Spring Water Alberta

Hydrogeology of theCanmore Corridor andNorthwestern Kananaskis Country,Alberta

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Albertaii

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, 2002

ISBN 0-7785-2294-6 (print version)ISBN 0-7785-2295-4 (electronic version)

Alberta Environment, its employees and contractors make no warranty, guarantee orrepresentation, express or implied, or assume any legal liability regarding the correctness,accuracy, completeness, or reliability of this publication. Any digital data and software suppliedwith this publication are subject to the licence conditions (specified in “Licence Agreementfor Digital Products”). The data are supplied on the understanding that they are for the soleuse of the licensee, and will not be redistributed in any form, in whole or in part, to thirdparties. Any references to proprietary software in the documentation and/or any use ofproprietary data formats in this release does not constitute endorsement by AlbertaEnvironment of any manufacturer’s product, nor does the use of any particular contractor orservice.

When using information from this publication in other publications or presentations, dueacknowledgment should be given to Alberta Environment. The following reference format isrecommended:

Toop, D.C. and N.N. de la Cruz, 2002. Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridor and NorthwesternKananaskis Country, Alberta; Alberta Environment, Hydrogeology Section, Edmonton,Alberta; Report to Western Economic Partnership Agreement, Western EconomicDiversification Canada.

Published by:Alberta EnvironmentHydrogeology Section10th Floor, Oxbridge Place9820 – 106 StreetEdmonton, AlbertaT5K 2J6

Telephone: (780) 427-5883Fax: (780) 422-4192

Website: www3.gov.ab.ca/env/info/infocentre/publist.cfm

The project team acknowledges the significant funding to this project by the FederalMinistry of Western Economic Diversification through the Western Economic PartnershipAgreement with the Province of Alberta.

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta iii

Executive Summary

The Canmore Corridor—that portion of the Bow Val-ley between Banff National Park and the Stoney In-dian Reserve—has experienced exceptional popula-tion growth in the last 20 years and is expected tomaintain its robust growth in the foreseeable future.The adjoining northwestern portion of KananaskisCountry—comprising the Kananaskis and SprayLakes valleys—provides attendant recreationalopportunites, which are also growing in popularity.These development pressures are increasing the re-gional need for adequate supplies of quality drinkingwater, drawn primarily from groundwater aquifersand springs. Moreover, such pressures have the po-tential to impact water supplies further downstream,as the Bow and South Saskatchewan river systemsdepend on the mountain watersheds for their watersupply.

This study was conducted to collect baseline datato provide an assessment of the groundwater capa-bilities of the Canmore Corridor and northwesternKananaskis Country, including groundwater availabil-ity, quality, movement and interaction with the natu-ral environment. The study was initiated in 1999 bythe Hydrogeology Section of Alberta Environmentunder the auspices of the Western Economic Partner-ship Agreement (WEPA), which is a partnership be-tween Western Economic Diversification Canada andAlberta Environment in support of groundwater re-search in Alberta.

Existing groundwater data were gathered from Al-berta Environment’s Groundwater Information Cen-tre (GIC) database, and deficiencies were identified,both in the extent and completeness of records and intheir format. The existing records were then field-veri-fied and improved, a pertinent database and mappingprotocol was devised, the area was surveyed by air inlate winter to detect additional discharge areas, and asupplementary drilling program was completed toshed light on groundwater flow and quality in the re-gion and to develop a model for Canmore.

holes were further completed as wells. The area wassurveyed by air from March 15 to 17, 2000, to identifymajor springs in areas with limited access. At 160 ofthe 670 survey sites, water samples were collected fordetailed water quality analyses of major ions and tracemetals. One hundred and thirty samples—mainlyfrom wells and springs, but also from snow, rain andsurface water—were also collected to examine the ra-tios of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes that might re-veal the water’s origin and interaction with its envi-ronment.

To store, manage and present the existing and newdata, a Microsoft Access database was developed,from which 24 maps and 10 cross sections were pro-duced of bedrock topography, drift thickness, aquiferdistribution, groundwater flow, aquifer yield andgroundwater chemistry. Using Modflow, a three-di-mensional model was then constructed ofgroundwater flow of the unconsolidated valley aqui-fer for the area surrounding the Town of Canmore sothat the effects of environmental impacts on thegroundwater system could be simulated.

The investigations found four aquifer types ofsurficial deposits in the region: the Benchlands Aqui-fers, Outwash Plain Aquifer, Alluvial Fan and ValleyAquifers, and Calgary Buried Valley Aquifer. Bed-rock—a fifth aquifer type of limited yield—underliessurficial deposits.

The Benchlands Aquifers flank the western end ofthe Bow Valley near Canmore beneath Harvie Heights,the Alpine Resort Haven at Dead Man’s Flats, and theCanmore subdivisions of Silver Tip and Three Sisters.They comprise the coarse, permeable south-facingbenchlands, which have low water tables, and thenorth-facing benchlands, which are less permeableand are thin with poor yields. The unconfinedOutwash Plain Aquifer provides variable yields to theBow Valley Provincial Park / Seebe district and sus-tains several pothole lakes, such as Middle Lake andChilver Lake. Alluvial Fan and Valley Aquifers arefound in the Bow, Kananaskis and Spray Lakes val-leys and are especially reliable in the first two.

A significant finding from the deep investigativedrilling was the western extension of the Calgary Bur-ied Valley Aquifer, which was previously known totraverse southern Alberta from the Saskatchewan bor-der west to Calgary. Drilling indicates that this aqui-fer continues up the Bow Valley—through Exshaw andCanmore—toward Banff.

Between June 1999 and October 2001, the sites of670 groundwater data locations—such as wells, testholes and springs—were confirmed, and their posi-tions and elevations to within ten centimetres weredetermined with a customized Ashtec geographicpostition system (GPS). Twenty-one investigative testholes were drilled: two in Canmore, two in Exshaw,one near Lac des Arcs, one in Harvie Heights, one inDead Man’s Flats, seven in the region surroundingSeebe, and seven in the Spray Lakes Valley; 13 of those

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Albertaiv

Bedrock aquifers are seldom used in the region be-cause producing wells can usually be obtained fromsurficial deposits. Areas that lack sufficient drift aq-uifers are either inaccessible mountainsides or areaswith surface water supplies. Yields and water qualityfrom wells in bedrock aquifers tend to be poor.

Most groundwater samples from aquifers exhibita similar chemistry to that of the Bow River, which iscalcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sulphate type. Therelative proportions of magnesium, calcium and bicar-bonate vary in a small range throughout the region.

Water quality for the region is good. With few ex-ceptions, the major cations and anions are within themaximum allowable concentrations (MAC) and aes-thetic objectives (AO) of The Guidelines for CanadianDrinking Water Quality (2001) for all of our 333 sam-ples. A few samples exceeded the AO of 500 mg/L fortotal dissolved solids, but these were mostly springsand a scattering of wells in the Dead Man’s Flats area.However, the AO of 500 mg/L is rarely met in mostof rural Alberta well water supplies, where 1000 mg/L is commonly considered acceptable.

Iron concentrations exceeding the AO were notuncommon, but were fairly isolated and were specificto individual wells. High iron was typically associ-ated with sporadically used wells with iron casing orwhere iron-reducing bacteria were present.

Fluoride and nitrate were within the MAC, as weremercury and arsenic, which were mostly undetectable.Lead was within the MAC and near the detection lim-its for nearly all samples. Trace metals generally ap-peared in minute amounts, if at all.

Anthropogenic deterioration of groundwater isevident in a few cases. For example, elevated sodiumand chloride, seen in Harvie Heights, Exshaw, BowValley Provincial Park and the Kananaskis Valley, arelikely from septic fields or road salt. Similarly, at Wil-low Rock Spring, in Bow Valley Provincial Park, el-evated levels of sodium, chloride and nitrate haveappeared in the twenty years since the campgroundfacilities were constructed.

Seventy-five springs were documented—40 in theBow Valley, 26 in the Kananaskis Valley and 9 in theSpray Lakes Valley—a sizeable increase from the 27that were originally listed in the GIC database. Of the48 additions, 21 were identified by aerial survey only;an additional 27 were verified during ground recon-naissance.

The types of springs vary, and the reasons for theiroccurrence may not always be obvious or may be acombination of factors. Five types of springs weredelineated: topographic, contact, stratigraphic, thrust-

fault and karst. Flow rates varied from slow seepagesto more than 9000 L/min, the latter occurring at ManySprings in Bow Valley Provincial Park.

Mineral deposition associated with springs is fairlyminor in most of the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region,although spring water is usually more mineralizedthan surface water. Deposition usually consists of fineprecipitates of calcium carbonate in streambeds or ascoatings on rocks near the discharge point. Althoughiron deposition from springs is common in Alberta, itappears to be rare in the mountains, and few springsin our study area had noticeable precipitation.

Significant springs of the Bow Valley include ManySprings, the Bow Valley Provincial Park Lake Com-plex, Yamnuska Marl Spring, Railside Spring, the BowFlats, Grassi Lakes, Canmore Sulphur Spring and theFern Forest of Harvie Heights. Spray Lakes Valley ishome to Spurling Spring and the Watridge KarstSpring, while Kananaskis Valley has the POW Springand Evan-Thomas Spring as notable discharges.

Springs have played an important role in the cul-tural development of the region since the discoveryof the Banff Hot Springs in 1883. Today, they are ap-preciated as unique natural entities with a variety ofspecial characteristics, such as the “boiling” sedimentat Many Springs, the Great Fen of Yamnuska MarlSpring, the azure blue lakes and green algae carpetof Grassi Lakes, the sulphur pool at Canmore SulphurSpring, the Fern Forest of horsetail in Harvie Heights,the luxurious growth of moss at Spurling Spring andthe old-growth spruce forest near the Watridge KarstSpring.

Springs are often special ecological sites. Their rela-tively warm and constant temperatures, the surround-ing high humidity and their discharging of mineralsmakes an ideal environment for lush vegetationgrowth, which sometimes includes rare plants, suchas round-leaved orchids, yellow lady’s slippers, el-ephant head and insect-eating butterworts. They alsoprovide habitat for unique animals, such as sightlessaquatic isopods, and for salamanders, which need iso-lated, predator-free lakes, such as Chilver Lake. Thewarm and clear waters of Bill Griffiths Creek andnearby stream channels constitute the most importanttrout spawning area on the Bow River, which itself isoften too cool and turbid from surface runoff. And,Lac des Arcs and Gap Lake, fed by high-volume, rela-tively warm springs, are important waterfowl stag-ing areas in spring and fall.

The Bow Valley-Kananaskis region hosts three natu-ral subregions or ecoregions: Montane, Subalpine andAlpine. The Montane benefits substantially from re-

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta v

distribution of water from the more elevatedecoregions. Being primarily a discharge zone, it gar-ners a positive soil moisture balance and a notableincrease in water availability, expressed in the allu-vial fans, springs, streams and lakes. And, because thegroundwater flow typically has a long residence time,an enhanced concentration of dissolved matter bringsnutrients with the flow. These moist, nutrient-rich dis-charge areas contrast with the dry, nutrient-poor re-charge areas that remain in other parts of the Montane,augmented by the warmer climate, to create a highdegree of biodiversity.

To a lesser extent, the Subalpine ecoregion benefitsfrom groundwater redistribution, especially in theSpray Lakes and upper Kananaskis valleys, where itoccupies the discharge areas. However, the Subalpinedoes not have the warmer, drier climate of theMontane and the groundwater flow distance is notusually as great, so its benefits are not as prominentand are often more localized.

The Alpine ecoregion, while receiving the mostprecipitation, is a net loser from groundwater redis-tribution as most of its groundwater flows to lowerelevations. However, in flow-through and dischargeareas, such as alpine meadows, diverse and produc-tive plant assemblages provide critical feeding andnesting habitat for a variety of animal species.

As an essential component of the hydrologic cycle,groundwater helps create and maintain thebiodiversity of the ecoregions: it modifies the extremesof climate and imprints a variety of moisture and nu-trient regimes on the landscape, which, in turn, sup-port a variety of vegetation zones and faunal habi-tats. Groundwater-dependent aquatic ecosystems,such as spring-fed streams that are fish spawning ar-eas, or pothole lakes where salamanders breed, aresignificant to the overall health of the environment.Any perturbations to natural groundwater flow, or al-terations to the water quality, would potentially af-fect the ecoregions.

Water use in the region is nearly evenly split be-tween surface water (6.5 million m3/year) andgroundwater (6.3 million m3/year), and is increasingat about 10% per year. Surface water is mostly accessedfor industrial uses or for irrigation, whereas naturallyfiltered groundwater is favoured primarily for mu-nicipal supply/domestic consumption.

The Bow Valley-Kananaskis region appears to bequite capable of providing quality surface water andgroundwater to its residents and industrial users forthe foreseeable future. Difficulties finding water aremost likely to occur where surficial aquifers are thin

or drained, where there is a dependence on bedrockaquifers, or where population densities are high.Areas with limitations on yield include the Seebe dis-trict, the Knowlerville portion of Exshaw, and thesouthern ends of the Kananaskis and Spray valleys.Limitations occur at most locations outside of the val-leys, but the mountainous areas are typically not de-veloped because of the terrain. Exceptions are ski hills,alpine resorts and urban subdivisions of Canmore ex-tending up the mountainsides.

While availability of groundwater is not generallya problem, seasonal variations may lead to shortagesor flooding. For example, within the floodplain of theBow River, and to a lesser extent the Kananaskis River,the water table is fairly shallow, but it may fluctuatesignificantly, particularly during spring runoff or af-ter a major storm. It is also responsive to changes inriver levels. Additionally, the Kananaskis River andthe Spray Lakes Reservoir have controlled dischargethat affects water levels in those valleys. Generally,though, groundwater flooding is not a major concernbecause urban development within the floodplain islimited to the town of Canmore.

Shortages in wells are not common, except in areaswhere aquifer yield is limited and demand is signifi-cant, such as parts of the Benchlands (Harvie Heights)or the Outwash Plain (Bow Valley Provincial Park).However, water shortages may occur when aquifersare stressed by concentrated demand and/or reduc-tions in recharge.

Groundwater contamination is a serious potentialproblem that could impact the quality of drinkingwater, especially where demand is concentrated. Vul-nerability to contamination varies, depending on thetype of aquifer. Surficial aquifers are most vulnerableto contamination because undesirable substances dis-persed into the environment will eventually leach intothe ground and to the water table unless broken down.Confined aquifers are considerably better protectedthan unconfined aquifers; they are most vulnerablein their recharge areas or where the confining layer isbreached through water or oil drilling and produc-tion or injection, or through changes in stratigraphy.

Surficial aquifers in the region, such as those alongthe Bow River, are mostly unconfined, with little tobuffer them from activities at the land surface. Moreo-ver, interaction between surface water andgroundwater is pronounced, as recognized both in theMarmot Creek basin study and in water table moni-toring wells in Canmore. Thus, contamination of these

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Albertavi

aquifers from surface spillage of pollutants is a dis-tinct possibility, especially considering that theCanmore Corridor is a major transportation route.

To safeguard the integrity of the groundwater,hydrogeological preserves should be established andactively recognized as a vital component, rather thana by-product, of environmental protection. Emergencygroundwater protection plans should also be devisedand followed in the event of a contaminant spill.

Continued study of the groundwater resources ofthe Canmore Corridor and Northwestern KananaskisCountry is necessary to understand the vulnerabilityof aquifers to depletion and their potential responseto natural and engineered changes in surface waterdischarge. Monitoring of the areas’s aquifers—through Alberta Environment’s groundwater moni-toring well network—would help show the relation-ship between the water table and surface water lev-els. Further investigation would help determine theextent and productivity of aquifers (particularly the

buried valley aquifer), through exploratory drilling,well monitoring, pump testing and water quality sam-pling.

Finally, the potential impacts to groundwater quan-tity and quality outside of this region should be con-sidered. Groundwater supports base flow of the BowRiver and its tributaries by redistributing precipita-tion from higher elevations through the subsurface.Further, the Bow River provides drinking water to theCity of Calgary and irrigates farmland to the east ofthe city. Thus, impacts to the water resource in theseheadwaters may affect over one million users down-stream. Also, impacts to the water resources in theCanmore Corridor and Northwestern KananaskisCountry might have farther-reaching effects on eco-logical systems, such as trout productivity in the BowRiver.

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta vii

Contents

Disclaimer and Citation ...................................................................................................................... iiExecutive Summary............................................................................................................................. iiiTable of Contents ................................................................................................................................ viiList of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ xiList of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... xii

The StudyIntroduction................................................................................................................................................ 1-1Previous work ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Mapping ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1GIC groundwater database ................................................................................................................... 1-1

Fieldwork, data compilation and mapping ................................................................................................ 1-2Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 1-2Field-verification of known sites ......................................................................................................... 1-2Supplementary investigations .............................................................................................................. 1-3

Exploratory drilling ........................................................................................................................ 1-3Aerial surveys ................................................................................................................................ 1-3

Water quantity, quality and sources ..................................................................................................... 1-3Yields ............................................................................................................................................. 1-3Water chemistry ............................................................................................................................. 1-3Stable isotope analysis ................................................................................................................... 1-3

Surveying and mapping ....................................................................................................................... 1-4Surveying ....................................................................................................................................... 1-4Database management .................................................................................................................... 1-4Mapping ......................................................................................................................................... 1-5Groundwater model for Canmore .................................................................................................. 1-5

SettingThe study area ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1

Canmore Corridor ................................................................................................................................ 2-1Kananaskis Valley ................................................................................................................................ 2-2Spray Lakes Valley .............................................................................................................................. 2-2

Climate ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-3Topography and drainage .......................................................................................................................... 2-3Ecological regions ..................................................................................................................................... 2-5Geology...................................................................................................................................................... 2-5

Bedrock geology .................................................................................................................................. 2-5Glacial geology and deposition ............................................................................................................ 2-7

Bow Valley deposits ....................................................................................................................... 2-7Kananaskis Valley deposits ............................................................................................................ 2-7Spray Lakes Valley deposits .......................................................................................................... 2-8

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Albertaviii

Aquifers and Groundwater ChemistryAquifers ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Benchlands Aquifers ............................................................................................................................ 3-1Outwash Plain Aquifer ......................................................................................................................... 3-2Alluvial Fan and Valley Aquifers ......................................................................................................... 3-2

Bow River Aquifer ......................................................................................................................... 3-2Kananaskis Valley Aquifer ............................................................................................................. 3-3Spray Lakes Valley Aquifer ........................................................................................................... 3-3

Calgary Buried Valley Aquifer ............................................................................................................. 3-3Bedrock Aquifers ................................................................................................................................. 3-4

Groundwater chemistry ............................................................................................................................. 3-5Total dissolved solids, major ions and groundwater types .................................................................. 3-5Relative composition of groundwater —Piper and Schoeller plots ..................................................... 3-7Drinking water quality ......................................................................................................................... 3-9

SpringsIntroduction................................................................................................................................................ 4-1Distribution and flow ................................................................................................................................. 4-2Water chemistry of springs ........................................................................................................................ 4-4Significant springs of the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region ........................................................................ 4-5

Bow Valley ........................................................................................................................................... 4-5Many Springs ................................................................................................................................. 4-5Bow Valley Provincial Park Lake Complex ................................................................................... 4-6Yamnuska Marl Spring................................................................................................................... 4-7Railside Spring ............................................................................................................................... 4-7Bow Flats ....................................................................................................................................... 4-8Grassi Lakes ................................................................................................................................... 4-8Canmore Sulphur Spring ................................................................................................................ 4-9Fern Forest, Harvie Heights ........................................................................................................... 4-9

Spray Lakes Valley ............................................................................................................................ 4-10Spurling Spring ............................................................................................................................ 4-10Watridge Karst Spring .................................................................................................................. 4-10

Kananaskis Valley .............................................................................................................................. 4-10POW Spring ................................................................................................................................. 4-10Evan-Thomas Spring .................................................................................................................... 4-10

Isotope AnalysisGroundwater sampling program ................................................................................................................ 5-1

Theory behind the sampling ................................................................................................................ 5-1Isotopic analysis of groundwater in the Bow region ................................................................................. 5-2

Regional meteoric water line ............................................................................................................... 5-2Altitudinal variations in δ values ......................................................................................................... 5-2Spatial variations in δ values ............................................................................................................... 5-4Seasonal changes in δD ....................................................................................................................... 5-4General sample characteristics by location .......................................................................................... 5-4Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 5-5

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta ix

Groundwater as an Ecological ResourceGroundwater interactions with the environment ....................................................................................... 6-1Ecoregions ................................................................................................................................................. 6-2

Montane ............................................................................................................................................... 6-2Subalpine and Alpine ........................................................................................................................... 6-2

Effects of groundwater flow on the distribution of flora and fauna .......................................................... 6-3Recharge areas ..................................................................................................................................... 6-3Flow-through areas .............................................................................................................................. 6-5Discharge areas .................................................................................................................................... 6-5

Aquatic and riparian areas ............................................................................................................. 6-7Springs ........................................................................................................................................... 6-7

Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 6-8

Marmot Basin Hydrology StudyWatershed research program ................................................................................................................ 7-1Basin setting ......................................................................................................................................... 7-1Basin geology....................................................................................................................................... 7-2Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 7-2Forestry and forest hydrology .............................................................................................................. 7-3Water balance ....................................................................................................................................... 7-3Groundwater monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 7-3Hydrogeology....................................................................................................................................... 7-4Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 7-5

The Water Resource: Human InteractionsCurrent trends in water useage .................................................................................................................. 8-1Limitations to development ....................................................................................................................... 8-3

Water quantity ...................................................................................................................................... 8-3Water quality ........................................................................................................................................ 8-3Flow variations .................................................................................................................................... 8-3Slope stability ...................................................................................................................................... 8-3

Protecting the water resource .................................................................................................................... 8-4Groundwater contamination ................................................................................................................ 8-4Wellhead protection ............................................................................................................................. 8-5Hydrogeological preserves................................................................................................................... 8-5

Summary and recommendations ................................................................................................................ 8-5

References ..................................................................................................................................................... 9-1

Acknowledgements

AppendicesAppendix A: Hydrogeological MapsAppendix B: Water ChemistryAppendix C: Cross Sections and Well LocationsAppendix D: Hydrogeology of CommunitiesAppendix E: Exploration Hole LogsAppendix F: Alberta Environment Provincial Observation Wells

CD PocketGroundwater DatabaseGroundwater Model (Canmore)Isotope Studies

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Albertax

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Geological formations .............................................................................................................. 2-6

Table 3.1 Total dissolved solids concentrations in groundwater samples ................................................ 3-5Table 3.2 Average concentrations of major ions in groundwater samples ............................................... 3-6Table 3.3 Dominant groundwater types by region .................................................................................... 3-6Table 3.4 Major cations, anions and inorganics in drinking water ......................................................... 3-10Table 3.5 Characteristics of trace elements in water supplies ................................................................ 3-11

Table 4.1 Distribution of springs located in the study area ...................................................................... 4-2Table 4.2 Sample spring types in the study area ....................................................................................... 4-3Table 4.3 Variation in water characteristics in springs of the study area ................................................. 4-4Table 4.4 Variation in total dissolved solids in springs of the study area ................................................. 4-4

Table 7.1 Alberta Environment monitoring wells..................................................................................... 7-4

Table 8.1 Types of water use in Bow Valley and Kananaskis .................................................................. 8-2

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Albertaxii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Coverage and date of previous hydrogeological mapping ...................................................... 1-2Figure 1.2 Locations of exploratory test holes and wells ......................................................................... 1-3Figure 1.3 GPS base stations and ranges .................................................................................................. 1-4

Figure 2.1 Location of Canmore Corridor and Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta, showing municipal boundaries ................................................................................................. 2-1Figure 2.2 Protected areas in the Canmore Corridor and Northwestern Kananaskis Country ................ 2-2Figure 2.3 The three valleys of the study area—Bow, Kananaskis and Spray Lakes—in their geologic setting ........................................................................................................................ 2-4

Figure 3.1 Types of aquifers in the study region ...................................................................................... 3-2Figure 3.2 Comparison of water samples from Bow Valley communities using Scholler and Piper plots ........................................................................................................................ 3-8

Figure 4.1 Distribution of springs in the Canmore Corridor-Kananaskis region ..................................... 4-2

Figure 5.1 Isotope samples at given locations plotted against the Calgary Meteoric Water Line ............ 5-2Figure 5.2 Model line for the study area vs. elevation ............................................................................. 5-3Figure 5.3 Deuterium excess against elevation ........................................................................................ 5-3Figure 5.4 East-west trend in δD values (Bow Valley) ............................................................................ 5-4

Figure 6.1 The three ecoregions of the study area .................................................................................... 6-2Figure 6.2 Generalized plant and animal assemblages for a groundwater recharge zone, Montane ecoregion .................................................................................................................. 6-4Figure 6.3 Generalized plant and animal assemblages for a groundwater recharge and lateral flow area, Subalpine ecoregion ............................................................................................... 6-4Figure 6.4 Generalized plant and animal assemblages for a lateral groundwater flow area, Montane ecoregion .................................................................................................................. 6-5Figure 6.5 Generalized plant and animal assemblages for groundwater discharge areas, Montane ecoregion .................................................................................................................. 6-6Figure 6.6 Generalized plant and animal assemblages for groundwater discharge areas, Subalpine Ecoregion ................................................................................................................ 6-6

Figure 7.1 Aerial view of the Marmot Creek Experimental Basin, looking west .................................... 7-2Figure 7.2 Locations of wells in the Marmot Creek Experimental Basin ................................................ 7-4

Figure 8.1 Surface and groundwater use in the Canmore region over the last two decades .................... 8-1

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta 1-1

The Study

Introduction

The Bow River Valley from Banff to Calgary has beenone of the fastest growing regions of Alberta over thelast twenty years. The Valley is expected to maintainits above-average growth in the foreseeable future asthe vibrant economy of the Calgary area goes hand inhand with local, national and international apprecia-tion of the Alberta Rockies. Growth has been particu-larly strong in the Canmore Corridor—that portionof the Bow Valley between the Stoney Indian Reserveand Banff National Park. The population growth ofthe Banff townsite has, in recent years, been super-seded by the explosive growth of Canmore and itsenvirons, fuelled by limits to urban and recreationaldevelopments within Banff National Park and the in-creasing popularity of Kananaskis Country as a des-tination. The Canmore Corridor will continue to bethe locus of growth in permanent residents; moreo-ver, recreational development will intensify the dailypressures of visitors and temporary residents on theCanmore Corridor and the adjoining northwesternportion of Kananaskis Country. Those pressures willinclude the increasing need for adequate supplies ofquality drinking water, primarily from groundwaterresources.

The purpose of this study was to collect baselinedata and construct a model to provide an assessmentof the groundwater capabilities of the Canmore Cor-ridor and northwestern Kananaskis Country, includ-ing groundwater availability, quality, movement andinteraction with the natural environment. The studywas initiated in 1999 by the Hydrogeology Section ofAlberta Environment under the auspices of the West-ern Economic Partnership Agreement (WEPA), whichis a partnership between Western Economic Diversi-fication Canada and Alberta Environment to supportgroundwater research in Alberta.

Initially, we gathered existing groundwater datafrom the study area and identified deficiencies, bothin the extent of records and in their presentation. Wethen field-verified and improved the existing records,devised a pertinent database and mapping protocol,surveyed the area by air in late winter to detect addi-tional discharge areas, and completed a supplemen-tary drilling program that allowed us to understandgroundwater flow and quality in the region and todevelop a model for Canmore. Detailed methods arepresented in the following sections of this chapter.

Previous work

MappingThe hydrogeology of the region was originallymapped in three sections (Figure 1.1) by the AlbertaResearch Council in the late 1970s as part of a prov-ince-wide initiative. Two maps were published at ascale of 1:250,000, incorporating data from 132 waterwells/springs in the Canmore Corridor for theCalgary-Golden (82-O) map sheet (Ozoray andBarnes, 1977) and 45 water wells/springs in theKananaskis and Spray Lakes Valleys for theKananaskis (82-J) map sheet (Borneuf, 1979). A more-detailed map, specific to the Canmore Corridor, wasproduced at 1:50,000 by Ceroici (1978), who analyzedapproximately 85 water wells or test holes and 47water samples, the same data used by Ozoray andBarnes. A significant number of test holes were drilled,

and a survey of springs was undertaken by the Al-berta Research Council as part of the program. Thoseoriginal studies delineated geology, aquifer bounda-ries, groundwater yields and groundwater quality.

GIC groundwater databaseThe approximate number of groundwater records onfile at Alberta Environment’s Groundwater Informa-tion Centre (GIC) swelled from 175 in the mid 1970sto about 600 by the start of our study in 1999, includ-ing 440 well records and 160 chemical analyses. Thatincrease provided improved coverage of the region’shydrogeology, but also indicated more competition forgroundwater.

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta1-2

OverviewThe thrust of our fieldwork was to identify, describe,accurately locate and catalogue the known wells,springs and test holes of the study area by field-veri-fying records from the GIC and by detecting lost orunrecorded sites. We surveyed 670 groundwater sitesbetween 1999 and 2001. To locate well records thathad been lost, misfiled or had inaccurate or inadequatelocations, and to collect data on wells that had no ex-isting record, we interviewed, door to door, the resi-dents of Harvie Heights, Lac des Arcs, Exshaw andDead Man’s Flats.

We augmented our improved database in threeways: through exploratory drilling in areas whereaquifer extent and properties were still largely un-known, through aerial surveying in late winter to iden-tify springs and regions of groundwater discharge,and through water sampling of major ions, trace met-als and isotopes.

Field-verification of known sitesBetween June 1999 and October 2001, we confirmedthe sites of 670 groundwater data locations, consist-ing of wells, test holes and springs. The sites were ei-ther previously documented in the GIC database, orwere new sites identified by door-to-door survey,through word of mouth or encountered in the field.Field verification began as a door-to-door survey firstin Harvie Heights, moving on to Dead Man’s Flats,Lac des Arcs and finishing in Exshaw. Later, our sur-vey moved to other parts of the Bow Valley andKananaskis. GIC records were used to help identifywells outside of these communities.

The legal land descriptions given in the GIC data-base alone were rarely sufficient to locate sites on theground. Original reports were combed for more site-specific information that could be garnered if avail-able, such as owner’s name and address, age of thewell or a description of it, or lot and plan numbers.The search of the original files extended into Banffbecause several older wells from Harvie Heights hadaddresses reported as Banff. Well owners often gavea permanent residential address, rather than the welladdress, so original owners were contacted by phonewhere possible. Interviews with old-timers over thefence, or sitting down to tea and cookies, helped tomatch addresses to a number of well reports. In situ-

ations where wells were licensed, it was possible toobtain locations described in consulting reports. Door-to-door surveys in Harvie Heights, Dead Man’s Flats,Exshaw and Lac des Arcs also helped to identify manywells never reported to the GIC.

At each well survey site, we determined the posi-tion with our GPS system. We measured the height,material and diameter of casings and whether or notthe well was located in a pit. Water levels were re-corded using a depth sounder when possible, andwater samples were collected at sites where data wereotherwise sparse. Additional details that were soughtfrom residents or determined from examining the wellincluded water quality or quantity, seasonal variationsin flow, age of the well and so forth. We recorded thepresent owner’s name and identified on a map thestreet and plan address and marked the location on amap. Often wells or test holes had been reclaimed,and the position was estimated as closely as possible.

Fieldwork, data compilation and mapping

Figure 1.1 Coverage and date of previoushydrogeological mapping: Kananaskis mapsheet(green), Canmore Corridor (pink), Calgary-Golden(yellow).


At springs, we wrote a description of the springand its surroundings and its interpreted source. Werecorded the GPS position as closely as possible to thesource position and water level. At most springs, weestimated the flow rate and collected water samplesfor routine analysis and isotope analysis.

Supplementary investigationsExploratory drillingTo improve our understanding of the aquifers in thearea, we drilled 21 investigative test holes over thethree field seasons from 1999 to 2001: two located inCanmore, two in Exshaw, one near Lac des Arcs, onein Harvie Heights, one in Dead Man’s Flats, seven inthe region surrounding Seebe, and seven in the SprayLakes Valley (Figure 1.2). Thirteen of the test holeswere completed as wells.

The two wells completed in Canmore, and one eachin Exshaw and Dead Man’s Flats, were drilled to moni-tor a previously undiscovered aquifer that extends toa depth of at least 220 m below the Bow Valley. Thishigh-yielding, high-quality water source was inter-preted to be a western extension of the Calgary Bur-ied Valley Aquifer (see page 3-3 and 3-4).

The well in Harvie Heights was drilled in responseto recent concerns of residents about water levels run-ning low or dry in late winter. We identified two aqui-fer zones and the depth to bedrock, allowing residentsto plan future wells for maximum reliability. The wellwill remain for the monitoring of water levels.

Aerial surveysWe surveyed the study area by air from March 15 to17, 2000, to identify major springs in areas withlimited access. Significant groundwater discharge,particularly ponded areas along the Bow orKananaskis rivers, was identifiable as open areas ofwater in otherwise snow- and ice-covered terrain. Thelocations were estimated on a map, and elevationswere determined from a digital elevation model.

Water quantity, quality and sourcesYieldsWe determined transmissivity using pump test dataand Jacob’s modified non-equilibrium method. Aqui-fer yield was determined using the apparent Q20

method, commonly used in Alberta (Farvolden, 1961;Ozoray, 1977), in which the Q20, or twenty-year-safeyield, is defined as the rate at which a well can bepumped continuously for twenty years without thewater level dropping below the top of the aquifer if itis confined, or below the bottom saturated third ofthickness of an unconfined aquifer.

Water chemistryWe collected water samples at 160 of the 670 surveysites for detailed water quality analyses of major ionsand trace metals. These were combined with 258 ex-isting water quality analyses of major ions taken fromthe GIC database. We classified groundwater chemis-tries into facies types according to dominant ions andcompared them on Piper, Schoeller and Durov plots.We also mapped and contoured concentrations of to-tal dissolved solids (TDS), except in areas such as theSpray Valley, where data were too sparse to contour;iron and nitrates, which tended to be site-specific, weresimply plotted.

Stable isotope analysisThe proportions of 2H to 1H and 18O to 16O in a watersample may often be used to determine the origin ofthe water and its interactions with its surroundingenvironment. Thus, we collected 130 water samplesduring the field-verified survey, mainly from wells and

Figure 1.2 Locations of exploratory test holesand wells.


springs, but also from snow, rain and surface water toexamine these isotopes. Of the samples collected, 86were from the Bow Valley, 27 from the KananaskisValley and 17 from the Spray Lakes Valley. Most weregroundwater, apart from three surface water, one rainand two snow samples from the Bow Valley, six snowsamples from the Kananaskis Valley and one snowsample from the Spray Lakes Valley.

Surveying and mappingSurveyingRecords in the GIC had been assigned legal land de-scriptions within the Dominion Land Survey (DLS)system, usually to the nearest quarter section, andrarely to the nearest Legal Subdivision (LSD) or Sec-tion. However, we devised a new surveying protocolto pinpoint well locations because the old DLS sys-tem was inadequate, particularly for mapping aqui-fers in mountainous terrain. While the system workedwell on the prairies—where the DLS system wascarved onto the landscape as numbered grid roads—in the mountains, no physical references were visible,so the DLS location was often guesswork for drillersand residents when they filled out the forms. Also, inthe mountains, settlement is clustered in the valleys,unlike the farms scattered across the expansive prai-rie; thus, within Harvie Heights, an area of high welldensity, 75 wells in the same quarter section have theidentical DLS reference. Further, a potential locationerror of almost 3/4 mile (1200 m) exists within a quar-ter section, making accurate locations even less reli-able.

Vertically, the DLS was another problem. Whilerelief on the prairies is subdued and wells are rela-tively deep, in the mountains vertical relief within aquarter section can vary up to 300 m and wells arerelatively shallow. Thus, elevations were rarely re-ported on GIC records or were often estimated, withsignificant error, from topographic maps.

We determined positions with an Ashtec Locus geo-graphical positioning system (GPS) capable of record-ing latitude, longitude and elevation to within ten cen-timetres. It required unobstructed sky, so an offset wasmade where wells were located under buildings orwere blocked by structures. GPS base stations werelocated at the Provincial Building in Canmore, theM.D. of Bighorn Administration Building in Exshawand the Emergency Services Centre Helipad inKananaskis (Figure 1.3). With a range of 20 km each,they were placed strategically to cover the 200 km2

area of the Canmore Corridor. Data collected by the

roaming GPS receivers and the nearest base stationwere downloaded daily onto a laptop and processedusing Ashtec Locus software to obtain the positions.Each station’s position was then verified against Al-berta survey benchmarks.

Database managementWe designed a Microsoft Access database to store, man-age and present the existing and new data. Drillingand chemistry records from the GIC database weretransferred electronically, as were chemistry resultsstored in Alberta Environment’s Environmental Man-agement System (EMS). Field-collected informationwas entered manually.

Each of the 850 records was assigned a unique four-digit “WEPA number”, consecutively in the order offield verification. A secondary unique number was the“GIC number”, assigned by the Groundwater Infor-mation Centre to records obtained from their data-base. However, 178 sites were not field-verified, be-cause the location was not specific enough to find thewell or spring, the well had been reclaimed and noone remembered the location, or the owner was una-vailable; they were each assigned a four-digit WEPAnumber beginning with the number 9. If the locationof an unsurveyed site were reasonably known, its lati-tude, longitude and elevation was estimated from air

Figure 1.3 GPS base stations and ranges.


photo data in ESRI ArcView format and a digital el-evation model. The remaining records were assigneda position in the centre of the designated quarter sec-tion. Within each record, data were organized by lo-cation, ownership, well construction details, lithology,chemistry, pump tests and comments.

MappingWe used the information from each record to producemaps featuring bedrock topography, drift thickness,aquifer distribution, groundwater flow, aquifer yieldand groundwater chemistry.

We determined bedrock topography and drift thick-ness with a digital elevation model of the area, andknown depths to bedrock from drilling information.We used lithologies to delineate aquifer extent, andnon-pumping water levels from drilling reports wereused to create a potentiometric map.

Groundwater model for CanmoreTo simulate the natural groundwater balance in theCanmore region, we constructed a three-dimensionalmodel of groundwater flow of the unconsolidatedvalley aquifer for the area surrounding the Town ofCanmore. It was built in Modflow, which is a cell-basedthree-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flowmodel developed by the United States GeologicalSurvey. The version we used was developed by Wa-terloo Hydrogeoloic. It permits planners to simulatethe effects of environmental impacts on thegroundwater system, including the effects of with-drawals on surrounding users, or the potential spreadof a contaminant spill.


Setting

The study area

The study area includes the Canmore Corridor—thatportion of the Bow River Valley between Banff Na-tional Park and the Stoney Indian Reserve—and theadjacent northwestern portion of Kananaskis Coun-try, bounded by Banff National Park, Peter LougheedProvincial Park and Elbow-Sheep Wildland Provin-cial Park. Northwestern Kananaskis Country com-prises two distinct areas: Kananaskis Valley and SprayLakes Valley. Together with the Canmore Corridor,they constitute historical, geological, ecological andculturally distinct regions.

The study area (Figure 2.1) has an irregular bound-ary contained wholly within Townships 21 to 25,Ranges 8 to 11 West of the 5th Meridian under the Do-minion Land Survey System, or between 50o 45’ and51o 10’ North latitude and 115o 00’ and 115o 30’ Westlongitude. It covers portions of the 82O-03 and 82J-14National Topographic System map sheets.

Canmore Corridor(200 km2; 11,400 residents)

The Canmore Corridor is a 25-km stretch of the BowRiver Valley that cuts through the front ranges of theRocky Mountains between Banff National Park andthe Stoney Indian Reserve. It is located within theMunicipal District (M.D.) of Bighorn #8. This corri-dor is a major transportation route, hosting the Trans-

Canada Highway, secondary Highway 1A, the Cana-dian Pacific Railway main line and the Trans-CanadaTrail. Over five million visitors a year pass throughthe Canmore Corridor to Banff National Park.

The Town of Canmore (pop. 10,500) is the popula-tion and service centre of the region, whereas Exshaw(pop. 346) is the industrial and mining hub. Other set-tlements include the hamlets of Lac des Arcs (pop.

178), Harvie Heights (pop. 155), Dead Man’s Flats(pop. 104) and Seebe (pop. 80), and the community ofKananaskis (pop. 15) (Alberta Census, 2000.) (The lat-ter, situated 3 km east of Exshaw, should not be con-fused with the Kananaskis Village resort in theKananaskis Valley.) Census numbers do not includeseasonal residents or visitors.

Figure 2.1 Location ofCanmore Corridor andNorthwestern KananaskisCountry, Alberta, showingmunicipal boundaries.


In the late 1970s, the economies of Canmore andExshaw were still dependent on mining, withCanmore facing imminent closure of its remaining coalmines and an uncertain future. Proposals were putforward to redevelop the Bow Valley as a recreationalarea hosting a series of resort and acreage communi-ties. Kananaskis Country was newly designated, butthe Kananaskis and Spray valleys were still fairly in-accessible and undeveloped. By the year 2000, the re-gion had become a tourist destination. Thepopulations of nearby Banff and Calgary had dou-bled and Canmore’s population had grown six-fold,from 1700 permanent residents in 1977 to 10,500 in2000. That growth has been accentuated by develop-ment restrictions in Banff. Protected areas include theCanmore Nordic Centre Provincial Park, which hostedevents for the 1988 Winter Olympic Games, and por-tions of Bow Valley Wildland Park and Bow ValleyProvincial Park (Figure 2.2).

Kananaskis Valley(345 km2; 125 residents)The Kananaskis Valley between the Stoney IndianReserve and Peter Lougheed Park is traversed byHighway #40. There are no incorporated communi-ties in the valley, the main service centre being theKananaskis Village resort (pop. 117) (Alberta Census,2000). The resort area is home to the Nakiska Ski Hill(which hosted events for the 1988 Winter Olympicgames), the Lodge at Kananaskis, a youth hostel andthe Emergency Services Centre. A gas station and storeare located at Fortress Junction, and The Universityof Calgary operates a field station near Barrier Lake.The valley hosts day-use facilities, campgrounds andguest ranches, so that even though the resident popu-lation is small, over two million visitors come to theKananaskis region each year.

The Kananaskis Valley remained largely undevel-oped forest reserve until 1977, when KananaskisCountry was designated by the Alberta Governmentas a multi-use recreation area. The gravel forestry roadwas then replaced by Highway 40, initiating the rede-velopment of the valley. Most of the region is nowprotected lands, including Evan-Thomas RecreationArea and portions of Bow Valley Wildland Park, SprayValley Provincial Park and Bow Valley Provincial Park.

Flow on the Kananaskis River is controlled byTransAlta Utilities, with dams upstream at theKananaskis Lakes and at Barrier Lake.

Spray Lakes Valley(230 km2; 0 residents)

The Spray Lakes Valley within Kananaskis Countryextends from Whiteman’s Pass, just south of Canmore,to Peter Lougheed Provincial Park. A prominent fea-ture of the valley is a hydroelectric complex operatedby TransAlta Utilities, consisting of the Spray LakesReservoir, Goat Pond Reservoir and a canal systemthat diverts water north through Whiteman’s Pass tothe Bow River. The Spray Lakes Reservoir is the larg-est body of water in the region.

The Spray Lakes Valley is accessed by the Smith-Dorrien Trail, a gravel road that joins Canmore andPeter Lougheed Provincial Park. The area hosts a sea-sonal tourist lodge, a campground and several day-use sites. Most of the valley is protected by Spray Val-ley Provincial Park or portions of Bow Valley WildlandPark.

Together, the Kananaskis and Spray Lakes valleysare within the Kananaskis Improvement District mu-nicipal government.

Figure 2.2 Protected areas in the CanmoreCorridor and Northwestern Kananaskis Country.


Under the Koeppen classification system, Longley(1972) designates the area as a microthermal climatewith short, cool summers. Long-term climate datafrom Environment Canada weather stations at BowValley Provincial Park, Exshaw and in the Kananaskisregion show that the mean annual temperature is near3o C in the Bow Valley and between 1o and 3o C in theKananaskis Valley.

Pacific air masses from the west dominate thehigher elevations, where they provide most of the re-gion’s precipitation as winter snowpack on the moun-tains. The orographic effect on the prevailing wester-lies creates a rainshadow on the leeward sides of theranges. Conversely, eastern continental systems bringrainfall and a weaker reverse orographic effect in sum-mer. Dry Chinook winds from the west and dry inte-rior continental air masses from the east preferentiallysettle in the valley bottoms. North-facing slopes tendto be cool and moist, while exposed south-facingslopes are warmer and drier (Strong, 1992). Summersare short, particularly at higher elevations and onnorth-facing slopes. Climate can vary considerably ina small area, as cold air often drains from higher slopesat night.

Precipitation in the Bow Valley follows a continen-tal pattern and is heaviest in July. It varies from 400 to

550 mm, with potential evapotranspiration in thesame range, making the area marginally semi-arid.The Montane of the Bow Valley receives 20 Chinookdays a year, but at higher elevations this drops to lessthan 15 for Subalpine, and less than 5 for Alpine(O’Leary, 1988). Drying Chinook winds can quicklyremove snow cover from unprotected areas of thevalley bottom, and potential evapotranspiration mayexceed precipitation in June, July and August. Freez-

Climate

ing temperatures occur in all months, but are leastfrequent in July.

The Subalpine and Alpine slopes and peaks receivemore winter precipitation than any other region ofAlberta. Total precipitation has been measured in therange of 650 to 750 mm in the Kananaskis region (En-vironment Canada current data), but may vary con-siderably with site conditions. Storr (1967) reportedprecipitation in the range of 900 to 1140 mm in theupper part of the Marmot Creek Basin in theKananaskis Valley. Between 50 and 75% of precipita-tion falls as snow, the percentage increasing with el-evation. Cold winters and cool summers limitevapotranspiration, estimated at less than 50% of pre-cipitation (Storr, 1967), making the mountains the pri-mary watersheds for the valley and for the prairies tothe east (Alberta Forestry, Lands & Wildlife, 1988).

Topography and drainage

Elevations in the area range from a high of over 3000m above sea level to a low of 1250 m. The highest el-evations are within the Kananaskis Range in the south-ern part of the area; five peaks exceed 3000 m eleva-tion, the highest being Mount Galatea at 3185 m. Thelowest elevations are in the Bow Valley.

The Bow Valley descends from 1320 m near HarvieHeights to 1250 m near Seebe, the lowest point in thestudy area. The Kananaskis Valley is higher, droppingfrom 1600 m near Fortress Junction to 1450 m nearKananaskis Village to 1280 m near the confluence ofthe Kananaskis and Bow Rivers. The Spray Lakes Val-ley is the highest, sloping from 1710 m at the SprayLakes Reservoir to 1650 m near Whiteman’s Pass, justabove Canmore; its lowest elevation is, therefore,higher than the highest elevations in the Kananaskisand Bow valleys.

The western Bow Valley is carved into soft Creta-ceous shale beds of the Mount Allan Syncline, whereit forms an open valley 5 km wide with a broadfloodplain (Figure 2.3). It then turns to the northeastwhere it cuts across the Fairholme Range. At The Gap,the valley narrows to 1.5 km and is flanked by steep,rocky sides. At the eastern end of the corridor, themountains pull back along the McConnell thrust faultand the valley broadens into a 7-km wide plain ad-joining the foothills, underlain by Cretaceous shaleand sandstone. The Bow River starts down-cutting atthis point, until it flows through a bedrock canyon nearSeebe.

The Kananaskis River occupies the KananaskisValley, flowing north from Peter Lougheed Park andnortheast to Seebe, where it joins the Bow River. Thesouth end of the valley tends to be narrow, only 1.5


km wide, flanked by steep mountainsides of Paleozoiclimestone and dolomite of the Rundle and OpalRanges. The valley broadens to 3 km wide from Evan-Thomas Creek to Kananaskis Village and MarmotBasin, where it occupies the Mt. Allan Syncline, be-fore narrowing to 1.5 km as it veers to the northeastacross the Fairholme Range. The Kananaskis River hascut a canyon into Cretaceous bedrock near its conflu-ence with the Bow River at Seebe.

The Spray Lakes Valley is dominated by the SprayLakes Reservoir and is approximately 1.5 km widefor most of its length. At its south end, where it inter-cepts the Borgeau fault and the Smith-Dorrien Valley,it is fairly open, becoming around 3 km wide.

The Canmore Corridor-Kananaskis region lies en-tirely within the Bow River Basin. Both the Kananaskisand Spray Lakes valleys drain northward to the Bow,and the Canmore Corridor is wholly within the val-ley of the Bow River, which itself originates farthernorthwest in Banff National Park. The combineddrainages flow east onto the prairies, where the BowRiver eventually merges with the Oldman River toform the South Saskatchewan River.

The Bow River above Seebe drains an area of 5170km2, although the drainage area of our study areabetween Banff and Seebe is only 2960 km2 (Alberta

Environment, Hydrology Section). The long-termmean monthly discharge of the Bow River at Banffvaries from a low of 7.6 m3/s in March to a high of127 m3/s in June, averaging 40 m3/s over the year(Alberta Environment, 1982). It takes half a day forwater to flow from Banff to Seebe, where the long-term mean monthly discharge varies from a low of19.6 m3/s in March to a high of 245 m3/s in June, av-eraging 79.9 m3/s over the year. At Seebe, the BowRiver is controlled by the Horseshoe Falls andKananaskis dams, each of which has negligible livestorage (storage that can be released by opening thedam).

The Kananaskis River rises in Peter Lougheed Parkand drains 935 km2 before joining the Bow River atSeebe; however, the basin area between Pocaterra inPeter Lougheed Park and Seebe is only 575 km2 (Al-berta Environment, 1982). The long-term meanmonthly discharge at Seebe ranges from a low of 3.4m3/s in January/February to a high of 49.2 m3/s inJune, averaging 15.7 m3/s for the year (Alberta Envi-ronment, 1982). Flow of the Kananaskis River is con-trolled by dams at Pocaterra, forming the KananaskisLakes in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, and at Bar-rier Lake. The Kananaskis Lakes Reservoir was com-pleted in 1936 and has 134,500 acre-feet of live stor-age; the smaller Barrier Reservoir was completed in1947, with 20,000 acre-feet of live storage.

Within the Spray Lakes Valley, natural drainage atthe north end was historically via Goat Creek to Banff;at the south end, drainage was down the Spray Riverto the Bow River at Banff. The Construction of theSpray Lakes Reservoir in 1950 merged the two basins.Through the Reservoir, the valley now has two out-lets: the Spray River flows from the Canyon Dam atthe south end of the reservoir, while the Three SistersDam at the north end diverts water into a canal sys-tem that drains north through Goat Pond, Whiteman’sPond, over Whiteman’s Pass into the Rundle Forebayand from there to the Bow River. At Whiteman’s Pass,the water drops 370 m, generating 142,200 kW of elec-tricity.

The drainage area of the Spray Lakes Reservoir is481 km2, extending beyond the Spray Lakes Valley intoPeter Lougheed Park and Banff National Park. Thisvalley has the lowest flow rates of the three in ourstudy area: long-term mean monthly discharges fromthe Spray Power Diversion at Canmore varies from alow of 7.35 m3/s in October to a high of 15.4 m3/s inJanuary, averaging 11.3 m3/s for the year.

The importance of the region’s contribution to flowin the South Saskatchewan River drainage basin was

Figure 2.3 The three valleys of the study area—Bow, Kananaskis and Spray Lakes—in theirgeologic setting.


recognized by an extensive headwaters study of theMarmot Creek drainage basin near Kananaskis Vil-lage that ran from 1963 to 1986, with an emphasis onthe impact of deforestation on basin yield. Amongtheir findings, researchers reported that precipitation

and snowpack increased with elevation, peak runoffoccurred in May and June, that appreciablegroundwater storage and flow was likely taking place,and that logging resulted in a minor increase in basinyield (Hydrocon, 1985).

Ecological regions

The Bow Valley-Kananaskis region hosts three natu-ral subregions or ecoregions according to ecologicalland classification: Montane, Subalpine and Alpine(see Chapter 6 for more detail). The regions are dis-tinguished by characteristic assemblages of naturalvegetation, climate and, to a lesser degree, soils. Cli-mate and vegetation can vary considerably within anatural subregion; however, temperature and precipi-tation regimes, together with distinct ecological rela-tionships and repeated association of vegetation, dis-tinguish adjoining regions (Strong, 1992).

The Montane natural subregion occupies the val-ley bottom and lower mountain slopes and terracesof the Bow Valley and lower Kananaskis Valley. Itforms a varied mix of grasslands, wetlands and openforests of Douglas fir, aspen, lodgepole pine and whitespruce. It has the mildest and driest climate of the threesubregions. The mixture of open and forested terrain,

mild climate, abundance of shelter and food, com-bined with its accessibility in the valley bottom, causesit to be favoured by wildlife, as well as by humansettlement. The Montane natural subregion is rare inAlberta, constituting less than 1% of the province andoccupying a few mountain valley and foothill loca-tions. It is also the most threatened by development.

The Subalpine natural subregion occupies the midto upper mountain slopes of the Bow Valley and theslopes and bottoms of the upper Kananaskis andSpray Lakes valleys. It is characterized by closedmossy forests of lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruceand subalpine fir, and sometimes grasslands on steepsouth- or west-facing slopes.

The Alpine natural subregion occurs above thesubalpine, where contiguous forest stops and isolatedstands of trees begin. The land shows barren rock orhosts small shrubs, grasses and other small forbs.

Geology

Bedrock geologyThe Rocky Mountains and foothills form the westernmargin of the Alberta sedimentary basin as a belt offolds and thrust faults. The regional section is cut by aseries of overlapping thrust faults, which tend to flat-ten and merge at depth. Local terrain is controlled bybedrock lithology, bedrock structure and faulting, gla-ciation patterns and erosion. Folding and faulting ofstrata, sliced by rugged terrain, expose repeating andbroken sequences of sedimentary strata ranging in agefrom Cambrian to Cretaceous (Table 2.1) (Hamiltonet al., 1997; Ollerenshaw, 1975; Edwards, 1991).

The foothills region, found at the eastern end of theBow Valley, is separated from the front ranges by theMcConnell Thrust Fault. Upper Cretaceous strata areexposed near Seebe. The Kananaskis dam at Seebe isconstructed on gently west-dipping Cardium Forma-tion sandstone and conglomerate. Immediately westof the dam, overlying Wabiabi Formation shales areexcavated by Lafarge at their Seebe pit as a compo-

nent of cement. Cross-bedded sandstones of theChungo member of the Wabiabi formation are quar-ried by Lafarge at the base of Mount Yamnuska.

The Fairholme, Rundle and Goat front ranges areformed of steeply west-dipping strata within theMcConnell thrust sheet (Figure 2.3) and Appendix.The McConnell Thrust fault places Cambrian EldonFormation limestone over top of the Upper Cretaceoussandstone and shale. The fault is a significant land-mark, forming dramatic 100-m cliff faces stretchingacross Mount (Laurie) Yamnuska to Loder Mountain.The Eldon Formation is overlain by the MiddleCambrian Pika Formation and the Upper DevonianFairholme Group. The Fairholme Group is a carbon-ate platform of massive dolomite, which correlates tooil-producing platform and reef formations of theplains. The Exshaw, Lac des Arcs and associated south-west dipping thrust faults overlap to create a repeti-tion of the erosion-resistant Paleozoic carbonate strata


forming the Fairholme Range that transverses the re-gion from Exshaw to the south end of Barrier Lake.

Within the McConnell thrust sheet, weakerMesozoic clastic rocks are exposed on either side ofthe overturned Mount Allan syncline. The synclineoccupies the Bow Valley from Canmore to Dead Man’sFlats and the Evan-Thomas region of the KananaskisValley connected by Wind Valley and Skogan Pass.The clastic deposits that make up the JurassicKootenay Group and the lower part of the BlairmoreGroup occupy the core of the syncline, while the limbs

are made of marine shales and sandstones of theFernie Group. The Kootenay Group, up to 1100 mthick, consists of non-marine sandstones, mudstonesand coal seams with abundant conglomerate beds inits upper part. The Kootenay Group in the zone be-low the Rundle Fault forms the “Cascade Coal Ba-sin” (Dowling, 1907). It hosts as many as 12 seams oflow-volatile bituminous and semi-anthracite coal av-eraging 1.5 m thick or greater. Folding has increasedthe surface area of coal outcrop. An estimated 180 mil-lion tonnes of mineable coal are in place.

Formation Age Lithology

Recent Recent Gravel, sand, silt

Canmore Glaciation Quaternary Till, gravel, sand, silt

Bow Valley Glaciation Till, sand, silt

Pre-Bow Valley Tertiary-Quarternary Gravel, sand, cobbles

Brazeau Upper Cretaceous Sandstone, mudstone, thin coal beds, marine

Alberta Wapiabi Dark grey to black shale, marine

Group Cardium Fine grained sandstone, marine

Blackstone Dark grey to black mudstone andsiltstone (marine)

Blairmore Group Lower Cretaceous Sandstone, mudstone, siltstone andconglomerate

Kootenay Jurassic – Lower Sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, shale,Cretaceous semi-anthracite coal

Fernie Group Brown, grey and black shale

Sulphur Mountain Triassic Siltstone, silty dolostone, silty black shale– Spray River Group

Rocky Mountain Group Permian & Pennsylvanian Hard sandstone

Rundle Etherington Mississippian Sandy dolomite, sandy limestone, green shale

Group Mount Head Limestone, dolomite, chert

Livingstone Fossiliferous limestone

Exshaw & Banff Black or grey shale

Palliser Devonian Dark grey-black limestone (“Rundlestone”)

Alexo Dolomite, siltstone

Fairholme Southesk Light grey limestone, dolomite

Group Cairn Dark grey cherty dolomite; stromatoporoids

Lynx Group Upper Cambrian Sandy limestone and dolomite

Sullivan Grey and brown shale

Waterfowl Middle-Upper Cambrian Dense limestone, dolomite

Arctomys Middle Cambrian Red, green and grey shale

Pika Limestone, dolomite

Eldon Limestone, dolomite—hard and massive

Stephen Grey shale, limestone

Cathedral Limestone—massive, hard

(Hamilton et al., 1998a; Rutter, 1972; Ollerenshaw,1975)

Table 2.1 Geological formations.


Southwest of the Mount Allan syncline, progres-sively older rocks are exposed toward the west in anoverlapping and interfingering fashion. The Rundleand Sulphur Mountain thrust faults run on either sideof the Rundle Range, from Canmore to the Eau Claireregion of the Kananaskis Valley. The Rundle Rangeconsists of a similar assemblage of Paleozoic carbon-ate rocks as is seen in the Fairholme Range. The Rundlethrust, trending from Canmore southeast to PeterLougheed Park sets the Cambrian Pika Formationabove the Jurassic Kootenay Group. The Lewis Thrusttakes shapes as a series of folds on Mount Kidd andMount Lougheed and increases in displacementsouthward, becoming dominant in the Crowsnest Passarea.

Glacial geology and depositionGlaciers in the Bow Valley originated from higher el-evations to the west, moving east down the valley ontothe foothills. Coincident glaciers, originating in thepeaks surrounding Kananaskis Lakes and to the west,migrated north through the Kananaskis and Sprayvalleys, sometimes coalescing with Bow Valley ice.When Kananaskis and Bow Valley ice converged, theheight of the glaciation in the Kananaskis Valley wascontrolled by the height of the more dominant BowValley glacier. Between glaciations, streams carvedtrenches into the bottoms of glaciated valleys, depos-iting alluvium over the valley floor.

Three glacial events of Wisconsin Age (approxi-mately 10,000 years before present) have been recog-nized. The oldest and unnamed glaciation carved thepre-existing topography; subsequent advances oblit-erated any deposits it may have left behind. The firstrecorded deposits come from the Bow Valley advance,which covered the western portion of the CanmoreCorridor as far as Exshaw, and the coincident RockyCreek Glacier, which filled the length of theKananaskis Valley. The ensuing Canmore advanceextended east of the Canmore Corridor into theMorley flats area of the Stoney Reserve (Rutter, 1972).At its Seebe terminus, it coincided with the MountWintour advance of the Kananaskis glacier; at its maxi-mum extent, it coincided with the Limestone Moun-tain advance, which covered the Kananaskis Valleyas far as Barrier Lake (Stalker, 1973; Hawes, 1977).

Bow Valley depositsThe western Bow Valley is characterized by a broadvalley floor with three levels of benchlands on thelower mountain slopes. The benches on the north side

of the valley are well formed and are coarser com-pared to those to the south. They consist of coarse till,probably deposited as moraine and outwash gravelsinterbedded with layers of sand. Locally derivedshale-rich grey-brown till is found in the Wind Valleyregion. Strong erosion with shallow till depositionoccurs in the central corridor crossing the front ranges.Where the corridor opens onto the foothills, outwashdeposits from the Canmore Advance, 15 to 25 m thick,rest on Cretaceous bedrock. The Bow River divergesfrom the valley fill and is incised into bedrock. TheBow River floodplain contains mainly gravel, includ-ing lenses of sand, silt and clay, with aeolian sandsalong the river margin. Colluvium and rubble drapethe lower mountain slopes (Rutter, 1972).

The unconsolidated deposits that fill the bedrockBow Valley extend to a depth of at least 220 m belowthe present valley floor. At Dead Man’s Flats andExshaw, 35 m of recent gravel and sand alluvium over-lie 150 m of clay till containing minor lenses of silt,sand and gravel, and an additional 35 m of fluvialdeposits. The fluvial deposits appear to pre-date theCanmore and Bow Valley advances. In Canmore,sands and gravels extend to a depth of 110 m, followedby 20 m of clay till, 60 m of sand and 20 to 30 m offluvial cobbles and gravel at the base. The basal flu-vial sands and gravels are contained within a channelthat appears to be less than a kilometre wide, whichexisted prior to the Canmore and Bow Valleyglaciations.

Alluvial fans, with a high gravel component, cre-ate long gentle slopes and encroach on the river inseveral locations. The communities of Dead Man’sFlats, Lac des Arcs and Exshaw, and the Cougar Creekdistrict of Canmore, are built on large alluvial fans.

Kananaskis Valley depositsIn the Kananaskis Valley, surficial deposits are thin ordiscontinuous in upland areas, increasing up to 60 min the valleys. No deposits of preglacial age have beenrecognized.

Late glacial ground moraine is found on the southside of Barrier Lake, on terraces along the valley andin the Marmot Creek basin. Outwash is widespreadnorth and east of Barrier Lake. It is mostly coarse,poorly sorted gravel, plus sand and till. Valley fill in-cludes most of the material in the terraces along theStony Creek-Lusk Creek valley near Barrier Lake. Itis generally thick, up to 65 m in places. It consists ofsand, silt and occasionally thin beds of gravel. Glacialstream deposits are found along spillways. As the gla-cier receded south, up the Kananaskis Valley, it left a


mantle of valley train and formed some small eskersand spillways. During the retreat of the LimestoneMountain episode, its terminus stagnated in the Evan-Thomas area, leaving a pitted delta (Hawes, 1977).

Lake deposits are found in the northern end of thevalley, but are only exposed in a few places, such asthe north end of Barrier Lake. The Bow Valley glacia-tion blocked the entrance of the Kananaskis Valleybelow Barrier Lake. At maximum ice height, drain-age was diverted east down the Lusk-Stony Creekvalley at an elevation of 1525 m. As the Bow ValleyGlacier receded, meltwater flowed again down thelower Kananaskis valley, carving out a new base leveland impounding a lake at an elevation of 1400 m.Meltwater from the retreating Bow Valley ice flowedthrough a spillway that hugged the south side of theBow Valley, building a delta at the mouth of theKananaskis Valley. It then joined the Kananaskisdrainage continuing east. When the Bow Valley icefully retreated and normal flow resumed, the rivercut a trench through the lake deposits (Stalker, 1973).

The Kananaskis River has in places down-cut intothe U-shaped valley, but mostly flows in valley filland has formed a well-developed floodplain in theEvan-Thomas region. Stream deposits are importantas alluvium along the floodplain of the KananaskisRiver and as alluvial fans along some of the largertributary streams, particularly Ribbon Creek. Deltaicdeposits occur where the Kananaskis River entersBarrier Lake. Alluvial fans are significant as they en-croach upon the river, forcing it to move or to cutthrough the fans. Talus and colluvium occupy smallareas beneath steep slopes, accumulating angularmaterial weathered off by frost wedging.

Spray Lakes Valley depositsGlaciation in the Spray Lakes Valley is not well docu-mented, but during the Rocky Creek Advance, icefrom the south end of the Spray Valley area filled theSmith-Dorrien Valley in Peter Lougheed Park to anelevation of 2300 m. The Spray Valley is flanked byblankets of eroded morainal till composed of clay andgravel. In places, particularly at the south and westsides of the reservoir, it is covered by a blanket ofcolluvial materials (Jackson, 1987). At a number oflocations, alluvial fans and terraces composed ofgravel encroach on the reservoir. The northern part ofthe valley is filled with alluvial fan deposits.

The Spray Valley hosts the only remaining glacierin the study area: the Old Goat Glacier on the westside of Spray Lakes Reservoir, which occupies about0.5 km2 on Old Goat Mountain.


Groundwater is the primary source of potable waterin the Bow Valley and Kananaskis regions. It is ob-tained almost exclusively from surficial sand andgravel aquifers laid down by glacial and fluvial ac-tion on the lower mountainsides and in the valleybottoms. (Surficial means that the aquifers are foundin surficial deposits that were laid by glaciers, eventhough subsequent deposits may overlie them, mak-ing some surficial aquifers very deep.) Bedrock aqui-fers are accessed only when water from surficial de-posits is insufficient or unavailable, mostly in uplandareas.

Usually, the aquifers are unconfined, meaning thatthey are open to the surface and contain the watertable. Confined aquifers are typically deeper; one ormore layers of low permeability separate them fromthe surface, and the water level in wells tapped intothem will rise above the confining layer.

Surficial aquifers of predominantly gravel andsand, are extensive throughout the valley bottoms andlower mountain slopes. They include moraines, gla-cial terrace gravels, alluvial fans, fluvial and outwashgravels, and preglacial buried valley deposits. Thehigh porosity and permeability of these deposits andthe blanket they form at the surface allows them tointercept large volumes of runoff, which permeate andrecharge the aquifers. Surficial aquifers are the mainhydrogeological unit to interact with atmospheric andsurface waters; their coarse moraines, terrace depos-its and alluvial fans form a network that is the pri-mary conduit that transports water from themountainsides to the outwash plain below, wheresome of it is discharged to feed areas of springs, seeps,rivers and lakes.

Bedrock in the area, consisting of limestone, dolo-mite, shale and tight sandstone, tends to have a lowpermeability, except where it is fractured. Fracturingis related to bedding, weathering and regional tecton-ics, and is highly scale dependent. Small-scale frac-turing may be overprinted by zones of extensive fault-ing and thrusting, and accompanying weathering anddissolution

Bedrock is exposed at high elevations, butdownslope, is overlain by increasingly thick,unconsolidated deposits. The thickest interval of driftidentified by drilling occurs at the centre of the Bow

Valley, where sand, gravel, silt and clay extend to adepth of 220 m along the axis of a preglacial valley,but is typically less than 50 m elsewhere. TheKananaskis and Spray Lakes valleys have shallowerfill, generally extending only to depths in the range of35 to 65 m. Drift cover thins to less than 12 m at thesouth ends of the Kananaskis and Spray Lakes val-leys and at the eastern end of the Bow Valley (SeeChapter 2 for more information about glacial depos-its).

Saturation of the drift is highly dependent upon itsrelative topographic position and on heterogeneitiesin permeability. In recharge areas, the water table islowered by downward flow. Colluvium and scree athigh elevations, and the benchlands in the Canmorearea, often have a low water table caused by partialdrainage. Drainage is accentuated where the depos-its are consistently coarse and permeable with goodvertical exposure and slowed where permeability isheterogeneous or low with limited vertical exposure.Valley bottoms have a consistently high water table,particularly in fluvial sands and gravels adjacent tothe Bow and Kananaskis Rivers. The highestgroundwater yields are typically found in this region,available at depths less than 25 m.

The main aquifers in the region (Figure 3.1) are:Benchlands, Outwash Plain, Alluvial Fan and Valley,Calgary Buried Valley, and Bedrock.

Benchlands AquifersThe benchlands are poorly sorted glacial terrace de-posits of sand, gravel and clay that flank the westernend of the Bow Valley near Canmore. The hamlet ofHarvie Heights, Alpine Resort Haven at Dead Man’sFlats, the Canmore subdivisions of Silver Tip andThree Sisters, and several quarries on Highway 1Aare situated on the benchlands. The coarse, perme-able nature of drift along the south-facing benchlandshas lowered the water table in many places: StoneCreek Properties’ exploratory hole drilled into gravelat the Silver Tip golf course situated on a south-facingbenches overlooking Canmore was dry at 85 m. Thenorth-facing benchlands have a reduced permeabil-ity and are better at retaining water, but tend to bethin and have poor yields. The Stewart Creek golf

Aquifers and Groundwater Chemistry

Aquifers


course in the north-facing Three Sisters developmentfound suitable water only after drilling past thesurficial deposits, which extended to a depth of 21 m,into bedrock to a depth of 90 m.

Harvie Heights has the highest density of wells inthe Bow Valley-Kananaskis region, and is the onlycommunity to extensively access groundwater fromthe benchlands. The surficial geology at HarvieHeights is variable, being a combination of glacialoutwash and alluvial fan deposits of gravel, sand, siltand clay in varying proportions. Boundaries betweenlithologies tend to be indistinct, but aquifers corre-spond to sandier horizons in the poorly sorted mix-ture of gravel, sand and clay.

Two aquifer horizons in the hamlet are separatedby a clay layer. Some wells completed in the shallowerof the two zones experience seasonal fluctuations inwater levels, particularly in drought years. Most resi-dents of the upper hamlet access that aquifer, whereyields are highly variable. The deeper zone has a hy-draulic head close to that of the Bow River, and is morereliable, with yields close to 150 m3/day. Residentsalong Bow River Drive and businesses on HarvieHeights Road access that aquifer.

Outwash Plain AquiferThe outwash plain aquifer covers the Seebe district,including Bow Valley Provincial Park and YamnuskaNatural Area. It consists of unconfined sand, gravelsand clays 12 to 20 m thick that rest on Cretaceous shaleand sandstone. The aquifer sustains a number of per-manent and semi-permanent pothole lakes such asMiddle Lake and Chilver Lake that dot the plain.

Groundwater yields are variable and depend onthe thickness of the drift and distance from the Bowand Kananaskis rivers. Deposits in the Yamnuska areamay be in excess of 35 m at the south-facing foot ofthe mountain, and thick deposits are also thought tooccur in the poorly accessible area below the northface of Barrier Mountain on the opposite side of thevalley. The aquifer thins near the Bow and Kananaskisrivers. Below Many Springs, the Bow River, which hadmeandered on a floodplain of thick alluvial deposits,starts cutting into bedrock. The drift thins to 3 m nearSeebe and is drained by the adjacent canyon of theBow River.

Yields throughout the region are variable, and maybe dry or up 560 m3/day. Because the aquifer isunconfined and is relatively shallow and thin, it isvulnerable to contamination.

Alluvial Fan and Valley AquifersBow River AquiferThe Bow River Aquifer occupies the floodplain of theBow River. It is primarily coarse sands, gravels andcobbles of glaciofluvial and fluvial origin. Theunconfined aquifer extends only to 40 m from DeadMan’s Flats to Exshaw and Kananaskis, but in theCanmore area, it is at least 110 m deep. The water ta-ble is typically within a few metres of surface and mayfluctuate with the river level. The network of streamsthat rises out of gravels in the floodplain suggest thatthe Bow River both contributes to and receives waterfrom the channels through groundwater flow.

Wells drilled into this aquifer are typically shallowbecause high water tables and high yields rarely war-rant drilling beyond 30 m. Early wells in Canmorewere commonly sand points driven below the watertable. Yields may be in excess of 3300 m3/day.

The Bow River Aquifer is encroached upon by al-luvial fans, the largest being Cougar Creek inCanmore, Pigeon Creek in Dead Man’s Flats, Heart

Figure 3.1 Types of aquifers in the study region.


Creek in Lac des Arcs and Exshaw Creek in Exshaw.The water levels are similar to that of the Bow River,the flow being received from the flankingmountainsides, but because these areas are relativelyelevated, the depth to the water table is greater. Yieldsare lower than in the floodplain, in the range of 100 to750 m3/day. The groundwater type varies at each lo-cation, influenced by the source terrain and composi-tion of each alluvial fan.

Kananaskis Valley AquiferThe Kananaskis Valley Aquifer consists of a combina-tion of glacial, fluvial and alluvial fan deposits on thelower mountain slopes and valley bottom; thisunconfined aquifer is up to 50 m thick. Alluvial fansare more prominent than in the Bow Valley, and be-cause the Kananaskis Valley is relatively narrow, fansmay cross the valley or coalesce. Fluvial deposits aremost prominent where the valley broadens in the

Evan-Thomas region. The drift deposits thin at thesouth end of the valley near Fortress Junction and atthe north end of the valley below Barrier Lake.

The major facilities at Kananaskis are serviced fromcentralized wells near the Kananaskis Golf Course.Significant yields are available at shallow depths inthe Kananaskis River floodplain, in the range of 200to 3300 m3/day.

Spray Lakes Valley AquiferSand and gravel deposits 20 to 60 m thick line thebottom of the Spray Lakes Valley. Drift thickness isgreatest in the northern two thirds of the valley. Ourdrilling program encountered a series of coarseningupwards sequences, indicating that the fill was de-rived from coalescing alluvial fans. Unlike theKananaskis and Bow valleys, the Spray Lakes Valleylacks a drainage network capable of laying down flu-vial deposits of any appreciable extent. Drift is thinand clay-rich at the south end of the Spray Lakes Val-ley, with little to no aquifer potential.

Water levels appear to be closely linked to the wa-ter level of the Spray Lakes Reservoir and canal sys-tem. Draining the reservoir will drain adjacent aqui-fers. Water levels are more stable and yields are morereliable at the north end of the valley, where the canalsystem is elevated. Yields are typically up to 200 m3/day; however a yield in excess of 600 m3/day wasencountered at the Goat Creek day use at the north-ern tip of the valley.

Calgary Buried Valley AquiferOur deep investigative drilling revealed a major sandand gravel aquifer in the Bow Valley. The aquifer wasconfirmed at drill sites in Canmore, Dead Man’s Flatsand Exshaw. It is interpreted to be a western exten-sion of the Calgary Buried Valley aquifer, whichtraverses southern Alberta from the Saskatchewanborder west to Calgary. Drilling indicates that the aq-uifer continues up the Bow Valley toward Banff. Wellsgreater than 60 m deep at the Banff gate, the Lafargeproperty in Exshaw, the Graymont Lime property inKananaskis and at Many Springs suggest that the aq-uifer is present in these areas. East of Many Springs,the aquifer is uncharted as is diverges from the BowRiver. Drilling across the Bow Valley east of ManySprings has ruled out a number of locations and indi-cates that the aquifer probably follows a route lateroccupied by a glacial meltwater channel. The melt-water channel hugs the foot of Barrier Mountain, alongthe south sides of Camp Chief Hector and Bow ValleyProvincial Park, continuing east toward Chiniki Lakeon the Stoney Indian Reserve. Much of this area is in-accessible to a water well rig.

The Bow River floodplain.

The Kananaskis Valley Aquifer.


The buried valley, formed from bedrock, is filledprimarily with glacial clay between Dead Man’s Flatsand the community of Kananaskis. Sands and grav-els of the Bow River aquifer extend from surface todepths of 40 m, a clay aquitard extends from 40 m to190 m and a basal aquifer of sand, gravel and boul-ders from 190 to 220 m. At Canmore, the clay aquitardis much thinner, covering an interval from 110 m to132 m. At Many Springs, unconsolidated depositsextend beyond 61 m. The basal gravels at depthsgreater than 190 m exhibit a fining upwards sequenceand appear to be fluvial in nature and predate the BowValley and Canmore glacial advances. The portion ofthe buried valley containing the basal gravels is un-confirmed, but appears to be less than 750 m wide,based on the width of the Bow Valley and several drillsites. The water level rises close to surface at Canmore,Dead Man’s Flats and Exshaw, while conditions areflowing at Many Springs, where the water is some-what diluted by input from the surface aquifer.

Bedrock AquifersBedrock in the region consists of Paleozoic limestone,dolomite and shale, Mesozoic sandstone, shale, coaland conglomerate, and Cretaceous shale and sand-stone. Porosity and permeability are poor forDevonian and Mesozoic strata unless enhanced byfaulting, fracturing or karst solutioning, and thesezones of enhanced permeability are often of limitedextent. Yields are typically low, in the order of a fewlitres per minute or less. Yields from Cretaceous strataare low, but somewhat more reliable.

Few wells are completed in bedrock. Most locationswhere water is required and can be accessed by a drill-ing rig are underlain by sufficient water supplies indrift materials. There is rarely a need to go beyondthe drift aquifer into the bedrock. Extensive areas arenot underlain by a drift aquifer, but these areas aretypically inaccessible mountainsides. A few areas lack-ing drift aquifers access surface water supplies.

The area surrounding Seebe at the eastern end ofthe Bow Valley is underlain by Cretaceous shales and

sandstones of the Alberta Group. The area is disturbedby folding and faulting, but compared to the adjacentfront ranges, the strata are relatively flat lying. Yieldsfrom sandstones in the Alberta Group tend to be lowand inconsistent, although usually present. The deepcanyon of the Bow River at Seebe means that adjacentwells must be deep to avoid being drained by the rivervalley. Seebe currently uses surface water.

Homes in the northern few blocks of Exshaw(Knowlerville) currently use water from ExshawCreek. One of our investigative wells at Knowlervilleencountered yields less than 25 m3/day of poor-qual-ity water from a contact zone between the Palliser For-mation and the Rundle Group at a depth of 37 m.Apart from the contact, the yield from bedrock wasnegligible.

Our well at Heart Creek on the opposite side of thevalley showed yields exceeding 130 m3/day of good-quality water from fractured limestone at a depth of30 m. Heart Creek is situated on the Exshaw ThrustFault, suggesting that positioning of wells along amajor fault line can significantly improve yield.

A domestic well in Bighorn Meadows, north of theBow River and opposite Dead Man’s Flats, encoun-tered yields less than 25 m3/day from dolomite. Thewell is situated in the vicinity of a large spring, prob-ably of karst origin, that flows from fill beside High-way 1A at a rate of exceeding 1000 m3/day. However,the well failed to tap into the spring’s source.

Drift at the south end of Spray Lakes Reservoir isthin and fairly clay-rich. Three test holes at Buller DayUse were dry. An exploration hole at the Mount Sharkparking lot encountered a trickle of water from minorfractures in bedrock. A well completed in limestoneat Mount Engadine Lodge yields 10 m3/day. Im-proved yields possibly exist along the trace of theBourgeau Thrust Fault.

In the Kananaskis Valley, three wells explored bed-rock near Fortress Junction at the time that KananaskisCountry was being developed. Two were dry, and onehad a yield of 25 m3/day from fractured limestone.


We compiled a database of 419 groundwater samplesfor the entire region, including three surface watersamples from the Bow River. Samples that were in-complete or of doubtful quality were removed, with333 samples remaining. We plotted the samples andanalyzed them by basic statistical and graphical meth-ods—as a whole group and broken down by region.

Total dissolved solids, major ionsand groundwater typesThe total dissolved solids concentrations averagemean was 290 mg/L and the average mode was 225mg/L, with the maximum being 1240 and the mini-mum 70 (Table 3.1). In addition to the buried valleyaquifer, three districts had total dissolved solids higherthan the average: the region surrounding Seebe, Lacdes Arcs and Dead Man’s Flats, with Dead Man’s Flats

Groundwater chemistry

Table 3.1 Total dissolved solids concentrations in groundwater samples.

Location Average total Minimum Maximum Standard No. ofdissolved solids Deviation Samples

(mg/L)

All Samples 290 70 1240 151 333

Canmore 245 70 955 159 68

Dead Man’s Flats 660 210 1240 393 13

Exshaw 255 140 380 64 22

Lac des Arcs 390 185 470 68 34

Harvie Heights 255 95 465 60 44

Bow Valley Provincial 335 190 475 69 25Park-Seebe

Many Springs & 350 160 475 85 24Buried Valley Aquifer

Lower Kananaskis Valley 280 170 460 91 9

Upper Kananaskis Valley 225 125 460 69 36

Marmot Creek Basin 270 160 370 70 28

Spray Lakes Valley 190 105 325 58 17

Bow River at Canmore 170 140 205 49 3

significantly higher than average. The Spray Lakes andUpper Kananaskis valleys had the lowest average to-tal dissolved solids for groundwater. Major ions listedin Table 3.2 display a similar trend to total dissolvedsolids.

Groundwater composition and type (Table 3.3) areinfluenced by their geological environment and con-tact time. Limestone and dolomite are contributors ofcalcium, magnesium and bicarbonate. Anhydrite orgypsum beds, sometimes associated with some car-bonate rocks, will contribute sulphate, as will coal.Sodium and chloride tend to be associated with deepbasin strata and are uncommon in the mountain envi-ronment. With increased contact time and distancefrom source, groundwater will increase in total dis-solved solids content. The dominant ions will shiftfrom calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate towardsulphate, sodium and chloride.


Table 3.2 Average concentrations of major ions in groundwater samples (mg/L).

Location Ca Mg Na HCO3 SO4 Cl Fe NO3

All Samples 64 21 10 221 67 7.6 1.3 0.5

Canmore 54 18 14 197 56 2.3 1.2 0.11

Dead Man’s Flats 128 40 26 229 275 36 1.0 0.58

Exshaw 63 19 4.5 210 50 4.1 1.0 1.9

Lac des Arcs 86 29 4.2 178 173 6.4 0.3 0.3

Harvie Heights 61 22 8.8 246 23 15 0.7 0.8

Bow Valley Provincial 70 24 25 345 25 11 1.1 1.1Park-Seebe

Many Springs & 70 24 3.5 192 100 5.6 0.1 0.09Buried Valley Aquifer

Lower Kananaskis Valley 64 29 7.9 297 16 4.6 0.8 0.54

Upper Kananaskis Valley 54 17 6.7 207 38 5.9 0.9 0.44

Marmot Creek Basin 53 20 0.7 257 19 7.1 5.5 0.03

Spray Lakes Valley 56 17 1.6 162 47 1.1 0.4 0.22

Bow River at Canmore 43 14 1.6 145 42 1.5 0.08 0.08

elevation Bow Valley and, in particular, the CalgaryBuried Valley aquifer are further from rechargesources and tend to have relatively elevated total dis-solved solids. A number of local variations are noted.

Calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sulphate typewater is characteristic for most of the region. Areascloser to the recharge source, such as the Spray LakesValley and Upper Kananaskis Valley tend to havelower than average total dissolved solids. The lower

Table 3.3 Dominant groundwater types by region.

Location Primary SecondaryGroundwater Type Groundwater Type

Canmore Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 Ca-Mg-HCO3

Dead Man’s Flats Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 Ca-Mg-SO4-HCO3

Exshaw Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 Ca-Mg-HCO3

Lac des Arcs Ca-Mg-SO4-HCO3 Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4

Harvie Heights Ca-Mg-HCO3 None

Bow Valley Provincial Ca-Mg-HCO3 NonePark-Seebe

Many Springs & Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 NoneBuried Valley Aquifer

Lower Kananaskis Valley Ca-Mg-HCO3 Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4

Upper Kananaskis Valley Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 Ca-Mg-HCO3

Marmot Creek Basin Ca-Mg-HCO3 None

Spray Lakes Valley Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 Ca-Mg-HCO3

Bow River at Canmore Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 None


The Marmot Creek Basin and Harvie Heights areboth located on mountainside recharge areas that tendto be flushed of salts, resulting in the calcium-magne-sium-bicarbonate groundwater type and low total dis-solved solids. The lower Kananaskis Valley and Seebedistrict are located east of the McConnell Thrust sheet.These regions tend to have a higher total dissolvedsolids associated with calcium-magnesium-bicarbo-nate water type. The combination is likely a result ofa lack of sulphate in the local Cretaceous strata and arelatively slow groundwater velocity over the rela-tively flat lying outwash plain.

Exshaw and Lac des Arcs are built on alluvial fanson opposite sides of the Bow River, but have distinctgroundwater types. The higher total dissolved solidsconcentrations and dominance of sulphate over bicar-bonate in Lac des Arcs may be attributed to the allu-vial fan source terrains. Lac des Arcs is built on thealluvial fan deposited by Heart Creek, which flowsover the Palliser Formation, while Exshaw Creek flowsacross the Etherington Formation. The EtheringtonFormation consists mainly of dolomite with lesseramounts of limestone and chert. The Palliser Forma-tion is a black limestone, with anhydrite and dolo-mite beds at its base. Anhydrite would represent asignificant source of sulphate. Similarly, high sulphatecontent is also noted in a well near the Baymag site,west of Exshaw and several springs east of DeadMan’s Flats underlain by the Palliser Formation.

Dead Man’s Flats has anomalous and fairly incon-sistent groundwater chemistry and a relatively lownumber of samples compared to the rest of the region.Total dissolved solids and sulphate concentrations arehigher than anywhere else in the region. A number ofsprings issuing from deep bedrock sources are foundin the area; they may be causing some of the varia-tions. A second factor may be the local geology. DeadMan’s Flats is built on the alluvial fan deposited byPigeon Creek. Pigeon Creek and its tributaries drainthe Wind Valley, which is the largest drainage area ofany of the local tributaries to the Bow River. Thestreams flow across Mesozoic strata of the clasticKootenay, Fernie and Sulphur Mountain Formations,including various sulphate-rich coal-bearing horizons.These may contribute additional ions to thegroundwater composition.

Relative composition of groundwater—Piper and Schoeller plots

Water samples from wells and springs in our data-base were compared on Piper plots (Figure 3.2). Mostsamples cluster around the composition of Bow Riverwater. The plots show that the relative proportionsbetween calcium and magnesium alone are fairly con-sistent, around 60% calcium and 40% magnesium. Theproportion of sodium is less than 20% compared tocalcium plus magnesium. The proportions of anionscan be attributed to the dolomite and limestone bed-rock that underlies much of the region. For anions,the proportions between bicarbonate and sulphatealone for most samples fall in a range of 40 to 100%bicarbonate, 0 to 40% sulphate. Chloride accounts forless than 10% of the cations versus sulphate plus bi-carbonate, with the exception of scattered samples inCanmore, Dead Man’s Flats, Seebe, Harvie Heightsand Kananaskis. In Harvie Heights, chloride may ac-count for up to 40% of cations. (Appendix, Figure 3.2)

On Schoeller plots (Figure 3.2), most groundwatersamples exhibit a similar chemistry to that of the BowRiver, although the Bow River water is relatively lessconcentrated compared to most groundwater sam-ples. This pattern is repeated throughout the BowValley-Kananaskis region. Samples from the SprayLakes Valley, Lac des Arcs and Many Springs showthe greatest degree of uniformity amongst themselves.Samples from Dead Man’s Flats are the most diverse.

Magnesium, calcium and bicarbonate vary in asmall range throughout the region, with deviationsoccurring at Dead Man’s Flats and Tim Horton Ranchin the lower Kananaskis Valley. Variations in sulphatetend to be greatest in Canmore, Dead Man’s Flats,Marmot Creek Basin and Spray Lakes Valley; they arelikely caused by natural contributions of sulphatefrom bedrock. At Tim Horton Ranch, deviations fromthe trend may be tied to the Ranch’s unique geologi-cal situation above the Cretaceous Blackstone Forma-tion in the easternmost point of the area.


Figure 3.2 Comparison of water samples from Bow Valley communities using Schoeller and Piper plots. Coloured lines and symbols represent groundwater. Black lines and crosses are Bow River water.


A second group of variations consists of elevatedsodium and chloride seen in Harvie Heights, Exshaw,Bow Valley Provincial Park and the Kananaskis Val-ley. The elevated sodium and chloride are likely ofanthropogenic origin, derived from septic fields orroad salt. Septic fields effective at removing micro-organisms are less effective at removing inorganic saltsand nitrates. Nitrates occur in varied concentrationsthroughout the region. Monitoring wells in the vicin-ity of the Kananaskis water treatment plant site ex-hibit relatively elevated sodium and chloride. An ex-ample of groundwater deterioration was noted atWillow Rock Spring, located below campground fa-cilities in Bow Valley Provincial Park. In 1976, prior tothe development of the campground, sampling re-ported trace sodium and 2 mg/L chloride. Nitrate wasnot tested. A sample taken from the spring in 1999reported 49 mg/L sodium, 66 mg/L chloride and 1.5mg/L nitrate. Sodium, chloride and nitrate from theCalgary Buried Valley aquifer appear at lower con-centrations than near-surface aquifers in the region,probably because the aquifer is relatively isolated fromthe surface.

Drinking water qualityWater quality for the region is good. The Guidelines forCanadian Drinking Water Quality (2001) identifies themaximum allowable concentrations (MAC) and aes-thetic objectives (AO) for various constituents includ-ing the major ions and trace metals tested in this study

(Tables 3.4 and 3.5). All major cations and anions werewithin these objectives for all samples. A small numberof samples exceeded the AO of 500 mg/L for total dis-solved solids, but these were mostly springs and ascattering of wells in the Dead Man’s Flats area. TheAO of 500 mg/L is rarely met in most of rural Albertawell water supplies, where 1000 mg/L is commonlyconsidered acceptable.

Iron concentrations exceeding the AO were notuncommon, but were fairly isolated and were specificto individual wells. High iron was typically associ-ated with sporadically used wells with iron casing orwhere iron-reducing bacteria were present. Springstypically reported low iron concentrations. Fluoridewas within MAC of 1.5 mg/L for all samples and wasless than 0.7 mg/L for most samples. All samples re-ported far below the MAC of 45 mg/L for Nitrate,and nearly all samples reported less than 1 mg/L.

Mercury and Arsenic were mostly undetectable andwere within the MAC (0.001 mg/L Hg, 0.025 mg/LAs) for all samples. Lead was within the MAC of 0.01mg/L and was near detection limits for nearly all sam-ples. A small number of sites reported anomalous lead,but were related to rarely used hand pumps; nonewere domestic water supply.

Additional metals tested were Al, Ag, Ba, Be, B, Cd,Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Mo, Ni, P, Sb, Se, Si, Sr, Th, Sn, Ti, U,V, Zn and Zr. Many are essential nutrients. Few haveguidelines associated with them and generally ap-peared in trace amounts if they were detected at all.


Major Cations Aesthetic Objective Effectsmg/L

Calcium 200 Hard water; essential nutritional elementMagnesium 150 Hard water; laxative effect; nutritional element

Potassium -

Sodium 200 May raise blood pressure

Iron 0.3 poor taste, red staining of laundry and fixtures

Manganese 0.05 poor taste, black staining of laundry and fixtures

Major Anions Aesthetic Objective Effectsmg/L

Bicarbonate 700 Hard water

Carbonate -

Chloride 250 corrosive

Fluoride 1.5 maximum Essential nutrient; excess can cause dental fluorosis

Hydroxide -

Nitrate 45 maximum* “blue baby” syndrome in infants

Sulphate 500 Laxative effect

*equivalent to 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen

Misc. Inorganics Aesthetic Objective Effects

Turbidity 8 TU Affects taste, odour

Conductivity 1500 mS/cm Indicator of Total Dissolved Solids

pH 6.5 to 8.5 <6.5, corrosion of pipes; >8.5. scaling of pipes

Alkalinity 500 mg/L Scaling of pipes; excessive soap consumption

Hardness 500 mg/L Scaling of pipes; excessive soap consumption

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L* Affects taste

*1000 mg/L is widely accepted as the limit in Alberta, 1500 mg/L as the limit in Saskatchewan

Table 3.4 Major cations, anions and inorganics in drinking water.


Trace Canadian Aesthetic USA – EPA Potential Health EffectsElement Maximum Objective Maximum

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Aluminum 0.2 Linked with Alzheimer’s disease

Antimony 0.006 Affects blood cholesterol and glucose levels

Arsenic 0.025 0.05 Carcinogenic; damage to skin and circulatorysystem

Barium 1.0 2.0 Increased blood pressure

Beryllium 0.004 Intestinal lesions

Boron 5 Affects central nervous system

Cadmium 0.005 0.005 Essential nutritional element; excess may causekidney damage

Chromium 0.05 0.1 Essential nutritional element; excess exposuremay lead to allergic dermatitis

Cobalt In vitamin B12

Copper 1.0 1.3 Essential nutritional element; kidney damage inprolonged excess exposure

Iron 0.3 Essential nutritional element. In large quantitiesimparts bad taste to water, stains laundry andfixtures.

Lead 0.010 0.015 Cumulative general poison

Lithium No guideline; readily flushed from body

Manganese 0.05 0.05 Essential nutritional element; In large quantitiesimpart bad taste to water, stains laundry andfixtures.

Mercury 0.001 0.002 Cumulative general poison

Molybdenum Essential nutritional element

Nickel Essential nutritional element

Phosphorus Essential nutritional element

Potassium Essential nutritional element

Selenium 0.01 0.05 Essential nutritional element. excess causes hairloss, numbness of extremities and circulationproblems.

Silicon Essential nutritional element

Silver 0.10 Non-essential nutritional element; toxic inextreme doses

Sodium 200 Essential nutritional element; large amounts canraise blood pressure.

Strontium No guideline; rare

Sulphur No guideline; common in foods

Thallium 0.002 Hair loss, kidney, blood, intestine and liverproblems.

Tin Essential nutritional element

Titanium No guideline; rare

Uranium 0.1 Kidney damage

Vanadium Essential nutritional element

Zinc 5.0 5.0 Essential nutritional element; imparts bad tasteto water.

Zirconium No guideline; rare

Table 3.5 Characteristics of trace elements in water supplies.


Springs

Introduction

Areas of natural groundwater discharge or springs aredistributed throughout the Bow Valley-Kananaskisregion. Springs have played an important role in thecultural development of the region since the discov-ery of the Banff Hot Springs in 1883. In 1885, Cana-da’s first National Park was established to protect anarea of 10 square miles around the springs and ex-panded to 260 square miles in 1886. In 1902, the fed-eral government extended Banff National Park to coverthe entire Bow Valley-Kananaskis region, which re-mained a part of Banff Park until 1930, when that por-tion was ceded to provincial jurisdiction.

Springs have been tapped for domestic water sup-plies at Harvie Heights, Canmore, the community ofKananaskis, the Kananaskis Guest Ranch and the Uni-versity of Calgary Kananaskis Field Station. The ManySprings complex in Bow Valley Provincial Park wasstudied extensively around 1980 to determine its suit-ability as a water supply for a fish hatchery, which wasnever built. Many Springs and others, such as theWatridge Karst Spring, are now appreciated as uniquenatural entities.

Springs are areas of concentrated groundwater dis-charge. Their occurrence is a function of gravity-drivengroundwater flow systems interacting with topogra-phy and the geological framework. Springs are foundin relatively low-lying areas, such as depressions orwhere there is a break in slope. Discharge may be con-centrated by a geological feature, such as a fault frac-ture, a bedding conduit, or a low-permeability barrieror permeable lens caused by a facies change that dis-torts the gravity-driven flow field, directing water tothe surface.

Contact springs occur at the boundary between twolayers of geological materials with contrastingpermeabilities, such as sand over clay or sandstoneover shale. Karst springs occur in carbonate rocks,where conduits have been enhanced by dissolution ofthe rock along fractures. Thrust faults provide conduitsfor deep groundwater to reach the surface. For exam-ple, the Banff Hot Springs are situated on the Sulphur

Mountain Thrust Fault, and the Canmore SulphurSpring on the Rundle Fault.

The volume of water a spring discharges dependson the permeability of the source material, the hydrau-lic gradient and the amount of water available fromrecharge. In mountainous terrain, surface runoff ishighly seasonal. Much of the water entering the Bow,Kananaskis and Spray rivers and their tributaries en-ters as baseflow or interflow through highly perme-able overburden. Seasonal interflow, which is a sig-nificant component of drainage in the mountains, cancontribute to variations in spring discharge, whichmay come from shallow and deep sources. Springson sloping ground tend to have visible points of dis-charge; however, in rolling or flat-lying terrain, thesprings often emerge below a body of surface water.Point-source high flow rates are often associated withfracture porosity. Springs in the Bow Valley-Kananaskis area can vary from small seepages to flowsin excess of 1000 L/min.

In the mountains, beaver ponds invariably indicategroundwater discharge. Whereas surface runoff canfluctuate considerably, drying up ponds or flushingout dams, springs provide a consistent source of water.The moist ground surrounding springs also favoursthe type of woody vegetation that beavers feed on,and the discharge often provides open water through-out the winter. Some of the larger beaver ponds in theregion may cover several hectares, and old dams maybe overgrown with vegetation and remain long afterthe beavers have departed. Examples include SteelBrothers Pond, opposite the community ofKananaskis, and the large pond adjacent to theYamnuska Marl Spring.

Subaqueous springs—those that discharge from be-neath a body of water—are visible in winter as openwater or ice mounds. They occur at Grotto Pond, GapLake and, occasionally, the southwest margins of Lacdes Arcs.


9000 L/min at Many Springs. Relatively high-volume,perennial springs are associated with faulting of lime-stone and dolomite strata where the Fairholme Rangecrosses the Bow Valley (e.g., Railside Spring and otherunnamed springs at the base of Pigeon and Grottomountains) or stratigraphic changes, such as ManySprings. In the western part of the valley, springs that

We documented 75 springs—40 in the Bow Valley, 26in the Kananaskis Valley and 9 in the Spray LakesValley (Figure 4.1). Twenty-seven were originallylisted in the GIC database—almost all of them (23)originally identified by the Alberta Research Councilas part of their mapping program in the 1970s. Weidentified 21 during aerial surveys and verified 27 dur-ing ground reconnaissance (Table 4.1).

The preponderance of springs along the Bow Rivercorridor is due to its geological and cultural situation.The Bow Valley has a lower elevation, greater topo-graphic relief and more aquifer-forming glacial de-posits than do either the Kananaskis or Spray LakesValleys; consequently, it probably has better develop-ment of groundwater flow systems and greater vol-umes of discharge. Further, the longer history of set-tlement and greater access in the Bow Valley has meantthat springs were more likely to be visited, docu-mented or used as a water source.

In a region this large, with limited access, the iden-tification and inclusion of springs into a data set be-comes a subjective experience. Springs have a largerange in flow volumes and may occasionally be sea-sonal, or influenced by development. Discharge maybe diffuse or focused, or may be submerged belowlakes, such as Grassi Lakes and Gap Lake, or evenbeaver ponds. Generally, springs that are identifiedon the ground have a flow rate of 10 to 50 L/min, areclose to a cultural feature and may be ponded. Largerflows become increasingly uncommon, but are moreprominent. Sometimes, significantly large volumes ofgroundwater are discharged, but over a broad-enoughareas as to not be recognized as springs.

Flows in the Bow Valley varied from less than 4 L/min for springs in Bow Valley Provincial Park to about

Table 4.1 Distribution of springs located in the study area.

Location Total Previously New Sites Located by AirIdentified (Ground only

in GIC Verified) (March 2000)

All 75 27 27 21

Bow Valley 40 22 15 3

Kananaskis Valley 26 3 6 17

Spray Lakes Valley 9 2 6 1

Figure 4.1 Distribution of springs in the CanmoreCorridor-Kananaskis region (blue and orangestriangles). Springs named and designated with areversed orange triangle are described further inthis chapter.

Distribution and flow


commonly issue from glacial materials tend to havesmaller discharge rates, or occur as diffuse baseflow.Seepage and baseflow tend to occur in valley bottomsor slopes where the geological material has relativelylow matrix porosity.

Fewer springs were observed in the Kananaskis Val-ley. We noted 13 springs discharging from glacial grav-els along the margins of the Kananaskis River in thearea between Fortress and Marmot Basin, during ouraerial survey of the region in March 2000. Poor accessprecluded our ground-verifying most of them. Flowwas sufficient to create ponding of open water in latewinter, close to the river. Other springs observed dur-ing the survey were mostly associated with beaverdams at Boundary Ranch, Tim Horton Ranch, and nearMount Lorette Ponds.

Small springs were reported in the Marmot Creekexperimental basin as part of that study, but none hadflow rates above a few litres per minute (Stevenson,1967); the highest elevation springs of significant dis-charge were identified by our survey in the RibbonLake cirque at an elevation of 2110 m, 700 m higherthan the Kananaskis Valley.

Few springs of any significant discharge were docu-mented in the Spray Lakes Valley. Surface drainage ispoorly developed on the valley slopes, and most of

the drainage into the valley bottom appears to begroundwater fed, probably occurring as seepage be-neath the reservoir. There is a fairly extensive springand wetland area from Spray Lakes Reservoir to GoatPond Reservoir. A number of small spring-fed creekswere noted at the south end of the Spray Lakes Reser-voir, which is traversed by the Bourgeau Thrust. TheWatridge Karst Spring is the largest spring in the val-ley, with a discharge of about 2400 L/min (page 4-10).

The types of springs (Table 4.2) vary, and the rea-sons for their occurrence may not always be obvious,or may be a combination of factors. Topographicsprings—those occurring in relatively low-lying ar-eas or breaks in slope that cut below the water table,such as Spring Creek—are relatively commonthroughout the region. Contact springs are moreprominent along the river in the Bow Valley Provin-cial Park to Seebe area, where the drift-bedrock con-tact is relatively shallow. Stratigraphic springs are cre-ated by permeability variation within strata, whichmay not be apparent at surface, or as obvious as con-tact springs. In Alberta, thrust-fault springs are gener-ally restricted to the mountains, where faulting andfracturing are common; they are sometimes enhancedby karst solutioning of limestone.

Table 4.2 Sample spring types in the study area.

FlowName Locality Type of Spring Rate TDS Significance

(L/min)

Many Springs Bow Valley stratigraphic >9000 350 Warm; uniqueProv. Park natural area

Willow Rock Bow Valley contact 45 675 Supports forest in aProv. Park grassland environment;

changing chemistry

Watridge Karst Spray Valley karst 2400 150 Supports old-growthProv. Park forest

POW Kananaskis topographic 60 350 Historical and culturalField Station

Grassi Lakes Canmore topographic 600 250 Recreation

Canmore Sulphur Canmore thrust fault 9 1050 Warm sulphur spring

Spring Creek Canmore topographic 1500 175 Trout spawning habitat


Most springs in the region are calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type. Those with higher discharge tendto be calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sulphate type,including Many Springs and springs from the BuriedValley Aquifer (Table 4.3), and a number of springsassociated with Devonian carbonate bedrock. TheCanmore sulphur spring is an exception to the normin the area, with calcium-magnesium-sulphate-bicar-bonate water.

Total dissolved solids in the springs averaged 325mg/L. The Bow Valley, excluding Many Springs,

showed the greatest variation, from a minimum of95 mg/L to a high of 1240 mg/L (Table 4.4).

Mineral deposition associated with springs is fairlyminor in most of the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region,although spring water is usually more mineralizedthan surface water. Deposition usually consists of fineprecipitates of calcium carbonate in streambeds oras coatings on rocks near the discharge point. For ex-ample, fairly heavy deposits of calcareous tufa coatthe bedrock in the series of springs below GrassiLakes. At the Yamnuska Marl Spring, the calcium

Water chemistry of springs

Table 4.3 Variation in water characteristics in springs of the study area.

Flow Total Chemical Type Temperature MaximumRate Dissolved at surface Temperature

(L/min) Solids (mg/L) oC at Depth* oC

Many Springs >9000 350 Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 7 to 11 13

Buried Valley >2000 320 Ca-Mg-HCO3-SO4 Unknown Unknownat Exshaw

Canmore 9 900-1100 Ca-Mg-SO4-HCO3 12 28Sulphur Spring

Three Sisters 9 Unknown Unknown Unknown UnknownSulphur Spring

Pigeon Mountain 150 1240 Ca-Mg-SO4 7 to 10 UnknownSpring

*(Grasby, 2001)

Table 4.4 Variation in total dissolved solids (mg/L) in springs of the study area.

Location min max ave no. of min TDS max TDSTDS TDS mg/L samples spring spring

mg/L mg/L

All Springs 105 1240 325 80 Buller Pond Pigeon Mountain

Bow Valley, incl. 125 1240 385 55 Kananaskis Pigeon MountainMany Springs Community

Kananaskis Valley 170 275 205 10 Barrier Fortress Junction

Spray Lakes Valley 105 205 165 10 Buller Pond Goat Pond South

Many Springs 160 475 355 24 Main Pool 9A

Bow Valley, excl. 95 1240 410 31 Kananaskis Pigeon MountainMany Springs Community


Bow ValleyMany Springs (SW-30-24-08 W5)The Many Springs complex is a series of springs en-circling a fen, located just south of the Bow River atthe west end of Bow Valley Provincial Park, wherethe McConnell Thrust Fault crosses the Bow River. Al-though thirty springs have been identified in the area,most of the flow comes from three major springs onthe south side of the fen, where water gathers into acentral stream that flows north to a tributary channelof the Bow River. Minor springs are found along thelength of the stream and the tributary channel, whichare about 1.5 m above the level of the Bow River.

The springs and surrounding aquifer were exten-sively investigated between 1979 and 1981 byMonenco Consultants Limited (1980a, 1980b, 1980c)and by Hydrogeological Consultants Limited (1981)for a study commissioned by Alberta Fish and Wild-life, which was investigating possible sites inKananaskis Country for a fish hatchery. The study in-volved the drilling of eight monitoring wells and threepiezometers, as well as pump testing, temperature andflow rate measurements, and chemistry analyses.Drilling revealed that the springs occur above a north-west-trending bedrock valley several hundred metreswide, filled with sand and gravel deposits in excess of60 m deep. Northeast of the fen, bedrock is encoun-tered at depths of approximately 18 m.

Traditionally, the source of Many Springs has beenascribed to deeply circulating waters in fractured bedrock associated with the McConnell Thrust Fault, amodel similar to that used to describe Banff HotSprings. However, our investigative drilling between1999 and 2001 at Canmore, Exshaw and Dead Man’sFlats identified a regional buried valley aquifer(Calgary Buried Valley) that must extend beneathMany Springs. The bedrock valley is filled with sand,clay and gravel—to a depth of at least 220 m belowthe present floor of the Bow Valley—that demonstrates

Outlet stream at Many Springs. The McConnellThrust Fault is visible as the base of the (yellow)cliff.

a high yield at Exshaw. This provides a more plausi-ble source of the springs: it is doubtful that fractureporosity alone along the McConnell Thrust Faultcould support the magnitude of flow produced atMany Springs, whereas the buried valley easily coulddo so. Also, water chemistry and flow rates are com-parable between Many Springs, situated in the valleybottom, and the buried valley aquifer (Table 4.3), butnot between Many Springs and the other warmsprings, which are found on mountainsides.

Beneath Exshaw and Dead Man’s Flats, the buriedvalley aquifer is contained beneath a 150-m thick con-fining layer of clay. At Many Springs, the confininglayer that separates the aquifer from the surface aq-uifer must be thin, breached or nonexistent to createa conduit for the water to reach the surface. The con-duit is probably in some manner related to theMcConnell Thrust Fault.

Discharge from the springs was measured using av-notch weir, which recorded flows as low as 3860 L/min in winter to highs of 8340 L/min in summer.Pump test data revealed that the surrounding aqui-fer is non-leaky artesian with a Transmissivity of

carbonate replaces moss growing in the fen area, pet-rifying the material and taking on its form.

Sulphur deposition is rare and tends to be fairlyminor. It is associated with deeply circulating watersalong thrust faults in the presence of sulphur-reduc-ing bacteria. Sulphur deposition was most prevalentat the Canmore Sulphur Spring and at springs nearThree Sisters Creek and Pigeon Mountain.

Significant springs of the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region

vey, few springs were observed that had significantiron precipitation, although iron occasionally ap-peared as an iridescent film on water, most often inmarshy seepage areas. Iron was noticeably lower thanin wells, averaging 0.15 mg/L for springs, comparedto 1.5 mg/L for all data, suggesting that iron in wellwater is from anthropogenic sources, probably rustycasing.


to favour specialized fen vegetation. Many Springs ishome to a variety of orchids, including round-leavedorchid and yellow lady’s slipper orchid, and otherwetland plants, including elephant head and an in-sect-eating butterwort. Aquatic isopods, Salmasellussteganothrix, are found under the rocks at the springs.These tiny, sightless arthropods are found in only afew other places in western Canada; they live in com-plete darkness, scavenging on plant debris in a worldbuffered from the climate by the steady temperatureof the springs (Daffern, 1994).

Bow Valley Provincial Park Lake Complex(Secs 21, 22, 27, 28, 29 – 24-08 W5)Much of Bow Valley Provincial Park is underlain bycoarse gravel and sand outwash deposits, 12 to 18 mthick, lying on top of low-permeability shale bedrock.The plain is dotted with a number of permanent lakeswith no inlet or outlet, the largest being Chilver Lake.These lakes are closely connected to the groundwaterin the surrounding drift, which flows north from Bar-rier Mountain toward the Bow River. Where theoutwash plain approaches the Kananaskis River,springs emerge, and the terrain changes abruptly fromdry grassland to dense forest of spruce, poplar, wil-low and various shade-tolerant, moisture-loving spe-cies. In contrast to Many Springs at the western endof Bow Valley Provincial Park, these springs are notmineralized and do not support the same variety offlora and fauna. They do, however, provide criticalhabitat for salamanders, which benefit from the ab-sence of river-going predators in these isolated waterbodies.

Willow Rock Spring, located in the Willow RockCampground, emerges from gravel at a flow rate of

Iron deposition from springs is common in Alberta,but appears to be rare in the mountains. In our sur-16,000 m2/day and Storativity of 0.0001. The long-term yield (Q20) was calculated to be in excess of 9000L/min (13,000 m3/day) (Monenco, 1980b), a dischargethat is twice as high as might be expected for the ba-sin area. Hydrogeological Consultants (1981) calcu-lated that 40% of the discharge from the Many Springsoccurs as underflow to the Bow River via the aquifer.

Groundwater temperatures recorded in springsand wells at Many Springs were mostly between 6.4o

and 7.9o C, and were consistently between 7.0o and7.9o C at depths greater than 20 m (HydrogeologicalConsultants Limited, 1981). Grasby and Hutcheon(2001) reported a temperature high of 11.6o C at onespring. Across the Bow River opposite Many Springs,the spring-fed Steel Brothers Pond, a fen below thecommunity of Kananaskis, recorded a temperature

near 7o C. Cooler temperatures near 5o C were foundto be typical of outlying wells.

The main discharge from Many Springs is fromdeep, warm groundwater. It mixes in varying amountsin the aquifer with cooler water recently rechargedinto near-surface sands and gravels surrounding theaquifer. Temperature variations in samples taken fromshallow wells were attributed to the mixing of cooler,near-surface waters with warmer deeply sourcedwater. Isotopic data (Hydrogeological ConsultantsLimited 1981; Grasby and Hutcheon, 2001) indicatethat the spring water has a meteoric origin, but isheated by deep circulation, which may be related tothe McConnell Thrust Fault.

Water samples from the fen area are calcium-mag-nesium-bicarbonate-sulphate type. Total dissolvedsolids concentrations average 350 mg/L. Many

Springs water samples are moderately high in sodium,chloride and sulphate compared to Bow River water.

All of the original monitoring wells and two of thethree piezometers drilled for Alberta Fish and Wild-life remain. One of these wells has been incorporatedinto the Alberta Environment groundwater monitor-ing network as Observation Well #364 “ManySprings”. It is 40.6 cm in diameter and 29.56 m deep,and has been monitored since 1987. Long-term waterlevels have remained steady at this well, fluctuating30 cm on average, with a maximum variation of 80cm (Appendix F.) The yearly level peaks around thethird week of June and then starts a steady decline forthe remainder of the year, with the lowest level beingrecorded at the end of March.

Salts that accumulate on the mud flat of the fenprovide a lick for wildlife and raise the pH of the area

“Boiling” sediment caused by concentrateddischarge—main pool, Many Springs.


30 to 45 L/min and a temperature of 2o C. A smallpool is formed at the outlet of the spring, which formsa stream that drains north into the Kananaskis River.Poplar and willow are the dominant vegetation.

Willow Rock water quality appears to have beenaffected by the adjacent campground development.A 1976 water sample reported a water type of magne-sium-calcium bicarbonate with a total dissolved sol-ids concentration of 200 mg/L. In 1999, the water wasreported as calcium-magnesium-sodium-bicarbonate;the total dissolved solids concentration had increasedto 675 mg/L, and nitrate, although not tested in 1976,was 1.5 mg/L—far above typical background levelsof less than 0.3 mg/L. (The background was done byrunning a histogram on results.)

Illahee Spring rises from a slope of sand and graveloverlying shale bedrock, about 5 m below the plain,immediately north of Rafter Six Ranch. It flows at arate 30 L/min and has a temperature of 7o C. It formsa stream that drains northeast toward the KananaskisRiver. The spring is surrounded by mossy spruce for-est, with bush willows around the spring. The wateris calcium-magnesium bicarbonate type with totaldissolved solids of 350 mg/L.

Yamnuska Marl Spring (NE-06-25-08 W5)Yamnuska Marl Spring is located in the outwash plainbelow Mount Yamnuska, discharging onto an areaknow locally as “The Great Fen”. It arises from a ridgein the gravely surficial deposits as a series of smallsprings that span about 50 m in length, flowing downthe embankment into the fen. Calcareous tufa depos-its are common amongst the moss. Discharge was dif-ficult to estimate because of a lack of a point source

and because the runoff quickly disappears into themoss and sedges of the fen. On the opposite side ofthe ridge, which is about 20 m wide, a beaver pondover a hectare in area, may arise from similar springs.The pond drains into swampy forest. The water is cal-

cium-magnesium-bicarbonate type with a total dis-solved solids concentration of 400 mg/L.

Railside Spring (NW-18-24-10 W5)The Railside Spring issues from coarse fill beneathHighway 1A, just below Bighorn Meadows on GrottoMountain. The spring likely rises from faulting or karstsources in Devonian carbonate bedrock. It occurs be-low Rat’s Nest Cave on Grotto Mountain. It flows year-round at a rate exceeding 1800 L/min, forming astream that enters the Bow River. Calcium carbonatedeposition occurs on rocks lining the streambed, and

Middle Lake, Bow Valley Provincial Park, is typical of the many spring-fed lakes that have no visible inlet oroutlet.

Tufa deposits (lower left) are common among themoss at the Yamnuska Marl Spring.


algae forms thick growths on the stream bottom.Railside is fairly typical of a number of springs thatoccur where the Fairholme Range crosses the BowValley. The Railside spring is calcium-magnesium-bi-

carbonate-sulphate type water, having a total dis-solved solids concentration of 250 mg/L.Bow Flats (S ½ 27-24-10 W5)The Bow Flats is an area of seepage and springs lo-cated in the floodplain of the Bow River east ofCanmore between Highways 1 and 1A. Groundwaterdischarges into the northern-most meander of the BowRiver, known as Bill Griffiths Creek, which begins asa series of shallow ponds near the junction of High-ways 1 and 1A. Rather than having a concentrateddischarge point, groundwater flows from seepagesalong the northern bank of the creek, which joins theBow River about 4 km downstream. Discharge maybe partly underground flow from the adjacent allu-vial fan of Cougar Creek and from the extensive de-posits of sand and gravel within the Bow Riverfloodplain. Groundwater discharge as baseflow intothe stream has been estimated at a rate of approxi-mately 500 to 60,000 L/min per km of streambed, withtotal discharge of the stream being in the range of150,000 to 240,000 L/min (Monenco, 1980c).

Water chemistry is similar to that of the Bow Riverwater, suggesting that a significant portion of flowarises from bed flow in the highly permeable BowRiver alluvium. Total dissolved solids concentrationsare approximately 200 mg/L of calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sulphate type water.

Bill Griffiths Creek and nearby stream channels fedby groundwater seepage constitute the most impor-tant trout spawning area on the Bow River. The streamtemperatures average 5o C in winter, compared to 1.5o

C for the Bow River. While the Bow River is often tur-bid from surface run-off, Bill Griffiths and nearbycreeks provide the clear water that is favoured byspawning trout.

Grassi Lakes (SE-25-24-11 W5)Grassi Lakes are two, small, azure-blue lakes locatedjust below Whiteman’s Pass, south of Canmore. Whilethe lakes might appear to be seepage from theWhiteman’s Pond reservoir at the top of the Pass, theyexisted long before the construction of the reservoirin 1948 as part of the Spray Lakes diversion. The lakesare fed from the bottom, which is covered in a thickgreen layer of algae. The surrounding cliffs areDevonian Cairn Formation, part of the FairholmeGroup. The formation is made of cherty dolomite,with abundant foul-smelling organic material, andStromatoporoid beds with Amphipora and corals. Thecliff on the west side is part of a massive reef com-plex, with large vugs in the rock where thestromatoporoids have weathered away. The reef com-plex is popular with rock climbers, who are fond ofthe pitted but very solid cliff face. The reef is also vis-ited by geologists, who compare the reef to theDevonian oil reservoir rock found on the plains. Ironi-cally, seepage in the area comes from the thinly bed-

Beaver pond adjacent to Yamnuska Marl Spring.Beavers favour springs for siting their dams.

Spring Creek in Canmore emerges from theextensive floodplain deposits of the Bow Valley. Itis favoured by spawning trout.


ded members of the formation to the east and northof the cliff face.

The trail below Grassi Lakes drops down steepmountain slopes past laminated siltstones anddolomites of the Devonian Alexo Formation, mostlyobscured by trees and surficial deposits. Numeroussprings issue from the base of the deposits that forma thin cover on the forest floor. The springs are foundalong a considerable length of trail, which they cross,depositing a layer of tufa where they flow. The mag-nitude of the combined outflow of the springs exceeds600 L/min. The streams eventually gather and flowinto the Rundle Forebay.

The water is calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sul-phate type with a total dissolved solids concentrationof 250 mg/L.Canmore Sulphur Spring (SE-31-24-10 W5)The Canmore Sulphur spring is located to the east ofthe Rundle Forebay in the drainage basin of CanmoreCreek. It overlies the Rundle Thrust Fault. The springemerges from talus, and the fault is not visible at thesurface. Where the fault is exposed at the base of Cas-cade Mountain, Devonian dolomite of the SoutheskFormation forms the hanging wall, overlying Triassicshale, siltstone and sandstone of the Spray RiverGroup. There is a metre-wide zone of enhanced per-meability along the fault (Grasby, 2001). Dischargefrom the spring is less than 9 L/min, and the tem-perature is 6o to 12o C (Van Everdingen, 1972, Grasby,2001). Grasby and Hutcheon (1999) estimated a maxi-mum temperature of 28o C at the base of circulationin the Rundle Thrust, an elevation of 1200 m.

The smell of H2S is minor because of a low sulphurconcentration (0.4 mg/L) and low discharge rate. Thespring flows at a constant rate year-round. It forms asmall sulphur-lined pool just below the RundleForebay. The upper reaches of much of the CanmoreCreek bed exhibit minor tufa and sulphur precipita-tion and algal growth. The sulphur is thought to origi-nate from coal seams in the Kootenay Formation.

The chemical composition is similar to sulphursprings near Banff. Its total dissolved solids contentis 1050 mg/L, significantly higher than most springsin the area, indicating a longer than usual contact time.The water type is calcium-magnesium-sulphate-bicar-bonate.

In the 1920s during a mine strike, Lawrence Grassi,a prominent Canmore resident, organized the build-ing of a swimming pool using log cribbing aroundthe spring. It never officially opened to the public,because of concerns of local health officials, who de-clared it unsanitary. It was condemned and eventu-ally the cribbing rotted away (Appleby, 1975).

Fern Forest, Harvie Heights (NE-18-25-10 W5)The “Fern Forest” in Harvie Heights is situated in BowValley Wildland Park. It is not an actual spring, butan area of diffuse groundwater discharge located ona relatively low-lying area on a glacial bench aboveHarvie Heights. Groundwater discharge in the formof nutrient-rich seepage has permitted old-growthspruce and fir forest. The moist, heavily shaded for-est floor is thickly blanketed with a monoculture ofhorsetail (Equisetum) that has a soft fern-like quality.

Lower Grassi Lake, showing the green algae layer.

Falls and springs below Grassi Lakes.


Spray Lakes ValleySpurling Spring (11-22-23-10 W5)Spurling Spring is located on the east side of the SprayLakes Reservoir, about 50 m east of the Smith-DorrienTrail. The spring flows from a mossy bank of coarseglacial deposits, eventually discharging into SpurlingCreek, which has a discharge in excess of 9 L/min.The warm (3.5oC) spring water has raised the humid-

Luxurious growths of moss surround the warmwater at the outlet of the Spurling Spring in theSpray Lakes Valley.

ity and moderated the temperatures of the area, cre-ating a favourable microclimate for the thick spruceforest and luxurious growths of moss that follow thechannel for a distance below the spring. The total dis-solved solids concentration is 240 mg/L, and water iscalcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sulphate type.

Watridge Karst Spring (NW-02-22-11 W5)The Watridge Karst Spring is located on the north slopeof Mount Shark at an elevation of 1855 m above sealevel. It flows into Watridge creek and then the SprayLakes Reservoir. Discharge is in excess of 2400 L/min.The water originates from an undetermined karst sys-tem on Mount Shark, flowing out of a crevice in thelimestone to form a creek that cascades down themountain. The high humidity and ample moisturesupply on this sheltered north-facing slope has cre-ated ideal conditions for old-growth spruce forest. Thewater is calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sulphatetype with a total dissolved solids concentration of 150mg/L .

Kananaskis ValleyPOW Spring (SE-10-24-08 W5)The Prisoner of War (POW) spring at the Universityof Calgary Kananaskis Field Station is used as a wa-ter supply for the institution. The spring arises in ahollow on the lower slopes of Mount Baldy. A seriesof forested mossy ravines collect water that eventu-ally emerges as small streams that collect into a pool.The spring is not significant in terms of discharge,which is around 60 L/min, or other distinguishingcharacteristics apart from its utilization. During WorldWar II, the field station was a prisoner-of-war campfor German and Canadian internees. They constructedwooden flumes to the two main branches of the spring.The flumes run through a culvert into a treatmenthouse at the base of the slope.

The water is calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type,with a total dissolved solids concentration of 350 mg/L.

Evan-Thomas Spring (NE-26-22-09 W5)This substantial spring is located in the KananaskisRiver Valley about 0.5 km north of the Evan-ThomasCreek division structure. Flow was estimated at about7200 L/min in 1979 (Monenco 1980c). The spring ap-pears to be either the re-emergence of Evan-ThomasCreek or groundwater discharge along an old streamchannel.

The slow seepage of this spring in Harvie Heightsresults in an old-growth forest of spruce and firwith a carpet of horsetail, otherwise known as the“fern” forest.


Isotope Analysis

Between 1999 and 2001, we collected 130 water sam-ples from springs, wells, precipitation and surfacewater in the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region for iso-topic analysis. Analyses were performed by StephenTaylor at the University of Calgary Stable IsotopeLaboratory. Charles Yonge, Ph.D. (Alberta Karst Con-sulting) and Stephen Grasby, Ph.D. (Geological Sur-vey of Canada) interpreted the isotope results overthree field seasons (Yonge, 2000; Yonge, 2001; Grasby,2002), using different methods of analysis. The follow-ing summarizes the content of their three reports.

Theory behind the samplingTheoretical basis of the analysis of the samples oxy-gen and hydrogen, the elements that make up water,both occur naturally as different stable isotopes whoseabsolute abundance are commonly taken as that ofStandard Mean Ocean Water (SMOW). For hydrogen,1H accounts for 99.985% of stable hydrogen, and 2H(or deuterium, also expressed as D) for 0.015%. Foroxygen, 16O accounts for 99.756%, 17O for 0.39%, and18O for 0.205%, of oxygen isotopes. To study a watersample, the absolute abundances of its isotopes arefound experimentally and these are then expressedas a relative abundance, R, which is the ratio of theheavy isotope to the light isotope. Deviations in therelative abundance of a sample, (Rsample), from that ofSMOW, (Rstandard), may be caused by physical or chemi-cal processes that favour one isotope over another.Such deviations are too small to measure accurately,so instead are reported as positive or negativedevations, δ, from a standard value, where

δ = R sample - R standard X 1000 = [

R sample ]- 1 X 1000 R standard R standard

The unit per-mil (‰) represents the deviation fromthe standard, and R is the isotopic ratio.

As water evaporates from the ocean and movesthrough the atmosphere, the vapour is depleted ofheavier isotopes, which are preferentially removedthrough condensation and precipitation as the moistair masses move inland from the coast, particularly

where the air masses are forced into higher and colderelevations over mountain ranges. (This preferentialremoval of heavier isotopes is known as the Rayleighdistillation process or “rainout”.) Cooler temperaturesaccentuate fractionation, causing snow to be moredepleted in 2H and 18O than rain. Each time the waterinteracts with its environment or changes phase, itundergoes more fractionation, removing it fartherfrom its original SMOW composition.

When the δ2H (D) and δ18O content of rainwatersampled from around the world are plotted againsteach other, they form a straight line known as the glo-bal meteoric (atmospheric) water line (GMWL), whichhas an equation of δD = 8δ18O + 10, expressed as permil (‰) (Craig, 1961). Regional meteoric water linesare usually developed for individual regions, in whichdeviations from the GMWL result from physical orchemical processes other than Raleigh distillation ef-fects; for example, high-temperature processes, suchas evaporation or exchange with rock minerals, favour18O and plot beneath the GMWL. Conversely, sam-ples altered by low-temperature processes, such ascondensation, CO2 exchange, hydration of silicates andH2S exchange, favour 2H and plot above the GMWL.Thus, snow samples tend to plot above the GMWL,whereas rainfall lies below it if affected by warmevaporative conditions (Yonge and Krause, in prep).

The stable isotopes in precipitation also vary on aregional scale as a function of elevation (Gat, 1980;Rozanski et al., 1993). δD in particular decreases withincreasing elevation, resulting from lower tempera-ture, rainout and rainshadow effects.

Groundwater originates as infiltration of precipi-tation, which travels in the subsurface. A comparisonof δD values versus elevation for groundwater sam-ple collection points and the δD versus elevation trendfor precipitation may indicate the source elevation andthe general extent of the groundwater flow system. Inthe Rockies, precipitation increases considerably withaltitude, but is dispersed over a smaller area than atlower elevations, resulting in a mean elevation thattends toward an average between the sample eleva-tion and maximum elevation.

Groundwater sampling program


Regional meteoric water lineThe regional meteoric line for Calgary (CMWL)(Yonge, unpublished data) is:

δD = 8.14 δ18O + 8

The groundwater data for our study area plot closeto the CMWL (Figure 5.1) within a normal scatter forglobal data of 3‰ for 18O and 2‰ for 2H.

A linear regression of the 1999 and 2000 data (ex-cluding two anomalous samples) in the Bow Valley-Kananaskis Country, including precipitation, gave:

δD = 6.01 δ18O - 31.6, r2 = 0.827or

δD = 6.68 δ18O - 17.7, r2= 0.840

Basing the slope on Raleigh distillation, Yonge ad-justed the slope of the groundwater data to 8, similarto the CMWL. His final equation for the local mete-oric water line was:

δD = 8.00 δ18O + 8.65, r2=0.736

For all 1999 to 2001 groundwater data, the regres-sion obtained by Grasby was:

δD = 4.8 δ18O – 54, r2=0.53(which clusters around the CMWL).

The low slope is similar to one defined for the BowRiver (Grasby, 1997); it indicates evaporation. Snowhad consistently lower and rainfall consistently higherδ18O values than groundwater. Groundwater valuesplotted between those of rainfall and snow, suggest-ing that both contribute to groundwater recharge.

The Rayleigh distillation process was observed withδD and, to a lesser degree, δ18O values increasing to-ward the east in the Bow Valley and toward the Northin the Kananaskis Valley. The increasing distance fromthe Pacific origins of the air masses together with de-creasing elevation accounts for this, but the altitudinaleffect strongly predominates over rainout.

Grasby proposed interpreting the groundwaterdata in terms of separate best-fit lines for precipita-tion and for groundwater. While precipitation may befresh, the waters that recharge groundwater may havebeen altered by the evapotranspiration of precipita-tion and the evaporation or sublimation of snowpacks, which would cause the best-fit line to have alower slope than the CMWL.

Altitudinal variations in δ valuesSamples came primarily from wells and springs, al-though a limited number of snow, rainfall and sur-face water samples were collected. Most of thegroundwater samples were collected from the valleybottoms, which represent areas of regional discharge.A significant number of precipitation samples col-lected at a variety of locations and altitudes through-out the year are required to effectively determine theδD relationships to altitude specific to the Bow Val-ley-Kananaskis region; however, weather, timing andaccess considerations prevented collection of such asuite during the course of our study. The limitednumber and variety of rain, snow and surface watersamples that were collected were insufficient to cor-relate to the groundwater samples.

Isotopic analysis of groundwater in the Bow region

Figure 5.1 Isotope samples at given locationsplotted against the Calgary Meteoric Water Line.


In the absence of sufficient local precipitation data,Yonge generated a model relationship based on stud-ies by Yurtsever and Gat (1981), Razanski and Sonntag(1982), and Lawrence et al. (1982). The intercept wasdetermined in accordance with the Pacific Coast atthe study latitude (Yonge et al., 1989) and the gradi-ent of –25 m ‰ for δD used for other locations in west-ern North America (Rozanski et al., 1993; Sharp et al.,1960; Rozanski and Sonntag, 1982). The δD demon-strates a decrease with increasing elevation caused bythe temperature effect and adiabatic lapse rate.

Yonge noted that the model line (Figure 5.2) fallson the upper edge of the data collection as expected,indicating that the groundwater was derived fromhigher source elevations. The separation of data fromthe model line for Kananaskis Country is smaller andmore scattered than the consistent linear trend formedby samples from the Bow Valley. The samples fromthe Kananaskis region form a slope that is lower, butmostly parallel to, the model slope, while the BowValley sample group has an almost flat slope.Kananaskis sites appear to receive their water closeto their actual altitude.

Meteoric processes were the dominant factor de-termining δD and δ18O values in the region. Samplesfrom the Bow Valley are recharged from the adjacentRundle and Fairholme Ranges. The δD versus eleva-tion relationship for samples from the Bow Valley

slopes gradually eastward, reflecting the progressivelowering of the basin elevation toward the east.

Samples collected in the Canmore area indicate amean groundwater elevation of around 1800 m.Springs at the base of Grotto Mountain near the Gaphad a calculated mean close to 1730 m. The water fromMany Springs in Bow Valley Provincial Park isisotopically depleted compared to other sites in thevicinity, indicating a more distant source. It plots closeto samples collected in the vicinity of Canmore andhas a calculated elevation of 1760 m. Sulphur springsamples from Mt. Rundle and Mount Lawrence Grassinear Canmore suggest a mean groundwater sourceelevation of around 1970 m.

A plot illustrating D-excess (Figure 5.3) indicatesthat samples from higher elevations conform more tothe GMWL at a D-excess of 10. This may suggest thatmodifying processes have influenced samples less athigher elevations, where they are closer to source el-evations, but further data are needed to test this hy-pothesis.

Grasby did not develop a model line for the region,noting an anomalous δD versus elevation profile forsnow pack in Banff from recent unpublished work(Grasby and Lepitzki, in review). Until sufficient de-tailed sampling of precipitation at various elevationsis done throughout the region to establish a local pro-file, he doubted that a meaningful relationship couldbe proposed at this time.

Grasby noted that the range in δD values along thevalley bottom (1300 to 1400 m elevation) is in the rangeof –120 to –170‰, which exceeds the range of valuesfor higher elevations (1400 to 1900 m) of –140 to –160‰.Since the range of δD values for the valley bottom

Figure 5.2 Model line for the study area vs.elevation.

Figure 5.3 Deuterium excess against elevation.


was greater than the range of the elevation profile, nostatistically meaningful relationship could be ex-tracted on a broad scale amongst the samples them-selves.

Spatial variations in δ valuesδ values, particularly for deuterium, may developspatial relationships caused by the dominance anddirection of a particular weather pattern. Two weathersystems affect the region. Dominant westerlies origi-nating from the Pacific Ocean provide winter snow-fall at higher altitudes. Weaker easterlies from the Gulfof Mexico provide summer rainfall, mostly at lowerelevations, thereby diminishing the rainshadow on theeastern slopes that is effect seen in winter (Yonge, 1989;Grasby, 1997). As the easterlies are derived fromwarmer latitudes, they tend to have a higher bulk sta-ble isotope composition at their point of origin thanthe westerlies. Bulk stable isotope compositions de-crease progressively inland as a result of fractionation,primarily from rainout and orographic effects.

Yonge noted that the dominant weather systemstrack from southwest to northeast over the RockyMountains, preferentially moving up valleys that aresomewhat aligned to regional systems. Depletionscaused by falling elevations and rainout will occuralong such valleys. The overall slope δD/distance east-ward is about 0.45‰ per km or 0.32‰ for SW to NE.This is twice as high as reported gradients for the frontranges and foothills (Yonge et al., 1989). The highergradient is caused by the dominating effect of drop-ping altitude of sites eastward more than that ofrainout. Positive slopes of δD /distance in the AlbertaRockies have been interpreted as being caused by themixing of Pacific air masses with continental weathersystems originating from the east (Yonge and Krause,in prep).

In both the Kananaskis and Bow Valleys, a linearcorrelation was observable, the Bow Valley having lessscatter than Kananaskis. The best correlation coeffi-cients were obtained in the W-E direction for the BowValley (r2=0.52) and S-N for the Kananaskis Valley (r2=0.57).

Grasby plotted the δD values by easting and north-ing. He noted a progressive increase in δD from westto east (Figure 5.4), but he interpreted no correlationas being significant in the north-south direction. TheBow Valley exhibited a trend of 0.5‰/km, and theKananaskis region 0.3‰/km, with correlation coef-ficients of 0.43 and 0.30, respectively. Variation oftenoccurred amongst samples that were collected from

the same vicinity, such as Harvie Heights, indicatingother factors at play, such as seasonal differences.

Seasonal changes in δDCorrelations were not very clear, but on average, thesnowmelt expresses itself in the aquifers at the end ofApril. Summer precipitation with the highest dD val-ues is found around the end of September.

General sample characteristics bylocationWithin individual regions, the groundwater data werefairly homogenous, and meaningful differences werenot seen between the data. Some general characteris-tics were noted:

Harvie Heights and Canmore groundwater was re-charged from the adjacent mountain range.

At Lac des Arcs, Exshaw and Dead Man’s Flats,groundwater was recharged from the adjacent moun-tain ranges, rather than Bow River Sources.

Most springs in Bow Valley Provincial Park werederived from local sources, except for Many Springs,which had a higher, more distant source.

Most springs and wells in Kananaskis indicateddistant sources, while in the Spray Valley, the sourceelevation was relatively close to collection level.

An anomalous sample with D-excess from the OldCamp spring at the base of the south-facing gravelbenchlands appeared to be modified by evaporation.

Figure 5.4 East-west trend in δD values (BowValley).


An anomalous sample from a spring below theKananaskis Dam at Seebe was likely affected by infil-trating water from the Bow River.

ConclusionsSamples clustered around the local meteoric waterline, with a low slope suggesting the samples had beenaffected by evapotranspiration. The elevation ofgroundwater recharge is the strongest influence onisotopic values.

An east-west spatial variability is related to themovement of weather systems down the mountainvalley.

Recharge to the groundwater systems occurs asprecipitation on the adjacent mountain ranges. Occa-sionally, deep springs, such as Many Springs or theCanmore sulphur spring, have more distant sources.There were not enough precipitation samples to ad-equately interpret the recharge elevation.


Groundwater as an Ecological Resource

Groundwater interactions with the environment

The Bow Valley-Kananaskis region is recognizedprimarily for its diversity of natural environmentswithin a limited geographical area; that diversity iscreated by extreme variations in topography, climateand weather (including Chinook winds), altitude, so-lar radiation, slope, aspect and groundwater. Resi-dents, visitors, businesses, institutions and industriesshare this rugged terrain and variable climate withmyriad wildlife and plant communities.

Groundwater, as an essential component of thehydrologic cycle, sustains the multitude of uses in thearea. Similar to surface flow, groundwater flow di-vides at mountain ridges and converges at valley bot-toms. In the process, it modifies the extremes of cli-mate and imprints a variety of moisture and nutrientregimes on the landscape, which, in turn, support avariety of vegetation zones and faunal habitats.

Changes to groundwater flow systems may occurthrough various land uses that alter land surface char-acteristics. Mining may change flow boundary condi-tions by altering surface topography. Groundwaterwithdrawals will alter adjacent flow fields. Vegeta-tive removal, such as forestry or urbanization in up-lands may change recharge characteristics, while re-moval of phreatophytic vegetation in the dischargezone may reduce evapotranspiration, or alter the pro-tective influence of the riparian zone on river mar-gins.

As it flows through the subsurface, groundwaterinteracts with its physical, chemical, biological andhydrologic surroundings. It loses water to the atmos-phere through capillary action, transpiration by plantsand evaporation near the land surface, and it gainswater through infiltration of precipitation and runoff.As well, it gains and loses as it exchanges water withstreams, lakes or wetlands along the way.

In recharge areas, where the water table is low, de-scending cold waters depress thermal gradients, in-creasing temperature and moisture stresses on veg-

etation. Conversely, in discharge areas, a high watertable and ascending warm waters moderate stresseson root zones, and open water occurs on otherwisefrozen streams, lakes and ponds.

Salts and nutrients are leached from high elevationsand transported by groundwater to lowlands, wherethey are concentrated near springs and seeps. Thegreatest benefit occurs in otherwise deficient, coarse-grained media, where the constant supply of mois-ture, nutrients and trace elements enhances the growthof vegetation and the development of soil profiles(Klijn and Witte, 1999; Tóth, 1966). In particular, phos-phorus and nitrogen enhance plant growth, while pre-cipitation of salts favours certain plant species andharms others.

Certain plant species or communities depend onthe specialized habitats produced and maintained bygroundwater flow (Klijn and Witte, 1999). Within aclimate zone, most plants can tolerate a range of mois-ture, nutrient and temperature conditions; howeverhow a plant fares at a site depends on its particulartolerances, and competition from more aggressivespecies. Groundwater modifies the physical andchemical environment and influences the vegetativeassociations in recharge, discharge and flow-throughareas; it is the associations of species, more than anyindividual species that reflects a groundwater regime(Tóth, 1972, Leskiw, 1971).

Land mammals depend on the distribution of veg-etative cover for shelter from the elements and to hidefrom predators. Aquatic fauna dependent on dis-solved nutrients, organic matter, moderated tempera-tures and terrestrial fauna seeking particular habitatsas a food source or for cover will colonize or habitu-ate areas where these are readily available. Some ar-eas may be seasonally significant or even critical formigratory species.


Ecoregions are areas characterized by distinctive re-gional climate, expressed by repeated vegetation as-sociations. There are three ecoregions within the BowValley-Kananaskis area: Montane, Subalpine and Al-pine.

MontaneUnlike other ecoregions of Alberta, which form ma-jor contiguous landscapes, the Montane occurs as en-claves in the valley bottoms and lower mountainslopes of major mountain passes that allow warmPacific air to descend and flow through the valleys.Wedged between the Subalpine and Alpine, it coversless than 1% of Alberta. In the Bow Valley-Kananaskisarea, this ecoregion is primarily found in the east-westtrending Bow Valley, with minor extensions into thoseparts of Wind Valley and Kananaskis Valley that abutthe Bow (Figure 6.1).

The Montane is the warmest and driest ecoregionin the mountains. In winter, its valleys are bufferedfrom the effects of arctic continental air masses, and

are periodically warmed by Chinook winds. Annualprecipitation varies from 400 to 550 mm, with poten-tial evapotranspiration in the same range, causing theregion to be marginally semiarid. Much of the mois-ture in this region is redirected through streams andgroundwater that originate from precipitation in theAlpine and Subalpine zones of the watersheds.

The warm and dry climate creates the most eco-logically diverse ecoregion in the Rocky Mountains(Pacas et al., 1996), comprising grasslands, wetlandsof riparian vegetation and open forests of aspen,lodgepole pine, white spruce and Douglas fir (a sig-nature species found only in the Montane, in Alberta).In conjunction with the streams, lakes and alluvialfans, the rich diversity of plant assemblages providesprime habitat for a wide variety of birds, carnivores,small mammals, ungulates and amphibians (Hollandand Coen, 1982).

Subalpine and AlpineThe Subalpine ecoregion occupies the mid to uppermountain slopes of the Bow Valley and lowerKananaskis Valley and the valley and slopes of theupper Kananaskis Valley and the Spray Lakes Valley;it is characterized by lodgepole pine and occasion-ally aspen in dry or burned areas, and closed mossyforests of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir whereconditions are moist and cool. The Alpine ecoregionoccurs above the Subalpine where the forest thins,giving way to barren rock, small shrubs, grasses andother forbs (Strong, 1992).

Both the Subalpine and Alpine are relatively wetregions: they have limited evapotranspiration andreceive at least 650 mm, and sometimes more than1150 mm, of precipitation. Together, they are the pri-mary watersheds for the prairies (Alberta ForestryLands & Wildlife, 1988).

The harsh climate of the Subalpine and Alpine lim-its inherent diversity, particularly in the alpine zone;however, the proximity to the Montane enhances wild-life diversity in both zones through seasonal migra-tion. The Alpine also offers unique habitat to trulymountain species, such as bighorn sheep, mountaingoats and various small mammals, such as pikas andhoary marmots.

Ecoregions

Figure 6.1 The three ecoregions of the studyarea.


Although precipitation/evapotranspiration balancesshow the Montane to be relatively dry and theSubalpine and Alpine to be relatively wet, theMontane landscape is effectively moist and nutrientrich, whereas the two upper ecoregions are drier andmore nutrient poor. This apparent paradox is entirelydue to groundwater flow from the coarse-grained andsteep recharge areas of the higher elevations to theshallower discharge areas along the lower slopes andin the valley bottoms.

The Montane benefits substantially from redistri-bution of water from the more elevated ecoregions.Being primarily a discharge zone, it garners a posi-tive soil moisture balance and a notable increase inwater availability, expressed in such features as allu-vial fans, springs, streams and lakes. And, because thegroundwater flow typically has a long residence time,a high concentration of dissolved matter brings nutri-ents with the flow. These moist, nutrient-rich dischargeareas contrast with the dry, nutrient-poor rechargeareas that remain in other parts of the Montane, aug-mented by the warmer climate, to create a high de-gree of biodiversity.

To a lesser extent, the Subalpine ecoregion benefitsfrom groundwater redistribution, especially in theSpray Lakes and upper Kananaskis valleys, where itoccupies the discharge areas. However, the Subalpinedoes not have the warmer, drier climate of theMontane and the groundwater flow distance is notusually as great, so its benefits are not as prominentand are often more localized.

The Montane and Subalpine ecoregions have char-acteristic assemblages of vegetation based on the en-hanced moisture and nutrient availability (Archibaldet al., 1996). A competitive advantage is gained bycertain species in each environment, based on toler-ance of site conditions and relative vigour. Variousfauna are also attracted to these areas for the habitatthey provide. Conversely, the Alpine ecoregion tendsto be too harsh for definitive vegetative assemblagesto develop.

Montane vegetation varies locally from grassland,parkland, open and closed forest, to wetlands.Forested areas consist of Douglas fir and lodgepolepine and/or aspen stands with secondary successionto white spruce (Strong, 1992). Understory vegetationis diverse, but includes Canada buffaloberry, bear-berry and snow berry. Much of the vegetative renewal

is dependent on various forms of disturbance (Greenet al., 1996), including those caused by groundwaterflow. For example, willow thickets and sedges are com-mon in wetland areas.

The higher relative elevation of the Subalpineecoregion and the smaller scale of groundwater flowsubdues many of the field manifestations that areprominent in the Montane. Cooler temperatures re-strict the growth of heat-dependent species, but alsocreate a hospitable environment for a few cool-tem-perature species generally not found at lower eleva-tions, such as white flowered rhododendron, falseazalea, grouseberry and mountain heather. Elevationis a significant factor in plant distribution. Lower el-evations of the Subalpine region are characteristicallyclosed forests of lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruceand subalpine fir. At higher elevations, the forestcanopy is more open with subalpine larch andwhitebark pine. Grasslands are also common on dry,steep south- and west-facing slopes, such as those onPigeon Mountain in Wind Valley.

Animals depend on their habitat to provide food,thermal cover, hiding cover and escape routes. Veg-etative assemblages that provide good sources of foodfor some species may provide poor cover or escaperoutes from predators. The effect is most pronouncedin the Montane ecoregion. Good thermal cover is pro-vided by mature Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, spruceor fir forest, but these areas are often poor forage.Adjoining wetlands, grasslands, shrub lands, or de-ciduous forest such as aspen provide poor thermalcover, but are better forage areas for most species(Westworth et al., 1984). Prime habitat occurs wherethere are significant edges, patchworks of differentvegetation types (O’Leary, 1988). The redistributionof moisture, heat and nutrients though gravity-drivenflow systems in regions of varying topography, suchas most of the Montane and some of the subalpine,creates and maintains variable site conditions neces-sary for this patchwork to exist.

Recharge areasIn the Montane, recharge occurs on regional or localtopographic highs such as benchlands or drumlins,and is enhanced where coarse substrates allow rapidinfiltration to a deep water table. Nutrients are mobi-lized and leached by percolating groundwater. As soil

Effects of groundwater flow on the distribution of floraand fauna


moisture is dry to slightly moist, drought-tolerantspecies have a competitive advantage.

In the Montane, species such as rough fescue, hairywild rye, bearberry, juniper, Douglas fir or lodgepolepine occupy recharge areas. On dry, nutrient-poorsites, Douglas fir forms an open tree canopy with awell-developed grass layer—typically rough fescue,and bearberry on exposed south-facing mountainsideswhere the water table is deep. In the Bow Valley, thisassociation is found on the upper slopes of south-fac-ing benchlands through much of the western half ofthe corridor and near Exshaw and Wind Valley.

On slightly moist, nutrient-poor sites, lodgepolepine, aspen and white spruce form pure and mixedstands, with a ground cover of juniper, bearberry andgrasses and occasional shrubs or forbs. There is a slowsuccession toward white spruce. Trees are scatteredbetween grasslands in drier sites and the canopy isclosed where moisture conditions are better. Shrubsand forbs are sparse in wooded areas. This associa-tion is typical of portions of the benchlands and of theelevated outwash plain in the east.

Depletion of soil moisture and nutrients thoughgroundwater recharge helps to maintain the grasslandand open woodland areas. Where moisture conditionsare better, and without renewal through periodicdrought, fire, and grazing, Douglas fir, lodgepole pineand aspen give way to spruce. Spruce forests allowlittle light penetration, reducing the understory ofshrubs and grasses to mosses. Berry production plum-mets, and fewer herbs and shrubs are available forgrazers/browsers (Figure 6.2).

In the Subalpine, lichens, juniper, bearberry, hairywild rye and lodgepole pine are characteristic speciesof nutrient deficient-recharge areas. The largest areaof this type is found in Wind Valley, on south-facingslopes of Pigeon Mountain (Figure 6.3).

The grasslands and open woodland of Montaneand Subalpine recharge areas provide habitat for awide variety of animals, including elk, mountainsheep, deer, cougar, coyotes, birds, small mammalsand rodents. Elk and bighorn sheep, in particular, fa-vour these environments in winter.

Elk are generalist feeders of grasses, forbs, sedgesand shrubs in winter and deciduous trees in summer.Since deep snow prevents grazing, elk favour dry openareas, exposed to sun and Chinook winds for fall andwinter range (Skolvin, 1982). A population of 350 elklive in the Montane of the Canmore Corridor: 100 inthe eastern outwash plain, 150 in Wind Valley/PigeonMountain and 100 interspersed through thebenchlands (Alberta Forestry Lands & Wildlife, 1990).

Bighorn sheep favour the same wind-blown feed-ing areas as elk; however they also require cliffs andsteep slopes to escape predators. Dry, barren slopesin recharge areas tend to have a greater slope becauseof the low degree of saturation, so they provide theright juxtaposition of feeding and escape habitat. Assheep are well adapted to higher elevations, they oc-cupy both the Montane and Subalpine regions. Apopulation of 300 bighorn sheep inhabits the Montaneof the Bow Corridor, half on dry, south-facing slopes,particularly in the central corridor, and the other half

Figure 6.2 Generalized plant and animalassemblages for a groundwater recharge zone,Montane ecoregion.

Figure 6.3 Generalized plant and animalassemblages for a groundwater recharge andlateral flow area, Subalpine ecoregion.


on Douglas fir forests and grasslands on south-facingslopes of Wind Valley. Prime wintering habitat is alsofound on Mt. Allan and along other wind-blown, steepslopes in the Subalpine.

The healthy ungulate population of the rechargeareas, particularly the Wind Valley region, helps tosupport a variety of carnivores including grizzly andblack bears, wolverine, wolf, lynx, fox, coyote andcougar (University of Calgary, 1994; Alberta Environ-mental Protection, 1997b).

Flow-through areasDominantly lateral groundwater flow results in moistsites with a moderately enriched assemblage of nu-trients, typical of middle to lower topography on gen-tle slopes. Transient groundwater recharge or seep-age may occur after heavy rain or during spring run-off. Humus is well developed.

In the Montane region, aspen are typical of moder-ately moist, well-drained sites, often interspersed withwhite spruce. Lodgepole pine, Douglas fir and whitespruce form pure and mixed stands on drier sites,while aspen and white spruce favour areas wheremoisture and nutrient conditions are better. This sitesupports a wide variety of plant communities includ-ing creeping mahonia, green alder, snowberry, pinegrass and Schreber’s moss on drier sites and denseshrubby understories of dogwood, low-bush cran-berry, saskatoon and prickly rose on moist sites. Suc-cession is toward white spruce. Disturbance can causea rapid increase in shrub and forb cover, and favoursprimarily aspen, as well as lodgepole pine (Figure 6.4).

The woodlands of Montane flow-through areasprovide biologically diverse habitat for Columbianground squirrel, red squirrel, meadow vole, ruffedgrouse, warbling vireo, downy woodpecker, elk, mule,and white-tailed deer and numerous birds (Hollandand Coen, 1983), as aspen woodland is second only toriparian forest in terms of overall diversity. Aspen anddeciduous shrubs are a favoured food of browsingdeer and elk, and beaver. Buffalo berries grow bestunder the open canopy of scattered deciduous wood-land, where they provide a high-energy seasonal foodsource critical to species like black bears that are try-ing to build up energy stores for reproduction andhibernation.

Flow-through conditions are typical of much ofYamnuska Natural Area, one of the most ecologicallydiverse areas of Alberta. Mixed woodland is inter-spersed with grasslands and, in some places, smalllakes and ponds, fens and beaver ponds. It is home toan unusually wide range of plant species, some rareor uncommon. There are 362 documented vascularplants: 9 are rare, and 11 uncommon. It hosts over 180species of butterflies and moths. There are 14 distinctvegetation communities. The area is spring calvingrange for elk, which migrate from their grassland win-tering grounds to wooded areas that provide coverfor their young (Alberta Environment, 1999).

In the Subalpine, flow-through areas of scatteredsubalpine larch, subalpine fir, heather and grouseberryoccur in moist, nutrient-poor sites, generally in cirquevalleys near timberline. Such sites are small, rare andscattered in the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region. Thevalley of the ten peaks (Larch Valley) near Lake Louisein Banff National Park is a classic example on a largerscale. More typical mid-slope vegetation are lodgepolepine on disturbed or burnt sites succeeded byEngelmann spruce and subalpine fir. Other speciesinclude grouseberry, false azalea, thimbleberry, greenalder and pine grass. The generally closed forests inthe subalpine zone are less conducive to wildlife, butare home to such forest species as lynx, snowshoe hare,Canada jay and small mammals (Figure 6.3).

Discharge areasRegions of groundwater discharge occur in relativetopographic lows, particularly in valley bottoms, nearrivers and streams, and ponds. Groundwater seep-age and high water tables are characteristic of verymoist to wet nutrient-rich areas, which result in a di-verse shrub and forb layer. The variety of vegetation

Figure 6.4 Generalized plant and animalassemblages for a lateral groundwater flow area,Montane ecoregion.


communities is mostly controlled by water table(Timoney, 1991).

In the Montane region, balsam poplar, willow,swamp birch, snowberry, baneberry, dogwood andhorsetail are key indicators of moist to wet nutrient-rich conditions. Balsam poplar is the pioneer species,especially on well-drained sites; white spruce is theclimax species, but is slow to establish itself. Distur-bance through flooding helps to maintain the com-petitive advantage of deciduous species because whitespruce seedlings cannot tolerate flooding.

In the Bow River valley, wetlands occupy relativelyflat terrain dominated by the Bow River and itsgroundwater-fed ponds and tributaries. More thanhalf the valley wetland area known as Bow Flats isdominated by mature white spruce, with anunderstory of wolf willow and associated grass-likemeadows. Mixed-wood stands of mature balsam pop-lar, aspen and white spruce, with a dense understory,are also common. Shrub willow and birch communi-ties, sedge and brown moss meadows, herbs and hairgrass are found in wetter sites (Figure 6.5).

In the Subalpine, moist to wet nutrient-rich sites ofdischarge areas have the highest diversity of plantspecies. Where seepage is seasonal, Engelmannspruce, lodgepole pine and subalpine fir are the domi-nant tree species; they form an open canopy. Shrubsand forbs are more diagnostic vegetation of this envi-ronment; they include thimbleberry, baneberry, falsehellebore and heart-leafed arnica. Where seepage andwater tables are high, fens occur. Characteristic spe-cies are scattered Engelmann spruce, dwarf birch,willow, horsetail, sedges, hair grass and mosses. Be-cause discharge sites tend to be low lying, tree growthis limited by cool temperatures brought on by cold airdrainage (Figure 6.6).

Wetland and floodplain areas host the widest di-versity of wildlife in the Bow Valley (Alberta Envi-ronmental Protection, 1997a). Elk use the area forspring calving (O’Leary, 1988), and mule deer favourthe ecotone between forest and grassland communi-ties. Moose are surprisingly rare in the valley, despitehighly favourable habitat, probably because of diseaseand the isolation caused by transportation corridors.Aquatic habitats are populated by beavers, which of-ten dam spring waters in old channels, and by musk-rats and mink. Porcupines, snowshoe hares, squirrelsand chipmunks live in the spruce forests, providingfood for marten, lynx, cougars, black bears and coyo-tes. The wetlands are highly productive for breedingbirds and are home to 48 species, including uncom-mon birds, such as hooded mergansers, bald eagles,willow flycatchers, calliope hummingbirds, ospreysand fox sparrows.

Fens fed by the springs are important spring andsummer feeding areas for ungulates and bears. Thefen in west Wind Valley creek is the largest of its kindin the Banff-Kananaskis region, consisting of low, erectshrubs and an open-tree canopy. Mineral licks relatedto groundwater discharge attract elk, sheep, occasionaldeer and their predators. A population of grizzly andblack bears frequent the area in spring and summer,attracted to horsetail, which is a seasonal staple of theirdiet (University of Calgary, 1994; Alberta Environmen-tal Protection 1997a). Smaller wetland areas and fensoccur outside of the Bow River floodplain. Calcare-ous wetlands—associated with springs and seepagessuch a those found along Exshaw Creek, at the baseof Pigeon Mountain and in Yamnuska Natural Area—are home to rare and uncommon specialized plants,including orchids, mountain maple, rare ferns,

Figure 6.5 Generalized plant and animalassemblages for groundwater discharge areas,Montane ecoregion.

Figure 6.6 Generalized plant and animalassemblages for groundwater discharge areas,Subalpine Ecoregion.


sundew and buck bean (Sweetgrass Consultants Ltd.,1991), and birds such as yellowlegs and solitary sand-pipers (Alberta Environment, 1999).

Aquatic and riparian areasGroundwater stabilizes the aquatic environment bysustaining spring flow and baseflow to streams andlakes, moderating temperatures, providing a reliablenutrient supply, providing moisture to riparian areasand controlling the stability of riverbanks.

Springs serve as important water sources forwetlands and as the headwaters for tributary streamsthat, together with seepage, maintain the base levelof permanent streams and ponds. Springs may showseasonal variations in yield, temperature and chem-istry (Van Everdingen, 1972), but these variations areminor in comparison to fluctuations in surface wa-ters. High-volume springs maintain areas of openwater throughout the winter and moderate root zonetemperatures for aquatic and peripheral plants.

Nitrate and phosphorus occur naturally, but theBow River has very little of either. Phosphate is notcommon in the mountain environment, and most ofthe phosphorus in Alberta comes from the mineralapatite. Inputs of even small amounts can increasevegetative growth and vigour of aquatic plants.

Nitrate concentrations above the detection limit areoften indicative of contamination from sewage or fer-tilizers. However, neither source can explain the wide-spread distribution of low levels of nitrates charac-teristic the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region; they likelyarise from slow oxidation of organic debris in the near-surface environment.

Nitrates are fairly mobile in an oxygenated envi-ronment and readily enter the groundwater regimethrough soil leaching, so they are higher in streamsfed primarily by baseflow. Peterjohn and Correll(1984) found that riparian zones are effective at re-moving nitrates from groundwater through vegeta-tive uptake and possibly denitrification by anaerobicbacteria, reducing nitrate discharge into surface wa-ter bodies. Dawson and Ehleringer (1991) showed thatriparian tree species in Utah selectively usedgroundwater over surface water, even when surfacewater was abundant.

Aquatic areas and marginal wetlands occur onfloodplains and near areas of concentratedgroundwater discharge. The ready availability of wa-ter and nutrients, combined with the moderated tem-perature, supports lush vegetative growth, which ismaintained by the consistently high water table of

groundwater discharge zones. This is particularlyimportant to larger and older growth along thefloodplain. Growth along stream banks is normallysmaller and younger because of flood disturbance.Riparian vegetation strengthens banks, limiting ero-sion, and intercepts sediment-laden surface runoffwhile removing nutrients from groundwater, therebymaintaining or improving river water quality. It alsoprovides food for aquatic invertebrates and shadesthe river margins, providing sheltered spots for fishand other aquatic species (Figure 6.5).

SpringsSprings are special discharge areas. Locally, they pro-vide higher humidity and an abundance of soil mois-ture that promotes lush vegetative growth. Combinedwith the warmer temperature of the spring, the re-sulting vegetation provides shelter from the elementsand consequently a milder microclimate. Springs alsodeposit minerals that support unique or rare plantcommunities, and they create or enhance year-roundwater bodies that benefit the survival of many aquaticanimals.

Most springs of the Canmore Corridor and North-west Kananaskis Country have a steady temperatureof between 2o and 5o C, but occasionally “warmsprings” may reach temperatures between 7o and 12o

C, peaking in late winter before the snow melts. Withthe exception of Many Springs, most warm springs inthis region have relatively low flows and consequentlyaffect a small area.

Several microclimates are found in the area. A dra-matic example is found near the Watridge Karst Springin Spray Valley Provincial Park. The large, relativelyconstant temperature flow cascades down themountainside, creating a high-humidity environmentthat supports an open forest of large trees of old-growth spruce, moss-covered boulders and moisture-loving shrubs. Enhanced environments are also foundat Willow Rock Spring and Illahee Spring in Bow Val-ley Provincial Park, where the outwash plain beginsto slope toward the Kananaskis River. There, the landabove the springs is dry grassland with scattered as-pen; below the springs, it is a dense, moist forest.

Aside from providing a warm, moist environment,springs deposit minerals that provide habitat for spe-cialized plant types, particularly those that are de-pendent on a high pH. The Many Springs area sup-ports many fen plants with particular environmentalrequirements. The yellow lady’s slipper orchid, whichis common at Many Springs, is a prime example.


The mineral deposits also provide licks for wild-life, such as sheep and moose, and the resulting fenvegetation provides food for ungulates and nestingcover for waterfowl. Lac des Arcs and Gap Lake, fedby high volume and warm springs, are important

Summary

waterfowl staging areas in spring and fall for Canadagoose, bufflehead, common goldeneye, common mer-ganser, common loon and mallard.

Springs in the area provide important habitat forrare aquatic insects and amphibians, and primespawning sites for key fish species. For example, atMany Springs, aquatic arthropods, such asSalmasellus steganothrix, depend on the unique tem-perature range for their survival in the region.

In Bow Valley Provincial Park, the isolated, spring-fed water bodies of Middle Lake, Chilver Lake andadjacent ponds provide critical habitat for long-toedand tiger salamanders, which require reliable waterbodies that are free from the predators found in waterbodies that are connected by streams. And, the BowValley floodplain between Canmore and Dead Man’sFlats contains a series of spring-fed creeks, such asPoliceman’s Creek, Spring Creek and Bill GriffithsCreek, that provide the most significant trout-spawn-ing grounds in the Bow River system because of theirconstant temperature (near 5o C) and naturally filtered,clear water.

The Bow Valley-Kananaskis region constitutes a rela-tively small, partially enclosed basin area, wheregroundwater is a dominant portion of the hydrologiccycle. Significant topographic variation drivesgroundwater flow systems from the high-mechanical-energy environment of the Alpine and Subalpineecoregions to the low-mechanical-energy environmentof the Montane. While Alpine and Subalpineecoregions are sustained primarily by the heavy pre-cipitation that occurs at high elevations, most of thewater supplying the Montane is received fromgroundwater transport from higher elevations.Groundwater mobilizes nutrients and heat from re-charge zones at higher elevations, and transports anddeposits them to discharge areas of the valley bottoms.

Variations in moisture and nutrient supplies affectthe distribution and composition of vegetative assem-blages. These vegetative assemblages attract variouswildlife species, looking for favourable food suppliesand cover from the elements and predators. In aquaticsystems, groundwater sustains base flow, and pro-vides appropriate habitat for fish spawning and openwater for waterfowl. As such, groundwater forms anintegral and essential component of the region’s eco-systems.

Lady’s slipper orchids are among the rare plantsthat find a specialized environment near springs.


Marmot Basin Hydrology Study

The eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains form theprimary watershed for the prairies, supplying themajority of flow in the Saskatchewan River drainagebasin. The Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board(ERFCB) was established in 1947 with a mandate for“the conservation, development, maintenance andmanagement of the forests in such area with a view toobtaining the greatest possible flow of water in theSaskatchewan River and its tributaries” (Parliamentof Canada, 1947). Out of this mandate came the East-ern Slopes Watershed Research Program, and theMarmot Creek Experimental Basin, a comprehensivebasin study that spanned nearly a quarter century.

The Marmot Creek Experimental Basin study in-tended first to establish the baseline physical charac-teristics and hydrology of drainage within undis-turbed spruce/fir forest, with emphasis on the rela-tionships between precipitation, runoff,evapotranspiration and groundwater within the ba-sin. It was then to determine the effects of timber har-vesting practices on snow pack accumulation, timingand volume of runoff, basin yield, water quality andsubsequent forest regrowth. The goal was improvedlogging practices and cut block geometry for water-shed management. The study was headed by Envi-ronment Canada in various partnerships that changedover the years with federal and provincial agencies,each studying aspects of meteorology, hydrology,hydrogeology, forestry and wildlife. The number ofpapers and reports generated by the research programfill an extensive bibliography. Aspects of research re-lated to groundwater are discussed in this review.

The study involved the mapping of basin topogra-phy, soils, plant cover and surficial and bedrock geol-ogy. Instrumentation was installed to measure weatherconditions, precipitation, stream flow andgroundwater levels for the determination of the wa-ter budget. For many years the Marmot Creek basinwas reputably the most heavily instrumented basinin Canada. Readings were taken for air temperature,relative humidity, solar radiation, precipitation andwind speed and direction, measured at four perma-nent stations. Ten snow pillows were measuredmonthly in winter. Five weirs monitored flow on the

Marmot Creek and its tributaries. Forty shallowgroundwater monitoring wells were installed over thelifetime of the program, mostly in drift in the lowerpart of the basin, with a few added in later years onceroads were constructed to higher elevations. Evenwildlife were monitored within the basin, which is partof the wildlife corridor connecting the Bow andKananaskis valleys. Most of the research was con-ducted from the late 1960s into the mid 1970s.

In the summer of 1984, clearing began for theNakiska ski hill on Mount Allan in preparation forthe 1988 Winter Olympic Games. The developmentencroached on the southern portion of the basin, withplans for long-term expansion. After a review, theMarmot Creek Experimental Basin study was endedin 1986. Meteorological, hydrometric andgroundwater monitoring sites were closed, and thegroundwater wells reclaimed. Three wells were re-tained beyond 1986 in Alberta Environment’s moni-toring well network. Record keeping for these wellsceased in 1997.

Although the Marmot Basin study was not part ofour work, it provides a significant model of hydro-logical and environmental processes in the CanmoreCorridor-Northwest Kananaskis Country region, withstrong implications to current research. Findings fromthe study were considered significant enough to ourwork for us to provide this overview chapter.

Basin settingThe Marmot Creek Basin occupies the eastern slopeof Mount Allan in the Kananaskis Valley coveringSections 14, ,15, 16, 21 and 22 of Township 23, Range9 west of the 5th Meridian. The basin is 9.4 square kilo-metres in area and has an average slope of 39%. Theupper limit of the basin is the Mt. Allan summit, anelevation of 2819 metres. The basin is comprised ofthree sub-basins drained by tributary streams, whichmerge in a confluence area in the lower basin (Figure7.1).

Twin Forks Creek, the southern sub-basin, coversan area of 2.62 km2. Middle Creek, 2.85 km2, occupiesthe central sub-basin. Cabin Creek, the northern sub-

Watershed research program


basin, covers an area of 2.12 km2. The three creeksoriginate in the alpine zone, issuing from the bases ofscree slopes and eroding v-shaped gullies into theunderlying bedrock. Below 1890 m, the slope is gen-tler. Downstream, these channels are incised throughthe thick moraine into the underlying bedrock. TwinForks and Middle Creek merge to form Marmot Creekjust below 1770 m elevation, and Cabin Creek joins at1700 m. The confluence area covers 1.81 km2. Mar-mot Creek continues in a deep channel to the basinoutlet at 1585 m. It descends another 120 m to an allu-vial fan above the Kananaskis River.

At the height of the study in the late 1960s, up to33 rain gauges and 20 snow courses were monitored(Storr, 1977). Annual precipitation averages 900 mm,increasing from 600 mm in the lower basin to over1140 mm in the upper reaches of Twin Forks Creek(Storr 1967) and average annual evapotranspirationis about 440 mm. Approximately 75 percent of the pre-cipitation occurs as snow, none of which is stored fromone year to the next. Snow pack accumulation is af-fected by elevation, aspect, slope and forest density,with total mean snow pack increasing at a predict-able rate with elevation Golding (1969). The basin isrepresentative of much of the Subalpine and Alpinezone of the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region.

Basin geologyMarmot Basin rests on the east limb of the Mount AllanSyncline. It is underlain by shale, sandstone, coal andconglomerate ranging in age from Permian to LowerCretaceous. A resistant bench of hard quartzite and

cherty dolomite of the Rocky Mountain Group formsthe lower boundary of the basin. The top boundary ofthe basin is resistant Kootenay sandstone andBlairmore Group conglomerate. Softer shales andsiltstones of the Sulphur Mountain Formation, Fernieand Kootenay formations underlie most of the inter-vening area (Stevenson, 1967).

Glacial and post-glacial surficial deposits blanketthe bedrock except at high elevations and a few out-crops along creek channels. Accumulations of talusand scree are found below steep bedrock slopes andcirque moraines of clay, silt and boulders occur athigher elevations. Locally derived Kananaskis Valleytill 10 m thick is found between ridges of recessionalmoraine, which are up to 30 m thick. Surficial depos-its are mainly poorly sorted silty and stony clay till,interspersed with boulders. Colluvium and alluviumblanket the till in places. Alluvium is deposited wherestreams encounter local depressions and consists offine sands and silts, particularly in the confluence area.Coarse angular boulders up to eight metres deep fillextensive reaches of the stream channels, likely origi-nating as slumps, slides, soil creep and rock avalanche,where the fines were washed away (Stevenson, 1967).

HydrologyThe Water Survey of Canada operated stream gaugeson the three tributaries of Marmot Creek and on themain stem continuously for the duration of the study(Hydrocon, 1984). Minimum stream flow occurs in lateMarch and is usually less than 30 L/s. Springsnowmelt begins at low elevations and graduallymoves upslope, into heavier snowpack areas.Snowmelt typically starts in late April to early Mayand peaks in early June, continuing into mid-summerfrom sheltered high elevation sites, notably Marmotcirque. Through spring and summer, stream flow isderived from snowmelt, rainfall, storm seepage andgroundwater storage. The mean total runoff from Maythrough September was recorded as 364 mm for Mar-mot Creek, 433 mm for Middle Creek, 455 mm forTwin Forks Creek and 287 mm for Cabin Creek (1963-1984), accounting for 85-95% of total annual runoffand 100% of the suspended sediment load. Flows fromlate fall through winter were low but steady. Fiftypercent of the annual precipitation is accounted foras stream flow (Swanson et al., 1984).

Surface water in the streams is primarily calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type. The water in CabinCreek water is harder and more highly mineralizedthan the other sub-basins, possibly because of a larger

Figure 7.1 Aerial view of the Marmot CreekExperimental Basin, looking west. The threesubbasins are Twin Forks, Middle and Cabin; thethree streams join at the Confluence. The NakiskaSki hill, developed in the 1980s, can be seen onthe left.


baseflow contribution and its situation primarily inthe subalpine zone. Middle Creek and Twin ForksCreek receive a higher contribution of water from al-pine snowpacks. Mineralization was inversely pro-portional to stream stages, increasing in March anddecreasing in June.

Forestry and forest hydrologyForest cover is mainly old growth spruce and fir over200 years old. Homogenous stands of lodgepole pineare found in the confluence area, resulting from a firein 1936. Alpine larch and trembling aspen are foundin a few locations. Spruce-fir forest extends to the 2100m elevation, followed by forests of subalpine larch andfir to the timberline at 2285 m. Around 48% of the basinis shrub, meadow and rock, considered unproductivefor forestry. Around 41% is spruce-fir and 9% is younglodgepole pine. Soils are poorly developed mountainluvisols at lower elevations and podzols and regosolsat higher elevations (Kirby and Ogilvie, 1969).

In late 1974, 21% of the Cabin Creek sub-basin wasclearcut in six 10 ha commercial-sized blocks. Annualwater yield increased between 6 and 7% (16.8 mm)over what was predicted if it had been left uncut—anadditional 79 mm from the clearcuts. Erosion was nota problem. Between 1977 and 1979, about 40% of theforest in the Twin Forks Creek Sub-basin was cleared,using a “honeycomb” pattern of 2103 circular open-ings 15 or 20 m in diameter. The pattern was selectedto keeping the area shaded by surrounding trees, de-laying snowmelt and favouring late seasonstreamflow. The annual water yield increased by 36mm in 1980 and 16 mm in 1981, the increase resultingentirely from deeper snowpack in the clearings(Swanson and Golding, 1982; Hydrocon, 1985). Clear-ing for the Nakiska ski hill began in 1985 along thesouth edge of the Twin Forks Creek basin, disturbingthe study area and ending the study. The MiddleCreek sub-basin was left intact as a control area.

Water balanceWater balance baseline data collected between 1964and 1974 revealed a large residual when stream flowand evapotranspiration were subtracted from the an-nual precipitation. Storr (1974) correlated the residualwith changes in water levels seen in the groundwaterhydrographs, accounting for up to 12% of precipita-tion. The poorly accessible terrain prohibited directmeasurement of changes in groundwater storage. Thesoil zone is shallow and soil moisture is negligible.

Storr correlated groundwater storage to stream flow.Where there was no surface flow to the streams, therate of stream flow was set as an index of the amountof groundwater storage. The higher the level of thegroundwater reservoir, the greater the proportion ofdischarge from groundwater to the stream at all pointsalong the channel.

Based on the integration of groundwater dischargeinto the channel over the upstream area as a functionof the size of the reservoir, Storr calculated a maxi-mum reservoir capacity of 265 mm, which is reachedat a flow of about 0.7 m3/s. Runoff would normallyoccur only in June from the combination of rapidsnowmelt and heavy rainfall. For the remainder of theyear, storage is below capacity and the high infiltra-tion rate prevents direct flow into the channels.

The coarse glacial deposits usually had minimuminfiltration rates higher than maximum reported stormintensities (Beke, 1969). Lower infiltration rates werereported for surface materials derived from shale bed-rock. Application of standard hydrograph separationtechniques showed that less than 2% of annual flowwas surface runoff from rainfall (Hewlett and Hibbert,1967). Swanson et al. (1984) concluded that most ofthe Marmot Creek stream flow was fed by transientsubsurface flow (interflow) from glacial deposits,which had a moderating effect on storm peaks.

Groundwater monitoringFrom 1964 to 1965, 18 water table wells and 8 nestedpiezometers were installed by rotary rig at 17 sites inthe lower, accessible reaches of the basin. The wellswere constructed of four-inch steel pipe with torchslots, later replaced by screens. Piezometers were two-inch steel pipe with sand points. The wells and mostof the piezometers were completed less than 12 mdeep in drift. Chart recorders were installed on thir-teen water table wells and one piezometer. The restwere monitored manually. Monitoring of most of thewells was discontinued in 1971.

Water table wells completed in the glacial depositsof the confluence area fluctuated rapidly in responseto spring runoff and storm events, indicating the de-posits have high infiltration capacity and low waterretention. Wells completed in morainal ridges wereless responsive and had significantly smaller fluctua-tions indicating lower hydraulic conductivities. Wellsin stream deposits had fairly stable water levels. Wa-ter level readings from four sites having nestedpiezometers were studied to determine the hydraulicconnection between the till and the bedrock. Correla-


tions were noted at two of the sites, but were not con-clusive enough to establish any significant relation-ship (Stevenson, 1971).

A total of 40 wells are on record in the Alberta En-vironment database (Figure 7.2). No published analy-sis is available for wells drilled in later phases of the

ing infrastructure at Marmot Creek. Charts of themonitoring wells are located in Appendix A. Loca-tions of wells are shown in Figure 7.2.

HydrogeologyThe Marmot Creek basin forms an unconfinedgroundwater system, where water is stored and movesin surficial deposits draped over bedrock.Groundwater that discharges from joints in exposedbedrock is fine seepage, suggesting low matrix po-rosity; however localized folding and faulting haveto potential to create hydraulically significant fracturenetworks. The bedrock appears to have minimal in-teraction with the groundwater in the overlying drift,although its structure influences stream geometry.

Water table divides closely approximate topo-graphic divides, and groundwater flow mostly paral-lels the slope of topography. Near the top of the basinwhere slopes are steep and surficial deposits are thinto nonexistent, most precipitation is converted to run-off and shallow lateral flow. The tributary creeks ariseas springs in the hillsides of the alpine zone from screeand talus. Recharge occurs in spring and early sum-mer from snowmelt, spring rains and occasional late

Table 7.1 Alberta Environment monitoring wells.

Number Name Subbasin Depth Start EndDate Date

302 Marmot Creek Confluence Area 9.1 m Oct 11, 1964 Dec 1, 1986Basin S5430

303 Marmot Creek Confluence Area 36.6 m July 9, 1965 July 23, 1997Basin N5475

304 Marmot Creek Confluence Area 12.2 m July 12, 1965 Nov 22, 1986Basin S6170

305 Marmot Creek Cabin Creek 14.3 m July 14, 1965 July 16, 1996Basin S6770

386 Marmot Creek Twin Creek 12.8 m April 30, 1989 July 23, 1997Basin S2507E

Figure 7.2 Locations of wells in the MarmotCreek Experimental Basin, designated by wellowner. Wells incorporated into the AlbertaEnvironment groundwater monitoring network aredesignated by Monitoring Branch well number.

study. Six wells were incorporated into the AlbertaEnvironment groundwater monitoring well network,three of which continued to record water levels until1997 (Table 7.1). With the exceptions of numbers 302and 304, the wells were suspended, but have not beenreclaimed, constituting the only remaining monitor-


season storms. For most of the basin, surficial depos-its have a high infiltration capacity and surface run-off is negligible. The level of the water table rises andfalls in direct response to precipitation and is close tothe land surface. Seepage and springs are common inlow-lying areas, breaks in slope and in the v-shapedcreek valleys. Water is continuously removed from thegroundwater system by evapotranspiration and bybaseflow seepage to the creeks. Stream flow is derivedalmost entirely from baseflow and interflow. Fluctua-tions on most of the groundwater hydrographs corre-spond directly to fluctuations on stream flow (Davis,1964; Stevenson, 1971).

The groundwater type is calcium-magnesium-bi-carbonate. Total dissolved solids average 265 mg/L,with an average hardness of 4. The proportions ofmajor cations are 20-60% magnesium, 40-80% calcium,with negligible sodium. Anions are in the range of>80% bicarbonate, <20% sulphate and <5% chloride.Iron averages 5.5 mg/L, but this high value may re-flect rusting of steel casings. Nitrate occurs only intrace amounts. The samples have a relative concen-tration of ions that is reasonably characteristic ofgroundwater found elsewhere in the region and ofBow River water. Similarities may be attributed to theglacial sediments that constitute the aquifer, which area somewhat homogenized sampling of the region’sbedrock geology. The major differences are a lowertotal dissolved solids and lower relative concentra-tions of sodium, chloride and to a lesser degree sul-phate: differences that are mainly attributed to therelatively short residence time in the subsurface andimmature geochemical evolution compared to sam-ples collected from the valley bottom.

Conclusions

The Marmot Creek Experimental Basin constitutes asignificant small-scale model of groundwater hydrol-ogy in the mountainous environment. In the Bow Val-ley-Kananaskis region as a whole, bedrock is prima-rily a confining layer, forming the base of thegroundwater basin. The participation of bedrock inthe water balance, is relatively minor, except wherethere is significant faulting and fracturing. Highlyporous and permeable surface materials constitute themain aquifers in the region. The aquifers typicallyhave the water table as the upper surface and interactreadily with the land surface. Recharge occurs in latespring through snowmelt and spring storms. Runoffis minimal and infiltration high. Groundwater acts asa dominant conveyor of water in the basin, capturingprecipitation from higher elevations and redistribut-ing it to the valleys where it sustains stream flow andsurface water bodies. Groundwater chemistry resem-bles that of other parts of the region, although in animmature state of geochemical evolution.


The Water Resource: Human Interactions

The Rocky Mountains represent the main source offlow to the rivers that water the prairies. The BowRiver that flows through Canmore provides drinkingwater to the City of Calgary and irrigates farmland tothe east of the city. It joins the South SaskatchewanRiver that flows through the City of Medicine Hat andinto Saskatchewan. Thus, impacts to the water re-source in the headwaters may affect over one millionusers downstream.

The growth occurring in the Canmore region is in-creasing demand on the water supply near the head-waters of the Bow River. The amount of consumptionhas not been determined, but water licences give anindication of use. Major water users, such as munici-palities, resorts and industries are required to obtaina licence from Alberta Environment. Many munici-pal and industrial users were not licensed until themid-1980s. Individual domestic users do not requirea license, and not all licensed users are required tosubmit actual consumption numbers. Water licensesissued by Alberta Environment show the maximumamount of water that may be used, thereby giving anindication of what demands are being placed on theresource.

Table 8.1 shows that licensed production is nearlyevenly split between surface water (6.5 million m3/year) and groundwater (6.3 million m3/year), as ofMarch 2002. Between 1990 and 1995, groundwater li-cences increased from 4 million m3 to 6 million m3,while surface water licenses showed a similar increasebetween 1995 and 2000 (Figure 8.1). Water usage fallsinto three main categories: domestic use, whether byindividual households, resorts, or municipalities; ir-rigation for golf courses or snow for ski hills; or in-dustrial uses such as cooling, aggregate washing anddust control.

Surface water was accessed most often for indus-trial uses or for irrigation. Surface water withdrawalsoccur primarily in the Bow Valley, probably a resultof concentration of industry and the availability ofreliable flow from the Bow River. Groundwater is fa-voured primarily for municipal supply/domestic con-sumption, where potability is a concern becausegroundwater is naturally filtered and requires less

treatment than surface water. Groundwater licenceswere fairly evenly split between the Bow Valley andKananaskis regions. The Town of Canmore relies on acombination of surface water and groundwater for itsmunicipal supply, but intends to transition entirely togroundwater. Seebe uses surface water, but would beusing groundwater if sufficient amounts were avail-able. All other communities rely entirely ongroundwater. Ski hills are a major user of groundwaterin the Kananaskis Valley, where groundwater is moredependable than surface water.

Apart from small losses to evaporation, the waterused is returned to the system, so there is no signifi-cant net loss of water to the drainage basin; however,water may be redistributed on a local level, stressingvulnerable aquifers or altering timing and amount ofsurface flow. Although water is generally treated be-fore it is released, it will not be pristine. Therefore,increased water consumption, combined with inad-equate treatment, overload or leaching, may result ina deterioration of water quality.

Figure 8.1 Surface and groundwater use in theCanmore region over the last two decades.

Current trends in water useage


Tab

le 8

.1 Ty

pes

of

wate

r use

in B

ow

Valle

y and K

ananask

is.

esUfoepyT

m(noisrevi

DdesneciLret

awdnuor

G3)ry/

m(noisrevi

DdesneciLret

aWecafr

uS

3)ry/

m(secneciLllA

/3)ry

yell

aV

woB

siksananaK

lat

oT

%yell

aV

woB

siksananaK

lat

oT

%lat

oT

%

rodnuorgpmaC

pmaCpuor

G017,411

063,6

070,121

20

106,331

106,331

2176,452

2

puor

Gcit

semoD

ylppuS

084,542

036,8

011,452

4099,63

027,41

017,15

1028,503

2

esruoCfloG

272,793

0*

272,793

6075,045,1

041,952

017,997,1

82

289,691,2

71

lairt

sudnI

746,398

0746,398

41

566,519,3

07

537,519,3

06**

283,908,4

83

dnaslet

oM

segdoL

836,61

031,826

867,446

01

097,53

0097,53

1855,086

5

slliHikS

0000,367,2

000,367,2

44

0091,191

091,191

3091,459,2

32

lapicinuM

075,702,1

0075,702,1

91

024,5

0024,5

1<

099,212,1

9

seir

ehsiF

00

00

5711,204

221,204

6221,204

3

lat

oT

713,578,2

021,604,3

734,182,6

001

044,435,5

838,000,1

872,535,6

001

517,618,21

001

ylppuSegalli

VsiksananaK

morf

det

aitnereffi

dtonesruoCfloGsiksananaK

*lairt

sudni

morf

dehsiugnit

sidtonylppusret

awecafr

useromnaC**


The availability of a secure supply of potable waterplays an important role in the type and scale of devel-opment an area can sustain; conversely, however, thescale of development may limit the long-term quan-tity and quality of water supply. Hydrogeological limi-tations on development in the Canmore Corridor wereoriginally outlined by Ceroici and Prasad (1977).

Water quantityThe water quantity needed to supply a hand pump ata campground or single household is considerably lessthan a ranch, a resort or acreage development or anurban area. If the groundwater yield is insufficient forthe scale of the development in question, there maybe a need to access surface water supplies, or to lo-cate a remote groundwater source and add a centraldistribution system. An alternative may be to limitthe kinds of water use and the number of residents.

In the Bow Valley-Kananaskis region, difficultiesfinding water are most likely to occur where surficialaquifers are thin or drained, where there is a depend-ence on bedrock aquifers, or where population densi-ties area high. Areas with limitations on yield includethe Seebe district, the Knowlerville portion of Exshaw,and the southern ends of the Kananaskis and Sprayvalleys. Limitations occur at most locations outsideof the valleys, but the mountainous areas are typicallynot developed because of the terrain. Exceptions areski hills, alpine resorts and urban subdivisions ofCanmore extending up the mountainsides.

Water qualityThe Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality(2001), outline maximum allowable concentrations(MAC) and aesthetic objectives (AO) for a variety ofconstituents. Groundwater constituents may be natu-rally occurring or anthropogenic in origin, inorganicsuch as metal, organic such as pesticides or biologicalincluding bacteria and parasites. If any constituentsexceed the MAC, then the water is unsuitable for hu-man consumption. Parameters that exceed the AOmay impart an unpalatable taste, or unpleasant char-acteristics such as staining or hardness without caus-ing adverse health effects.

Groundwater quality in the Bow Valley-Kananaskisregion is relatively high, compared to most of Alberta.(Refer to tables in Springs, Aquifers, and Appendix.)

At a few sites, iron or hydrogen sulphide made waterunpalatable. High iron was not noted in springs, onlyin wells, and is mostly related to well construction andmaintenance. Hydrogen sulphide occurrence is rare,and was noted in three springs on the south side ofthe Bow Valley near Canmore, the WEPA deep testwell at the Canmore tourist centre and a well in theKananaskis Valley near Barrier Lake. Biological con-tamination is an issue not covered under the scope ofthis program, but is monitored by the HeadwatersHealth Unit.

Flow variationsIn addition to water quality and quantity, limitationsto development include slope stability, and a high orseasonally high water table.

Within the floodplain of the Bow River, and to alesser extent the Kananaskis River, the water table isfairly shallow. The valleys are underlain by saturated,highly permeable sands and gravels, which are re-sponsive to changes in river levels. The water tablemay fluctuate significantly on a seasonal basis par-ticularly during spring runoff or after a major storm.The Kananaskis River and the Spray Lakes Reservoirhave controlled discharge; water levels in valley aq-uifers may fluctuate with releases from those dams.Outside of the Town of Canmore, urban developmentalong the floodplain is limited and groundwater flood-ing is not a major concern.

A seasonally high water table can flood founda-tions, basements and underground parking garages.The Town of Canmore experienced groundwaterflooding in 1974. After that time a monitoring networkwas established to evaluate the effects of high waterlevels on the Town. This network has been recentlyupgraded in light of demands for development withinthe Town (AMEC, 2002).

Slope stabilitySlope stability is affected by the lithology, structureand saturation of the slope. Clays tend to be less sta-ble than sands and gravels. Bedrock that has beenweakened by fracturing, jointing or dissolution isweaker and more prone to sliding. Groundwater in-fluences slope stability by lubricating surfaces suchas fracture planes. Saturation will raise the pore pres-sure between grains, weakening their cohesiveness.

Limitations to development


The main erosive force in the mountains is frost wedg-ing. Water that seeps into fractures then freezes willexpand the crack, propagating the fracture front. Anabundance of water may accelerate the process.Groundwater seeping out of rock face may weaken itat the surface.

Slope stability is most likely to be a considerationon the north-facing benchlands surrounding Canmoreand, to a lesser degree, the south-facing benchlands,parts of the Kananaskis Valley and the Mount Sharkregion at the south end of the Spray Lakes Reservoir.

fects on the environment. Recognition of the need foraquifer protection would be a significant step in man-aging the resource into the future.

Groundwater contaminationIn the Bow Valley and Kananaskis regions, the surficialaquifers are typically unconfined and the substrate ishighly permeable, making the aquifers vulnerable tocontamination.

In recharge areas such as the benchlands, thegroundwater table is relatively deep. Leachates mayneed to migrate considerable distances through theunsaturated zone, and depending on the nature of theleachate, the contaminants may evaporate, oxidize orotherwise break down before they reach the watertable. Upon reaching the water table, however, theywill disperse with flow into the saturated zone morerapidly than in discharge zones. In discharge areas,such as the floodplain of the Bow, Kananaskis andSpray Lakes valleys, the water table tends to be high,and contaminants will migrate relatively short dis-tances to reach the saturated zone sooner. Within thesaturated zone, contaminant migration will be cur-tailed by the upward component of groundwater flow.

Groundwater vulnerability to contamination is gen-erally reduced where there is a thick, low-permeabil-ity confining layer above the aquifer that inhibits flow.Surficial aquifers are most vulnerable to contamina-tion. Undesirable substances dispersed into the envi-ronment through human activity will eventually leachinto the ground and to the water table unless brokendown. Confined aquifers are considerably better pro-tected than unconfined aquifers. They are vulnerablein their recharge areas or where the confining layer isbreached through water or oil drilling and produc-tion or injection, or changes in stratigraphy.

Sources of groundwater contamination are diverse,but tend to be related human activities including ur-banization and settlement, agriculture, industry andtransport. Site-specific contamination is most com-monly recognized, but diffuse loading over a wide

Protecting the water resource

Groundwater supports base flow to the Bow River andits tributaries by redistributing precipitation fromhigher elevations through the subsurface. Interactionbetween surface water and groundwater is pro-nounced, recognized both in the Marmot Creek basinstudy (Hydrocon, 1985) and in water table monitor-ing wells in Canmore (AMEC, 2002). What affects onewill affect the other. As the headwaters to the BowRiver basin, repercussions could be felt downstreamto Calgary or beyond.

Mountainous areas, such as the Canmore Corridorand Kananaskis are particularly dependent ongroundwater as a drinking water source, becausegroundwater does not require special treatment toremove water-borne parasites and flow is more reli-able than with surface water. The aquifers in theseareas, such as the Bow River aquifer are mostlyunconfined, with little to buffer them from activitiesat the land surface and they tend to interact readilywith surface water. The Calgary Buried Valley aqui-fer is more isolated from the land surface, protectedalong much of its length by a thick confining layer ofclay. Beneath Canmore, and possibly the Many Springsarea the confining layer between the buried valleyaquifer and the Bow River aquifer is relatively thinand offers less protection. Bedrock aquifers dependmainly on faulting and fracturing for their permeabil-ity and may be vulnerable along such zones.

Groundwater plays a prominent role in RockyMountain water cycle that is largely overlooked. Dis-turbances or disruptions to the groundwater system,may affect the hydrogeology locally, farther down theflow system, or may alter the surface water regime.Groundwater-dependent aquatic ecosystems, such asspring-fed streams that are fish spawning areas, orpothole lakes where salamanders breed, are signifi-cant to the overall health of the environment. Springsgives rise to ecosystems that are home to rare or spe-cialized flora and fauna, enhanced wildlife habitat orare significant cultural features. Changes to plant andanimal communities dependent on site conditions cre-ated by groundwater may have farther-reaching ef-


area may also occur. Urban sources include domesticwaste, household chemicals and particularly sewage.Agricultural sources generally come from the spread-ing of chemicals on fields, gardens, lawns and golfcourses. Industrial sources may be related to improperhandling of goods, or waste disposal. Transport in-cludes pipeline breaks, chemical treatments along raillines and road clearing salts. Contaminants may alsooriginate from fallout of atmospheric pollution fromdistant sources.

Septic systems are the favoured option for treatinghousehold wastewater in rural areas, where commu-nal sewage treatment facilities are unavailable. Theyrequire suitable site conditions on a sufficient landbase, and they must be properly maintained so as notto be a risk to groundwater quality. Septic systemsare used in the communities of Harvie Heights, Lacdes Arcs and Seebe as well as by rural residents andpark facilities.

Septic systems that are not functioning properly canact as sources of a variety of pollutants including phos-phorus, nitrogen, organic matter, bacterial and viralpathogens, as well as any noxious substance dumpedinto the system. Conventional septic systems are notefficient at removing nitrogen, or inorganic ions.(Gordon, 1989; USEPA, 1993).

Nitrates, sodium and chloride at levels above back-ground were noted in water samples from through-out the region. The levels were not dangerous, but theydo indicate that septic systems are influencing waterquality. Impacts were noted on scattered wells in DeadMan’s Flats, Exshaw, Harvie Heights, Bow Valley Pro-vincial Park and the Kananaskis Valley.

Wellhead protectionDespite due care and attention, accidents do occur,and releases of pollutants in populated areas is inevi-

table. Wellhead protection involves protecting a well’scapture zone, which is a combination of thedrawdown area together with the upstream portionof the groundwater flow field. It represents a fractionof the total aquifer. Should a spill occur, attempts maybe made to intercept and remove the pollutant be-fore it reaches the town production wells. The Townof Canmore has its main water supply wells near theRundle Power Plant and the backup wells adjacentto Policeman’s Creek near Railway Avenue and BowValley Trail. The wells are less than 30 m deep in anunconfined aquifer with a high water table. Canmorehas initiated a wellhead protection program in coop-eration with Alberta Environment to protect the cap-ture zone from spills that could contaminate the aq-uifer.

Hydrogeological preservesA commonly overlooked mechanism for aquifer pro-tection is a hydrogeological preserve (de Marsily,1992). Watersheds for reservoirs that supply drink-ing water are sometimes designated protected areasand activities that could endanger the water supplyare restricted (e.g., Sooke Reservoir for greater Victo-ria, B.C.); however, groundwater traditionally has notreceived the same recognition. Significant portions ofthe Canmore Corridor and Kananaskis Country areset aside to protect the natural environment as a wholeand, in doing so, they offer protection to the region’saquifers. For example, significant stretches of the BowRiver aquifer lie within the Bow Flats portion of theBow Valley Wildland Park. However, the preserva-tion of groundwater should be actively recognizedas a component, rather than a by-product, of envi-ronmental protection.

Summary and recommendations

We undertook this study in recognition of the need toprotect the integrity of the groundwater resource inthe Canmore Corridor and Northwest KananaskisCountry, a region significant for its natural environ-ment positioned in the front ranges of the Rockies, itslocation in headwaters of the Bow River, and as a re-gion experiencing pressures of economic growth anddevelopment.

Groundwater is the primary source of drinkingwater in the region. Canmore, the major communityof the Bow Valley uses a central supply system that ismore reliable than the individual domestic wells usedin neighbouring hamlets of Harvie Heights, Exshaw,Dead Man’s Flats and Lac des Arcs, and private wellsof industry, resorts, campgrounds and ranches. Nearlyall wells are completed in surficial sands and gravels


initially laid down by glaciers. These sands and grav-els drape the mountainsides and line the valley bot-toms forming the region’s aquifers, usually 30 to 100m thick, but in parts of the Bow Valley aquifer fill mayextend beyond 200 m. Groundwater yields are typi-cally good in the valley bottoms, usually exceeding of100 litres per minute, but may be limited along themountainsides where the water table is low, or in thevalley where drift cover is thin. In most places suffi-cient water supplies can be found within 30 m of sur-face.

Water quality in general is good, and under mostcircumstances is within the limits set by Guidelines forCanadian Drinking Water Quality. Wells occasionally re-port excessive iron, total dissolved solids, or in rarecases, hydrogen sulphide odour. Poorer quality wa-ter is often associated with bedrock. The water type ismost commonly calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-sul-phate, similar to that of the Bow River, less often cal-cium-magnesium-bicarbonate or calcium-magne-sium-sulphate-bicarbonate. Variations in water typesare sometimes attributable to local variations in geol-ogy.

High topographic relief accentuates gravity-drivengroundwater flow and subsequent recharge and dis-charge conditions. Isotopic analysis indicates that mostgroundwater originates locally from themountainsides. Springs are common in the valley bot-toms and are used by people and wildlife. An over-looked aspect of groundwater is its role in sustainingecosystems. The redistribution of moisture, nutrientsand heat by groundwater flow influences the devel-opment of plant communities and consequently thedistribution of animal life, particularly significant tothe drier Montane ecoregion.

Groundwater usage has increased with the region’sdevelopment and growing population. Demand forwater is concentrated around population centres andnot necessarily where supplies are greatest. Careshould be taken to ensure that all residents of the val-ley have reliable access to water supply.

Because of its ready interaction with the land sur-face, the groundwater is vulnerable to contamination.Situated in the headwaters of the Bow River, impactson groundwater in the Canmore Corridor andKananaskis will be felt locally and potentially down-stream. Precautions and emergency planning shouldbe in place to prevent pollutants from entering thegroundwater system. Individual projects may haveminimal impacts, but the cumulate effects of paving,excavating, water withdrawals and chemical loadingall have the long term potential to alter groundwaterconditions and the region’s ecology.

Groundwater has played a role in the history, ecol-ogy and economic growth of the region. Proper stew-ardship is necessary so that a clean securegroundwater supply and the natural environment itsustains are available to future generations ofAlbertans. To safeguard the integrity of thegroundwater, we recommend the establishment ofhydrogeological preserves, which should be activelyrecognized as a vital component, rather than a by-product, of environmental protection. We also recom-mend that emergency groundwater protection plansbe devised and followed in the event of a contami-nant spill.

We recommend continued study of thegroundwater resources of the Canmore Corridor andNorthwestern Kananaskis Country to understand thevulnerability of aquifers to depletion and their poten-tial response to natural and engineered changes in sur-face water discharge. Monitoring of the areas’s aqui-fers—through Alberta Environment’s groundwatermonitoring well network—should help show the re-lationship between the water table and surface waterlevels. We also recommend further investigation todetermine the extent and productivity of aquifers (par-ticularly the buried valley aquifer), through explora-tory drilling, well monitoring, pump testing and wa-ter quality sampling.


References

Appleby, Edna, 1975. Canmore: The Story of an Era. Edna Appleby, Friesen and Sons Ltd. printer, Calgary,Alberta. 163pp.

Alberta Environment, 1982. South Saskatchewan River Basin Historical Natural Flows: 1912-1978. J.R Card,F.D. Davies, R. A. Bothe, Hydrology Branch. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environment, 1985. Alberta Watershed Research Program: Hydrometeorological Research. AlbertaEnvironment, Edmonton, Alberta.57pp.

Alberta Environment, 1999. Yamnuska Natural Area Interim Management Plan. Alberta Env., Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environmental Protection, 1997a. Canmore Flats Natural Area Management Plan, AEP, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environmental Protection, 1997b. Wind Valley Natural Area Management Plan, AEP, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Forestry Lands & Wildlife, 1990. Bow Corridor Local Integrated Resource Plan. Alberta Forestry, Landsand Wildlife, Pub No. I/301. Calgary, Alberta.

Alberta Forestry Lands & Wildlife, 1992. Bow Corridor Local Integrated Resource Plan. Alberta Forestry, Landsand Wildlife, Calgary, Alberta.

AMEC Earth and Environmental Limited, 2002. Installation of a Piezometer Network and Development of aGroundwater Level Model. For: Town of Canmore. AMEC Earth and Environmental Limited, Calgary, Alberta.

Archibald, J.H., G.D. Klappstein and I.G.W. Corns, 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Southwestern Alberta. CanadianForest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Special Report #8, UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Beak Associates Ltd., 1986. Lac des Arcs fish and waterfowl study. For: Improvement District #8, Alberta MunicipalAffairs, Canmore, Alberta.

Beke, G.J. 1969. Soils of three experimental watersheds in Alberta and their Hydrologic Significance”. UnpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Borneuf, D. 1983. Springs of Alberta. Alberta Research Council Earth Sciences Report #82-3. Edmonton, Alberta.

Ceroici, W.J. 1977. Hydrogeological Limitations to Land Development in the Canmore Corridor, Alberta. GroundwaterDivision, Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, Alberta.

Ceroici, W.J. and B.S. Prasad, 1977. Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridor, Alberta. Alberta Research Council,Edmonton, Alberta.

Craig, H. and L.I. Gordon, 1965. Deuterium and oxygen-18 variations in the ocean and marine atmosphere. In: StableIsotopes in Oceanographic Studies, E. Tongiorgi, Ed. Cosiglio Nazionale del Richerche, Laboratorio diGeologia Nucleare, Pisa, Italy.

Daffern, Gillean, 1994. Canmore and Kananaskis Country: Short Walks for Inquiring Minds #1. Rocky MountainBooks, Calgary, Alberta. 296 pp.


Dawson, T.E. and J.R. Ehleringer, 1991. Streamside trees that do not use stream water. Nature, 350: 335-337.

Davis, D.A., 1964. Collection and Compilation of Streamflow data in Marmot Creek Basin, Proceedings of HydrologySymposium Data in “Research Watersheds”, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 105-116.

de Marsily, G. 1992. Creation of “Hydrogeological Nature Reserves”: a plea for the defence of groundwater.Ground Water 30(5): 658-659.

Dowling, D.B. 1907. Report on the Cascade Coal Basin, Alberta. Geological Survey of Canada Pub. 949, Ottawa,Ontario

Edwards, W.A.D., 1979. Sand and Gravel Deposits in the Canmore Corridor Area, Alberta. Alberta Research CouncilEarth Sciences Report 79-2, Edmonton, Alberta. 30pp.

Edwards, W.A.D., 1991. Geology and Industrial Minerals of the Bow Valley Banff-Canmore Area, Alberta: 27th Forumon the Geology of Industrial Minerals Field Trip 1A. Alberta Geological Survey, Edmonton. Alberta 45 pp.

Farvolden, R.N., 1961. Groundwater Resources, Pembina area, Alberta. Research Council of Alberta Report 61-4.Edmonton, Alberta.

Golding, D.L. 1969. Snow Relationships in the Marmot Creek Experimental Watershed. Canadian Department ofFisheries and Forestry, Bimonthly Research Notes, 25-2, 12-13.

Grasby, S.E. 2002. Bow Valley Canmore – Kananaskis Groundwater Mapping Program: Stable Isotope Interpretation(2002). Geological Survey of Canada For: Alberta Environment Hydrogeology Section. Edmonton, Alberta.

Grasby, S.E. 2001. Hot and Cold Running Water in the Canadian Rockies: The influence of fault plane geometryon spring temperatures. 2nd National Conference on Groundwater Field Trip Notes, September 22, 2001.Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, Alberta.

Grasby, S.E. and I. Hutcheon 2001. Controls on the distribution of thermal springs in southern Alberta and BritishColumbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 38, 427-440.

Green, J,C. Pacas, L. Cornwell and S. Bayley (eds), 1996. Ecological Outlooks Project. A Cumulative Effects Assessmentand Futures Outlook of the Banff Bow Valley. for the Banff Bow Valley Study. Dept. of Canadian Heritage,Ottawa, Ontario.

GTS Group International, 1997. The Bow Corridor Rock Industry: Contribution to the Alberta regional economy. for:Alberta Economic Development, Edmonton, Alberta. 17pp.

Hamilton, W.N., M.C. Price and D.K. Chao, 1998a. Geology of the Bow Corridor. Alberta Geological Survey Map232A, Edmonton, Alberta.

Hamilton, W.N., M.C. Price and D.K. Chao, 1998b. Mineral Deposits of the Bow Corridor. Alberta GeologicalSurvey Map 232B, Edmonton, Alberta.

Hamilton, W.N., M.C. Price and D.K. Chao, 1998c. Mineral Deposits and Prospective Areas in the Bow Corridor.Alberta Geological Survey Map 232c, Edmonton, Alberta.


Hawes, R.J., 1977. The Glacial Geomorphology of the Kananaskis Valley, Rocky Mountain Front Ranges, SouthernAlberta. University of Calgary, Department of Geography, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Calgary, Alberta.204 pp.

Hayashi, M. and D.O. Rosenberry, 2001. Effects of groundwater exchange on the hydrology and ecology of surfacewaters. Journal of Groundwater Hydrology 34:327-341. Published by Japanese Association of GroundwaterHydrology.

Health Canada, 2001. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa,Ontario.

Hewlett, J.D. and A.R. Hibbert, 1967. Factors affecting the response of watershed to precipitation in humid areas. In:proceedings of International Symposium for Hydrology, W.E. Sopper and H.W. Ledd eds. Pergamon Press,Oxford, United Kingdom.

Holland and Coen, 1992. Ecological (biophysical) Land Classification of Banff and Jasper National Parks. Volume III:The Wildlife Inventory. Canadian Wildlife Services report to Parks Canada, Calgary, Alberta.

Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1978. Kananaskis Country 1978 Groundwater Development Program. KananaskisCountry Utility Study. Edmonton, Alberta.

Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1981. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Many Springs 1981 Groundwater EvaluationProgram. Edmonton, Alberta

Hydrocon Engineering Ltd., 1985. Marmot Creek Experimental Watershed Study. Prepared for: the Water Surveyof Canada, Calgary, Alberta. 52pp.

Jackson, L.E. Jr. 1987. Terrain Inventory of the Kananaskis Lakes Map Area, Alberta. Geological Survey of CanadaPaper 86-2, Ottawa, Ontario.40 pp.

Kirby, C.L. and R.T. Ogilvie, 1969. The Forests of Marmot Creek Watershed Research Basin. Canadian Forest Service,Ottawa, Ontario.

Klijn, F. and J.M. Witte, 1999. Eco-hydrology: Groundwater flow and site factors in plant ecology. HydrogeologyJournal. 7 (8): 65-77.

Leskiw, L.A., 1971. Relationship between soils and groundwater in field mapping near Vegreville, Alberta. MSc.University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Longley, R.W., 1972. The Climate of the Prairie Provinces. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment,Climatological Studies 13, Toronto, Ontario. 79p.

Longmore, L.A. and C. E. Stenton, 1981. The Fish and Fisheries of the South Saskatchewan River Basin: Their Statusand Environmental Requirements. Alberta Fish and Wildlife, Edmonton, Alberta.

McGregor, C.A., 1984. Ecological Land Classification and Evaluation: Kananaskis Country, Vol. I, Natural ResourceSummary. AB Energy & Natural Res., Edmonton, Alberta.

Monenco Consultants Limited, 1980a. Kananaskis Country Trout Rearing Facility: Water Monitoring at Exshaw andBow Springs. For: Department of Energy and Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Division. Calgary, Alberta.


Monenco Consultants Limited, 1980b. Kananaskis Country Trout Rearing Facility: Additional Investigation at BowSprings. For: Department of Energy and Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Division. Calgary, Alberta.

Monenco Consultants Limited, 1980c. Kananaskis Country Trout Rearing Facility: Volume 1: Feasibility of Groundand Surface Water Supplies. For: Department of Energy and Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Division.Calgary, Alberta.

O’Leary, D.J., 1988. Integrated Resource Inventory and Evaluations of the Bow Corridor Integrated Resource PlanningArea. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Pub No. T/184 Edmonton, Alberta.

Ollerenshaw, N.C., 1975, GSC Map 1457A: Calgary, west of Fifth Meridian, Alberta-British Columbia. Scale !:250,000.Ottawa, Ontario.

Ozoray, G., 1977. Apparent Transmissivity and determination by nomgram. In: Alberta Research Council Bulletin35, Edmonton, Alberta.

Pacas, C., D. Bernard, N. Marshall & J. Green, 1996. State of the Banff-Bow Valley Rept. Compiled by C. Pacas &J. Green, Banff Bow Valley Study, Banff, Alberta, D. Bernard, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., N.Marshall, Praxis Inc., Calgary, Alberta.

Parliament of Canada, 1947. An act respecting the protection and conservation of the forests on the EasternSlope of the Rocky Mountains, Ottawa, Ontario.

Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll, 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations on therole of a riparian forest. Ecology, 65: 1466-1475.

Reid, Crowther and Partners Ltd. 1979. Kananaskis Country Utility Study Summary Report. Calgary, Alberta.

RGI Ltd. 1999. Kananaskis. Resource GIS and Imaging, Vancouver, B.C. Image based on 1996 IRS data.

Rutter, N.W., 1972. Geomorphology and multiple glaciation in the area of Banff, Alberta, Canada. Department ofEnergy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Ontario.

Scheelar, M.D. 1976. Detailed soil survey of the Canmore corridor area. Alberta Institute of Pedology (Series)M-76-13, Edmonton, Alberta.

Skolvin, J.M., 1982. Habitat requirements and evaluations. in: Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Thomas,J.W. & D.E. Toweill, eds. Wildlife Management Institute & Stackpole Books. Washington D.C.

Stalker, A.M. 1973. Surficial Geology of the Kananaskis Research Forest and Marmot Creek Basin Area, Alberta.Geological Survey of Canada Paper 72-51, Ottawa, Ontario 25 pp.

Stevenson, Douglas Roy, 1967. Geological and Groundwater Investigations in the Marmot Creek Experimental Basinof Southwestern Alberta, Canada. University of Alberta, Unpublished master’s thesis, Edmonton. Alberta56pp.

Stevenson, D.R. 1971. Collection and Compilation of Groundwater Data in the Marmot Creek Experimental Basin.Research Council of Alberta Open File Report 1971-11, Edmonton, Alberta 31pp.

Storr, D. 1967. Precipitation Variations in a Small Forested Watershed. Proceedings, 35th Western Snow Conference.


Storr, D. 1974. Relating Sub-Surface Water Storage to Streamflow in a Mountainous Watershed. CanadianMeteorological Research Report 4-74. Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario.

Storr, D. 1977. Some Preliminary Water Balances of Marmot Creek Subbasins. in: Alberta Watershed Research, ProgressSymposium Proceedings, Swanson and Logan editors, Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta. Rept.NOR-X-176, pp 159-177.

Strong, W.L. 1992. Ecoregions & Ecodistricts of Alberta. AB Forestry Lands & Wildlife, Pub. T/244, Edmonton,Alberta.

Swanson, R.H & D.L. Golding, 1982. Snowpack Management on Marmot Creek Watershed to Increase Late SeasonStreamflow. Western Snow Conference Proceedings, Reno, Nevada. pp 215-218.

Swanson, R.H., D.L Golding, R.L. Rothwell, P.Y. Bernier, 1986. Hydrologic Effects of Clear-cutting at Marmot Creekand Streeter Watersheds, Alberta. Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta.Inf. Rept. NOR-X.

Sweetgrass Consultants Limited, 1991. Environmentally Significant Areas in the Bow River Corridor. For: MunicipalDistrict of Bighorn, Exshaw, Alberta.

Timoney, K.P., 1991. Biophysical Inventory of the Canmore Flats Natural Area. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife,Ref no. 685-821, Edmonton, Alberta.

Tóth, J., 1962. A theory of groundwater motion in small drainage basins in central Alberta, Canada. J. of Geoph.Res., 67 (11): 4375-4387

Tóth, J., 1963. A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small drainage basins: J Geoph. Res., 68 (16): 4795-4812

Tóth, J., 1966. Mapping and interpretation of field phenomena for groundwater reconnaissance in a prairieenvironment, Alberta, Canada. Bull. Intern. Assoc. Sci. Hydro., 11 (2):1-49.

Tóth, J., 1971. Groundwater discharge: A common generator of diverse geologic and morphologic phenomena.Bull Intern. Assoc. Sci Hydro., 16(1-3): 7-24

Tóth, J., 1972. Properties and manifestations of regional groundwater movement. Proceedings 24th InternationalGeologic Congress Section 11, Montreal: 153-163

Tóth, J., 1999. Groundwater as a geologic agent: An overview of the causes, processes and manifestations,Hydrogeology Journal, 7 (1):1-14

Tóth, J., and R.F. Millar, 1983. Possible effects of erosional changes of the topographic relief on pore pressures atdepth. Water Resources Research, 19: 1585-1597.

University of Calgary, 1994. The Wind Valley: A Proposal for an Ecological Reserve, University of Calgary Facultyof Env. Design for Town of Canmore, Calgary, Alberta.

Van Everdingen, R.O., 1972. Thermal and mineral springs in the southern Rocky Mountains of Canada. Departmentof Environment , Water Management Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

Van Tighem, K., 1993. Heart of a Mountain Ecosystem. Environmental Views, Alberta Environmental Protection,Edmonton, Alberta. 16, (2): 3-7.


Water Survey of Canada, 1980. Compilation of Hydrometeorological Record, Marmot Creek Basin 1980 Data, Volume16. Canada Department of the Environment, Calgary District. 91 pp.

Westworth, D.A., L.M. Brusnyk & G.R. Burns, 1984. Impact on wildlife of short-rotation management of boreal aspenstands. Westworth & Associates Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta.

Woods, J., 1991. Ecology of a partially migratory elk population. PhD. Thesis, U. of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Yonge, C.J. 2000. Bow Valley Canmore – Kananaskis Groundwater Mapping Program: Stable Isotope Interpretation(2000). Alberta Karst Consulting, For: Alberta Environment Hydrogeology Section. Edmonton, Alberta.

Yonge, C.J. 2001. Bow Valley Canmore – Kananaskis Groundwater Mapping Program: Stable Isotope Interpretation(2001). Alberta Karst Consulting, For: Alberta Environment Hydrogeology Section. Edmonton, Alberta.

Yonge, C. and H.R. Krouse, in prep. Isotope composition of precipitation and its relation to weather systems at Calgary,Alberta, Canada.

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta

Acknowledgements

The Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridor andNorthwestern Kananaskis Country was a studyundertaken by Alberta Environment, HydrogeologySection. This project was funded by the Canada-Alberta Western Economic Partnership Agreement(WEPA), a joint initiative between Western EconomicDiversification Canada and Alberta Environment.The agreement demonstrates cooperation andcommitment between federal and provincialgovernments for building a sound economy andenvironmentally sustainable future for Albertans, andfor all Canadians who share our natural heritage.

We would like to thank the residents—homeowners, ranchers and business people—of theCanmore Corridor and Northwestern Kananaskis

Country, whose warm hospitality and enthusiasticcooperation made the project a reality. Local facilities,expertise and inspiration were provided courtesy ofthe Canmore office of Alberta Environment, Parks andProtected Areas and Bow Valley Park interpreters, theMunicipal District of Bighorn, the Town of Canmoreand Bow Valley Campgrounds.

Drilling services were provided by Alken BasinDrilling and by Aaron Drilling Limited. Land accesswas granted by Alberta Public Lands, the M.D. ofBighorn, the Town of Canmore, Rafter Six Ranch andLaFarge Canada. Water analysis services wereprovided by Maxxam Analytical, and by theUniversity of Calgary, Department of Physics, and theaerial survey by Alpine Helicopters Limited.

Project Manager - Nga de la Cruz

Written by - David Toop

Reviewed by -Nga de la Cruz, Glenn Winner

Layout - Frank Geddes

Administration -Ron Bothe, Brenda Emmel, Angie Estephan,Cal Webb, David May

Field Program and Well Survey -Adam Benn, Jesse Peterson, David Toop

Field Assistance -Steven Clare, Lisa Mazuryk, Kevin Nipp,Glenn Winner

Computer Mapping - Kevin Nipp

Cross Sections and Logs - Jesse Peterson

Hydrochemistry Graphs - David Toop

Groundwater Database - Gary Blechinger

Groundwater Model - Mafiz Uddin

Stable Isotope Interpretation -Charles Yonge, Stephen Grasby

Figures - David Toop

Photographs - David Toop, Nga de la Cruz

Cover Photo Image of Kananaskis -RGI Limited of Vancouver

Hydrogeology of the Canmore Corridorand Northwestern Kananaskis Country, Alberta

Spring Water Alberta

Documents

Transcript of Spring Water Alberta