetlands may
be desired where land is limited or too expensive, :7\

Area

Because wetland construction is inhgpntly lar^fntenl^^i^^otal area required for wetland
construction may be the single m©sf^porta^^arame^|^' wetland feasibility, particularly in
urban areas where land is limited -and expensive. Si?jpg criteria described below should be
used during conceptual and final designs teifssist in dJirmining project feasibility.

Mm? £ - ; i >•'

|lf f.”- .

Constructed Wetlands

Naturaf .ahd eor^t ru cte& ^Iterate % may be used for removal of pollutants from domestic,
industrial and non-point soCrc&e wasfevyater. The area required for a treatment wetland to meet
the specific'de^ign objectives. depends on a wide range of factors. Total area required for
natural and systems will vary as a function of the volume and

quality of mfluentfo^be freabd, desired wetland effluent quality, and allowable hydraulic loading

' /' 'I

Jfotal wetland area shoulctbe based upon published or empirical pollutant mass removal data
.Tof the pollutant pardfieter of concern with the lowest pollutant removal efficiency. Wetland
area requirements to- achieve target pollutant concentrations in the effluent are available in
; Kadlec and Knight.f1996), and WPCF (1990).

!'• ■ • ‘'v

| Natural Treatment Wetland Systems

v '

CtHise^Stive recommended hydraulic loading rates range from 0.2 cm/d (50 ha/1,000 m3/d) if
pretreatment is secondary without nitrification to 0.5 cm/d (20 ha/1,000 m3/d) for nitrified
secondary effluent. If concentrations of BOD5, TSS, phosphorous, and other constituents are
reduced in pretreatment, the recommended conservative hydraulic loading rate is 2.5 cm/d
(4 ha/1 ,000 m3/d) (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J -1

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Constructed Surface Flow (SF) Wetland

The typical range of hydraulic loading rates is from 1 .5 to 6.5 cm/d (6.7-1 .5 ha/1 ,000 m3/d) with
a central tendency of 3 cm/d (3.3 ha/1 ,000 m3/d) (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

Constructed Subsurface Flow (SSF) Wetland

The typical range of hydraulic loading rates is from 8 to 30 cm/d (1 .3-0.3 ha/1, 00(Jm3/d (Kadlec
and Knight, 1996).

Stormwater Wetland

MOEE (1992) recommended that stormwater wetland
watershed area. Schueler (1992) indicated that a sm
watershed area was considered acceptable for wetl
residence times. Kadlec and Knight (1996) note t
wetlands are similar to those of point source SF wetl

Configuration

Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands are typically designe^»^^^^^ftoiultiple^^r compartments in series
or parallel to allow redistribution of flowC^ainte^ri^:of j&ant Communities, and flexibility of
operation (WPCF, 1990). Multiple inglf points,# aSM^i^Op zone the full width of the

percent of tl
of the

SUfSlP'c

storpwater

treatment wetland allow for even disifbution o

etland. The economic minimum

aspect (length:width) ratio of 2:i;“& pradua|petland sljpe on the order of 0.05 percent, and
deep zones at least 1 m in d^^orient^perpendiplar to the wetland flow provide even
distribution of the wetland flow <$adlec and fCnight, lf§>6).

Walter Source and Management

Predictability of water soircpe amiability, quality, and management is important to maintain
design hydfopenads;and to Itfein ^liufcant removal performance criteria in treatment wetlands.
Water depth/l^draylicT^sidenc%: fee* and inlet distribution and outlet structures are critically

ShgpW wetland wafer d^pt|p-Tn a i nta i n dissolved oxygen concentrations sufficient to support
nitrification. For optim#n,jDe#ormance, experience suggests that the average water depth for
an SF wetland is 30 fe $ith typical water depths ranging from 0.15 to 0.45 cm (Kadlec and
Knight, 1996). SSF Jptland water levels are designed to be below the ground surface with a
typical bed depth offess than 0.6 m and water depths ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 cm (Kadlec and
Knlgiit. 1996). JN^kiral wetland water depths may vary over a wider range than SF wetlands,
but ari most If Active if they do not exceed 50 cm.

;®Biwhum hydraulic retention time for SF treatment wetlands is 7 to 10 days, for SSF
wetlands 2 to 4 days, and 14 to 20 days for natural treatment wetlands are typical (Kadlec and
Knight, 1996).

Wetland influent should be provided a minimum of primary treatment in SF and SSF wetlands
(WPCF, 1990), and secondary with nitrification and phosphorus reduction in natural wetland
treatment systems.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-2

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Water distribution and collection structures should be simple to maintain, operate, and replace.
Pipes should be slightly oversized. Trash racks or other suitable barriers should be erected
upstream of the distribution system to prevent clogging.

coverage is required in t|£ year of ra I regrowth can be considered if the

treatme^f^etland reguiatory! require rtterrts a§pw/ for two to three seasons for vegetation
establi$hm$$,. Vegetative diversity in fteawetlands can be encouraged through the use of
topsBfc^|j^&eh wheM, ^asible. and additional species plantings,. However, treatment

Jefnoval efficienciesjpll likely be realized if imported litter, such as straw, is placed in the
' treatment wetland c&ring construction of the system (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

asibility of a wetland construction project should be
thoroughly evaluated prior to proceeding to final design and construction. It is important that the
Owner understand that wetland technology is still in a developing phase, and that it is not
possible to predict wetland performance with high precision. It is equally important that the
Designer identify and take into consideration existing and known potential constraints to
successful wetland construction and operation in order to provide reasonable assurance that

Receiving Water

Planting centres may range from 1 to 2 m for conducted wetlands where more than 60%

Establishment of th§ fitterlayer may take from 1 year to more than 5 years. Improved

rra#10cultures due to the high nutrient loadings and the more
pfirag^iites, and bulrushes, gain dominance.

mb cul
traQi?i

Design

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-3

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

project objectives will be met. The following section outlines the basic stages and information
needs of a wetland construction feasibility analysis. It is assumed that the goals and objectives
of the project have been clearly identified and agreed to by the Owner, designer, and
concerned regulatory staff, if applicable, as described earlier.

Site Selection

Selection of an appropriate location for wetland construction should be based an analysis
of identified alternative locations and the extent to which they satisfy st|t<ed requirements,
or criteria.

Site Selection Criteria

The successful location of a wetland construction project vv^Balance the^a^^Sf and
objectives of the project with site-specific constrainfecllleil^for locating a We|^g9&will vary
depending upon whether a wetland is being constrii%ii|^^^lace or restore lost ecological
functions or enhance existing wetland functions, or wheS^r a wetland is being constructed or
enhanced to provide a new ecological function, as ip a cong^cted^r patural wetland treatment
system. * \ *.

Possible wetland site selection criteria may iq^t^^T^owing: ^

• Proximity to desired locatW $+* '

• Availability of sufficie;|pcontigu|

• Availability of suitable long-t^^i wetlanb&ater source

• Favourable site hydrogeqlogiy

V. .

♦ • ; Acceptable receiving stream and discharge conditions

• Presence d^pote ntial limiting land use, natural wetlands, protected

\ historical or archaeological resources on or adjacent to site

« Pot#nfial ebse and:cost of acquisition of ownership rights, easement, or other

Prpximity

Ease of access for construction and maintenance

Availability of sufficient construction materials and labour resources

w..

1 This Crlterjbn^Will vary depending upon the type of wetland to be constructed. Wetlands
"dos^ped lo mitigate for total or partial loss of function may need to be constructed in the
vicinity of the original wetland (“onsite” vs. “offsite”). Wetlands designed for stormwater
treatment may need to be located at an appropriate topographic elevation in order to maximize
gravity flow. Natural and constructed wetland treatment systems may need to be designed on
or adjacent to the location of the pollution source in order to minimize land and pumping costs,
and to control or limit public access.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-4

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

Area

Total area requirements will vary with wetland goal, but in general, sufficient contiguous area
should be available to allow the wetland to be constructed at one location to minimize
construction, operation and maintenance costs. Preliminary estimates of the required area may
be determined for the Site Selection Phase as described below under subsection "Conceptual
Design".

Wetland Water Source

Treatment wetlands viability will be determined by the ^ontinuec
effluent. A V , %

Hydrogeology

fity of wastewater

Site hydrogeology should be favourable for wetlai^^nstryjp!6n. Excessh^ely ^i^# soils
may not be suitable for wetland construction withoilt.|®:1tR^illation of an aqti^ti.of clay or
other materials of low hydraulic conductivity. Shallow depths to the surface of bedrock may also
constrain wetland excavation.

Geotechnical Constraints

Wetland berm and substrate materials shoul&iii
to excessive erosion, sediment loss, or

Limiting Land Uses and

d obstruction and not lead
der nopil design extremes.

Constraints

Human land use may constrain gg^uitabiliJ^Tf a wetland construction location. Care should
be taken to locate the wetland in ^eas compatible zoning and other land uses in full

recognition of the wetland design goals. Th| presen# of natural wetlands, protected species
habitats, and historical or arbbologicb^^bCQ®®^ or adjacent to site may pose additional
significat^design constrdrto; ,f J - •.’• •

Ownership and Land Cost

Sites not Currently &qder th##^nb5H%pf the project owner will need to be assessed for ease
of acquisitionof dwnbship rights* element, or other controlling interest. Since wetlands are
land-intensfe.land costl;can significantly affect the total project cost.

Acclss

iph site should be spFudted for existing and potential ease of access for construction and
future maintenance. Ifocal land use regulations should be consulted to identify possible
* constraints to construction and maintenance traffic.

Materials ... y

• ■

\Av^ilabll|y,of sufficient construction materials and labor resources should be evaluated within a
reglorfarcontext in order to minimize project cost and to maintain standards of quality for
materials. The availability of skilled contractors, plant nurseries, and acceptable wetland
construction materials should be assessed.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-5

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Data Collection

Sufficient data should be collected from each proposed construction site(s) to respond to the
information needs of site-selection criteria, and to evaluate the potential for successful wetland
permitting, construction and operation. Task 1 of this manual provides a checklist of information
categories that will provide useful information for site selection, wetland design, and
construction.

Site Selection

The site selection process should result in the selection of.
probability that the wetland will cost-effectively achieve tyg
include long-term operations and maintenance costs
costs. |

Constructed Wetlands

ides the greatest
als. Costs should
d

The site selection process for constructed wetlands shbdM. emphasize idenfiffcation and
selection of a location that provides the greatest potential fdr:^feformance towards achieving
water quality improvement goals at the lowest cost of Jratiai construction and long-term
operation and maintenance. Selection of a suitableFsite for of a natural wetland

treatment system will be strongly limited by thefc^^.nd location of existing site wetlands.

Conceptual Design

It is important to note that successful wetland design % an ifepflve process that requires the
technical input of biologists, engine$jff construction corfensiPI, resource regulatory staff, and
the project Owners. A conceptual design shelfd be prepared during the site selection process
with available information in ordeMo achieve the jf&atest realism in site selection. Key
conceptual design elements include an approximate determination of wetland area, hydrologic
requirements, ability to rnegt performance objectives; 'and cost of land and construction. These
are disposed below by type.

Area '

Constructed Wetfahds. Conceptual a requirements for natural and constructed wetland
treatment systems should be cbnseryatively determined as a function of hydraulic loading rate,
pollutant loading fete, and performance objectives from published or experimentally-determined
designihferia. \ \n

jfr

Types of information feat wjltfce needed to determine this criterion for the Conceptual Design
Phase include the average influent water quality and flow rate, effluent water quality objectives
and flow limitations/ and receiving water quality and hydraulic capacity. Results of more
detailed pollutant miss balances are required during the Final Design Phase to determine
wtaph pollutant wilt require the most area to achieve the wetland water quality objectives.

Hydrology

CorfSTructed Wetlands. Most inflow to natural or constructed wetland treatment systems is
predominantly treated wastewater, and water balances may not need to be calculated unless
site soil permeability is potentially great enough for infiltration to be a significant hydrologic
output from the wetland, or groundwater quality concern. A reliable and controllable hydraulic
loading rate is the critical conceptual hydrologic design criterion for constructed wetlands.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-6

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Wetland Performance Objectives

Constructed Wetlands

Most natural or constructed wetland treatment systems will be designed to remove as much of
a particular nutrient or suite of pollutants from wastewater as possible. Performance objectives
in the form of mass removal rates should be established early in the Conceptual Design
process to guide wetland sizing and configuration.

Cost Estimates

Conceptual estimates should be prepared for land cggts bas
appraisals (if necessary), earthwork costs based upo^J^ppro
planting costs based upon the product of an average cost
operators and the total estimated wetland area, culyjife and pi
operations and maintenance costs.

Regulatory Feasibility and Perrnittlbg

Regulatory Feasibility </

Regulatory Jurisdiction Determination^:’^''*',

A master list of regulatory agency jurisdictif
needs and design constraints identified. J

: >

fnd specific information

Meeting

Meetings should be held with jigylatory Jfency stajfprior to permit submittal to confirm
jurisdiction and permit i nform aife'req u iremgnts . RetuiiP correspondence should be requested
that verifies topics covered antl conclusionsdrawn from each meeting.

Fatal Analysis ; ; | | , ^

FataLflawS irflhe wetland design or coristructfon possibly resulting from regulatory restrictions

is with regulatory agency staff.

Permitting RefruiremiSillBlj

Provincial, and municipal constraints and requirements on wetland construction should be
thorqi^hfy investigated prior to beginning final design.

Final Design

Final design should essentially be a much more detailed presentation of the accepted concep-
: tuaf design, in cpifermance with such comprehensive guidance as Kadlec and Knight (1996)
| sencfWPGF (19,90). Detail on earthwork calculations, hydraulic characteristics, slopes, depths,
\and possible^site constraints should be developed into a detailed construction package.
BmpfcadiCon detail should be placed on hydraulic structures and overall simplification of
operation and maintenance requirements. Regulatory confirmation of design details should be
sought prior to completion of the final design. A senior review by a qualified treatment wetland
designer should be conducted of the complete design.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-7

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT - FEBRUARY 1998

Construction Management and Monitoring

Construction Plans and Specifications

Wetland construction plans and specifications should be sufficiently detailed for bidding
purposes, engineering and biological review, and verification of "as-built".

General

Wetland construction plans should include a table of contents, a detai
key index, and a table of quantities. Individual sheets should includj
bar, date of preparation, and a record of reviewers and rey&jon dat

ap, a sheet
ss arrow, scale

Aerial Photography

If available, construction plans should include currentjip’ial photon
completely show the outline of the project work aresfop one oj
landmarks, water bodies and drainage pattern, wetlapilwid,:^|ner restricted
(i.e. endangered or threatened species) should be ideated! Larger scale aerial
may be used as a background for the detailed plan set tf Ij^erp'feye clarity is not sacrificed.

Scale

A scale of 1 cm

10 m or larger (i.e. 1 cm = 5 m) is repomment^d.

Topography .w

Wetland construction plans should be oygp&id ori|a topographic p|£b of existing site elevation
contours. A 0.25 m contour intervals reco<pm^|cted as minimum contour interval.
Benchmark location and elevations sjhould be c^jlrly inc

Geotechnical Information / t //

Locations of test borings and sdifpTts shouM be idenf||ed within the plan set so that they may
be relocated, if desired. Soil #|ptile illu^iUians shopfd be identified and presented within the
plan set arid should i n c IdSfe |i|b rm at i o it op ; $p$ m a profile elevations and observed water

elevations.

J u risd i ct ^ bouS^n^Biou Id be clearly and accurately identified on the site
topographic 'map as negoti atedwltli tftoreg u I ato ry agencies.

Y ^

HydroJpgy ':';X

Plans should indicate exfsfcgVid expected water levels, identify adjacent water bodies and to
establish major surfate-;dr§thage patterns at the construction site. All elevations should be
made relative to Nati(|ipriieodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), or an elevation conversion should
j|| supplied. Site hydjpogical data should include seasonal high and average water elevations
determined from vegetative indicators, soil indicators, or hydrological monitoring data for
existing wetlani^if any, and at adjacent upland sites. Sufficient information should be
| developed to determine seasonal elevations of receiving waters. If necessary and feasible,
\ provision shpuld be made on a site-specific basis to divert water temporarily to the wetland and
%en^|petfhg temporary or permanent structures to provide inundation.

Planting Specifications

Construction plans should indicate zones or areas to be planted. A planting list should be
prepared for each wetland zone that includes quantities, elevation ranges, and acceptable
conditions. Special considerations or requirements should be noted and described in sufficient
detail. These may include fertilizer specifications, pre-planting conditioning, geographic

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-8

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT -FEBRUARY 1998

constraints on plant sources, performance and irrigation requirements. Plants should be
planted at intervals sufficiently dense to assure rapid growth of vegetative cover.

Vegetation Maintenance

Construction plans should require control of exotic or nuisance plants within the wetland during
and after construction. Details on control methods should be provided for expected nuisance
species. Control of herbivory by animals may be required and should be anticipated in the
construction and monitoring phases. Provisions should be made for irrigation during
construction with available effluent for constructed wetlands.

Land Use

Locations of restricted areas, structures, utility lines, or
the construction area should be indicated. 3pecia||
coordination requirements should be indicated.

Erosion and Sediment Control

Construction plans should indicate the location, quafcl$i|^fii3^maintenance o^a$g©pifable and
appropriate sediment control methods. Possible sediment tipciers include staked haybales,
geotextile silt-screens, sod, and plant seeding. Barriers should placed at the construction
periphery and within the wetland in such a manner a&;to m fnlrnfee sedimentation and erosion of

wetland berms or edges.

11,

Grading Plan

A grading plan should be included with tbf^fln' that Identifies the location, elevations, and
dimensions of project earthwork. The .plans should include sufficient information on radii,
turning points, and baseline offsets forifie contr^for td%jqto|^ty locate and build the wetland.
Plans should specify soil quality rsdSfrement^poil sour|pillnd disposal areas, and means of
transporting soil. Grading specfffc&tions sjifuld indicggl the allowable tolerance in wetland
grade elevation. Constructed wetlands require strict adlSrence to wetland grade specifications.

Site Preparation ••• ••

Construction-plans should Include removing the top 0.45 - 0.6 m of substrate from the project
site and Stockpiling of that material to use as cover for the site to provide a seed bank or
propagutesourck %.

\ X >\

Contractor Set^ction Criteria"

■ ’ . \ \ /

Contractor s^ectiop^ several minimum requirements. Contractors should

be atp: to demons^le i^tdl^successful wetland construction experience. Contractor staff
should include a per^n v^h'backg round in wetland creation/restoration design with practical
yypand construction - experience. The contractor or contractor's insurer should be able to
/secure a performance bond equal to the cost of construction, planting, and a period of
^maintenance and mqhitoring.

Maintenance During Construction

exotic plants should be controlled during wetland grading and planting. Trash
ancMitter should be prevented from accumulating in the wetland. Wetland vegetation should be
irrigated or kept watered as needed during the first year initial dry season if not inundated to
design depths. Water control structures and culverts should be kept free of debris and soil, and
repaired if broken.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-9

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

"Time Zero" Report and Final Record Drawings

"As-recorded" drawings should be prepared and certified by the earthwork contractor or
general contractor prior to installation of planting materials, and submitted for approval and
acceptance by the project engineer. Final "as-recorded" drawings should be prepared at the
conclusion of construction that verify design elevations, water depths, and elevations and
extent of planting zones. These should be submitted with a "Time Zero" Report at the
completion of the project, which would include descriptions of the major j&etland plant
communities, densities, species and photographs taken at a sufficient numj^% stations to
adequately cover the project (Erwin, 1991).

Original mylar or other media should be annotated an
Variations from design, and their rationale, should be

Post-Construction Monitoring

a wetland has attained its

Construction and permitting documents should ini
construction monitoring required to measure and
intended goals. Sampling methods, frequency, an^p^WiS^station locations should be
described in sufficient detail to permit monitoring<|o be^^ncfuctbd by qualified individuals
unfamiliar with the project. Monitoring plans should Tnclude Se^cripibfexpf methods and goals
of collecting data on water levels and plant s|^'cBixcover an& diversity! Photographs of the
wetlands should be taken at fixed locations,.^ ^rt of fHewst-constf^fion monitoring process.

Monitoring Options

Additional data that may be collect|p will dgjpnd upjR,.thj^goal of wetland construction.
Periodic biological surveys of vertebrate anc||^vertebr^:Communities may be performed to
document wildlife habitat and ecological productivity jlifthe wetland. Water quality sampling
may be performed to document ; pollutant #similatiori/organic matter production and export,
and sediment retention.^ Fjbod retention^ and groundwater recharge functions may be
documented by installation monitoring and water stage and rainfall recorders.

Speciatized input from biologists, hydrofogjsts; hydrogeologists and engineers should be
sought before designing : and If^lgmentingany monitoring.

Performance Criteria X, " • - :;v\

Wetland performance after coo$|itK#dri should be determined by comparison of measured
wetland conditipos at selected K#1ntervals against specific criteria. Criteria to be measured
shouldfeflect project goel&'For example, specific criteria for a treatment wetland might include
targ#: effluent conc^ntratton^and expected pollutant removal efficiency, as well as other
indications of wetland condition, such as percent cover by planted and volunteer plant species.

Wetland Maintenance

Corrective action srfpuld be taken if monitoring indicates that performance criteria are not being
mH or if other indications are found that the wetland is not functioning as designed.
<^nstru.cted^ i^tfands performance can be adversely affected by inundation less than or
\ greater thajv required by design. Flow, residence time, pollutant removal efficiency, and
^sopjIarrCe with wetland discharge standards may be adversely affected. Wetland vegetation
may be adversely effected. Possible solutions may include changing the volume, quality or
timing of water deliveries to the wetland, the invert elevations of water control structures, the
wetland grade elevation, and the species of vegetation to be planted.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-10

J. METHODS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT WETLAND SYSTEMS

DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

References

Erwin, K.L. An Evaluation of Wetland Mitigation in the South Florida Water Management
District. Volume I. Contract No. C89-0082-A1. 1991.

Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers Co. 1996.

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE J-11

K. Questions and Concerns That
Have Been Raised About Wetlands

Over the years, numerous questions and concerns have surfaced with respeqito the long-
term effects of wetlands on wildlife and on local residents whose homes are spited close to
a wetland site. Some of those questions and the response to each jj||he wpfand engineers
are presented in the following table.

Questions and Concerns That Have Been Raised Abo

Questions/Concerns Expressed by
Regulators and the General Public

Response by thes

It has been found tlr^i if the Jutland has been desiptt correctly,
odours should not occur. The experience of wetland experts who
have visited wetland,^eS:7»OEunJ>lhe world indicate that odour
generation in constEtfpid oi^4^f:isw^ltands has not occurred.

Will it generate odours?

What about mosquitos?

Even though the wetland provides a greats ^ater surface' area for
mosquitos to. potential ha^se^h^ely been kept in check
at many watfand sites irt^veral ways*'|££ most effective is the use
of mosa^rfisli%^^|^^osqu||^farvae before they reach the
aduiyplge. Ne^ifgE,jK^es'^Q -.-ballet up for purple martins and
swgjpfas that ^sum^^f rsoaquitos as they emerge from the
W!§|ind. MainWiing them^p^ater level will reduce the formation
^ofstagnant,,^squito having sites.

Do we know enough about this
technology?

\. v Hk X '

ive been i$pitionally incorporated into wastewater and
stormw^l treatment systems for more than 25 years. Volumes of
p literatuftsl^ve ,be^%ritten on the subject based on experience
| gaineif s of pilot- and full-scale treatment wetland

| syste^^^y^lhe world. Although more knowledge is still being
\ gained'^i^fnore data needs to be collected and analyzed, there
\J|exists sufficient design criteria to properly engineer a treatment
• . wetland system.

WII it work i

l i

m i ■■■<.

>- * \

;.Th%^inctions of a wastewater or stormwater treatment system that
% fully or in part on physical and/or chemical processes (settling or
Adsorption) are unaffected by the water temperature. This would
include parameters such as biochemical oxygen demand (BODs),
total suspended solids (TSS), and total phosphorous (TP) removal.
However, the treatment functions, such as ammonia nitrogen (NH4-
N) and nitrate and nitite nitrogen (NO3+NO2-N), that rely on
microorganisms for contaminant reduction are affected by tempera-
ture and this must be factored into the design of the wetland system.

WHl it work in the f^||brth?

The application of wetlands in cold climates has successfully met
effluent criteria across Canada as far north as the Yukon and the
Northwest Territories.

all nutrient and
chemical types?

Wetlands have been used to effectively treat a wide range of muni-
cipal and industrial effluents. Each waste stream requires careful,
individual consideration. Concentrations and types of chemicals that
have not been tested in a biological wastewater treatment system
should be approached with the same caution that would be exercised
when determining the most appropriate conventional wastewater
treatment system for a given wastewater.

Will this technology be applicable to There are many potential wetland applications. However, experience

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE K-1

K. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT WETLANDS DRAFT- FEBRUARY 1998

Questions and Concerns That Have Been Raised About Wetlands

Questions/Concerns Expressed by
Regulators and the General Public

Response by the Wetland Engineers

all situations?

has shown that after carrying out an initial investigation, only about
50% of the potential sites would be considered feasible for the
treatment wetland technology.

Has this technology been applied to
a large-scale installation?

In Canada, at Frank Lake, Alberta, a 1246 ha s^|§m has been
installed to treat municipal and industrial Jgrtiary tredpif effluent.

How long will it continue to remove
the contaminants?

Although the oldest known treatment ^fe^^|^rrently in operation
have only been monitoregifor a few,4^il^^Sxperience indicates
that that the life expect^dii^^ll be reS^gl^ilgfi^ie and strength oL_
effluent being treateC^pecific wejl«^- low strength

municipal wastewatejSIve been esJ$§afecNi^^
of centuries if prope^^aintainecjy^wever, th^^J^yABap^^of
high strength indust^||^stems^^ be less, posSl^ fo a sfcfe^e

Will the accumulated contaminants
wash out of a treatment wetland sys-
tem during rainstorms?

If the wetland is dei||tii$^^^erly, the sediment s^ote'femain in
the wetland dependin^.^lM;^i&f(n intensity that it was designed for
appropriate wetland trapping and retaining sedi-
ments in the wetland: > t N

What about metals accumulation in
the soil and plants?

Studies have shown that the metals in the soil and

plants can bej^fpli^teiable. S o m^siteanf ^ti o contaminated water
flow shov^!^|i|^iil^|ggtals in th^jpfejjte that were greater than
those streptf" Investigations continue to

deterpj§a^ the irdp^sof^mfeeJs adkimulation on the surrounding
enyiplment.

WII the wildlife be adversely affected
by the accumulated contaminants? ^

ii» ffivitf*’

Sped upor\:Jhe scienti|p|pi0wledge gained to date, the risk to
ASfalife is li|§fy remote. Jfhere bioaccumulation or wildlife exposure
jftas the jfpential to peome a problem, measures can be incor-
k' porated$ihfb the projfgiFdesign to minimize these risks. Research is
contind&wj'Qn this jsd§ffect.

1 1 f f

.*• * ‘ 7*: :

x:.

'f ' y

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STANDARDS & GUIDELINES BRANCH

PAGE K-2

National Library of Canada

3 3286 51357 0214

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Guidelines for the approval and design of natural and constructed treatment wetlands for water quality improvement"

See other formats