Protocol for the Management and Use of Water Sources at ... … · Water Sources at CFB Suffield,...

Protocol for the Management and Use of Water Sources at CFB Suffield, Alberta

Final Report

Volume 1

March 2002

Prepared for

Defence Construction Canada (DCC),

Suffield Industry Range Control (SIRC) and

Alberta Energy Company (AEC)

by LandWise Inc. R.L. McNeil, S.J. Rodvang and B.J. Sawyer

#214-905-1 Ave. South

Suite 407, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4M7

DND Suffield – Water Sources for Continued Use Page ii LandWise Inc. March 2002

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the contributions and assistance of: • the staff of the Department of National Defense (DND) Suffield, particularly

Wes Richmond, Base Environmental Officer, Brent Smith, Range Biologist, Major Stu Gibson, and Mike Gray, Environmental Technologist,

• the staff of Defence Construction Canada (DCC) Suffield, particularly Ruth Dicks, Environmental Coordinator, and Tony Ambrosio, Site Supervisor,

• the staff of Suffield Industry Range Control (SIRC), particularly the late Brent McDonald, Supervisor of Range Safety, Dan Davies, Supervisor of Range Safety, and Bob Crockford, Range Safety Coordinator,

• Dale Woloshen of Alberta Energy Company, • contractors

Stan Sackman and Richard Bobocel, who provided the reclamation services, and Jim Hann and Peter Ozdan, who coordinated the spring 2001 drilling program, and

• LandWise Inc. staff Karl Erickson, Bob Jones and Geoff Hoar for field assistance, and Trish Pols and Bob Jones for report compilation and site diagrams.

This report may be cited as: McNeil, R.L., S.J. Rodvang and B.J Sawyer. 2002. Protocol for the management and use of water sources at CFB Suffield, Alberta, Final Report Volume 1. LandWise Inc., Lethbridge, AB.

DND Suffield – Water Sources for Continued Use Page iii LandWise Inc. March 2002

Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures................................................................................................................... iv List of Appendices............................................................................................................. v List of Plates (Appendix A) ............................................................................................. vi Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 2

Water monitoring of dugouts and wells.......................................................................... 2 Detailed water-depth measurements and water-volume determinations ........................ 2 Design and installation of permanent markers................................................................ 3 Monitoring of groundwater withdrawal from wells........................................................ 3 Groundwater calculations ............................................................................................... 4

Background................................................................................................................. 4 Values used for transmissivity .................................................................................... 4 Values used for storativity .......................................................................................... 5 Water-level drawdown................................................................................................ 5

General Results............................................................................................................. 6 General Information on Water Sources .......................................................................... 6 General Protocol for Water Sources ............................................................................... 7 Water Use at Dugouts ................................................................................................... 10

Replenishment Rates................................................................................................. 10 Allowable Withdrawal Rates .................................................................................... 10 Detailed Information on Water-level Recovery at Dugouts ..................................... 11

General Results for Wells and Cribbed Springs ........................................................... 18 Water withdrawal rates ............................................................................................. 18 Predicted water-level drawdown due to pumping .................................................... 20 Discussion regarding the drawdown predictions ...................................................... 21

Summary of Key Recommendations for Water Withdrawal at Dugouts, Wells and Cribbed Springs ............................................................................................................ 23

Detailed Protocol by Site ......................................................................................... 24 Antelope (12-6-18-5-W4) ............................................................................................. 25 Bayonet (12-5-17-8-W4) .............................................................................................. 29 Beaver (6-24-16-9-W4) ................................................................................................ 33 Beveridge Lake Well and Dugout (5-2-20-7-W4)........................................................ 37 Big Bob (12-6-17-5-W4) .............................................................................................. 41 Cross Lake (10-16-20-7-W4)........................................................................................ 45 Dugway Well and Pond (4-4-16-6-W4) ....................................................................... 49 Fifteen Mile (5-11-20-6-W4)........................................................................................ 53 Hussar (3-1-19-5-W4)................................................................................................... 57 Interface (13-11-16-7-W4)............................................................................................ 61 North Boundary (13-19-19-7-W4)................................................................................ 65 Old Channel (4-4-15-5-W4) ......................................................................................... 69 Porton (3-16-15-7-W4) ................................................................................................. 73

DND Suffield – Water Sources for Continued Use Page iv LandWise Inc. March 2002

Rattlesnake (15-25-17-7-W4) ....................................................................................... 77 River Sentry (35-16-5-W4)........................................................................................... 81 7.5 Mile (5-1-17-7-W4) ................................................................................................ 82 Sherwood Forest (13-24-17-5-W4)............................................................................... 85 South Jenner Wells (10-16-20-8-W4)........................................................................... 87 Telfer Lake Well and Dugout (9-16-15-8-W4) ............................................................ 91 Wildhorse (3-4-19-7-W4) ............................................................................................. 95

References..................................................................................................................... 99

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of water sources. ....................................................................................................6 Table 2. Location of water sources designated for continued use. .................................................7 Table 3. Access to water sources under all-weather and dry-weather conditions. .........................8 Table 4. Monitoring time periods used to determine seasonal replenishment rates. ....................10 Table 5. Maximum allowable water withdrawal from dugouts....................................................11 Table 6. Predicted water-level drawdown in the preglacial gravel aquifer due to water

withdrawal from dugouts at maximum rates for 20 years. .............................................18 Table 7. Cumulative water withdrawal from wells, projected to total withdrawal from

all wells on an annual basis.............................................................................................19 Table 8. Estimated water-level drawdown due to pumping wells for 20 years at the annual

withdrawal rates estimated for 2001/2002......................................................................20

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Water-level recovery at Antelope and Hussar. ...........................................................12 Fig. 2. Water-table well and piezometer readings at Antelope. ..............................................12 Fig. 3. Water-level recovery at Beaver and Porton. ................................................................14 Fig. 4. Water-table well and piezometer readings at Beaver. .................................................14 Fig. 5. Water-level recovery at 71/2 Mile and Rattlesnake.....................................................15 Fig. 6. Piezometer readings at Rattlesnake. ............................................................................15 Fig. 7. Water-level recovery at Cross Lake and North Boundary...........................................16 Fig. 8. Water-level recovery at Big Bob and Interface. ..........................................................16 Fig. 9. Water-level recovery at Wildhorse and Fifteen Mile. .................................................17 Fig. 10. Water-table well and piezometer readings at Scraper..................................................17 Fig. 11. Cumulative water withdrawal from wells, April 8, 2001 to Feb. 28, 2002. ................19 Fig. 12. Distance drawdown cones at selected wells and wetland, due to pumping for 20 years

at the measured or maximum withdrawal rates. ..........................................................22 Fig. 13. Antelope site diagram ..................................................................................................26 Fig. 14. Antelope: water depth at full capacity, in meters. .......................................................28 Fig. 15. Bayonet site diagram. ..................................................................................................30 Fig. 16. Bayonet: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. ........................................................32

DND Suffield – Water Sources for Continued Use Page v LandWise Inc. March 2002

Fig. 17. Beaver site diagram. ..................................................................................................34 Fig. 18. Beaver: water depth at full capacity, in meters............................................................36 Fig. 19. Beveridge Lake site diagram. ......................................................................................38 Fig. 20. Beveridge Lake: water depth at full capacity, in meters..............................................40 Fig. 21. Big Bob site diagram. ..................................................................................................42 Fig. 22. Big Bob water-level depth at full capacity, in meters..................................................44 Fig. 23. Cross Lake site diagram. ............................................................................................46 Fig. 24. Cross Lake water-level depth at full capacity, in meters. ............................................48 Fig. 25. Dugway Well site diagram. .........................................................................................50 Fig. 26. Dugway: water depth at full capacity, in meters.........................................................52 Fig. 27. Fifteen Mile Site diagram. ...........................................................................................54 Fig. 28. Fifteen Mile: water-level depth at full capacity, in meters. ........................................55 Fig. 29. Hussar site diagram. ..................................................................................................58 Fig. 30. Hussar: water-depth at full capacity, in meters............................................................60 Fig. 31. Interface site diagram. ............................................................................................62 Fig. 32. Interface: water depth at full capacity, in meters. ........................................................64 Fig. 33. North Boundary site diagram. ......................................................................................66 Fig. 34. North Boundary: water-level depth at full capacity, in meters. ...................................68 Fig. 35. Old Channel site diagram. ............................................................................................70 Fig. 36. Old Channel: water level depth at full capacity, in meters. .........................................72 Fig. 37. Porton site diagram. .....................................................................................................74 Fig. 38. Porton: water depth at full capacity, in meters. ...........................................................76 Fig. 39. Rattlesnake site diagram. ............................................................................................78 Fig. 40. Rattlesnake: water depth at full capacity, in meters. ..................................................80 Fig. 41. 71/2 Mile Site diagram. ............................................................................................83 Fig. 42. 71/2 Mile: water depth at full capacity, in meters.........................................................84 Fig. 43. Sherwood Forest site diagram. ....................................................................................86 Fig. 44. South Jenner site diagram. ......................................................................................88 Fig. 45. South Jenner: water depth at full capacity, in meters. .................................................90 Fig. 46. Telfer Lake site diagram. ............................................................................................92 Fig. 47. Telfer Lake: water depth at full capacity, in meters. ...................................................94 Fig. 48. Wildhorse site diagram. ............................................................................................96 Fig. 49. Wildhorse: water depth at full capacity, in meters. ....................................................98

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Plates. ....................................................................................................................100 Appendix B. Dugout water volumes...........................................................................................109 Appendix C. Flow meter data from wells. .................................................................................112 Appendix D. Water-level drawdown calculations. .....................................................................114

DND Suffield – Water Sources for Continued Use Page vi LandWise Inc. March 2002

List of Plates (Appendix A)

Plate 1. Beveridge Lake. South bank with infill hose not at the pond. ................................. A-1 Plate 2. Beveridge Lake, Spring 2001, looking west. ........................................................... A-1 Plate 3. Dugway Well, looking northeast. ............................................................................ A-2 Plate 4. North Boundary, looking south, near capacity. ....................................................... A-2 Plate 5. Porton, looking west. Dugout at capacity. ............................................................... A-3 Plate 6. Rattlesnake, looking southeast, Spring 2001, after reclamation............................... A-3 Plate 7. Sherwood Forest. ...................................................................................................... A-4 Plate 8. South Jenner, looking east, Spring 2001. ................................................................ A-4 Plate 9. Telfer Lake Well pumphouse, looking southeast. ................................................... A-5 Plate 10. Telfer Lake Well, looking west. Perimeter fence. .................................................... A-5 Plate 11. 7.5 Mile water depth measurements. ........................................................................ A-6 Plate 12. Antelope water depth measurements. ....................................................................... A-6 Plate 13. Hussar. Ice-augering for installation of permanent marker. .................................... A-7 Plate 14. Rattlesnake. Sinking the volume capacity measuring pole. .................................... A-7 Plate 15. Fifteen Mile, January 2002. Water capacity is at 50%. ........................................... A-8 Plate 16. 71/2 Mile, January 2002. Water capacity is at 100%................................................. A-8

DND Suffield – Water Sources for Continued Use Page 1 LandWise Inc. March 2002

Introduction LandWise Inc. was contracted by the Department of National Defence Suffield in May 2000 to investigate the hydrogeological and biological impacts of dugout construction at 43 natural wetland sites. LandWise Inc. prepared a September 2000 report titled “Assessment of Dugouts and Wetlands at DND Suffield”. The September 2000 report provided recommendations on dugouts for continued use and enhancement, sites for closure and wetland restoration, and sites for abandonment with natural recovery. Sites designated for continued use include four wells, one cribbed spring, 12 spring-fed or runoff-fed dugouts, and three sites where water is pumped directly from the South Saskatchewan River. LandWise Inc. was contracted by Defence Construction Canada (DCC) in June 2001 to provide a detailed water-management protocol for each of the 20 water sources designated for continued water withdrawal. The current report (Volume 1) summarizes the resulting detailed water-management protocol for each of the 20 water sources designated for water withdrawal. Volume 1 also includes results from the regular monitoring of water withdrawal from wells and water-levels in dugouts during a major drilling program conducted in the spring of 2001. In addition, detailed and accurate measurements of water volume at each dugout were obtained. The holding capacity of most dugouts is provided in tabular and diagram form, along with water depth at full capacity, and water-level recovery curves. Water withdrawal records from the wells are also provided. Detailed site diagrams drawn to scale are included for each site. Photographic plates are also provided for most sites, showing site layout and/or concerns. Alberta Energy Company (AEC) provided the funding for the materials, design and installation of the permanent marking poles that were installed in 18 of the 20 water sources (marker poles were not installed in the South Saskatchewan River sites of River Sentry or Sherwood Forest). The companion report to the current report (Volume 2) reports on the recommendations and success of the reclamation activities at 35 sites, including those designated for continued water withdrawal and those that are permanently closed. The Suffield military base contains a very valuable groundwater resource in the form of a major buried pre-glacial gravel valley aquifer and its tributaries. This aquifer supplies water to a series of wetlands, and a wide variety of animal and plant species rely on these wetlands for survival. The water-management protocol provided in this report will help to ensure that the valuable groundwater and wetland resources on the Suffield military base are sustained over the long term. For all sites it is recommended that CFB Suffield personnel and contractors to SIRC provide periodic written or verbal reports on the water sources, to promote wise management of the water sources.


Methods The initial report titled “Assessment of dugouts and wetlands at DND Suffield, Alberta” (LandWise Inc. Sept. 2000) provided recommendations on dugouts for continued use and enhancement, sites for closure and wetland restoration, and sites for abandonment with natural recovery. Additional assessments and monitoring by LandWise Inc. between November 2000 and January 2002 has provided additional information on replenishment rates for the dugouts, water-withdrawal rates from the wells, issues of concern, and refined site-specific recommendations.

Water monitoring of dugouts and wells Alberta Energy Company (AEC) commissioned LandWise Inc. to measure the water level at each water source every two to five days between March 31 and May 18 of 2001. The purpose of this monitoring exercise was to ensure no single water source was being over-exploited during a major program major oil and gas drilling. LandWise Inc. could recommend the closure of any water source that was being severely drawn down, and these recommendations were reported to the Suffield Industry Range Control (SIRC) and AEC. Water-level monitoring was generally conducted monthly from June 4 to January 24, 2002, which allowed for the collection of data on replenishment rates in both the summer and winter seasons. These monitoring observations, along with investigations of reclamation condition, were funded by Defence Construction Canada, and are reported in Volume 2). Water-level monitoring at each site was done by observing the change in water level relative to a reference point, in cm. Changes in water level were then related to changes in water volume, based on the surface area and water depth at each dugout. Accurate water volumes were not yet available, so the monitoring relied on the best estimates of capacity that had been garnered to date.

Detailed water-depth measurements and water-volume determinations Water depth was measured in detail at each water source in the late summer and fall of 2001, using a rubber raft and a measuring pole (Plates 11 and 12). Water-level measurements were taken on a 5-m grid at each water source (measurements were taken every 5 m in perpendicular directions). These depths were provided at 18 water sources, including all the continued use sites, with the exception of two points on the South Saskatchewan River (River Sentry and Sherwood Forest, Plate 7). Detailed water-level measurements were also collected at a 19th water source, Gunner, which is permanently out of bounds for water withdrawal, but the dugout was retained because it is beneficial for the nearby wetland and associated flora and fauna. For each water source, the overflow point was noted. For sites that were not at 100% of full capacity, the depth interval between the current water level and the high-water level was


measured with the aid of a level and vertical and horizontal measuring poles. This depth interval was then used to determine water depth at full capacity. Once the detailed water-level measurements were collected at the above 19 sites, contour maps showing water depth at each point on the grid at full capacity were prepared using the software program Surferϑ from Golden Software. These figures are provided for each site, ordered alphabetically beginning on page 25. The diagram for Gunner is provided in Volume 2 as this site is permanently out-of-bounds. The Surferϑ program was also used to determine water volume based on water depth at each point on the 5-m measured grid, using the kriging interpolation method. Surferϑ was also used to calculate water depth at a single point in each water source, at water volumes of 100%, 70%, 50% and 30% of full capacity. The single point is shown on each diagram, and was the location for installation of the permanent markers.

Design and installation of permanent markers Permanent measuring poles were constructed using polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ultra-violet resistant 2.5-cm diameter poles inserted into a plastic sleeve embedded in 30 to 35 kg cement within 20-litre pails (Plate 13). The poles were marked at the intervals of 1, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.3, to represent water volumes of 100%, 70%, 50% and 30% of full capacity (Plate 14). The permanent measuring poles were installed in January 2002, by ice-augering (Plate 13) five to six cores through the ice surface of each water source, and inserting the weighted pail and marker pole through the resulting hole (Plate 14). Plate 15 shows the Fifteen Mile site at 50% of full capacity, and Plate 16 shows the 71/2 Mile site at 100% of full capacity, both on January 24, 2002. Permanent markers were installed at 18 of the 20 continued-use water sources. (Markers were not installed at River Sentry or Sherwood Forest). The design and installation of permanent markers was funded by the Alberta Energy Company.

Monitoring of groundwater withdrawal from wells Water withdrawal was metered at all four wells and the Bayonet cribbed spring, for at least part of the time period between April 2001 and February 2002. Meter malfunctions prevented continuous readings at Beveridge Lake and Dugway wells. The measured withdrawal rates were extrapolated to obtain the annual withdrawal rate if pumping was continued at the measured rate for the entire year.


Groundwater calculations Background A productive preglacial gravel aquifer and its tributaries are the dominant water source for most of the wells and wetlands in the Suffield Block. Water withdrawal from any well or wetland fed by the aquifer can potentially affect the water level at any other location in the aquifer. When groundwater is pumped from an aquifer, the water level in the aquifer drops to the greatest extent at the pumped well, with lesser amounts of drawdown at distance from the well. The upper surface of the new water level is called the cone of depression. The distance the drawdown cone extends out from the well increases with time as pumping continues. Transmissivity is a measure of the amount of water that can be transmitted by an aquifer (groundwater supply). Storativity is a measure of the water storage capacity of an aquifer. Measuring the transmissivity and storativity of aquifers allows the prediction of the magnitude and extent of water-level drawdown when groundwater is pumped from aquifers. Drawdown at any distance from the well increases with pumping rate and decreases with increasing transmissivity and storativity. The transmissivity of an aquifer can be measured by pumping a well while measuring the drop in water-level with time. Storativity can be measured by monitoring the water level in an observation well while pumping a near-by well. Transmissivity and storativity vary with location within the same aquifer, so they should be measured as close as possible to the location of interest. Values used for transmissivity Geometric mean transmissivity was calculated by McNeil et al. (2000) for 12 wells located in the preglacial gravel aquifer, based mainly on specific capacity data obtained from Alberta Environment’s Groundwater Information Center database. This value (2.7 x 10-4 m2/s) was used to represent transmissivity for most wells and wetlands that are supplied by groundwater from the preglacial aquifer. Calculated transmissivity (T) values were used for the three wells where they were available. Effective T for the Dugway well (5.24 x 10-4 m2/s) was obtained from the web page http://www.groundwatercentre.com. T values for the Telfer Lake and Beveridge Lake wells were calculated in an earlier report (McNeil et al. 2000) using specific capacity data.

http://www.groundwatercentre.com/


Values used for storativity No measurements of storativity were available from observation wells measured during pumping. However, storativity can be calculated from aquifer thickness and Specific Storage value (Eq. 1). S = Ss*b (1) where: S = storativity [dimensionless] Ss = specific storage [m-1] b = aquifer thickness [m] Specific storage of dense sandy gravel ranges from 4.92 x 10-5 to 1.02 x 10-4 m-1 (Batu 1998). Using a median thickness of 5 m for the preglacial aquifer (McNeil et al. 2000), storativity is estimated to range from about 2.46 x 10-4 to 5.1 x 10-4. Water-level drawdown Transmissivity and storativity were used in Equation 1 to predict the water-level drawdown caused by pumping the wells. s = (2.3*Q)/(4ΒT)log(2.25Tt)/(r2S) (2) where: s = drawdown at distance r from the well [m] Q = pumping rate [m3/s] T = transmissivity [m2/s] t = time of pumping [sec] r = distance from pumped well, or radius of the well for determination of drawdown

at the well S = storativity [dimensionless] Drawdown can be determined from Eq. 2,for any distance from the pumped source and at any time after pumping begins. Drawdown at each wetland caused by water withdrawal for 20 years of pumping at the maximum allowable withdrawal rates was determined. The calculations were based on the geometric mean transmissivity determined from specific capacity data (2.7 x 10-4 m2/s, McNeil et al. 2000) and a representative storativity value (2.48 x 10-4). Drawdown due to pumping each well was determined at the well and at one mile away from the well, assuming pumping at the withdrawal rates observed in 2001-2002 were continued for 20 years. Measured transmissivity values were used for Beveridge Lake, Dugway, and Telfer Lake, and the geometric mean transmissivity stated above was used for the Bayonet and South Jenner wells. Both the upper and lower range of storativity values listed above were used, to illustrate the uncertainty caused by the lack of a measured storativity value. Calculations were also done to illustrate the drawdown due to the combined effect of pumping from several water sources at the same time, using the principle of superposition (Domenico and Schwartz 1990).


General Results

General Information on Water Sources There are 20 water sources on the Suffield military base where water withdrawal will be allowed in the future. Most of the water sources are dugouts that have been developed in natural groundwater-supplied wetlands (Table 1). The main groundwater source for the wetlands is a pre-glacial buried river-valley aquifer located about 50 to 100 m below ground. Tributaries to this aquifer also feed some of the wetlands. A more detailed discussion of the groundwater source is contained in McNeil et al. (2000). Groundwater wells have been installed in the buried gravel aquifer at four locations, and a cribbed spring draws water from another wetland. One wetland (Big Bob) is fed only by runoff (Table 1). Finally, water can be pumped directly from the South Saskatchewan River at three locations (Table 1). Legal land location and global positioning (GPS) coordinates are provided for each water source in Table 2. Table 1. Types of water sources.

Well Cribbed Spring

Groundwater spring-fed

Dugout

Runoff-fed Dugout

Direct pumping from river

Pumped from river to dugout

Beveridge Lake Bayonet Antelope Big Bob River Sentry Old Channel Dugway Beaver Sherwood Forest

South Jenner Cross Lake Telfer Lake Fifteen Mile

Hussar Interface North Boundary Porton Rattlesnake 71/2 Mile Wildhorse


Table 2. Location of water sources designated for continued use.

Name Legal Location ZUTM NAD 83 Source Antelope 12-6-18-5-W4 0522198; 5593547 spring-fed dugout Bayonet (N) 12-5-17-8-W4 0494648; 5583951 dugout and pumping from cribbed spring Beaver 6-24-16-9-W4 0491750; 5578743 spring-fed dugout Beveridge Lake 5-2-20-7-W4 0508488; 5612641 well to dugout Big Bob 12-6-17-5-W4 0521893; 5583857 catchment dugout Cross Lake 10-16-20-7-W4 0505594; 5615691 spring-fed dugout Dugway 4-4-16-6-W4 0515518; 5573168 well to dugout or tanks Fifteen Mile 5-11-20-6-W4 0518597; 5614144 spring-fed dugout Hussar 3-1-19-5-W4 0530437; 5602302 spring-fed dugout Interface 13-11-16-7-W4 0509693; 5576173 spring-fed dugout North Boundary 13-19-19-7-W4 0502042; 5608109 spring-fed dugout Old Channel 4-4-15-5-W4 0524784; 5664426 pumping from S. Sask. River to dugout Porton 3-16-15-7-W4 0506486; 5566632 spring-fed dugout Rattlesnake 15-25-17-7-W4 0511443; 5590542 spring-fed dugout River Sentry 35-16-5-W4 *05285; 55820 South Saskatchewan River 7.5 Mile 5-1-17-7-W4 0510817; 5583394 spring-fed dugout Sherwood Forest 13-24-17-5-W4 0530081; 5589493 South Saskatchewan River South Jenner 10-16-20-8-W4 0496932; 5615914 wells (3) to dugout Telfer Lake 9-16-15-8-W4 0497404; 5568126 well to dugout Wildhorse (S) 3-4-19-7-W4 0506573; 5601950 spring-fed dugout ZUniversal Transverse Mercator (UTM) NAD 83 coordinates

* estimated UTM NAD 83 coordinates.

General Protocol for Water Sources The following general results and recommendations apply to all sites. Detailed assessments and recommendations are provided later in the report for each site, ordered on an alphabetical basis. Access. Some of the sites are located very close to all-weather roads or have graveled roads leading into them. However, many sites are only available from prairie trails, and many have restricted turnaround areas, so tanker trucks are only allowed at 11 sites. Many sites can only be accessed under certain weather conditions (Table 3). Trucks must only drive on established trails, and never on prairie vegetation.


Table 3. Access to water sources under all-weather and dry-weather conditions.

All-weather Dry-weather only All-weather, all trucks, all trucks no tanker

trucks all trucks no tanker trucks pending acceptable well

and site development Beveridge Lake Wildhorse Bayonet Antelope Big Bob Dugway Porton Beaver Hussar Interface Cross Lake Old Channel Lake Fifteen Mile Rattlesnake North Boundary River Sentry 7.5 Mile Sherwood Forest Hussar South Jenner Big Bob Telfer Lake Loading pad. Trucks should park only on the designated loading pad while pumping water (e.g., Plate 2). All truck operators must be careful to not over-fill trucks. Overflow from trucks must be minimized to prevent erosion, localized ponding, and ruts. It is imperative to pump as much of the excess water as possible back to the pond via the filling pipe. Turn-around should only be in designated locations or loops. Signs, Barrier Posts and Fencing. All sites have sign-posts indicating the name of the site and the truck-loading point (e.g., Plate 16). Additional signs may also indicate things such as “Keep Site Clean”. No refuse, litter or oil products may be left at any site. Existing signs are constructed by attaching a rectangular sign to a single center post. Animals have been using the posts at many sites as rubbing surfaces, and the rectangular signs have been knocked off. It is recommended that double posts be used, with each end of the sign being approximately at post center, in order to prevent rubbing and destruction by animals.

Barrier posts have been installed at most sites to define the entry and exit trails, or to control traffic at the designated turn-around (e.g., Plate 4). The barrier posts have been installed to minimize damage to the prairie surface. Trucks have already damaged some barrier posts. It is imperative that any damaged barrier posts be reported to SIRC, who will then ensure they are replaced. Perimeter fences have been installed at several of the sites. Good examples of perimeter fences are shown in Plates 3, 6 and 10). The fences are designed to alert military traffic to the safety hazard posed by the water source, to restrict truck traffic from the extreme edges of dugouts, where compaction and slope stability problems occur, and to prevent animals from entering dugouts that are lined. Allowable water use. Water is pumped directly from the river for the Old Channel, River Sentry and Sherwood Forest sites. Alberta Environment has control over surface waters and is responsible for the regulation and licensing of water withdrawals.


Volume-measuring poles have been installed at 18 of the 20 sites (all sites except River Sentry and Sherwood Forest). These poles are calibrated individually for each water hole, but all are designed similarly. Each pole has marked gradations of 1, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.3, (Plates 13 and 14) which indicate 100%, 70%, 50% and 30%, respectively, of full capacity. Truckers must report when the water level is below 70% of capacity at any spring-fed or catchment dugout, and these sites are declared out-of-bounds when they reach 50% of capacity (e.g., Plate 15). When sites are out-of-bounds due to low water levels, they can only be re-opened when the water level recovers to 70% of full capacity or greater. In some cases, SIRC may grant special permission if the capacity is between 50% and 70%, and a local oil or gas well requests permission to use a near-by site. This permission will only be granted by SIRC to specific individual trucker(s) and therefore to all other potential users this site will remain out-of-bounds until water levels return to 70% of full capacity or greater. Some dugouts act as holding ponds for water pumped from wells (Beveridge Lake, Dugway, South Jenner and Telfer Lake), cribbed springs (Bayonet) or the river (Old Channel). These holding-pond dugouts also have measuring poles installed, but in this case the percentage of capacity merely indicates when a holding pond needs to be re-filled. Flow meters. All producing water wells and the cribbed spring must have operable flow meters when the sites are in use. This applies to Bayonet Cribbed Spring, Beveridge Lake, Dugway, South Jenner, and Telfer Lake. Flow meters that are damaged or malfunction must be replaced as soon as possible. For wells that can only be used in summer (e.g., Bayonet), readings and dates must be supplied when the flow meter is dismantled and when it is re-installed. SIRC must have a designate provide quarterly flow-meter readings (or estimates) at all sites. These must also be supplied to CFB Suffield and Alberta Environment if requested. Flow meters must also be installed on any additional wells that are developed on the Suffield Block in the future. Implications of overflow. Water overflow from the dugouts is undesirable at some sites due to the potential for erosion and/or soil sedimentation. All of the well sites have an automatic shut-off valve that must be periodically checked to ensure it is in good working order. A shut-off valve must also be used when pumping water from the cribbed spring to the Bayonet dugout, and either a shut-off valve or periodic monitoring is required at Old Channel Lake. At other sites, overflow is beneficial or neutral to wildlife and vegetation. Some sites require overflow for a certain time period each year to replenish wetland habitat (Plates 4 and 5). For further discussion on over-flow at each site see Table 5 and the detailed protocols for each individual site.


Water Use at Dugouts Replenishment Rates Monitoring of water levels in dugouts allowed the calculation of replenishment rates in both winter and summer. Winter recovery rates were estimated for several dugouts, by modifying the measured summer replenishment rates based on observations from other sites (Table 4). Water-level recovery curves for the dugouts are shown in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Near-by dugouts are shown on the same graphs for comparative purposes. Table 4. Monitoring time periods used to determine seasonal replenishment rates.

Timer period for measurements Site

summer winter

Comments

Antelope May 18 – Aug 9 estimated overflowing in the winter, so replenishment could not be measured.

Cross Lake June 4 – Aug 9 estimated withdrawal before Nov 1, and overflowing in Jan/02, so replenishment could not be measured.

Interface May 18 – Nov 1 estimated withdrawal in the winter prevented observation of the replenishment rate

71/2 Mile June 4 – Jan 24 estimated the measured winter rate (4.41 m3/day) was decreased due to the limited field observations.

Beaver May 18 – Nov 1 Nov 1 – Jan 24

Hussar May 18 – Aug 9 estimated lower replenishment in summer due to high evaporation from large surface area

North Boundary May 18 – Aug 9 estimated overflowing in the winter, so replenishment could not be measured.

Porton May 18 – Nov 1 estimated the measured winter rate (3.96 m3/day) was decreased due to the limited field observations.

Wildhorse May 18 – Aug 9 Nov 1 – Jan 24 measured winter rate (1.51 m3/day) was increased as dugout overflowed before Jan. 24/02.

Rattlesnake May 18 – Nov 1 Nov 1 – Jan 24 Fifteen Mile May 18 – Nov 1 Nov 1 – Jan 24

Big Bob May 18 – Nov 1 Nov 1 – Jan 24 Allowable Withdrawal Rates Seasonal water-level observations (Table 4) were used to estimate annual replenishment rates (Table 5). The maximum potential withdrawal (Table 5) is based on the assumption that 50% of the water storage capacity can be removed, along with the amount of water that flows into the dugout annually. For dugouts where overflow is required for a portion of each year to maintain wetland habitat, it was assumed that for two months each year, the replenishment rate would be taken up by overflow (Table 5).


Table 5. Maximum allowable water withdrawal from dugouts.

Measured replenishment rates

(m3/day)

Relative rate of

replenish-ment

Dugout

winter (Nov 1 – Apr 30) 182 days

summer (May 1 – Oct. 31) 183 days

Estimated annual

replenish-ment rate

(m3/yr)

Dugout volume at

50% of full

capacity (m3)

Over-flow for

wetland main-

tenance (2 months)

(m3)

Maximum potential

with-drawal (m3/yr)Z

*Antelope 4.5 6.68 2041 770 340 2471 *Cross Lake 3.5 4.9 1534 800 255 2079 *Interface 3.0 4.13 1302 1205 217 2290

High

71/2 Mile 3.3 3.9 1314 643 ---- 1957 Beaver 2.03 2.27 785 1052 ---- 1837 Hussar 2.5 2.13 845 690 ---- 1535

*N Boundary 1.5 2.22 679 935 113 1501 *Porton 3.0 3.49 1185 811 198 1927

Moderate

Wildhorse 2.0 3.25 959 1133 ---- 2092 Low Rattlesnake 1.17 1.43 475 703 ---- 1178

Fifteen Mile 0.15 0.12 49 326 ---- 376 Neg-ligible Big Bob 0.08 -0.79 -130 664 ---- 534

Maximum potential withdrawal (m3/yr) from dugouts 19,777 z Based on the sum of storage capacity (50% of full capacity) and annual recovery. *sites marked with a * require periodic overflow to replenish wetland habitat. The potential withdrawal listed in Table 5 is a maximum based on the replenishment rates observed between May 2001 and January 2002, projected to an annual basis. This amount of water may not be available for withdrawal each year at each site, due to uncertainty in the projections, combined with variations in replenishment, runoff, and evaporation. If a dugout is at 50% of full capacity before the withdrawal potential has been achieved, no more water can be withdrawn until the water volume recovers to 70% of full capacity. The measured replenishment rate (Table 5) is the rate at which water flows into the dugouts (the recovery rate) minus the evaporation rate. The Big Bob dugout is fed only by runoff, and does not receive groundwater. Therefore, water levels did not recover during the monitoring period, and actually declined slightly. Based on these water-level measurements the evaporation rate at Big Bob, which currently has an area of 350 m2, was about 150 m3/yr. Detailed Information on Water-level Recovery at Dugouts The Antelope dugout exhibited the highest measured replenishment rate (Tables 5), consistent with the rich wetland habitat at this site. The Antelope spring showed a fast recovery between May 15 and August 9, 2001, when it replenished from 60% of capacity to overflowing (Fig. 1). The water-table and piezometer readings at Antelope indicate a recharge gradient at this location (Fig. 2), which is adjacent to the wetland on moist meadow vegetation. The water table at Antelope dropped from 2.25 to 2.45 m between October 2000 and April 2001, possibly due to dry conditions or water consumption in the wetland. The levels were stable between April 2001 and February 28, 2002 (Fig. 2).


Fig. 2. Water-table and piezometer readings at Antelope.Date

1/10/00 1/12/00 1/2/01 1/4/01 1/6/01 1/8/01 1/10/01 1/12/01 1/2/02

Wat

er-le

vel d

epth

bel

ow g

roun

d (m

)

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

water-table well (4 m)piezometer (5.5 m)

Fig. 1. Water-level recovery at Antelope and Hussar.

Date

1/4/2001 1/6/2001 1/8/2001 1/10/2001 1/12/2001

Perc

ent o

f Ful

l Cap

acity

20

40

60

80

100

120

Hussar Antelope


Compared with Antelope, replenishment rates at Hussar were more moderate in the May to August time period (Fig. 1). The spring was frozen during the winter of 2000/2001, and began flowing again in April, and showed the highest recovery between April and June. The replenishment rate slowed during the summer, probably because the high surface area to volume ratio at Hussar promotes high evaporative losses. Recovery rates at Beaver and Porton are both moderately fast (Fig. 3). However, Beaver did not exceed 70% of full capacity during the monitoring period, while Porton has recovered to over 70% since December 2001. The water-table well and piezometer at Beaver are located adjacent to the dugout and at the same elevation. The water table and shallow piezometric surface both dropped in the spring of 2001, and recovered when water withdrawal was discontinued in the early summer (Fig. 4). The recovery rate at the Rattlesnake is relatively slow, even though the near-by 71/2 Mile dugout shows a high recovery rate (Fig. 5). The water-table well at Rattlesnake was destroyed by military traffic. The shallow piezometric surface rose in the spring of 2001, but has not been observed since July 2001 (Fig. 6). The Cross Lake dugout also showed fast recovery, and has been overflowing during at least three times during the monitoring period (Fig. 7). The near-by North Boundary site shows a moderate recovery rate from June to November of 2001 (Fig. 7). Although the graphed recovery curve (Fig. 7) suggests extremely rapid recovery between April 18 and April 24 of 2001, this curve is merely a reflection of the reduction in dugout capacity that occurred during reclamation at this time, when the side slopes were reduced in slope. Interface shows a much faster replenishment rate than Big Bob (Fig. 8), consistent with the fact that Big Bob is not fed by a groundwater source, and runoff in 2001 was negligible. Similarly, Wildhorse shows a much faster recovery rate than 15 Mile (Fig. 9). Recovery at the 15 Mile dugout is very slow, so that evaporation almost matches recovery (Fig. 9). Scraper, located near the Mule Deer and Hussar trails, is permanently out of bounds for water withdrawal. The water-table well and piezometer are installed upstream of the dugout, and show a continuous discharge gradient throughout the monitoring period. The water levels dropped throughout the monitoring period (Fig. 10), probably due to dry conditions that resulted in negligible recharge occurring in the Sandhills. Predicted Drawdown in the Piezometric Surface Water withdrawal at maximum rates for 20 years is predicted to cause water-level drops of 9 to 38 cm at the wetlands (Table 6). Predictions in the left column are based on the geometric mean transmissivity for the aquifer determined from specific capacity data by McNeil et al. (2000). If the actual transmissivity at the wetlands was as high as that indicated for the Dugway well, less drawdown will occur, as shown in the right column of predictions. Conversely, if the true transmissivity is lower than 2.7 x 10-4 m2/s, more drawdown will occur. Complete calculations are contained in Appendix C.


Fig. 3. Water-level recovery at Beaver and Porton.Date

1/4/2001 1/6/2001 1/8/2001 1/10/2001 1/12/2001

Perc

ent o

f Ful

l Cap

acity

20

40

60

80

100

120

Beaver Porton

Fig. 4. Water-table well and piezometer readings at Beaver.

Date

1/10/00 1/12/00 1/2/01 1/4/01 1/6/01 1/8/01 1/10/01 1/12/01 1/2/02

Wat

er-le

vel d

epth

bel

ow g

roun

d (m

)

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

water-table well (3 m)piezometer (4 m)


Fig. 5. Water-level recovery at 71/2 Mile and Rattlesnake.

Date

1/4/2001 1/6/2001 1/8/2001 1/10/2001 1/12/2001

Perc

ent o

f Ful

l Cap

acity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

71/2 Mile Rattlesnake

Fig. 6. Piezometer readings at Rattlesnake.

Date

1/10/00 1/12/00 1/2/01 1/4/01 1/6/01 1/8/01 1/10/01 1/12/01 1/2/02

Wat

er-le

vel d

epth

bel

ow g

roun

d (m

)

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

piezometer (4 m)


Fig. 7. Water-level recovery at North Boundary and Cross Lake.

Date

1/4/2001 1/6/2001 1/8/2001 1/10/2001 1/12/2001

Per

cent

of F

ull C

apac

ity

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

N. Boundary Cross Lake

Fig. 8. Water-level recovery at Interface and Big Bob.

Date

1/4/2001 1/6/2001 1/8/2001 1/10/2001 1/12/2001

Perc

ent o

f Ful

l Cap

acity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Interface Big Bob


Fig. 9. Water-level recovery at Wildhorse and Fifteen Mile.

Date

1/4/2001 1/6/2001 1/8/2001 1/10/2001 1/12/2001

Perc

ent o

f Ful

l Cap

acity

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Wildhorse 15 Mile

Fig. 10. Water-table and piezometer readings at Scraper.

Date

1/10/00 1/12/00 1/2/01 1/4/01 1/6/01 1/8/01 1/10/01 1/12/01 1/2/02

Wat

er-le

vel d

epth

bel

ow g

roun

d (m

)

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

water-table well (4.4 m)piezometer (6 m)


Table 6. Predicted water-level drawdown in the preglacial gravel aquifer due to water withdrawal from dugouts at maximum rates for 20 years.

Site Maximum potential withdrawal

(m3/yr)Z

Predicted water-level drawdown at

the source (m) Antelope 2471 0.38 0.20 Cross Lake 2079 0.32 0.17 Interface 2290 0.35 0.18 71/2 Mile 1957 0.30 0.16 Beaver 1837 0.28 0.15 Hussar 1535 0.24 0.12 N Boundary 1501 0.23 0.12 Porton 1927 0.30 0.15 Wildhorse 2092 0.32 0.17 Rattlesnake 1178 0.18 0.09 Note: Predictions are based on a storativity of 2.48 x 10-4. Predictions in the left column are based on the geometric mean transmissivity (T) of 2.7 x 10-4 m2/s. Predictions in the right column are based on a higher T value of 5.24 x 10-4 m2/s (measured T at the Dugway well). Note: Actual drawdowns will be higher than those listed, due to the cumulative effect of pumping from several water sources in the Suffield Block.

General Results for Wells and Cribbed Springs Water withdrawal rates Groundwater withdrawal rates were recorded on flow meters at all four wells and the Bayonet cribbed spring between April 2001 and February 2002 (Fig. 11). Groundwater withdrawal was highest for most wells between April and July of 2001, although withdrawal from South Jenner was also high between November 2001 and February 2002 (Fig. 11). The measured withdrawal rates (Fig. 11) were extrapolated to obtain the annual withdrawal rate if pumping was continued at the measured rate for the entire year. In the case of Bayonet, pumping was assumed to occur for only six months of the year (Table 7), consistent with the recommendation that overflow to the wetland occur for the remaining six months. Telfer Lake well was pumped extensively between May 12 and August 9 of 2001, but it has not been used since that time. Therefore the annual estimated withdrawal (Table 7) may be significantly higher than actually occurs in some years. For example, if the Telfer Lake well is only pumped for six months the estimated withdrawal would be 25,750 m3.


Table 7. Cumulative water withdrawal from wells, projected to total withdrawal from all wells on an annual basis.

Well or cribbed spring

Time period for metering

Cumulative withdrawal

(m3/day)

Potential withdrawal period per

year

Estimated withdrawal

(m3/yr)

Bayonet Apr 24/01 – June 13/01 151 6 months 27,500 Beveridge Lake Apr 24/01 – Sept 10/01 87 12 months 31,681 Dugway Apr 8/01 – July 17/01 140 12 months 51,025 South Jenner June 4/01 – Feb 28/02 110 12 months 40,114 Telfer Lake May 12/01 – Nov 1/01 141 12 months *51,500 All wells combined annual 629 annual 201,820 *This value is higher than measured in 2001/2002. Well has been inactive from August 2001 to February 2002, but has been used heavily in previous years.

Fig. 11. Cummulative groundwater withdrawal from wells, April 8, 2001, to Feb. 28, 2002.

Date (Day, Month, Year)

01/04/01 01/06/01 01/08/01 01/10/01 01/12/01 01/02/02

Cum

ulat

ive

wat

er w

ithdr

awal

sin

ce fi

rst r

eadi

ng (m

3 )

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

Dugway Telfer LakeBayonet Beveridge S Jenner total


The resulting estimates of annual withdrawal range from 27,500 m3/yr at Bayonet to 51,025 m3/yr at Dugway (Table 7). Alberta Environment’s annual license for water withdrawal from the Dugway well to 2004 is 73,000 m3/yr. Total annual withdrawal from all the wells is estimated at 201,820 m3 (Table 7). Predicted water-level drawdown due to pumping The Telfer Lake well appears to be screened in bedrock below the preglacial gravel (McNeil et al. 2000). The Dugway well is installed in the main channel of the preglacial river valley aquifer, while Beveridge Lake, South Jenner, and Bayonet are installed in tributaries leading to the main aquifer (LandWise Inc. 2000). The estimated annual withdrawal rates from wells (Table 7) were used in Eq. 2 (Methods Section), to estimate the resulting drawdown in the piezometric surface (water level) in the aquifer (Table 8). High and low estimates of transmissivity and storativity were used to illustrate the degree uncertainty caused by variations in transmissivity and storativity (Table 8). Additional measurements of transmissivity and storativity would allow drawdown to predicted with more certainty. Table 8. Estimated water-level drawdown due to pumping wells for 20 years at the annual withdrawal rates estimated for 2001/2002.

Well or cribbed spring

Estimated withdrawal

(m3/yr)

ZTransmissivity (T) (m2/s)

ZDrawdown at well (m)

ZDrawdown one mile away (m)

low S high S low S high S Bayonet 27,500 2.7 x 10-4 to 5.24 x 10-4 3.6 to 6.8 3.5 to 6.6 0.9 to 1.6 0.8 to 1.4

Beveridge 31,681 2.0 x 10-4 (calculated) 10.4 10.1 2.4 2.1 Dugway 51,025 5.24 x 10-4 (calculated) 6.6 6.4 1.7 1.6 S Jenner 40,114 2.7 x 10-4 to 5.24 x 10-4 5.2 to 9.9 5.1 to 9.6 1.4 to 2.4 1.2 to 2.1

Telfer Lake 51,500 1.8 x 10-4 (calculated) 18.7 18.1 4.3 3.8 ZThe “high” and “low” estimates of drawdown are based on the high and low estimates of storativity (S). The range within each category is based on the high and low estimates of transmissivity for Bayonet and South Jenner. Note: Actual drawdowns will be higher than those listed, due to the cumulative effect of pumping from several water sources in the Suffield Block. Results of the drawdown calculations suggest that pumping the wells for 20 years at the annual withdrawal rates estimated from the flow meter data would cause water-level drawdowns ranging from 3.6 to 18.7 m at the wells. Predicted drawdowns one mile from the wells range from 0.8 to 4.3 m at a distance of one mile from the wells (Table 8). Water level drawdown decreases with distance away from each pumping source. Distance-drawdown cones calculated using Eq. 2 are illustrated in Fig. 12 for selected wells and wetlands. Drawdown at the source decreases with pumping rate. For example, annual withdrawal from the Antelope wetland is about 20 times less than withdrawal from the Dugway and Telfer Lake wells, with the result that drawdown is also much less (Fig. 12). Drawdown also varies with transmissivity. Aquifers with low transmissivity have deep narrow drawdown cones, while aquifers with high transmissivity have shallow narrow transmissivities that extend to greater distances (Freeze and Cherry 1979). For example, measured transmissivity was higher at Dugway than at Telfer Lake, with the result that drawdown at Dugway is lower near the source, but extends to a greater distance (Fig. 12).


Water withdrawal from any well or wetland may eventually affect the water level throughout the aquifer. Drawdown at each well and wetland will be composed of the drawdown due to water withdrawal at the site, combined with the drawdown due to pumping from all the other wells and wetlands fed by the same groundwater system (Domenico and Schwartz 1990). For example, pumping from the Dugway well at the measured rate for 20 years is predicted to cause a drawdown of approximately 6.5 m at the well (Table 8, Fig. 12). However, Dugway is located about 20 km from the Telfer Lake well, indicating pumping from the Telfer Lake well will cause an additional drawdown of about 0.2 to 0.7 m at Dugway, depending on the storativity (Fig. 12, Appendix C). In a similar manner, withdrawal at each location will be the sum of all the drawdown cones throughout the aquifer. Water withdrawals from the wells at the communities of Suffield and Ralston and the CFB Suffield headquarters are required so they can be included in the predictions of the cumulative effect of pumping from all the wells. It is evident from Fig. 12 that relatively low withdrawal rates (such as those from Antelope and all the other wetlands) are not expected to cause substantial drawdown cones. Discussion regarding the drawdown predictions Transmissivity and storativity values used in the estimates contained in Table 8 and Appendix C are consistent with values from other gravel deposits. The predictions suggest aquifer drawdown due to the higher pumping rates from wells may be quite significant, while the lower pumping rates from the wetlands cause lower water-level declines, as shown for Antelope in Fig. 12. Transmissivity values calculated from specific capacity data were used for all drawdown predictions. However, pumping-test data at the Beveridge Lake well indicated a transmissivity value that was 3.3 times lower than the value based on specific capacity (McNeil et al. 2000). Similarly at the Dugway well, pumping-test data indicated a transmissivity value that was about eight times higher than the value based on specific capacity (http://www.groundwatercenter.com). These comparisons indicate that the drawdowns predicted in Tables 6 and 8 may be unrealistically low. It is evident from Table 8 that predictions regarding the magnitude and extent of water-level drawdown depend on the values selected for transmissivity and storativity. Drawdown predictions are more subject to uncertainties in transmissivity than to uncertainties in storativity. However, storativity has a significant influence on the magnitude of drawdown at distance from a pumped location, as evidenced by the difference in calculated drawdown at 20 km distance using two slightly different storativity values for the Telfer Lake well (Fig. 12). Predictions suggest current water withdrawal rates at Suffield may have a significant effect on water levels in the aquifer, and on the amount of flowing artesian pressure available to feed the wetlands. A prediction regarding the effect of the decrease in artesian pressure will require accurate information regarding the amount of artesian pressure currently in the system. For example, an aquifer drawdown of 2 m will have a significant effect on a wetland where the artesian pressure is currently only 1.5 m, but it will have a less significant effect on a wetland where the artesian pressure is currently 5 m. Therefore, artesian pressure on the aquifer must be estimated for each wetland in order to determine the potential effect of water withdrawal.

http://www.groundwatercenter.com)./


Existing data suggests there may not be a high flowing artesian pressure on the aquifer. Estimates based on NTS maps suggest the ground-surface elevation at Dugway well is between 6 and 15 m above the ground surface at the nearby wetland (e.g., Heggie’s Lake). The measured non-pumping water-level depth at this well is 14.5 m (http://www.groundwatercentre.com.). Water-level depths listed for most wells in the GIC database are not close to ground surface (see static water-level depths in Fig. 3 of McNeil et al. 2000). This suggests even minor drawdowns in the aquifer may eventually have an adverse effect on wetlands. Requirement for additional field measurements. In summary, existing transmissivity and storativity data has been used to predict water-level drawdowns with time. These predictions provide some indication of acceptable withdrawal rates on the Suffield Block. However, a more informed decision regarding the amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn from wells and wetlands at Suffield requires: 1) pumping tests to accurately measure transmissivity and storativity values for the aquifer, and 2) measurement of the amount of artesian pressure currently feeding the wetlands. Once these data are collected, informed decisions can be made regarding acceptable withdrawal rates from the aquifer and wetlands. Predictions in the current report are based largely on specific capacity data, which requires only the total drawdown after pumping for a certain period of time. Transmissivity calculated from pumping test data, which includes several measurements of drawdown as pumping progresses for several hours, is a much more accurate method for calculation of transmissivity.

Fig. 12. Distance drawdown cones at selected wells and wetlands, due to pumping for 20 years at the measured or maximum withdrawal rates.

Distance from pumped well (km)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Wat

er-le

vel d

raw

dow

n (m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Dugway (T = 5.24 x 10-4 m2/s; Q = 51,025 m3/yr)Telfer (low S) (T = 1.8 x 10-4 m2/s; Q = 51,550Antelope (T = 2.7 x 10-4 m2/s; Q = 2471 m3/yr)Telfer Lake (high S)

http://www.groundwatercentre.com./


Measurement of storativity requires water-levels in an observation well located near the pumping well. It is therefore recommended that 12-hour pumping tests be conducted at each well location, to obtain more accurate values for transmissivity. Water-level recording at near-by observation wells would allow the determination of storativity. Storativity could be determined at the South Jenner location without the installation of additional wells. Measurement of the amount of artesian pressure at the wetlands is also required. For all wells in Suffield Block, the ground elevation should be surveyed, and the water-level depth measured, so that the piezometric elevation of the preglacial gravel can be determined with improved accuracy. The ground elevation should also be surveyed at all wetlands, so that the artesian pressure at each location can be determined with more accuracy by extrapolating the artesian pressure determined from the wells.

Summary of Key Recommendations for Water Withdrawal at Dugouts, Wells and Cribbed Springs

Calculated maximum water withdrawal rates from the 12 dugouts are based on the sum of storage capacity (50% of full capacity) and annual replenishment. Maximum withdrawal rates range from 2471 to 534 m3/yr, for a total allowable withdrawal from wetlands of 19,777 m3/yr (Table 5). Annual withdrawal rates from the four wells and the cribbed spring were obtained by extrapolating flow-meter data to an annual basis. Annual withdrawal rates ranged from 27,500 to 51,500 m3/yr, for a total withdrawal of 201,820 m3/yr (Table 7). Water-level drawdown due to water withdrawal at the above rates for 20 years was predicted to range from 18 to 38 cm at the wetlands (Table 6), and from 3.6 to 18.7 m at the wells (Table 8). Drawdown at each location can potentially affect water levels throughout the aquifer. Drawdown at any location is the sum of the drawdowns from all pumped water sources. Therefore, actual drawdowns are expected to be higher than those listed in Tables 6 and 8, due to the cumulative effect of pumping from several surrounding water sources. Water withdrawals from the wells at the communities of Suffield and Ralston and the CFB Suffield headquarters are required so they can be included in the predictions of the cumulative effect of pumping from all the wells. Drawdown predictions listed in Tables 6 and 8 are based on transmissivity calculated from specific capacity data. These transmissivity values may be too high, with the result that drawdowns listed in Tables 6 and 8 may be unrealistically low. Transmissivity and storativity values should be calculated from pumping tests conducted at each well location. Artesian head at each wetland should be determined as indicated earlier. Once the additional data is obtained, water withdrawal rates from each water source should be determined with the goal of minimizing damage to wetlands, and maximizing the sustainability of the aquifer over the long term.


Detailed Protocol by Site


Antelope (12-6-18-5-W4) Water Source: spring-fed dugout in Reid Coulee. Access

• Use only during dry conditions. No tanker trucks are allowed due to restricted turn-around area. Ensure traffic does not damage the existing prairie trail.

• Incoming prairie trail is 375 m long from 10 Mile Circle Road. • The truck turn-around is designed as a pull-in and reverse to the loading pad (Fig. 13).

Allowable Water Use

• A water–volume measuring pole is installed in the dugout. Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (770 m3) (Fig. 13).

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)

Volume at Full Capacity

(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)

Length of Measuring Pole

(m) Antelope 1159 1540

1078 770 462

100 70 50 30

2.25 1.82 1.50 1.10

2.6

• A water-table well and piezometer have been installed at this site, so that water-level

fluctuations can be monitored and used to develop a long-term use plan for the site. The water-table dropped from 2.25 m to 2.45 m between October 2000 and April 2001, but has been stable at 2.45 m to February 2002 (Fig. 2). Water-table well and piezometer readings will continue to be monitored by CFB Suffield personnel.

• Measured dugout water-level recovery rates indicate Antelope exhibits the highest replenishment rate of any dugout, of over 2000 m3/yr (Fig. 1, Table 5).

• The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Antelope, based on the sum of 50% of storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 2471 m3/yr (Table 5).

• A withdrawal of 2471 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop of about 0.38 m. at the Antelope wetland (Table 6).

Overflow

• Overflow is beneficial to sustain the natural wetland south of the dugout. The estimated requirement for two months of overflow per year is 340 m3 (Table 5).

Signs

• Barrier posts have been installed to mark the entry, turn-around and loading area (Fig. 13). One barrier post is damaged in the southeast, and must be replaced. Damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure replacement.


Figure 13. Antelope Site Diagram


Maintenance • There is a potential for slumping on the steep north and west dugout slopes; site

rehabilitation may be required. Key Issues at Antelope

• Use only during dry conditions. No tanker trucks are allowed due to restricted turn-around area.

• Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (770 m3). • Overflow is beneficial to sustain the natural wetland south of dugout. • Steeper dugout slopes, particularly at the south end, may be prone to slumping. Further

site rehabilitation may be required occasionally to minimize slumping.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig.14. Antelope: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 1540 cubic meters.

contour interval = 0.5 m Volume measuring pole


Bayonet (12-5-17-8-W4) Water Source: cribbed spring in wetland, pumped to nearby dugout that also receives

runoff. Access

• Tanker trucks are allowed, but all trucks must stay on the designated 450-m long prairie trail, and use the designed loop which is marked by barrier posts (Fig. 15).

• Use only during dry conditions. The incoming trail must remain as a prairie trail. No blading is allowed unless authorized by CFB Suffield personnel.

• Material was used to improve trail potholes, and barrier posts have been installed to define the trail route.

Allowable Water Use

• Pumping from the Bayonet cribbed spring to the Bayonet (North) dugout is allowed for a maximum of six months each year. For at least six months of the year, water must flow unimpeded from the cribbed spring to the natural wetland.

• Water flow from the cribbed spring must always be metered, and records provided to SIRC on a quarterly basis, and at the start and completion of water transfer each year. If a flow meter at the cribbed spring is damaged or malfunctioning, it must be replaced as soon as possible.

• The flow meter on the Bayonet cribbed spring was installed on April 24, 2001, and pumping stopped on June 13, 2001, to allow water to replenish the wetland, and because industry did not require water from the site beyond that date. Water withdrawal from the cribbed spring averaged about 120 L min-1 (173 m3/day) between April 26 and June 13 of 2001. Cumulative water withdrawal during that time period was 7,228 m3 (Fig. 11) indicating an average withdrawal rate of 151 m3/day. If this withdrawal rate continued for the six-month allowable withdrawal period, total withdrawal would be 27,500 m3/yr (Table 7).

• Calculations suggest that a withdrawal of 27,500 m3/yr for 20 years would result in a water-level drop of 3.5 to 6.6 m at the cribbed spring, and a drop of 0.8 to 1.6 m at a distance of one mile from the cribbed spring (Table 8).

• The water level in the cribbed spring should be monitored quarterly. The Bayonet dugout should always be at or near capacity (Fig. 16) when pumping from the cribbed spring is curtailed, so that storage is adequate for several more months of water withdrawal.

• A volume-measuring pole has been installed at the dugout, but unlike most sites, water withdrawal can continue when the dugout is below 50% of full capacity. The calibrated pole is installed to show when dugout refilling is again required.


Figure 15. Bayonet Site Diagram


Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Bayonet 1165 2492

1744 1246 748

100 70 50 30

3.75 3.05 2.50 1.86

4.0

• Ensure that the filling pipe is always at the dugout to prevent erosion of the

dugout banks. Overflow

• The dugout must not be allowed to overflow, as flowing water will erode the dam at the eastern end of the dugout, and the channel leading to the wetland. SIRC and AEC contractors have agreed to monitor the filling of the pond, and to ensure that a shut-off valve is provided and operable, to prevent the possibility of overflow.

Signs

• Damage to any barrier posts or marker signs must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure replacement.

Environment

• If nesting birds occupy the lone willow tree, water extraction will be curtailed until the birds vacate the nest.

• Extreme runoff events (e.g., a major thundershower) may produce a large volume of water that could cause the pond to be partially infilled with sediment, or even weaken the eastern dam. Dugout maintenance or restabilization may therefore be required.

Key Issues at Bayonet

• Dry-weather access by all truck types. • Pumping from the Bayonet cribbed spring to the Bayonet (North) dugout is

allowed for a maximum of six months each year, and water flow must always be metered. For at least six months of the year, water must flow unimpeded to the natural wetland at the Bayonet cribbed spring.

• Ensure that the filling pipe is always at the pond to prevent erosion of the dugout banks.

• A shut-off valve must be installed and operable, to prevent overflow.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 16. Bayonet: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 2492 cubic meters.



Beaver (6-24-16-9-W4) Water Source: dugout fed by a groundwater spring and runoff. Access

• Beaver dugout can be used only in the winter or in dry summer conditions, to minimize damage to the prairie from truck traffic. Ensure traffic stays on the 850-m long prairie trail and designed turnaround. Trucks enter and exit on the same trail (Fig. 17).

• No tanker trucks are allowed due to the restricted turn-around area. • Barrier posts have been installed to define the truck entry, turn-around and

loading area (Fig. 17). Allowable Water Use

• Beaver shows a moderate replenishment rate of 785 m3/yr (Fig. 3 and Table 5). • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (1052

m3) (Fig. 18) or withdrawal will be suspended by SIRC.

Dugout Area at Full Capacity

(m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Beaver 1300 2104

1473 1052 631

100 70 50 30

2.80 2.28 1.87 1.40

3.1

• The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Beaver, based on the sum of 50% of

storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 1837 m3/yr (Table 5). • A withdrawal of 1837 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop

of about 0.28 m at the Beaver wetland (Table 6). • The water levels in the water-table well and piezometer must be monitored by

DND Suffield personnel, and dugout use should be suspended if there is a trend of dropping water levels. The water-table fluctuated between 65 and 110 cm below ground between October 2000 and February 2002 (Fig. 4).

Overflow

• Dugout over-flow is beneficial to the wetland vegetation, but it will seldom occur.

Signs

• Double posts with the sign edges on each post center are required to prevent rubbing off by animals. Elk have frequented this site during 2001.

• Damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure replacement.


Figure 17. Beaver Site Diagram


Maintenance

• Steeper dugout slopes, particularly at the south end, may be prone to slumping. Further site rehabilitation may be required occasionally to minimize slumping.

Key Issues at Beaver

• Access in winter or dry summer conditions only. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (1050 m3). • Steeper dugout slopes, particularly at the south end, may be prone to slumping.

Further site rehabilitation may be required occasionally to minimize slumping.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45D

ista

nce

(m)

Fig. 18. Beaver: water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 2104 cubic meters.



Beveridge Lake Well and Dugout (5-2-20-7-W4) Water Source: pumping from well to dugout. Access

• All-weather graveled access, and all truck types are permitted. • Some potholing and rutting is occurring at the north-side loading pad (Fig. 19). A

50-m section of perimeter fence such as that used at Telfer Lake (Plate 10) is required to restrict trucks from parking at the edge of the dugout.

• No smoking due to proximity to producing oil well.

Allowable Water Use • Suggested allowable licensing of 50,000 m3 per year, but this is pending water-

level monitoring in the well, and continued observations of Beveridge Lake (the saline wetland flat to the north) and Easy Lake (about 16 km south). Both wetlands should generally have water present.

• Water withdrawal from the well must always be metered, with quarterly results provided to SIRC, and to CFB Suffield and Alberta Environment if requested. The well is currently pumped at a rate of 115 L/min (165 m3/day). The flow meter on the Beveridge Lake well was installed on April 24, 2001, malfunctioned on September 10, and was not replaced until January 23, 2002. The well was pumped for 41 days without a meter. Water withdrawal was estimated based on the number of days the well was running until reinstallation on January 23, 2002. Cumulative water withdrawal from the well between April 24 and September 10, 2001, was 11,883 m3 (Fig. 11), indicating an average withdrawal rate of 87 m3/day. If this withdrawal rate continued for the entire year, total withdrawal would be 31,681 m3/yr (Table 7). Using the estimated pumping rate to February 28, 2002, the average withdrawal rate would be 80 m3/day or 29,077 m3/yr.

• Calculations suggest that a withdrawal of 31,681 m3/yr for 20 years would result in a water-level drop of about 10 m at the well site, and a drop of about 2 to 2.5 m at a distance of one mile from the well site (Table 8).

• Damaged or malfunctioning flow meters must be replaced as soon as possible. • The water level in the well should be monitored quarterly, and use should be

restricted if dropping water levels are noted. • A volume-measuring pole has been installed at the dugout (Figs. 19 and 20),

but unlike most sites, water withdrawal can continue when the dugout is below 50% of full capacity. The calibrated pole is installed to show when pond refilling is again required.


Figure 19. Beveridge Lake Site Diagram


Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Beveridge Lake 1095 2327

1629 1164 698

100 70 50 30

4.0 3.3 2.7 2.0

4.2

Overflow

• Dugout over-flow must be prevented; always use an automated shut-off device. • Ensure filling pipe (water intake to pond) is at the pond in order to prevent

water erosion of the sidebanks (Plate 1) and the resulting sedimentation into the pond. Plate 9 (Telfer Lake) shows a properly designed intake leading to the pond.

Safety

• Ensure that the exterior barbed wire fence around the site remains in good condition and has intermittent markings to alert ground traffic of the safety hazard created by the dugout. It is recommended that all posts be spray-painted to improve visibility.

• A perimeter fence should be installed on the truck-filling (north) side of the dugout (Plate 2), using similar materials as the perimeter fence at Telfer Lake (Plate 10), to keep truck traffic away from the edges of the dugout.

Key Issues at Beveridge Lake Well

• Water withdrawal from the well must always be metered, with quarterly results provided to SIRC.

• The water level in the well should be monitored quarterly, and use should be restricted if dropping water levels are noted.

• A 50-m section of perimeter fence is required to restrict trucks from parking at the edge of the dugout.

• The infill hose must always be located at the pond in order to prevent soil erosion from occurring (Plate 1) and costly remediation (Plate 13 in Volume 2).


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 20. Beveridge Lake: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 2327 cubic meters.



Big Bob (12-6-17-5-W4) Water Source: runoff catchment dugout Access

• Access only in winter or dry summer conditions, to avoid damage to the 440-m long prairie-trail (Fig. 21). Traffic must stay on defined tracks.

• Access is presently limited to single-body water trucks only. Tanker trucks could be allowed if a well is developed, and if an adequate loop trail is constructed.

Allowable Water Use

• The drought of 1999 to 2002, and the extremely low water level, necessitated closure.

• Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (660 m3) (Fig. 22). Big Bob is replenished only by surface-water collection, which has been negligible in 2000 and 2001 (Fig. 8, Table 5). The dugout has therefore been out of bounds since spring 2000 due to the very low water levels. It will remain closed until it reaches at least 70% of full capacity.

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Big Bob 800 1327

929 664 398

100 70 50 30

3.15 2.60 2.10 1.53

3.25

• The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Big Bob, based on the sum of 50%

of storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 534 m3/yr (Table 5).

• A well to the main buried river-valley aquifer could be developed to reduce pressure on other sites such as the Dugway well. The dugout could then be used as a water-holding pond. If a well is developed, all infrastructure must be at or below ground level, the pond walls must be lined, and the pond must also be fenced. (Dugway and Telfer Lake should be used as models). In addition, the well requires a flow meter. Transmissivity should be measured by conducting a pumping test on the well, so that water-level drawdowns due to various pumping rates can be determined. Artesian pressure on the well and wetland should also be measured, to provide a more accurate indication of safe withdrawal rates that will not harm the wetland. In the mean time, maximum withdrawal rates should not exceed those at Dugway well (Table 7), to prevent excessive drawdown in the aquifer.


Figure 21. Big Bob Site Diagram


Overflow • Overflow would be beneficial to the wetland flat, but it occurs only

occasionally. Maintenance

• A defined loop trail is required around the dugout. Signs

• Barrier posts are required on both the outside and inside of the loop trail that is required around the dugout.

• Signs require double posts rather than single, to prevent rubbing and destruction by animals.


Safety

• If the dugout is used as a holding pond for a developed well, a perimeter fence should be installed around the upper area of the dugout, using the same design as the perimeter fence at Telfer Lake (Plate 10). This would keep truck traffic away from the upper edges of the dugout.

Key Issues at Big Bob

• Access only in winter or dry summer conditions, and only by single-body water trucks.

• Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (660 m3). The levels must recover to at last 70% of full capcity before the dugout will open again.

• It is recommended that a well to the main buried river-valley aquifer be developed, and the dugout used as a water-holding pond.


0 5 10 15 20

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 22. Big Bob: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 1327 cubic meters.



Cross Lake (10-16-20-7-W4) Water source: dugout fed by groundwater spring. Access

• Access only in dry weather, on the 1-km gravel and prairie trail (Fig. 23). • No tanker trucks allowed due to the restricted turnaround area. • Traffic to remain on defined track and loop only (Fig. 23).

Allowable Water Use

• Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (800 m3) (Fig. 24).

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Cross Lake 1680 1600

1120 800 480

100 70 50 30

1.98 1.65 1.35 0.95

2.3

• Beveridge Lake Well and Cross Lake Dugout are located in close proximity to

each other, so it is recommended that water use should be balanced between the two locations. The Beveridge Lake well will still receive the majority of use, since the Cross Lake dugout cannot be drawn below 50% of capacity. However, Cross Lake should occasionally be used to reduce pressure on the Beveridge Lake well.

• Water levels at the nearby Beveridge Lake well should be monitored quarterly. If a trend of dropping water levels is noted, withdrawal from Beveridge Lake and Cross Lake should be suspended.

• Cross Lake replenishes at the relatively high rate of 1534 m3/yr (Fig. 7 and Table 5).

• The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Cross Lake, based on the sum of 50% of storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 2079 m3/yr (Table 5).

• A withdrawal of 2079 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop of about 0.32 m. at the Cross Lake wetland (Table 6).

Overflow

• Overflow of dugout is highly desirable and beneficial to the wetland ecosystem. It is recommended, at a minimum, to allow full capacity for a portion of the spring season. Due to a naturally high rate of replenishment (Fig. 7 and Table 5), overflow should be possible at least once a year, as it occurred occasionally during the drought years of 2000 and 2001. Overflow for two months per year would require 255 m3 (Table 5).


Figure 23. Cross Lake Diagram


Signs • Double posts with the sign edges on each post center are required to prevent

rubbing off by animals. • Damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure

replacement.

Maintenance • Ruts must be infilled with soil material or gravel, which is available along road

cuts on the entry trail. • West and north slopes are prone to slumping due to steep slopes. Further site

rehabilitation may be required to alleviate and minimize slumping. Key Issues at Cross Lake

• Access in winter or dry summer conditions only, and no tanker trucks allowed. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (800 m3). • Overflow to the wetland must be allowed to occur for at least a portion of the

spring season.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60D

ista

nce

(m)

Fig. 24. Cross Lake: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capcity = 1600 cubic meters.



Dugway Well and Pond (4-4-16-6-W4) Water source: water pumped from well to lined pond and/or storage tanks Access

• All-weather access on short graded access loop. Use designed entry and exit. Barrier posts have been installed to restrict truck traffic (Fig. 25).

• All truck types are allowed, but they must stay on the loop. Allowable Water Use

• The well is currently pumped at a rate of 148 L/min (213 m3/day). The flow meter on the Dugway well was installed on April 8, 2001, and the last reading before it malfunctioned was July 7. Cumulative water withdrawal from the Dugway well between April 8 and July 7, 2001, was 12,573 m3 (Fig. 11), indicating an average withdrawal rate of 140 m3/day. If this withdrawal rate continued for the entire year, total withdrawal would be 51,025 m3/yr (Table 7), which is close to the licensed withdrawal amount of 63,000 m3/yr.

• Calculations suggest that a withdrawal of 51,025 m3/yr for 20 years would result in a water-level drop of about 6.5 m at the well site, and a drop of about 1.7 m at a distance of one mile from the well site (Table 8).

• Alberta Environment’s annual license for water withdrawal from the Dugway well to 2004 is 73,000 m3.

• Water flow must always be metered, and the water level in the well must also be reported quarterly.

• A volume-measuring pole has been installed at the pond (Fig. 26), but unlike most sites, water withdrawal can continue when the dugout is below 50% of full capacity. The calibrated pole is installed to show when dugout refilling is again required.

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Dugway 377 475

333 238 143

100 70 50 30

2.6 2.15 1.8

1.31

2.8

Overflow

• An automatic shut-off valve must continue to be used to prevent overflow.

Signs • One barrier post is damaged at the east side, and must be replaced. • Further damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure

replacement.


Figure 25. Dugway Site Diagram


Maintenance • The lack of vegetation cover around the site (Plate 3 and Fig. 25) and along

Dugway Road is related to the sandy soil texture and frequent wind erosion events. These sands have and will continue to be re-blown and transported. Sand material has partially in-filled the holding pond, and limits the water storage capacity. Sandy materials should be occasionally cleaned from the holding pond, but diligent care is required to ensure the pond liner is not damaged.

• Irrigation after re-seeding would promote grass cover. Alternatively, straw mulch could be placed, but the mulch harbor weeds.

Safety

• Ensure that the exterior welded steel fence around the site (Plate 3) remains in good condition, to alert ground traffic of the safety hazard created by the dugout.

Key Issues at Dugway Well

• Bare and partially exposed soil occurs around the site (Plate 3). The pond therefore requires occasional cleaning to remove drifted soil. Ensure the liner is not damaged during cleaning.

• Water withdrawal from the well must always be metered, with quarterly results provided to SIRC. The water-level in the well should also be monitored quarterly. Meter readings are also provided at www.groundwatercentre.com, by inputting the legal land location 4-4-16-6-W4.

http://www.groundwatercentre.com/


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 26. Dugway: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 475 cubic meters.



Fifteen Mile (5-11-20-6-W4)

Water Source: runoff catchment to dugout; minor replenishment from spring. Access

• Dry summer or winter access only, on graded dirt trail (Fifteen Mile Circle). • Fifteen Mile has a very narrow entry (Fig. 27). Trucks must back into the site, and

leave by driving forward on the same trail. No tanker trucks allowed. • Fifteen Mile Circle Road southeast to Fox Road (and North Buffalo Road) can be

impassable due to soft sands. The most appropriate traffic route is Fifteen Mile Road from Badger Road (to the northwest of the dugout).

Allowable Water Use

• Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (326 m3) (Plate 15 and Fig. 28).

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Fifteen Mile 671 653

457 327 196

100 70 50 30

1.60 1.29 1.00 0.70

1.9

• Replenishment at Fifteen Mile is slow to negligible, at 49 m3/yr (Table 5 and Fig. 9). • The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Fifteen Mile, based on the sum of 50% of

storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 376 m3/yr (Table 5). Overflow

• Dugout overflow seldom occurs, but overflow is beneficial to adjacent vegetation at the western end of the dugout.

Signs

• Double posts, with the sign edges on each post center, are required to prevent rubbing off by animals. Elk use this water source periodically.


Maintenance

• Spoil piles were hand-seeded in Spring 2001. Spoil piles were retained due to partial vegetative recovery but elk hoof traffic may strongly impair further recovery.

Key Issues at Fifteen Mile

• Dry summer or winter access only, and no tanker trucks allowed. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (326 m3).


Figure 27. Fifteen Mile Site Diagram


0 5 10 15 20

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 28. Fifteen Mile: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 653 cubic meters.

contour interval = 0.5 m volume measuring pole


Hussar (3-1-19-5-W4) Water Source: spring-fed dugout south of Dishpan Lake Access

• Extremely sticky, saline soil materials when wet. Therefore, access is only allowed in dry weather, on the short graded dirt trail.

• No tanker trucks are allowed due to the restricted turn-around area. The entry, turn-around and loading-pad area are acceptable for water withdrawal

(Fig. 29).

Allowable Water Use • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (690 m3)

(Fig. 30). The groundwater spring may freeze-up (stop flowing) in some winters (e.g., 1999 – 2000).

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Hussar 1288 1379

965 690 414

100 70 50 30

1.65 1.30 1.00 0.61

2.0

• Replenishment rates at Hussar are moderate (845 m3/yr) (Fig. 1 and Table 5). • The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Hussar, based on the sum of 50% of

storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 1535 m3/yr (Table 5). • A withdrawal of 1535 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop of

about 0.24 m at the Hussar wetland (Table 6). • It is recommended that a new well should be screened in the main buried river

valley aquifer, and a new dugout developed in the same area for use as a holding pond. The well and dugout should be adjacent to Hussar Trail, but away from the military tank tracks, and must not damage any existing wetland vegetation. If a well is planned, all infrastructure must be at or below ground level, the pond walls must be lined, and the pond must also be fenced (use Dugway as a model). The well will also require a flow meter. Transmissivity should be measured by conducting a pumping test on the well, so that water-level drawdowns due to various pumping rates can be determined. Artesian pressure on the well and wetland should also be measured, to provide a more accurate indication of safe withdrawal rates that will not harm the wetland. In the mean time, maximum withdrawal rates should not exceed those at Dugway well (Table 7), to prevent excessive drawdown in the aquifer.


Figure 29. Hussar Site Diagram


Overflow • Periodic overflow from the dugout to the wetland vegetation is not required, as the

spring flows from the wetland to the dugout.

Signs • Damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure

replacement. • Double posts, with sign edges at each post center, are required to prevent rubbing

off by animals.

Maintenance Safety

• If a dugout and well is developed near Hussar, a perimeter fence should be installed around the new dugout, using the same design as the perimeter fence at Telfer Lake. This would keep truck traffic away from the edges of the water.

Key Issues at Hussar

• Access is only allowed in dry weather, and no tanker trucks allowed. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (690 m3). • It is recommended that a new well should be screened in the main buried river

valley aquifer, and a new dugout developed for use as a holding pond.


0 10 20 30 40 50

Distance (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig.30. Hussar: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 1379 cubic meters.



Interface (13-11-16-7-W4)

Water Source: spring-fed dugout Access

• Interface can be used during most weather conditions, but it should not be used following heavy rains or during spring thaw. All traffic must stay on the short prairie trail and loop. All truck types are allowed.

• The site requires additional barrier posts on the inside of the loop road (Fig. 31), to restrict vehicle traffic and prevent damage to the prairie vegetation.

Allowable Water Use

• Interface exhibits a high rate of replenishment (Fig. 8), at 1302 m3/yr (Table 5). • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (1205 m3)

(Fig. 32).


(m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Interface 1588 2409

1686 1205 723

100 70 50 30

2.20 1.70 1.37 0.96

2.5

• The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Interface, based on the sum of 50% of

storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 2290 m3/yr (Table 5). • A withdrawal of 2290 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop of

about 0.35 m. at the Interface wetland (Table 6). • The Interface water source occurs between the Telfer Lake and Dugway wells, and

water use should be balanced between Interface and the wells. Overflow

• Overflow is important to sustain the wetland plant communities, and should be allowed to occur for at least a portion of the spring season. Due to a naturally high rate of replenishment (Fig. 8), overflow should be possible for a portion of the year, as it occurred occasionally during the drought years of 2000 and 2001. Overflow should be allowed for two months of the year, for a total overflow volume of about 217 m3/yr (Table 5).

Signs

• Double posts, with sign edges at each post center, are required to prevent rubbing off by animals.

• About ten additional barrier posts are required to properly define the inside of the loop road (Fig. 31).



Figure 31. Interface Site Diagram


Maintenance • The loop trail has some potholes that should be infilled with local soil material only.

Grading will not be permitted, to minimize damage to the prairie. Key Issues at Interface

• Interface can be used by all truck types during most weather conditions, but it should not be used following heavy rains or during spring thaw.

• Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (1200 m3). Telfer and Dugway wells are the major water sources in this region, but Interface should be periodically used to reduce pressure on the wells.

• Overflow should be allowed to occur for at least a portion of the spring season.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 32. Interface: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 2409 cubic meters.

contour interval = 0. 5m Volume measuring pole


North Boundary (13-19-19-7-W4)


• Dry weather access only. All traffic must stay on the established prairie trail, (650 m) and use the designed turnaround only (at the truck in Plate 4) (Fig. 33).

• No tanker trucks allowed. Allowable Water Use


Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) North Boundary 1016 1870

1309 935 561

100 70 50 30

3.4 2.8 2.3 1.7

3.7

• The replenishment rate at North Boundary is moderate (Fig. 7), at about 679 m3/yr

(Table 5). • The maximum potential withdrawal rate at North Boundary, based on the sum of

50% of storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate less 113 m3 for overflow (see below), is about 1501 m3/yr (Table 5).

• A withdrawal of 1501 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop of about 0.23 m at the North Boundary site (Table 6).

Overflow

• A 15-m long overflow pipe (Fig. 33) was installed at the southeast corner of the dugout in June 2001 to channel overflow. This overflow pipe protects the southern berm from runoff and erosion, and sustains the wetland plant communities in the coulee bottom. It is recommended that overflow be allowed to occur for at least a portion of the spring season. Due to a naturally moderate rate of replenishment (Fig. 7) of 679 m3/yr (Table 5), overflow should be possible at least once a year. For example, overflow occurred between August 2001 and the present (March 2002). The overflow pipe must be checked periodically to ensure that it is not plugged or damaged. Approximately 113 m3 would flow to the wetlands as overflow over a two-month period (Table 5).


Figure 33. North Boundary Site Diagram


Signs • Double posts, with sign edges at each post center, are required to prevent rubbing

off by animals. • Damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure

replacement.

Maintenance • North slope may be prone to slumping due to steep slopes. Further site

rehabilitation may be required to minimize or alleviate slumping. Key Issues at North Boundary

• Dry-weather access only. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (935 m3). • Overflow must be allowed to occur for at least a portion of the spring season.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40D

ista

nce

(m)

Fig. 34. North Boundary: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 1870 cubic meters.

contour interval = 0.5 m

3.5

Volume measuring pole


Old Channel (4-4-15-5-W4)

Water source: pumped from the South Saskatchewan River to a dugout originally developed and also used by PFRA. Access

• All-weather access. All traffic must stay on the South Boundary Road (a graded and well-packed dirt trail) and the designed loop trail for entry, loading and exit (Fig. 35).

• The site entry and exit is designed to handle all truck types. Allowable Water Use

• Old Channel receives water from the South Saskatchewan River. Alberta Environment has control over surface waters and is responsible for the regulation and licensing of water withdrawals.

• Dugout filling and water levels must be periodically monitored by water-truck operators in conjunction with AEC personnel. This information must be provided to SIRC so they can contact the individuals responsible for the management of Old Channel Lake dugout.

• A volume-measuring pole (Fig. 36) has been installed at the dugout, but unlike most sites, water withdrawal can continue when the dugout is below 50% of full capacity. The calibrated pole is installed to show when dugout refilling is again required.

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Old Channel 1678 2730

1911 1365 819

100 70 50 30

4.3 3.75 3.25 2.60

4.6

Overflow • Overflow from the holding pond is detrimental to the flow channel south of the

pond, due to potential erosion and pugging caused by frequent cattle hoof traffic. In order to prevent overflow, AEC personnel have agreed to periodically monitor the filling of the pond (pumped from the South Saskatchewan River), and also to have water-truck operators report on the approximate percent volume.

• In order to minimize damage from potential pond overflow, the overflow was moved from the southwest to the southeast, so that overflow would immediately move down the channel, rather than ponding. Ponding in the southwest could change the wet meadow vegetation community that receives occasional spring waters.


Figure 35. Old Channel Site Diagram


Signs

• The loop trail is well marked by barrier posts (Fig. 35). As of January 2002 only two barrier posts were present on the inside loop; additional posts are required.



Key Issues at Old Channel

• All-weather access by all truck types. • Overflow must be prevented.


0 10 20

Distance (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 36. Old Channel Pond: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 2730 cubic meters.



Porton (3-16-15-7-W4)


• Dry-weather access only, on short graded dirt trail. Use only designed entry and exit loop (Fig. 37). All truck types allowed.

• A well-defined loop road (Fig. 37) was constructed, with barrier posts on the inside of the loop and on the eastern end at the exit leading to Porton Road. The loop road will be more beneficial for site maintenance than the pull-in-and-reverse site that was originally constructed.

Allowable Water Use


Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Porton 1594 1621

1135 811 486

100 70 50 30

2.0 1.67 1.4

1.09

2.3

• Replenishment at Porton is moderate (Fig. 3), at about 1185 m3/yr (Table 5). • The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Porton, based on the sum of 50% of

storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, less 198 m3 for overflow (see below) is about 1927 m3/yr (Table 5).

• A withdrawal of 1927 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop of about 0.30 m at the Porton wetland (Table 6).

• This site is often used by wildlife, and it is located midway between Telfer Lake and Dugway wells. It is therefore recommended that water use be minimized at this site, as both of the nearby wells offer viable alternatives. Water withdrawal from wells is less damaging to the environment than withdrawal from dugouts. Restriction of water withdrawal to one season per year will all water overflow into the nearby wetland at least once per year, to sustain the wetland plant communities.

Overflow

• Overflow is desirable for the surrounding vegetation (Plate 5). It is recommended to allow, at a minimum, full capacity for a portion of the spring season. Due to a naturally moderate rate of replenishment (Fig. 3), overflow should be possible for a limited portion of the year, as it occurred occasionally during the drought years of 2001 and 2002. A two-month period of overflow would provide about 198 m3 to the wetland plant community (Table 5).


Figure 37. Porton Site Diagram


Signs • Double posts, with sign edges at each post center, are required to prevent rubbing

off by animals. • Damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure

replacement.

Maintenance • Steeper dugout slopes may be prone to slumping. Further site rehabilitation may be

required occasionally to minimize slumping. Key Issues at Porton

• Dry-weather access only • Overflow must be allowed to occur for at least a portion of the spring season. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (810 m3). • Water withdrawal should be limited to one season per year, with Telfer Lake and

Dugway wells used as the main water supplies for the region.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance (m)

0

10

20

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 38. Porton: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 1621cubic meters.



Rattlesnake (15-25-17-7-W4)

Water Source: spring-fed dugout plus runoff catchment Access

• All-weather access allowed, on short graded dirt trail. Use designed entry and exit loop (Fig. 39).

• All truck types allowed. Allowable Water Use


Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Rattlesnake 1107 1406

984 703 422

100 70 50 30

2.0 1.59 1.27 0.90

2.3

• Rattlesnake has a low rate of replenishment (Fig. 5) of 475 m3/yr (Table 5). • The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Rattlesnake, based on the sum of

50% of storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 1178 m3/yr (Table 5).

• A withdrawal of 1178 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop of about 0.18 m at the Rattlesnake wetland (Table 6).

• A water-table well and piezometer have been installed at this site, so that water-level fluctuations can be monitored and used to develop a long-term use plan for the site (Fig. 6). The water-table well was damaged beyond repair by military activity in the fall of 2000.

Overflow

• Overflow of the dugout may damage the dam at the southern end, and it would then require reconstruction. Extreme runoff events such as convective thundershowers could also damage the channel downstream of the culverts under Rattlesnake Road leading to the dugout (Plate 6).

Signs




Figure 39. Rattlesnake Site Diagram


Maintenance

• The west slope may be prone to slumping due to steep slopes. Further site rehabilitation may be required to minimize and alleviate slumping.

Safety

• Ensure that the exterior barbed wire fence (Plate 6) around the site remains in good condition and has intermittent markings to alert ground traffic of the safety hazard created by the dugout. It is recommended that all posts be spray-painted to improve visibility. CFB Suffield personnel must occasionally observe the fence condition and report to SIRC if improvements are required.

Key Issues at Rattlesnake

• All-weather access allowed. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (700 m3). • Overflow must be prevented. • The west slope may be prone to slumping due to steep slopes. Further site

rehabilitation may be required to minimize and alleviate slumping.


0 5 10 15 20

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 40. Rattlesnake: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 1406 cubic meters.



River Sentry (35-16-5-W4) A site map and other information is not available for this site, as it was only reported by SIRC in the winter of 2002, after completion of the field work component of this study.

Water Source: pumping directly from South Saskatchewan River Access

• All-weather access on the graded dirt trail. All traffic must stay on the designated trail.

• All truck types are allowed. Allowable Water Use

• Alberta Environment controls the regulation of water withdrawal from the South Saskatchewan River.

Alberta Environment has control over surface waters and is responsible for the regulation and licensing of water withdrawals.

Signs


• Barrier posts may be required to restrict traffic movement.

Maintenance • Road grading is only allowed on River Sentry Road. The truck loop must not

be graded, but can be infilled with local gravels and stones. • River Sentry should be periodically checked by CFB Suffield personnel to

ensure the site is being used correctly and that the site and trail remain in good condition.

No figure is included for River Sentry, because the site was reported to LandWise Inc. following completion of field work.


Seven and a Half Mile (5-1-17-7-W4)

Water source: dugout fed by spring and runoff catchment. Access

• Access in dry weather only, on the short (70-m long) prairie trail. All traffic must remain on the established trail and the designed loop (Fig. 41).

• No tanker trucks allowed due to restricted turnaround area. Allowable Water Use

• The replenishment rate at 71/2 Mile is high (Fig. 5) at 1314 m3/yr (Table 5). • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (643 m3)

(Fig. 42).


(m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Seven and a Half Mile

834 1286 900 643 386

100 70 50 30

1.9 1.39 0.98 0.50

2.3

• The maximum potential withdrawal rate at 71/2 Mile, based on the sum of 50%

of storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 1957 m3/yr (Table 5). • A withdrawal of 1957 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop

of about 0.3 m at the 71/2 Mile wetland (Table 6). Overflow

• An overflow pipe (similar to the one at North Boundary) is required at the southwest corner of the dugout, with flow directed to the intermittent channel located west of the dugout. The overflow pipe will help to protect the shores from runoff and erosion. This overflow pipe must be installed early in the spring of 2002, as the dugout water level is at 100% of full capacity in late January 2002 (Plate 16).

Signs




Figure 41. Seven and a Half Mile Site Diagram


Key Issues at Seven and a Half Mile

• Access in dry weather only. No tanker trucks allowed due to restricted turnaround area.

• Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (640 m3). • An overflow pipe should be installed at the southwest corner of the dugout in

the spring of 2002, with flow directed to the intermittent channel located west of the dugout.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 42. Seven and a Half Mile: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 1286 cubic meters.



Sherwood Forest (13-24-17-5-W4) Water source: pumping directly from South Saskatchewan River Access

• Access in all weather on graded trail. All traffic must stay on the designated loop trails; note tankers take the outside loop (Fig. 43).

• All truck types are allowed. Allowable Water Use

• Alberta Environment has control over surface waters and is responsible for the regulation and licensing of water withdrawals.

• Four dredged water intake points (Fig. 43) have been established on the western shore of the South Saskatchewan River (two visible at the right in Plate 7). This allows for several trucks to fill at the same time.

Signs


Maintenance

• Road grading is only allowed on Antelope Road. Each of the loops must not be graded, but potholes can be infilled with local gravel and stones only.

• The Sherwood Forest site should be checked occasionally to ensure the site and trails remain in good condition and free of litter.

Key Issues at Sherwood Forest

• All-weather access by all truck types. • The site must be checked occasionally to ensure the site and trails remain in

good condition.


Figure 43. Sherwood Forest Site Diagram


South Jenner Wells (10-16-20-8-W4) The South Jenner wells and dugout were not included in either of the two LandWise 2000 reports, as this site was only reported to LandWise Inc. during the time of reclamation (winter 2000-2001). There are three water wells at the site (A, B and C in Fig. 44). The site is in generally good condition, and reclamation services were provided several years ago.

Water Source: wells pumped to dugout Access

• Access in all weather, from a short graveled entry and exit. All traffic must remain on the established trail and the designed loop (Fig. 44). Do not pull too close to the dugout as the shore is soft and is prone to potholing.

• All truck types allowed. • A perimeter fence section (about 70 to 75 m long) should be constructed at the

south side of the dugout in a similar design as that used at Telfer Lake (Plate 10), to restrict water-loading trucks from the southern edge of the dugout, and prevent potholing.

Allowable Water Use

• There are three wells at this site, but due to their close proximity to one another, the maximum allowable withdrawal applies to the combined total allowable withdrawal from the three wells (Fig. 11 and Table 7).

• Water flow from all wells must be metered. Flow monitors were installed on each of the three wells on June 4, 2001. Two of the wells are used only in summer, and the third is winterized (insulated) and used year-round. Cumulative water withdrawal from the three wells between June 4 of 2001 and February 28 of 2002 was 29,543 m3 (Fig. 11), indicating an average withdrawal rate of 110 m3/day. If this withdrawal rate continued for the entire year, total withdrawal would be 40,114 m3/yr (Table 7).

• Calculations suggest that a withdrawal of 40,114 m3/yr for 20 years would result in a water-level drop of about 5 to 10 m at the well site, and a drop of about 1 to 2.5 m at a distance of one mile from the well site (Table 8).

• A volume-measuring pole has been installed at the dugout, but unlike most sites, water withdrawal can continue when the dugout is below 50% of full capacity. The calibrated pole is installed to show when dugout refilling is again required (Fig. 45).

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) South Jenner 2713 5975

4183 2988 1793

100 70 50 30

4.2 3.5 2.9

2.15

4.5


Figure 44. South Jenner Site Diagram


Overflow • Overflow would be detrimental to the built-up berm at the southeastern corner,

so an automatic shut-off device must continue to be used at this site.

Signs • Double posts, with sign edges at each post center, are required to prevent

rubbing off by animals. • Damage to any barrier posts must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure

replacement. Safety

• A perimeter fence should be installed on the south side of the dugout, using the same design as the perimeter fence at Telfer Lake (Plate 10). This will keep truck traffic away from the edges of the dugout and reduce potholing.

Maintenance

• Plate 8 indicates snow and debris was pushed into the dugout in the winter of 2000/2001. Snow and associated debris must be piled away from the dugout, to prevent the accumulation of debris and gravel in the water.

Key Issues at South Jenner Wells

• All-weather access by all truck types. • A 70- to 75-m long perimeter fence (similar to that used at Telfer Lake) should

be constructed to restrict truck traffic from the southern edge of the dugout. • Snow plowing must be done so that soil and plant debris is pushed away from

the pond, and does not reduce water-holding capacity or potentially plug water pumping equipment (Plate 8).

• Must ensure that the automatic shut-off valve is in operating condition to avoid overflow and erosion of the eastern bank of the dugout.

• Each of the wells must have an operating flow meter while the well is in operation. Water withdrawal from the well must always be metered, with quarterly results provided to SIRC. The water-level in the well should also be monitored quarterly.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Distance (m)

0

10

20

30

40

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 45. South Jenner: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 5975 cubic meters.



Telfer Lake Well and Dugout (9-16-15-8-W4)

Water Source: well, with flow pumped to dugout Access

• Access in all weather, from a short graveled entry (Plate 9) and exit. All traffic must remain on the established trail and the designed loop (Fig. 46). All truck types allowed.

• The circular haul route is graded and graveled (Plates 9 and 10), and a perimeter fence (Plate 10) has been installed on the inside of the loop to restrict truck traffic to the loop road, and to maintain the shore of the dugout (Fig. 46).

Allowable Water Use

• Telfer Lake Well is currently pumped at a rate of 0.13 m3/min (7.8 m3/hr, or 130 L/min). Water withdrawal was metered from May 12 to August 9, 2001. Cumulative water withdrawal during that time period was 12,561 m3 (Fig. 11), indicating an average withdrawal rate of 141 m3/day. If this withdrawal rate continued for the entire year, total withdrawal would be 51,500 m3/yr (Table 7). However, no water has been withdrawn from Telfer Lake between August 9 and the most recent reading (January 23, 2002). Assuming the well is pumped for six months per year, total withdrawal from the well would be 25,774 m3/yr.

• Production data suggest withdrawal of 51,500 m3/yr (Table 7) for 20 years would cause a water-level drawdown of about 18 m at the well, and about 4 m at a distance of one mile from the well (Table 8). The higher rate of drawdown at Telfer Lake compared with Dugway well is due to the higher transmissivity used at the Dugway well.

• A volume-measuring pole has been installed at the dugout (Fig. 47), but unlike most sites, water withdrawal can continue when the dugout is below 50% of full capacity. The calibrated pole is installed to show when dugout refilling is again required.

Dugout Area at Full

Capacity (m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Telfer Lake 2306 4606

3224 2303 1382

100 70 50 30

3.6 2.9

2.35 1.65

4.0

• The water level in the Telfer Lake well must be monitored regularly throughout

the year, particularly during pumping and recovery, so that more accurate long-term production data can be developed for the well.


Figure 46. Telfer Lake Site Diagram


Overflow

• Over-filling of the holding pond is a waste of groundwater, and causes impacts such as ponding, soil erosion, and potholing by truck traffic. An automatic shut-off valve was installed in early spring 2001 to prevent overflow. It must be routinely checked to ensure correct operation.

Signs


• Damage to any barrier posts or the perimeter fence must be reported to SIRC, who will ensure replacement.

Safety

• The perimeter fence (Plate 10), designed with 70-cm high steel posts interconnected by steel rods welded on the top of each post is an excellent design, and restricts truck traffic from the edges of the dugout.

Key Issues at Telfer Lake

• Ensure the automatic shut-off valve is operating correctly. • Water withdrawal from the well must always be metered, with quarterly results

provided to SIRC. The water-level in the well should also be monitored quarterly.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Distance (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 47. Telfer Lake: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 4606 cubic meters.



Wildhorse (3-4-19-7-W4)

Water Source: dugout fed by groundwater spring Access

• Access in all weather, using the short graded trail. • No tanker trucks are allowed, due to the restricted turnaround area. • Access from the Hussar Trail has been designed so that trucks use the same

route for entry and exit, and adequate room is provided for single-axle trucks to pull in and reverse to the loading pad (Fig. 47).

Allowable Water Use



(m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Wildhorse 1717 2267

1587 1134 680

100 70 50 30

3.55 3.13 2.75 2.25

3.8

• The replenishment rate at Wildhorse is moderate (Fig. 9), at a rate of about 959

m3/yr (Table 5). • The maximum potential withdrawal rate at Wildhorse, based on the sum of 50%

of storage capacity plus the annual recovery rate, is about 2092 m3/yr (Table 5). • A withdrawal of 2092 m3/yr for 20 years is predicted to cause a water-level drop

of about 0.32 m at the Wildhorse wetland (Table 6). Overflow

• Overflow is neutral to the surrounding wetland vegetation, and it is not recommended, due to the potential for damage to the berm on the northwest side. The dugout was overflowing at the time of the installation of the water-measuring pole (January 2002).

• Overflow may eventually cause the berm to become eroded, particularly in the northwest corner. Installation of an overflow pipe (similar to the one at North Boundary) is recommended at the northwest end of the dugout to divert overflow to the wetland vegetation.

Signs




Figure 48. Wildhorse Site Diagram


Maintenance • The southeast end of the dugout (at the pull-in and reverse point) may be prone

to slumping, and may require future rehabilitation.

Safety • This area receives extensive use by military vehicles, and CFB Suffield may

ultimately recommend a well-marked perimeter barb-wire fence similar to that at the Rattlesnake site.

Key Issues at Wildhorse

• All-weather access, but no tanker trucks allowed. • Water withdrawal is allowed until the dugout is at 50% of full capacity (1130 m3). • Overflow is neutral to the wetland, and installation of an overflow pipe is

recommended to prevent erosion.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Distance (m)

0

10

20

Dis

tanc

e (m

)

Fig. 49. Wildhorse: Water depth at full capacity, in meters. Water volume at full capacity = 2267 cubic meters.



References Batu, V., 1998. Aquifer hydraulics, a comprehensive guide to hydrogeoogic data analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1990. Physical and chemical hydrogeology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice Hall Inc., New York. McNeil, R.A., J. Rodvang, C. Wershler, and W. Petherbridge, Sept. 2000. Assessment of dugouts and wetlands at DND Suffield, Alberta. LandWise Inc., Lethbridge, Alberta.


Appendix A

Plates


Appendix B

Dugout Water Volumes


Appendix B. Dugout water volumes.


(m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) Antelope 1159 1540

1078 770 462

100 70 50 30

2.25 1.82 1.50 1.10

2.6

Bayonet 1165 2492 1744 1246 748

100 70 50 30

3.75 3.05 2.50 1.86

4.0

Beaver 1300 2104 1473 1052 631

100 70 50 30

2.80 2.28 1.87 1.40

3.1

Beveridge Lake 1095 2327 1629 1164 698

100 70 50 30

4.0 3.3 2.7 2.0

4.2

Big Bob 800 1327 929 664 398

100 70 50 30

3.15 2.60 2.10 1.53

3.25

Cross Lake 1680 1600 1120 800 480

100 70 50 30

1.98 1.65 1.35 0.95

2.3

Dugway 377 475 333 238 143

100 70 50 30

2.6 2.15 1.8

1.31

2.8

Fifteen Mile 671 653 457 327 196

100 70 50 30

1.60 1.29 1.00 0.70

1.9

Hussar 1288 1379 965 690 414

100 70 50 30

1.65 1.30 1.00 0.61

2.0

Interface 1588 2409 1686 1205 723

100 70 50 30

2.20 1.70 1.37 0.96

2.5

North Boundary 1016 1870 1309 935 561

100 70 50 30

3.4 2.8 2.3 1.7

3.7

Old Channel 1678 2730 1911 1365 819

100 70 50 30

4.3 3.75 3.25 2.60

4.6

Porton 1594 1621 100 2.0 2.3



(m2)


(m3)

Capacity (%)

Water depth (m)


(m) 1135 811 486

70 50 30

1.67 1.4

1.09 Rattlesnake 1107 1406

984 703 422

100 70 50 30

2.0 1.59 1.27 0.90

2.3

Seven and a Half Mile

834 1286 900 643 386

100 70 50 30

1.9 1.39 0.98 0.50

2.3

South Jenner 2713 5975 4183 2988 1793

100 70 50 30

4.2 3.5 2.9

2.15

4.5

Telfer Lake 2306 4606 3224 2303 1382

100 70 50 30

3.6 2.9

2.35 1.65

4.0

Wildhorse 1717 2267 1587 1134 680

100 70 50 30

3.55 3.13 2.75 2.25

3.8


Appendix C

Flow-Meter Data from Wells


Appendix C. Cumulative recorded groundwater withdrawal from flow meters on wells.

Date Dugway Telfer Bayonet Beveridge S Jenner A S Jenner B S Jenner C S Jenner total 8-Apr-01 0

10-Apr-01 439.8 11-Apr-01 606.8 13-Apr-01 703.8 16-Apr-01 930.8 18-Apr-01 1219.8 24-Apr-01 1505.8 26-Apr-01 1923.8 0 0 29-Apr-01 2643.8 375 520 2-May-01 3270.8 916 1040 5-May-01 3919.8 1426 1575 8-May-01 4402.8 1918 2100

12-May-01 5202.8 0 2603 2795 15-May-01 5862.8 560 3128 3310 18-May-01 6444.8 1140 3618 3785 4-Jun-01 8612.8 4980 0 0 0 0 13-Jun-01 9712.8 7228 17-Jul-01 13712.8 10038 9-Aug-01 13712.8 12561 1899 4103 2680 8682 10-Sep-01 14462.8 12561 11883 2-Oct-01 14749.8 12561 1-Nov-01 15233.8 12561 7553 7465 16917 23-Jan-02 16702.8 12561 18672 8275 7553 7465 23293 28-Feb-02 24519 14435 7553 7465 29453


Appendix D

Water-Level Drawdown Calculations


Appendix D. Drawdown caused by pumping wells for 20 years at the estimated annual withdrawal rate.

Well pumping rate (Q) Transmissivity time Distance Storativity drawdown

T from well S S high S low S igpm m3/s m3/yr m2/s years m dimensionless m m

low T at well Bayonet 11.53 8.71E-04 27500 2.70E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 6.56 6.75 Beveridge 13.28 1.00E-03 31681 2.00E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 10.09 10.38 Dugway 21.39 1.62E-03 51025 5.24E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 6.44 6.62 S Jenner 16.82 1.27E-03 40114 2.70E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 9.57 9.85 Telfer 21.59 1.63E-03 51500 1.80E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 18.15 18.67 high T at well Bayonet 11.53 8.71E-04 27500 5.24E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 3.47 3.57 Beveridge 13.28 1.00E-03 31681 2.00E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 10.09 10.38 Dugway 21.39 1.62E-03 51025 5.24E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 6.44 6.62 S Jenner 16.82 1.27E-03 40114 5.24E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 5.06 5.20 Telfer 21.59 1.63E-03 51500 1.80E-04 20 0.08 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 18.15 18.67 low T one mile away Bayonet 11.53 8.71E-04 27500 2.70E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 1.45 1.64 Beveridge 13.28 1.00E-03 31681 2.00E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 2.14 2.43 Dugway 21.39 1.62E-03 51025 5.24E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 1.55 1.73 S Jenner 16.82 1.27E-03 40114 2.70E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 2.12 2.39 Telfer 21.59 1.63E-03 51500 1.80E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 3.79 4.32 high T one mile away Bayonet 11.53 8.71E-04 27500 5.24E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 0.84 0.93 Beveridge 13.28 1.00E-03 31681 2.00E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 2.14 2.43 Dugway 21.39 1.62E-03 51025 5.24E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 1.55 1.73 S Jenner 16.82 1.27E-03 40114 5.24E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 1.22 1.36 Telfer 21.59 1.63E-03 51500 1.80E-04 20 1609.34 5.10E-04 2.46E-04 3.79 4.32


Appendix D. Predicted water-level drawdown caused by pumping from wetlands at the maximum annual withdrawal rates for 20 years. Wetland Pumping Rate (Q) Transmissivity (T) Time Radius Storativity drawdown low T high T igpm m3/s m3/yr m2/s m2/s yr m dimensionless m m Antelope 1.04 7.83E-05 2471 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.38 0.20 Cross Lake 0.87 6.59E-05 2079 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.32 0.17 Interface 0.96 7.26E-05 2290 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.35 0.18 71/2 Mile 0.82 6.20E-05 1957 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.30 0.16 Beaver 0.77 5.82E-05 1837 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.28 0.15 Hussar 0.64 4.86E-05 1535 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.24 0.12 N Boundary 0.63 4.76E-05 1501 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.23 0.12 Porton 0.81 6.11E-05 1927 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.30 0.15 Wildhorse 0.88 6.63E-05 2092 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.32 0.17 Rattlesnake 0.49 3.73E-05 1178 2.70E-04 5.24E-04 20 10 2.49E-04 0.18 0.09

Protocol for the Management and Use of Water Sources at ... … · Water Sources at CFB Suffield,...

Documents

Transcript of Protocol for the Management and Use of Water Sources at ... … · Water Sources at CFB Suffield,...