Please note that it was not possible to post on the Web site all figures and maps included in the submitted project description. To obtain a complete copy of the document, please refer to the following:

---

Project Description Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Twinning of Highway 4 at Milk River, Alberta

June 2001

Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Prepared for:
Alberta Transportation

Table of Contents

1.0 General Information
	1.1 General
		1.1.1 The Nature of the Project
		1.1.2 Name and Proposed Location of the Project
		1.1.3 Project Description Distribution List
		1.1.4 Background and Public Consultation
		1.1.5 Provincial Environmental Assessment Regimes
	1.2 Contacts
		1.2.1 Proponent's Name
		1.2.2 Contact Persons
	1.3 Federal Involvement
		1.3.1 Federal Financial Support
		1.3.2 Land Ownership
	1.4 Authorizations Required
		1.4.1 Federal Permits and Authorizations
		1.4.2 Provincial and Municipal Permits
		1.4.3 International Considerations
2.0 Project Information
	2.1 Project Components/Structures
		2.1.1 Main Project Components
		2.1.2 Project Component Scale
	2.2 Project Activities
		2.2.1 Project Scheduling
		2.2.2 Alignment Plans
		2.2.3 Engineering Design Details
		2.2.4 Off-site Land Use Requirements
	2.3 Resource/Material Requirements
		2.3.1 Raw Material Requirements
		2.3.2 Energy Requirements
		2.3.3 Water Requirements
		2.3.4 Excavation and Fill Requirements
		2.3.5 Toxic and Hazardous Materials
	2.4 Waste Management
		2.4.1 Management of Non-hazardous Wastes
		2.4.2 Management of Toxic/Hazardous Wastes
3.0 Project Site Information
	3.1 Project Location
	3.2 Environmental Features
		3.2.1 Terrain and Soil
		3.2.2 Water
		3.2.3 Air
		3.2.4 Vegetation
		3.2.5 Fish
		3.2.6 Wildlife
		3.2.7 Unique or Special Resources
	3.3 Fisheries and Navigable Waters Interactions
	3.4 Land Use
		3.4.1 Current and Past Land Uses
		3.4.2 Potential Contamination from Past Land Uses
		3.4.3 Proximity to Indian Reserves and Traditional Use Areas
		3.4.4 Proximity to Environmental or Cultural Sites
		3.4.5 Proximity to Residential and Other Urban Areas
4.0 Fish, Fish Habitat and Navigable Waters
	4.1 Environmental Features
		4.1.1 Identification of Waterbodies Close to the Project
		4.1.2 Physical Characteristics
		4.1.3 Fish Populations
		4.1.4 Fish Habitat
		4.1.5 Habitat Compensation
		4.1.6 Federal Consultation
	4.2 Use of Waterway
		4.2.1 Existing Use of the Waterway
		4.2.2 Commercial, Recreational or Subsistence Fisheries
		4.2.3 Federal Consultation

---

1.0 General Information

1.1 General

1.1.1 The Nature of the Project

The Province of Alberta, under the authority of Alberta Transportation, is realigning and upgrading approximately 10 km of Highway 4 to a 4-lane divided highway adjacent to the Town of Milk River. Highway 4 is designated as part of the North-South Trade Corridor announced in 1995, the objective of which is to provide a continuous 4-lane divided highway between the British Columbia border near Demmitt, Alberta and the United States border at Coutts, Alberta. Highway 4, extending from Lethbridge to Coutts where it connects with US interstate highway I-15, is an integral component of the corridor. The section of Highway 4 at Milk River represents the last portion of Highway 4 that has not been upgraded to a 4-lane divided roadway. The alignment selected for Highway 4 requires railway relocation as well.

1.1.2 Name and Proposed Location of the Project

The official project name is "Project 4:02, from Secondary Highway 501 (West) to North of Milk River".

The twinning project is centered on the Town of Milk River, in southern Alberta (Figure 1.0 - download it in PDF format [help on Adobe PDF files]).

1.1.3 Project Description Distribution List

Bill Aird (Canadian Transportation Agency, Ottawa)
Ryerson Christie (CEAA, Edmonton)
Steve Drumond (Canadian Coast Guard, Edmonton)
Tom Olson (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Lethbridge)
Margaret Fairbairn (Environment Canada, Edmonton)
Fred Zaal (Environment Canada)
Rod Vickers (Alberta Community Development, Historical Resources Division, Edmonton)
Gary Erickson (Alberta Environment, Lethbridge)
Dave McGee (Alberta Environment, Lethbridge)
Don Snider (Alberta Transportation, Edmonton)

1.1.4 Background and Public Consultation

1.1.4.1 Initial Route Selection and Public Consultation

Alberta Transportation (Alberta Infrastructure at the time) commissioned Infrastructure Systems Ltd. to prepare a functional planning study for Highway 4 twinning from Lethbridge to Coutts. The study, completed in 1996, developed two options for the realignment of the highway at the Town of Milk River which were presented to town residents. The preferred option was to relocate the highway approximately 400 m east of the current alignment; however, several concerns about this alignment were raised by Milk River residents, the surrounding community and the trucking association.

1.1.4.2 Follow-up Route Selection and Public Consultation

In response to the concerns arising from the preferred option initially identified, Alberta Transportation retained Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. to develop and assess additional realignment options at the Town of Milk River. An option involving realignment of Highway 4 approximately 200 m to the west was presented to town residents at an open house held in the spring of 1999. The comments received indicated that the residents were split, with approximately half supporting the new west bypass option. The Town Council and the local MLA supported the new option, and in August 1999 Alberta's Minister of Infrastructure, the Honourable Ed Stelmach, selected it as the designated alignment for twinning Highway 4.

The firm of Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. was subsequently retained by Alberta Transportation to prepare a functional planning study for the approved option. The Functional Planning Study for Highway 4 at Milk River was completed in May 2000 and forms much of the basis for the technical information provided in the current project description document.

1.1.4.3 CP Rail Realignment Requirement

The realignment of the highway necessitates relocation of approximately 3.4 km of CP Rail mainline track (Coutts Subdivision). CP Rail has consented to the relocation and is applying to the Canadian Transportation Agency for approval. The potential environmental effects of the rail relocation are addressed in the current project description document.

1.1.5 Provincial Environmental Assessment Regimes

1.1.5.1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)

The project does not require a formal environmental impact assessment under Alberta's EPEA. However, environmental assessment work is required for specific environmental components. Assessment work completed in support of the project pursuant to EPEA includes:

• environmental screening and recommendations for further environmental assessment work, prepared by Conor Pacific Environmental Technologies (included in the Functional Planning Study for Highway 4 at Milk River)

• environmental assessment of Highway 4:02 in the Vicinity of Milk River, based on fisheries, wildlife and rare plant field studies conducted in 2000 as follow-up to the recommendations of the environmental screening report (completed March 2001 by Stantec Consulting Ltd.)

• breeding season wildlife field studies, based on the findings of the 2000 wildlife assessment and consultation with Alberta Environment, to be conducted in early June, 2001.

1.1.5.2 Historical Resources Act

Historical resources work completed pursuant to the Historical Resources Act in support of the project includes:

• a historical resources overview (HRO), prepared by Bison Historical Services (included in the Functional Planning Study for Highway 4 at Milk River)

• a historical resources impact assessment (HRIA) based on a field program conducted in 2000, prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (included in the Environmental Assessment of Highway 4:02 in the Vicinity of Milk River)

• an Interim Historical Resources Mitigation (HRM) report, prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. in 2001

• follow-up mitigation work scheduled for summer, 2001 based on the recommendations of the HRM report.

1.2 Contacts

1.2.1 Proponent's Name

The proponent is Alberta Transportation.

1.2.2 Contact Persons

Don Snider

Manager, Transportation (Environmental) Projects
2^nd Floor, Twin Atria Building
4999 – 98 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3
Tel 780 415-1387
Fax 780 427-0353
e-mail don.snider@gov.ab.ca

Tas Kollias, P.Eng.

Regional Construction Manager, Southern Region
3^rd Floor
909 – 3^rd Avenue N
Lethbridge, Alberta T1H 0H5
Tel 403 382-4072
Fax 403 381-5253
e-mail tas.kollias@gov.ab.ca

1.3 Federal Involvement

1.3.1 Federal Financial Support

The federal government is not providing financial support for the project.

1.3.2 Land Ownership

Land ownership along the twinning alignment is primarily private, as indicated on the alignment plans (see Section 2.2.3). Land acquisition is being handled by Stantec Consulting Ltd. on behalf of Alberta Transportation. Approximately 55% of the land required for the project has been acquired. No federal lands are involved.

1.4 Authorizations Required

1.4.1 Federal Permits and Authorizations

Federal authorizations for the project are required with respect to the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Act. Project information and applications have been submitted to Tom Olson of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Lethbridge) and Steve Drumond of the Canadian Coast Guard (Edmonton) with respect to these requirements. As well, application for approval for railway construction has been made to the Canadian Transportation Agency under Section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act.

1.4.2 Provincial and Municipal Permits

Provincial approvals are required under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and Historical Resources Act. The bridge crossings require permission under the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings and the river protection works under the Water Act.

No municipal approvals are required.

1.4.3 International Considerations

The project requires bridge crossings of the Milk River, which flows from the USA to Canada and back again. Information has been forwarded to Margaret Fairbairn of Environment Canada to determine if action is required under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

2.0 Project Information

2.1 Project Components/Structures

2.1.1 Main Project Components

2.1.1.1 Structures

The main structural elements of the project are described in the Functional Planning Study for Highway 4 at Milk River. In brief, they are:

• twinning of approximately 9.4 km of existing Highway 4, including realignment of approximately 5.0 km

• realignment of approximately 3.4 km of CP Rail mainline (from existing Mile 33.24 to Mile 35.41, Coutts Subdivision)

• two new road bridges across the Milk River, one for northbound and one for southbound highway traffic

• one new rail bridge across the Milk River

• two new highway intersections adjacent to the Town of Milk River

• realignment of the S.H. 501 intersection approximately 3 km south of Town

• intersection lighting

• erosion control / bank stability armouring works along the Milk River downstream of the new bridges.

2.1.1.2 Associated Infrastructure

The highway and rail realignments will necessitate several changes in existing infrastructure. As described in the Functional Planning Study for Highway 4 at Milk River, these are:

• realignment of the CP Rail grain terminal spur line

• new 60 m setoff track for disabled rail cars

• relocation of three railway level crossings

• changes in existing access roads and development of new access and service roads

• adjustments of gas, power, water and telephone lines.

2.1.1.3 Construction

The project will be completed using standard road, rail and bridge construction equipment. No construction camp is needed to house workers because of the proximity of Milk River and other communities.

2.1.2 Project Component Scale

The lengths of highway and railroad involved in the project are approximately 9.4 km and 3.4 km, respectively. The incremental areas (i.e., areas not currently in rail and road rights of way) directly affected by construction are roughly 80 ha for road upgrading and relocation (including highway, intersections and service roads) and 10 ha for rail relocation.

2.2 Project Activities

2.2.1 Project Scheduling

Project scheduling, as it is currently envisaged, is summarized in Table 2.1. Highway and rail construction will proceed concurrently.

Table 2.1 Project scheduling.

Phase	Date(s)
Tendering	January 2002
Grading	April-October 2002, April-June 2003
Bridge Construction	July 2002 – July 2003*
Granular base and Paving	September-October 2002, July-September 2003
Completion	October 15, 2003

* no instream work during the Alberta Environment-defined restricted activity period of April 1 to June 30 (there are no formal federal timing constraints)

2.2.2 Alignment Plans

Drawing SK-013, in the map pocket at the back of this document, is the most recent alignment plan showing the locations of both the road and rail elements of the project. Highway and railway profiles are shown on drawings P1-01 to P1-06 and R1-01 to R1-02 in the Functional Planning Study for Highway 4 at Milk River.

2.2.3 Engineering Design Details

The design standards and minimum cross-section standards for the highway are listed in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Design and cross-section standards for Highway 4:02 at Milk River.

Description	Standard
Design speed	130 km/h
Minimum curve radius	950 m
Maximum superelevation	6%
Maximum grade	3%
Lane width	3.7 m
Outside shoulder width	3.0 m
Inside shoulder width	2.0 m
Finished pavement width	13.4 m
Center to center separation of northbound and southbound lanes	38 m
Median width	30.6 m
Median depth	1.5 m ±
Sideslopes	6:1
Ditch depth	1.6 m ±
Ditch width	4 m
Back slope	5:1 (3:1 max)

Source: Functional Planning Study for Highway 4 at Milk River

2.2.4 Off-site Land Use Requirements

There will be a requirement for additional fill material to prepare the roadway and railway subgrades. This will be met from borrow areas adjacent to the highway right of way. The optimal locations for these borrow areas are currently being determined.

Granular material requirements will be met from the most conveniently located existing pit having sufficient resources to meet project requirements.

2.3 Resource/Material Requirements

2.3.1 Raw Material Requirements

The principal raw materials required will be granular. Quantities are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Granular material requirements.

Material	Quantity (cubic metres)
Granular base course	150,000
Common fill (borrow)*	50,000
Asphalt concrete pavement	25,000

* excess of fill requirements over excavation

2.3.2 Energy Requirements

The main energy requirements for the project will be for construction equipment and will be supplied by hydrocarbon fuels. Construction requirements for electrical energy can be met from existing infrastructure. Operational energy requirements will be minimal.

2.3.3 Water Requirements

The main water requirements for the project are for compaction and dust control. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to arrange for water supply, including the securing of a permit from Alberta Environment if the Milk River is used as a source.

2.3.4 Earth Moving Requirements

The total amount of earth moving required for roadway and railway subgrade construction is in the order of 1.6 million cubic metres.

2.3.5 Toxic and Hazardous Materials

The toxic / hazardous materials required for the project will be fuels, lubricants and other hydrocarbon based products required for equipment operation and servicing.

2.4 Waste Management

2.4.1 Management of Non-hazardous Wastes

Project construction activities will generate normal construction wastes. Management of non-hazardous wastes will be in accordance with Alberta's statutory requirements and will conform to current industry standards.

2.4.2 Management of Toxic/Hazardous Wastes

Handling, storage and disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes will be in accordance with Alberta's statutory requirements.

3.0 Project Site Information

3.1 Project Location

The project is located at the Town of Milk River, in southern Alberta (Figure 1.0 - download it in PDF format [help on Adobe PDF files]). The south project boundary is located in NE10-TP2-R16-W4M and the north boundary in NE4-TP3-R16-W4M.

3.2 Environmental Features

3.2.1 Terrain and Soil

The project is located in plains topography. Terrain in the Town of Milk River and the portion of the project area south of town is fairly flat with minor changes in elevation related to past and present river floodplain and terrace levels. The overall slope is to the southeast. North of town the alignment passes through a very shallow draw between two low hills.

Typically for the dry grasslands of southern Alberta, the soils are Brown Chernozems. Along much of the alignment the soils have been altered by cultivation or past construction. As is standard practice, topsoil in areas affected by the project will be stripped, conserved and re-used on site during reclamation.

3.2.2 Water

The project involves the crossing of a major waterbody, the Milk River. No other waterbodies are affected. Information on the Milk River is provided in Section 4.1.

3.2.3 Air

Air quality in the project area is unaffected by proximity to any major urban area or industrial operation. Appropriate dust control measures will be implemented to avoid nuisance dust impacts during construction; no other material effects on air quality are anticipated.

3.2.4 Vegetation

The majority of the vegetation that will be affected by the project consists of planted crops and other areas of non-native species. This generalization includes the riparian zone of the Milk River, which in the zone of disturbance has been heavily altered both physically and floristically. The only exceptions are limited areas of uncultivated pasture and small bluffs that retain a principally native species composition.

A rare plant survey conducted in the project area revealed no rare plants and very low probability of their occurrence due to long-term, intensive agricultural activity (Stantec 2001).

3.2.5 Fish

The Milk River is a fish bearing stream. Information is provided in Section 4.1.

3.2.6 Wildlife

An assessment of the vulnerability of wildlife and key wildlife habitats to the effects of proposed twinning of Highway 4 was conducted in support of the twinning project (Stantec 2001). The terms of reference were to:

• document habitat types and wildlife use in the vicinity of the bridge and borrow excavations to determine if any critical wildlife habitat will be lost or altered as a result of the project

• determine the potential for occupancy by rare wildlife species (particularly the Burrowing Owl and the Northern Leopard Frog) in the vicinity of the bridge and borrow pits

• review bridge and highway design, and evaluate wildlife movement patterns in the vicinity of the bridge to determine whether bridge and road construction and establishment will impact wildlife movements and increase the likelihood of wildlife/vehicle collisions

• provide mitigative strategies to reduce impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

The wildlife species potentially of concern, along with planned impact mitigative strategies, are listed in Table 3.1. The additional surveys referred to in Table 3.1 are currently in progress.

Table 3.1 Wildlife species of potential concern, Milk River highway twinning.

Species	Classification		Mitigation
	National	Alberta*
Ferruginous Hawk	Special Concern	Blue; Endangered
Burrowing Owl	Endangered	Red; Endangered	additional surveys to identify active nesting structures**
Short-eared Owl	Special Concern	Blue	timing of construction to avoid conflict with nesting period(s)
Long-billed Curlew	Special Concern	Blue	construction equipment speed limits and traffic control
Sprague's Pipit	Threatened	Blue	additional mitigation as required if burrowing owls present
Loggerhead Shrike	Threatened	Yellow A
Northern Leopard Frog	Special Concern	Red; Endangered	additional surveys** construction timing if needed
Plains Spadefoot Toad		Blue	on-site inspection and adaptive protection planning as required if movement corridors found

* The Status of Alberta Wildlife (Alberta Environmental Protection 1996):
Red –species is at risk.
Blue –species may be at risk.
Yellow A – concern over long term declines in numbers.

** timing and scope determined in consultation with Alberta Environment

3.2.7 Unique or Special Resources

The highway twinning project will not interact with any unique or special resources, except for two provincially designated significant historic sites (see Section 3.4.4).

3.3 Fisheries and Navigable Waters Interactions

The project has fisheries (see Section 4.1) and navigable waters (see Section 4.2) interactions.

3.4 Land Use

3.4.1 Current and Past Land Uses

The principal land use along the proposed road and rail alignments has been and continues to be agricultural. Other land uses within the immediate project area are:

• existing Highway 4 right of way

• existing section roads

• existing CP Rail right of way

• Town of Milk River (see Section 3.4.5).

3.4.2 Potential Contamination from Past Land Uses

No contamination from past land uses requiring remedial action has been identified in the construction zone.

3.4.3 Proximity to Indian Reserves and Traditional Use Areas

The project is not located close to an Indian Reserve, nor to any lands that are currently used by Aboriginal people, nor to any lands identified by Aboriginal people as traditional use areas.

3.4.4 Proximity to Environmental or Cultural Sites

The highway twinning will impact one provincially designated significant historic site (DgPa-3) and pass close to another (DgPa-4), as well as a number of less significant sites that were discovered during archaeological investigations conducted in support of the project. No further investigation is required at these latter sites; however, mitigative work is required and in progress at the two significant sites. Details of the historical resources work completed and planned for the project are to be found in the HRO, HRIA and HRM documents referred to in Section 1.1.5.1.

3.4.4.1 DgPa-3

DgPa-3 is a significant site associated with the Old Woman's phase of native culture (400-1200 years old) and possibly the Avonlea phase (1200-1500 years ago). It will potentially be 100% impacted by the proposed highway twinning. Neither site avoidance nor capping is possible, leaving salvage excavation as the only mitigation option. Stage 2 mitigation excavation is currently in progress in consultation with Alberta Community Development, Heritage Resources Division.

3.4.4.2 DgPa-4

DgPa-4 is a significant site located immediately outside the proposed right-of-way, adjacent to Milk River. Mitigation will consist of avoidance, protective fencing and placement of rip rap along the adjacent portion of the river bank to prevent continued erosion. An effective protection system that will not adversely impact the site (i.e., there will be no excavation of the site area) has been developed through consultation with Alberta Community Development.

3.4.5 Proximity to Residential and Other Urban Areas

The existing highway and railway pass through the western portion of the Town of Milk River. Although the twinned highway and railway will bypass the town on the west, the highway will be in close proximity to an Agricore Cooperative facility at the west edge of town, as well as a facility owned by Murphy Oil. The new highway and railway will be no closer to and in most cases, farther from, residences in town than are the existing alignments. Outside town, a few residences lie within or very close to the proposed highway and railroad construction zone. Alberta Transportation has purchased or is in the process of purchasing these properties.

4.0 Fish, Fish Habitat and Navigable Waters

4.1 Environmental Features

4.1.1 Identification of Waterbodies Close to the Project

The only significant waterbody affected by the project is the Milk River, which is part of the Missouri River drainage. After originating in Montana along the eastern edge of Glacier National Park, the Milk River enters Alberta before turning south to re-enter Montana. The total river length in Alberta is approximately 271 km.

4.1.2 Physical Characteristics

In the vicinity of the project area the Milk River follows an irregular, meandering course between mainly low banks, although short sections of the channel are confined by valley walls. Mean monthly discharges range from 0.871 m³/s during the winter low flow period to 18.9 m³/s during summer high flows. The design flow for the purposes of river protection works is 400 m³/s. The gradient is moderate at 1.3 m/km (0.0013 m/m or 0.13%). The presence of oxbows and channel braiding indicates a tendency toward lateral channel movement.

4.1.3 Fish Populations

Prior to Stantec's fisheries assessment in August 2000, which included seine netting and boat-mounted electrofishing in the project area, 25 species of fish were known to occur in the Alberta portion of the Milk River basin. An additional species, trout-perch, was captured during Stantec's field program. Ten species other than trout-perch were also captured. The species captured are listed in Table 4.1 along with catch per unit effort, to provide an indication of relative abundance at the time of the field program. Species captured in a 1986 fisheries study conducted at the same location in 1986 are also listed in Table 4.1. The results of the two surveys were very similar in terms of species presence. Additional details are provided in the fisheries assessment report (included in Environmental Assessment of Highway 4:02 in the Vicinity of Milk River).

Table 4.1 Fish species captured in the project area, 1986 and 2000

Species	1986	Catch per Unit Effort, 2000
		Electrofishing (# / hour)	Seine netting (# / 100 m2)
brassy minnow	X	0	0
burbot		0.59	0
fathead minnow	X	0	0
flathead chub	X	63.36	4.19
lake chub	X	5.03	3.33
longnose dace	X	6.81	5.48
longnose sucker	X	50.93	3.01
mountain sucker	X	0.59	0
mountain whitefish		0.30	0
sauger	X	2.37	0
shorthead sculpin	X	19.25	1.29
trout-perch		0	1.18
unidentified sucker	X	0	5.70
white sucker	X	5.33	3.98

Source: Environmental Assessment of Highway 4:02 in the Vicinity of Milk River

4.1.4 Fish Habitat

Stantec's fisheries assessment included habitat description and analysis in the vicinity of the proposed crossing locations. Habitat features in the vicinity of the proposed bridge location are shown on Figure 4.0 - download it in PDF format [help on Adobe PDF files].

Run habitat was the dominant habitat type, accounting for 85% of the channel area upstream of the existing highway bridge crossing and 62% downstream. Over 90% of the upstream section of river has been channelized. Most (>85%) of the run habitat was rated as low to moderate quality. Wetted width averaged about 30 m and water depth ranged from 0.5 to 1.3 m with an average of about 0.8 m. Substrates in run habitat upstream of the bridge were primarily gravel and pebble/cobble, with some sand/silt. Downstream of the bridge, sand/silt substrates were predominant.

No riffle habitat was present in the study area upstream of the existing bridge crossing. Riffles accounted for about 34% of the habitat in the downstream section of the study area. Water depth in riffle areas was generally <0.5 m; substrates were comprised of gravels (30%), pebbles/cobbles (60%) and boulders (10%).

Pool habitat was sparse, accounting for about 7% of the habitat upstream of the existing highway bridge and 4% downstream. The two pools found in the upstream section appear to be the result of dredging for the installation of irrigation intakes. The maximum depth in pool habitats ranged from 2.5 to 3.0 m. The downstream pools were rated as moderate to high quality with a maximum depth of 1.5 m.

A chute formed by a constriction in the channel accounted for about 6% of the habitat in the upstream section of river. Much of the bank in the channelized section of river was armoured with rip-rap and concrete blocks.

Instream cover was available in the form of deep pools, instream vegetation and boulders. Wetted width ranged from 28 to 41 m with an average of about 32 m. Overhanging vegetation was not present. Bank height ranged from 1.5 to 21 m. The 21 m high bank that would abut the proposed highway right-of-way was actively slumping.

No barriers to fish movement were noted in the study area.

Field water quality measurements indicated that the Milk River was well oxygenated (8.6 to 8.8 mg/L) at the time of the survey and above the Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta (SWQGA) (Alberta Environment 1999) chronic guideline of >6.5 mg/L. The pH of 8.3 to 8.4 was within the Canadian Water Quality Guideline (CWQG) (CCME 1992) of 6.5 to 8.5 and the SWQGA of 6.5 to 9.0 for the protection of aquatic life. Conductivity values of 220 to 240 µmhos/cm indicated low dissolved solids concentrations. Water temperature at the time of the survey was 18°C. Secchi disc transparency, a measure of water clarity, was low with a depth of only 10 cm.

Based on Stantec's habitat assessment, the Milk River within the study area, particularly downstream of the highway bridge crossing, may provide spawning, rearing and feeding habitat for some fish species that prefer riffle areas with coarse substrate, such as sauger, sculpins and longnose dace. Three small pools in the study area likely provide some overwintering habitat for sculpin and longnose dace, since they can likely survive in shallow water. Habitat for northern pike, a sportfish that has been reported as common in this reach of the Milk River (although its presence was not documented during fisheries surveys at the project area in 1986 and 2000), is limited. Additional details, including site photos, are provided in the fisheries assessment report (included in Environmental Assessment of Highway 4:02 in the Vicinity of Milk River).

Mitigation measures to be implemented with respect to fish and fish habitat include:

• no instream activity during the Alberta Environment-defined restricted activity period of April 1 to June 30

• prompt revegetation of areas draining into the river to prevent unnecessary sedimentation

• river protection works as required to prevent bank erosion.

Based on Stantec's fisheries assessment, no residual effects on fish or fish habitat are anticipated to result from project implementation.

4.1.5 Habitat Compensation

4.1.5.1 Bridge Construction

With the construction of the three new bridges approximately 90 m² of streambed habitat will be lost. All three piers are proposed to be constructed on the sandbar located adjacent to the south bank. However, during periods of higher flow the sandbar will be submerged and the piers will occupy streambed. Typically, a pier will develop a scour pool on its downstream side 1 – 2 times the length of the pier with a minimum width the same as the pier. Also, a small scour pool will form on the nose of the pier. Therefore, the scouring effects of the pier on the streambed will create pool habitat, which will fully compensate for any habitat lost due to pier construction. The highway bridge piers are estimated to be some 11.5 m long and 1.2 m wide at the base. The CPR bridge pier is estimated to be 10.6 m long and 1.2 m wide at the base.

Because the headslopes are being trimmed back at a 2:1 slope over the length of the project, new habitat will be created above the streambed. The north headslope over the length of the project will be protected with Class 1 rock riprap. The rock will provide cover and rearing habitat, particularly for minnow and coarsefish species. To compensate for the 90 m² of lost habitat along the bank it is proposed to construct small spurs in the vicinity of the bridges. Three spurs are proposed along the south bank as combined bank protection and habitat compensation. The spurs will create habitat in the form of pools, which are lacking in the area. The spurs will be located upstream of the proposed CPR bridge, between the proposed CPR and southbound lane bridges and downstream of the proposed northbound lane bridges. A fourth spur is proposed for compensation purposes upstream of the proposed CPR bridge on the north bank. The spurs will average 12 m in length and 15 m in width. The abandoned bridge abutment on the north bank will also be retained as part of a spur to create additional pool habitat. High quality pool habitat would be created around the nose of the spurs. The spurs would be designed to a 1:20 year flood event.

Under low flow conditions (flow elevation of 1038 m or less) the two spurs along the north bank and the farthest upstream spur on the south bank will create scour pools providing additional habitat compensation. Under low flow conditions, these three spurs will create in the order of 70 – 75 m² of habitat. Under higher flow conditions, once the sandbar is under water, some 200 m² of pool habitat will be created. Fines will deposit in areas of low velocity around the spurs and the spurs themselves will provide additional wetted bank length. This provides more area for vegetation and shrubs. Wherever possible native shrubs (willow and red osier dogwood) will be planted along the north and south banks vegetation to enhance riparian habitat. This will likely include shrubs upstream and downstream of the protection works along the north protection works, and upstream, downstream and between the spurs along the south bank.

During construction, storm water will be handled with the aid of silt fences and berms to prevent sediment from entering the river. After construction completion, there will be a drainage ditch approaching the river from the north. The ditch will be lined with Class 1 M rock riprap, in the vicinity of the bridges, to prevent erosion of the ditch and headslopes. The ditch on the south bank will slope away from the river.

4.1.5.2 River Protection Works

Pool habitat will be created due to bed scour off the nose of each spur constructed to protect the highway from the encroaching meander bend. Development of the scour pools is estimated to create habitat in the order of 60 m² of pool habitat under low flow conditions and may create upwards of 100 m² of pool habitat under higher flow conditions. Also, fines will deposit between the spurs and on the downstream side of the spur. The deposition will aid in stabilizing the slope, thus making it more suitable for vegetation, thereby increasing the quality of riparian habitat. Wherever possible, native shrubs (willow and red osier dogwood) will be planted on the downstream and upstream sides of the spurs to provide habitat enhancement. On a long-term basis, there is potential for up to 250 m² of habitat to develop in the form of pools and riparian habitat. Rock rip rap and shrubs will aid in silt control as well as provide habitat diversity.

Overall, there will be no net loss of fish habitat and in fact will be a net gain in habitat in terms of high quality pool habitat.

4.1.5.3 Other Compensation Measures Considered

Suggestions have been made by DFO that consideration should be given towards reinstating flows either fully or partially into the isolated oxbow located upstream of the proposed highway bridge crossing that was formed when the river was channelized in the 1950's. The objective would be to create pool habitat within the oxbow primarily for sauger, an important sport fish in the Milk River. This option is less attractive than creating habitat within the existing river channel for the following reasons:

• One large pool rather than several smaller pools will reduce the potential for fish to congregate in one area where they may be more susceptible to angler harvest and potential over-harvest.

• A partial breach of the oxbow to form a pool will not have the current velocity to prevent infilling of the pool.

• Considering that the oxbow has been in place for circa 50 years, it may possess wildlife habitat values for herptile species of concern such as Plains Spadefoot Toad and Northern Leopard Frog. This habitat would be lost with breaching of the isolated oxbow.

4.1.6 Federal Consultation

The fisheries aspects of the Milk River crossing have been discussed with Tom Olson of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Habitat Management Division.

4.2 Use of Waterway

4.2.1 Existing Use of the Waterway

There is no existing commercial use of the Milk River in the vicinity of the highway twinning project. Water levels are too low for all but small powered or unpowered boats.

4.2.2 Commercial, Recreational or Subsistence Fisheries

There is no commercial or subsistence fishery in the Milk River at the project site. The very limited recreational fishing opportunities will not be materially affected by construction or operation of the project.

4.2.3 Federal Consultation

As required by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Stantec has applied to the Canadian Coast Guard, Navigable waters Protection Division, on behalf of Alberta Transportation for federal approval of the proposed highway bridges, railway bridge and river protection works associated with the twinning project. Application was made to Steve Drumond, Edmonton.