Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin – Advice to the

Transcription

Room for the River in
the Red Deer River
Basin
Advice to the Government of Alberta
June 4, 2015
Submitted by:
Submitted to:
P. Kim Sturgess, P.Eng., FCAE
CEO
WaterSMART Solutions Ltd.
#200, 3512 - 33 Street NW
Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A6
Cathy Maniego and Andrew Wilson
Resilience and Mitigation Branch
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
205 JG O'Donoghue Building
7000 - 113 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6H 5T6
Please note:
The Room for the River process applied in the Red Deer River Basin and the subsequent Room for the
River report are not government policy. The advice in this report will be taken under consideration by
the Government of Alberta to help inform sound water management and policy decisions.
This was not a public consultation process. The project was carried out with a technical working group,
the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance, and the Red Deer River Municipal Users Group to provide
advice to the Government of Alberta. It is a step toward developing a comprehensive inventory of
flood mitigation projects and all options were put forward for consideration. Options presented in this
report reflect concepts suggested by contributors; their inclusion in this report should not be viewed
as an endorsement.
i
Executive Summary
In the nearly two years since the 2013 floods in Alberta, many mitigation options for the province’s
flood-prone areas have been identified, studied, and implemented by the Government of Alberta
(GoA), municipalities, non-government organizations, and others. In the fall of 2014 the GoA
announced that it wanted to look more closely at the approach taken by the Netherlands to manage
flooding in the Rhine River branches – the Room for the River program. A pilot project was undertaken
in the Bow River Basin in late 2014 to consider the extent to which Dutch measures could be adapted
and applied to reduce vulnerability of people and infrastructure and improve the overall quality of the
Bow and Elbow rivers. A secondary objective was to develop and pilot a systematic Room for the River
framework and process that, if deemed appropriate, could be replicated in other basins throughout
the province.
Building on the Bow Basin pilot, a second initiative was carried out in spring 2015 in the Red Deer River
Basin. As with the Bow project, contributors reflected the many interests in this basin, including water
managers, watershed groups, municipalities, environmental groups, domain experts, and the
interested public. The ten river segments examined for the Red Deer project included four on the Red
Deer River main stem plus six tributaries (Fallentimber Creek, Bearberry Creek, James River, Raven
River, Little Red Deer River and Medicine River). An initial scan was done for each segment, identifying
examples of and opportunities for mitigation in four categories: conveyance, diversion, detention, and
defence. The most promising opportunities were identified by project contributors who also provided
feedback on the Room for the River approach and its potential application in Alberta.
Contributors noted that it is essential to talk about flood mitigation in the broader context of water
management, including impacts of potential options on water supply and water quality. The Red Deer
Basin is home to a diversity of human activities, and interests vary depending on the segment or
tributary being considered. What happens on land affects the rivers, and any Room for the River-type
program must aim to develop resilience and mitigation throughout the watershed, looking at
environmental, economic, and social components and connections across the whole basin.
Various flood response mechanisms and practices are already in place in the Red Deer River Basin. The
Dickson Dam, although not built to manage floodwaters, was operated effectively in recent floods and
has played an important role in flood mitigation. Seasonal operational schemes are continually refined
to help manage flood flows. The City of Red Deer has many setbacks with few homes in its 1:100 year
floodway. With respect to conveyance, Alberta Transportation has an extensive inventory of bridges
and roads creating pinch points and the issues that may need to be addressed. And finally, the current
warning system appears to be doing the job below Dickson Dam in terms of communications between
dam operators, Red Deer County, and other counties downstream.
The most promising opportunities focused on conveyance, detention, and defence. There is a strong
need to reconsider how we design and build bridges and roads, and to ensure we are building to more
resilient standards. In areas that are susceptible to repetitive flooding, it was suggested that rebuilding
not occur at all. Land management practices need to improve; in the headwaters, for example, the
linear footprint, including the use of off-highway vehicles on erosion prone slopes, should be reduced.
In other parts of the basin, pipeline crossings need to be assessed and reviewed to guard against leaks
and ruptures under flood conditions. Stronger efforts are needed throughout the basin to retain,
restore, and protect wetlands, which store water and replenish groundwater supplies. Contributors
ii
recognized the importance of protecting critical infrastructure such as municipal water and
wastewater treatment facilities, and they supported the strategic use of berms and dikes.
Relocation of existing infrastructure did not emerge as a readily feasible option, largely because
vulnerable communities such as Drumheller and highly developed parts of Sundre would need to be
completely moved. Nevertheless, moving out of the floodplain remains the only way to ensure that
people and property are not flooded in the future. Selective relocation could be a cost-effective option
for smaller communities or individual homeowners. At the very least, the cost of potentially moving
smaller communities or individuals out of the floodplain should be assessed. When relocation is not
feasible, defence mechanisms such as berms and dikes are needed. In other areas susceptible to
flooding, the focus was on establishing and enforcing adequate setbacks so that development does not
occur in these areas and future relocations and buyouts can be avoided. To help address potential
floodplain development, it was suggested that having clear regulations that are supported by the GoA
makes flood mitigation strategies much easier to implement.
Contributors offered advice on a potential Room for the River program for Alberta, suggesting that:
 An integrated, multi-barrier approach is essential.
 Any program that the GoA might initiate should include both mandatory requirements and
voluntary components.
 There are important lessons from the Dutch Room for the River program, but an Alberta
program should not be marketed as a “Dutch initiative.”
 Multiple perspectives are needed on a wide range of potential flood mitigation options before
any program is developed. This will help make the program relevant to local and regional
stakeholders.
 Ongoing engagement, commitment, and funding will be needed from all levels of government.
 Transparency and sharing of information are critical to identify solutions and coordinate
implementation.
 A program like this should be used to encourage collaboration among the water projects in the
province and help avoid duplication.
Similar to the Bow River Basin pilot project, contributors to this project noted that a Room for the
River-type program could be a valuable component of the water management discussion in Alberta.
The objectives, scope, and governance should be clearly defined appropriate to the Alberta context
and well communicated. Objectives should be more broadly defined than in the Netherlands’
approach to perhaps focus on long-term watershed resilience, encompassing safety and security,
water supply, and water quality. It will be essential to raise individual and community awareness and
understanding about watershed functions and the effects of flooding. And, perhaps most importantly,
the program would need long term political, local, and financial support and accountability.
The approach used in this project is a way to fuel momentum and interest in water management,
support the Water for Life goals, build on the expertise and experience of the water community, and
provide a long-term program for thoughtful and effective water management and flood mitigation
throughout Alberta.
iii
Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ii
1.
2.
3.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Purpose and Context................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Building on the Bow Room for the River Experience .................................................................. 2
The Room for the River Management Approach ....................................................................... 3
2.1
The Dutch Approach ................................................................................................................... 3
2.2
The Southern Alberta Context .................................................................................................... 6
2.3
Scope of the Red Deer Room for the River Project ..................................................................... 8
2.4
Process and Approach............................................................................................................... 11
Advice to Government of Alberta from the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River
Basin .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1
Initial Scan of the Red Deer Basin Study Area .......................................................................... 12
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.1.7
3.1.8
3.1.9
3.1.10
3.1.11
4.
Basin-wide Options........................................................................................................... 12
Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters .......................................................................... 14
Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek ........................................................................................ 17
Segment 3: Bearberry Creek ............................................................................................ 19
Segment 4: James River .................................................................................................... 21
Segment 5: Raven River.................................................................................................... 23
Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam ...................................................... 25
Segment 7: Little Red Deer River...................................................................................... 30
Segment 8: Medicine River............................................................................................... 32
Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake ............................................. 34
Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller.............. 39
3.2
Most Promising Opportunities.................................................................................................. 42
3.3
Feedback on the Room for the River Approach ........................................................................ 47
Closing Comments ................................................................................................................. 52
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 54
Appendix A: Contributors to the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River Basin ............... 55
Appendix B: Segment Identification Methodology........................................................................ 56
iv
List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Room for the River Measures: Dutch Definitions .................................................................5
Differences between River Systems in the Netherlands and Southern Alberta ..................6
General Examples of the Room for the River Measures in the Alberta Context ..................7
Project Scope ........................................................................................................................8
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters.........................15
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek ......................................17
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 3: Bearberry Creek ...........................................20
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 4: James River ..................................................22
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 5: Raven River ..................................................24
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam ....26
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 7: Little Red Deer River ....................................31
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 8: Medicine River .............................................33
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake
............................................................................................................................................34
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just
downstream of Drumheller ...............................................................................................40
Most Promising Opportunities to Create Room for the River............................................42
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Geographic Scope of the Project in the Red Deer River Basin ...........................................10
Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters ............................................................................15
Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek ..........................................................................................17
Segment 3: Bearberry Creek ..............................................................................................19
Segment 4: James River ......................................................................................................21
Segment 5: Raven River......................................................................................................23
Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam ........................................................25
Segment 7: Little Red Deer River........................................................................................30
Segment 8: Medicine River.................................................................................................32
Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake ...............................................34
Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller................39
v
1.
Introduction
Access to water is fundamental to human settlements and is the basis for our economic activity and
quality of life. Although droughts have been more common in Alberta’s recent history, floods are not
rare. With the 1990 and 2005 flood events still memorable, the June 2013 floods were devastating,
affecting families, homes, businesses, property, infrastructure, and landscapes. Following emergency
responses by various authorities and volunteer agencies, the Government of Alberta (GoA) established
the Flood Recovery Task Force and, subsequently, the Resilience and Mitigation Branch in Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD).1
Since the 2013 floods, various mitigation options have been identified, studied, and implemented by
the GoA, municipalities, non-government organizations, and others in the Red Deer River Basin and
elsewhere. Berms and other local protection measures have been built or are planned in many
locations, and flood policy and regulatory operations are being reviewed in a number of jurisdictions. A
study completed by Stantec in May 2014 focused on the Red Deer River Basin and identified several
large and small engineered mitigation approaches, as well as many potential policy options for flood
mitigation. This project does not replicate the extensive work done to date; rather it is intended to
build on existing work by continuing the discussion and highlighting the complexity of a system that
requires layers of flood mitigation.
With a number of options still under consideration in the Red Deer River Basin and elsewhere, the GoA
announced in the fall of 2014 that it wanted to look more closely at the approach taken by the
Netherlands to manage flooding in the Rhine River branches, called the Room for the River program. A
pilot project subsequently explored opportunities to create more room for the river in the Bow River
Basin. That work, described briefly in Section 1.2, provided a foundation for the Red Deer Room for the
River project. Like the Bow River pilot, this project focused primarily on flood mitigation. For this
project, drought and water quality were considered given the broader context of overall water
management, but only as they related to options intended to mitigate flooding. It was acknowledged
that flooding plays an important role in the Red Deer River ecosystem, particularly on cottonwood
recruitment, and these aspects were considered as potential mitigation measures.
1.1 Purpose and Context
In response to serious flood threat and severe impacts on people and property, the Netherlands
initiated its Room for the River program in the later 1990s (see Section 2.1 for more details). The
objective of the Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin project was to learn from the Dutch
experience and from the Bow River Basin pilot to identify and consider potential flood mitigation
options in the Red Deer River Basin to reduce vulnerability of people and infrastructure, and to
improve the overall environmental quality of the river. This was done by:
 Building on what has already been identified, studied, and implemented in the Red Deer River
Basin,
 Applying a systematic, informed framework and process that could be replicated in other
basins, and
 Building on the work done and the lessons learned in the Bow Room for the River pilot.
1
This department is now Alberta Environment and Parks but is referred to throughout this report as ESRD as that
was the name of the department when the work was done.
1
A key to success was working with water managers, watershed managers, and experts who know the
river system best (see Appendix A for a list of contributors to this project). Many of these organizations
and individuals have not only been directly involved in managing water in the Red Deer River Basin,
they also actively participated in previous collaborations to model and identify Red Deer River water
management opportunities for both drought and flood mitigation.2 This project further drew on their
expertise and sought comments on costs, risks, and benefits of potential Room for the River-type
options for flood mitigation in the Red Deer River Basin, including environmental and fisheries impacts.
This project had three target outcomes:
1. Provide specific advice to the GoA, including:
 A scan of specific, actionable opportunities to further implement Room for the River
measures along the Red Deer River, including select tributaries, from the headwaters
to downstream of Drumheller.
 Recognition of what has already been done along the Red Deer River and select
tributaries to create room for the river.
 Identification of the most promising opportunities.
 Suggestions on a potential broader program, process and engagement.
2. Elevate understanding among the water community in the Red Deer Basin of the Room for the
River program, measures and associated opportunities in Alberta.
3. Produce a tested framework and process for applying Room for the River measures to all
watersheds in Alberta.
1.2 Building on the Bow Room for the River Experience
The Bow Room for the River pilot ran from October to December 2014. The study area included the
main stems of the Bow and Elbow Rivers from above Ghost Dam on the Bow and the confluence with
Quirk Creek on the Elbow to the southern boundary of the city of Calgary. The two river systems were
examined in a total of eight segments (four for each river system), to create an initial scan of the
mitigation measures already implemented and what options remained. Facilitated by WaterSMART on
behalf of ESRD’s Resilience and Mitigation Branch, the pilot project engaged a technical working group
of stakeholders familiar with the river systems as well as a broader forum through the Bow River Basin
Council. The resulting advice was documented in the project’s final report, which was submitted to the
GoA in December and simultaneously released to the public for comment.
From the initial scan, twenty possible “no regrets” opportunities, defined as mitigation measures that
should be beneficial under all river conditions, were identified across the Bow Basin in two main
categories: policies and decisions, and projects or actions. Opportunities related to policies and
decision making are broader in scope and could take longer to implement; e.g., strengthening and
enforcing policy and regulation to minimize new development in the floodplain. Potential projects or
actions are specific and could be advanced in the near term, such as revising the Southwest Calgary
Ring Road Bridge designs to leave room for the Elbow River and Fish Creek.
2
For more information on these projects, visit the Water Portal at http://albertawater.com/work/researchprojects/ssrb-water-project.
2
The pilot affirmed that a systemic, watershed-based approach to flood mitigation is essential.
Mitigation options implemented in one part of a river system and its tributaries can have major
consequences in other parts of the system, potentially transferring unacceptable risk from one
community or region to another. All mitigation options will affect the watershed; the options chosen
must function to build the health and natural resiliency of the watershed and allow for sound water
management under flood, drought, and normal conditions.
The report also included advice on how a potential Room for the River program might be implemented
in Alberta, stressing the need to raise individual and community awareness and understanding about
watershed functions and the effects of flooding.3 As well, the various jurisdictions with responsibilities
for flood mitigation need to effectively share and communicate knowledge, data, and other scientific
findings. Perhaps most importantly, the pilot noted that, to succeed, a program of this nature would
need long-term political, local, and financial support and accountability.
The approach used in the Bow pilot was well received and sparked good discussion about broader
water management and specific mitigation opportunities. Feedback on the pilot’s report was accepted
throughout January 2015; a final report and addendum based on feedback was submitted to the GoA
and released publicly at the end of February.4 Lessons learned from the Bow pilot provided a solid
basis for the Room for the River project in the Red Deer River Basin.
2.
The Room for the River Management Approach
2.1 The Dutch Approach
Room for the River is a program designed and implemented by the Government of the Netherlands. It
followed a transition in river management policy away from the historic approach of managing flood
risk by raising embankments and toward a new approach of creating room for conveyance throughout
the river system.
In 1996, the Flood Protection Law (now Water Law) was introduced. It set specific protection levels
and required five-year reviews and reports to Parliament on the Rhine design parameters and flood
infrastructure. In 2001, the levels from two recent flood events resulted in the design discharge for the
Rhine branches being increased from 15,000 m3/s to 16,000 m3/s. At the same time, a new policy was
introduced, adding two key components: the preference for no further dike heightening (i.e., that dike
heightening be considered only as a last resort), and a secondary program objective of enhancing
natural and cultural landscape values (i.e., “spatial quality”). Thus the specific goals of the current
Dutch program are to:
1. Safely cope with a 1:1,250 year discharge of 16,000 m3/s without flooding, and
2. Enhance the overall spatial quality of the river landscape.
3
Ducks Unlimited Canada, for example, has published Wetland Conservation and Restoration as Flood Mitigation
Tools in the Bow River Basin, January 2014, available online at http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/BRBWetlands-as-Flood-Mitigation-Final-2.pdf
4
The Bow Room for the River report and addendum are available online at http://albertawater.com/albertawater-blog/2572-public-feedback-room-for-the-river-pilot-in-the-bow-river-basin.
3
The Dutch process followed five main steps:
1. Define the problem with specific objectives and clear constraints, considering the geoecological functioning of the system and the long-term consequences of current policy.
2. Develop an inventory of potential projects that could be considered to help achieve the
specific program objectives.
3. Determine the expected hydraulic impact, cost-effectiveness, and attractiveness of all
potential projects and build the Planning Kit (see below), communicating all this data.
4. Working collaboratively with many participants and using the Planning Kit, select the suitable
ideas against the objectives for the region; that is, which projects together can achieve the
pre-defined goal within the budget constraints?
5. Implement the selected projects locally under national supervision with transparency and
extensive engagement throughout.
Sharing knowledge with stakeholders has been a fundamental part of the program in the Netherlands.
All results from the early research that went into the problem definition were captured in an
understandable way in a single volume that was very explicit about the uncertainties.
The Planning Kit tool (“Blokkendoos”) is a simple, interactive, visual tool showing the hydraulic effect
and cost data needed for any user to examine and select sets of individual mitigation measures. This
tool allows the user to select various measures throughout the Rhine branches to try to collectively
meet the safety objective within a pre-set budget. The tool created a common base of knowledge,
allowed users to test their own ideas, and provided a sense of empowerment to affected communities.
The second objective – spatial quality – reflected a balance of functionality (for everyday use),
sustainability (geo-ecologically robust), and attractiveness (culturally meaningful and aesthetic). An
independent Spatial Quality team (the Q team) was struck to provide advice and to peer review spatial
quality for all projects that went ahead.
Nine broad mitigation measures were identified under the Room for the River program (Table 1).
4
Table 1:
Room for the River Measures: Dutch Definitions
Room for the River Measures (as described by the Dutch program*)
1. Dike relocation: Relocating a dike inland widens the floodplain and increases room for the river.
5
2. Depoldering: The dike on the river-side of a polder is lowered and relocated inland. This creates space for
excess flows in extreme high water situations.
3. High-water channel: A high-water channel is a diked area branching off from the main river to discharge some
of the water via a separate route.
4. Lowering floodplains: Lowering or excavating part of the floodplain increases the room for the river in high
water situations.
6
5. Lowering groynes : At high water levels, groynes may obstruct the flow in the river. Lowering groynes speeds
up the rate of flow.
6. Removing obstacles: If possible, removing or modifying obstacles in the river bed will increase the rate of flow.
7. Water storage: Provide temporary water storage in extreme situations where the storm surge barrier is closed
and there are high river discharges to the sea.
8. Deepening summer bed: Excavating or deepening the surface of the river bed creates more room for the river.
9. Dike reinforcement: Dikes are reinforced at given locations where river widening is not feasible.
* Source: Room for the River Summary Brochure; March 2012.
Measure 8, essentially dredging, was commonly used in the past in the Netherlands to reduce
sediment build-up in navigation channels. Their experience has shown that it has limited effect as the
river typically quickly re-deposits sediment in dredged areas, which reduces the benefit or necessitates
repeated dredging. Measure 7, water storage, is recognized as having very limited opportunities in the
Netherlands. Some opportunities may exist upstream in Germany but those options have not
advanced to date. A further limiting factor on potential storage infrastructure is the consequence of
infrastructure failure; in the Netherlands, infrastructure failure would be catastrophic given the
population density and location. In addition to the risk of catastrophic failure, large infrastructure also
means that the burden of a reservoir is borne in a different area from the area that receives the
benefits. For these reasons, water storage that uses natural low-lying areas such as polders is much
preferred over storage that requires dam infrastructure.
Fisheries and habitat values are important throughout the floodplain area, the main channels, and side
channels. Through the spatial planning team, the program has tried to restore aquatic and semiaquatic spaces, although this is a particular challenge during low-flow periods.
A critical point when considering which measures are most appropriate is the nature of the hydraulic
effect of managed water. Simply, water storage should reduce the water level downstream; creating a
larger cross section should reduce the water level locally and upstream. These concepts are often
poorly understood.
Rijkswaterstaat, the National Water Authority in the Netherlands, has administered the Room for the
River program for about 14 years. Of the 700 projects identified in that time, 39 are expected to be
5
A polder is a low-lying tract of land enclosed by dikes that forms an artificial hydrological entity that has no
connection with outside water other than through manually operated devices. (adapted from Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder)
6
A groyne is a rigid hydraulic structure built from a river bank. It directs high velocity flows away from the banks,
mitigates erosion, and keeps navigation channels open. Groynes are generally placed in groups.
5
implemented by 2015 within a budget of €2.3 billion (about Cdn$3.3 billion). The expected effect is
that 4,400 hectares of surface area (about 10% of the system) will be “returned” to the river
floodplain. In so doing, the peak flow levels will be reduced so that water level is lowered by 30 cm on
average along all three river branches, creating the conveyance capacity for the specified target of
16,000 m3/s. Additional information on the Room for the River program is available online in English at
http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/.
2.2 The Southern Alberta Context
Numerous differences in geography and hydrology exist between the Netherlands and Southern
Alberta (Table 2) that must be recognized when potential Room for the River measures are being
contemplated in this province. Furthermore, the Dutch measures are essentially engineered structural
changes, whereas Alberta has indicated the importance of capitalizing on natural river and watershed
functions for flood mitigation, as highlighted in the GoA’s 2014 Respecting Our Rivers document.7
These differences do not negate the opportunity to learn from the Dutch program and measures,
rather they were recognized as important context throughout the project discussions.
Table 2:
Differences between River Systems in the Netherlands and Southern Alberta
Hydrology of the Netherlands
Hydrology of Southern Alberta
The Netherlands is in the coastal region, partly below
sea level
The Netherlands has a temperate humid, maritime
climate
The Netherlands’ rivers branch through static
channels through flat terrain with a leveed floodplain
Southern Alberta comprises mountains, foothills, and
prairies
Alberta has a relatively cold, dry, continental climate
The Netherlands has issues with sedimentation of fine
material (siltation) but few other water quality
concerns
Development has encroached on the river throughout
the country; Room for the River is lowering the flood
level by removing the “straitjacket”
One of the primary purposes of the Rhine River is
navigation for transport vessels upstream into
Germany; water supply is not a limiting factor
Salt water is a concern
The Netherlands is dealing with increasing river
discharge where timing is less of an issue and transboundary upstream retention is difficult
Southern Alberta’s rivers course down steep slopes and
move and converge through foothills and onto the
prairie
Southern Alberta has issues with transport of fine and
coarse material and debris, and significant water quality
concerns
Southern Alberta has a mix of development near and on
the river and stretches that are free of development;
Alberta is about mitigating flood while respecting our
rivers’ natural characteristics
The rivers are managed for water supply in a closed
basin; all rivers have multiple functions and uses,
including a healthy and thriving recreational cold water
fishery
Groundwater plays a key role
Southern Alberta is dealing with natural variability
where timing is crucial and upstream retention within
the same jurisdiction may be possible
With these differences in mind, Room for the River measures can be adapted to fit the Alberta context
and categorized to reflect how mitigation is often discussed in Alberta: conveyance, diversion,
7
Online at https://pabappsuat.alberta.ca/albertacode/images/respecting-our-rivers.pdf.
6
detention, and defence. Examples in place or being considered on the Red Deer River main stem and
select tributaries are included with the adapted measures in Table 3.
Table 3:
General Examples of the Room for the River Measures in the Alberta Context
Measure
How it might be defined in the Alberta
context
Examples on the Red Deer main stem
and selected tributaries
CONVEYANCE
• Relocate permanent or temporary barriers,
possibly in combination with relocation of homes
and businesses via buyouts
• Reduce the size and location of infrastructure in
the floodplain; e.g., roads, bridge abutments
• Set development back from the river (floodway,
flood fringe, floodplain)
• Construct parks in the floodplain as flood zones
• Remove material from floodplain
• Change policy on allowing fill in floodplains
• Minimize obstacles in the riverbed
• Dredge river beds in high hazard areas
• Create flood bypasses through the floodplain
• Operational changes to current storage
infrastructure
• Structural changes to current storage
infrastructure
• Dredge reservoirs
• Construct new detention sites (on-stream, offstream, wetlands, ponds)
• Designate agricultural and park lands in the
floodplain as flood zones
• Prevent destruction of naturally occurring
detention sites (i.e., wetlands)
• Restore riparian zones for absorption functions
• Enforce land use practices in upper watershed to
detain runoff
• Reinforce barriers (permanent or temporary) at
given locations
• Restore riparian zones for bank stabilization
function
• Reduce flow velocity upstream of settled areas
• Flood-proof buildings in floodplains
• Bridge redesigns – enlarging the bridge
span where hydraulic capacity is
constricted
• Restricted development in the floodplain
– the City of Red Deer has adopted the
province’s “Stepping Back from the
Water” initiative
• Relocation of houses or businesses –
relocation of houses from the floodplain;
the most recent relocations have been
downstream of Dickson Dam
DIVERSION
DETENTION
DEFENCE
•
•
•
•
Reconnection of natural drains
Modifications to Dickson Dam
Wetland restoration or preservation
Land use restrictions – forestry access
roads, oil and gas restrictions
• New dams as identified by the 2014
Stantec report (not recommended for
further study by Stantec and GoA)
• Local berms – raise existing dikes in
Sundre to the updated flows of a 1:100
year event
7
2.3 Scope of the Red Deer Room for the River Project
To ensure appropriate focus and timely completion, careful consideration was given to what was in
scope and out of scope for this project. The project was intended to build on prior work and decisions,
not replicate them, and the scope was set accordingly. The scope parameters are shown in Table 4.
Table 4:
Project Scope
In Scope
Out of Scope
Geography
• Main stem of the Red Deer River from the
headwaters to downstream of Drumheller
• Large catchment tributaries:
• Medicine River
• Little Red Deer River
• James River
• Bearberry Creek
• Fallentimber Creek
• Raven River
• All tributaries not listed
Cause of
flooding
• Spring freshet
• Precipitation events
• Ice jams
Options and
Opportunities
• Infrastructure options, operational changes,
and natural functions
• Basin scale and local scale options
• Primarily surface water quantity, but water
quality and groundwater comments were
captured
• Individual landowner-related decisions
Impacts
• Upstream, downstream, and system-wide
impacts
• High-flow, low-flow, and “normal-flow”
impacts
• Identification of potential complexities and
dependencies
• Detailed engineering or feasibility and
constructability analysis
• Detailed environmental, social, or
economic impacts
Findings
• Advice on where Room for the River
measures have already been applied and a
scan of further opportunities
• Specific, actionable most promising options
• Comprehensive, triple bottom line
evaluation of options
• A detailed prioritization study
The study area for this project was the Red Deer River and select tributaries, from headwaters to
downstream of Drumheller. The tributaries were chosen because they had: sizeable human
populations living near them, large catchment basins, heavy infrastructure, seen flooding in the past,
or they contributed significant water yield to streamflow in the basin. To enable manageable
discussion of mitigation opportunities, the study area was divided into ten segments, which were
defined as groupings of reaches with similar geomorphology. Channel pattern and channel
confinement were the main factors in reach delineation, but significant tributary confluences or
changes in gradient could also indicate reach boundaries. The intent was to reflect the diversity of the
8
systems while maintaining a reasonable number of segments to enable productive discussion. The ten
segments examined for this project included four on the Red Deer River main stem, plus six tributaries
(Fallentimber Creek, Bearberry Creek, James River, Raven River, Little Red Deer River and Medicine
River). These river systems are complex with many interdependencies and breaking them into
segments does not imply that any one segment is independent of or more important than any other. A
detailed description of the methodology used to define these ten segments appears in Appendix B.
Figure 1 illustrates the geographic scope of the entire project; maps of each segment appear in Section
3.1.
9
Figure 1:
Geographic Scope of the Project in the Red Deer River Basin
10
2.4 Process and Approach
A systematic, informed framework was developed for examining Room for the River measures in the
Red Deer River Basin. For each of the ten river or tributary segments, research was undertaken to
identify a) measures that had already been implemented, and b) remaining options that might be
considered in the four categories noted above.
To complete the initial scan for each river segment, project staff first researched and reviewed recent
flood and engineering studies and policy documents from municipalities, the GoA, and groups involved
in the watershed. They also interviewed knowledgeable and experienced representatives from select
municipalities, counties, non-government organizations (including the Watershed Planning and
Advisory Council), and others. Once this information was compiled and details added to the framework
for each segment, a one-day multi-stakeholder technical session was held in Red Deer in April 2015 to
engage water managers, watershed managers, and experts. The compiled findings from the research,
interviews, and technical working group session were presented to a joint meeting of the Red Deer
River Watershed Alliance and the Red Deer River Municipal Users Group in early May to obtain
broader input. This document – the project’s final report – with advice on Room for the River
implementation and further options in the Red Deer River Basin was prepared and submitted to the
GoA in early June. The entire process was facilitated by Alberta WaterSMART.
Like the Bow pilot project, this process and report are not government policy. Suggestions in this
report are for consideration and do not, in the form presented, reflect policy of the GoA; the advice
includes ideas that may be adopted but their presence in this report does not indicate that they are
official policy. Nor was this a public consultation process. It was a project that drew on the experience
and expertise of a technical working group as well as the local Watershed Planning and Advisory
Council (the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance) in a joint forum with the Red Deer River Municipal
User Group, to provide advice to the GoA. It represents one step towards gaining a comprehensive
inventory of flood mitigation projects in the province.
11
3.
Advice to Government of Alberta from the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer
River Basin
3.1 Initial Scan of the Red Deer Basin Study Area
The project team compiled information from various sources for this project, including:
 The Red Deer River Basin Flood Mitigation Study by Stantec (May 2014), which featured a
broad set of relevant data, results of stakeholder engagement, and flood mitigation
alternatives,
 Climate Vulnerability and Sustainable Water Management in the SSRB Project – Red Deer
River Basin Modelling, by Alberta WaterSMART (February 2015),
 The website of the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance, and
 Interviews with a number of technical working group participants.
Four main categories of measures were used for the initial scan and were retained for the subsequent
analysis with stakeholders; these measures related to:
 Conveyance,
 Diversion,
 Detention, and
 Defence.
3.1.1 Basin-wide Options
Throughout the course of the initial scan, a number of potential options were identified that could
apply to multiple river segments. These ideas were captured in the following list of basin-wide options
and were grouped into what appeared to be relevant themes.
Preserve channel capacity
 Preserve channel capacity in areas that provide active floodplain storage, require high channel
capacity, and have geomorphologic issues, geotechnical issues, special aquifer areas, or
sensitive riparian zones. The channel capacity may be conserved by prohibiting development
as necessary.
 Implement a basin-wide bank erosion policy; e.g., establish setback zones from the river
through channel migration zones and/or building development setbacks.
Limit development in floodplain
 Recommendation in 1989 to stay out of the floodplain.
 Either do not develop in areas that are not protected by dikes or do not develop in areas that
are developable only because they are protected by dikes.
 If deemed scientifically necessary, setback standards should be increased or enforced in flood
fringe areas as well as in the floodplain.
 Increase the required depth of pipeline crossings under a floodplain from 1.5 m depth
requirement to a proposed depth of 30 m.
 Review municipal land use policies to support Bill 27 and restrict development in the floodway,
including identifying sites for storage of dangerous goods.
 Some counties have a policy of no floodway development although not all rivers have
provincial flood hazard mapping.
12


Some counties have general policies that discourage floodplain development. Guidelines
pertaining to floodplain development should be converted to regulations that prevent
development in floodplains. Data are needed to support such regulations; e.g., floodplain
maps.
There is a lot of talk about restricting or preventing development; the types of developments
that are taking place should also be considered. Low impact development and proper
stormwater management should be discussed and encouraged to detain water and thus slow
water release into the river.
Consider additional storage in the basin
 Storage in the basin should not be taken off the table. Consider additional dams or reservoirs.
At the moment no new dams or reservoirs are being contemplated; these should be
considered at the same time as regularly scheduled Dickson Dam code safety reviews. Dams to
consider could include dams on small tributaries that would decrease the overall flow in the
river instead of bigger dams (e.g., six small dams as opposed to one bigger dam). Suggested
locations for larger structures were a dam upstream of Sundre, and/or mid-stream storage
such as Ardley for both flood and drought mitigation. It should be noted that storage in the
headwaters and in a mid-stream location presents fiscal and environmental trade-offs. Storage
can encourage more risky floodplain development and exposure to catastrophic failure. Offstream storage presents a different option with fewer environmental trade-offs.
 Implement Alberta’s Wetland Policy to retain and restore wetlands. Also implement programs
and projects that improve infiltration, such as municipal and agricultural drain disconnects.
 It is important to remember the immense volume of water that passes in a high flow event.
The capacity needed to detain or divert this volume is huge; there are limited opportunities in
the Red Deer Basin for detention or diversion structures of this size.
Actively manage the river: debris management, aggregate extraction, training, naturalizing
 Monitor and, if necessary, remove drift build-up at bridges during high flow events.
 Selectively extract aggregate from floodplain in areas where water does not usually flow most
years.
Protect natural functions (headwaters, aquifers, riparian areas)
 Minimize the linear footprint by managing recreational activity in the headwaters that
contributed to increased runoff such as industrial development, campsites, off road vehicles
(ORVs), and trail networks.
 Enforce the reclamation of roadways, not just river crossings, to reduce land fragmentation
and access to sensitive areas.
 Implement riparian restoration projects and encourage planting of trees and shrubs in riparian
areas to provide natural bank stability, and prohibit or restrict the removal of existing natural
vegetation.
 Preserve beaver dams, log jams in the headwaters, wetlands, alluvial aquifers, and riparian
integrity as they can have a positive effect in small flood events.
 Recognize, protect and perhaps use the reservoir capacity of connected aquifers in floodplains.
This includes fully understanding the functions and benefits aquifers offer to riparian health
and water supply, establishing the in-ground testing and science needed to understand aquifer
connectivity and potential, and building broad education and awareness of these functions
13

and benefits. Aquifers augment soil moisture in many areas of the Red Deer Basin; if aquifer
connections are severed, this steady water supply could be gradually reduced. It is unclear
how much benefit aquifers in the floodplain can offer for flood mitigation.
The Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program is a community-developed, farmerdelivered program that provides annual financial incentives for landowners to protect riparian
areas. This program being implemented in some areas of the Red Deer River Basin.
Defend where critical
 Create a basin-wide policy to identify critical highways and design them for higher flow rates.
 Install line-of-defence dams on a basin wide scale.
 Create a basin-wide bank erosion protection policy.
 Assess pipelines to identify those that are susceptible to breakage or exposure during floods,
and move those that are vulnerable.
Invest in flood mapping
 Update and expand flood mapping, ensuring that the existing floodway exemption for
Drumheller is considered or reflected.
 While updating flood mapping and managing development, consider removing the distinction
between floodway and flood fringe and instead map the full floodplain.
 Flood mapping is critical not only for Sundre, Red Deer and Drumheller, but also for critical
infrastructure along or in close proximity to the river and rural areas where development
encroaches or may encroach on the floodplain.
Invest in forecasting and emergency response
 Develop plans and procedures for emergency diking to protect critical infrastructure.
3.1.2 Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters
This segment of the Red Deer River (Figure 2) extends from Douglas Lake to just upstream of Sundre, a
distance of approximately 116 km. The upper reaches of this segment are steep, with large substrates
and bedrock outcrops, moving towards a widened valley and shallower gradient at the downstream
end. This reach provides important fish habitat and offers a range of recreational activities such as
camping and kayaking. Portions of roads in this segment are vulnerable to large floods and some were
damaged in the 2013 event. Discussions on this segment focused on minimizing further floodplain
development and understanding the effects of watershed-scale disturbance on streamflow.
14
Figure 2:
Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters
Table 5 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River
measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.
Table 5:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters
Measure
CONVEYANCE
What has already
been done?
What options remain?
• Consider modifications to Mountain Aire Lodge Bridge over
Highway 40
8
• Examine repetitive loss areas on the Coal Camp Road and
relocate the road in these areas if possible
• Design infrastructure to allow flooding, especially of
campgrounds in this area
DIVERSION
DETENTION
8
• Build a dam upstream of Sundre for flood control, for example,
build new Vam Creek Dam 35 km up from Sundre with 2270
2
3
3
km catchment area; 65,000,000 m (44,000,000 m FSL)
storage (not recommended for further study by Stantec and
GoA)
• Build small-scale line-of-defence dams at major bridges along
Repetitive loss areas are areas where infrastructure is repeatedly washed out or destroyed in flood events.
15
Measure
What has already
been done?
3
Highway 734 to attenuate flow (+/- 20 m /s each) (not
recommended for further study by Stantec)
• Develop new logging ground rules to widen buffers
surrounding ephemeral and intermittent streams
• Build a series of engineered high elevation mountain
structures, as in Montana and BC, to slow and retain flow.
Maintenance would be a challenge in this basin’s steep terrain,
particularly silting in the forebays and debris management
• Maximize natural detention functions through land
management practices (e.g., forestry, grazing, recreation,
roads)
DEFENCE
• Where Coal Camp road cannot be moved, look at bank erosion
control to prevent roadway washout and isolation of residents
Additional commentary:
 Headwaters upstream of Sundre have been degraded; the natural detention functions of the
watershed, especially in the headwaters, should be protected and if possible, improved.
Refined forest harvesting practices and re-establishment of cover will play an important role in
this. A prohibition on clear cut logging in flood areas could be considered. Changes in grazing,
ORV use, oil and gas, and other land use practices need to be examined and the trade-offs of
decisions made for “short-term economic gains” need to be assessed.
 The potential for logging to increase runoff is a concern among residents; more work is needed
to improve modelling of riparian and groundwater impacts and to illustrate how logging is
done to clarify what potential water quantity and quality impacts are and to resolve the
perception of the impacts versus the actuality of the impacts.
 The Foothills Research Institute and ESRD are looking at increasing buffers around ephemeral
and intermittent streams. The Municipal Government Act suggests a minimum six-metre
setback.
 The Sibbald Flats area study shows that beaver dams, riparian areas, and wetlands can have an
effect on smaller flood events.
 An upstream dam on the Red Deer River, while having considerable potential to alleviate
flooding in Sundre and further downstream to Gleniffer Reservoir, would have negative
impacts on a stretch of river that now is “wild,” has tremendous tourism potential and
marvelous ecological values. It is speculated that for the cost of such a dam, all the flood
prevention projects identified to protect municipal infrastructure and lands in Sundre and the
McDougal Flats area could likely be undertaken. Many groups feel an upstream dam on the
main stem of the Red Deer should not proceed. Williams Creek Dam site was considered at the
same time as Dickson Dam.
 Some mitigation work is occurring at Bighorn Campground to re-route Bighorn Creek channel.
 River training should be considered upstream of Sundre. In this area, poor land use practices
have led to increased erosion and siltation of the river, and the active floodplain is increasing
in width. The proposed river training should include debris removal, dredging, and erosion
control.
16
3.1.3 Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek
Segment 2 is Fallentimber Creek, as shown in Figure 3. From its headwaters to the confluence with the
Red Deer River, it covers a linear distance of approximately 105 km. Agriculture, recreational fishing
and forestry are the primary land uses along this stream and there is little floodplain development.
Technical working group members described Fallentimber Creek as a flashy system with rapid runoff in
response to rainfall events.
Figure 3:
Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek
measures along this segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.
Table 6:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek
Measure
What has already been done?
CONVEYANCE
• Mountain View County (MVC)
Municipal Development Plan
(MDP) prevents development in
the floodway (there is no
provincial floodway mapping on
Fallentimber Creek)
• MVC Bergen Area Structure
Plan: Tree cover promoted to
• Prevent development near the river
• Design infrastructure to allow flooding,
especially of campgrounds in this area
17
Measure
maintain the banks of the river
• MVC Land Use Bylaw
Regulations discourage
development in the floodway
DIVERSION
DETENTION
• MVC riparian policy for
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESAs) – MVC may require
riparian fencing in ESAs
• MVC / Cows and Fish riparian
fencing project
• Develop common goals with
landowners through
conservation easements - Legacy
Land Trust
• ALUS program - financial
incentives to protect riparian
areas
DEFENCE
Regulations discourage tree or
vegetation clearing within 30.5
m of land prone to flooding,
shoreline erosion or slope
instability hazards
• Build new Olson Ridge Site Dam 26 km SW
2
of Sundre: 250 km catchment area;
3
58,000,000 m storage (not recommended
for further study by Stantec and GoA)
• Implement and enforce Alberta’s Wetland
Policy
• Maintain riparian health for its natural
storage function
 Fallentimber Creek is a flashy and narrow catchment so preventing development near the
floodway and flood fringe is particularly important. Local residents are generally opposed to
development along the river and there is a desire to preserve agricultural activity along this
segment.
 The creek basin is long and narrow so any small changes to riparian zones or wetlands are felt
greatly throughout the basin.
 Potential developers in an area that does not have a flood hazard map from the GoA must
demonstrate that they are not in the floodplain. Applicants hire a professional to do this work
and this extra step can be a deterrent to developing in the flood fringe.
 Mitigation measures can be taken in the floodplain, but hydrological conditions change and
rivers move so there could be future liability issues with development in the floodplain.
 Development setbacks could be widened to restrict development in the flood fringe.
 The MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations could be further amended to discourage tree or
vegetation clearing within the 1:1000 year floodplain.
18
3.1.4 Segment 3: Bearberry Creek
Segment 3 – Bearberry Creek – flows from the headwaters through the town of Sundre to the
confluence with the Red Deer River over a distance of approximately 55 km (Figure 4). The creek has
been channelized through the town, offering potential for the application of natural channel design to
help mitigate flooding. Land use in the Bearberry watershed includes forestry and recreation, but
these activities are not as prevalent in this watershed as in others. Lower reaches are characterized by
the Bearberry Plain, which is a wide floodplain with numerous relic stream channels capable of
conveying large volumes of water. Developments in the Bearberry Plain include gravel extraction, the
Sundre airport, and residences. There are concerns about gravel extraction due to its potential to alter
groundwater-surface water interactions.
Figure 4:
Segment 3: Bearberry Creek
19
Table 7:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 3: Bearberry Creek
Measure
CONVEYANCE
• MVC MDP prevents
Regulations on hazardous
lands, prone to flooding: new
not recommended
• Increase hydraulic conveyance at:
• Sundre major bridge (Centre St)
• Bridge 78518: Sundre major bridge (Hwy 22)
• Naturalize Bearberry Creek west of Highway 22
• Increase conveyance by replacing damaged culverts
and bridges with bigger ones
• Widen development setbacks to restrict
development in the flood fringe
DIVERSION
DETENTION
• MVC Riparian Policy for ESAs
• MVC / Cows and Fish riparian
fencing project
landowners through
conservation easements Legacy Land Trust
• ALUS program - financial
areas
DEFENCE
• MVC South McDougal Flats
Area Structure Plan: Tree
cover promoted to maintain
the banks of the river.
Appropriate land uses could
be grazing or hay lands as
they can be flooded.
• Confine Bearberry Creek to the designated channel
by combining roadway construction with a dike
improvement project adjacent to Bearberry Creek.
• Provide information to ensure that the public is
aware of the historical river data and historic water
levels
 The 2005 flooding in Sundre was caused primarily by flows in Bearberry Creek, not the Red
Deer River; the creek normally flows at 2 m3/s and in 2005, flow was 235 m3/s. This flow could
not pass under the Highway 22 Bridge so it went down Highway 22 and flooded Sundre. The
Centre Street Bridge in Sundre was not a big issue in 2005 because water flowed down
Highway 22 instead of following the creek bed. If 2005 flood flows had reached this bridge, it
would have likely washed out.
 To confine Bearberry Creek to its designated channel, approximately 2.6 km of dikes and
roadway are proposed east of Highway 22 and approximately 4 km west of Highway 22 to
prevent breakout on the south side of the creek.
 Upstream of Highway 22, Bearberry Creek meanders, and downstream of the highway it runs
straight to the Red Deer River; the Province has artificially straightened the channel
downstream of Highway 22. Many opportunities exist between Highway 22 and the
confluence with the Red Deer River for natural channel design and wider bridges; it would be
worth examining how naturalizing the creek could increase conveyance capacity and add more
room for the river. The surrounding residential areas may be affected.
20



Concerns exist about gravel development in the Bearberry Plains as such development can cut
surface water off from groundwater and could affect fish spawning. McDougal Flats is under
high pressure for gravel pit development.
Conduct a study to evaluate current and historical hydraulic connectivity in the area as well as
to examine what historical floodplain development such as stripping and lowering of
floodplains might have taken place.
New home buyers should have access to information that states where and when the river has
historically reached their property. This information could potentially be documented on land
titles.
3.1.5 Segment 4: James River
The James River (Figure 5) flows about 100 km from the headwaters to the confluence with the Red
Deer River. Land use activities are similar to those of other tributaries to the Red Deer, with forestry in
the upper watershed and agriculture towards the outlet. There is relatively little development along
the floodplain. Technical working group participants noted that effects of land use and road
development are key considerations with respect to flooding in this segment.
Figure 5:
Segment 4: James River
21
Table 8:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 4: James River
Measure
CONVEYANCE
What has already been
done?
• Modify bridges:
• James Bridge (Hwy 22) to determine if any
river training works are required
• Widen bridge culvert at Hwy 734
• Repair Sundre bridges (Hwy 734) and
redesign to be wide span
• Redesign Bearberry major bridge (Hwy 584)
• Design all new bridges and culverts for a 1%
return flood event, at a minimum
• Examine the bridge and transportation network
in Clearwater County to potentially reduce the
number of bridges
• Develop a long-term plan to design for resilience
by replacing bridges that are destroyed by flood
with bridges that have a higher hydraulic
capacity, rather than repairing to the original
state
• The eight county bridges along the James River
wash out during floods and should all be
considered in the long-term plan
DIVERSION
DETENTION
• Build new James River Dam 22 km upstream of
the confluence of the James River with the Red
2
Deer River; 682 km catchment area and
3
73,000,000 m storage (not recommended for
further study by Stantec and GoA)
DEFENCE
 Debris flow does not appear to be a concern in this segment. Flow, not debris, caused the
destruction of bridges in 2005 and 2013, which is why bridges should be rebuilt to different,
more resilient, standards.
 Gravel development should not be considered as an option to lower the floodplain. This
creates a path for the river and has numerous negative environmental effects.
 It was suggested that the counties and the GoA should jointly develop a long-term
transportation plan. The plan would have updated bridge designs ready prior to a flood so that
when a bridge washes out it is replaced with a bridge that has higher hydraulic capacity rather
than be repaired to its original form. This plan should also focus on minimizing the number of
bridges over the James River.
22
3.1.6 Segment 5: Raven River
The Raven River – Segment 5 – flows 100 km from the headwaters to the confluence with the Red
Deer River (Figure 6). This river supports a healthy brown trout fishery. There is substantial oil and gas
activity in this region as well as forestry and agriculture. The Raven River is along the northern
boundary of the Red Deer watershed, very close to the Clearwater River in the North Saskatchewan
watershed. In 2005, water threatened to flow from the Clearwater into the North Raven, which would
have substantially increased flow into the Red Deer River and destroyed the brown trout fishery in the
Raven River. The road between the Raven and Clearwater rivers acts somewhat as a berm and
prevents flow from entering the Red Deer watershed from the North Saskatchewan.
Figure 6:
Segment 5: Raven River
23
Table 9:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 5: Raven River
Measure
CONVEYANCE
done?
• Modify the Hwy 22 bridge and the Dickson major
bridge (Hwy 766)
• Clear debris on the Clearwater River to increase
conveyance and reduce risk of spill into the
North Raven River
• Build a dike between the Clearwater River and
the North Raven River to prevent flows from
entering the North Raven River
DIVERSION
DETENTION
• Explore potential of Raven Dam site just above
confluence with Red Deer River
• Consider future forest harvest practices while
considering previous forest disturbance areas
DEFENCE
 The North Raven River is one of the most notable blue ribbon brown trout fisheries in North
America and would be significantly affected (likely permanently destroyed) if flows from the
Clearwater came down the North Raven. Action needs to be taken to ensure that a Clearwater
flood of any magnitude will not lead to even a short-term diversion of water from the North
Saskatchewan River Basin (the Clearwater River) to the South Saskatchewan River Basin (the
Red Deer River), with the focus of protecting the North Raven River. Debris constricts flows
during floods, and problems arose when Clearwater River reversed and flowed down the
North Raven. Berming to prevent spillage from the Clearwater into the Raven may be costprohibitive as a very long structure would be needed. Dredging and debris removal might be
part of the solution.
 Agricultural land (crops and pasture) already floods in this area, but residences have not been
affected.
 Some infrastructure will likely not be moved; e.g., oil installations, gas pipeline.
 Bridges do not represent pinch-points in this segment, but culverts could be constricting
during a flood.
 Consider prohibiting clear cut logging in flood areas.
24
3.1.7 Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam
Segment 6 is part of the Red Deer River main stem downstream from Segment 1; it flows
approximately 89 km to the downstream end of Gleniffer Reservoir (Figure 7). This segment is largely
braided and flows through agricultural land. The Red Deer River passes through Sundre, and various
land uses occur along it, including oil and gas, gravel pits, and recreation. It was noted that wetland
retention and restoration are important components of this segment for mitigating the effects of
flooding.
Figure 7:
Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam
25
Table 10:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam
Measure
CONVEYANCE
• Two buyouts upstream of Sundre
in 2013
• Three buyouts downstream of the
Garrington Bridge after 2005
• MVC moratorium bylaw restricts
land use in McDougal Flats flood
hazard area until current draft
provincial study is finalized
• MVC MDP preventing
• MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations
on hazardous lands, prone to
flooding :new development in the
floodway area not recommended
• Implement long-term plan to increase
hydraulic capacity of Garrington major
bridge (Hwy 587)
• Widen span of Sundre Bridge (Hwy 27)
• Create a defined “normal flow” channel
as part of Sundre Channel Conveyance
Improvements and Drift Removal
• Dredge the river and remove debris
around Sundre to keep the river in the
original river channel
• Establish setbacks from the river in MVC
by establishing channel migration zones
and/or building development setbacks
• Instead of installing the proposed 4.1 km
berm in Sundre, relocate residents that
the berm would protect and allow the
area to flood
• Avoid expanding residential component
of golf courses in floodplains
• Increase hydraulic conveyance capacity
of conveyance under range roads to
avoid small water back-ups
• Construction of Dickson Dam
allows for flood mitigation
• ESRD plans to raise the abutments
adjacent to the spillway
(approximately 0.5 m) to bring
them to the same height as the
crest of the Dickson Dam to
reduce the vulnerability of that
area being overtopped during high
reservoir levels cause by an
extreme probable maximum flood
(PMF) event
• MVC Riparian policy for ESAs
• MVC and Cows and Fish riparian
fencing project
landowners through conservation
easements - Legacy Land Trust
• ALUS program – financial
areas
• Update the bathymetric survey of
Gleniffer Reservoir to determine if
storage capacity has changed
• Make capital improvements to Dickson
Dam:
• Increase the capacity of the service
spillway by raising wing walls and
installing chute blocks in the stilling
basin (planned in the near future)
• Add a third fuse plug, modify the
two existing fuse plugs, and raise
the dikes around the reservoir
• Revise Dickson Dam operational
procedures and rules to increase active
storage for flood mitigation:
• Implement measures to allow for
the pre-flood event discharge of
3
350 m /s (or higher) (already
underway)
• Delay filling the reservoir above
annual low level until later in the
summer or early fall
• Review and potentially revise
DIVERSION
DETENTION
26
Measure
•
DEFENCE
• Stage 1 of Sundre berm
constructed in 2011, including
500 m of rock riprap placement
• Red Deer County – Hwy 27 Bridge
erosion control (underway)
• Red Deer County – RR 40 bank
armoring (underway)
• Mountain View County erosion
control (underway): Erosion
protection under bridge on RR 52
• Groynes installed upstream of
Sundre
• Armoring of Garrington Bridge
• McDougal Flats flood hazard study
• MVC South McDougal Flats Area
Structure Plan – Tree cover
promoted to maintain the banks
of the river
• MVC South East Sundre Area
Structure Plan – Tree cover
promoted to maintain the banks
of the river
Dickson Dam operational
procedures such that flood
mitigation is made an even higher
priority than it is today
Consider allowing the reservoir
level of Dickson Dam to exceed the
FSL in very specific circumstances
to reduce the peak outflow
• Raise existing berms in Sundre to reflect
updated understanding of 1% return
flood
• Finish portions of the MVC stage 1 berm
that are not yet at the required berm
height, and construct stage 2 of the
berm that will continue southeast from
the east end of the stage 1 berm for
approximately 4.1 km. This berm would
protect Sundre and the area southwest
of Sundre by allowing the Red Deer
River to flow within a large channel area
but prevent it from breaking out of the
current channel location; it would cut off
the old Red Deer River channel to the
north
• Stabilize banks immediately
downstream of the confluence with
Bearberry Creek near groynes at
Highways 27 and 6
• In MVC, undertake bank erosion control
along Coal Camp Road and use riprap for
erosion control
• Install necessary erosion protection at
the confluence of the Red Deer River
and Fallentimber Creek as appropriate
 Debris removal can be applied to increase conveyance capacity of a channel and/or to remove
hazards that pose risk to critical infrastructure. Targeted debris removal should be clearly
defined and only used in specific, purposeful instances. Debris removal will likely affect the
aquatic environment, fisheries, and erosion patterns; this would require careful study and
management. This type of removal should likely be done in dry areas of the river bed, not in
the active channel. Debris removal can have a positive impact on recreation. Historically it has
not been possible to remove debris between Sundre and Dickson Dam because there is not
enough access to this part of the river. Generally, debris is removed at Dickson Dam after
floods.
 Parts of the river could be excavated to create greater channel conveyance capacity for high
flows. Suggested locations include both upstream and downstream of Sundre, by the
27







Garrington Bridge, and below Dickson Dam. It is recognized that excavation in the floodplain
will have environmental impacts. This excavation should be carried out with minimal
environmental impact, likely over a long time period (10 to 20 years) and only working in low
flow times away from the active river channel. Additional potential benefits of this type of
work could include channelization to minimize erosion of property and enhancement of
recreational opportunities. (Note: This comment also applies to Segment 9 and other areas
where selective aggregate extraction is mentioned.) Gravel extraction from the floodplain
should be selective (e.g., one kilometre up- and downstream of Sundre Bridge, and three
metres deep), may involve industry but should not be led by industry, and gravel should be
reserved for use by local municipalities and counties.
Dredging, aggregate removal and gravel pit development should not be done in areas where it
may have negative impacts on alluvial aquifers (e.g., near the Medicine Flats and McDougal
Flats there is a worry that dredging will affect the aquifer). Aggregate extraction can sever the
connection to the wider aquifer, reduce aquifer storage capacity on which landowners
depend, and reduce ecological function including important groundwater-origin river base
flows and spawning habitat. Aquifers are also perceived to have a tremendous capacity for
water storage and flood attenuation. In addition to affecting interactions between surface and
groundwater, gravel pits near the river also affect water quality. The extraction of aggregate
below the high water table in floodplains could potentially accelerate flood issues in migrating
river systems and promote severing of aquifer connectivity. Certainly, any discussion regarding
extraction of aggregate in the floodplain needs scientific backing and a historical study.
In the 1950s, the Red Deer River channel was further north in the Bearberry Plain. In 2015, the
GoA published a draft flood hazard map with a floodway including the historical channel.
Mountain View County has proposed constructing a 4.1 km berm upstream of Sundre to cut
off the historic channel and protect the infrastructure in Bearberry Plain. It was suggested that
the berm, also known as Riverside Drive, should be built on road allowances and should be
built higher than planned. The 4.1 km berm proposed along the north side of the river would
change the velocity and level of water, causing higher water levels in Sundre. The area that the
berm would run through is now a protected natural area; with regards to the protected
natural area it was questioned why the berm could not be built around the area. A previous
berm to block the 1952 channel did not prevent flooding in 2013 and there is apprehension
about the proposed new berm, especially if it leads to changes or damage downstream.
Hence, it might be better to relocate both the airport, portions of the golf course residences,
and those that the berm is contemplated to protect and not build the berm; about 400
landowners and possibly others would be affected.
MVC is studying necessary erosion protection downstream of the proposed MVC berm
upstream of Sundre.
Bank erosion is an issue at the confluence of Fallentimber Creek with the Red Deer River. Any
hardening of the river bank on the Red Deer main stem upstream of the confluence could
increase water level and water velocity, therefore increasing the potential for bank erosion.
We need to consider how relic channels could be used to create room for the river.
A robust tool is needed to establish larger riparian setbacks (e.g., 100 m rather than 30 m).
This tool would be used in discussions with landowners and should be able to withstand
scrutiny by decision makers.
Data are needed to support the decisions made. Clear requirements (regulations?) based on
data and evidence are needed rather than guidelines or voluntary approaches that can be
28










ignored. RDC’s riparian fencing program is a good example of something that has
demonstrated value and effectiveness and could be used to justify new requirements.
Especially for defence options, good data and evidence are needed to support policy.
The GoA needs to establish clear rules about flood mapping and where development is
permitted, including the flood fringe and flood hazard zone.
Using range roads to improve conveyance is an opportunity to build resilience; this could be
done by improving hydraulic conveyance of culverts.
The PMF level has almost doubled since Dickson Dam was built, to approximately 10,100 m3/s.
Dickson Dam presently is able to pass 5,300 m3/s. Phase 1 upgrades to Dickson Dam involve
enhancing abutments adjacent to the spillway, while Phase 2 would raise the concrete wing
walls along the spillway. ESRD plans to proceed with these phases in the near future. Phase 3
would see the addition of a third fuse plug and corresponding emergency spillway, but these
upgrades would be very costly and are a lower priority at this time. The purpose of these
upgrades is to increase conveyance capacity of the dam to align with theoretical PMF inflows
(extreme high flows) to avoid an overtopping dam failure scenario, which would create
extreme social, environmental, and economic damages downstream. These upgrades do not
increase the storage of the reservoir or increase the flood attenuation abilities of Dickson
Dam. The capital improvements to Dickson Dam will not raise the level of the reservoir and
thus will not affect any landowners on Gleniffer Reservoir.
Dickson Dam operations and reservoir levels are currently tailored for flood mitigation during
the highest risk time period of flooding in the basin, May to June; during this time the reservoir
is at its lowest.
Operating Dickson Dam at any level above FSL could only be done in very specific scenarios.
Operators would have many considerations to factor in before operating the reservoir higher
than FSL. Dickson Dam is generally not operated above FSL.
Allowing pre-releases from Dickson Dam is critical for it to operate as intended. Limitations
imposed by downstream development as well development around the reservoir should have
minimal impact on the dam’s operations. Future development should be limited to ensure that
pre-releases can continue.
The GoA (ESRD) and municipalities should ensure a strong focus on wetland retention when
the Alberta Wetland Policy is implemented in the White Area. DUC and others have made a
strong economic case for wetland retention compared to engineered solutions for more
storage.9 Constructed solutions usually do not account for costs associated with land
acquisition or maintenance. Further, if wetlands are not maintained, existing wetland storage
is lost, which offsets any additional storage that a new structure might provide.
Risk of pipeline ruptures during floods needs to be assessed and responded to; e.g., shut down
active vulnerable pipelines during high flows, increase depth of burial from current 1.5 m. This
should be done on a basin wide scale.
Tighter restrictions are needed on seismic, forestry and energy development roads, as these
linear disturbances increase access to public lands and tend to lead to more erosion. Such
roads should be reclaimed to remove access by ORVs in the same way that river crossings are
reclaimed.
Bridges should be better designed to reduce or eliminate need for riprap.
9
See A Business Case for Wetland Conservation and Restoration in the Settled Areas of Alberta Vermilion River
Subwatershed Case Study, March 2013; published by Ducks Unlimited Canada, available online at
http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/DUC-AB-Business-Case_Final.pdf.
29
3.1.8 Segment 7: Little Red Deer River
Segment 7, the Little Red Deer River, flows for approximately 207 km from its headwaters to the
confluence with the Red Deer River (Figure 8). The headwaters are characterized by a transition from
mountains to foothills, and the river then flows downstream towards the confluence with the Red
Deer through agricultural land. Other than existing historical gravel pits and acreages along the Little
Red Deer, there is relatively little floodplain development along this segment.
Figure 8:
Segment 7: Little Red Deer River
30
Table 11:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 7: Little Red Deer River
Measure
done?
CONVEYANCE
• Water Valley campground
is floodable
• MVC MDP prevents
development in the
floodway
Regulations on hazardous
lands, prone to flooding:
New development in the
floodway area is not
recommended
• Modify:
• Westward Ho major bridge (Hwy 27) to
extend bank protection
• Bowden major bridge (Hwy 587)
• Mound major bridge (Hwy 766)
DETENTION
• Riparian policy for ESAs
• MVC / Cows and Fish
riparian fencing project
• Develop common goals
with the landowners
through conservation
easements – Legacy Land
Trust.
• ALUS program – financial
incentives to protect
riparian areas.
• Build proposed Little Red Deer River
Confluence Site Dam on the Little Red Deer just
upstream of the confluence of the Little Red
Deer and Red Deer Rivers, 10 km downstream
3
of Dickson dam; 35,000,000 m storage;
2
2,575 km catchment area (not recommended
for further study by Stantec and GoA)
• Build proposed Harmattan Site Dam 15 km east
of Sundre where the Little Red Deer River
3
2
crosses Hwy 27; 5,600,000 m storage; 875 km
catchment area (not recommended for further
study by Stantec and GoA)
DEFENCE
• Unofficial berm at
Westward Ho
• MVC erosion control
Regulations discourages
tree or vegetation clearing
within 30.5 m of land prone
to flooding, shoreline
erosion or slope instability
hazards
• MVC – Erosion control
project, river revetment at
Coal Camp Road
• Repair and stabilize the Little Red Deer River
bank to protect Camp Little Red Bank
• Implement Water Valley Road erosion control
DIVERSION
 It was suggested that floodplain lowering should not be considered as a conveyance option in
this segment. This is an important area for water supply and there are complex interactions
between the alluvial aquifer, the Medicine River, the Red Deer River and the Little Red Deer
River at this junction. Lowering the floodplain also has many negative environmental effects.
31






We need to recognize the effects of installing mitigation measures (e.g., armoring lake edges;
putting in dams, culverts, berms and riprap) on downstream areas. In some cases, it would be
better to let the area flood.
The river revetment project at Coal Camp Road is a good example of avoiding unnecessary
extraction in the floodplain. An engineered berm was installed in the riparian area away from
the river in an area that was at risk of erosion. The river eroded the bank up until the berm but
erosion was stopped when the river reached the berm.
Two multi-lot developments have flooded from ice jamming and some high water flooding
(Silver Lagoon, an old oxbow).
Log jams can hold back flows and should be left in place when they occur during floods.
Debris management downstream of Dickson Dam and on major tributaries (e.g., Little Red
Deer River) needs to be considered, not just upstream of the dam.
Consider increasing setbacks along the river through provincial regulations.
3.1.9 Segment 8: Medicine River
The Medicine River (Figure 9) extends for about 196 km from its headwaters to the confluence with
the Red Deer River just downstream of Gleniffer Reservoir. This is a unique setting as the Medicine,
Red Deer, and Little Red Deer converge along the Red Deer River at the downstream end of this
segment. Technical working group participants noted that agriculture and residential development are
encroaching on this area. It was also noted that flooding does occur in farmland via old oxbow lakes
and relic stream channels.
Figure 9:
Segment 8: Medicine River
32
Table 12:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 8: Medicine River
Measure
done?
CONVEYANCE
• Standard 30m setback in
Lacombe County
• Lacombe County MDP
does not permit
permanent structures in
1:100 floodplain
• New bridge at Medicine
River crossing on RR30
• Modify:
• Rimbey major bridge (Hwy 761)
• Eckville major bridge (Hwy 766)
• Gilby major bridge (Hwy 12)
DIVERSION
DETENTION
• Build Medicine River Dam at Highway 592. Such a
site would require the purchase of numerous
private properties, including active farm building
sites. Therefore, this potential option will only be
explored further if the preferred detention
storage sites do not provide appreciable flood
mitigation
DEFENCE
 When the Red Deer River floods intensely, there is a backwater problem in the Medicine River.
 The Medicine River is hydraulically connected to the topographically higher Red Deer River
through shallow groundwater channels. The local water wells, riparian areas, walleye fishery,
and connecting wetland all depend on the hydraulic connectivity being preserved.
 Floodwaters go into old oxbows in this area. In high flows, the Red Deer River and the Little
Red Deer River flow overland and into the Medicine River, contributing to flooding on the
topographically lower Medicine River.
 Retention and restoration of wetlands, alluvial aquifers, and riparian areas would be ideal in
this segment.
 Floodplain lowering should not be considered as an option for conveyance in this segment.
This is an important area for water supply and there are complex interactions between the
alluvial aquifer, the Medicine River, the Red Deer River and the Little Red Deer River at this
junction. Lowering the floodplain also has numerous negative environmental effects.
 GoA should take a stronger stance and require municipalities to set development back from
the river; this could be done through regulations as opposed to guidelines.
33
3.1.10 Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake
Segment 9 is the main stem of the Red Deer River from the downstream end of Gleniffer Reservoir to
where the Red Deer turns south near Buffalo Lake (Figure 10). This segment is approximately 134 km
long, flowing through the city of Red Deer, which draws its drinking water from the river. Technical
working group participants noted that the river has changed its course over the years with various
flood events, but remains a reasonably well-defined floodplain. In addition to urban development
through the city of Red Deer, agriculture and recreation are the main land use activities in Segment 9.
Figure 10:
Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake
Table 13:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo
Lake
Measure
CONVEYANCE
• A development in Lacombe
county uses a golf course as a
floodable buffer
• Lacombe County MDP does
not permit permanent
structures in 1:100 floodplain.
• Modify existing and planned bridges to remove
constriction:
• Bridge 272: Innisfail major bridge (Hwy 54)
• Proposed bridges 80872 and 80873 – new
Red Deer major bridge
• Bridge 977: Joffre Bridge (Hwy 11) [bigger
34
Measure
•
•
•
•
•
•
Where there has been no flood
mapping new developments
must undergo engineering and
geotechnical analysis.
City of Red Deer has adopted
the provincial guideline
“Stepping Back from the
Water”
City of Red Deer has a River
Valley and Tributaries
Development Plan (Red Deer
Parks Plan) that develops plans
for parks around all oxbows
and river areas
City of Red Deer Climate
Change and Adaptation and
Mitigation Strategy Phase 1
complete (Establishes goals)
City of Red Deer and Red Deer
County’s Intermunicipal
Development Plan establishes
a continuous intermunicipal
park system, where possible.
One buyout below Dickson
Dam to increase conveyance
for Dam pre-releases
Red Deer County has a land
use bylaw prohibiting
development in the 1:100
floodplain
conveyance plans for future bridge]
• Continue to remove and restrict dwellings in the
floodplain; e.g., Red Deer County Channel
Conveyance Preservation: Review proposed bank
stabilization projects for potential channel
conveyance improvements (buyouts)
• Introduce regulations, not voluntary guidelines, to
restrict future development in the floodplain, not
only in the flood way
• Prohibit development immediately downstream of
Dickson Dam to preserve the channel capacity for
3
forecast event pre-release (~350 m /s) or more
without causing localized flooding
• Improve downstream conveyance, through
relocations, to enable Dickson Dam to pre-release
3
up to 350 m /s or more without causing localized
flooding
• Adopt a targeted maximum flood flow discharge
3
rate of 2000 m /s from Dickson Dam for the design
of downstream flood mitigation structures
• Remove Range Road 20 to increase conveyance
capacity below Dickson Dam (remove the road and
the berm it runs along, as well as engineered
drainage and overflow channels and blockages)
• Define specific, detailed actions through City of
Red Deer Climate Change and Adaptation and
Mitigation Strategy Phase 2
• Remove barriers (e.g., gravel pits immediately
below Dickson Dam) to reconnect river with
natural high flow drainage routes and aquifers
• Pursue local opportunities to retain or move flow;
e.g., reinstate local diversions (drains, oxbows)
DIVERSION
DETENTION
• DUC wetland conservation and
restoration projects
• Construct new mid-basin, multi-purpose, onstream or off-stream storage to provide additional
high flow detention capacity; e.g., Ardley Site Dam
just above the Buffalo Lake diversion (not
recommended for further study by Stantec and
GoA)
• Construct tank alternatives for municipalities to
free up storage in Dickson Dam for flood
mitigation and/or offer temporary storage for
municipal supply during high flow events
• Enforce stricter wetland and riparian preservation
and restoration guidelines; e.g., south and east of
the city of Red Deer
35
Measure
DEFENCE
• Bank stabilization e.g. Red
Deer County Dallas bank
stabilization across from the
Anthony Henday WWTP
• City of Red Deer and Red Deer
County’s Intermunicipal
Development Plan requires the
dedication of reserves or
easements or the use of other
methods to protect and
preserve natural areas,
riparian habitat and flood
fringes and associated slopes
and establish a continuous
linear park system
• Protect areas downstream of Dickson Dam to
3
withstand flows of 2000 m /s
• Harden and protect critical infrastructure with
dikes:
• Water treatment plants and wastewater
treatment plants
• City of Red Deer’s civic yards
• City of Red Deer Riverside industrial areas
• Stabilize banks in high priority areas:
• Red Deer County Millars bank stabilization
• City of Red Deer Riverview Park bank
stabilization (FRECP)
• City of Red Deer McKenzie Trails berm
(FRECP)
• City of Red Deer CP Bridge protection
 There are not a lot of issues with ice jams in this area due to the mitigative effect of the
Dickson Dam.
 The city of Red Deer has fewer than ten homes in its 1:100 year floodway. If there is going to
be a new standard, it should be determined quickly to avoid new liabilities. Municipalities
need to know what they are mitigating to.
 Highway 54 is integral to the transportation network in the area and has already been raised in
small specific sections, but could become vulnerable if large flood events occur more often.
 Bridges 80872 and 80873 are connector bridges north of Red Deer. The abutment design
needs to be revisited to reduce debris collection.
 Wetland retention and restoration in this area are important, particularly at the confluence of
the Red Deer, Little Red and Medicine rivers. Wetland restoration should be a priority through
ongoing and new projects. Over time, any storage capacity created by engineered solutions is
likely to be negated by poor land use practices and wetlands that have been lost. DUC and
others have articulated a clear business case for wetland retention and restoration.10 Under
the Alberta Wetland Policy’s mitigation protocol, land developers will have to provide more
wetlands to compensate for ones that are permanently lost so a new market is expected to
emerge. When a wetland is permanently lost to development and must be replaced,
compensation is required. This would be done by undertaking a project to develop a wetland
offset, making a payment in lieu, or buying an offset from someone else.
 Municipal storage tanks or ponds were suggested as a flood mitigation option but this would
be very expensive due to the amount of land that would be needed. They would also fill
quickly in a big flood and would require careful management to be successful. Natural storage
opportunities are possibly more realistic. Nevertheless, during a high flow event, municipal
10
See A Business Case for Wetland Conservation and Restoration in the Settled Areas of Alberta Vermilion River
Subwatershed Case Study, March 2013; published by Ducks Unlimited Canada, available online at
http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/DUC-AB-Business-Case_Final.pdf.
36






storage tanks could provide a clean reliable water supply rather than serve as a flood
mitigation measure.
Clearer, stronger direction is needed in the form of regulations, laws, or standards to reduce
planning discretion in making decisions about development in flood-prone areas. Guidelines
and voluntary approaches are insufficient. Floodplain design standards are crucial and there
may be a need for policy guidance on critical infrastructure protection in a basin where flows
are controlled by a dam. We need to be prepared for natural flow, irrespective of
infrastructure.
The river below Dickson Dam is very gravelly and very active. It moves often, particularly
during high releases from Dickson Dam, creating erosion challenges for landowners. Ice does
not scour away the gravel bars to keep the primary channel open. Water has moved out of the
river bed in many places, especially in the stretch three to six kilometres immediately
downstream of Dickson Dam. In the area surrounding Range Roads 20 and 21 the river has
moved into abandoned gravel pits adjacent to the river bank. Then it can’t be controlled and
encroaches onto farms and fields so landowners are losing land. This happens with normal
releases from Dickson Dam, but more often it is due to releases in high flow events. Retraining
the river is an option here because this is no longer a natural stretch. Another option is for
GoA to purchase flood-prone lands just downstream of Dickson Dam and remove all
structures; in this situation long-term land uses could be agriculture (where suitable) and
natural park land. Certain complexities need to be considered if the river is to be trained
directly downstream of Dickson Dam, specifically at the confluence with the Little Red Deer
River and the Medicine River. These complexities surround aquifer connectivity and the
walleye fishery on the Medicine River. It was suggested that prohibiting further gravel
extraction downstream of the Dickson Dam should be considered; based on past experience
this activity may promote river bed migration.
Land use along the Red Deer River has changed and more communities rely on it for drinking
water, which is a consideration in how Dickson Dam is operated. The seasonal operations of
Dickson Dam attempt to provide a balance and maximum benefit to water supply and flood
mitigation.
Dickson Dam was built in the early 1980s with the provision that there would be no
development around the reservoir. Allowing pre-releases from Dickson Dam is critical for it to
operate as intended. Since the completion of Dickson Dam, development has occurred around
Gleniffer Reservoir and development has changed downstream, this may restrict the dam from
operating safely to mitigate flooding. Future development around Gleniffer Reservoir and
downstream of Dickson Dam should be limited. Dickson Dam was built to supply water and
augment flow; flood mitigation is a secondary role and the model may need to be refined. The
current Dickson Dam seasonal reservoir level curve allows the dam to provide flood
attenuation in the high risk flood time of year, specifically May and June.
Dickson Dam cannot guarantee an outflow cap of 2000 m3/s. Although the maximum historical
outflow from Dickson Dam was 1550 m3/s in 2005, there is always a risk of a larger event when
the reservoir is at FSL; in this situation the outflow could exceed 2000 m3/s.
New mid-basin, multi-purpose, on-stream storage may be a better option than increasing
capacity of Dickson Dam. It would relieve pressure on Dickson during floods and would provide
additional storage to mitigate drought. It could also provide an opportunity for functional
flows that would create environmental benefits. New on-stream storage would have a range
of associated fiscal and environmental challenges and the cost effectiveness was questioned;
37






these challenges were recognized but were not explored in detail. A different option would be
to add new off-stream storage, which would likely pose fewer environmental concerns.
There is general support for the Stantec recommendation that the area downstream of
Dickson Dam should not be bermed and armored. Hardening this area is likely to transfer flood
risk downstream; furthermore, past efforts to harden the area have failed. There is also worry
that berming this area will impede groundwater recharge; residents in this area rely on
groundwater as their primary water source.
The risks need to be clearly defined and conveyed to landowners and others; for example, who
assumes the risk and who bears the cost both in terms of danger and emergency response?
Each local situation needs to be considered and appropriate solutions identified; one solution
will not work for all circumstances.
The restoration of abandoned channels and oxbows should be considered as a flood mitigation
tool in areas where the river has been straightened. There are potential water quality and
water supply benefits from restoring these areas as well.
Complete and consistent mapping across the basin is crucial for flood mitigation, and this
information should be widely and easily available. Flood mapping could be more challenging
for rural areas. Landowner input might be helpful in identifying past flood events.
Potential diversion options may provide good, but limited, local benefits but they could be
controversial. They may also require ongoing maintenance at a high cost.
38
3.1.11 Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller
This segment involves the Red Deer River main stem, flowing 145 km from near Buffalo Lake to just
downstream of Drumheller. Large portions are confined within a deep river valley characterized by fine
sediments and large cliffs. This is a relatively dry ecosystem and is home to many unique features such
as the Badlands. This segment has relatively little development along the floodplain, but it does
include the town of Drumheller and agriculture is a major activity.
Figure 11:
Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller
39
Table 14:
Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just
downstream of Drumheller
Measure
done?
CONVEYANCE
• Red Deer County has a
land use bylaw
prohibiting development
in the 1:100 floodplain
• Modify existing and planned bridges to remove
constriction: Bridge 9551 – Morrin Bridge (Hwy
27)
• Reclaim and preserve channel conveyance
capacity through:
• Land control
• Removal of dwellings inside and outside of
Drumheller
• The formulation of development policy
within protected and non-protected areas
and floodways using regulated flow rates
• Work with the Drumheller community directly to
formulate development policy within protected
and non-protected areas floodway and channel
conveyance preservation areas, using regulated
flow rates (suggested as maximum flood flow
3
discharge rate of 2000 m /s from Dickson Dam)
• De-bottleneck the river by the Drumheller
wastewater treatment plant
• Local opportunities to reconnect drains and side
channels
• Use the planned SAWSP diversion (planned to
3
divert ~2 m /s) to divert more flow during
flooding
DIVERSION
DETENTION
• Upstream dam on
Michichi creek
• MPE study for Starland
County identifying
potential surface water
retention areas
• DUC wetland restoration
and conservation
projects
• Construct new off-stream storage for irrigation
projects to either free up storage in Dickson Dam
for flood mitigation and/or offer temporary
storage during high flow events.
DEFENCE
• Construction is underway
for a permanent berm
and drainage ditch to
protect Drumheller
Health Centre.
Completion expected in
2015. Further
engineering study is in
progress.
• Harden and upgrade existing dikes and construct
new diking systems to accommodate flow
3
(2000 m /s suggested in Stantec basin study)
through Drumheller. Relevant areas include:
West Nacmine diking; East Central Nacmine
diking, dike repair and flood gates; West
Newcastle diking; Willow Estates (Drumheller)
diking and road repair; 2nd St W to 5th St E
diking (Drumheller); 9th St W diking
(Drumheller); Central Midland diking; East
40
Measure
done?
Midland berm; Michichi Creek diking; West
Rosedale berm and diking; East Rosedale to
Aerial Flats dike; SE aerial flats berm;
constructing residences on elevated mounts in
the Paarup development in Drumheller; Paarup
Development Floodgate; Lehigh diking; East
Coulee diking
• Update flood mapping and expand it to cover the
full basin to inform high priority areas for
defence
 Wetland retention in this area is important and should be a priority. Many projects are already
in place and there are many more opportunities. Wetland retention provides recreational
benefits as well as water security and other environmental goods and services.
 The geology and morphology of the valley are not conducive to downstream diversions.
 The planned SAWSP diversion will be very small (~2 m3/s) offering very little high flow
diversion capacity. Furthermore, water coming out of the Drumheller Valley is so silty when
the river flows at 1100 m3/s that diversion pumps typically shut down.
 We need to balance reliance on dikes with letting the river pass, but Drumheller is an
exception and must be defended.
 Off-stream storage opportunities at Drumheller should be examined for both flood control and
drought mitigation. Drought is much more common than flooding in Drumheller and
downstream.
 Dickson Dam cannot guarantee an outflow cap of 2000 m3/s. Although the maximum historical
outflow from Dickson Dam was 1550 m3/s in 2005, there is always a risk of a larger event when
the reservoir is at FSL; in this situation the outflow could exceed 2000 m3/s.
41
3.2 Most Promising Opportunities
Having considered examples and opportunities within each river segment in the study area, it was then
possible to look across the system for opportunities that offered the most promise while recognizing
that there are trade-offs with every action. It was noted that it is often strategic to target some early
big wins that can be celebrated and built on to build political momentum for the program.With input
from contributors, some practical and implementable opportunities were identified as being promising
and warranting further study (Table 15). Contributors recognized the importance of these specific
opportunities, but stressed that moving out of the floodplain is still the only way to ensure that people
and property are not flooded in the future. It may not be feasible to move the town of Drumheller, for
example, but relocation could be a cost-effective option for smaller communities or individual
homeowners. At the very least, the cost of potentially moving smaller communities or individuals out
of the floodplain should be assessed.
All these potential opportunities are consistent with the principle that the “straitjacket” for the rivers
should not be tightened; that is, at a minimum these opportunities should not further constrain the
Red Deer main stem and the select tributaries examined in the basin, and where room for the river
now exists, it should be maintained. Some of the most promising opportunities are basin-wide, others
are common to several segments, and others are specific to one river segment. No priority is assigned
to the various opportunities described in Table 15. All of the options that appear in this table also
appear in the basin-wide options or in the list of options for the relevant segment.
Table 15:
Most Promising Opportunities to Create Room for the River
** Suggested cost ranges: H = >$100 million, M = $10-$100 million, L = <$10 million
Opportunity
What is the benefit?
To flood
mitigation
H+ /M+ /L+
CONVEYANCE
Implement regulations,
not guidelines, on
developments in
floodplain (fringe,
floodway)
(Basin-wide, Segment
9)
Examine repetitive loss
areas with an eye to
redesign
(Basin wide, Segment
1)
Develop a long term
transportation plan –
have updated bridge
designs ready prior to a
flood so that when a
M
To water
supply
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H0
To water
quality
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H0
What is the
cost?
Estimated
project cost
H-M-L**
What are the associated impacts?
H for
infrastructure
already in
place
 This may avoid future problems by
avoiding development in areas that
flood
 Social and economic impacts on
existing communities if forced to
relocate
 Impacts on individual property
owners if current land holding value
decreases
 Would not mitigate floods in the
short term but would potentially
save money in the long term by not
repeatedly rebuilding in areas that
are destroyed in every flood event
 This may be economically favourable
as a joint project between counties
and Alberta Transportation
L to H for
future
development
L+
0
0
M
H+
0
0
M
Social,
Economic,
Environmental
42
Opportunity
To flood
mitigation
H+ /M+ /L+
bridge washes out it is
replaced with a bridge
that has higher
hydraulic capacity
rather than be repaired
to its original form
(Basin-wide, Segment
4)
Selectively extract
aggregate from
floodplain in areas
where water does not
usually flow most years
(Multiple segments,
Segments 6 and 9)
M+
To water
supply
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
M- for
groundwater
supply
What is the
cost?
Estimated
project cost
H-M-L**
To water
quality
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
L
L
L- for surface
water supply
Use natural channel
design downstream of
Hwy 22 on Bearberry
Creek (Segment 3)
L+
0
M+ locally
M
Remove debris
between Sundre and
Dickson Dam
(Segment 6)
L+
0
0 or L-
L
Social,
Economic,
Environmental
 Selective extraction from the
floodplain could reduce extraction
elsewhere, minimizing the effect on
alluvial aquifers. For example, 3 m
deep selective extraction could occur
1 km up- and downstream of Sundre
Bridge
 Benefits could include channelization
to minimize erosion of property and
enhancement of recreation
opportunities
 Selling the aggregate could offset
price of extraction
 Potential negative public concerns
and perception exist
 Concern that such extraction in the
Red Deer Basin would set a
precedent for other basins where
the strategy may be less appropriate
 Riparian zones could be affected as
vegetation grows on gravel beds
 Erosion could increase
 Dredging and aggregate removal
should not be done in areas where it
may negatively affect the aquifer,
which is perceived to have
tremendous capacity for water
storage and flood attenuation
 Land would be bought from
developers (currently it is private
land)
 Positive social impact with a new
natural area
 Positive environmental effect,
should improve fish habitat
 Targeted debris removal should be
clearly defined and only used for a
specific purpose. Should likely be
done in dry areas of the river bed,
not in the active channel
 Potential negative impacts on
43
Opportunity
To flood
mitigation
H+ /M+ /L+
To water
supply
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
What is the
cost?
Estimated
project cost
H-M-L**
To water
quality
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
Social,
Economic,
Environmental

Resolve issues
immediately
downstream to ensure
Dickson pre-release
can return to
3
~350 m /s
•
Option: Train river
(dredging or
berming) to keep
river in river bed.
•
Option: Remove
obstacles (e.g., RR
20) from
floodplain to allow
free river
movement
(Segment 9)
H+ for the
basin
L+ if solution
promotes
aquifer
recharge
0
Nil to L







Comment from ESRD at
the working session
that this pre-release
level has already been
implemented.


Redesign and/or
rebuild roads and
bridges with
insufficient hydraulic
capacity; e.g.:
•
80872 and 80873
(planned)
•
Morrin Bridge
•
Bridge 272
•
Bridge 977
(Segment 10)
DIVERSION
Restore abandoned
channels and oxbows
(Segment 9)
H+
0
0
M to H
L to M+,
depending
on location
L+
0
L


fisheries, aquatic environment, and
erosion patterns
Potential positive impact on
recreation
Dredging and aggregate removal
should not be done in areas where it
may negatively affect the aquifer,
which is perceived to have
tremendous capacity for water
storage and flood attenuation
Costs may be covered by dredging
the river and extracting and selling
gravel
River training would protect
farmland but restricts access to
RR 20
River training may have to be
repeated after high flow events
Might need to harden Hwy 54
Creates buy-in to show something is
being done to protect land
Negative environmental impacts of
dredging in short term due to lower
water quality and impacts on fish
habitat
Positive environmental impacts in
long term with less erosion
Three flooding rivers are found in
this area, any solution could support
natural river functions so that there
is no need to retrain the river
repeatedly
This area is an alluvial aquifer
Some of these are already being
looked at
44
Opportunity
To flood
mitigation
H+ /M+ /L+
DETENTION
Retain and restore
wetlands anywhere in
the watershed
(Basin wide, Segment
1)
Reduce linear footprint
and ORV use in the
headwaters
(Headwaters)
Construct multipurpose mid-stream
on-stream storage
(Segment 9)
DEFENCE
Assess existing pipeline
crossings for safety and
review pipeline
crossing regulations,
especially in braided
channels (Sundre area)
To water
supply
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
What is the
cost?
Estimated
project cost
H-M-L**
To water
quality
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
L to M+
L to M+ for
groundwater
recharge
L to M+
M to H
L+
0
L+ locally
L
M
H
L-
H
L+
0
H+
L for assessing
existing
pipelines
M for moving
crossings
Social,
Economic,
Environmental
 Good long-term return on
investment
 Costs depend on the extent of
restoration; to restore wetlands
property must be bought out
 Under the Alberta Wetland Policy
mitigation protocol, land developers
will have to provide more wetlands
to compensate for ones that are
permanently lost so a new trading
market for offsets is expected to
emerge. When a wetland is
permanently lost to development
and must be replaced, compensation
is required
 Variety of environmental goods and
services provided
 The impact on flood mitigation
depends on where it occurs; current
wetland retention is low, but if
retention is increased, would have
greater benefit
 Some local impacts due to restricted
land use
 Affects forestry, oil and gas activities
 Increases resiliency of watershed
 On-stream facility could create
changes in river course
 On-stream facility would come with
environmental trade-offs, a different
option would be to add new offstream storage, which would likely
pose fewer environmental concerns
 May create fish passage issues
 On-stream storage may decrease the
water temperature and increase
siltation downstream
 Could help to manage functional
flows
 Some buy-outs or relocations may be
necessary
 High economic impact if there is an
oil leak into the water supply
 Social impact if people can’t drink
the water
 Potentially very negative
environmental impacts if a pipeline
45
Opportunity
To flood
mitigation
H+ /M+ /L+
(Basin wide, Segments
5 and 6)
Defend critical
infrastructure
(Basin wide, Segments
9 and 10)
Build berm or dike on
the Clearwater River to
prevent flows from
entering the North
Raven River
(Segment 5)
To water
supply
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
What is the
cost?
Estimated
project cost
H-M-L**
To water
quality
H+ /M+ /L+
-0L- /M- /H-
Social,
Economic,
Environmental
breaks into the river
H+
0
0
M
Raise existing berms in
Sundre to reflect
updated the
understanding of 1%
flood
(Segment 6)
Finish portions of the
MVC stage 1 berm
southwest of Sundre
that are not yet at the
required berm height,
and construct stage 2
of a berm that will
continue southeast
from the east end of
the stage 1 berm for
approximately 4.1 km
(Segment 6)
H+
0
0
L
M+
0
0
L with
ongoing
maintenance
costs
Build required barriers
to protect Drumheller
(Segment 10)
Many projects are proposed for Drumheller, and dikes identified
to protect the community should proceed in a timely manner.
 Critical infrastructure, such as
municipal water and wastewater
treatment plants must be defended
by appropriate means
 Reduces risk to people, fisheries and
infrastructure on the North Raven
 Potential environmental benefits; if
the Clearwater breached into the
North Raven, it would ruin the
brown trout fishery
 There would be ongoing
maintenance costs
 Landowners may oppose being cut
off from the river
 Positive economic impact as it
protects the golf course and holiday
community which attract visitors to
Sundre
 Positive for landowners as they
would be protected, but creates
potential “assumed protection”
 Potentially high environmental cost
of cutting off an old river channel
and berming an environmentally
protected area
 Increases the risk of erosion issues
further downstream
 Could increase flood potential
downstream
 This may not be a permanent
solution – in the 2013 flood the
stage 1 berm failed to stop flooding.
An alternate option would be the
relocation of the Sundre airport and
the golf course; a cost benefit
analysis should be completed for this
option.
** Suggested cost ranges: H = >$100 million, M = $10-$100 million, L = <$10 million
46
3.3 Feedback on the Room for the River Approach
Contributors noted that when it comes to flood response in the Red Deer River Basin, a number of
mechanisms and practices are already in place and working well; for example:
 The Dickson Dam, although not built for flood mitigation, was operated effectively in recent
floods.
 The City of Red Deer has many setbacks already and only a few homes are in its 1:100 year
floodway.
 Alberta Transportation has a good inventory of bridges and pinch points and the issues that
may need to be addressed.
 The current warning system is doing the job below Dickson Dam in terms of communications
between Dam operators, Red Deer County, and other counties downstream.
Contributors nevertheless observed that more work is needed in several areas to better understand,
for example:
 The effects of forestry on headwaters under both flood and drought conditions. This is
particularly relevant for surface water-groundwater interactions.
 The role and impact of dikes and berms under non-flood conditions.
 The likelihood of flood risk when considering the costs and benefits of options.
Several other specific areas were also identified as requiring attention and action:
 Flood forecasting and communications efforts need to be improved.
 Suitable mitigation targets should be explored, discussed, and agreed on before making
decisions on policy options or infrastructure.
 Data and evidence are the basis of good policy and this information needs to be collected,
examined, and understood before new flood mitigation policies and legislation are created.
Contributors made a number of observations about important aspects of a Room for the River-type
program in Alberta.
An Alberta program must have a clearly defined purpose, rationale, and objectives with
measureable goals and outcomes.
While it is correct to approach a flood mitigation program in a holistic manner, the scope of
such an undertaking can “creep” to the point of becoming unmanageable. A line of sight on
how decisions and policies can contribute to the end goal needs to be clear at the outset. In
future, the Room for the River projects should be proactive, not reactive. It would be helpful to
identify critical areas that are particularly susceptible to flooding as the first step in the project,
prior to project discussions.
Furthermore, the Room for the River project could have clear and defined secondary
objectives such as mitigating erosion in the basin, promoting tourism and recreational use of
the river, and economic development enhancements for municipalities.
An integrated, multi-barrier approach is essential.
A Room for the River-type approach is a broader way of thinking about managing water in a
floodplain and informs discussion in the wider, more integrated context of the entire
watershed. As part of the broader management discussion, flood mitigation should not be
47
considered in isolation; drought mitigation and water quality should also be considered.
Examining the role and impact of tributaries as well as the main stem enables a larger
conversation about land use and its impact on flooding and flood mitigation. It is essential to
understand the whole river, needs of all users, and the range of issues that must be addressed.
Surface and groundwater quantity and quality should be part of the discussion, as well as
other values that are associated with provincial river systems. In the case of the Red Deer
Basin, the Red Deer River and its tributaries are relatively “wild” compared to many other river
systems in the south of the province. We have the opportunity to keep the rivers in this basin
as natural as possible.
Any program that the GoA might initiate should include both mandatory requirements and
voluntary components.
To get the results needed, the expectations and requirements for all parties need to be clearly
stated and understood. Voluntary guidelines and practices are unlikely to achieve the results
that are needed to protect life, property, and infrastructure in extreme flood events. However,
government programs should also support voluntary efforts such as education, outreach and
proactive approaches that complement mandatory requirements (e.g., for wetland and
riparian area management and restoration).
An Alberta program should not be marketed as a “Dutch initiative.”
Although the Dutch experience can provide some valuable lessons, the Netherlands and
Alberta are not the same. Alberta’s conditions vary a great deal from year to year and even
from month to month, and a provincial Room for the River-type program should focus more on
what that variability might mean for potential flood mitigation options. Alberta has done
considerable work to develop a provincial approach (e.g., Respecting our Rivers) and this
philosophy should be reflected in an Alberta program. Nevertheless, Alberta should look at
work done in other jurisdictions, not just the Netherlands, consider how those lessons apply
here, and then integrate them into any program developed for this province; the agricultural
experience in California could be particularly useful.
Multiple perspectives are needed on a wide range of potential flood mitigation options before any
program is developed. This will help make the program relevant to local and regional stakeholders.
The use of a diverse and engaged technical working group for this project was a good way to
identify and discuss priorities and get a variety of perspectives. If a program were to be
developed for different parts of Alberta, it must be inclusive, relevant and transparent to the
local or regional stakeholders and should involve a diverse group with ongoing engagement
and communication throughout the exercise: municipalities (both elected officials and
administrators), landowners, First Nations, the provincial government, the federal government
(Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as appropriate), local organizations, and the public.
The Room for the River program should be supported by sufficient science, data, modelling, and
open communication to enable informed and transparent flood mitigation decisions.
Comprehensive and accessible information gathering and accessible online modelling would
enable stakeholders to participate in online scenario testing of various flood mitigation options
while observing associated trade-offs, costs and benefits, similar to the Dutch Planning Kit tool
(“Blokkendoos”). The program needs to have a process for responding to situations in which
the evidence base is questioned; that is, a means of filling in gaps in the science needed to
48
inform decisions. Recommendations need to be science-based e.g., reasons for setback
distances. Blanket policies are not science-based. Long range planning is needed, and datadriven climate change considerations need to be incorporated; perhaps the 1:100 threshold
should be re-thought.
Sharing of information between complementary agencies and organizations is critical to identify
solutions and coordinate implementation.
Many agencies and organizations are involved with managing water on the landscape and
their information, data, knowledge, and experience could be very useful in developing and
implementing flood mitigation solutions (e.g., the Alberta Water Council and its source water
protection project). A Room for the River-type program could be used to collate all ongoing
water work in the province to ensure work is aligned. Flood mitigation solutions affect and are
affected by other policies and activities that have different goals, so we need to ensure good
understanding and coordination by the various partners and agencies who may be working in
similar areas. It is important to collaborate across agencies and departments to avoid
duplication and working at cross purposes.
In conjunction with this, and to enable information sharing, the Room for the River program
could explore setting up a body (possibly similar to the Alberta Environmental Monitoring,
Evaluation and Reporting Agency) for watershed management, with a clear and focused
mandate and the power to make change, and properly funded to look at each watershed and
the associated issues and opportunities.
Land use should play a more central role in a Room for the River-type program.
As an example, run off coefficients related to land use, which reflect the amount of
stormwater runoff from different catchments, should be considered throughout the process
and in relation to the different projects considered to make room for the river. (For more
information, see
(http://www.rdrwa.ca/sites/rdrwa.ca/files/pdf/ReportRiparianAreasWetlandsLandUse.pdf.)
As well, it was suggested that this work could conceivably become part of the Land Use
Framework (LUF) initiative. The LUF is an ongoing program with momentum and legislative
support and has many of the same participants involved as this program would need. It is a
broad program that already includes some aspects of water management, so perhaps a Room
for the River-type program could be one of its components.
Contributors also offered comments on what further engagement might be appropriate as well as how
the process might move from a scan to prioritization and implementation.
There is a need for engagement, support, and cooperation from all levels of government.
The program should be enabled by federal and provincial legislation that provides the
regulations, the monitoring and, when needed, the follow up to ensure implementation and
compliance. Such a program could break down barriers among federal, provincial, and
municipal decision makers and expose them to the local issues and challenges. In this basin,
for example, it might involve a tour to show politicians and other decision makers the “on the
ground” issues such as degradation in the headwaters and siltation of Dickson Dam. The GoA,
through the program, could set the objectives, framework, and criteria for mitigation, similar
49
to what has been done in the Netherlands. Then municipalities can provide cost-effective
solutions. Ideally this would result in positive “give-get” projects as seen in the Nijmegen
example.
The GoA should provide more direction and leadership to address issues, it was suggested that
the GoA is asking stakeholders for their opinions too often on technical recommendations. It is
important to ensure personnel and design support from the GoA for the projects proposed,
not just financial support.
Ongoing commitment and funding will be needed from all orders of government.
Funding for such a program must be sustainable and viable for the long term, and should be
shared among the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. A strong and continuing
commitment will be required to ensure a sustained and completed program that is not cut off
before achieving its goals; this is especially important since some of the most promising flood
mitigation opportunities will likely take a number of years to implement.
Decisions should be made using multi-objective analysis favouring long term solutions.
Decisions should not be made solely based on direct cost-benefit analysis; rather than focusing
on projects that give the greatest cost-benefit, favour projects that yield the greatest overall
benefits. Thought should also be given to the order of implementation of the most promising
options and their alignment with overall program objectives.
The flood mitigation approach should favour permanent, long-term solutions. Permanent
solutions, such as buyouts instead of berming, or improving the design of damaged
infrastructure rather than simply replacing it as before, may not always be easy, but may be
the most effective approach in the long term. The program should encourage long-term
behaviours and strategies, not just those that might offer cost benefits in the short term;
wetland restoration, for example, should be viewed as an investment. Since major floods are
by definition not common occurrences, Alberta needs to improve its institutional memory
when it comes to documenting what happens to communities and infrastructure after major
flood events to better inform provincial, municipal and homeowner decisions.
We need to look at social and political barriers to flood mitigation, not just engineering
solutions. Floods are to be expected and if the floodplain is fully mapped, property owners and
the GoA can negotiate a suitable response in vulnerable areas. People would be given the
option to leave with fair compensation and if they don’t, they would not be compensated in
any future floods.
As the project moves from an initial scan the contributors should continue to be updated and the
public should be more broadly involved.
Follow-up events and activities, such as updates, celebrations, discussions and evaluations of
what did and did not work should take place. To engage the greater population, the program
should drive extensive education to instill environmental stewardship in future generations.
Story telling can be an effective means of engaging citizens. Particular areas where a need for
education was discussed include: wetlands, healthy riparian areas and healthy grass lands and
the impacts that these can have on water retention and runoff. The Room for the River report,
50
as available to the public, should be more visible there should be broader exposure to
generate more feedback. Exposure should be through media such as:
 Local news
 Local radio
 Municipals websites and newspapers
 Via RDRMUG and RDRWA
 Through municipal organizations such as AUMA, AAMDC, ASVA
 Agricultural magazines
51
4.
Closing Comments
Contributors to this project identified important differences between the Red Deer River Basin and the
Bow Basin. The Red Deer Basin already allows more room for its rivers and many of the larger urban
centres, such as Red Deer, are already set well back. The large scale conveyance challenge along the
Bow and Elbow rivers does not exist in this basin, and a partial system-wide solution can already be
found in the form of the Dickson Dam. The result for the Red Deer Basin is that many smaller-scale
flood mitigation options to resolve pressing local issues are needed and there is no “one size fits all”
solution.
It is essential to talk about flood mitigation in the broader context of water management, including
impacts of alternative options on water supply and water quality. The Red Deer Basin is home to a
diversity of human activities, and interests vary depending on the segment being considered; for
example, downstream of Dickson Dam, having too little water is as challenging as having too much.
What happens on land affects the rivers, and any Room for the River-type program must aim to
develop resilience throughout the watershed, looking at environmental, economic, and social interests
and connections across the whole basin. Although within the scope of the project, there was very little
discussion among contributors about ice jams in the Red Deer Basin.
Integration and coordination across agencies and organizations is important to avoid duplication and
working at cross purposes. Alignment is needed between land use planning, watershed planning, and
work underway across many municipal and provincial government bodies. Cross-basin, multiple
interest discussions are rare yet highly valuable as they enhance understanding about regional
interests and concerns and shed light on how government funds are being spent.
Extensive relocation did not emerge as a readily feasible option in this basin, likely because vulnerable
communities such as Drumheller and highly developed areas of Sundre would need to be completely
moved. Nevertheless, moving out of the floodplain remains the only way to truly ensure that people
and property are not flooded in the future. Relocation could be a cost-effective option for smaller
communities or individual homeowners. At the very least, the cost of potentially moving individuals
out of the floodplain should be assessed.
Contributors recognized the need to protect communities that could not be moved through berms and
dikes. In undeveloped flood-prone areas, the focus was on establishing and enforcing adequate
setbacks so that future development does not occur in these areas. Related to this, many felt strongly
that having clear regulations (instead of voluntary programs) that are supported by the GoA makes
flood mitigation strategies much easier to implement.
Similar to the Bow River Basin pilot project, contributors noted that a Room for the River-type program
could be a valuable component of the water management discussion in Alberta. The objectives, scope,
and governance should be clearly defined and communicated and should be appropriate to the
Alberta context. Objectives can be more broadly defined than in the Netherlands’ approach and
perhaps focus on all aspects of watershed resilience, encompassing safety and security, water supply,
and water quality. It will be essential to raise individual and community awareness and understanding
about watershed functions and the effects of flooding. And, perhaps most importantly, the program
would need long term political, local, and financial support and accountability.
52
The approach used in this project can fuel momentum and interest in water management, building on
the expertise and experience of the water community, enabling them to work together and build on
each other’s ideas, leading to a long-term program for thoughtful and effective water management
and resilient flood mitigation and drought response throughout Alberta.
53
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAMDC
Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties
ACRP
Alberta Community Resilience Program
ALUS
Alternative Land Use Services
ASVA
Alberta Summer Villages Association
AT
Alberta Transportation
AUMA
Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
ESA
Environmentally sensitive area
ESRD
(Alberta) Environment and Sustainable Resources Development
FRECP
Flood Recovery Erosion Control Program
FSL
Full supply level
GoA
Government of Alberta
LUF
Land Use Framework
MDP
Municipal Development Plan
MVC
Mountain View County
ORV
Off-road vehicle
PMF
Probable maximum flood
RAM
Resilience and Mitigation (Branch, of ESRD)
RDC
Red Deer County
RftR
Room for the River
SAWSP
Special Areas Water Supply Project
WPAC
Watershed Planning and Advisory Council
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
54
Appendix A: Contributors to the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River Basin
Many thanks to the following organizations who contributed their knowledge, time and expertise to
the Room for the River pilot project in the Red Deer River Basin. In some cases, more than one
representative from the organization was involved.
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
(Fisheries, Dickson Dam Operations, River Forecast Section, Resilience and Mitigation, and
Parks Branches)
Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions
Alberta Wilderness Association
City of Red Deer
Clearwater County
County of Stettler No. 6
Cows and Fish: The Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society
Ducks Unlimited Canada
Kneehill County
Lacombe County
Medicine River Watershed Group
Red Deer County
Red Deer River Municipal Users Group
Red Deer River Watershed Alliance
Special Areas
Sundre Petroleum Operators Group (SPOG)
Spray Lakes Sawmills
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Starland County
Town of Sundre
Trout Unlimited Canada
West Fraser Mills
Alberta WaterSMART contributed through its contracted role as project facilitator.
55
Appendix B: Segment Identification Methodology
The study area for the Red Deer Room for the River project is the Red Deer River, including select
tributaries, from headwaters to downstream of Drumheller. The tributaries selected were those that
had:
 sizeable human populations living near them;
 large catchment basins;
 heavy infrastructure;
 seen flooding in the past; or
 contributed significant water yield to streamflow in the basin.
To examine the full study area in detail, it was decided that the river would be broken into study
segments, defined as groupings of reaches with similar geomorphology. For the purposes of this study,
reaches and segments were identified by using Google Earth™ to evaluate physical factors, as outlined
in Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures.11 Channel
pattern and channel confinement were the main factors that delineated reaches in this area, but
significant tributary confluences or changes in gradient could also signify reach boundaries. In the end,
the river system was divided into ten segments; this was thought to be a manageable number for the
project team and the technical working group participants to handle.
The initial step of the analysis identified the significant tributary confluences throughout the study
area. These confluences were labelled as reach boundaries. Additional reach boundaries were
identified as the point of significant changes in channel form or geomorphological channel pattern.12 A
classification of the characteristics of large alluvial rivers (Figure A1) produced by Kellerhals was used
as the basis for defining reach breaks in the study area. This classification was based on an earlier
classification of channel pattern developed by Shumm (Figure A2) that related channel pattern and
stability to several factors such as silt content of the banks, the mode of sediment transport, the ratio
of bed load to total load, and the slope and width-to-depth ratio of the channel.13 Church adapted
Shumm’s classification to include steeper morphologies present in headwaters (Figure A3). The factors
used in Shumm’s and Church’s methodologies (Table A1) are difficult to delineate in Google Earth™,
whereas Kellerhals’ adapted methodology (Figure A3) relies on the use of aerial photography, which is
appropriate to adapt to Google Earth™.14
11
BC Fisheries Information Services Branch (2001). Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and
Procedures. Resources Inventory Committee.
12
13
Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. (2013). Geomorphic Classification of Rivers. Treatise on Geomorphology, Vol. 9.
14
56
Figure A1: Kellerhals’ classification of large alluvial rivers. 1a shows characteristics of channel
pattern; 1b characterizes the frequency of islands; 1c describes the bar types; and 1d
provides examples of lateral activity of the channel in the floodplain15
15
57
Figure A2: Shumm’s classification of alluvial rivers. In this method, channel pattern is related to
relative stability and sediment load type16
16
58
Figure A3: Shumm’s classification of channel pattern as adapted by Church. In this method,
channel pattern is related to sediment size and channel stability and gradient.17
17
59
Table A1:
Channel pattern descriptions. These factors are associated with the listed channel
patterns.
Channel
Pattern
Width-depth
ratio
Gradient
Relative
Stability
Grain size
Sediment
supply
Straight
Sinuous
Wandering
Meandering
Braided
Anastomosing
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Boulder-silt
Sand-silt
Boulders-gravel
Sand-silt
Gravel
Sand
Low
Medium
Low-Medium
Low-Medium
High
High
Using Google Earth™ the study area was examined from 3-5 km above the Earth’s surface. The
locations where the stream changed from a straight channel to a wandering or meandering channel
(Figure A1a), or from a single channel to a channel with multiple flow branches (Figure A1b), as
described by Kellerhals, were labelled as reach breaks.
There were 78 identified reaches on the Red Deer River and selected tributaries (26 on the Red Deer
River main stem, 6 on the Medicine River, 9 on the Little Red Deer River, 11 on the James River, 12 on
Bearberry Creek, and 14 on Fallentimber Creek). For the purposes of this study, a more manageable
number of stream segments was deemed necessary. To obtain a more manageable number of
segments, the river was evaluated again from around 12-15 km above the Earth’s surface in Google
Earth™. At this level, geomorphological factors such as the confinement and gradient of the river were
examined. Segment boundaries were identified at points in the river with significant changes in
confinement such as the change from a wide floodplain to a confined canyon, or significant changes in
gradient.18 The gradient was estimated for each reach revealing that most of the Red Deer River is
flowing through flat terrain, other than the portion flowing through the foothills or headwaters. The
channel confinement had more variance. Some portions of the river were flowing through steeper
terrain in narrow valleys, or within a low gradient, well-defined river valley, while in other portions the
river travelled across a flat, wide floodplain. Reaches with similar channel confinement and gradient
were grouped into river segments. For this study, it was decided that 10 segments would be
manageable to work with. There were four identified segments on the main stem of the Red Deer
River. Both the Medicine River and the Little Red Deer River were initially broken into two segments;
however, after conducting interviews, the upstream segments of both of these rivers did not present
many suggested options. On both of these rivers, it was decided to combine the two segments on each
river into one segment for each river. Due to a suggestion made by several technical working group
members from the interviews prior to the working group session, it was decided that the Raven River
would be added to the study area. The Raven River, the James River, Bearberry Creek and Fallentimber
Creek were not separated into segments to keep the number of segments at a manageable number.
Additionally, the human populations living along these tributaries are relatively small, so it was
thought that watershed experts representing these communities would be able to speak to the entire
tributary while discussing flood management. In the end, the study area was divided into 10 segments:
four segments on the Red Deer River and one segment for each of six tributaries (Fallentimber Creek,
Bearberry Creek, James River, Raven River, Little Red Deer River and Medicine River).
18
60

Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin – Advice to the

Transcription

Similar documents

English - JOHN DEER BAND

The Ghost Collection - The City of Red Deer

(Cervus elaphus)

any, many moons

Children`s Adventure Map

i may be the smartest, but - I may not be the smartest, but

DEER PARK ELEMENTARY Rangers

August 6th Century 16 Deer Park 21600 W. Field Parkway, Deer

Whitetails Unlimited