Water
Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Southern Alberta Flood Mitigation Feasibility Study for Sheep, Highwood River Basins and South Saskatchewan River Sub-Basin Sheep River Water Management Plan
Prepared by: AECOM 17203 103 Avenue NW 780 488 6800 tel Edmonton, AB, Canada T5S 1J4 780 488 2121 fax www.aecom.com
Project Number: 60309815
Date: June 6, 2014 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations
The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).
The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):
is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.
Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.
Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.
Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.
Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.
Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.
This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.
AECOM: 2012-01-06 © 2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx
AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Executive Summary
Background
As a result of devastating floods in Southern Alberta in June 2013, a number of individuals formed a small group that became referred to as the Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel undertook a reconnaissance of southern Alberta to develop large-scale flood mitigation proposals in the Bow, Elbow, Sheep and Highwood river basins. These proposals were then provided to the Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force (AFRTF) for their consideration.
The Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force (the Task Force) retained AECOM in October 2013 to provide engineering services for flood mitigation assessments in southern Alberta and the study was to be completed at the end of March 2014. After being awarded the work, AECOM was assigned to assess flood mitigation schemes in the Sheep and Highwood river basins and the South Saskatchewan River Sub-Basin with the schemes to be considered provided by the Task Force.
The objectives for the study included:
Review and evaluation of flood mitigation proposals Development of selection criteria Identification of a water management strategy for flood mitigation
The reviewed projects would be assessed for feasibility based on:
Technical feasibility Economic cost and benefit Social and cultural impacts and benefits Environmental impacts and benefits
No specific scope of work was provided at the request for proposal stage. As a result, the scope of work for the study was developed during November 2013.
2013 Flood Damages in Sheep River Basin
During the 2013 flood, damages occurred in the Towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks. The flood damages were generally confined to within the flood hazard area, as delineated on the existing Flood Hazard Mapping published by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD).
In the Town of Turner Valley, the north approach to the road bridge was washed out and two groundwater wells located in the same area were destroyed. The bridge approach was reconstructed soon after the flood. Six residences in the northern part of the town were flood damaged; two of the residences are located in the delineated floodway and the remaining four are within the flood fringe. Two municipal raw water wells located on the bank of the Sheep River were lost due to river bank erosion and a third well was damaged.
In the Town of Black Diamond, immediately downstream of the Town of Turner Valley, the east approach to the highway bridge and a campground were washed out. Approximately 50 residences in the town were flood damaged of which a number of residences were believed to have been flooded due to sewer back-up. All flood damaged buildings and the campground are located within the delineated flood hazard area. Two municipal raw water wells, located on the bank of the Sheep River, were lost due to river bank erosion and a third well was out of commission.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx i AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
In the Town of Okotoks, recreational areas located in the flood hazard area were damaged by the flood and a new area under development beside Spring Creek was flooded due to back flooding from the Sheep River. Approximately 15 residents have filed for compensation but the locations of these damages are not public information. The south approach to the CP railway bridge on the outside of a river bend was washed out and reconstructed by CP soon after the flood. One municipal well was destroyed by the flood event.
In addition to the flood damages in the three towns, flood damages occurred at various locations throughout the MD of Foothills, including the area near the Hamlet of Millarville. The total cost of the 2013 flood damages in the Sheep River basin was estimated to be $64.5 million, based on the information available to AECOM at the time of preparation of this report.
Scheme S2
During the study, AECOM assessed a large dry dam scheme proposed by the Advisory Panel and referred to as “S2” in their documentation. The proposed dam was assessed based on hydrotechnical, geotechnical, environmental, social, cultural, and economic considerations.
Dam S2 is located 8 km upstream of the Towns of Turner Valley and Black Diamond. The height of the S2 dam is approximately 51 m, which places it in height between Dickson Dam (approximately 35 m high) and Oldman River Dam (approximately 65 m high). The length of the dam crest was estimated to be approximately 800 m. A 440 m long conduit under the dam provided an uncontrolled low level outlet for the reservoir to provide uninterrupted flow through the dam during non-flood events.
The hydrotechnical assessment found the dam would likely be classified as a high risk dam, based on Canadian Dam Safety Guidelines and its proximity to the Towns of Turner Valley and Black Diamond. To determine of the risk classification of the dam, a dam breach assessment would be required to estimate the potential damages in the areas downstream of the dam.
It was also found that the water level upstream of the dam would frequently fluctuate during the wet season and likely cause bank erosion in the forested reservoir area. There was also a high risk of blockage of the low-level outlet by ice, debris and sediment that would be difficult to remove with water accumulated in the reservoir.
The geotechnical assessment found that the subsoil conditions were uncertain and that the need for special foundation treatment was likely. The type of the required foundation treatment could not be specified at this time as site-specific sub-surface information is required.
The environmental assessment concluded that dam S2 would have a significant negative impact on the aquatic life in the Sheep River. The Sheep River is a habitat for Bull Trout, which is a species listed as “Sensitive” in Alberta. The long low-level conduit would likely prevent upstream movement of fish. If a fish screen is used at the inlet to the low-level conduit, downstream movement of fish would also be prevented. In addition, numerous wildlife species that are listed as “Species at Risk” may be present in the area and the historical resources classification values range between 4 and 5.
Due to the variability in water level that will occur upstream of a dry dam, the reservoir will have no recreational or water supply value.
The construction of the S2 scheme was estimated to cost in the order of $200 million and the annual maintenance cost was estimated to be $3.5 million. The design, approval and construction time was estimated to span 5 to 7 years.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx ii AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Local Flood Mitigation
Considering the nature and magnitudes of the flood damages in the towns, the possibility of using local flood mitigation methods was assessed. The local mitigations would consist of non-structural mitigation (buy-out of properties in the floodway) and structural mitigation (flood protection dykes and structures).
In the Town of Turner Valley, two residences were considered to be bought out, as they are located in the floodway, and a flood protection dyke was considered to be placed around the four residences located in the flood fringe. To protect the north road bridge abutment, a guide bank would be placed around the abutment.
In the Town of Black Diamond, a guide bank would be placed around the east highway bridge abutment. A flood protection dyke was considered to be constructed to protect about 50 residences located in the flood fringe. Three residences were considered to be bought out, as they are located in the designated floodway.
The estimated total cost of the considered local flood mitigation measures is $10.1 million.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The relative ranking of the S2 dam and local flood mitigation alternatives were assessed using a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis. The analysis considers the social, environmental and financial aspects of the projects and assigns a ranking to each project. The TBL analysis showed that the local flood mitigation alternative was more advantageous than the S2 dam; therefore, the local flood mitigation alternative was selected as the preferred alternative.
Water Supplies
The water supply for each community in the Sheep River basin was identified and classified by type. It was found that all identified community water supplies use groundwater wells located close to streams as their source. As their raw water sources are groundwater, the communities should be less susceptible to short-term drought than if surface water was used. However, a longer term drought could reduce the groundwater availability.
Regional Water Management
During the closing phase of this study, it was found that the Sheep River basin is included in Phase 2 of the Highwood Management Plan. The process was initiated in 2008 to develop a comprehensive water and watershed management plan for the Highwood River basin, including the Sheep River and Little Bow River upstream of Travers Reservoir. Under that program, an on-going process is in place to manage the watershed.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that the implementation of local flood mitigation is preferable over the construction of dam S2. The local flood mitigation can be implemented at a lower cost and less environmental impact than a large dam while providing the same protection at a 1% (100-year) flood level.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx iii AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Table of Contents
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Letter of Transmittal Distribution List Executive Summary page 1. Project Background ...... 1 1.1 The 2013 Flood ...... 1 1.2 Impact on Communities ...... 1 1.2.1 Communities in the Basin ...... 1 1.2.2 Town of Okotoks ...... 2 1.2.3 Town of Black Diamond ...... 2 1.2.4 Town of Turner Valley...... 2 1.3 The Need for this Feasibility Study ...... 2 1.4 Study Objectives and Scope Overview ...... 2 2. River Basin Information ...... 5 2.1 Setting ...... 5 2.1.1 Basin Characteristics ...... 5 2.1.2 Land Cover ...... 5 2.1.3 Land Use ...... 5 2.2 Climate ...... 6 2.2.1 Climatic Stations ...... 6 2.2.2 Climate Normals ...... 6 2.3 Surface Water ...... 7 2.3.1 Stream Flow ...... 7 2.3.2 Frequency Floods ...... 9 2.4 Potable Water Sources ...... 9 2.4.1 Summary of Communities’ Water Sources Affected due to June 2013 Flood ...... 9 2.4.2 Communities Potentially at Risk due to Future Flood or Drought ...... 10 2.4.2.1 Flood ...... 10 2.4.2.1 Drought ...... 11 2.5 Groundwater Supply Assessment ...... 11 2.5.1 Methodology ...... 11 2.5.2 Results ...... 12 2.6 Environmental Summary of the Sheep River Basin ...... 13 2.6.1 Landscape ...... 13 2.6.1.1 Grassland Natural Region ...... 13 2.6.1.2 Parkland Natural Region ...... 13 2.6.1.3 Rocky Mountain Natural Region...... 14 2.6.2 Protected Areas ...... 14 2.6.3 Protected Species ...... 16 2.6.3.1 Wildlife ...... 16 2.6.3.2 Fish ...... 17 2.6.4 Applicable Guidelines and Legislation ...... 18 2.6.4.1 Federal Legislation ...... 18 2.6.4.2 Provincial Legislation ...... 19
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2.7 GIS Data ...... 22 2.7.1 LiDAR, Terrain Data, and Imagery ...... 22 2.7.2 Base File Layers ...... 22 2.7.3 Environmental GIS Data Sources ...... 22 2.7.4 Hydrologic Modelling and Geotechnical Data Sources ...... 23 2.8 Status of On-Going Projects ...... 23 3. Problem Areas ...... 31 3.1 Previous Studies ...... 31 3.1.1 Flood Hazard Mapping ...... 31 3.1.2 Municipal Water Supply ...... 31 3.1.3 Potential Storage Sites ...... 31 3.2 Areas Impacted by the 2013 Flood ...... 31 4. Service Level ...... 32 4.1 Proposed Levels of Service ...... 32 4.2 Consequences of a Higher Level of Service ...... 32 4.3 Consequences of a Lower Level of Service ...... 32 5. Methodology for Evaluating Alternatives ...... 33 5.1 Computer Simulations ...... 33 5.1.1 Data ...... 33 5.1.2 Model Development ...... 33 5.1.3 Model Calibration ...... 34 5.1.4 Results ...... 35 5.2 Methodology of Evaluating Alternatives ...... 35 5.2.1 General ...... 35 5.2.2 Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Assessment ...... 36 5.2.2.1 TBL Categories...... 36 5.2.2.2 TBL Scores and Representation ...... 38 6. Evaluating Alternatives ...... 40 6.1 Non-Structural Flood Mitigation Alternatives ...... 40 6.2 Structural Flood Mitigation Alternatives ...... 40 6.2.1 Local Flood Mitigation Schemes ...... 40 6.2.1.1 General ...... 40 6.2.1.2 Town of Okotoks...... 40 6.2.1.3 Town of Black Diamond ...... 41 6.2.1.4 Town of Turner Valley ...... 41 6.2.2 Dry Dam Scheme S2 ...... 41 6.2.2.1 General ...... 41 6.2.2.2 Design Concept ...... 42 6.2.2.3 Geotechnical ...... 43 6.2.2.4 Environmental...... 44 6.3 Compatibility of Drought Management and Flood Mitigation Alternatives ...... 46 6.4 Ranking Alternatives ...... 46 6.4.1 General ...... 46 6.4.2 Results ...... 47 6.5 Policies to Prevent Increase in Future Flooding ...... 49 7. Water Management Strategy ...... 50
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
7.1 Flood Mitigation ...... 50 7.2 Drought ...... 51 8. References ...... 52
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Sheep River Basin ...... 4 Figure 2-1: Sheep River Basin Well Completion Intervals ...... 24 Figure 2-2: Static Water Elevations Surficial Sediments ...... 25 Figure 2-3: Recommended Pumping Rate Surficial Sediments ...... 26 Figure 2-4: Static Water Elevations Porcupine Hills Formation ...... 27 Figure 2-5: Recommended Pumping Rate Porcupine Hills Formation ...... 28 Figure 2-6: Static Water Elevations Willow Creek Formation ...... 29 Figure 2-7: Recommended Pumping Rate Willow Creek Formation ...... 30
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Climate Stations considered for the Sheep River Basin ...... 6 Table 2-2: Mean Monthly Air Temperatures (1981-2010) ...... 7 Table 2-3: Monthly Precipitation (1981-2010) ...... 7 Table 2-4: Water Survey of Canada Hydrometric Stations in Sheep River Basin ...... 8 Table 2-5: Ten Largest Mean Daily Discharges by WSC Station ...... 8 Table 2-6: Maximum Instantaneous Frequency Floods at 05BL014 ...... 9 Table 2-7: Summary of water sources for communities in the Sheep River Basin ...... 10 Table 2-8: Protected Areas within the Sheep River Basin ...... 15 Table 2-9: Recommended Wildlife Timing Window Guidelines and Setback Distances within the Sheep River Basin ...... 21 Table 2-10: Environmental GIS Data Sources ...... 23 Table 5-1: Status of Hydrometric Stations Sheep River Basin ...... 35 Table 5-2: List of Parameters to Calibrate ...... 35
Appendices
Appendix A. Flood Damage in 2013 Appendix B. Climatic and Hydrometric Data Appendix C. Assessment of Scheme S2 Appendix D. Municipal Water Supply Appendix E. Local Flood Mitigation Appendix F. Environmental Overview Appendix G. Hydrological Modelling Appendix H Stakeholder Engagement Summary
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
1. Project Background
1.1 The 2013 Flood
In June 2013, Southern Alberta experienced the worst flood in Alberta’s history. More than 100,000 people were evacuated and four people lost their lives. It has been estimated that the damage due to the flood exceeded $5 billion. The flood has reshaped the banks of many of Southern Alberta’s rivers and tributaries, especially those of the Bow, Elbow, Sheep, Highwood, Little Bow and South Saskatchewan Rivers. While the most critical infrastructure was immediately repaired, many areas affected by the flood still require substantial work and there are many key decisions to make prior to proceeding with the next phase of recovery.
The 2013 flood has been reported as exceeding a one in one hundred year event. However, despite that, the reoccurrence of a similar significant flood event remains possible within the next 100 years. The flood has, in many locations, left southern Alberta’s infrastructure vulnerable to even smaller future events and more in-depth analysis and evaluation of alternatives is needed to make the best decisions in each affected area. This study evaluates alternatives and identifies options for mitigating the impacts of future floods.
During the 2013 flood in Southern Alberta, AESRD collected the location and elevation of high water marks along the flooded area. AESRD also had aerial photography taken during the flood, to record the extent of the flooded areas. Both the high water marks and the aerial photography are important information for the development of flood mitigation alternatives.
In general, flood mitigation consists of reducing the impact on communities located in flood prone areas. The preferable approach is the removal of all developments from the flood hazard area but this is not always practical. Flood mitigation can consist of containing the flood flow through the community by constructing embankments along the rivers and streams. An alternative to containing the flood flow through a community is the diversion of all or a part of the flood flow through a by-pass channel around the community, which would reduce the river flood levels through the community. Buildings and infrastructure that must remain in the flood hazard area can be flood protected or flood-proofed. Alternatively, flood mitigation can consist of a combination of removal of structures, containment, diversion, flood-proofing and other mitigation measures.
The selection of alternatives will not only depend on the overall capital cost but must also consider the technical feasibility, constructability, long-term operation and maintenance, environmental impact, geotechnical conditions, regulatory requirements, and stakeholder and public acceptance.
1.2 Impact on Communities
1.2.1 Communities in the Basin
The Sheep River basin (Figure 1-1) includes the Towns of Okotoks, Black Diamond and Turner Valley on the Sheep River. The Hamlet of Millarville is located on Threepoint Creek, which is a tributary of Sheep River. The impacts on the communities are described in more detail in Appendix A.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 1 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
1.2.2 Town of Okotoks
In the Town of Okotoks, most of the damage occurred within the designated flood hazard area along the Sheep River. The damages involved primarily public recreational facilities that were damaged by river channel erosion and sediment deposition within the flood risk zone. The river channel shifts also threatened roads, railway embankment and piping systems crossing the river. One municipal well was destroyed due to the flood.
1.2.3 Town of Black Diamond
During the flood, the east approach to the highway bridge across Sheep River and a campsite located in the flood hazard area were washed out by the flood water but the bridge remained intact. In the same general area, approximately 50 properties were flooded with some of the buildings flooded due to sewer back-up.
The wells for the town’s water supply were located close to the Sheep River. During the flood, two wells were lost due to river bank erosion and the third well became damaged.
1.2.4 Town of Turner Valley
The north approach to the road bridge across Sheep River was washed out during the flood due to the river channel eroding the outside bank in the river bend where the bridge is located. This channel shift also washed out two of the three wells used for the town’s water supply.
A short distance downstream of the road bridge, six homes were flooded. Two of those homes are located in or near the designated floodway and the other four homes are located in the designated flood fringe.
1.3 The Need for this Feasibility Study
The June 2013 flood devastated large parts of communities in southern Alberta and generated the need for an assessment of how the risk of damage from flooding can be reduced in the future. Compared to the damages that occurred in other parts of southern Alberta, the damages incurred in communities along Sheep River were relatively small and could be managed locally.
1.4 Study Objectives and Scope Overview
The Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force (AFRTF) retained AECOM in October 2013 to provide engineering services for flood mitigation assessments in Southern Alberta and the study was to be completed at the end of March 2014. After the award of the work, AECOM was assigned to assess flood mitigation schemes in the Sheep and Highwood river basins and the South Saskatchewan River Sub-Basin provided by the SAFRTF.
The objectives for the study included:
Review and evaluate the viability of proposals provided by the SAFRTF, which are based on mitigation proposals compiled from sources such as the Advisory Panel, affected municipalities and Government of Alberta (GOA) departments. Work with SAFRTF staff, GOA staff and their consultants to develop project selection criteria then plan and participate in a workshop to review and evaluate the projects for each river basin.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 2 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Identify a water management strategy for each of the Sheep and Highwood River basins and South Saskatchewan River sub-basin, conduct consultations and develop conceptual designs.
The reviewed projects would be assessed for feasibility based on the following principles:
Technical feasibility Economic cost and benefit Social and cultural impacts and benefits Environmental impacts and benefits
No specific scope of work was provided at the Request For Proposal stage. As a result, the scope of work for the study was developed during November 2013.
Water resources projects, especially dams and reservoirs, are frequently constructed for multiple purposes, such as flood control, water supply, hydropower production, and in-stream flow maintenance. While the primary focus of this study was to identify resources, information and strategies for reducing the risk from flood hazards, a secondary focus was to identify drought management strategies that could be incorporated with the recommended flood mitigation projects.
Initially the work was intended to have a distinct drought assessment component. However, during the course of the study, the focus of the study shifted to primarily flood mitigation with drought to be addressed where it would fit into the considered flood mitigations. The drought component of the study was maintained in the form of an assessment of the types of water supplies in all communities within the river basins and an assessment of their susceptibility to drought.
This study evaluated the feasibility of various flood mitigation strategies and projects. The plan provides order of magnitude cost estimates and was prepared based on available existing studies and data due to a limited time period available for plan creation. Further and more detailed analyses will be required at subsequent phases to finalize the plan.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 3 "
"
"
" " 1 m
" - m
8 Shepard . 1
1 "Tsuu T'ina
3 : 4
► x
Bragg Creek e " CALGARY m r
m N 4 . u
9 UV 7 UV 7 " 5 g 2
2
8 i B
I F S
N 66 A Legend UV
UV From Advisory Panel UV22 X 2 " Priddis
: Provincial Boundary d e v o r p p
A Sheep River Basin
: d e k c
e UV2 h De Winto" n C
: r 552 e
n UV UV UV
5 g
7 i
5 s
7 e
2
3 D
: s
l UV
7 a i t
6 i n
2
I UV
2 t n
A e m e g a n
a " Millarville n M
i t c 549 549 s e j
UV UV a o r P B
Okotoks r Kew " " e v i R
p
7 547 e UV UV e h S
" Black Diamond "Aldersyde
"Turner Valley
UV
7
8
3 UV 546 2
UV A S 2 D " X M .
B BP1 _ I S
N 543
A UV _ 7 2
H "High River C R
A 23
M UV _ R
E UV V 2 I UV
2 R 2
2 P r e E n v H E e e o H n i
c S : t r \ d S e a o t D t g F o X l i
P M t
\ Longview
" k t i S s s F a M a L
M
T
F
4
UV d
A
) 0 y S o 7
1 r _ 2 5 - o 5 4 e 3 l 1 5 1 0 v 8
- UV F 8 9 4
o 0 y 1 9 3 a c 0 0 d t 0 2 e ( 6 r
\ 3 40 u
B 5 S e R t 0 T
O UV b C 6 K S d l
E C : I o J 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 . A y R
O o t o l H i R
n : m l P F y r N i \ :
b
e t E b
a d : i t c e Cayley h
e " r v t s e m a j e a s u a
o n t NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N b s o l r e e l i a L F S F A P
" AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2. River Basin Information
2.1 Setting
2.1.1 Basin Characteristics
The Sheep River originates in the mountain valleys of the Elbow-Sheep Wildland Provincial Park, flows through Sheep River Provincial Park and joins the Highwood River approximately 8 km east of the Town of Okotoks. The Sheep River basin has a total drainage area of 1568 km2 at Water Survey of Canada (WSC) Station 05BL020 (Sheep River near Aldersyde), upstream of the confluence with the Highwood River. A number of small creeks including Rae Creek, Threepoint Creek, Macabee Creek and Pothole Creek flow into the Sheep River. The length of the river is approximately 108 km with an average slope of 0.0036 m/m. The headwater at Rae Creek has an average slope of 0.019 m/m. Figure 1-1 shows the Sheep River basin boundaries with the drainage patterns. The basin is approximately 125 km long and 45 km at its widest point and has a dendritic pattern drainage system.
2.1.2 Land Cover
Figure 2-2 in Appendix G shows the sub-basin boundaries along with WSC stations and land cover type. The map indicates that the sub-basin upstream of Station 05BL018 (Sheep River at Buck Ranch) is mountainous with valleys dominated by coniferous forest. The sub-basins downstream of and adjacent to Station 05BL018 and upstream of Station 05BL013 are within the mountain foothills and appear to be dominated by mixed forest, coniferous forests, broadleaf forests, and grassland with some agricultural developments. Areas downstream and in the vicinity of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks are dominated by agricultural development.
2.1.3 Land Use
The Sheep River basin has a diverse land use pattern. Recreational activities are located in mountainous areas at a number of parks including Sheep River Provincial Park, Don Getty Wildland Park, Elbow-Sheep Wildland Park and Bluerock Wildland Park. Agricultural and community developments are present in the downstream area of the basin. The three main communities within the Sheep River basin are the Towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks. Additionally, the Hamlet of Millarville is located within the basin.
The Town of Turner Valley is located in the mountain foothills along Highway 22 and approximately 60 km southwest of Calgary. The Town of Turner Valley has a population of 2,167 (2011 Census). There are mainly residential developments and few commercial developments within the town. Black Diamond is a sister town to Turner Valley and is located in the foothills of the Canadian Rockies. The land use pattern in the Town of Black Diamond is mainly commercial and residential and many agricultural developments, including ranches, are located outside the town boundary. The Town of Okotoks is the largest community within the Sheep River basin. It is situated on the Sheep River, approximately 18 km south of the City of Calgary. The town has a population of 26,319 (2013 Census). The Town of Okotoks has residential, commercial and industrial developments and is surrounded by many agricultural developments.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 5 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2.2 Climate
2.2.1 Climatic Stations
Table 2-1 contains climate stations that are located within and surrounding the Sheep River basin that were considered for the hydrological model study and are shown in Figure 2-1 of Appendix B. Precipitation recorded at Compression Ridge, Cox Hill, Evan-Thomas Creek, Kananaskis Boundary Auto, Little Elbow Summit, Peter Lougheed Park, and Three Isle Lake stations did not appear to significantly contribute to runoff in the Sheep River basin. The areas of influence for these stations are outside the Sheep River basin; hence, these stations were not incorporated into the hydrological model. Additionally, the period of record at Okotoks’ climate station is daily, whereas the largest period of record required for use in the hydrological model study is hourly; therefore, the precipitation data from Okotoks’ station was not incorporated into the hydrological model.
The remaining climate stations in Table 2-1 were used to determine the rainfall distribution over the Sheep River basin during the June 2013 flood event and were used in the hydrological model to determine runoff.
Table 2-1: Climate Stations considered for the Sheep River Basin
Climate Period of Years of ID [4] Station Name Record [1] Record Latitude Longitude
Sheep River Basin Gauges 3030680 Black Diamond AEDM 2008-2014 7 50.7068 -114.1517 3050974 Burns Creek 1999-2014 16 50.6166 -114.8833 30526EL Forget Me Not 1998-2014 17 50.7489 -114.7333 303M9JM [2] Okotoks [3] 1981-2014 34 50.7290 -113.9610 3055H8C Sheep River II 1998-2014 17 50.6528 -114.6178 Gauges Outside and North of the Sheep River Basin 3052270 [2] Elbow Ranger Station 1981-2014 34 50.9000 -114.7000 3033505 Priddis Observatory 2010-2014 5 50.8691 -114.2917 Gauges Not Used in Hydrological Model 3051766 Compression Ridge 1998-2014 17 50.9000 -114.9170 3051932 Cox Hill 1998-2014 17 51.0013 -114.9370 3052D82 Evan-Thomas Creek 1998-2014 17 50.7922 -115.0520 n/a Kananaskis Boundary Auto 2008-2014 7 50.9300 -115.1200 305LRKB Little Elbow Summit 1989-2014 26 50.8220 -114.9890 n/a Peter Lougheed Park 2008-2014 7 50.7100 -115.1200 305FMQQ Three Isle Lake 1989-2014 26 50.6333 -115.2833 Notes: [1] Period of Record was extracted from Environment Canada gauge information at weather.gc.ca [2] Climate normals are available for these gauges. [3] Okotoks was not used in the hydrological computer model. [4] Climate ID was obtained from Environment Canada and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development
2.2.2 Climate Normals
Elbow Ranger and Okotoks stations have climate normals data containing mean monthly air temperatures and monthly precipitation for a record period from 1981 to 2010. The climate normals data are summarized in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 respectively and were obtained from Environment Canada.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 6 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Table 2-2: Mean Monthly Air Temperatures (1981-2010)
Elbow RS Okotoks
Min. Mean Max. Min. Mean Max. Month (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) January -16.07 -7.92 0.26 -13.84 -8.08 -2.28 February -14.12 -6.08 1.97 -10.94 -4.96 1.03 March -10.92 -3.32 4.31 -7.66 -1.39 4.89 April -5.21 2.29 9.78 -1.74 5.00 11.70 May -0.94 6.67 14.24 2.84 9.83 16.77 June 2.78 10.57 18.33 7.11 13.69 20.21 July 4.67 13.18 21.64 9.58 16.96 24.29 August 4.10 12.92 21.7 8.61 16.19 23.73 September -0.19 8.30 16.78 4.05 11.47 18.85 October -4.90 3.24 11.35 -1.61 4.97 11.52 November -12.01 -4.36 3.32 -7.98 -2.32 3.35 December -15.83 -7.92 0.03 -12.00 -6.28 -0.54 Annual -5.72 2.30 10.31 -1.97 4.59 11.13 Notes: Okotoks’ gauge was not used in the hydrological computer modelling as hourly data was not available. Min, max, and mean temperatures values were extracted from climate normal data as available from Environment Canada (ftp://ftp.tor.ec.gc.ca/Pub/Normals/ENGLISH/ALTA/)
Table 2-3: Monthly Precipitation (1981-2010)
Elbow RS Okotoks
Mean Extreme Daily Rainfall Mean Extreme Daily Rainfall Month (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) January 23.29 20.00 14.81 19.30 February 21.91 28.00 17.32 11.30 March 41.62 51.00 28.55 45.80 April 49.19 102.10 37.88 25.00 May 101.11 75.20 70.37 40.30 June 124.56 98.00 123.60 76.90 July 66.93 76.80 54.42 45.60 August 76.88 83.00 61.66 47.70 September 66.26 98.00 45.84 92.00 October 41.35 32.00 25.32 17.00 November 32.38 45.00 21.89 34.00 December 19.91 26.20 12.86 10.80 Annual 665.39 102.10 514.52 92.00 Notes: The Okotoks gauge was not used in the hydrological computer modelling. Mean and Max monthly precipitation values were extracted from climate normal data as available from Environment Canada (ftp.tor.ec.gc.ca/Pub/Normals/ENGLISH/ALTA/)
2.3 Surface Water
2.3.1 Stream Flow
The locations of WSC stream gauges used in the hydrological model study of the Sheep River basin are summarized in Table 2-4 and are shown in Figure 2-1 of Appendix B.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 7 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Table 2-4: Water Survey of Canada Hydrometric Stations in Sheep River Basin
Drainage Record Station Station Name Location Area (km2) Period Type of Data 05BL012 Sheep River at Okotoks 50° 43' 26'' N, 113° 58' 24'' W 1493.9 1908-1915 Seasonal Manual 1916-1920 Continuous Manual 1965-1968 Continuous Recorder 2006-2014 Continuous Recorder 05BL013 Threepoint Creek near Millarville 50° 46' 16'' N, 114° 16' 43'' W 507.2 1908-1911 Miscellaneous Manual 1912-1916 Seasonal Manual 1965-2014 Seasonal Recorder 05BL014 Sheep River at Black Diamond 50° 41' 16'' N, 114° 14' 37'' W 592.2 1908-1908 Miscellaneous Manual 1909-1916 Seasonal Manual 1968-2014 Continuous Recorder 05BL018 Sheep River at Buck Ranch 50°37'20" N, 114°25'40" W 454.0 1950-1969 Seasonal Recorder
The largest recorded discharges for selected WSC Stations in the Highwood River basin are shown in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5: Ten Largest Mean Daily Discharges by WSC Station
05BL012* 05BL013 05BL014
Year Discharge (m3/s) Year Discharge (m3/s) Year Discharge (m3/s) 2013 >1,000 (est.) 2005 389 2013 720 (est.) 1915 730† 1967 283 2005 380 1967 662† 2013 265*** 1995 366 2011 581† 2011 226 2008 259 2008 383 2008 220 1990 207 1916 361† 1915 159 1970 195 1908 294† 2006 157 2011 185 2006 283 1969 146 2012 180 1912 203† 1995 129 1992 150 1917 203† 1994 119 2006 126 Notes: *Highly intermittent data set **2013 WSC discharge measurement not available ***2013 peak estimated form provisional 15 min data provided by AESRD †Estimated from maximum daily data.
Additionally, the raw data for each stream gauge used in the hydrological model of the Sheep River basin was obtained from AESRD and the following data was summarized in tables where data was available (refer to Appendix B):
Annual peak instantaneous discharge range Minimum open water discharges Minimum discharges Mean monthly discharges Freeze-up discharges Earliest open water discharges Peak instantaneous discharges
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 8 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2.3.2 Frequency Floods
Flood risk mapping studies with frequency flood estimates for Sheep River were completed for Black Diamond – Turner Valley and Okotoks. The study for Black Diamond – Turner Valley, completed in 1992, incorporates data from four WSC Stations, using a correlation to estimate the maximum annual instantaneous discharge for the Sheep River at Black Diamond. These stations are 05BL014 (Sheep River at Black Diamond), 05BL018 (Sheep River at Buck Ranch), 05BL012 (Sheep River at Okotoks) and 05BJ004 (Elbow River at Bragg Creek). The study estimated the Sheep River 1% (100-year) discharge at Black Diamond – Turner Valley to be 601 m3/s.
The study for Okotoks, completed in 1994 and updated in 2006 and 2010, adopts an hydrological assessment of the Sheep River at Okotoks completed in 1994 by the Surface Water Assessment Branch, Alberta Environmental Protection. The assessment estimated the Sheep River 1% (100-year) discharge at Okotoks to be 954 m3/s.
This report provides a revised estimate of flood frequency discharges at WSC Station 05BL014 Sheep River at Black Diamond. The frequency analysis includes data from Station 05BL018 Sheep River at Buck Ranch, to increase the record period. Peak data from Station 05BL009 was transferred downstream by establishing an exponential relationship between discharge and drainage basin area. The frequency discharges for various return periods are provided in Table 2-6. The frequency analysis includes a provisional 2013 peak discharge of 720 m3/s at Black Diamond, published by AESRD. No provisional peak discharge was available from WSC at the time of this study.
Table 2-6: Maximum Instantaneous Frequency Floods at 05BL014
Frequency (Years) Annual Probability Discharge (m3/s) 200 0.5% 907 100 1% 673 50 2% 491 20 5% 314 10 10% 215 5 20% 140 Distribution Log Pearson III (SAM)
2.4 Potable Water Sources
2.4.1 Summary of Communities’ Water Sources Affected due to June 2013 Flood
The current water use in the Sheep River basin consists of urban and rural municipal water supply and irrigation. This section of the report considers communities’ raw water sources within the Sheep River basin that are potentially at risk during flood and drought conditions. Additionally, communities beyond the flood hazard area, which may still be impacted due to water supply interdependencies, were investigated. However, those communities in the Sheep River basin that are far beyond the flood hazard area and are rural communities that are dependent on private wells, surface water, or have water trucked in were not considered in this study.
Typically, raw water is diverted from the Sheep River directly or through municipal and private groundwater wells to service communities with potable water. Groundwater wells near Highwood River are often Groundwater Under Direct Influence (GWUDI) of surface water which means that the aquifer is recharged due to hydraulic connectivity to the river. Water sources such as groundwater wells and direct river intakes were investigated and any water source interdependencies between communities and damages or effects due to the June 2013 flood are summarized for each community in Table 2-7 below. Communities in the Sheep River basin are shown in Figure 2-1 of Appendix D.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 9 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
More detailed descriptions of water sources and their locations and damages and effects due to the June 2013 flood for each community in Table 2-7 can be found in Appendix D.
Table 2-7: Summary of water sources for communities in the Sheep River Basin
Water Source Interdependencies
Water Source Obtains Supplies Community Type Water Source Location Damages/Effects due to June 2013 Flood water from: water to: Black Diamond Town GWUDI* Turner Valley - Wells at river, in Two of three wells were permanently lost and a third (Sheep River) flood fringe well is out of commission. A temporary overland supply line was installed to supply water from Turner Valley to Black Diamond. A buried water supply pipeline from Turner Valley was installed as a permanent solution. Black Diamond has issued water restrictions until additional water sources are implemented to meet the water demand Millarville Hamlet GWUDI* - - Well at Comprehensive list of water sources was (Threepoint Threepoint undetermined at the time of this report; however, one Creek) Creek community well along Threepoint Creek was identified from document provided by the MD of Foothills No.31 Okotoks Town GWUDI* 12 wells - Wells at river, in Well #1 was lost and replaced and is scheduled to (Sheep River) floodway resume production at a reduced capacity in March 2014. Rip rap was washed out in the water reservoir and was restored. There were no water supply interruptions or water restrictions issued. Turner Valley Town GWUDI* 2 wells Black Wells at river, in Two out of three wells were lost and a replacement (Sheep River) Diamond flood fringe well was drilled. Raw water from an infiltration pit and a few next to Sheep River was pumped to recharge the raw acreages water reservoir and an emergency line was installed north of from the remaining well to the raw water reservoir in Turner the interim to maintain water supply. Turner Valley Valley has issued a water restriction which will be lifted when an additional raw water source is obtained to meet the water demand and is permanently supplying Black Diamond with treated water. Note: *GWUDI = Ground Water Under Direct Influence of Surface Water (i.e. rivers)
2.4.2 Communities Potentially at Risk due to Future Flood or Drought
2.4.2.1 Flood
Communities that are most likely to be affected by future flood events are communities that obtain raw water through production wells and use electrical pumping equipment that are located within the floodway or flood fringe of the Sheep River. Well heads are at risk from flood water that conveys large amounts of sediment and could be damaged by floating debris. The sediment tends to plug up the wells and increase turbidity to unacceptable levels which pose a problem to effectively treat the raw water. Wells either need to be flushed or can be completely lost and require a replacement well to be drilled. Floods can also alter and expand the river extents to permanently flood wells that are in close proximity of the river banks requiring wells to be replaced. Drilling and commissioning replacement wells is time consuming and could cause water restrictions for a significant period. Raw water obtained through river intakes is also susceptible to increased turbidity due to flood water carrying a high sediment load or rocks that block the intakes; however, the intakes may be less susceptible to damage from floating debris as intakes are submerged. Additionally, pump wells in pump houses can become blocked by a supply of highly turbid flood
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 10 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
water or electrical pumping equipment may be damaged or will need to be moved to higher ground to avoid damages; both interrupting water supply.
Turner Valley had three wells, but two were lost due to the June 2013 flood and an additional well was drilled and commissioned. Turner Valley additionally services a few acreages north of town and Turner Valley’s water supply is sensitive to impacts due to future flood events because both wells are within the flood fringe.
Black Diamond had three wells; all three wells were lost due to the June 2013 flood and, as a result, Turner Valley now permanently supplies treated water to the Town of Black Diamond. Black Diamond’s water supply is also sensitive to impacts due to future floods since Black Diamond is dependent on Turner Valley for treated water. Water restrictions are currently in place until additional raw water sources can be added to meet Turner Valley’s and Black Diamond’s water demands. Turner Valley and Black Diamond have reduced water usage by approximately 30%.
Okotoks has 12 wells of which 11 are directly south and 1 well is north of the Sheep River. Well #1 was lost in the 2005 and the June 2013 flood and in both cases was replaced. Well #1 is due to be commissioned in March 2014 and is expected to have a lower water production capacity than before; therefore, a supplemental well may be required. Okotoks’ water supply is sensitive to impacts due to future flood events, because all 12 wells are located within the floodway. Increased turbidity levels placed an increased load on Okotoks’ water treatment plant; however, no water restrictions were necessary. Rip rap was washed out in Okotoks’ water reservoir due to the June 2013 flood and was restored. Okotoks is currently investigating additional water supply options to satisfy an increasing water demand due to population growth. Options to expand water supply include: treated water from Calgary and increase raw water supply from the Bow River or Highwood River (BSEI Municipal Consulting Engineers, 2013).
A comprehensive list of water sources and water source damages due to the June 20132 flood for the Hamlet of Millarvile was undetermined at the time of this report; however, one community well along Threepoint Creek was identified from documents provided by the MD of Foothills No.31. The water supply for Turner Valley, Black Diamond, Okotoks, and Millarville are most sensitive to impacts from future flood events.
2.4.2.1 Drought
Drought conditions can reduce flows in the Sheep River and Threepoint Creek; therefore, potentially impact the volume of water available to be withdrawn from the river due to Water Conservation and In-stream Objectives. Although most municipal wells used in the Sheep River basin are hydraulically connected to the Sheep River or Threepoint Creek, the aquifers could be susceptible to depletion due to reduced river recharge capabilities resulting from long-term drought conditions. Communities that obtain raw water from groundwater sources that are not dependent on river water recharge may be less affected depending on the size of the aquifer. A detailed study of effects of drought conditions on communities’ water supply is outside of the scope for this study.
2.5 Groundwater Supply Assessment
2.5.1 Methodology
Data was obtained from the AESRD Alberta Water Well Information database and was compiled into a database by AECOM. This data contains information from water well records including: well identification, latitude, longitude, elevation, drilling date, static water level (meters below ground surface), date static water level measured, well purpose, recommended pump rate (liters per minute), lithology, perforation length, screen length, and other comments extracted from the well logs.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 11 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
The database was compiled to establish groundwater topography and potential groundwater yields. Analysis of this data is intended to show groundwater anomalies within the groundwater topography, which would provide evidence that a negative discharge of groundwater is occurring in modeled areas of the selected river basins. Well data was not used in the Rocky Mountain deformation belt due to the highly variable geologic structure as this would present invalid and inconsistent groundwater yield results.
The database was outputted into ArcGIS Shapefiles that are geographically referenced in the Highwood River and Sheep River basins. Geological data from the Alberta Geological Survey (Ozoray 1974; Borneuf 1980) was used to project a three dimensional subsurface throughout the perforated and screened intervals obtained from the database and geological units were determined and/or assigned in the perforated and screened intervals. Geological units that were assigned in screened and perforated areas using ArcGIS made it possible to determine the geological source of the water (assuming that water conditions are the same as when last recorded). After determining the source of the groundwater in the individual lithologies, the recommended pump rates were applied to those unique selections. These unique sections include the local surficial sediments, the Porcupine Hills Formation, and the Willow Creek Formation (Prior et al. 2013). Bedrock topography information was extracted from the Alberta Geological Survey ArcGIS files (Atkinson and Lyster 2010).
2.5.2 Results
The groundwater topography shows that groundwater drawdowns (anomalies) are occurring within all lithologies with screened or perforated wells. These lithologies include the surficial sediments (above the top of bedrock), the Porcupine Hills Formation, and the Willow Creek Formation. Figure 2-1 presents the location of the wells that are screened within each geological unit. Depressions within the static water level topography suggest that unsustainable groundwater depletion is occurring. Depressions that mimic the surface topography likely indicate the natural path of groundwater movement toward surface water discharge locations (creeks and rivers).
Figure 2-2 presents static water elevation in the surficial sediments. This figure shows a definite groundwater discharge to the Sheep River, Threepoint Creek, Spring Creek and Wilson Coulee on the basis of the contours trending upstream along these river courses. Areas of groundwater depression occur in Sections 14-21-01-W5, 34-20-01-W5, 13-20-02-W5 and 17-20-29-W4.
The surficial sediments in the Sheep River Basin in Figure 2-3 show the recommended pump rates within and adjacent to the Town of Okotoks within the Sheep River basin. The lowest recommended pumping rates are shown in yellow in Figure 2-3. The lower recommended pump rates are located mainly southwest of Okotoks. Static water level contours show that the recommended pumping rate near the Town of Okotoks is possibly sustainable. Further monitoring over time would be required to confirm this assessment. Areas of groundwater depression mentioned previously are in zones where the recommended pumping rates are less than 45 L/min, and there are a number of wells within the same section. This suggests that the surficial aquifer is not sustainable at the cumulative pumping rate within the section.
In Figure 2-4, the static water level contours within the Porcupine Hills Formation show depression of the groundwater to the southeast of Okotoks in Section 21-20-29-W4. Depression of groundwater also occurs in Sections 13 and 24 of 21-01-W5, Sections 16 and 17 of 20-01-W5 and Section 12 of 20-02-W5. Groundwater discharge to the Sheep River and Wilson Coulee is occurring on the basis of the contours trending upstream along these river courses.
Recommended pumping rates of the Porcupine Hills Formation (Figure 2-5) are similar to those of the surficial sediments in the Sheep River basin (Figure 2-3). The highest recommended pump rates in the Porcupine Hills Formation occur around the Town of Okotoks and are in higher amounts to the east and west of Okotoks. High
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 12 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
recommended pump rates occur in the northwest part of Figure 2-5 in 02-03-W5 and 02-02-W5. The lowest recommended pump rates in the Sheep River basin are to the north and to the southwest of Okotoks.
The Willow Creek Formation has limited drilling data due to the presence of a syncline near the middle of Figure 2-6; thus, the Willow Creek Formation is deeper beneath the surface and is less likely to be penetrated by water well drilling. The recommending pumping rates and the static water levels have been generalized by the modeling and are a calculated average based on existing available data. The data does show that the Willow Creek Formation has the highest yields of groundwater (blue) in the northwestern and southern parts of Figure 2-7. Also shown in Figure 2-7 are the lowest recommended pumping rates which are in and around the Town of Okotoks. These lowest groundwater yielding areas correspond to a groundwater depression in and around Okotoks (Figure 2-6). Localized groundwater depressions also occur around the wells adjacent to the Disturbed Belt. This would suggest that the Willow Creek Formation is very sensitive to groundwater capture.
In summary, depressions within the static water level topography for each area should be avoided when searching for new groundwater supply and it is encouraged to drill new wells in areas where the yield (based on the recommended pumping rate) is above 45 L/min.
2.6 Environmental Summary of the Sheep River Basin
2.6.1 Landscape
The Sheep River Basin is comprised of three Natural Regions: Rocky Mountain, Parkland, and Grassland. The Natural Regions are further divided into five Natural Subregions: Alpine, Subalpine, Montane, Foothills Parkland, and Foothills Fescue.
2.6.1.1 Grassland Natural Region
Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion
The Foothills Fescue Subregion covers 2.9% of the Sheep River Basin and is characterized by grass dominated communities. This Subregion has long summers and warm winters. Nearly half of this Subregion is cultivated level plains, and much of the upland areas in the southern district are dominated by native prairie. The presence of Black Chernozem soils (BLC) on cultivated land is what distinguishes this Natural Subregion from the other Subregions (Natural Region Committee 2006). Mountain rough fescue (Festuca campestris), Parry oat grass (Danthonia parryi), and bluebunch fescue (Festuca idahoensis) are prairie species that differentiate this Subregion from others within the Grassland Natural Region (Natural Region Committee 2006).
2.6.1.2 Parkland Natural Region
Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion
The Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion represents 31.8% of the basin and is characterized by rolling to hilly native grasslands. This Subregion has warm winters due to Chinooks and high levels of precipitation, but has the shortest and coolest growing season (Natural Regions Committee 2006). As such, minimal cultivation occurs and the area covered primarily by native vegetation. Dry areas of the Foothills Parkland Subregion support grasslands, while aspen and other woodland stands are found in cooler, moister areas. Grassland and forested areas have dark topsoils that are rich in organic matter suitable for agricultural activities. In areas that are poorly drained, water saturated soils, otherwise known as Gleysolic soils, are common (Natural Region Committee 2006).
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 13 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2.6.1.3 Rocky Mountain Natural Region
Montane Natural Subregion
The Montane Natural Subregion represents 38.4% of the Sheep River Basin and occurs at the lower elevations of the Front Ranges of the Rocky Mountains. This Subregion is important for activities such as mining and timber harvest, but also provides vital habitat for wildlife (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The Montane Subregion is the driest and warmest Natural Subregion within the Rocky Mountain Natural Region. Summers are mild with high precipitation and winters tend to be warmer due to the frequency of Chinooks. Terrain is more complex than topography within the Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion resulting in pronounced microclimates. These microclimates contribute to the complex vegetation communities within the Montane Natural Subregion and include coniferous forests, mixed forests, and grasslands (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Woodlands have dark topsoils that are rich in organic matter while northern slope and higher elevation areas have soils with thinner topsoil and higher clay content. Weakly developed soils are located in higher elevation areas as well as areas adjacent to rivers and side slopes (Natural Region Committee 2006).
Subalpine Natural Subregion
The Subalpine Natural Subregion makes up 21.2% of the basin and occurs along the midslope and lower slopes of the Front Ranges of the Rocky Mountains. Timber harvesting is an important activity in the Subregion; however, low productivity and regeneration coupled with steep slopes make harvesting difficult. The Subalpine is primarily dominated by open coniferous stands and herbaceous meadows at higher elevations with closed coniferous stands at lower elevations. Winters are long and cold and summers are short and cool. This Natural Subregion receives the second-most amount of year round precipitation (the Alpine Natural Subregion being the first) and provides important habitat for wildlife (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Steep slopes, exposed bedrock, and loose rock deposits have weakly developed soils. Forested areas have soils with some structure and thin topsoil horizons. Soils with deeper topsoils are common in lower elevation areas (Natural Region Committee 2006).
Alpine Natural Subregion
The Alpine Natural Subregion represents approximately 5.7% of the Sheep River Basin and is largely protected by parks and wilderness areas. This Subregion is characterized by steep unstable rock formations, active glaciers, and permanent snowfields and has a cold harsh climate. Plant growth is found within microsites scattered across the lower elevations of the Alpine, while the highest elevations are essentially barren. Weakly developed soils dominate areas with harsh climatic regimes and unstable parent materials. Gleysolic soils are water saturated soils commonly found in poorly drained areas within the Alpine Subregion (Natural Region Committee 2006).
2.6.2 Protected Areas
There are several areas that occur within the Sheep River Basin that are protected under provincial legislation. More specifically the Provincial Parks Act places development restrictions in Provincial Parks, Wildland Provincial Parks, and Provincial Recreation Areas. Appendix F illustrates all areas that have some kind of development restriction. Table 2-8 lists some of the dominant protected areas with the basin.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 14 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Table 2-8: Protected Areas within the Sheep River Basin
Protected Area or Restricted Activity Area Classification Legislation Elbow-Sheep Wildland Provincial Park Provincial Parks Act Don Getty Wildland Provincial Park Provincial Parks Act Bluerock Wildland Provincial Park Provincial Parks Act Sheep River Provincial Park Provincial Parks Act Peter Lougheed Provincial Park Provincial Parks Act Brown-Lowery Provincial Park Provincial Parks Act Wolf Creek Provincial Recreation Areas Provincial Parks Act Ware Creek Provincial Recreation Areas Provincial Parks Act Ficher Creek Provincial Recreation Areas Provincial Parks Act Mesa Butte Provincial Recreation Areas Provincial Parks Act North Folk Provincial Recreation Areas Provincial Parks Act Threepoint Creek Natural Area Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands Act Sheep Creek Natural Area Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands Act OH Ranch Heritage Rangeland Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands Act Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve Forest Reserves Act Sharp-tailed Grouse Key Range Layer Wildlife Act Sensitive Raptor Range Key Range Layer Wildlife Act Endangered and Threatened Plants Key Range Layer Wildlife Act Mountain Goat and Sheep Key Wildlife Layer Wildlife Act Colonial Nesting Birds Key Wildlife Layer Wildlife Act Grizzly Bear Key Wildlife Layer Wildlife Act Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones Key Wildlife Layer Wildlife Act Prime Protection Zone ELUZ* Eastern Slopes Resource Management Policy; Alberta Land Stewardship Act Multiple Use Zone ELUZ Eastern Slopes Resource Management Policy; Alberta Land Stewardship Act Critical Wildlife Zone ELUZ Eastern Slopes Resource Management Policy; Alberta Land Stewardship Act Special Use Zone ELUZ Eastern Slopes Resource Management Policy; Alberta Land Stewardship Act Note: *ELUZ = Eastern Slopes Land Use Zones
The Lieutenant Governor in Council has the ability to designate any Public Land as Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands. The designation of these areas and their protection is legislated under the Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas, and Heritage Rangelands Act.
The Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve was established under the Forest Reserves Act (S.A. 2000, c. F-20; Government of Alberta 2004) and was established to protect forest vegetation as well as maintain watershed function and water yields within the reserve (Government of Alberta 1957).
Key Range Layers were developed by AESRD to provide industrial operators, the provincial government, and the general public with the most up to date information available on the extent of wildlife species protected under the Wildlife Act. Such information can assist with surveys for identification of a feature or identify where mitigation strategies need to be applied (AESRD 2013a).
Similar to Key Range Layers, Key Wildlife Layers are based on areas that are important for the viability and productivity of Alberta’s wildlife protected under the Wildlife Act. Specific operating procedures apply to industrial activities in these zones in order to reduce impacts to habitat and wildlife populations (AESRD 2013a).
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 15 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Eastern Slope Land Use Zones (ELUZ) were developed to protect, manage, or develop areas along the eastern slope of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains according to integrated resource management (Government of Alberta 1984). High demand for resources in the area (water, scenery, timber, forage, wildlife, fisheries, and mineral resources) created concern over environmental protection in the area and led to the development of A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes in 1977 (Government of Alberta 1984). Five ELUZ types exist within the basin: Prime Protection Zone, Multiple Use Zones, Critical Wildlife Zones, Special Use Zones, and Agriculture Zones.
The intent of a Prime Protection Zone is to preserve environmentally sensitive terrain and valuable ecological and aesthetic resources for which this zone is highly valued for including high-elevation forests and the steep slopes of the major mountain ranges within the Eastern Slopes. Multiple Use Zones provide for the development and management of all available resources while still meeting the objectives for protecting watershed function and environmental health in the long term (Government of Alberta 1984). Critical Wildlife Zones protect both terrestrial and aquatic habitats that are vital to the maintenance of specific fish and wildlife populations (Government of Alberta 1984). Special Use Zones are lands set aside for historic resources, scientific research, unique management requirements, or legislative requirements.
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) do not represent government policy and are not necessarily areas that require legal protection, but instead are intended to be an information tool to help inform land use planning and policy at local, regional, and provincial scales (Government of Alberta 2009a).
Class A, B, and C watercourses, as defined under the Code of Practice (CoP) for Watercourse Crossings under the Water Act, (Government of Alberta 2013c) exist within the basin and have set guidelines indicating when works can be conducted. Restricted Activity Periods (RAPs) are determined by known spawning habitat and potential fish species presence. The RAP is designed to protect sensitive habitats and species during key life stage phases (e.g. spawning). RAPs may extend over a spring-summer period, and/or during a fall-winter period. Special attention should be given to the class of individual water bodies during the planning stages of a project to ensure that works do not interfere with critical spawning activities, and in the case of Class A water bodies, if works are allowed.
Historical Resources are recognized in Alberta as non-renewable resources that are defined under the Historical Resources Act and are subject to protective measures (Government of Alberta 2013e). Previously mapped archaeological sites within the basin have been identified near major waterways, many of which were classified as campsites. Prehistoric sites (n = 492), historic sites (n = 19), and natural sites (n = 6) have been documented in the area with variable HRVs, most of which were located in the eastern part of the basin.
More detailed information regarding these protected areas is provided in Appendix F.
2.6.3 Protected Species
2.6.3.1 Wildlife
Several sensitive and key wildlife areas exist (e.g. Grizzly Bear Zone, Sensitive Raptor Range, Colonial Nesting Birds, etc.), and a number of Species at Risk have the potential to occur within the Highwood River Basin (AESRD 2013a). As such, multiple wildlife surveys, as defined by the Species at Risk ranges, will be required prior to any works being conducted within the Sheep River Basin (Alberta Energy Regulator 2013). Wildlife surveys and wildlife sweeps will be required for the identification of potential key wildlife sites. As per the Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines wildlife surveys need to be conducted at the proper time of year for species detection and be completed by a qualified wildlife biologist or technician experienced with the survey methodology for the targeted species (Government of Alberta 2013i).
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 16 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Based on known range distributions and the presence of available wildlife habitat, a total of 78 Species at Risk have the potential to occur within the basin (AESRD 2013c), with federal and provincial rankings ranging from “Sensitive” to “Endangered”. Historical records provided by AESRD identified 33 wildlife species (of the 78 Species at Risk), which have been previously identified within the basin. A list of these species as well as mapped observations can be found in Appendix F.
Recommended timing guidelines and setback distances have been established by the provincial government to protect and maintain key wildlife species and areas (Government of Alberta 2013i). These guidelines and setback distances, specific to the basin, are summarized in Table 2-9. Furthermore, Environment Canada restricts activities that cause habitat destruction (e.g. vegetation clearing, flooding, draining, construction, etc.) in upland areas attractive to migratory birds between May 1st and August 20th, and in wetland areas, the restriction occurs between April 15th and August 20th (Environment Canada, Personal Communication 2012).
2.6.3.2 Fish
The Sheep River Basin provides successful spawning, rearing, and wintering habitat that supports a variety of cold water fish. Three Species at Risk have been reported within the basin: the Cutthroat Trout, Spoonhead Sculpin, and Bull Trout. Cutthroat Trout are ranked under the Alberta Wildlife Act and the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as “Threatened”, and are “At Risk” at the provincial general status level (ASRD 2011b) Spoonhead Sculpin and Bull Trout are listed under the current provincial general status as “May Be At Risk” and “Sensitive”, respectively. The Bull Trout is also listed as “Threatened” by COSEWIC (2013).
Rare Plant Species
Setback distances are required by both federal and provincial governments for rare plant species designated under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as well as the Alberta Wildlife Act. For provincially designated rare plant species, a minimum setback distance of 30 m is required for low and medium level disturbances and 300 m for high level of disturbance activities (ASRD 2011a). For federally designated rare plant species, Class 1 disturbances (e.g. walking or grazing) are considered unrestricted activities, Class 2 (e.g. above-ground transmission lines, mowing, etc.) require a minimum setback of 30 m, while Class 3 disturbances (e.g. pipelines, ROWs, excavations, etc.) require setback distances of at least 300 m (Canadian Wildlife Service 2011).
A total of 97 historical records of rare plant species have been identified within the Sheep River Basin, including vascular and non-vascular plant species and one rare vegetation community (beaked willow/wild red raspberry/wild white geranium). Rare species records were generally concentrated within the Alpine and Subalpine Subregions of the Rocky Mountain Natural Region. This is due to the numerous records of whitebark and limber pine within these areas. Whitebark pine is protected under both SARA and the Alberta Wildlife Act, whereas limber pine is protected under the Alberta Wildlife Act only.
A detailed list of rare plant species is provided in Table 5-1 of Appendix F, and the locations of these rare species’ historical records is illustrated in Figure F1-4 of Appendix F. Figure F1-4 of Appendix F also illustrates the range of both pine species, which are based on the interpolation of actual observations and buffered by 1,000 m (AESRD 2013b).
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 17 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2.6.4 Applicable Guidelines and Legislation
2.6.4.1 Federal Legislation
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)
Under the CEAA, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required for projects that have been designated by regulation, Ministerial Order, or if the project is located on federal lands. Upon initial review, the Minister of the Environment can refer a designated project to a review panel or joint review panel.
Fisheries Act
The Fisheries Act applies to all Canadian fisheries waters. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has the responsibility to protect and conserve all fish habitat. Under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act (Government of Canada 2013a), DFO provides protection for fish from “serious harm” which is identified as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. Across Canada, DFO has established Timing Windows within which time work in or around water should be avoided to protect fish species during sensitive times, such as spawning. However, in Alberta, DFO defers to the RAP outlined by AESRD. Additionally, Measures to Avoid Harm are provided by DFO to ensure serious harm to fish and fish habitat is avoided.
Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA)
Amendments made to the NWPA in Bill C-45 in 2012 implemented a schedule listing major waterways for which regulatory approval is required. Since the project is commencing after April 2014, review by Transport Canada will not be required as the Sheep River has not been included in the Schedule (Government of Canada 2009).
Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA)
Under the MBCA, the Canadian Wildlife Service has jurisdictional interest with respect to the management of migratory birds and migratory bird populations, protecting nationally significant nesting habitats, and regulating the hunting of migratory game birds such as ducks and geese. Section 6(a) of the General Prohibitions of the Migratory Birds Regulations states that it is an offence to “disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, or nest shelter” of a migratory bird. Additionally, Section 35(1) stipulates that “no person shall deposit or permit to be deposited oil, oil wastes or any other substance harmful to migratory birds in any waters or any area frequented by migratory birds” (Government of Canada 2010a). Habitat destruction activities are prohibited between May 1st and August 20th in upland areas and between April 15th and August 20th in wetland areas (Paul Gregoire, Environment Canada, personal communication).
Species at Risk Act (SARA)
The SARA provides protection for Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations and their critical habitats on federal lands (Government of Canada 2013b).
Canada Wildlife Act
The Canada Wildlife Act establishes statutes in regards to the wildlife within Canada and all provinces and territories located therein. It defines the powers, duties, and functions of the Minister as well as all agreements made under the Act. It further stipulates that the government may take such measures as deemed necessary for the protection of any species of wildlife in danger of extinction (Government of Canada 2010b).
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 18 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2.6.4.2 Provincial Legislation
Alberta Land Stewardship Act
The Sheep River Basin falls within the regional management area of the recently released “Draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2012-2024” (SSRP). The SSRP outlines many objectives, some of which relate to the continued health and function of the river systems and water resources within the South Saskatchewan River watershed. The SSRP also highlights objectives that promote ecological conservation initiatives (Government of Alberta 2014).
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)
The EPEA covers the provincial Environmental Assessment Process. The initial review process by the Director will determine if the project is Mandatory (requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report), Exempted (from the Environmental Assessment Process), or Discretionary (an EIA not required, but other approvals may be required or more information is required for to make a determination). If an activity requires an EIA, the terms of reference are prepared by the proponent and are available to the public for comments and reviews. The final EIA report is then reviews by multiple sources and agencies before the approval process begins.
Activities that do not fall under the Environmental Assessment Process may still require approval or registration under the EPEA. The Activities Designation Regulation lists activities that require an approval, registration, or notification under EPEA (Government of Alberta 2013a).
Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB)
The NRCB, under the National Resources Conservation Board Act, considers social, environmental, and economic effects when reviewing resource projects before approval is granted to the Proponent. Reviewable projects include forest industry projects, recreational or tourist projects, metallic or industrial mineral projects, water management projects, and any other type of project prescribed in the regulations (Government of Alberta 2013b).
Water Act
All water resources located within the province of Alberta are owned by the Provincial Government. The Act is the primary legislation governing the use and management of Alberta’s water resources, including wetlands. A new Wetland Policy will be phased in during the summer of 2014 that will focus on conserving and minimizing wetland losses by using compensation measures (Government of Alberta 2013c).
Public Lands Act
All Crown land, including the bed and shores of all permanent watercourses and water bodies, are considered Alberta public lands unless they are owned by the Government of Canada. As such, approvals from AESRD under the Public Lands Act are required for any activity on Public Lands or the bed or shore of Crown owned rivers, streams, or lakes (Government of Alberta 2013d).
Historical Resources Act
The Act protects all historical resources in Alberta. Pursuant to the Act, a Historical Resource Clearance is needed for projects where effects on known and unknown historical resources could occur (Government of Alberta 2013e).
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 19 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Wildlife Act
The Act protects the residences of wildlife on private and public lands (Government of Alberta 2013f). Section 96 of the Wildlife Regulation outlines the wildlife species, areas, and time of year when the Act applies (Government of Alberta 2013g). For most wildlife, disturbing the habitat of these animals is prohibited year-round throughout Alberta.
Provincial Parks Act
The Act, administered by Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation, protects Alberta’s parks and recreational areas, and as such, a disposition from the Minister is required prior to any construction activities within designated areas (Government of Alberta 2013h).
Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act
The Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish any of the specialized areas mentioned in its title and lists specific activities that are prohibited (Government of Alberta 2009b).
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 20 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Table 2-9: Recommended Wildlife Timing Window Guidelines and Setback Distances within the Sheep River Basin
Level of Disturbance (m) Species Location Timing Window Low Medium High Birds Bald Eagle Nesting Sites March15-July 15 1,000 1,000 1,000 July 16-March 14 50 100 1,000 Burrowing Owl Nesting Sites April 1-August 15 200 500 500 August 16-October 15 200 200 500 October 16-March 31 50 100 500 Colonial Nesting Birds: American White Pelican1, Nesting Sites April 1-March 31 1,000 1,000 1,000 1 Great Blue Heron September 1-March 31 100 100 1,000 Ferruginous Hawk Nesting Sites March 15-July 15 1,000 1,000 1,000 July 16-March 14 50 100 1,000 Golden Eagle Nesting Sites March 15-July 15 1,000 1,000 1,000 July 16-March 14 50 100 1,000 Long-billed Curlew Active Nest and Surrounding Habitat April 1-July 15 100 100 100 Peregrine Falcon Nesting Sites March 15-July 15 1,000 1,000 1,000 July 16-March 14 50 100 1,000 Prairie Falcon Nesting Sites March 15-July 15 1,000 1,000 1,000 July 16-March 14 50 100 1,000 Sharp-tail Grouse Leks March 15-June 15 500 500 500 June 16-March 14 100 100 500 Short-eared Owl Active Nest and Surrounding Habitat April 1-July 15 100 100 100 Sprague's Pipit Active Nest and Surrounding Habitat April 1-July 15 100 100 100 Upland Sandpaper Active Nest and Surrounding Habitat April 1-July 15 100 100 100 Migratory Birds Upland Areas Nesting Areas May 1-August 20 Contact Local Wildlife Biologist Wetland Nesting Areas April 15-August 20 Amphibians Northern Leopard Frog Breeding Ponds Year Round 100 100 100 Plains Spadefoot Class III Wetlands on Native Prairie Year Round 100 100 100 Reptiles Prairie Rattlesnake Hibernacula Year Round 200 200 500 Rookery March 15-June 15 200 200 500 November 1-March 14 50 50 500 Miscellaneous Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones (mapped zone) December 15-April 30 Contact Local Wildlife Biologist Mountain Goat and Sheep Mountain Goat and Sheep Ranges (mapped area) August 23-June 30 Contact Local Wildlife Biologist Notes: Information modified from AESRD (2010a, 2010b, 2011b) and Environment Canada personal communication (2012)
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 21 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
2.7 GIS Data
2.7.1 LiDAR, Terrain Data, and Imagery
The following GIS data obtained from AESRD and AT was used for presentation and analysis purposes:
Topography:
1, 5 and 15 m resolution Lidar data with the vertical accuracies varying between +/-0.3 and +/-0.8 m Provincial DEM data with 40 m spacing
Imagery:
Flood orthographic photos along Sheep, Highwood, South Saskatchewan Rivers taken shortly after the June 2013 flood by AESRD
The following GIS data was used for presentation and analysis purposes and was obtained from third party sources:
SPOT imagery Google & Google Earth Pro imagery Background layer imagery from Microsoft BING online map service
2.7.2 Base File Layers
Shapefiles for use as base layers in ArcGIS were obtained from AESRD and AT and include the following:
Communication Political boundaries Streams and water bodies – single line network and polygons Transportation Utilities
2.7.3 Environmental GIS Data Sources
Numerous GIS layers were accessed for the environmental analysis; sources can be found in Table 2-10.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 22 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Table 2-10: Environmental GIS Data Sources
Environmental GIS Data Sources Aerogrid Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) AEX Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) AgraSID Geobase Agriculture and Agri-food Canada GeoEye Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (AARD) Getmapping Alberta Culture GIS User Community Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIM) i-cubed Alberta Community Development IGN Alberta Geological Survey IGP Altalis Imperial Oil Resources Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (Al-Pac) Lakeland Industry & Community Association (LICA) Alberta Transportation (AT) Shell Canada Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation Suncor Energy Foundation Canadian Boreal Initiative Swisstopo Canadian Space Agency (CSA) The PEW Charitable Trusts DigitalGlobe United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ducks Unlimited Canada United States Forest Service Ducks Unlimited Inc. USDA EnCana Corporation USGS Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. Weyerhaeuser Company Limited
2.7.4 Hydrologic Modelling and Geotechnical Data Sources
Various GIS data was used in the hydrological model and for geotechnical purposes and were obtained from the following sources:
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development AgraSID Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) Land Cover mapping Alberta Geological Survey Bedrock Geology layers Surficial Geology of Alberta
2.8 Status of On-Going Projects
During the closing phase of this study, it was found that the Sheep River basin is included in Phase 2 of the Highwood Management Plan. The process was initiated in 2008 to develop a comprehensive water and watershed management plan for the Highwood River basin, including the Sheep River and Little Bow River upstream of Travers Reservoir. Under that program, an on-going process is in place to manage the watershed and it will provide much more detailed information than could be complied during this short study.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 23 1 m - m 22 23 24 19 20 21 8 19 20 21 16
. 24 17 21 22 23 14 13 18 2 1 16 15 13 18 17 3 17 16 15 14
18 : 4 15 14 13 16 ► 17 x 18
13 16 15 14 CALGARY e m 17 14 13 18 8 9 r m 16 1N5 12 7
4 11
. 10 9 u 9 12 7 8 7 10 11 T 22 R 28 m 4
9 g 2 8 7 T 22 R 2 m 5 11 12 i B 10 9 T 22 R 29 m 4 I T 22 R 3 m 5 7 8 12 F S T 22 R 4 m 5 9 10 11 T 22 R 1 m 5 N 12 7 8 5 4 A 10 11 1 6 9 3 2 5 4 Legend 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 !( 5 4 3 1 6 32 33 3 Su2rficial Wells 36 31 4 34 35 31 32 33 34 35 36 : 32 33 d !( 36 31 e 34 35 v Porcupine Hills Wells 31 32 33 o 36 r 33 34 35 p 31 32 28
p 36 29 34 35 25 30 A 33 26 27 !( 28 29 25 30 Willow Creek Wells 26 27
28
29
30 26 25 : 28 27 d 30 29 e 27 26 25 k 29 28 c Dis26turbed B25elt 30 20 21 e 28 27 24 19
h 23 21 22 C 20 24 19 23
22
21
20 24 19 T 21 R 28 m 4 23 22
21
20 : 24 19 T 21 R 29 m 4 r 22 23 e 19 20 21 16 n 22 23 24 T 21 R 1 m 5 18 17 g 21 13 i 15 14 s T 21 R 2 m 5 17 16
e 18 15 14 13 D 16 T 21 R 3 m 5 17 18
13
14 : T 21 R 4 m 5 17 16 15 s 18 l 14 13 a 15 i 16
t 17 i 14 13 18 8 9 n 15 7
I 16 12
11 t 9 10
n 8 11 12 7 e 10 8 9 m 12 7 s e 10 11
9 l g 7 8
a 12 10 11 a n 8 9 a 11 12 7 6 5 4 v
10 n 1 r M 9 2
3 i t 4 e
c 6 5 1 s 2 t e 3 j 4 5 a o 6 n
r 1 3 2 I
P 5 4 B 1 6
2 n 3 r 6 5 4 33 o 2 1 31 32 e 4 3 36 i
35 v 34 t 32 33 i 35 36 31 e 34 l 32 33 R 31 34 35 36 p 31 32 33 p
36 m
35 e 32 33 34 o 36 31 29 28 e 33 34 35 25 30
26 h 27 C 30 29 28 l 26 25 S 28 27 l 30 29 27 26 25 Okotoks e 30 29 28 26 25 W 29 28 27 25 30 20 21 27 26 24 19 D 28 22 23 X 21 24 19 20 M 23
. 22 20 21 B 24 19 T 20 R 28 m 4
_ 23 I 20 21 22
S 19 T 20 R 29 m 4 22 23 24 N 19 20 21 16 A 23 24 T 20 R 1 m 5 18 17 _ 21 22 14 13 5 T 20 R 2 m 5 16 15
2 17 14 13 18
H 15 T 20 R 3 m 5 17 16 C 14 13 18
R T 20 R 4 m 5 17 16 15 A 18 15 14 13 M Disturbed Belt 17 16
_ 18 14 13 7 8 9 N 16 15 12 10 11 O 9 I Black Diamond 12 7 8 T 11 9 10 A 7 8
R 12 9 10 11 O 12 7 8 F 9 10 11 R 12 7 8 5 4 E 9 10 11 1 6 P 3 2
_ 4 1 6 5 R 4 3 2 H Turner Valley 1 6 5 S 3 2 _ 6 5 4 1 1 - 4 3 2 2 1 6 5 33
E 32 4 3 2 36 31
R 35 33 34 U 32 35 36 31 G 34 I 32 33 r F 35 36 31 e _ 34
33 n v 32 D 31 e 35 36 e o P 34 n 33 i
32 c U : 36 31 28 29 t r \ 35 30 d 33 34 25 S 26 e a 27 o t 28 D t 25 30 29 g F o
X 26 l 27 i 28
P 29 M 30 t
\
25 k t 27 26 i S s 28 30 29 s F a 25 26 M a L 27
M 29 28 30 21 T
F 25 20 26
27 19 d 28 T 19 R 29 m 4 A 24
) 23
22 y S o 5 20 21 T 19 R 1 m 5 r
_ 19
2 24
23 5 - T 19 R 28 m 4 o 5 22
21 e 3 l
1 20 T 19 R 2 m 5 19 1 0 24 v 8 23 -
22 F 8
9 21
4 T 19 R 3 m 5 20 19 o 0 y
1 24 T 19 R 4 m 5 23 9 3 a 22 c 0 20 21 0 d t 19 16 0 2 24 17 e ( 6 23 18 r
22 \ 21 13 3
14 u
B 15 S e 16 R t
17 0 T
18 O 14 13
15 b C 6 K 16 S d 17 l
E 18 C 13 : I 14 o J 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 15 . A 16 y
R 17
O
18 o 13 t o l H 14 i R 15 16 n : m17 9 l
P 18 F y r 13 N i \ 14 8 : 15 7
b 16 12
11 e t E
10 b
a
d 9 :
8 i
7 t c e
12 h
e 11 r
v 10
9 t s 7 8 e
m 12 a High River 10 11 j 8 9 e a s 7 u 11 12 a 9 10 o n t 7 8 4 NAD 198310 UTM Zon1e1 11N 12 6 5 b s 1 o l r
9 e e 2
l 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 i a L F S F A P 2 m - m 8 . 2 1
3 : 4
► x
e m CALGARY r m N 4 . u 9 7 g 2
T 22 R 28 m 4 i
B T 22 R 29 m 4
I T 22 R 1 m 5
T 22 R 2 m 5 F S
1 N Legend T 22 R 3 m 5 2 A T 22 R 4 m 5 4
0
(! Surficial Wells m
1
2
2 Disturbed Belt 0
: m
d 1
e 2
v 6 o r 0 1
p Contours 20m m 2 p 4 A
0
m
Contour Line, Intermediate
:
d 1
e 2 k 2 c 11
e 2 Contour Line, Major 0 0 m h m C
: Contour Line, Minor 1 r 80 m 26 T 21 R 28 m 4 e 1 12 0 m m n T 21 R 2 m 5 26 1 0 T 21 R 29 m 4
g 2
i 0 6 1 0 4 s m 1 2 m T 21 R 1 m 5
e 1 0 1 D
0 2 m 12
4 0 m 2 1 : 24 m 0 0 m 0
s T 21 R 3 m 5 l m 0 a i T 21 R 4 m 5 1 t i 1 1 1
n 1
I 2
0 t 4 0
n 0 1 e m m 1
m 4 e 0 g
s a m m
n
1 n
a 0 1 s n t
2 o M
8 i i
t 1 n t c 0 1 m s
e 0 j e m a 0 a o 1 r 1 v m P 1 B e i
0 l r
0 d E 0 e e
v r m i S
e l
1 t 1 R
1 4 a 0 a 1 m i m 40 p 6
1 c
1 W e 0 m i
f
1 0 e
m c m 06 2 r i 0 0 0 h t 8 m 1 u
0 S a 1 S t S 1100 Okotoks m D m 1 0 X 0 2 M
. 8 0 0 B Disturbed Belt 1 _ I m 1 S 04 N 20 m 0 A 11 m _ T 20 R 28 m 4 5 2
H T 20 R 1 m 5 T 20 R 29 m 4 C
R 1160 m A T 20 R 2 m 5 M
_ 1 m L T 20 R 3 m 5 160 0 A m 2
I m T 20 R 4 m 5 0 11 C 8 I 11 F R
U m
S 0
_ 2 Black Diamond 1 C I 1 m T 0 A 4 T 1 m
S 1 m _ m 0 R 0 2 0 8 H 2 6 1 S 1 1 1 _ 1 2 -
2 Turner Valley E R U G I r F e _ n v
D 1 e e o P
n 2 i
c U : m 0 t
r \
d 0 S
e 0 a
m o t m D t 4 m 0 g F o
X 0 l 2 i 4 8 P M
t 1
1 \
2 k t 1 1 i S
s 1 1 s 2 F a 2 M 4 a L
4 M
0 T
F 0
d
A ) m m y S o 5 r _ 2 5 - o 5 T 19 R 28 m 4 e 3 l 1
T 19 R 29 m 4 1 0 v 8
- T 19 R 1 m 5 F 8 9 4
T 19 R 2 m 5 o 0 y 1 T 19 R 3 m 5 9 3 a c 0
0 T 19 R 4 m 5 d t 0 2 e ( 6 r
\ 3 u B S e R t 0 T
O b C 6 K S d l
E C : I o J 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 . A y R
O o t o l H i R
n : m l P F y r N i \ :
b
e t E b
a d : i t c e h e r v t s e m a j e a s u a
o n t NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N High River b s o l r e e l i a L F S F A P 3 m - m 8 . 2
1 CALGARY
3 : 4
►
x T 22 R 28 m 4
T 22 R 29 m 4 e m
T 22 R 1 m 5 r m N T 22 R 2 m 5 4 . T 22 R 3 m 5 No Data u 9 7 g 2
i B
I F S N
A Legend
!( Surficial Wells
: Disturbed Belt d e v
o 0 - 25 liters / min r p
p 25.01 - 45 liters / min A
45.01 - 180 liters / min
: 180.01 - 450 liters / min d e
k > 450 liters / min T 21 R 28 m 4 c e
h T 21 R 29 m 4 C
T 21 R 1 m 5
: T 21 R 2 m 5 r e
n T 21 R 3 m 5 g i s e D
: s l a i t i n I
t n e e t m a e g R a
n a s g n t M
i n t i n c s e j e p a o r m P B m i
u r d e P e
v i S d
l e R
a d i p n c e i e f e r h m u S m S o c D e X M R . Okotoks B _ I S N A _ 5 2 H C
R T 20 R 28 m 4 A M
_ T 20 R 29 m 4 L A I Disturbed Belt T 20 R 1 m 5 C I F T 20 R 2 m 5 R U
S T 20 R 3 m 5 _ E T A R P _ R H S
_ Black Diamond 3 - 2 E R U G I r F e _ n v D e e o P n i
c U : t r \ d S e a o t D t Turner Valley g F o X l i
P M t
\ k t i S s s F a M a L
M
T
F
d
A ) y S o 5 r _ 2 5 - o 5 e 3 l 1 1 0 v 8 - F 8 9 4
o 0 y 1 9 3 a c 0 0 d t 0 2 e ( 6 r
\ T 19 R 28 m 4 3 u B
S T 19 R 29 m 4 e R t 0 T
O T 19 R 1 m 5 b C 6 K S d l
T 19 R 2 m 5
E C : I o J 2,500 T 109 R 3 m 5 2,500 5,000 . A y R
O o t o l H i R
n : m l P F y r N i \ :
b
e t E b
a d : i t c e h e r v t s e m a j e a s u a
o n t NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N b s o l r e e l i a L F S F A P 4 m - m 8 . 2 1
3 : 4
► x
e m CALGARY r m N 4 . u 9 7 g 2
T 22 R 28 m 4 i
B T 22 R 29 m 4
I T 22 R 1 m 5 F S T 22 R 2 m 5
N T 22 R 3 m 5
A LegeTn 2d2 R 4 m 5
(! Porcupine Hills Wells
Disturbed Belt : d e v o r 1 p 2 p Contours 20m 0 A
0
m
Contour Line, Intermediate 1 : 2 d 0 e 0 k
c m e
h Contour Line, Major C 1
1
0
0
:
r m T 21 R 28 m 4 Contour Line, Minor m
e
n 0
g 6 i 0 s T 21 R 1 m 5 1 e 1 1 D
T 21 R 2 m 5 1 T 21 R 29 m 4 11 1 8 60 m 2 : 0 s T 21 R 3 m 5 1 0 1 l a 2 m 1 i T 21 R 4 m 5 t m i 0 1200 m 0
n 0 I 0
t 12 00 m n m m e m m 0 n e 0 g m
1 o s a 1 1200 m 1 m i n 0 0 t 0 n a 0 0 6 a n
1 o M 2 0
1 i i t 1 t
c m s m e j a r a o r v o P B e
F 1 l
r
0 E s e
4 l
l v r 0 m
i 1 1060 i 1 e
1 m t H 8 R
1
0 a
6 e p
0 m n W e i
m e c 1 p i 1 m h t
u 4 S
0 a 0 c t
m r 8
m 0 S o D 0 m
1 X 4 Okotoks P 0 M 0 . m 6 B 0 1
_ 0 m 2 I 0 1
S 1
0 N 80 m 8 0
A 1
_ 0 5 1 T 20 R 28 m 4 2
H T 20 R 29 m 4 C
R T 20 R 1 m 5 A M T 20 R 2 m 5 m _
E T 20 R 3 m 5 0 N
I 6
P DisTt 2u0 Rr 4b me 5 d Belt 1 U 1 C m R m 0 O 0 P m 0 1
_ Black Diamond 40 2 1 C 11 1 I 1 1 T m 1 m A
0 2 T 6 0 0 S 1 1
_ 1 0 m 1
m R 2 2
H 0 0 m 1 S 8
_ 0 m m 0 4 0 - Turner Valley 2 1 2 1 0
E 1 4 1 R 1
U 8 1 0 G I m r F m e _
0 n v D e e 6 o P
n 1 i
c 1 U : 2 t r \
d 1
S 0 e a o t D t 0 g F o X
l i m P M t
\ k t i S s s F a M a L
M
T
F
d
A ) y S o 5 r _ 2 5 - o 5 T 19 R 28 m 4 e 3 l 1
T 19 R 29 m 4 1 0 v 8
- T 19 R 1 m 5 F 8 9 4
T 19 R 2 m 5 o 0 y 1 T 19 R 3 m 5 9 3 a c 0 T 19 R 4 m 5 0 d t 0 2 e ( 6 r
\ 3 u B S e R t 0 T
O b C 6 K S d l
E C : I o J 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 . A y R
O o t o l H i R
n : m l P F y r N i \ :
b
e t E b
a d : i t c e h e r v t s e m a j e a s u a
o n t NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N High River b s o l r e e l i a L F S F A P 5 m - m 8 . 2 1
3 : 4
► x
CALGARY e m r
m N 4 . u 9
7 T 22 R 28 m 4 g 2
T 22 R 29 m 4 i
B T 22 R 1 m 5
I T 22 R 2 m 5 F
S T 22 R 3 m 5
N T 22 R 4 m 5 A Legend No Data
(! Porcupine Hills Wells
: Disturbed Belt d e v o r p
p 0 - 25 liters / min A
25.01 - 45 liters / min
45.01 - 180 liters / min : d e
k 180.01 - 450 liters / min c e
h > 450 liters / min C
T 21 R 28 m 4
: T 21 R 29 m 4 r e
n T 21 R 1 m 5 g i
s T 21 R 2 m 5 e D
T 21 R 3 m 5
: T 21 R 4 m 5 s l a i t i n I
t n e e t m a n e g t o R a i
n n t a g e a n M
i n t s i c s m e e j r p a r o r o P P B m
F t
u r s o e P l
l v N i i
d H e n R
d o e i p n t n e i e a e p h m m u r S c m o r
Okotoks o F o D c X P e M . R B _ I S N
A T 20 R 28 m 4 _
5 T 20 R 29 m 4 2
H T 20 R 1 m 5 C
R T 20 R 2 m 5 A
M T 20 R 3 m 5 _
E T 20 R 4 m 5 N I Disturbed Belt P U C
R Black Diamond O P _ E T A R P _ R H
S Turner Valley _ 5 - 2 E R U G I r F e _ n v D e e o P n i
c U : t r \ d S e a o t D t g F o X l i
P M t
\ k t i S s s F a M a L
M
T
F
d
A ) y S o 5
T 19 R 28 m 4 r _ 2 5
- T 19 R 29 m 4 o 5 e 3 l
1 T 19 R 1 m 5 1 0 v 8 T 19 R 2 m 5 - F 8 9 4
T 19 R 3 m 5 o 0 y 1
T 19 R 4 m 5 9 3 a c 0 0 d t 0 2 e ( 6 r
\ 3 u B S e R t 0 T
O b C 6 K S d l
E C : I o J 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 . A y R
O o t o l H i R
n : m l P F y r N i \ :
b
e t E b
a d : i t c e h e r v t s e m a j e a s u a
High River o n t NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N b s o l r e e l i a L F S F A P 6 m - m 8 . 2 1
3 : 4
► x
e m CALGARY r m N 4 . u 9 7 g 2
i B
I T 22 R 28 m 4
T 22 R 29 m 4 F S T 22 R 1 m 5 N Legend T 22 R 2 m 5 A T 22 R 4 m 5 T 22 R 3 m 5 (! Willow Creek Wells
Disturbed Belt : d e v o r 1 p Contours 20m
p 2 0 A
0
m
Contour Line, Intermediate
: 1 d 1
e 6 k m0 c 1140 e m
h Contour Line, Major
m
C
80 m
11 0 m m
6
0
0 1
6 8
1 : Contour Line, Minor 1 1 r 1 1 e n g i T 21 R 28 m 4 s
e T 21 R 29 m 4 D
m
T 21 R 1 m 5 : 0 s l T 21 R 2 m 5 0 a
i 1 t
i 1 m n T 21 R 3 m 5
I
t T 21 R 4 m 5 0 n 6 e 1
m m 1 e
g 0
m n
s a 6 m 80 n 1 0 o
0 1 n a 1 6 m i t
m n
o M 1
0 i 1 0 i
t 6 0 a t
c 6 1 1 s e j 1 a
1 m a
m o 1 m
r r 6 v P 0 0 0 B e o
m 0 l m 2 m 0 r
2 F 0 0 114 1 0
1 E e 1 1 m k
0 v 14 m r 1 i
0 e 41 e t R 1 1 e 1 2 r 0 a
m p C W
m e 0 e w 8 c i
9 h o t l S l a D i t X
1 S M W . 0
B 9 0
_ 0 8 I m S 0 1
N Okotoks m 0 1000 m
A 0 0 _ 5 m 2 H
C 1 R 0 A T 20 R 29 m 4 2 T 20 R 28 m 4 M 0 _ 1 m K 0 E 0
E T 20 R 1 m 5 0
R m C Disturbed Belt T 20 R 2 m 5 W T 20 R 3 m 5 O
L T 20 R 4 m 5
L 1 I 1 1 W 6 0 _ 0 4 C 0 I m T m
A Black Diamond T S _ R H S _
6 1
- 1 2 0 E 0 R Turner Valley 1 U 1 m
G 4 I 0 r F e _ n
v m D e e o P n i
c U : t r \ d S e a o t D t g F o X l i
P M t
\ k t i S s s F a M a L
M
T
F
d
A ) y S o 5 r _ 2 5 - o 5 e 3 l 1 1 0 v 8 T 19 R 28 m 4 - F 8
9 T 19 R 29 m 4 4
o 0
T 19 R 1 m 5 y 1 9 3 a c 0 T 19 R 2 m 5 0 d t 0 2 T 19 R 3 m 5 e ( 6 r
\
T 19 R 4 m 5 3 u B S e R t 0 T
O b C 6 K S d l
E C : I o J 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 . A y R
O o t o l H i R
n : m l P F y r N i \ :
b
e t E b
a d : i t c e h e r v t s e m a j e a s u a
o n t NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N b s o l r e e
l High River i a L F S F A P 7 m - m 8 . 2 1
3 : 4
► x
e m CALGARY r m N 4 . u 9 7 g 2
i B
I T 22 R 28 m 4
T 22 R 29 m 4 F S Legend T 22 R 1 m 5 N T 22 R 2 m 5 A T 22 R 4 m 5 T 22 R 3 m 5 (! Willow Creek Wells No Data
Disturbed Belt : d e v
o 0 - 25 liters / min r p
p 25.01 - 45 liters / min A
45.01 - 180 liters / min
: 180.01 - 450 liters / min d e
k > 450 liters / min c e h C
: r e n g i T 21 R 28 m 4 s
e T 21 R 29 m 4 D
T 21 R 1 m 5 : s l T 21 R 2 m 5 a i t i
n T 21 R 3 m 5 I
t T 21 R 4 m 5 n e e t m a e g n R a
n o a i g t n M
i n t a i c s e j p m a o r r P B m o
u r F
e P
k v i d e e R e
r d p C n
e D e e X w M h m . o l B S l _ m i I S o N W c A e _ 5 2 R
H Okotoks C R A M _ K E
E T 20 R 28 m 4 R
C T 20 R 29 m 4 W
O T 20 R 1 m 5 L L I Disturbed Belt T 20 R 2 m 5 W
_ T 20 R 3 m 5
E T 20 R 4 m 5 T A R P _ R
H Black Diamond S _ T D P U _ 7 - 2 E
R Turner Valley U G I r F e _ n v D e e o P n i
c U : t r \ d S e a o t D t g F o X l i
P M t
\ k t i S s s F a M a L
M
T
F
d
A ) y S o 5 r _ 2 5 - o 5 e 3 l 1 T 19 R 28 m 4 1 0 v 8 - F 8
9 T 19 R 29 m 4 4
o 0
T 19 R 1 m 5 y 1 9 3 a c 0 T 19 R 2 m 5 0 d t 0 2 T 19 R 3 m 5 e ( 6 r
\
T 19 R 4 m 5 3 u B S e R t 0 T
O b C 6 K S d l
E C : I o J 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 . A y R
O o t o l H i R
n : m l P F y r N i \ :
b
e t E b
a d : i t c e h e r v t s e m a j e a s u a
o n t NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N b s o l r e e
l High River i a L F S F A P AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
3. Problem Areas
3.1 Previous Studies
3.1.1 Flood Hazard Mapping
Flood hazard mapping is available for towns in the Sheep River basin with a flood hazard risk. Flood hazard mapping studies were completed in 1992 for the Towns of Turner Valley / Black Diamond and in 1996 for the Town of Okotoks, with revisions in 2006 and 2010.
3.1.2 Municipal Water Supply
Future water availability is a significant concern in the Sheep River basin. A moratorium on new water licences has been in place since 2006. Water users in the basin are conducting investigations into future water sources required for an expanding population. As discussed in Appendix D, the Town of Okotoks is currently investigating additional water supply options to satisfy an increasing water demand.
3.1.3 Potential Storage Sites
During the study, SAFRTF contacted AESRD and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development but could not find any study reports related to storage sites in the Sheep River basin.
3.2 Areas Impacted by the 2013 Flood
Okotoks, Black Diamond and Turner Valley are three towns located along the Sheep River that have been frequently flooded. The June 2013 flood was the most extensive to date. Given the general settings in which the towns are located, it is likely that the areas were regularly flooded before the towns were developed.
Damages known to have occurred in the three towns include flooding of housing and infrastructure, washout of bridge approaches and loss of water wells due to river bank erosion and river channel shift. Damages incurred from the 2013 flood are discussed in more detail in Appendix A. Loss of critical water supply infrastructure is discussed in more detail in Appendix D.
An estimate of the total cost of damage incurred as a result of the 2013 flood was completed by reviewing the value of Municipal Disaster Recovery Program (DRP) and Erosion Control Grants filed at the time of preparation of this report. The total value, which is discussed in more detail in Appendix A, is $36.4 Million.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 31 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
4. Service Level
4.1 Proposed Levels of Service
For flood hazard mapping in Alberta, the design flood is taken to be the 1% (100-year) flood. This is based on the guidelines for the federal Flood Damage Reduction Program and can be taken to be the level of service that GOA has deemed to be appropriate for flood protection of communities. Partly as a result of the June 2013 flood, the Government of Canada initiated a review of the design flood event to be used for flood hazard mapping in Canada but their findings have not yet been published. In the absence of any change in the return period to be used for flood protection of communities and to conform to the Terms of Reference, the 1% (100-year) flood event was used for this study.
4.2 Consequences of a Higher Level of Service
In the event that a higher level of service is used for flood hazard mapping and flood protection works, the height of flood protection dykes and the area covered by the floodway and flood fringe may become larger. The height of flood protection dykes will likely be manageable as existing dykes can likely be retrofitted and new dykes will be designed according to the higher level of service.
Complications are likely to occur at existing communities, where development plans were prepared based on existing flood hazard mapping. If the extent of the flood hazard area is increased, there is a risk that existing developments that were previously outside the flood hazard area may become located inside the flood hazard area, which could affect the property land value and insurance coverage.
4.3 Consequences of a Lower Level of Service
The current level of service that is used for flood hazard mapping and flood protection works is unlikely to decrease below the 1% (100-year) flood event. Finding justification to adopt a level of service less than the 1% (100-year) flood event will prove difficult, due to the 1% (100-year) flood is the minimum service level specified under the federal Flood Damage Reduction Program.
If a lower level of service for community flood protection works was adopted by the GOA, developments are likely to occur in areas that are occasionally flooded. This would likely cause an increase in the number of flood damage claims to the GOA.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 32 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
5. Methodology for Evaluating Alternatives
5.1 Computer Simulations
The preparation of a hydrological model of the basin is a central component of the water management plan as it provides a tool to simulate the 2013 flood and predict the impact of selected flood mitigation schemes. Once calibrated for a selected event, the model can predict flood hydrographs at selected points of interest, such as at the Towns of Black Diamond, Turner Valley and Okotoks, to provide details such as peak flow, timing of peak, and total volume of flow. The HEC-HMS model, developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was used in this study. Additional details of the modelling are available in Appendix G.
The HEC-HMS model developed for the Southern Alberta Flood Mitigation Feasibility Study provides a simulation of the 2013 flood event from 18 to 30 June 2013. Processes simulated in the model include rainfall, infiltration, and flood routing. Snowmelt and sub-surface flow were not modelled explicitly but are indirectly considered, as the reported discharges would include considerations for snowmelt and sub-surface flows.
5.1.1 Data
Data requirements for the model included:
1. Hydrometric data provided by WSC - necessary for model calibration 2. Precipitation data, provided by AESRD, as a model input - necessary for model calibration 3. Topographic data, provided by AESRD and AT, to determine channel slopes for routing 4. Land cover and soil group maps, to estimate infiltration parameters
Data sources are discussed in more detail in Appendix B and G.
5.1.2 Model Development
HEC-HMS has two model components, the basin model and the meteorological model. The basin model is the physical representation of the watershed that converts precipitation into runoff based on physical characteristics and routes the runoff through the channels. The meteorological model is the representation of the meteorological data (precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration) distribution within the basin.
The Sheep River basin model was developed by dividing the basin into a number of sub-basins based on the WSC stations. Stream flow is represented by routing runoff from the sub-basins through reaches and junctions. The major stream within each sub-basin is represented. The sub-basin divisions are used to capture the diverse range of physical properties and land forms across the basin. In addition, the sub-basins allow the model to capture the spatial variability in a storm event. Physical properties are captured in the model by lump sum averaging the range of characteristics within each sub-basin based on spatial extent. Figure 2-2 in Appendix G shows the sub-basin boundaries along with WSC stations and land cover type. Additional details are available in Appendix G.
The Sheep River meteorological model was developed by spatially distributing meteorological stations in the model according to actual Latitude and Longitude. Rainfall measured at each station is extended over an “area of influence” determined through the creation of Thiessen Polygons. When multiple Thiessen Polygons overlap a sub- basin, a weighted average rainfall time series is generated. The Sheep River meteorological model rainfall time series covered the period from June 18 through 22, 2013.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 33 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Rainfall losses resulting from processes such as infiltration and storage are represented in the model through the SCS method. The method uses an empirical Curve Number (CN) parameter to estimate losses, which varies between 0 and 99, with 99 representing no losses. The CN is an empirical parameter for predicting direct runoff or infiltration from rainfall excess. The method is suitable for our study as it is designed for a single storm event and depends upon hydrological soil group and land use pattern parameters.
Unit hydrographs represent the transformation of rainfall into runoff. The Sheep River model uses the Snyder Unit Hydrograph method to determine unit hydrograph shape. The Snyer Synthetic Unit Hydrograph has a variable peak rate factor that allows the coefficient to be calibrated to various terrain. The Snyder Unit Hydrograph includes parameters to adjust the lag time and peaking co-efficient of a hydrograph. In most cases, peaking coefficient is a factor of land use pattern and lag time is calculated based on the physical characteristics of the watershed.
Stream base flow is represented by assuming a constant base flow throughout the event for the majority of basins. A recession constant method was used for select mountainous basins appearing to exhibit interflow, which had a significant effect on the trailing edge of the hydrograph.
As mentioned previously, snowmelt processes are not considered explicitly in the model. Floods originating in the Rockies in May and June often contain a snowmelt component, as a result of spring snowmelt and rainfall on snow. While the model does not consider these processes directly, the contributions to the flood peak are considered indirectly since they form a component of the hydrographs developed for each sub-basin and since the model calibration is based on the observed flow from each sub-basin.
Channel routing was represented in the Sheep River model using the Muskingum-Cunge method. The method was selected since it is a widely used method in North America and since the input parameters are readily available. The method routes stream flow using channel slope, cross-section and Manning’s roughness coefficient.
The impacts of dam Scheme S2 were modelled by creating a reservoir in the model. Refer to Appendix C for details of the scheme. The stage storage relationship for the reservoir was determined from digital terrain data. Storage volume and flow rate characteristics for the reservoirs were determined from the following condition: Reservoir storage volume matched that proposed by Stantec (2013) and the orifice size was determined by fully utilizing the storage capacity for the 2013 event.
5.1.3 Model Calibration
Model calibration was completed by comparing observed versus simulated hydrographs at WSC stations by adjusting the parameters discussed in the previous section. Once adjusted, the parameter values are compared with the anticipated parameter values for that particular sub-basin, to ensure that the model represents the physical basin. Calibration of the 2013 event is particularly challenging since the majority of WSC stations appear to have failed prior to recording the peak discharge. Table 5-1 shows the status of the active hydrometric stations within the basin during the flood. The Sheep River model was calibrated using the following WSC discharge measurements:
1. Stream Flow Hydrograph at Station 05BL013, which recorded the entire event. 2. Flow Hydrograph at Station 05BL014, 05BL012 which recorded the hydrograph rising edge and apparent peak. 3. Peak flow estimation of 720 m3/s at Black Diamond and 1000 m3/s at Okotoks, published by GOA (http://alberta.ca/estimated-peak-river-flows.cfm) .
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 34 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Table 5-1: Status of Hydrometric Stations Sheep River Basin
Station ID Station Name Recent Period 05BL014 Sheep River at Black Diamond Rising Edge and Apparent Peak 05BL013 Threepoint Creek Near Millarville Entire Event 05BL012 Sheep River at Okotoks Rising Edge and Apparent Peak
Table 5-2 provides the list of parameters optimized during model calibration. The table also includes an estimate of the sensitivity of the model calibration to variation of each parameter.
Table 5-2: List of Parameters to Calibrate
Parameter Name Source of Initial Estimation Sensitivity SCS Curve Number Land cover types and hydrological soil groups High Snyder Peak Coefficient Land use pattern High Lag Time Watershed physical properties High Initial Baseflow Initial discharge at the beginning of simulation Low Recession Constant 1 (typical) Moderate Initial Threshold Discharge Same as initial discharge Moderate Manning`s roughness coefficient (n) Flood Hazard Maps Low
5.1.4 Results
Stream flow hydrographs for the 2013 flood simulation with the S2 Dam scheme at Black Diamond and Okotoks are presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of Appendix G.
5.2 Methodology of Evaluating Alternatives
5.2.1 General
To evaluate the alternative schemes, first a decision had to be made on the preferred method. This method would be dependent on the ability to quantify various indicators within a constrained time period. The following three methods were considered:
Simple Weighting AECOM’s Philadelphia Tool Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
For the simple weighting method, the cost, effectiveness, and environmental impact would be assessed. However, as the name suggests, this method is simple and by its nature can be open to biases by the decision makers. For this reason, after assessing the value of this method, it was abandoned.
AECOM’s Philadelphia Tool is a GIS-based analysis method. This method has an extensive set of indicators that are incorporated within a geo-database, which can be user defined and weighted. Due to the time constraints of this project, the required set of indicators could not be quantified justly within the available time and therefore this method was abandoned.
The TBL was chosen as the method to evaluate the alternative schemes due to it fulfilling the requirements of assessing them against social, environmental, and financial impacts. Furthermore, this method is able to deliver an objective perspective for decision making that is based on a consistent set of rules using available data. As
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 35 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
additional data becomes available and procured for this project, increased quantification must be applied to the method to deliver an objective perspective. An explanation of this method is presented below.
5.2.2 Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Assessment
The TBL is an evaluation process that assesses a project’s value in terms of social, environmental, and financial criteria. The determination of ‘value’ is carried out through a system of measurement that has two main aspects – the first is a set of Indicators that are designed to measure certain attributes of value, and second, is a Rating System that applies a consistent set of rules that can normalize, interpret, classify, aggregate and represent the measured indicator values in order to make them useful for decision-making. The TBL assessment process uses multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods as a foundation.
AECOM’s TBL Assessment process has been adapted for application towards comparing and evaluating the Flood Recovery Task Force Advisory Panel Schemes for the Sheep and Highwood River basins in the form of a simple, interactive tool. In evaluating the alternatives relative to one another only, the TBL tool has the following three primary objectives:
1. To inform and support the analytical process for developing alternatives by considering Social and Environmental impacts in the process alongside operational performance and Financial considerations; 2. To provide decision-making support for the Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force; 3. To increase project selection transparency.
Many characteristics can define a good TBL Rating System. AECOM has determined that the following characteristics are essential for such as system:
Simple (easily understood but logically sound) Comprehensive (by topic/criteria and indicators) Consistent (across indicator types, project types) Structurally unbiased between indicators as a model (unless explicitly weighted) Computable/Measurable Scalable (expandable by number of indicators; can work at local, watershed, city scales) Aggregation capable (group indicators into indexes etc.) Visually representable (in a compelling, easy to grasp way)
5.2.2.1 TBL Categories As mentioned the TBL will compare the proposed alternatives across the following categories:
1. Social – Impacts on local residents 2. Environmental – Impacts on local environment 3. Financial – Financial impact to project
Each category is made up of multiple criteria, which are in turn built on measurable indicators. These indicators were derived in conjunction with members of the Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force during workshops in February 2014. The indicators are described as follows:
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 36 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Social Category (7 Criteria): Recreation and Open Space Amenities The recreation and amenities criterion considers impact of the project alternative on S1 recreational open space. Positive impacts are due to creation of new recreational spaces while negative impacts are proportional to the damage caused to existing recreational areas caused by the project. S2 Town Housing and Neighborhoods The project’s benefit to town housing and neighborhoods is measured as reduction in flooding events and corresponding damage/inconveniences caused. S3 Employment The employment benefits from the project consider the opportunities created for long term employment within the local community. S4 Construction Impacts This criterion considers any adverse impacts to the daily quality of life of residents due to construction related activities causing noise, air, dust pollution, or permanent or long term lane closures. S5 System Resilience The system resilience criterion considers whether the project improves resiliency to earthquake events or control and management of peak 1% flows. S6 Cultural/Historical Resources This criterion considers whether important cultural and historical resources are impacted as the result of the project. S7 Operations and Maintenance This criterion considers the well-being and impacts to workers likely to be involved in the day- to-day operations of the project. The number of maintenance rounds, level of hazard, requirement of working in confined spaces, etc. are considerations included in the criterion.
Environmental Category (3 Criteria): E1 Water Quality The water quality criterion considers impairments to water quality and any contamination of ground water. E2 Excavation This criterion considers impacts from excavation such as discharge of ground water to surface, soil contamination, remediation and resource reuse opportunities. E3 Habitat The habitat criterion considers impacts to natural habitats, particularly fish habitat, fish movements, wetlands, rare plants etc. The criterion also considers the overall number of species at risk due to the implementation of the project.
Financial Category (3 Criteria): F1 Life Cycle Costs Life Cycle Costs are the primary financial criterion that incorporates overall capital costs, O&M costs, asset lifespan, replacement and renewal costs, and construction period. The criterion also includes consideration of grant funding and whether municipal pre-flood development funding has been applied to the project. F2 Constructability This criterion considers the time factor involved in securing the range of local/state/national permits required before the approval and implementation of the project. These permits will be determined by the specific features of the project. F3 Operation Complexity This criterion is based on a subjective evaluation of the level of ease in running the operations of the project. It is based on an engineering judgment that classifies the operations as ‘easy’, ‘hard’ and ‘very hard/complex’.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 37 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
5.2.2.2 TBL Scores and Representation The TBL assessment uses an ordinal ranking system to score each indicator and then aggregate each indicator score to a criterion level. Based on data provided by project engineers as well as responses to specific questions, an indicator can be assigned an ordinal rank from the possible 5-level ranking system:
Significantly positive (++) Positive (+) Neutral (o) Negative (-) Significantly negative (--)
Once an indicator is ranked, an aggregation method is used to ‘roll-up’ all indicators within a criterion to calculate the criterion level ordinal rank. The aggregation method uses the indicator weights that define the relative importance of each indicator within the criterion. For example, permanent lane closure may be considered twice as important than noise pollution and hence is given a weight of 2 while noise is given 1. The aggregated criterion rank is then represented in a TBL Radial Chart (as in the example shown below).
The TBL Radial Chart is by default represented with each of the three TBL categories of Social, Environmental and Financial equally weighted within the circle. The TBL approach requires that the three categories be viewed on equal terms and hence hold an equal area within the circle in order to represent the full picture of the TBL analysis. However, within each category, the various criteria are represented by a slice and the area within the slice showing the relative importance of the criterion and the color representing the ordinal rank. Since, blue represents positive and red negative, the more blue area on the chart, the more favorable the alternative and more red signifies more negative attributes of the project.
The TBL tool also allows the user to adjust the relative weight of the criteria within the TBL category thereby diminishing the impact of that criterion on the total performance. An example of using different criterion weights follows.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 38 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Once the ordinal ranks are determined, the TBL model also computes a numeric score for the entire scheme based on allocating each criterion with a score range of -100 to +100 and then aggregating the overall score based on the weights assigned to each criterion. This numeric score makes it easier to compare multiple charts. An example is shown below, and is discussed further in Section 6.5.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 39 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
6. Evaluating Alternatives
6.1 Non-Structural Flood Mitigation Alternatives
Non-structural flood mitigation includes zoning, flood hazard mapping and the prevention of developments in flood hazard areas. In general, there are limited opportunities for non-structural flood mitigation within the communities in the Sheep River basin. The local non-structural flood mitigation for the Sheep River basin is discussed in Appendix E.
The Town of Okotoks has a flood preparedness plan and had a flood preparedness drill the week before the June 2013 flood. They have also a sand-bagging plan that lists the number of sand bags that should be stockpiled at different locations at the start of the flood season. These preparations may have contributed to the relatively small damage that occurred in Okotoks outside the designated flood hazard area.
In the Town of Black Diamond, one property on the downstream side of the Highway 22 bridge is partly located in the designated floodway and this property appears to be under development. A short distance downstream of the bridge there are three buildings located in the designated floodway and several adjacent green-houses are located in the flood fringe. The buildings in the floodway should be eligible for relocation compensation under the Alberta Government buy-out program and should be relocated outside the floodway.
In the Town of Turner Valley, two residences in the North Royalite Way area are located in or near the floodway. These two residences should be eligible for compensation for buy-out under the Alberta Government buy-out program and should be removed from the floodway.
6.2 Structural Flood Mitigation Alternatives
Structural flood mitigation alternatives considered for the Sheep River basin include local mitigation schemes as well as dry dam Scheme S2. The schemes considered are presented in the following sub-sections.
6.2.1 Local Flood Mitigation Schemes
6.2.1.1 General
Local structural flood mitigation includes flood protection works that can be constructed to protect property and infrastructure locally, while allowing river and streams to evolve naturally as far as practical. Local flood mitigation works usually carry lower costs and are easier to maintain. The local structural flood mitigation for the Sheep River basin is discussed in Appendix E.
6.2.1.2 Town of Okotoks
In the Town of Okotoks, two flood protection dykes are proposed to be constructed in the flood fringe in the eastern half of the town. One dyke is proposed to be constructed along the railway embankment, to protect the town from flooding due to overtopping of a low reach of the railway embankment. A second dyke is proposed to be constructed in the flood fringe around a small cluster of lower cost homes in the flood fringe.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 40 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Spring Creek flows into the Sheep River, on the north bank of Sheep River, in the eastern part of Okotoks. During High River flood levels, the Highwood River flows into Spring Creek and floods low-lying areas of a new development. It is proposed to construct a concrete structure with a flap gate on Spring Creek to prevent back- flooding from the Sheep River.
At the west end on the town, the Sheep River altered its alignment during the flood and is now attacking the railway embankment at a perpendicular angle. The railway embankment was not overtopped in this area during the 2013 flood but severe bank erosion developed and has now been repaired using riprap. However, to make the bank revetment more resistant to toe erosion failure, construction of river training works should be considered along the left bank of Sheep River and upstream of the railway, to reduce the angle of attack.
6.2.1.3 Town of Black Diamond
The east approach to the Highway 22 bridge across Sheep River in the Town of Black Diamond was washed out during the June 2013 flood but was quickly reconstructed after the flood. To protect the east abutment during a flood, AT is constructing a guidebank around the east abutment.
Approximately 50 properties on the downstream side of Highway 22, on the east side of the bridge, were flooded during the June 2013 flood. It is proposed to construct a flood protection dyke around those properties.
6.2.1.4 Town of Turner Valley
During the 2013 flood, the north approach road to the Decalta bridge in Turner Valley was washed out due to the river bend shifting north. The approach road was reconstructed after the flood and it is proposed to construct a guidebank around the north abutment to protect it during future floods. To guide the river through the bridge, it is proposed that river training works on both the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge be developed.
Four residences in the North Royalite Way area are located in the flood fringe. To protect the four residences during flood, it is proposed to construct a flood protection dyke around the four properties.
6.2.2 Dry Dam Scheme S2
6.2.2.1 General
Dry dams are constructed for the purpose of detaining water during floods and release it under controlled conditions over a longer time, similarly to the function of a storm water pond in a town or city. This type of dams has no flow control gate at the low level conduit through the dam and is intended to provide uninterrupted flow through the dam during low flow conditions.
No dry dams are known to exist in Canada but a few can be found in USA and Japan. The oldest dry dams in USA are five dams that MCD (Miami Conservancy District) constructed in the Great Miami River basin during the early 1900s. The drainage basins for these dams consist of gently sloping agricultural land with treed areas only found along the stream valleys. As a result of the mild slopes and the wide stream valleys, these dams have very large reservoir volumes.
The setting of the S2 dry dam proposed by the Advisory Panel for the Sheep River is quite different to the setting of the MCD dams in USA. As opposed to the gently sloping agricultural landscape around the MCD dams, the S2 drainage basin is located on the steep and forested eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. In this reach, Sheep
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 41 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
River is a steep gravel bed stream within a deep valley and, during floods, trees and other debris are carried by the flood flow. In general, the Sheep River channel is unstable and shifts during floods. Due to the tree and debris carried by the flow during floods, coupled with the mobile gravel bed, the risk of blockage of the low level outlet at S2 is significant. Blockage has not been a significant concern at the MCD dams, likely due to the flatter grade of the streams and the small forested areas at those dams.
It is a well-known fact that surface water conduits in the cold regions of Canada gradually ice up during the winter months. Snow melted by the sun flows as melt water into the shade of the tunnel where it freezes to the sides of the conduit. This gradual icing process continues through the winter and can block a very large part of or the entire conduit opening which could prevent uninterrupted stream flow during the spring flood. In the area of the MCD dams, the coldest month is December when the mean temperature reaches -1°C (30°F) and risk of icing is much less than at Scheme S2.
Due to the risk of blockage of the low level outlet conduit by debris or ice or a combination of the two, dry dams bring high risks that are not inherent in other types of flood mitigation works. It is possible that these reasons have contributed to why no dry dams have been constructed in Canada in the past.
6.2.2.2 Design Concept
Scheme S2 is located 8.5 km upstream (southwest) of Turner Valley, just downstream of the confluence with Macabee Creek. The dry dam scheme is intended to alleviate flooding in communities along the Sheep River, including Turner Valley, Black Diamond, and Okotoks. The location of the proposed dry dam is indicated in Figure 1- 1 of Appendix C.
Design information for Scheme S2, including river dam location and dimensions, conduit size, and reservoir full supply level (FSL), was taken from the Stantec (2013) report. Further hydraulic modelling was carried out to determine the orifice size required to constrict the flow, as well as the peak inflow and outflow rates during the 2013 flood scenario. Models of the Sheep and Highwood basins were assessed together to determine the overall effects of the various schemes on both rivers.
Dimensions of the proposed dam scheme were taken from the Stantec (2013) report, where available, and estimated from a GIS model of the dam. The scheme proposed by Stantec consists of a 51 m high, 800 m long earth fill dam with a crest elevation of 1303 m, a 20 m top width, and 4 Horizontal (H):1 Vertical (V) side slopes. The river is conveyed through the dam in a 440 m long 5 x 8 m conduit at the base of the dam, aligned with the existing river channel. A second, normally closed inlet is proposed as a backup, to provide relief in the event that the main conduit becomes blocked by debris or other materials. The proposed reservoir is estimated to have a flooded area of 180 ha and a volume of 24,400,000 m3.
An emergency spillway is required to protect the dam during events larger than the 2013 flood and in the event that the outflow conduit becomes blocked. The emergency spillway for dam Scheme S2 was assumed to be an open channel constructed of reinforced concrete, with steep chute sections anchored to resist movement. The spillway was estimated to have a length of 700 - 900 m, depending on the chosen route.
Criteria have not been developed to determine an acceptable level of protection downstream of the proposed dam. Instead, the dam orifice was sized such that the dry dam reservoir proposed by Stantec (2013) would be fully utilized during a 2013 event. A 4.8 m diameter orifice is proposed to restrict flows during flood events. The orifice design limits the peak outflow from the 2013 flood scenario to 316 m3/s for a peak inflow of 715 m3/s. The reservoir FSL elevation of 1298 m is achieved during the 2013 flood scenario.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 42 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
The conceptual cost estimate for construction of Scheme S2 has been estimated to be greater than $173,300,000, with an annual maintenance cost of $3.5 million. The design, approval and construction time is estimated to span 5 to 7 years. The cost estimate is based on AT Unit Prices and actual construction costs, where available and applicable. Significant uncertainty in the estimate exists, due to a lack of geotechnical data. A piled foundation would likely be required to support the conduit structure and eliminate excessive movement and settlement.
The proposed dam scheme may be classified as a high risk dam, based on Canadian Dam Safety Guidelines and its proximity to the Towns of Turner Valley and Black Diamond. The determination of the dam risk classification would require a dam breach assessment, to estimate the potential damages in the areas downstream of the dam in the event of a dam breach.
A bi-yearly and post flood inspection regime will need to be implemented. Since available subsurface information for this site is confined to a basic soil and bedrock description only, a comprehensive geotechnical investigation including auger boring, rotary coring, test pitting and groundwater monitoring should be carried out to obtain geotechnical data to design and build a dam of the dimensions proposed for this site. It is recommended that these testholes include testing to assess soil and rock properties including strength, stability and hydraulic conductivity, including packer tests within rock.
If the proposed S2 Scheme is approved for further study, a full suite of field surveys will be required for the Environmental Impact Assessment.
6.2.2.3 Geotechnical
Based on a review of available background information which includes geological, hydrogeological conditions and aerial photograph interpretation, it is feasible to construct the proposed dam. This is subject to:
Assessment of the quality of surficial deposits Quality of bedrock Hydraulic conductivity of the granular soils
Since available subsurface information for this site is confined to a basic soil and bedrock description only, a comprehensive geotechnical investigation including auger boring, rotary coring, test pitting and groundwater monitoring should be carried out to obtain geotechnical data to design and build a dam of the dimensions proposed for this site. Testholes should be:
Advanced to depths at least 5 m below the depth of the proposed dam cut off Drilled across at least three sections of the proposed dam footprint Be spaced longitudinally 50 to 100 m within the dam footprint Drilled at each abutment Drilled within the riverbed at the proposed conduit location
It is recommended that these testholes feature testing to assess soil and rock properties including strength, stability and hydraulic conductivity, including packer tests within rock.
Foundations for the proposed conduit are likely to be on sandstone or shale bedrock. An assessment of the condition of rock in this area including strength assessment should be carried out to ascertain whether conduit load can be supported. Further to this, the geological conditions should be evaluated at the location of the potential spillway.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 43 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Consideration should be given to the type of cut-off proposed. If a clay cut-off is used, it may be necessary to import material from off-site. However, there does appear to be a possible supply of suitable fine grained soils for use in the dam core and cut-off in the region of the southern abutment. If this material proves unsuitable, availability of material suitable for the earth fill dam within an economic haul distance should be investigated.
Groundwater levels within the gravel deposits should be taken into consideration during construction of the cut-off wall and the dam core and shoulders. An assessment of groundwater conditions in the site area should be carried out. This should involve groundwater piezometers being installed during the geotechnical investigation. The piezometers should be monitored at regular intervals during and following the investigation.
Relocation of roads and houses within the potential area inundated by the retained flood waters will be necessary.
6.2.2.4 Environmental
An environmental desktop review was conducted for the proposed dam Scheme S2 located along the Sheep River (Appendix C). To date, no environmental field investigations have been conducted for this project. As such, there is potential for permitting requirements to change once field conditions are confirmed and engineering designs finalized. There are multiple environmental concerns associated with the proposed S2 scheme.
The S2 project location contains numerous protected areas. These include Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones, which restrict construction activities between December 15 and April 30 (Appendix C, Figure 4-2). S2 also falls within the Sensitive Raptor Range and Sharp-tailed Grouse Range layers (Appendix C, Figure 4-2).
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) are places in Alberta that are important to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, or other natural processes, at multiple spatial scales. There are no ESAs documented within the S2 project area. There are also no impacted Land Use Zones or Land Use Areas, but S2 falls within the Spray Lake Sawmills Forest Management Area.
Scheme S2 is located within the Montane Subregion of the Rocky Mountain Natural Region of Alberta. The surrounding landscape of the local area is broadly characterized as an undulating landform of high relief, with Orthic Black Chernozem soils associated with grasslands of the area and Gray Luvisols associated within wooded areas surrounding the river (Appendix C, Figure 4-3). No records of rare plants were documented within the S2 Project area, but they may still exist on site. Rare plant surveys will be required prior to any construction activities.
No wetlands have been formally identified within the S2 project area. Prior to construction, a wetland inventory must be completed to identify any temporary wetlands in the area. As per the Water Act (GOA 2013a), all wetlands that fall within the white zone are protected and any impacts to a wetland as a result of the proposed project will require compensation.
Sixty-six wildlife Species at Risk either occur within the S2 project area or have the potential to occur (Appendix C, Table 4-2). There are three “At Risk” species listed by AESRD. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) classifies twelve species as “Special Concern” and three species as “Threatened”, while SARA identifies seven species as “Special Concern” and four species as “Threatened”. COSEWIC lists the Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) as “Endangered”.
The Sheep River at the S2 project location is a mapped Class C waterbody with a RAP of September 1st to August 15th. Fourteen species of fish have been captured in the Sheep River. Bull trout are listed as ‘Threatened’ by COSEWIC and have been collected near the proposed S2 location. Westslope cutthroat trout are listed as
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 44 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
‘Threatened’ by COSEWIC and ‘Threatened’ by SARA throughout Alberta and are species that could potentially be found within the S2 area.
No First Nations land occurs within the S2 project area, but a First Nations Consultation assessment request will be required. Historical Resources with values of 4 and 5 (4 being a site that contains a historic resource that may require avoidance and 5 being a site that is believed to contain a historic resource) were found to occur within the S2 project location (Appendix C, Figure 4-1). There is high potential for the presence of undisturbed Historical Resources sites within the Project area, and as such, a Historic Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) is recommended.
Works associated with the project may be subject to the following federal legislation:
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: established a process to assess the environmental effects of projects requiring federal actions or decisions early in the planning stages Fisheries Act: applies to all Canadian fisheries waters and enforced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to conserve and protect fish habitat on private property, as well as provincial and federal lands Migratory Birds Convention Act: protects nests, eggs, and nest shelters from disturbance or destruction and prohibits activity between May 1 and August 20 and between April 15 and August 20 in wetland areas Species at Risk Act: protects Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and populations as well as their critical habitats on federal lands
Works associated with the project will also be subject to the following provincial legislation:
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA): the purpose is to support and promote the protection, enhancement, and wise use of the environment. The S2 Scheme will trigger an EIA under the Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulations: “The construction, operation or reclamation of a dam greater than 15 m in height when measured to the top of the dam from the natural bed of the watercourse at the downstream toe of the dam, in the case of a dam across a watercourse”. An EIA approval can take between 2 to 3 years. If it is determined that the project requires review by the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB; below), an additional 1 to 2 years will be added to the timeline. Natural Resources Conservation Board Act: reviews proposed non-energy natural resource projects and considers social, environmental, and economic effects when reviewing resource projects before approval is granted to the Proponent. Water Act: governs the use and management of Alberta’s water resources, including wetlands. Alberta’s Wetland Policy: conserves wetlands as well as introduces mitigation of wetland impacts. The new policy will apply to all wetlands in the province and compensation will be required for any losses. Historical Resources Act: protects historic resources in Alberta and a Historical Resource Clearance is needed for projects where effects on known and unknown historical resources could occur. Public Lands Act: requires approval for any activity occurring on public lands or in the bed or shore of Crown owned rivers, streams, or lakes. Wildlife Act: protects wildlife, including species at risk, on public and private lands. Restricted activity windows for sensitive species are generally between March 1st and August 31st.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 45 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
6.3 Compatibility of Drought Management and Flood Mitigation Alternatives
Once the flood control aspects of these alternatives are examined, they will be revisited to see what additional features are required to provide drought relief. Some of the considerations will include:
Impact of a water supply pool on dam construction, cost, and operation Conveyance facilities required to deliver stored water to where it is needed Feasibility of surface water storage via groundwater recharge
6.4 Ranking Alternatives
6.4.1 General
In Section 5.2, it was discussed how the aggregation method uses the indicator weights that define the relative importance of each indicator within the criterion. For example, Permanent Lane closure may be considered twice as important as noise pollution and hence is given a weight of 2 while noise is given 1. The table below shows the criteria and respective indicators and indicator weights used in the TBL analysis, which were derived in conjunction with members of the Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force during workshops in February 2014.
CRITERION & INDICATORS Indicator weight* Social S1 Recreation and Open Space Amenities S1.1 Create New Recreation Resource 1 S1.2 Area of Damage 3 S2 Town Housing and Neighborhoods S2.1 Reduction in flooding 1 S3 Employment S3.1 Long-term local employment Opportunities 1 S4 Construction Impacts S4.1 Air 1 S4.2 Dust 1 S4.3 Will lane closure be permanent? 2 S4.4 Will noise levels exceed 80 dBA adjacent to Town Housing and Neighborhoods? 1 S4.5 Period of construction (years) 1 S5 System Resilience S5.1 Does the project control and manage peak flows for the 1% event? 3 S5.2 Does the project result in additional earthquake resiliency? 1 S6 Cultural/Historical Resources S6.1 Is the scheme located in a known or suspected sensitive resource area? 1 S7 Operations and Maintenance S7.1 Number of annual maintenance operations? 1 S7.2 Will workers be required access heights greater than 1.5 m? 1 S7.3 Will workers be required to enter confined spaces? 1 S7.4 Will workers require interaction with hazardous chemicals? 2
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 46 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Environmental E1 Water Quality E1.1 Will there be an impairment to water quality? 2 E1.2 Will there be an impact to groundwater chemistry? 1 E2 Excavation E2.1 Will the excavation result in the long term discharge of groundwater to the surface? 3 E2.2 Will the excavated and exposed subsurface soils be removed? 1 E2.3 Will the project provide a hazardous waste remediation or assessment? 1 E2.4 Will there be an opportunity to convert waste to resources? 2 E3 Habitat E3.1 Will fish habitat be destroyed? 1 E3.2 Is this a barrier to fish 2 E3.3 Number of environmentally sensitive areas impacted 1 E3.4 Known wetlands present that could be impacted 1 E3.5 Number of rare plants 1 E3.6 Number of wildlife species at risk 1 Financial F1 Life Cycle Costs F1.1 Capital Costs ($ CAD) MM = Million 1 F1.2 Asset life of project (years) 1 F1.3 Construction period (years) 1 F1.4 Estimated Operational and Maintenance Costs (% of Capital Costs) 1 F1.5 Replacement and renewal costs at the end of the term ($ CAD) MM = Million 1 F1.6 Replacement and renewal frequency (years) 1 F1.7 Has the projects secured grant funding? 1 F1.8 Application of funds requested by Municipality for pre-flood re-development 1 F2 Constructability F2.1 Permitting DFO (months) 1 F2.2 Permitting Environment Canada (months) 1 F2.3 Permitting AESRD Public Lands (months) 1 F2.4 Permitting AESRD Water (months) 1 F2.5 Permitting AESRD EPEA (months) 1 F2.6 Permitting Alberta Culture (months) 1 F3 Operation Complexity F3.1 Level of Ease 1 * Indicator weights are relative to the specific criterion only
6.4.2 Results
The following graphic illustrates how dry dam Scheme S2 compares against the alternatives for the Highwood River basin, having adjusted the weighting for the criteria and presenting the scores.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 47 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
The results show that Scheme S2 scores marginally higher than dry dams H5 (2) and H2. This is largely due to the positive impact associated with the Life Cycle Costs criterion, which is based on relative comparison of annualized cost (simplified) for each scenario and whether the scenario annualized cost is greater or smaller than 10% from average. However; to obtain a true reflection of the S2 alternative, is to compare it with the local flood mitigation measures that have been proposed within the Sheep River basin. This is illustrated by the following graphic, which de-values the S2 alternative in favour of the local flood mitigation measures.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 48 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
6.5 Policies to Prevent Increase in Future Flooding
Section 96 of the Water Act allows the Minister of AESRD to designate any land in the Province as a flood hazard area and specify acceptable land uses in those areas. The flood hazard mapping in Alberta is managed by AESRD and conducted as per AESRD guidelines. This mapping is briefly discussed in Appendix E. The design flood for the mapping is the 1% (100-year) flood based on the Canada-Alberta Flood Damage Reduction Agreement of 1986.
Currently under the Municipal Services Act, municipalities have the authority to make their own land-use by-laws but have been encouraged to incorporate existing and new updates to flood hazard maps into their land use planning and by-laws. When new or updated flood hazard maps were finalized, a part of the process included consultations between AESRD and the municipality so that the local authorities had a full understanding of their risks and why the maps are important but the municipality was not required to adopt the flood hazard mapping as a by-law.
The Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act (Bill 27) was introduced by the GOA in October 2013 and received Royal Assent on December 11, 2013, to enshrine into law a stop to further developments in floodways. Other actions under the new Act will serve to strongly discourage any developments in flood hazard areas. The Act includes several amendments to the Municipal Government Services Act and the Emergency Management Act that are both under the Alberta Department of Municipal Affairs. At the time of this report, the Regulations were still under development.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 49 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
7. Water Management Strategy
7.1 Flood Mitigation
In the Sheep River basin, significant damages occurred in the Towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks during the 2013 flood due to flooding and river channel erosion and deposition. Other damages such as erosion and local flooding occurred at various locations along the Sheep River and many of its tributaries, such as Threepoint Creek. The total flood damages in the Sheep River basin were estimated to be $36.4 million, based on the information available to AECOM at the time of preparation of this report.
For the Sheep River basin, a large 51 m high dam proposed by the Advisory Panel was considered for flood mitigation purposes (see Section 6.1 and Appendix C). The cost of the dam was estimated to be greater than $173 million, the maintenance was estimated to be $3.5 million/year and the environment impact was estimated to be significant.
As an alternative to building a large dam on the Sheep River, local flood mitigation works were considered in the towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks (see Section 6.1 and Appendix E). The cost of the local flood mitigation was estimated to be $10.1 million.
The relative rankings of the dry dam and the local flood mitigation alternative were determined through a TBL analysis. Through the TBL analysis, it was found that the local flood mitigation alternative had a higher ranking than the dry dam alternative. Based on the TBL analysis results, local flood mitigations in the Towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks were found to be the preferred alternative for flood mitigation in the Sheep River basin.
The proposed local flood mitigation works consist of non-structural and structural flood mitigations. The proposed non-structural flood mitigation consists of buying out existing properties that are located in the floodway and preventing new development in the floodway. For the structural flood mitigation, it is proposed to construct flood protection dykes at specific locations in Black Diamond and Okotoks, to protect residences in the flood fringe. It is also proposed to construct a back-flow prevention structure on Spring Creek in the western part of the Town of Okotoks.
In the Town of Turner Valley, it is proposed to:
Buy out two houses located in the floodway in the area of North Royalite Way NE Construct a flood protection dyke around four houses located in the flood fringe in the area of North Royalite Way NE Provide a guide bank around the north abutment of Dacalta bridge and consider the design and construction of river training works at the bridge.
In the Town of Black Diamond, it is proposed to:
Buy out three houses located in the floodway downstream of the Highway 22 bridge Construct a flood protection dyke around a group of approximately 50 houses located in the flood fringe immediately downstream of the Highway 22 bridge Provide a guide bank around the east abutment of Highway 22 bridge
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 50 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
In the Town of Okotoks, it is proposed to:
Construct a flood protection dyke along a low section of the railway line in the eastern half of Okotoks Construct a flood protection dyke around a cluster of houses in the flood fringe in the eastern half of Okotoks Construct a backflow prevention structure on Spring Creek in the western part of Okotoks Consider construction of river training works along the left bank of Sheep River upstream of the railway embankment at the west end of the town
It is recommended that AT reviews the design and conditions of the Sheep River highway bridges in the Town of Black Diamond to ensure that this bridge does not cause an excessive increase in headwater level during a 1% (100-year) flood event. It is acknowledged that AT uses its own unique method for estimating the design discharges for highway bridge designs and there may be a conflict between what AT uses for bridge design and what is required for flood mitigation purposes.
In view of the river channel changes during the 2013 flood, it is also recommended that the flood hazard mapping for the Towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks be updated using current river channel cross-sections and an updated 1% (100-year) design flood estimate. It is also proposed that flood hazard mapping is completed for Threepoint Creek past the Hamlet of Millarville to identify the floodway and flood fringe in this area.
With the proposed local flood mitigations in place, the risk of flood damage in the Towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks during a 1% (100-year) flood event will be significantly reduced.
7.2 Drought
The Towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond and Okotoks use wells near the river as their raw water sources. The towns are therefore less susceptible to water shortage during short-term droughts. However, a longer term drought could reduce the water availability due to the hydraulic connection to the rivers.
There are no existing major irrigation systems in the Sheep River basin. Therefore, the impact of drought on irrigation was not assessed under this study.
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 51 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
8. References
Alberta Energy Regulator. (2013). Integrated Standards and Guidelines Enhanced Approval Process (EAP). Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/enhanced-approval-process/eap-manuals- guides/documents/EAP-IntegratedStandardsGuide-Dec01-2013.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2014). Alberta Water Well Information Database. Retrieved February 1, 2014, from http://environment.alberta.ca/01314.html
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2013a). Wildlife Sensitivity Maps – Data Sets. Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity- maps/default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2013b). Endangered and Threatened Plant Ranges (Shapefile). Retrieved 2014, from Wildlife Sensitivity Maps: https://extranet.gov.ab.ca/srd/ geodiscover/srd_pub/LAT/FWDSensitivity/EndangeredAndThreatenedPlantsRanges.zip
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD).(2013c). Fisheries & Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS). Retrieved December 2013 from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish- wildlife/fwmis/default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2011a). Recommended Land Use Guidelines for Protection of Selected Wildlife Species and Habitat within Grassland and Parkland Natural Regions of Alberta. Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-use- guidelines/documents/WildlifeLandUse-SpeciesHabitatGrasslandParkland-Apr28-2011.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2011b). Wild Species Status Search. Retrieved 2014, from http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/wild-species-status-search.aspx
Atkinson, N.; Lyster, S. (2010). Bedrock Topography of Alberta, Canada (Gridded Data, ASCII format). Map Digital Data 2010-0037. Retrieved from Alberta Geological Survey website: http://ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/ abstracts/DIG_2010_0037.html
BSEI Municipal Consulting Engineers. (2013). Okotoks Historic Past, Sustainable Future: Conceptual Water Servicing Review. Okotoks, Alberta. Retrieved February 2014, from Town of Okotoks website: http://okotoks.ca/data/1/rec_docs/3286_WaterServicingReview_2013-07-28__BSEI.pdf
Borneuf, D.M. (1980). Hydrogeological map of the Kananaskis Lakes Area, Alberta, NTS 82J. Alberta Research Council. Map 126. Retrieved from Alberta Geological Survey website: http://ags.gov.ab.ca/publications /abstracts/MAP_126.html
Canadian Wildlife Service. (2011). Activity Set-back Distance Guidelines for Prairie Plant Species at Risk. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Retrieved 2014, from Environment Canada website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/BA6052B1-136B-45C6-9BCD-38F160A80475/ ActivitySetBackDistanceGuidelinesForPrairiePlantSpeciesAtRRisk.pdf
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). (2013). Wildlife Species Search. Retrieved November 2014, from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 52 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Fenton, M.M.; Waters, E.J.; Pawley, S.M.; Atkinson, N.; Utting, D.J.; Mckay, K. (2013). Surficial Geology of Alberta. Map 601. Retrieved from Alberta Geological Survey website: http://ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/ Map_601.html
Government of Alberta. (2014). Draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan 2014-2024. Retrieved 2014, from https://www.landuse.alberta.ca/LandUse%20Documents/SSRP%20Draft%20SSRP%202014-2024_2013- 10-10.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013a). Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (R.S.A. c. E-12) Current as of December 5, 2013. Retrieved December 2013, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=E12.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779735495
Government of Alberta. (2013b). Natural Resources Conservation Board Act. Retrieved from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/N03.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013c). Water Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3) Current as of May 27, 2013. Retrieved December 2013, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=w03.cfm& leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779733651
Government of Alberta. (2013d). Public Lands Act (R.S.A. 2000, c.P-40) Current as of November 30, 2013. Retrieved December 2013, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm? page=P40.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779756162
Government of Alberta. (2013e). Historical Resources Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. H-9) Current as of June 12, 2013. Retrieved December 2013, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/ Acts/h09.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013f). Wildlife Act (R.S.A. 2000, c.W-10) Current as of May 27, 2013. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Queen's Printer. Retrieved December 2013, from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/w10.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013g). Wildlife Regulation. Retrieved 2014, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1997_143.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013h). Provincial Parks Act (R.S.A 2000, c. P-35) Current as of May 27, 2013. Retrieved February 2014, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P35.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2013i). Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines April 2013. Retrieved 2014, from AESRD website: http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/documents/ SensitiveSpeciesInventoryGuidelines-Apr18-2013.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2009a). Environmentally Significant Areas. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/
Government of Alberta. (2009b). Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and heritage Rangelands Act (R.S.A. 2000, c.W-9). Retrieved February 10, 2014, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/W09.pdf
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 53 AECOM Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Sheep River Water Management Plan
Government of Alberta. (2004). Forest Reserves Act (S.A. 2000, c. F-20) Current as of March 11, 2004. Retrieved December 2013, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/F20.pdf Government of Alberta. (2013). Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act, Retrieved March 2014, from Alberta Queen’s Printer website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/546.cfm?page=ch21_13.cfm&leg_type=fall Government of Alberta. (1984). A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes Revised 1984. Edmonton
Government of Alberta. Department of Lands and Forests. (1957). Alberta’s Forests.
Government of Canada. Minister of Justice. (2013a). Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14) Amended on November 25, 2013. Retrieved December 2013, from Justice Laws website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf
Government of Canada. Department of Justice. (2013b). Species At Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) Amended March 8, 2013. Retrieved December 2013, from Justice Laws website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf
Government of Canada. Department of Justice. (2012). Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (S.C. 1992, c.37) Amended November 25, 2013. Retrieved February 2014, from Justice laws website: http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-15.21/page-1.html#h-1
Government of Canada. Department of Justice. (2010a). Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22) Amended December 10, 2010. Retrieved December 2013, from Justice Laws website: http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/M-7.01.pdf
Government of Canada. Minister of Justice. (2010b). Canada Wildlife Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. W-9) Amended on December 10, 2010. Retrieved December 2013, from Justice Laws website: http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/W-9.pdf
Government of Canada. Minister of Justice. (2009). Navigable Waters Protection Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-22) Amended on March 12, 2009. Retrieved December 2013, from Justice Laws website: http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-22.pdf
Natural Region Committee (2006). Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. (D. J. Downing, & W. W. Pettapiece, Compilers) Government of Albert Publication No. T/852.
Ozoray, G.F. (1974). Hydrogeological map of the Gleichen area, Alberta, NTS 82I. Alberta Research Council. Map 107. Retrieved from Alberta Geological Survey website: http://ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/ MAP_107.html
Prior, G.J.; Hathway, B.; Glombick, P.M.; Pana, D.I.; Banks, C.J.; Hay, D.C.; Schneider, C.L.; Grobe, M.; Elgr, R.; Weiss, J.A. (2013). Bedrock Geology of Alberta. Retrieved from Alberta Geological Survey website: http://ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/MAP_600.html
RPT3-2014-06-06-Sheep_River_Basin-60309815.Docx 54