Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance Inventory, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers

Submitted to: Lesley Peterson Trout Unlimited

Submitted by: East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. 55 Citadel Forest Close , AB T3G 5A6

January 2017 Armour and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Project Overview ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 2 1.3 Study Area ...... 2 2.0 Approach ...... 5 2.1 Satellite Imagery Review ...... 6 2.2 Riparian Disturbance Inventory ...... 6 3.0 Results and Discussion ...... 9 3.1 Upper ...... 10 3.2 ...... 16 3.3 ...... 21 3.4 Upper ...... 27 3.5 Lower Bow River ...... 33 3.6 Lower Elbow River ...... 37 3.7 Threepoint Creek ...... 42 4.0 Conclusions/Recommendations ...... 45 5.0 Closing ...... 46 6.0 References ...... 47 6.1 Personal Communication ...... 47 6.2 Literature Cited ...... 47 FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area and Reach Extents, 2016 ...... 4 Figure 2. Relative Proportion of Disturbance Types Documented in the Upper Elbow River, 2016...... 12 Figure 3. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Elbow River, 2016 ...... 15 Figure 4. Relative Proportion of Disturbance Types Documented in the Sheep River, 2016 ...... 17 Figure 5. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Sheep River, 2016 ...... 20 Figure 6. Relative Proportion of Disturbance Types Documented in the Highwood River, 2016 ...... 22 Figure 7. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Highwood River, 2016 ...... 26 Figure 8. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Bow River, 2016 (Map 1 of 2) ...... 31 Figure 9. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Bow River, 2016 (Map 2 of 2) ...... 32 Figure 10. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Bow River, 2016 ...... 36 Figure 11. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Elbow River, 2016 ...... 41 TABLES Table 1. Project Reach Locations, 2016 ...... 3 Table 2. Disturbance Totals and Percentages from Project Reaches, 2016 ...... 9 Table 3. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Elbow River, 2016 ...... 13 Table 4. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Sheep River, 2016 ...... 18

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | i

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Table 5. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Highwood River, 2016 ...... 23 Table 6. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Bow River, 2016 ...... 29 Table 7. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Bow River, 2016 ...... 35 Table 8. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Elbow River, 2016 ...... 39 Table 9. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on Threepoint Creek, 2016 ...... 43 APPENDICES Appendix A Photograph Catalogue ...... A-1

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | ii Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Ms. Lesley Peterson of Trout Unlimited Canada for the opportunity to conduct this Project, as well as for her support during field work logistics planning and her contributions to the report. We would also like to thank Ms. Aleta Corbett of TransAlta Corporation for access permission at hydroelectric facilities with the Upper Bow River Reach and Ms. Christal Jerry and the Stoney Tribal Administration for access permission through Stoney First Nation land. We would also like to acknowledge Hemmera Envirochem Inc. for the provision of bank armouring and riparian disturbance data collected from the lower Elbow River and Golder Associates Ltd. for in-kind support. The authors are also appreciative of in-kind support provided by Environment and Parks and Ms. Margaret Bradley, in particular, who provided all map figures presented in this report.

Suggested Citation: Eisler, G. and R. Popowich. 2017. Riparian Disturbance and Bank Armouring Inventory, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers. Prepared by East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. for Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, AB. 47 pp. + 1 app.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | iii Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Background

The positive influences of intact, healthy, riparian areas on aquatic ecosystems are well documented. In addition to providing bank and channel stability, riparian areas provide unique habitat for fish and wildlife, improve water quality through the sequestration of sediment, recharge nutrients and groundwater storage, and increase flood and drought resiliency. Aside from providing these and other critical elements to the ecological integrity of a watershed, naturally functioning riparian habitats also provide an intangible esthetic appeal to those working, living, or recreating on or near watercourses.

The functionality of riparian areas can be compromised by linear development crossings (e.g., roads, trails, transmission lines) and land use activities and development (e.g., residential, industrial, agricultural, ranching, etc.) which extend downslope to the edge of a watercourse. These types of influences are common within River sub-basin, given the need for infrastructure to support the nearly 1.2 M people that live within its boundaries (AMEC, 2009). Without clear and enforced guidance regarding all near-watercourse developments and land use activities (i.e., those with the potential to degrade riparian areas), the integrity, connectivity, and functionality of riparian areas are susceptible to disruption.

Once established, the preservation of historical land use practices and the protection of existing infrastructure often take precedence over the conservation of existing riparian areas or the return of disturbed riparian areas to their natural state. This tendency was evidenced most recently by the substantial surge in number of flood mitigation/protection projects submitted for Water Act approval following the floods in southern Alberta in 2013 (2013 flood). As of April 2016, over 150 High Risk activities (i.e., as defined by Alberta Environment and Parks [AEP], 2016) were approved in the Basin through the province’s Expedited Authorization Process for Flood Recovery Program. It is realistic to expect that many of these proposed works consisted exclusively or at least primarily of bank armouring (e.g., application of riprap to the bank and/or channel) and will consequently result in immediate and long-lasting changes to the function of natural riparian habitats. In contrast, a minority of these projects are expected to have focused predominantly on the use of bio- engineering methods or the alternative abandonment of the flood damaged location thereby expediting the return the riparian area to its natural form and function.

The reactive nature of many of the armouring projects proposed and/or completed within the Bow River sub-basin (sub-basin) following the 2013 flood is not a unique phenomenon. Rather, it is a continuation of what has become a patterned post-flood response in southern Alberta. Similar waves of proposed armouring projects have followed prior flood events, most recently in 2005. Although the location and scope of projects submitted for approval under Alberta’s Water Act are known to AEP, these records do not alone provide an understanding of the cumulative disturbance to riparian habitat in the sub-basin.

Following flood events in 2005, and to establish a comprehensive baseline of riparian disturbances in the Elbow, Sheep, and Highwood rivers, Trout Unlimited Canada commissioned a riparian disturbance inventory project in 2006 (original inventory) (Popowich and Eisler, 2007). During that original inventory, a total of 30, 40, and 52 riparian disturbances were documented within selected study areas in the Elbow, Sheep, and Highwood rivers, respectively. To our knowledge, no supplemental documentation of riparian disturbances in the sub-basin has occurred since that original inventory.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 1 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

1.2 Objectives

Given the considerable length of time since the original inventory (i.e., 10 years) and the recent marked increase in completed or ongoing ‘hard armouring’ (e.g., riprap, concrete, gabion baskets [gabions], etc.) flood mitigation projects following the 2013 flood, a reassessment of riparian disturbances in the Bow River sub-basin was warranted. To address this, Trout Unlimited Canada sponsored the Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance Inventory, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers (the Project). Funding for the Project was provided by AEP’s Water Resiliency and Restoration Program, while in-kind support was committed by AEP, Hemmera Envirochem Inc., Golder Associates Ltd., and the authors of this report.

Information collected during the Project represents an updated baseline of discernible riparian disturbances that can be referenced by future inventories in the sub-basin. It is also intended to inform local watershed groups and advocates for the potential restoration of ecosystem health. It will be useful for public education and the identification of potential restoration or offsetting opportunities. It may also be valuable to resource managers as a more comprehensive understanding of the cumulative disturbance to riparian areas, both from those approved under the Water Act and otherwise.

The specific objectives of the Project are listed below.

- Document the extent to which watercourse bed and banks have been altered within select reaches of the Bow River and its major tributaries.

- Catalogue bed and bank alterations, and compare with observations made during the original inventory, where possible (i.e., Upper Elbow, Sheep, and Highwood river study areas) (Popowich and Eisler, 2007).

- Identify and quantify sites where armouring failure resulted following the original inventory, where possible (i.e., Upper Elbow, Sheep and Highwood river study areas) (Popowich and Eisler, 2007).

- Identify potential riparian and/or fish habitat restoration opportunities.

- Produce a summary report and provide raw data sets which will be useful for stakeholders and resource managers to interpret where riparian disturbances exist as compared to where projects approved under the Water Act are documented.

1.3 Study Area

The Project’s original scope included five study reaches (reaches): Upper Elbow River Reach; Sheep River Reach; Highwood River Reach; Upper Bow River Reach; and Lower Bow River Reach (Trout Unlimited Canada, 2016). However, in-kind support from Project stakeholders and cost savings measures applied by the authors enabled the expansion of the Project’s scope to include two additional study reaches: the Lower Elbow River Reach; and Threepoint Creek Reach (Table 1, Figure 1). The Upper Elbow River, Sheep River, and Highwood River reaches approximately replicated those established in 2006 (Popowich and Eisler, 2007), while the Upper Bow River, Lower Bow River, Lower Elbow River, and Threepoint Creek reaches were established based on direction from Trout Unlimited Canada and/or the discretion of the authors. None of the reaches included inventory of riparian disturbances associated with other tributaries in the sub-basin (e.g., outlet into the Bow River).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 2 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

The Upper Elbow River Reach extended approximately between the River Cove Group Campground, west from the Highway (Hwy.) 66 crossing of the Elbow River, and the . The entire mainstem and all active side channels were traversed within this reach.

The Sheep River Reach extended approximately between the western edge of the Town of to the confluence with the Highwood River. The entire mainstem and several side channels were traversed within this reach.

The Highwood River Reach extended between a public access point immediately southwest from the Village of Longview to the confluence with the Bow River. Several channel avulsions were encountered within this section of the Highwood River, and as a result the entire mainstem and select side channels (i.e., active and abandoned) were traversed.

Due to the presence of hydroelectric facilities and corresponding impoundments, the Upper Bow River Reach was comprised of three separate segments: the first extending from the boundary of Banff National Park to the Whitefish Day Use Area within Bow Valley Provincial Park; the second occurring between a hydrometric station downstream from the TransAlta Horseshoe Plant and the Hwy 133X (i.e., locally known as Morley Road) crossing of the Bow River at the First Nation settlement of Morley; and the third extending from immediately downstream from the TransAlta Ghost Plant to a public access point within Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park. The entire mainstem and multiple side channels were traversed in this reach, although observations within the braided section of the river immediately downstream from the Hwy. 1 crossing at the Town of Canmore were limited to a single channel (i.e., the side channel referred to as D Creek by Brewin [1994]). The Seebe, Ghost, and Bearspaw reservoirs were not traversed during the Project.

The Lower Bow River Reach extended from immediately downstream from the Hwy. 22X crossing of the Bow River to the Carseland Weir within Wyndham - Carseland Provincial Park. The entire mainstem and select side channels were traversed in this study reach.

The Lower Elbow River Reach extended from the outlet of the Glenmore Dam to the confluence with the Bow River. The entire mainstem and all active side channels were traversed in this reach.

The Threepoint Creek Reach, inclusive of the mainstem and all side channels, was surveyed using Google Earth Pro (Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe) between the headwaters (i.e., the upstream-most area of defined bed/bank visible) and the confluence with the Sheep River.

Table 1. Project Reach Locations, 2016 Reach Survey Start Location (UTM) Survey End Location (UTM) Dates of Field Reach Length (km) Grid1 Easting Northing Grid Easting Northing Survey (2016) Upper Elbow River 62.7 11U 662186 5640610 11U 700288 5652729 June 9 and 10 Sheep River 48.9 11U 692526 5616164 11U 298558 5624751 June 11 and 12 Highwood River 91.6 11U 695662 5600518 11U 304229 5633264 July 6 and August 26 Upper Bow River2 89.5 11U 611057 5665759 11U 684958 5670971 September 28 and 30 Lower Bow River 53.5 11U 710437 5642067 12U 327823 5633206 August 27 Lower Elbow River 11.2 11U 704410 5654860 11U 707297 5658854 July 3 Threepoint Creek 76.6 11U 654336 5621866 11U 697625 5624153 N/A3 1 NAD 83 2 break locations provided in Table 6 3 survey limited to desktop review of satellite imagery only

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 3 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Figure 1. Project Area and Reach Extents, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 4 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

2.0 APPROACH

Although the same methods applied during the original inventory were replicated during this Project, some new elements were also added in 2016. Unique methods adopted for this Project included:

 Desktop based reviews of observations made during the original inventory prior to field assessments (where possible);  Pre-field review of recent (i.e., 2016) satellite imagery (imagery) to assist with preferred route selection and access/egress planning;  Comparative analyses of observations at current and previously identified (i.e., from the original inventory) disturbance sites (where possible); and  Post-field data quality assurance/quality control (qa/qc) procedures using post-2013 flood imagery. In addition, and as a value-added initiative, the Project’s scope was expanded to include a desktop review of post-2013 flood imagery of the Threepoint Creek Reach (the pilot). This pilot element was intended to provide a high-level assessment of bank armouring and riparian disturbances and to evaluate the reach’s potential for inclusion in future ground-based inventories. The pilot also served to test the capability of imagery alone to complete assessments of bank armouring and riparian disturbances. Threepoint Creek was selected for the Project’s pilot due to its relative abundance of High Risk Water Act applications received by AEP following the 2013 floods (AEP, unpublished data). Unlike the Project’s other six reaches, the Threepoint Creek Reach was not traversed by the field crew to ground truth potential disturbances or armouring locations identified during the pilot.

As during the original inventory, bank armouring was defined for the Project as any location within the immediate riparian area that had been developed or artificially enhanced or altered for erosion, flood protection, or mitigation purposes. Examples of features that were considered as armouring during this Project included riprap, concrete walls or blocks, groynes, gabions, and constructed berms. The broader term of riparian disturbance defined for the Project refers to any location where the channel bed and/or banks were visibly altered by means other than natural fluvial processes (e.g., scour, lateral channel movement). While this definition included locations of armouring, it also applied to other disturbance types such as river access (e.g., pedestrian), water withdrawal or diversion/discharge infrastructure, and cattle grazing or pugging.

Given their relative scarcity and small footprints, locations where bio-engineering or ‘soft armouring’ (e.g., crib walls, wattle fences etc.) were also encompassed by the Project’s definition of a disturbance. The dimensions of these locations were considered in reach totals and comparative analyses, and their characteristics are described individually where warranted. Alternatively, locations where land use activities which were presumed to have originally occurred in upland locations (i.e., beyond the riparian area), but that were within the riparian area in 2016 because of the consequences of natural bank erosion or lateral channel movement resulting from high flow events, were not categorized as a disturbance during this Project. Residential landscaping, agricultural activity on escarpments, or other disturbances in riparian areas not functionally critical to fish habitat, were also not included under the Project’s definition of a disturbance. Nearly indiscernible disturbances in the riparian area such as trailheads, livestock access points, or small pumps, were also not documented.

Although some locations of naturally occurring bank erosion and instability were identified during the original inventory (Popowich and Eisler, 2007), and therefore carried forward for analysis in 2016, the

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 5 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Project did not focus on identifying new, naturally occurring disturbances to riparian areas. Disturbances documented in 2006 that were no longer adjacent to active channels in 2016 were revisited where possible.

2.1 Satellite Imagery Review

The focus of the Project’s pilot, Threepoint Creek Reach, was assessed exclusively using imagery provided by Google Earth Pro (Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe). Google Earth Pro tilt, zoom, and, pan functions were used to provide the most effective perspectives for discerning mainstem and side channel habitats, as well as bank armouring or other riparian disturbances and adjacent land use and riparian characteristics. Where a potential disturbance was identified, the same associated attributes as those considered during the traverse of the other reaches (see Section 2.2, below) were documented. The Google Earth Pro measurement tool was used to determine the length and depth of bank armouring or riparian disturbances and to estimate the diameter of riprap armouring.

In addition to the Threepoint Creek Reach, the same approach was also used to assess potential disturbances within the upstream-most 2 kilometres (km) of the Lower Elbow River Reach, which was precluded from that reach’s traverse. It was also used, with reference to data from the original inventory where available, during pre-field access and egress and preferred route selection, site reconnaissance and preferred route planning, as well as during post-field qa/qc review of the Project’s other six reaches. Use of imagery review was particularly useful during qa/qc reviews where large (e.g., >500 m) or complex (e.g., armouring along curved sections of bank) disturbances were encountered in the field. Current (i.e., 2015 or 2016) imagery was available for each of the six reaches traversed during the Project and during the pilot of the Threepoint Creek Reach.

2.2 Riparian Disturbance Inventory

Where side channels were observed during the pre-field imagery reconnaissance review, a determination was made as to which or both/all side channels were to be investigated during the traverse. Factors considered in this determination included evidence of riparian disturbance(s) visible in the imagery, proximity of the watercourse to private and/or public infrastructure, and observations of disturbance recorded during the original inventory (where possible). Not all side channels were investigated in the field, as only those that were considered likely to contain riparian disturbances occurring after 2006 or those that had previously (i.e., during the original inventory) were included in the traverse of reaches in 2016. Given the high quality, current (i.e., 2015 or 2016) imagery available, we contend that few if any discernible anthropogenic disturbances to riparian habitat were not identified during the complementary imagery review and traverse.

In select instances, the review of imagery was also used to estimate the current dimensions of large disturbances and identify the approximate location of ‘new’ (i.e., not included in the original inventory or resulting since the 2013 flood) disturbance features (new sites). For details on how imagery was used to measure disturbance features, please refer to Section 2.1, above.

Once the preferred route was determined during the reconnaissance imagery review, it was noted either on map(s) or Global Positioning System (GPS) units deployed with the crew or was reckoned by the crew using obvious landmark features encountered during their traverse. A print out of the original inventory’s site summary tables (Popowich and Eisler, 2007) was also kept with the field crew for reference and comparison at sites previously identified.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 6 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Field data were collected during the traverse by a boat-based crew of two aquatic biologists. Depending on flow conditions, prevalence of side channels to be traversed, and access/egress considerations, the crew either travelled downstream separately in 2.7 m oar-propelled pontoon boats or together in a 4.6 m canoe. Where necessary, foot reconnaissance was used to back-track from the downstream end of side channels or separate downstream paths were taken by each boat when select side channels were encountered.

When new sites of bank armouring or riparian disturbances were encountered, a UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) was recorded at the upstream end of the site using a hand-held GPS unit. The type and size (i.e., to the nearest 0.5 m) of armouring material was documented at each disturbance, while length (m) and depth (m) of disturbances were measured using a range finder or GPS odometer. Dominant cover types in the immediate vicinity (i.e., presumably those affected by the disturbance) were classified as either rock (R), grass (G), shrubs (S), coniferous (C), deciduous (D), mixed coniferous (MC), or mixed deciduous (MD). Digital photograph(s) were taken of each site for record and comparative review.

When sites previously documented during the original inventory were encountered, a qualitative determination of the site’s general condition was made for comparative purposes. The categories considered during this determination were defined as:

 Previous site with no discernible change – site retained same or indiscernibly different dimensions as recorded during original inventory with no change (i.e., increase or decrease) in footprint;  Previous site with armouring failure – site footprint remained consistent with similar dimensions observed during the original inventory but loss of armouring elements was still obvious;  Previous site no longer in active channel – while the site may or may not have shown signs of armouring loss, and changes to footprint may have resulted, the site was completely or largely within an abandoned channel which had no connectivity to flow;  Previous site with increased disturbance – site with additional, supplemental or replacement elements that had increased the footprint (i.e., length and/or depth) compared to observations during the original inventory; and  Previous site with riparian recovery – site where no active disturbance (e.g., cattle access) was evident and discernible revegetation and improved bank stability have resulted since the original inventory. It is important to note that while a previously identified disturbance site may have had characteristics belonging to more than one of the above categories (e.g., having armouring failure and showing signs of increased disturbance or having bank armouring failure and no longer occurring in the active channel), each site was categorized based on the most prominent characteristic. Once the site’s category was determined, its attributes (e.g., disturbance dimensions) were confirmed or updated using the methods described above for new sites. However, each of the previously encountered sites’ existing location data (i.e., from the original inventory) were adopted for 2016 reporting purposes.

Project field data was subjected to a daily qa/qc review, and any incomplete comparisons of data from previously identified sites were flagged for post-field analysis. Where warranted (e.g., where disturbance length and/or depth were substantial), site dimensions were verified using a review of imagery (see Section 2.1, above).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 7 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Since the depth of disturbances was rarely uniform at sites, a range of depths was often recorded in the field. In consideration of this and to avoid unnecessary error resulting from including ranges of depth of disturbance, all comparisons of sites using observations in 2016 and 2006 are based on linear distance measurements only.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 8 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

During the traverse of over 303.9 km of mainstem and side channel habitat, a total of 317 locations of armouring and/or riparian disturbances were encountered within the Upper Elbow River, Sheep River, Highwood River, Upper Bow River, Lower Bow River and Lower Elbow River reaches. Cumulatively, these disturbances combined to represent approximately 6.6% (40.1 km) of the surveyed length of riparian habitat associated with active channels (i.e., mainstem or side channels with flow). The degree of disturbance varied between and within study reaches, with higher rates of disturbance associated with reaches or sections of reaches extending through urban areas. For example, the Lower Elbow River Reach, which is encompassed exclusively by urban land use, had the highest percentage of disturbance (23.5%) (Table 2). The review of Google Earth Pro imagery (Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe) suggests that the Threepoint Creek Reach had the lowest percentage of disturbance (2.2%), although the review included headwater areas (i.e., features not surveyed in the other reaches) and ground-truthing is likely to identify additional locations in this reach.

Table 2. Disturbance Totals and Percentages from Project Reaches, 2016 Cumulative Length Percentage of Length of of Armouring or Cumulative Number of Reach Length Reach Riparian Habitat Otherwise Length of Armouring with Reach Length in Reach (both Disturbed Riparian New and/or Other Disturbance in (m) banks) Habitat in Active Disturbances1 Disturbances Active Channels (m) Channels (m) (%) (m)

Upper Elbow River 62,700 125,400 52 7,887 6.3 512

Sheep River 48,900 97,800 54 10,095 10.3 4,449

Highwood River 91,600 183,200 82 7,730 4.2 2,818

Upper Bow River 89,500 179,000 52 5,087 2.8 5,087

Lower Bow River 53,500 107,000 26 4,065 3.8 4,065

Lower Elbow River2 11,200 22,400 50 5,256 23.5 5,256

Threepoint Creek3 76,600 153,202 43 3,249 2.2 3,249

1 Upper Bow River, Lower Bow River, Lower Elbow River, and Threepoint Creek reaches were not included in the original inventory 2 uppermost 2 km of the reach was not traversed due to access restrictions but was surveyed using imagery 3 assessed using Google Earth imagery only (Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe) only – no traverse completed

Approximately 55% of all disturbances encountered in 2016 during the traverse of active channels were not encountered in 2006. Given this relatively high proportion of ‘new’ sites, it is worth noting that this cumulative 22.1 km of new disturbance length includes all sites within the Upper Bow River, Lower Bow River and Lower Elbow River reaches (i.e., a sub-total of 14.3 km), reaches that were not included in the original inventory, as well as new sites located within the Upper Elbow River, Sheep River, and Highwood River reaches (i.e., a sub-total of 7.8 km) that were not identified during the original inventory (Popowich and Eisler, 2007). This cumulative distance is, however, exclusive of potential disturbances identified via imagery review in the Threepoint Creek Reach.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 9 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

There were several restoration opportunities encountered during the traverse of active channels; however, most of these were associated with bank erosion or instability resulting from the 2013 flood or more recent high flow events and occurred near private and/or agricultural lands. Given the overwhelming flood damage to long stretches of bank, and in consideration of factors related to feasibility of restoration (e.g., access, stakeholder collaboration, etc.), we have identified the four most suitable opportunities. Additional recommendations for alternate restoration opportunities have also been provided. Details on the restoration opportunity locations and associated generalized comments are embedded within Table 3, Table 5, and Table 6 and described in each of the sub-sections below.

Data specific to each of the Project’s reaches are presented separately. Note that due to the volume and diversity of riparian disturbances encountered in each of the Project reaches, not all disturbances are discussed in detail. Rather, discussion in each sub-section is focussed on generalized themes and the most noteworthy observations in each respective reach. Summary information about each disturbance is provided in reach-specific tables, while notable photographs (i.e., from 2016 and in one case 2006 for comparative purposes) are provided in Appendix A.

3.1 Upper Elbow River

As expected, the influence of the 2013 flood on the channel and bank characteristics of the Upper Elbow River Reach was evident during the traverse. Aside from the numerous, naturally occurring avulsions, braided sections, and substantial flood sign, the number, distribution, and cumulative footprint of armouring and other anthropogenically-sourced riparian disturbances were markedly increased in 2016 (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Forty-one of the 52 disturbances (79%) encountered in 2016 consisted either exclusively or at least predominantly of hard armouring measures along one or both banks. Only four armoured sites were identified as containing some bio-engineering component (e.g., brush layering, willow staking, root wad installation, etc.). Other disturbance types encountered included pipeline right-of-ways (RoW), cattle pugging, and storm drain outlets.

The total combined length of disturbances encountered in the reach in 2016 was 8,357 m. Of this total, however, 470 m was determined to no longer occur in an active channel and there were no sites where discernible riparian recovery was observed. This means that the length of armouring/disturbance within active channels increased by 1,690 m (i.e., 7,887 as compared to 6,197 m observed in 2006) or 27% in the past 10 years (Popowich and Eisler, 2007).

Twelve new disturbances, totalling a combined length of 512 m, represented a portion of the increase in disturbance footprint between 2006 and 2016. However, most of the increase resulted from 15 sites where the footprints of existing disturbances were expanded (e.g., UElb20) (Error! Reference source not found.), some considerably (Appendix A, Plate 1 and Plate 2). In contrast, of the 40 disturbances observed in 2006, only five were observed to have no discernible change in 2016. Fifteen armouring sites were noted as having some (i.e., ranging from moderate to complete) degree of armouring failure since 2006 (Table 3) (Appendix A, Plate 3 and Plate 4).

The distribution of disturbances in this reach shifted somewhat in 2016, resulting from the complete loss of armouring at some locations (e.g., Allen Bill Day Use Area) and the installation of armouring or other disturbances at 12 new sites. The movement of mainstem and side channels, which caused some previously identified sites to now no longer occur on an active channel (Appendix A, Plate 5 and Plate

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 10 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

6), also influenced the distribution of disturbances. In general, though, armouring was still prevalent and in some cases increased near major public infrastructure (e.g., bridges).

The most substantial disturbance encountered in this reach in 2016 was a site (i.e., UElb19) that was first identified during the original inventory, but has since increased in footprint and complexity (Table 3) (Appendix A, Plate 7 and Plate 8). During the Project’s traverse this disturbance consisted a network of in-channel manipulations and artefacts of large scale grading within a side channel, adjacent to a golf course. The manipulations and contouring, combined with constructed cobble berms on both sides of the channel, culminated at an impoundment where a water intake pump station had been constructed. At this site, the length of disturbance more than tripled in comparison to measurements made in 2006 (Popowich and Eisler, 2007).

The replacement and expansion of armouring elements at UElb9 is another example of where the footprint of an existing disturbance had been increased. At this location, it was presumed that nearly the entire site’s armouring was replaced following the 2013 flood. During this presumed replacement, the footprint was increased in length (i.e., by 150 m) and depth (i.e., by as much as 22 m) (Appendix A, Plate 9 and Plate 10) in comparison to observations in 2006.

Two potential restoration sites were identified in this reach (Table 3). The first (RO1) occurred along the left bank of side channel habitat immediately adjacent to the parking lot at Allen Bill Day Use Area (Appendix A, Plate 11). Damaged by the 2013 flood and, presumably, by subsequent, frequent foot traffic, the banks were substantially eroded, unstable, and a point source for sediment runoff into the Elbow River during precipitation events. Given the proximity to a public access point, suitable conditions for access and construction, it is expected that several bio-engineering techniques could be applied at this location.

The second potential restoration site (RO2) occurred adjacent to the Water Survey of Canada Hydrometric Station in the Town of (Appendix A, Plate 12). At this location, erosion caused by high flow events resulted in substantial scour over an approximate 14 m length. Given the potential for reclamation needs at this location, presumably due to the desired maintenance and protection of the monitoring station, it is expected that riparian re-vegetation (e.g., staking and transplants) would be a suitable restoration approach.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 11 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Figure 2. Relative Proportion of Disturbance Types Documented in the Upper Elbow River, 2016.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 12 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Table 3. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Elbow River, 2016

Location (UTM NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Site Type Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

UElb1 11U 662008 5640844 previous site with no discernible change Riprap 0.5 183 5 L MD -- no discernible change to armouring but disturbance no longer in active channel

UElb2 11U 662160 5641147 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 384 5 L MD 4 armouring and associated road no longer present/active channel has migrated away from left bank armouring no longer present/trail and Allen Bill parking lot now immediately adjacent to the river/restoration opportunity UElb3/RO1 11U 662555 5641341 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 231 4 L MD 11 (bank reclamation adjacent to parking lot and trail)

cobble berm has been sculpted immediately upstream from replaced riprap along left bank at Hwy. 66 bridge/previously UElb4 11U 662831 5641424 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Cobble Berm 1 145 5 - 10 L/R G -- present gabions still present on right bank immediately upstream from replaced riprap and Hwy. 66 bridge replaced riprap along left bank downstream from Hwy. 66 bridge/disturbance is approximately 60 m shorter than UElb5 11U 662831 5641424 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 1 176 5 - 10 L G/MC -- previous UElb6 11U 663799 5641869 new site Riprap/Ford 0.5 - 1 10 5 R MD -- remnant riprap along left bank at confluence of McLean Creek/riprap split by OHV ford

UElb7 11U 664286 5642041 new site Residence n/a 5 25 R MC -- deck from house extends to right bank

UElb8 11U 668906 5646193 previous site with armouring failure Revetment 0.5 - 1 126 2 R M/C -- armouring no longer present

UElb9 11U 670127 5646442 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Revetment 0.5 - 1 600 10 - 32 R MC 9, 10 riprap has been replaced and extended an additional 150 m/six revetments with riprap have also been added

UElb10 11U 669968 5646360 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 14 6 L/R C -- riprap installed adjacent to box concrete bridge at Bragg Creek confluence

UElb11 11U 670294 5646788 previous site with no discernible change Riprap 0.5 - 1 34 2 R MC -- no discernible change to armouring

UElb12/RO2 11U 670627 5646971 new site Hydrometric Station n/a 14 1 - 6 R MC 12 flood erosion has scoured bank around hydrometric station/bank and riparian revegetation could be possible

UElb13 11U 670734 5646961 previous site with no discernible change Culvert n/a n/a n/a R MD -- no discernible change to influence to riparian area

UElb14 11U 670893 5647152 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 48 10 R MC -- riprap removed/stockpile of material present adjacent/some flood debris present but no longer in active channel

UElb15 11U 670901 5647430 previous site with armouring failure Concrete n/a 10 10 L/R MC / R -- riprap removed/concrete and stairs remain

UElb16 11U 670971 5647581 new site Pipeline RoW n/a 3 3 - 5 L/R MC -- vegetation loss/erosion from overland runoff

UElb17 11U 671106 5647938 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 4 5 LB MC -- riprap protection of yard/residence riprap on left bank remains and new riprap (not previously observed) now present on right bank as well at adjacent UElb18 11U 671361 5648103 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 15 5 - 7 L/R MC -- transmission line/riprap increased in length and depth on left bank previously observed berm still present but has been largely replaced by cobble/gravel material and extended an additional 400 m downstream/a berm of gravel and cobble has also been created at the upper end of disturbance UElb19 11U 672373 5649644 previous site with increased disturbance Cobble Berm/Impoundment <0.5 - 1 1,325 5 - 30 R 7, 8 creating an impoundment for water intakes/disturbance now occurs in side channel for most of length/side channel has also been constructed to provide flow from river to impoundment - this new disturbance is upstream from previous location riprap has been extended from previous origin and throughout remaining element/two revetments have been added UElb20 11U 674148 5650943 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 1,281 5 - 30 MC -- 1, 2 although suspect approximately 70 m of riprap loss at downstream end UElb21 11U 674782 5651727 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 10 5 R MC / R -- most of previous riprap has been removed/much of disturbance no longer in active channel

UElb22 11U 675508 5652502 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 235 5 - 10 R MC / R 5 riprap remains but no longer in active channel riprap berm has been extended approximately 200 m (upstream and downstream), now connected to previous UElb23 11U 675606 5652780 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 309 21 R MC -- upstream armouring UElb24 11U 675892 5654056 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 15 5 R MC -- no discernible change although no longer in active channel

UElb25 11U 676282 5654177 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 10 5 R MC -- no longer in active channel riprap armouring on left bank is armouring pipeline crossing and valve location/riprap on right bank is armouring L 241, L 5 - 27, pipeline RoW and transmission power line/three root wad revetments in place along left bank at pipeline/approximately UElb26 11U 677574 5656503 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R MC -- R 207 R 5 - 10 220 m of armouring removed between pipeline RoW and Hwy. 22 bridge/replacement riprap in place at bridge and pipeline (left bank) UElb27 11U 678141 5657081 previous site with increased disturbance Pugging n/a 30 10 L G -- pugging disturbance has increased by approximately 10 m/disturbance is now in snye habitat, off mainstem

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 13 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Location (UTM NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Site Type Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

UElb28 11U 679950 5657874 new site Pipeline RoW n/a 5 2 L MD -- pipeline RoW is maintained to preclude mature trees or functional riparian habitat

UElb29 11U 682491 5658315 new site Riprap 1 73 5 - 7 LB D -- replacement armouring presumed with apparent loss at downstream end riprap has been extended an additional 45 m and a cobble/gravel berm has been constructed downstream, further UElb30 11U 682778 5658276 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Cobble Berm 1 155 5 - 20 L MC / R -- extending the disturbance by 70 m bridge has been removed and right bank has been armoured with riprap/cobble/gravel berm has been constructed at UElb31 11U 683684 5657888 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Cobble Berm 0.5 - 1 160 5 - 10 R MC -- the top end of the riprap/some root wads have been incorporated into the riprap bridge has been removed and right bank has been armoured with riprap/some root wads have been incorporated into UElb32 11U 683773 5657800 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 75 2 - 5 R MC -- riprap UElb33 11U 685758 5657110 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 5 5 R MC 6 some loss of riprap observed and disturbance is no longer in vicinity of the active channel length of riprap has been increased to a length of approximately 300 m/gabion wall has failed over approximately UElb34 11U 686437 5657237 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Gabions 0.5 - 1 455 3 - 10 L MC -- 100 m downstream/some brush layering has been incorporated into the riprap additions three automobiles, presumably embedded in the bank, have washed into the river/riprap (sandstone) immediately UElb35 11U 687613 5656920 new site Riprap/Automobiles 0.5 100 1 - 5 L G -- downstream remains in place UElb36 11U 688502 5656652 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 35 2 R MC -- site no longer in active channel

UElb37 11U 689720 5656491 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 90 5 R MC 3 riprap lost over approximately 90 m distance at upstream and downstream ends of the site Riprap/Coconut riprap loss evident over entire length and disturbance no longer in mainstem but is within side channel/some new UElb38 11U 691420 5655677 previous site with increased disturbance 0.5 - 1 163 5 R MC / R -- Matting/Revetments armouring has been installed at upstream end of disturbance UElb39 11U 693194 5655353 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap/Revetment 0.5 - 1 150 1 - 5 R G / R -- approximately 170 m of riprap removed at the downstream end of disturbance/disturbance no longer in active channel

L 75, L 15 - 30, replacement riprap has been installed along both approaches to Hwy 8 bridge/although disturbance is deeper, it is UElb40 11U 693466 5655342 previous site with armouring failure Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R G / R -- R 60 R 10 shorter in length compared to 2006 approximately 130 m of riprap failed near the upstream end of disturbance/concrete debris and new riprap has been UElb41 11U 693574 5655300 previous site with armouring failure Riprap/Groynes 0.5 - 2 398 5 - 10 R G / R -- added near downstream end to increase height and depth of armouring UElb42 11U 693621 5655263 new site Concrete Debris 0.5 - 2 167 5 - 10 L D -- concrete debris armouring bank adjacent to residence

UElb43 11U 694005 5654951 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 115 5 - 10 R D -- approximately 35 m of riprap removed/some concrete debris added

UElb44 11U 694371 5654629 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 70 2 - 5 R G / R -- approximately 330 m of riprap removed and disturbance no longer on mainstem (side channel)

UElb45 11U 694560 5654607 previous site with armouring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 55 2 - 10 L MD -- no armouring remains bank stabilization and plantings (5 m) observed at upstream end, presumably to restore slumping bank immediately Bank Restoration/Storm Drain upstream from a storm drain outlet (5 m)/gabions extend approximately (12 m) downstream and end adjacent to riprap UElb46 11U 696119 5654545 new site n/a 107 1 - 5 L D -- Outlet tied into a cribwall with brush layering and planting above (85 m)/anchored instream large woody debris observed adjacent to restoration site UElb47 11U 698441 5653570 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Storm Drain Outlet 0.5 - 1 29 5 - 15 L MD -- riprap has been added to storm drain outlet extending disturbance approximately 35 m

UElb48 11U 698817 5653340 previous site with no discernible change Collapsed Bank n/a 100 n/a L G -- no discernible change in bank slump L 30, UElb49 11U 698912 5653105 previous site with armouring failure Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 2 L/R G -- riprap and concrete debris have been removed/cobble berm at both approaches remain R 40 UElb50 11U 699438 5653064 previous site no longer on active channel Silt Fence n/a 30 n/a R MC -- site no longer in active channel

UElb51 11U 699703 5653339 previous site with no discernible change Storm Drain Outlet n/a 5 n/a L MD / G -- no new armouring observed

UElb52 11U 700240 5652756 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 50 1 - 5 L/R MD / G -- armouring on right bank has been extended approximately 35 m upstream from bridge location, over pipeline RoW

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 14 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Figure 3. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Elbow River, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 15 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

3.2 Sheep River

Fifty-four disturbances were encountered within the Sheep River Reach in 2016 (Table 4, Figure 5), compared to the 30 identified during the original inventory (Popowich and Eisler, 2007). Among the Project reaches that were included in the scope of the original inventory (i.e., the Upper Elbow River, Highwood River and Sheep River reaches), the Sheep River Reach had the largest increase in cumulative length of disturbance within active channels. The total length of disturbances encountered in 2016 (10,091 m) was 38% greater than that observed in 2006 (6,255 m). Forty-three of the 54 sites encountered in 2016 (80%) consisted predominantly or exclusively of hard armouring. Other disturbance types included exposed pipeline crossings, water intake locations, and cattle pugging.

Most of the increase in total disturbance length in 2016 resulted from the 24 new sites (Figure 4 and Figure 5) (Appendix A, Plate 13, Plate 14, and Plate 15). These new sites were generally clustered in distribution and located in proximity to private residences and/or public infrastructure within the towns of Turner Valley, Black Diamond, and (Figure 4). Large increases in disturbance footprints were also observed at some sites previously identified during the original inventory. For example, the length of armouring adjacent to the Foothills Lions Centennial Park in the Town of Black Diamond increased from 30 m in 2006 to 430 m in 2016. This extension occurred both upstream and downstream from the original location, presumably for flood protection of the nearby campground, adjacent residential areas, and the right bank adjacent to the Hwy. 22 bridge crossing. At other sites where existing disturbance footprints were increased, the length of disturbances were occasionally decreased (i.e., presumably through a loss of armouring) but replacement and/or supplemental armouring had been installed to a greater depth than was observed in 2006, thereby resulting in a comparatively larger footprint (e.g., S42) (Appendix A, Plate 16 and Plate 17). Combined, the cumulative lengths of new sites and sites with increased disturbance represented more than 75% of the disturbances encountered in 2016 and resulted in an increase in the proportion of riparian habitat disturbance over the entire reach length from 6.4% in 2006 up to 10.3% in 2016.

Of the 30 disturbances observed in 2006 (Popowich and Eisler, 2007), five were observed to have no discernible change in 2016. Only four disturbances were noted as having some degree (i.e., ranging from moderate to complete) of armouring failure (Table 4), although the combined length of these sites was more than 1,400 m (Appendix A, Plate 18). As in the Upper Elbow River Reach, channel avulsions were frequently encountered in the Sheep River and resulted in abandonment of nine previously identified disturbances in habitat that were no longer adjacent to the mainstem or active side channels during the 2016 traverse (Appendix A, Plate 19). One site (S54) (Appendix A, Plate 20) was observed to have had substantial riparian recovery since the original inventory, while eight new and/or existing armoured sites were observed to either include bio-engineering components (i.e., to complement hard armouring features) or had discernible patches of naturalized revegetation.

In 2016, considerable changes were observed in this reach’s three most prominent existing disturbances, as originally defined in 2006 (Popowich and Eisler, 2007). Of the more than 1,000 m of armouring observed during the original inventory along the right and left banks adjacent to the to the Turner Valley Gas Plant (S2), only 766 m of armouring remained on the left bank in 2016 and none remained on the right bank. Approximately 160 m of armouring failure was also noted at the site adjacent to Riverbend Campground (S46), although the active channel had also migrated a considerable distance south from the armouring. The effects of channel migration were also evident at the third notable location (S42), as nearly 500 m of this site’s armoured bank had been abandoned by

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 16 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada flow (Appendix A, Plate 21 and Plate 22). Since the 2013 flood, however, replacement and supplemental armouring had occurred in a portion of this site which remained in an active channel. Armouring was also encountered at nearby new sites S43 and S44. These two, along with two other new sites (S30 and S32) accounted for the four new sites encountered within the Town of Okotoks. These new sites, along with those previously identified sites within the town that remained in active channels in 2016, totalled a combined length of 2,922 m in 2016, up from 2,796 m in 2006.

No specific restoration opportunities were identified within the Sheep River reach. However, it is expected that supplemental application of bio-engineering elements to any or all the new or existing hard armoured sites not already including these features may be a suitable option.

Figure 4. Relative Proportion of Disturbance Types Documented in the Sheep River, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 17 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Table 4. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Sheep River, 2016

Location (UTM; NAD83)1 Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Site Type Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

L 470, L 24 - 40, riprap along left bank installed to protect water treatment plan, extends to and immediately downstream from S1 11U 692476 5616232 new site Riprap 1 L/R MD 13 R 330 R 7 - 23 bridge/riprap along right bank, occurs upstream and immediately downstream from bridge no armouring remains along right bank/some riprap loss suspected at downstream extent on left bank although some S2 11U 692657 5616392 previous site with armoring failure Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 766 6 - 16 L MD / R 18 remains with successful vegetation growth in areas, large sections of new riprap observed on left bank S3 11U 693491 5617523 previous site with no discernible change Silt Fence n/a 0 0 R MC -- silt fence no longer present/no discernible change in bank erosion

S4 11U 693915 5617488 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 170 5 - 30 L D -- riprap protecting infrastructure, earthworks and Hwy. 22

S5 11U 694077 5617587 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 160 0 R MD -- no riprap observed and site is no longer in active channel

S6 11U 694414 5617859 previous site no longer on active channel Exposed Pipe n/a 0 n/a n/a MD -- no evidence of pipeline crossing at river

S7 11U 694532 5618000 previous site no longer on active channel Exposed Pipe n/a 0 n/a n/a MD -- no evidence of pipeline crossing at river length of riprap has been extended approximately 155 m downstream, although much of armouring is no longer in active S8 11U 694394 5618184 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 290 5 - 10 L G / R -- channel as channel has migrated south from site cobble and gravel pile observed outside wetted width within flood plain adjacent to flow/suspected remnants of channel S9 11U 694780 5618304 new site Cobble Pile n/a 85 9 R None -- excavation no loss of riprap suspected although the armouring at this site has been encompassed by new armouring footprint S10 11U 694720 5618518 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 52 5 R MD / R -- extending upstream from bridge crossing downstream new riprap in place at previous site but extended upstream to protect campground and downstream through and beyond S11 11U 694648 5618753 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 1 430 15 - 25 R MD -- the bridge/no riprap on left bank at this location S12 11U 694615 5618834 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 110 10 - 12 L G -- riprap installed on left bank adjacent to Range Road 24A brush layering is successful and root wads are included

S13 11U 694852 5619055 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 1 480 10 - 25 R MD -- riprap extended over 460 m in length and depth/some brush layering is included

S14 11U 695174 5619578 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 54 13 L G -- riprap installed along left bank in front of residence/site is no longer on active channel but within side channel habitat

S15 11U 695291 5619776 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 105 1 - 5 L S / G -- riprap on left bank protecting livestock crossing and road/some plantings included and appear successful riprap (175 m) installed on right bank immediately upstream from a cobble berm (65 m) suspected to be the remnants of S16 11U 697273 5622217 new site Riprap/Cobble Berm 0.5 - 1 240 1 - 50 R D 14 channel excavation S17 11U 697111 5622294 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 185 4 - 6 L S -- riprap along left bank downslope from residence

S18 11U 697108 5622373 previous site with no discernible change Fence n/a 60 1 L G -- no discernible change in bank erosion

S19 11U 697223 5623035 new site Concrete n/a 50 1 - 5 L D -- concrete columns (horizontal) installed on top of left bank near residence

S20 11U 697651 5623407 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 2 195 15 - 20 R MC 19 site no longer in active channel as channel has migrated approximately 130 m north of disturbance

S21 11U 697775 5623697 new site Concrete 0.5 80 1 - 3 R D -- sections of concrete debris embedded in right bank/expect more was present but was removed by flood

S22 11U 704765 5622358 new site Riprap 1 47 2 R D -- riprap in place along right bank in front of fence and residence

S23 11U 704843 5622378 new site Pugging n/a 3 3 R D -- pugging at cattle access on right bank

S24 11U 705877 5622433 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 2 75 5 R MD / R -- disturbance increased by approximately 50 m in length although some loss of armouring is suspected throughout area

S25 11U 707767 5622736 previous site no longer on active channel Pugging n/a 60 5 - 10 L G -- channel has migrated south from disturbance

S26 11U 708704 5622582 new site Riprap 0.5 -1 106 6 - 8 L D 15 riprap installed on left bank adjacent to residence

S27 11U 709116 5622854 new site Pugging n/a 2 4 L D -- pugging at cattle access

S28 11U 710147 5622847 previous site no longer on active channel Exposed Pipe n/a 0 n/a R MC / R -- pipeline not observed

S29 11U 710364 5622869 new site Water Intake n/a 3 3 R Rock -- intake and impoundment in side channel habitat

S30 11U 711597 5623635 new site Riprap/Groynes 0.5 - 1 170 5 - 15 R MD -- riprap and groynes installed downstream from cliff face

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 18 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Location (UTM; NAD83)1 Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Site Type Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

riprap and concrete debris and blocks along rail berm/second riprap berm adjacent/concrete blocks in channel diverting S31 12U 288338 5623849 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Concrete 1 275 10 - 30 L MD -- flow from rail berm/total length of overlapping elements is approximately 275 m/length remains the same as previously documented but depth of disturbance has increased S32 12U 288688 5623654 new site Cobble Berm n/a 275 25 R D -- channel has been graded to create cobble/gravel berm approximately 40 m from riparian vegetation to create right bank

S33 12U 288674 5623507 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 60 1 - 5 R MC / R -- riprap is no longer in active channel, now behind cobble berm

L 70, L 5 - 10, riprap along right bank occurs at and downstream from bridge and through outfall/rip rap present immediately upstream S34 12U 289493 5623203 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R D -- R 80 R 5 - 10 from bridge on left bank/length of footprint increased by approximately 20 m on left bank and 30 m on right bank some loss (37 m) of riprap on right bank suspected and channel has migrated north, much of previous armouring now in R 363, L 3 - 5, R S35 12U 290273 5623277 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Groynes 0.5 - 1 L/R R -- side channel or abandoned channel habitat/armouring on left bank (riprap and groynes) has been extended 455 m L 730 5 - 20 downstream/some vegetation growing within the riprap replacement riprap has been installed although no discernible change in footprint/disturbance now occurs in side channel S36 12U 290292 5623111 previous site with no discernible change Riprap 0.5 150 5 - 10 R D -- habitat S37 12U 290311 5622895 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 12 5 - 7 L/R D -- riprap on both abutments to pedestrian bridge at confluence of tributary and side channel of Sheep River

S38 12U 290310 5622885 previous site with no discernible change Riprap 0.5 - 2 150 20 R G -- coconut matting no longer present/no discernible change to disturbance L 42, L 5, S39 12U 290607 5622611 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 2 L/R G -- left bank armouring increased by approximately 15 m length/armouring on right bank inclusive of outfall R 230 R 15 S40 12U 290931 5622393 previous site no longer on active channel Eroded Trail n/a 234 n/a L MD -- no discernible change in bank erosion/trail no longer visible

L 60, L 8 - 13, armouring on right bank has been extended approximately 210 m from bridge, upstream to outfall, large infilling of bank S41 12U 291613 5622118 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 2 L/R D -- R 265 R 16 - 31 areas particularly downstream of bridge noted/armouring on left bank has been replaced but only 10 m increase in length

16, 17, active channel has migrated south, resulting in previously documented disturbance no longer being in active channel/ S42 12U 291736 5622242 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 220 10 - 30 L G / R 21, 22 new armouring has been installed on active channel riprap on right bank approach has been installed upstream and downstream from bridge, but upslope from functional R 235, R 10 - 25, riparian area/left bank armouring occurs upstream and downstream from bridge, downstream from the bridge two tiers of S43 12U 292005 5622264 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 R/L D -- L 410 L 15 - 30 armouring installed with vegetation between/no previous disturbance on left bank but with substantial channel avulsion occurring since, new armouring has been installed on the current channel S44 12U 292435 562205 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 60 6 L D -- riprap installed on left bank of side channel habitat

armouring is largely removed and channel has migrated approximately 70 m to north/willows are thriving in previous right S45 12U 292643 5621727 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 40 5 R S -- bank/armouring location cobble berm with some riprap has been constructed adjacent to campground/approximately 200 m of berm (upstream S46 12U 292857 5621797 previous site with armoring failure Cobble Berm/Riprap 0.5 - 1 630 3 - 6 L D -- extent) is no longer on active channel which has migrated south/footprint is approximately 330 m shorter than previously due to channel migration S47 12U 293997 5621157 new site Cobble Berm n/a 730 5 - 7 L D -- berm has been constructed on top of left bank adjacent to golf course

S48 12U 294432 5620986 previous site with no discernible change Exposed Pipe n/a 0 n/a L D -- exposed pipe still occurs but has been covered by cobble berm (site S47)

S49 12U 294615 5620969 new site Concrete n/a 23 1 - 3 L D -- concrete blocks have been embedded into left bank to support water pump station

S50 12U 294860 5620885 previous site with armoring failure Riprap n/a 0 0 R G / MD -- no riprap observed

S51 12U 295808 5621233 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 480 3 - 10 R D -- riprap on right bank adjacent to residences/some vegetation present within riprap R 145, armouring at right bank occurs upstream and at Hwy. 2 bridge while armouring on left bank occurs at the bridge and S52 12U 296447 5621770 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 8 - 10 L/R D / G -- L 95 downstream S53 12U 297164 5622871 new site Deck n/a 14 2 L D -- deck with pilings suspended above eroded bank

S54 12U 298626 5624885 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 75 0 R MC / R 20 pugging no longer evident and natural revegetation observed

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 19 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Figure 5. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Sheep River, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 20 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

3.3 Highwood River

In addition to the 52 disturbances identified in the Highwood River Reach during the original inventory (Popowich and Eisler, 2007), 30 new sites were also encountered in 2016 (Table 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Combined, the length of all disturbances encountered within active channels of the reach in 2016 (i.e., from new sites, previous sites with increased disturbance, previous sites with no discernible change and previous sites with armouring failure) totalled 7,730 m. This is 1,693 m (12%) greater than the length of all disturbances observed in 2006, a proportion which is actually under-represented given that approximately 1,200 m of armouring failure and armouring abandonment in non-active channels also occurred since 2006.

Forty-two of the 82 sites encountered in 2016 (51%) were comprised of hard armouring features. This proportion is lowest in comparison to all other Project reaches, most likely because the Highwood River reach intersects only one urban centre, the Town of , and has a comparatively longer component length associated with rural landscapes where other disturbance types are more common. Cattle pugging represented the majority of non-armouring disturbance types encountered in the reach, although irrigation intakes and river access points were also observed in 2016.

Three new armouring sites were encountered within the Town of High River in 2016, as compared to observations from the original inventory (Popowich and Eisler, 2007), bringing the total number of armouring sites within the town to eleven. The total length of armouring from these 11 sites is 3,167 m, a length which is 28% greater than that observed in 2006. This increased length is considerable, especially when considering that four of the 11 sites exhibited some armouring failure since the original inventory. At site H24 (Appendix A, Plate 23), for example, approximately 362 m of armouring adjacent to a golf course and condominium complex was removed from the right and left banks. In comparison, 533 m of new armouring was encountered at site H26 (Appendix A, Plate 24), where it infilled the footprint of a decommissioned railway crossing (i.e., removed following the 2013 flood) and was associated with a constructed berm extending downstream along the right bank approach, downstream from the Hwy. 2A bridge.

More sites categorized as having discernible riparian recovery were observed in the Highwood River than in either the Upper Elbow River and Sheep River reaches. This trend was most evident downstream from the Town of High River, where the reach primarily passes through agricultural lands. Each of the 12 sites defined as having cattle pugging as a disturbance type in this reach in 2006 were observed to have recovered substantially in 2016 (Appendix A, Plate 25 and Plate 26), although it was not confirmed whether this was a result of concerted restoration efforts, change in land use practices, or an artefact of natural events limiting livestock access. Only one new cattle pugging site was encountered this year. Other sites that showed riparian recovery included, among others, H65 which was composed exclusively of hard armouring elements in 2006 (Appendix A, Plate 27). Although successful revegetation was noted at several sites where armouring comprised the main disturbance type, instream enhancement features (root wads or revetments) were incorporated into only three of these 42 sites.

Recommended restoration opportunities within this reach include the potential application of ‘softening’ bio-engineering elements to hard armoured sites, particularly in the Town of High River. Alternatively, a potential restoration site (H74/RO3) associated with naturally occurring bank erosion, instability, and loss of riparian habitat was also observed during the crew’s traverse of the reach (Table 5). This site

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 21 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada occurred along the right bank of mainstem habitat, immediately downstream from the Hwy. 552 crossing (Appendix A, Plate 28) and consisted of a section of bank measuring approximately 50 m in length which was presumably damaged by the 2013 flood. Given the location and site characteristics, it was perceived to be an ideal location for the application of bioengineered bank and vegetation recovery techniques. Land adjacent to the site appeared to be privately owned and although no cattle were observed in the area at the time of survey, it could be used for livestock grazing. Given the proximity to the Bow River, it is expected that enhancement of this site could improve holding and feeding habitat potential for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta).

Figure 6. Relative Proportion of Disturbance Types Documented in the Highwood River, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 22 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Table 5. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Highwood River, 2016

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Site Type Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

H1 11U 695721 5600516 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 115 15 LB D -- riprap protecting well site location retaining wall and most of riprap failed, new armouring placed behind (south) previous disturbance location/active channel H2 11U 695742 5600488 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 65 3 R G / MD -- has migrated 45 m north/disturbance approximately 15 m shorter than previous disturbance L 40, L 3, riprap along right bridge abutment has been replaced, footprint has increased by 17 m on right bank and decreased by H3 11U 696038 5600421 previous site with increased disturbance Concrete/Gabion/Riprap 0.5 - 1 L/R G / MD -- R 72 R 7 8 m on left bank H4 11U 696246 5600030 new site Riprap/Groyne and J Hook 0.5 - 1 67 3 - 7 L G -- riprap and groyne and two J hook (instream) armouring structures to protect property/some root wads place above riprap

H5 11U 696348 5599774 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 72 2 L G -- thin row of armouring rock within side channel habitat/mainstem is 48 m south

H6 11U 708889 5601465 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 15 2 - 5 R MD / R -- substantial riprap loss (25 m length) and channel has migrated 140 m north/riprap remaining is in backchannel habitat

H7 11U 709185 5601796 new site Pugging n/a 160 20 R D / S -- extensive bank damage from cattle access/watering

R 10, R 3, H8 11U 711499 5604012 new site Pump Intake/Pugging n/a L/R D -- left bank has been altered for access of large pump/ right bank damaged by cattle pugging L 12 L 3 some loss of riprap at the outer downstream edge of armoured inlet to irrigation canal headgates/replacement riprap H9 12U 287500 5604421 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 20 5 - 7 R MD -- presumed to have been installed groyne has failed, although remnants of armouring remain across the active wetted width of the side channel/bank erosion H10 12U 288824 5604974 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 1 45 10 R G -- behind and downstream bank reconstruction and sandstone riprap placed to plug previous side channel/gravel berm extended upstream but H11 12 U 288938 5604960 new site Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 179 3 - 5 L G -- behind functional riparian habitat for further flood protection of agricultural land H12 12U 288879 5604397 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 323 3 - 10 R G -- riprap along right bank adjacent to agriculture activity/some root wads incorporated

H13 12U 290085 5604645 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 35 3 - 5 L D -- riprap along left bank upstream from residence L 0.3 - 0.5, R 235, R 7 - 10, some loss of riprap suspected on right banks, although modifications and additions are also suspected - substantial H14 12U 290203 5604441 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap L/R D -- R 0.5 - 1 L 67 L 5 - 7 channel avulsion in the area/left bank armouring has been extended by 23 m approximately 265 m loss of armouring noted/disturbance is no longer in active channel but adjacent to side channel H15 12U 291103 5604851 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap 0.5 - 1 68 5 - 10 R MD -- habitat R 8, R 4, gravel and cobble pile located on gravel bar adjacent to water intake location/pile presumed result of channel excavation H16 12U 291027 5605471 new site Gravel Berm/Pump Intake n/a L/R G -- L 8 L 4 for sump/left bank has been cleared for large pump intake housing H17 12U 291135 5605730 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 15 n/a L G -- no recent cattle access suspected/riparian area and bank erosion partially recovered and revegetated

H18 12U 292074 5606337 previous site with no discernible change Fencing n/a 30 n/a L G -- site no longer on active channel/channel has migrated approximately 200 m south

H19 12U 292951 5606072 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 695 5 - 10 R G / MD -- approximately 90 m increase in footprint along with some modifications to armouring elements suspected

H20 12U 294130 5607110 new site Riprap 1 175 12 - 15 L G -- riprap along left bank protecting residences behind and downstream

H21 12U 294290 5607056 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 71 10 L MD -- riprap along left bank protecting residences footprint increased by approximately 110 m, inclusive of new armouring at outfall and adjacent to houses upstream from H22 12U 294508 5607197 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 720 5 - 10 L R -- previous footprint/some vegetation success within riprap H23 12U 295302 5607586 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 158 2 - 5 L G / MD -- some armouring failure with riprap loss in length and depth although some modifications have also been made

L 0.5 - 1, L 440, L 5 - 10, H24 12U 295737 5607468 previous site with armoring failure Riprap L/R MD 23 substantial loss of riprap noted on both left and right banks R 0.5 - 1 R 163 R 5 - 10

H25 12U 296179 5607151 new site Riprap 1 152 16 L S -- new riprap placed immediately downstream from previous site for protection of residence L 0.5 - 1, L 357, L 2 - 14, replacement and new armouring placed upstream from bridge (rail bridge removal location on left bank) and downstream H26 12U 296333 5607427 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap/Gabion L/R G 24 R 0.5 - 1 R 533 R 2 - 7 from irrigation canal headgates (right bank), extending along berm within and behind riparian area H27 12U 296894 5607616 previous site with no discernible change Riprap 0.5 - 1 10 2 - 5 L MD -- riprap along left bank adjacent to hydrometric station

H28 12U 296729 5607788 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 1 85 2 - 5 L R -- some loss of armouring noted in length and depth

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 23 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Site Type Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

H29 12U 296661 5608116 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 227 2 - 6 L MD -- footprint increased in length but some loss of riprap noted over full length

H30 12U 296552 5608595 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 76 1 - 5 L R -- length and depth of riprap reduced as armouring loss obvious

H31 12U 297784 5609301 previous site with armoring failure Riprap/Groyne 0.5 30 10 R G -- some loss of riprap noted on pipeline RoW

H32 12U 297757 5609356 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 53 9 R G -- armouring along right bank at Hwy. 2A bridge

H33 12U 297656 5609537 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 253 10 - 12 L G -- armouring along left bank adjacent to agricultural land

H34 12U 298374 5610982 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 175 0 L G -- no recent cattle access suspected/riparian area and bank erosion partially recovered and revegetated

H35 12U 298448 5611569 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 1 1 2 R G -- riprap adjacent to pump intake nearly completely removed

H36 12U 298406 5611711 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 315 0 L G -- no recent cattle access suspected/riparian area and bank erosion partially recovered and revegetated

H37 12U 298699 5612219 previous site with riparian recovery Erosion n/a 180 0 R G -- riparian area and bank erosion partially recovered and revegetated

H38 12U 298669 5612930 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 123 0 L G -- no recent cattle access suspected/riparian area and bank erosion partially recovered and revegetated R 15, R 5, water intake still located on right bank and minimal recovery noted/on left bank no recent cattle access suspected/riparian H39 12U 298274 5613488 previous site with riparian recovery Irrigation Pipe/Pugging n/a L/R G -- L 0 L 0 area and bank erosion partially recovered and revegetated H40 12U 297458 5613627 new site Pugging n/a 54 5 R S -- pugging resulting on right bank from cattle access

H41 12U 297041 5614428 new site Pugging n/a 47 6 L G -- pugging and cattle trails along left bank

H42 12U 297339 5614570 previous site with no discernible change Fencing n/a 0 n/a L G -- fence no longer present

H43 12U 297465 5614565 new site Pugging n/a 6 3 L S -- pugging and cattle trails along left bank

H44 12U 297328 5615526 previous site with no discernible change Pugging n/a 20 30 L G -- although some re-vegetation evident, bank sloughing still present/cattle access still possible L 25, L 3, H45 12U 297872 5615721 previous site with no discernible change Concrete/Riprap 0.5 - 1 L/R G / MD -- rail bridge/some loss of armouring along left bank suspected (minimal)/no loss detected along left bank R 53 R 2 - 7 H46 12U 298031 5616076 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 96 5 - 10 R MD / G -- approximately 35 m of new armouring length added to footprint Machine Activity/Bank and H47 12U 297656 5616301 new site n/a 8 3 R S -- river access created for fording/machinery track on banks and bed noted Bed Disturbance H48 12U 297720 5616677 new site Pugging n/a 63 6 L S -- cattle pugging and trails along left bank

H49 12U 297720 5616677 new site Pugging n/a 7 4 L S -- cattle pugging and trails along left bank

H50 12U 297717 5616896 previous site with no discernible change Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 34 8 - 10 L G -- no discernible change observed

H51 12U 297764 5616942 previous site with no discernible change Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 64 8 - 10 L G -- minimal loss observed/vegetation successful within riprap

H52 12U 298247 5617153 new site Riprap 0.5 144 3 - 5 R G -- riprap with incorporated root wads

H53 12U 297968 5617335 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.3 18 8 L G -- riprap (river rock) placed at previous cattle pugging location/some revegetation success concrete abutment remains, without associated riprap previously observed/abutment is now approximately 30 m south H54 12U 298171 5617506 previous site with armoring failure Concrete n/a 10 2 L G -- from left bank (within active channel) H55 12U 297255 5618611 previous site no longer on active channel Riprap n/a 10 0 R S -- disturbance previously identified is no longer in active channel/no riprap remains and riparian recovery has started

H56 12U 297242 5618729 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 0.5 - 2 160 5 - 8 L G / R -- riprap (concrete slabs) at residence/some loss of armouring discernible, although footprint length remains the same

H57 12U 297421 5619231 new site Water Intake/Outlet n/a 6 3 R S -- bank and riparian area cleared for water intake and release infrastructure

H58 12U 297289 5619127 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 200 0 L G -- cattle pugging and bank erosion previously document/riparian recovery observed

H59 12U 297699 5619483 new site Water Intake/Outlet n/a 6 4 R S -- riparian area influenced by water intake infrastructure

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 24 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Site Type Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

L 40, L 4 - 6, riprap and concrete at Hwy. 547 crossing only present in association with abutment on right bank/no riprap armouring H60 12U 297744 5620030 previous site with no discernible change Concrete/Riprap 0.5 - 1 L/R S -- R 40 R 4 - 8 along left bank

H61 12U 298152 5620219 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 30 n/a R MD / G 25 cattle pugging and bank erosion previously documented/riparian recovery observed

bridge pillar, irrigation pipe previously documented on right bank/no discernible change to bridge pillar or exposed H62 12U 298355 5620317 previous site with riparian recovery Concrete n/a 5 n/a n/a S -- pipe/some riparian recovery observed

H63 12U 298956 5621255 previous site with increased disturbance Water Intake/Outlet n/a 14 8 R G -- washed-out pipe previously documented/site now occupied by water intake infrastructure

H64 12U 298985 5621646 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 75 0 L S -- cattle pugging and bank erosion previously documented/riparian recovery observed

H65 12U 298962 5622180 previous site with riparian recovery Riprap 0.5 - 2 35 5 - 10 R G / MD 27 riprap on right bank appears unaltered/some riparian revegetation observed above and within riprap

H66 12U 299352 5622840 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 9 2 R MC -- some discernible loss of riprap protecting access road and irrigation pipe observed

H67 12U 299266 5623823 new site Pugging n/a 33 14 R S -- cattle pugging and bank erosion observed at new location

H68 12U 298686 5625998 previous site with armoring failure Riprap 0.5 - 1 2 4 R MC -- some loss of riprap protecting concrete structure on right bank evident

H69 12U 299481 5625973 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 15 0 L/R MD 26 cattle pugging and bank erosion previously documented/riparian recovery has started

H70 12U 299976 5626745 new site Pugging n/a 7 4 R S -- cattle pugging and bank erosion observed at new location

H71 12U 300155 5626982 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 20 0 R G / MD -- cattle pugging and bank erosion previously documented/riparian recovery has started

H72 12U 300530 5628636 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 6 3 L G -- cattle pugging and bank erosion previously documented/riparian recovery has started

H73 12U 300334 5629281 new site Pugging n/a 14 12 L MD -- cattle pugging and bank erosion observed at new location

H74 12U 300806 5629449 new site Pugging n/a 15 10 R S -- cattle pugging and bank erosion observed at new location L10, H75 12U 301076 5629522 previous site with armoring failure Concrete n/a 45 L/R G / MD -- concrete and riprap previously documented at Hwy. 552 crossing/no riprap remains R 0 H76/RO3 12U 302152 5629754 new site Bank Erosion n/a 50 5 R G 28 potential restoration site/revegetation and bio-engineering bank stability measures possible

H77 12U 303158 5630319 previous site with riparian recovery Pugging n/a 20 0 R MC -- cattle pugging and bank erosion previously documented/riparian recovery has started

H78 12U 303656 5632231 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 2 395 8 - 12 L G / MD -- previous armouring has been extended 285 m upstream from previous upstream extent

H79 12U 303750 5632115 new site Riprap 0.5 - 1 540 5 - 10 L G -- gravel berm with some armouring elements constructed between river and campground

H80 12U 304294 5632122 new site Campground/ Access n/a 125 8 L MD -- bank erosion associated with campground sites and river access

H81 12U 304321 5632230 previous site with increased disturbance Riprap 0.5 - 1 15 5 L MD -- riprap on left bank has been supplemented with new armouring and expanded in length and depth

H82 12U 304294 5632422 previous site no longer on active channel OHV tracks n/a 0 n/a n/a MD -- OHV tracks previous documented in river adjacent to campground/no evidence of OHV travel observed

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 25 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Figure 7. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Highwood River, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 26 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

3.4 Upper Bow River

Forty-four of the 52 sites (85%) encountered in the Upper Bow River Reach consisted at least partially of hard armouring elements (Table 6). The remaining eight sites consisted of disturbances which included water intake locations, a refuse debris pile, cattle pugging, and river access sites (i.e., for pedestrian and boat). Where armouring was encountered, it was generally presumed to be intended for erosion protection and typically occurred at locations associated to adjacent railway tracks or near private residences or other private or public infrastructure (e.g., bridges and campgrounds).

The distribution of disturbances within this reach was, at times, sporadic (Figure 8 and Figure 9), given the long expanses of crown land or otherwise undeveloped areas (e.g., First Nation land) occurring between urban centres. In rural locations, the Bow River was largely confined within steep valleys and canyons, thereby further limiting the potential for anthropogenic disturbance types in long stretches of riparian habitat. In contrast, disturbances were more frequently encountered with increased proximity to the towns of Canmore and Cochrane. Thirty-five of the 52 sites in this reach (67%) occurred within the boundaries of these two centres alone, over a combined cumulative distance of only 17.7 km.

The combined length of disturbed riparian habitat in the Upper Bow River Reach was 5,087 m, or 2.8% of the length of riparian habitat within the reach (Table 6). This proportion of disturbance was the lowest of the Project study reaches (i.e., that were traversed) and reflects both the comparatively long length of the reach and relatively fewer disturbances encountered.

Approximately 40% of the reach’s combined length of disturbance resulted from just three sites within the Town of Canmore. Lengths of armouring at sites UBow2 (497 m) UBow4 (484 m); and UBow9 (1,260 m) alone combined to equal 2,241 m (Table 6). At UBow2 (Appendix A, Plate 29 and Plate 30), riprap groynes and a berm have been constructed along the left bank of the mainstem at the western limit of the town site, adjacent to a golf course. Some restorative vegetation has been established to complement the armouring elements; however, it has not yet matured to a point where it offers substantial cover or inputs for fish.

At UBow4 (Appendix A, Plate 31), a berm and associated riprap extended along the left bank of side channel habitat, presumably as flood protection for the town center. Although not in the active mainstem of the Bow River during the traverse, it is expected that the side channel was once the mainstem or has accommodated substantial flows in the recent past.

Armouring at UBow9 consisted of 210 m of riprap on the left bank upstream from, at, and downstream from the Rundle Drive/Bridge Road crossing of the Bow River (Appendix A, Plate 32). Armouring at this site also included a contiguous 1,050 m long segment of riprap along the right bank upstream, through, and downstream from the bridge. Downstream from the bridge, the armouring on the right bank extended through side channel habitat, adjacent to the southern portion of the town. While not included in this site’s armouring total, Site UBow10 (Appendix A, Plate 33) also occurred in the immediate vicinity, at the upstream end of a vegetated island between the two channels. Site UBow11, also nearby, consisted of armouring and occurs in the right channel, adjacent to a public green space.

Limited evidence of bio-engineering at armouring sites was observed in this reach. Only a single hard armoured site (i.e., UBow2) contained some bio-engineering elements. In contrast, site UBow50, at the western edge of the Town of Cochrane is suspected to be a bio-engineering-based response to a bank slumping event. Occurring over a distance of approximately 54 m along the left bank, vegetated mats

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 27 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada and riparian plantings appear to have effectively re-established bank stability downslope from a railway line and between two drainage outlets.

Evidence of armouring failure, along with disturbances that did not occur on active channels were also observed in this reach; however, since there was no comparative baseline information available for reference, quantification of these characteristics was not possible.

The most opportune location for restoration works identified by the crew occurred in the Town of Canmore, along the left bank immediately downstream from a former railway crossing which has been converted to a pedestrian bridge. In this area, restoration site RO4 coincides with an approximate 50 m section of substantial erosion and bank instability. The erosion and instability presumably resulted from recent high flows and offered limited instream and overhead cover for fish at the time of observation but is a suspected source of sediment input during flooding and precipitation events. Given the site’s proximity to a pedestrian trail system, it was at risk of becoming an undesignated river access point and being further degraded by foot traffic. It is anticipated that this location may be a candidate for future flood protection mitigation but would be a suitable site for instream and bank bio-engineering approaches.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 28 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Table 6. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Bow River, 2016

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

UBow1 11U 612883 5664808 Riprap 0.5 - 1 23 12 L S -- riprap armouring left bank adjacent to railway tracks

UBow2 11U 613437 5663664 Riprap/Groynes 0.5 - 1 497 3 - 10 L MC 29, 30 three groynes and berm with armouring adjacent to golf course/some vegetation/planting success observed

UBow3 11U 613543 5662864 Riprap 0.5 9 4 L MC -- armouring occurring within side channel habitat adjacent to pedestrian pathway

UBow4 11U 613851 5661789 Riprap/Berm 0.5 484 3 - 5 L MC 31 berm with riprap armouring on side channel habitat adjacent to pedestrian pathway

UBow5 11U 613909 5661373 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 13 6 R MC -- riprap armouring transmission pole on right bank

UBow6 11U 614163 5661443 Riprap/Berm 0.5 - 1 183 5 - 8 L MC -- riprap/berm extending along pathway through pedestrian bridge on left bank

UBow7 11U 614140 5661262 Riprap 0.5 - 1 18 10 R MC -- riprap and concrete at pedestrian bridge on right bank restoration opportunity observed on left bank immediately downstream from pedestrian bridge/bank slumping resulting from flood erosion RO4 11U 614212 5661118 Erosion n/a 50 5 L MC -- over 30 m length/bank restoration methods possible UBow8 11U 614292 5660910 Riprap 1 110 8 - 10 R MC -- riprap armouring peninsula extending from right bank

R 210, R 5 - 10, riprap and berm on both right and left bank, extending from upstream and downstream from vehicle and pedestrian bridge/armouring on left UBow9 11U 614342 5660780 Riprap 0.3 - 5 R/L MC 32 L 1,050 L 10 - 17 bank in downstream section has evidence of partial failure, while new armouring presumed within upper reaches

UBow10 11U 614534 5660470 Riprap 0.5 - 1 68 6 - 8 R G 33 riprap armouring adjacent pedestrian pathway L 40, UBow11 11U 614546 5660414 Riprap 0.3 - 1.5 3 R/L C -- armouring occurring at the upstream end of and extending 40 m downstream each side of an unpopulated island R 40 UBow12 11U 614559 5660209 Riprap 1 36 9 R G -- riprap armouring right bank adjacent to park area

UBow13 11U 615009 5659592 Riprap 0.5 5 5 - 7 R MC -- armouring of tributary outlet along right bank

UBow14 11U 615309 5659404 Riprap 0.5 - 1 189 4 - 9 L MC -- armouring along left bank adjacent to utility buildings

UBow15 11U 615445 5659268 Berm/Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 195 10 - 14 R G -- berm with riprap armouring undeveloped area adjacent to residences on right bank

UBow16 11U 616833 5658633 Riprap 1 18 6 L S -- armouring at exposed edge of flood protection berm

UBow17 11U 616810 5658234 Riprap/Concrete/Gabions 0.5 - 1 19 9 R MC -- armouring composed of various elements adjacent to outfall

UBow18 11U 617289 5658159 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 17 17 R MC -- armouring of storm-water outfall on right bank upstream from Hwy. 1 bridge L 136, L 2 - 5, armouring extending from upstream of left bank approach at Hwy. 1 bridge with some failure of riprap presumed/concrete under bridge to UBow19 11U 617409 5658243 Riprap/Concrete/Access 0.3 - 0.5 L/R MC -- R 60 R 10 downstream extent/river access, and concrete under right approach at Hwy. 1 bridge UBow20 11U 617615 5658154 Groynes/Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 51 2 - 8 R MC -- five groynes with failing riprap between along right bank adjacent to campground riprap armouring right bank adjacent to campground at Deadman Flats/armouring suspected to have been place for some time with some UBow21 11U 621386 5655963 Riprap 1 97 2 R MC -- failure presumed UBow22 11U 623135 5656839 Riprap 1 - 2 115 4 L MC -- armouring along left bank adjacent to railway

UBow23 11U 624157 5657344 Riprap 0.3 12 2 L S -- armouring associated with two culverts under railway connecting gap lake to mainstem

UBow24 11U 624517 5657598 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 12 10 L MD -- riprap armouring left bank adjacent to railway riprap armouring left bank adjacent to railway/armouring appears to be have been in place for some time with no supplements and some UBow25 11U 626890 5658625 Riprap 0.5 - 1 209 3 L MC -- failure presumed UBow26 11U 627620 5657925 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 32 1 - 5 L S -- riprap and metal pilings armouring left bank at water intake structure

UBow27 11U 628577 5657645 Access n/a 30 6 L S -- boat launch and vehicle access along left bank

UBow28 11U 628857 5657868 Pilings n/a 65 2 R MD -- pilings armouring right bank adjacent to residence across from Exshaw Creek riprap armouring right bank adjacent to Whitefish Day Use Area and adjoining transmission line/armouring appears to have been in place for UBow29 11U 632107 5660101 Riprap 0.5 - 1 214 2 - 4 R S -- some time with some failure presumed

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 29 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

Section Break 11U 632230 5660211 ------Re-start 11U 637702 5664917 ------UBow30 11U 644065 5669277 Pugging n/a 14 3 R C -- bank degradation resulting from cattle pugging on right bank

UBow31 11U 647361 5669104 Pugging n/a 13 7 L G -- bank degradation resulting from cattle pugging on left bank L 45, L4, UBow32 11U 650765 5671300 Concrete n/a R/L S -- concrete footings associated with both right and left bank approaches of the highway bridge crossing at First Nation settlement of Morley R 45 R 4 Section Break 11U 650348 5671330 ------Re-start 11U 660481 5676979 ------UBow33 11U 660520 5676987 Riprap 0.5 - 1 14 4 R G -- riprap armouring adjacent to hydrometric monitoring station

UBow34 11U 664328 5676331 Riprap 0.5 - 1 12 4 L G -- riprap armouring of left bank adjacent to aerial pipeline crossing

UBow35 11U 670912 5676386 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 78 4 R S -- riprap armouring of right bank adjacent to railway L 42, L 26, UBow36 11U 672776 5675152 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 L/R S -- riprap armouring immediate upstream and through double span bridge crossing on left bank/concrete abutment only on right bank R 22 R 13 UBow37 11U 673671 5674343 Riprap 1-2 15 10 L S -- riprap armouring of the left bank at a pipeline RoW

UBow38 11U 673723 5674283 Riprap 1 - 1.5 12 6 L S -- riprap armouring of the left bank adjacent to transmission line crossing

UBow39 11U 674306 5673792 Access n/a 90 12 L G -- riparian disturbance resulting from river access for pedestrians and dogs

L 120, L 10, riprap armouring and concrete on left and right bank abutments of Hwy. 22 bridge/left bank disturbance includes river access adjacent to UBow40 11U 675631 5673168 Riprap 0.5 - 1 L/R MC -- R 13 R 10 parking lot

UBow41 11U 675991 5672856 Riprap 0.5 13 5 L MD -- riprap armouring of left bank adjacent to pedestrian pathway

UBow42 11U 676646 5671974 Riprap 0.5 10 4 L S -- riprap armouring left bank associated with vertical pipe L 22, L 5, riprap armouring of overland runoff outlet and pedestrian bridge crossing on left bank/concrete abutments on approaches of both left and UBow43 11U 677070 5672030 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 L/R MD -- R 14 R 5 right bank at the pedestrian bridge UBow44 11U 677107 5672044 Riprap 0.5 - 1 17 20 R MD -- riprap armouring of overland runoff outlet adjacent to land development on right bank

UBow45 11U 677887 5672224 Riprap 0.5 12 13 L MD -- riprap armouring outfall location on left bank

UBow46 11U 678060 5672161 Riprap 0.5 - 1 12 13 R MD -- riprap armouring outfall location on right bank

UBow47 11U 678495 5673271 Riprap 0.5 - 1 15 3 L MD -- riprap armouring the outlet of drainage ditch

UBow48 11U 678612 5673360 Debris n/a 8 3 L MD -- industrial refuse lining left bank within side channel habitat

UBow49 11U 678854 5673262 Pump Intake/Excavation n/a 8 8 R G -- suspected channel excavation creating a sump for pump intake along right bank presumed bank reconstruction of previous bank slump - notable vegetation success/armouring of drainage outfalls occurs on either side of UBow50 11U 678924 5673313 Bank Reconstruction/Riprap 0.5 54 17 L S -- bank reconstruction UBow51 11U 681224 5670909 Pugging n/a 45 6 R S -- bank degradation resulting from cattle pugging on right bank

UBow52 11U 683600 5669910 Pugging/Riprap 1 65 2 - 12 R MD -- bank degradation resulting from cattle pugging (26 m in length), combined with riprap associated with outlet along right bank

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 30 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Figure 8. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Bow River, 2016 (Map 1 of 2)

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 31 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Figure 9. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Upper Bow River, 2016 (Map 2 of 2)

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 32 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

3.5 Lower Bow River

Of the 26 disturbances encountered in the Lower Bow River Reach in 2016, only 16 were comprised of hard armouring elements (Table 7). This proportion (61%) was second lowest among all other Project reaches (i.e., of those that were traversed), with only the Highwood River Reach being lower. Like the Highwood River Reach, most of the Lower Bow River Reach extended through rural landscapes, where relatively few public and private infrastructure elements occurred. The other 10 disturbances encountered in this reach consisted of cattle pugging, water intake locations, river access sites for boats and pedestrians, and an ongoing bank excavation. Although observed at LBow7, none of the other disturbances in this reach related to flood mitigation contained bio-engineering or other soft armouring elements.

Thirteen of the 26 disturbances in this reach were encountered within the upstream-most 15 km (Figure 10) (i.e., a distance extending through the southern portion of the City of Calgary). There was also a cluster of three disturbances encountered within the downstream-most 1 km of the reach, near the Carseland Weir. Between these segments (i.e., over the remaining 37 km), the other 11 disturbances were sporadically encountered and were typically associated with access points to the Bow River for livestock and boats. As with the Upper Bow River Reach, this segment of the Lower Bow River Reach was confined within steepened valleys with high escarpments, a characteristic that generally limits the potential for anthropogenic riparian disturbances.

A total of 4,065 m of riparian habitat was armoured or otherwise disturbed at the 26 sites encountered in 2016. This represented approximately 3.8% of the entire length of riparian habitat in the reach. The relatively limited frequency and comparative short overall length of disturbances observed in the reach reflects that where disturbances existed, they were typically small in scale. There were exceptions to this trend, however, as considerably long disturbance lengths (i.e., >300 m) were encountered at LBow5, LBow7, and LBow24. Combined, these three disturbances represented over 50% (2,161 m) of all riparian disturbances in the reach.

Site LBow5 (Appendix A, Plate 34) was the longest continuous disturbance in the reach and among the longest disturbances encountered during the entire Project. Based on its length and a conservative estimated average of its depth, this area of this site was over 10,000 m2. Consisting of riprap armouring and concrete on the right bank, this site extended from within side channel habitat, downstream into the mainstem, past the Pine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and through the Hwy. 2 bridge crossing. Although small isolated sections of this armouring were presumably installed prior to the 2013 flood, this site reached its current footprint through construction occurring in 2014.

Although smaller in footprint than LBow5 (i.e., in both length and depth), site LBow7 also represented a considerable disturbance to riparian habitat. This site extended 742 m along the right bank of the Bow River’s mainstem, presumably to provide erosion protection to the adjacent waterski park. In contrast to LBow5, this site contained a substantial amount of willow vegetation which has flourished within the interstitial spaces of the riprap.

Although identified as unique sites, LBow24 (Appendix A, Plate 35) and LBow25 (Appendix A, Plate 36) extended to one another along the left bank of side channel habitat, immediately upstream from the Carseland Weir. The two sites were each comprised of riprap lined berms that when combined totalled 648 m in length. Armouring was installed presumably to protect portions of Wyndham – Carseland

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 33 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Provincial Park and the associated Carseland – Bow River Irrigation Diversion (Peterson, pers. comm.) and facilitate flow over the weir site. Although some portions of the armouring extended well back from the water’s edge, the lengths of both sites were contained within riparian areas.

There were no specific restoration opportunities identified in this reach, although there are several locations where supplemental re-vegetation at anthropogenically and naturally occurring riparian disturbances could be beneficial. Examples of these include the riprap armouring adjacent to Policeman’s Flat boat launch, the gravel bar at McKinnon Flats boat launch, the confluence of the Bow and Highwood rivers, and the outlet of the Shepard Lagoon canal. As with many of the other reaches, the addition of bio-engineering elements to existing hard armoured sites would also be appropriate in the Lower Bow River Reach. Examples of supplemental bio-engineering methods that may be suitable are expected to be showcased in riparian areas of the Bow River, immediately downstream from Harvie Passage, in 2017. Designs for this educational program are currently being developed on behalf of AEP’s Southern Alberta Fisheries Habitat Enhancement and Sustainability Program (FISHES).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 34 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Table 7. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Bow River, 2016

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

LBow1 12U 289230 5641537 Riprap 0.5 - 1 40 3 - 5 L G -- riprap armouring at downstream end of pedestrian river access location

LBow2 12U 289493 5640952 Bank Excavation n/a 6 3 L S -- excavation of left bank (active at the time of survey) within side channel habitat/unconfirmed activity type

LBow3 12U 289387 5640487 Concrete n/a 5 2 R S -- concrete blocks located on bank top within transmission line corridor

LBow4 12U 290061 5638853 Riprap 0.5 - 1 13 70 L MD -- riprap armouring storm-water outfall on left bank

LBow5 12U 290117 5638319 Riprap 0.5 - 1 1,023 3 - 16 R G 34 riprap and concrete structures adjacent to Pine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant

LBow6 12U 290873 5637808 Riprap 0.5 - 1 161 10 L G -- riprap and concrete abutments at bridge

LBow7 12U 292161 5636442 Boat Launch/Riprap 0.5 - 1 270 3 - 13 R MD -- riprap groyne at Policeman Flats Boat Launch

LBow8 12U 293859 5637455 Riprap 0.5 - 1 742 3 - 7 R MD -- riprap armouring right bank adjacent to water ski park/some vegetation success observed

LBow9 12U 296255 5638255 Gabions n/a 18 8 L GR -- gabions armouring left bank at pipeline and transmission line RoW

LBow10 12U 296606 5638142 Pugging n/a 35 5 L GR -- cattle pugging and bank erosion along left bank

LBow11 12U 297786 5638060 Road/Water Intake n/a 14 6 R MC -- riparian disturbance from vehicle access and water intake

LBow12 12U 298317 5637972 Riprap 0.5 - 1 167 11 L GR -- riprap armouring left bank at outlet of Shepard Lagoon outlet

LBow13 12U 304535 5633303 Pugging n/a 8 4 R D -- cattle pugging and bank erosion along right bank

LBow14 12U 309957 5631552 Boat Launch/River Access n/a 175 22 L D -- river access/boat launch at McKinnon Flats

LBow15 12U 312974 5631043 Pugging n/a 18 3 L D -- cattle pugging and bank erosion along left bank

LBow16 12U 316108 5630301 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 219 3 - 18 L GR -- riprap armouring left bank adjacent to utilities building and infrastructure

LBow17 12U 320657 5631452 Pugging n/a 6 4 L GR -- cattle pugging and bank erosion along left bank

LBow18 12U 320762 5631503 River Access n/a 5 5 L GR -- boat launch at Legacy Island

LBow19 12U 323139 5630617 Riprap 0.5 - 1 212 5 - 11 L MD -- berm, groynes and riprap elements with some woody debris incorporated

LBow20 12U 323351 5630463 River Access n/a 14 7 L D -- private boat launch

LBow21 12U 326934 5632495 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 21 6 R S -- riprap and concrete armouring right bank adjacent to pump intake and buildings (with road access)

LBow22 12U 327018 5632636 Berm n/a 127 8 L G -- gravel/cobble pile/berm placed on island, presumably the result of instream dredging

LBow23 12U 327453 5633155 Boat Launch n/a 30 7 L G -- boat launch at Johnson's Island

LBow24 12U 327401 5633477 Berm n/a 396 5 - 8 L S 35 berm with riprap elements protecting infrastructure at Carseland Provincial Park

LBow25 12U 327002 5633720 Berm n/a 252 15 L G 36 boat launch and berm with riprap elements protecting road and infrastructure at Carseland Provincial Park

LBow26 12U 327930 5633085 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 88 10 R S -- riprap and concrete armouring irrigation canal headgates and sluiceway

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 35 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Figure 10. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Bow River, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 36 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

3.6 Lower Elbow River

Unique when compared to all the other Project reaches, the Lower Elbow River Reach was contained exclusively within an urban environment (Figure 11). Over its approximate 11.2 km length between the Glenmore Dam and Bow River confluence, the Lower Elbow River passed adjacent to or through 15 City of Calgary sub-divisions, multiple municipal parks, a golf course, the city’s Stampede grounds, , and various other public infrastructure elements. There were 16 bridge crossings alone in the reach. Many of the private and public infrastructure components adjacent to the river were near one another, and associated flood protection and mitigation measures have been present in the reach for a considerable length of time. In general, and a likely result of the multiple sub-divisions and private property boundaries, riparian disturbances in this reach were more frequently occurring but typically shorter in length compared to disturbances in other reaches.

Due to access restrictions related to maintenance work on the Glenmore Dam during the study period, the traverse of the Lower Elbow River Reach was limited in 2016 to the downstream-most 9.2 km (Hemmera Envirochem Inc., unpublished data). The remaining or upstream-most 2.0 km of the reach was assessed exclusively using imagery (i.e., refer to Section 2.1).

Fifty-one riparian disturbances, totaling 5,526 m in length, were observed in the reach in 2016 (Table 8). This length represented approximately 23.5% of the entire length of riparian habitat in the Lower Elbow River reach. Hard armouring, consisting primarily of riprap, concrete, and/or gabions, comprised the main disturbance type at 47 of the 51 sites (92%) encountered. Highly successful supplemental re- vegetation and/or instream bio-engineering elements were observed at only seven of these 47 armouring sites (Appendix A, Plate 37 and Plate 38). Revegetation measures appeared to have been attempted at other armoured sites but were largely ineffective (e.g., LElb37, see Appendix A, Plate 39).

Although identified as a single site because of a contiguous footprint, site LElb12 consisted of three separate, unique armouring elements adjacent to private residences (Appendix A, Plate 40). Riprap, gabions and concrete occurred in succession over a combined distance of 150 m along the left bank at this site. Each segment appeared to have been in place for some time and some failure or loss and some revegetation was observed in each.

The longest disturbance in the reach occurred immediately downstream from Stanley Park, at site LElb19 (Appendix A, Plate 41). Concrete slabs and riprap extended over a distance of 440 m along the right bank, adjacent to a pedestrian pathway at this location. As at LElb12, some armouring failure was observed at this site, although the feature remains largely intact. Some naturally occurring revegetation had occurred since installation.

Three sites, LElb14, LElb16 and LElb17 were identified as disturbances during the traverse, although they consisted exclusively of soft armouring or bio-engineering approaches, presumably installed as flood mitigation and bank stabilization measures. At LElb14 (Appendix A Plate 42), a crib wall constructed of lumber extended 45 m down the right bank. It was unclear as to whether revegetation was naturally occurring or had coincided with installation. Regardless, revegetation was successful over the site’s entire length, as a thick willow/shrub stand was present and providing overhead cover opportunities for fish. Although it appeared that similar crib wall construction had originally occurred at LElb17 (Appendix A, Plate 43), this site was observed to be largely in disrepair. Much of the wall material was observed to be severely damaged or missing over the site’s 38 m length. A similar

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 37 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada presumed failure observation was made of cribwall elements (i.e., occurring in association with riprap) at site LElb24. The most notable example of bio-engineering application in the reach occurred at LElb16 (Appendix A, Plate 44), where wattle fencing and extensive re-vegetation appeared to be intact and presumably functioning as intended Although this site was presumed to have been constructed recently and the plantings and staking had not yet matured, a very high survival rate was observed.

Given the high proportion of private property occurring over much of the reach’s length, the feasibility of new and impactful restoration opportunities in this reach is likely limited. However, it is recommended that if restoration of riparian areas within this reach is a priority, focus should be placed on replacing or supplementing existing armoured sites which are failing or are scheduled for future enhancement. An example opportunity would be LElb17, where previous cribwall installation could be replicated or other bio-engineering techniques could be applied. Supplemental or re-vegetation of sites where previous re- vegetation attempts were largely ineffective would also be ‘low-hanging fruit’ opportunities. It is noteworthy that fish habitat enhancement designs were being developed for prioritized sections of the reach during the preparation of this report. AEP’s FISHES program has recently engaged contractors to design enhancement features instream and near-stream to increase spawning habitat potential for brown trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) (AEP, 2016). It is recommended that before restoration efforts are developed, consultation or review of the FISHES program in the reach should occur.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 38 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Table 8. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Elbow River, 2016

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

L 57, L 10, LElb1 11U 704246 5655006 Beach/River Access n/a L/R D -- pedestrian access at Sandy Beach park R 37 R 10 L 10, LElb2 11U 704041 5655145 Riprap 0.5 - 1 2 L/R G -- riprap armouring both banks R 150

LElb3 11U 703986 5655199 Concrete n/a 3 4 L S -- concrete armouring outfall on left bank

LElb4 11U 703859 5655273 Gabion/Riprap 0.5 - 1 57 3 L S -- riprap armouring left bank at pedestrian access

LElb5 11U 703959 5655690 Riprap 0.5 - 1 12 3 L G -- riprap armouring left bank at residence

LElb6 11U 704127 5655811 Riprap 0.5 8 9 L S -- riprap armouring outfall on left bank

LElb7 11U 704200 5655848 Riprap/Gabion 0.5 71 2 R G -- riprap and gabion armouring right bank/some vegetation re-growth observed

LElb8 11U 704347 5655899 Riprap 0.5 - 1 22 4 L G -- riprap and gabion armouring left bank

LElb9 11U 704463 5655965 Outfall/Riprap 1 7 5 L D -- riprap armouring outfall on left bank L 4, LElb10 11U 704516 5655983 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 28 L/R G -- riprap and concrete armouring bridge approach on both banks and access on right bank R 3 LElb11 11U 704556 5655984 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 45 3 R G -- riprap armouring right bank at residence

LElb12 11U 704618 5655985 Riprap/Gabion/Concrete 0.3 - 1 150 3 - 5 L D 40 consecutive armouring elements on left bank at residences

L 20, LElb13 11U 704931 5655879 Concrete n/a 4 L/R D concrete abutments for bridge on both approaches R 20

LElb14 11U 705127 5655816 Cribwall n/a 45 2 R D 42 cribwall with vegetation regrowth incorporated

LElb15 11U 705233 5655827 Riprap 0.5 - 1 22 3 R S riprap armouring outfall on right bank

LElb16 11U 705285 5655843 Wattle Fence n/a 40 4 R S 44 bio-engineering site on right bank for stabilization

LElb17 11U 705314 5655858 Cribwall n/a 38 2 R D 43 cribwall with some failure presumed on right bank

LElb18 11U 705392 5655907 Riprap/Access 0.3 - 0.5 150 3 - 7 R D riprap partially armouring pedestrian access/riprap length is 12 m and access over remaining 138 m at Stanley Park

LElb19 11U 705558 5655977 Riprap/Concrete 0.3 - 0.5 440 2 - 10 R S 41 riprap and concrete armouring right bank adjacent to pedestrian path

LElb20 11U 705593 5656050 Riprap/Cribwall/Gabion 0.5 - 1 236 3 - 5 L MD --

LElb21 11U 705070 5656393 Riprap 0.5 - 1 55 3 - 5 L D -- riprap armouring left bank at residence with some vegetation regrowth

LElb22 11U 704998 5656480 Riprap 0.5 - 1 105 2 - 5 R MD -- riprap armouring right bank at residence

L 0.5 - 1.5, R L 103, L 2 - 5, LElb23 11U 704934 5656616 Riprap L/R D -- riprap and crib wall elements armouring right bank downstream from bridge/riprap armouring left bank at bridge crossing 0.5 - 1.0 R 45 R 10 L 0.5, L 8, L 3, LElb24 11U 704917 5656790 Riprap L/R D -- riprap armouring outfall on left bank/riprap armouring right bank at residence R 0.3 - 0.5 R 20 R 10

LElb25 11U 705213 5657151 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 8 4 L D -- riprap armouring outfall on left bank L 24, LElb26 11U 705301 5657176 Riprap/Concrete 0.3 - 0.5 2 L/R D -- riprap and concrete armouring bridge crossing on both banks R 22 L 0.3 - 0.5, L 5, L 2, LElb27 11U 705506 5657174 Riprap L/R D -- riprap armouring outfalls on both banks R 0.5 - 1 R 8 R 4

LElb28 11U 705600 5657157 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 18 4 R D -- riprap armouring outfall on right bank

LElb29 11U 705733 5657116 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 326 3 R D -- riprap armouring right bank at residence

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 39 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

L 0.5 - 1, R L 228, L 3 - 5, LElb30 11U 705911 5657295 Riprap/Concrete L/R D -- riprap and concrete armouring at and adjacent to bridge crossing on both banks 0.3 - 0.5 R 53 R 3 - 5 LElb31 11U 705860 5657471 Riprap 0.5 - 1 180 3 - 7 R MD -- riprap armouring right bank at residence L 132, L 5, LElb32 11U 705627 5657659 Riprap/Concrete 0.3 - 0.7 L/R S -- riprap armouring bridge crossing and outfall along left bank, riprap and concrete at bridge abutment on right bank R 5 R 2 L 160, L 8, LElb33 11U 705677 5657868 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R D -- riprap armouring bridge crossing on both banks R 20 R 5 L 32, L 5, LElb34 11U 706009 5657939 Riprap/Concrete 0.3 - 1 L/R D -- riprap armouring outfall and bridge crossing at left bank and bridge crossing on right bank R 20 R 5

L, 110 L 5, LElb35 11U 706170 5657804 Concrete n/a L/R D -- concrete abutments at bridge crossing R, 110 R5

LElb36 11U 706246 5657684 Riprap 0.5 - 1 14 3 L G -- riprap armouring left bank

R 157, R 3 - 7, some willow staking associated with riprap on right bank near bridge crossing but limited survival observed/riprap armouring on left bank LElb37 11U 706274 5657638 Riprap 0.5 - 1 L/R G 39 L 5 L 3 includes outfall location

LElb38 11U 706465 5657519 Riprap 0.5 - 1 229 5 - 7 L S 37 root wad revetments are incorporated into riprap adjacent to stampede grounds

LElb39 11U 706787 5657374 Riprap/Gabions 0.5 - 1 218 6 R MD riprap and gabions armouring right bank

LElb40 11U 706789 5657376 Riprap 0.5 - 1 35 5 - 10 L G -- riprap armouring left bank at bridge crossing

L 80, L 10 armouring on right bank includes cribwall elements with vegetation regrowth, while armouring on left bank includes outfall at stampede LElb41 11U 706868 5657638 Riprap 0.5 - 1 L/R G 38 R 65 R 7 grounds

LElb42 11U 706823 5657932 Riprap 0.5 - 1 194 5 R G riprap armouring outfall on right bank R 6, R 3, LElb43 11U 706824 5657943 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R D/G -- riprap on right bank armouring outfall, concrete wall armouring left bank L 100 L3 L 25, L 14, LElb44 11U 706823 5658008 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R G -- riprap and concrete armouring banks at bridge crossing R 25 R 20 L 10 L 10, LElb45 11U 706892 5658250 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R G -- riprap and concrete armouring banks at bridge crossing R10 R 10 L 12, L 2, LElb46 11U 706932 5658323 Riprap/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R G -- concrete armouring outfall on left bank/riprap and concrete armouring outfall on right bank R 8 R 2 LElb47 11U 707022 5658414 Concrete n/a 12 2 L G -- concrete armouring outfall on left bank L 12, L 5, LElb48 11U 707168 5658574 Riprap/Gabions/Concrete 0.5 - 1 L/R G -- Riprap, gabions and concrete armouring banks at bridge crossing on right bank/no riprap but concrete only armouring left bank R 25 R 5 R 110, R 8, armouring on right bank adjacent to outfall and bridge and inclusive of some root wad revetments and gabions/armouring on left bank is LElb49 11U 707214 5658634 Riprap 0.3 - 0.5 L/R S -- L 196 L 5 inclusive of bridge at this location and downstream (LElb50)

L 64, L 5, LElb50 11U 707291 5658821 Riprap 0.5 - 1 L/R D -- riprap and concrete armouring at both banks of bridge crossing R 64 R 5

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 40 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Figure 11. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on the Lower Elbow River, 2016

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 41 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

3.7 Threepoint Creek

Forty-three potential riparian disturbances, totaling 3,249 m in length, were identified during the review of imagery (Table 9). This length represented approximately 2.1% of the entire length of riparian habitat surveyed along Threepoint Creek, well below the combined average (6.6%) for the traversed reaches. However, this percentage is somewhat misleading, considering that this reach was surveyed from the uppermost headwaters whereas the others were not; riparian disturbances in the upstream areas were sparse because of terrain and a lack of human occupation and development. Potential disturbances that were identified included seven bridges, five fords, and 21 sites with hard armouring that appeared to be primarily riprap. Revegetation, bio-engineering, and failures were not observable.

Similar to the other reaches, the locations of armouring sites were generally correlated with populated areas, which in this reach consisted mainly farmsteads, acreages, or small communities. Riprap protection at roads and RoWs was also observed. Thirteen armouring sites exceeded 100 m in length, with the longest disturbance being 508 m in length and presumably constructed to mitigate against flood damage to infrastructure near a side channel. Cattle pugging was not as common as expected; however, this may be due to the resolution of the imagery and the limitations associated with the method used to survey this reach.

Identification of potential riparian disturbances using tools such as Google Earth (i.e., presuming that current, high quality imagery is available) is a promising method that could be incorporated into future inventories. Even without the benefit of ground-truthing information to validate the use of the approach within the Threepoint Creek Reach in 2016, ease of use and cost-effectiveness are still noteworthy benefits that warrant consideration of this approach.

It is, however, unlikely that all disturbances within the reach were identified by the review of imagery, and a traverse of the Threepoint Creek Reach is recommended to confirm or supplement imagery review observations. If, following the traverse of the reach, it can be confirmed that limited value resulted from the traverse, consideration for relying on imagery review exclusively in other watersheds may be a consideration.

If this is the case and updated imagery is available, it is further recommended that future inventories expand to include the Crowsnest and Kananaskis rivers, two watercourses that, like Threepoint Creek, had a relatively high number of flood mitigations projects proposed following the 2013 flood (AEP, unpublished data). In addition to being used at previously unsurveyed reaches, the approach could also be used to gauge riparian disturbance prevalence, perhaps on a biannual basis between periodic field surveys, on the Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep rivers.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 42 Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada Table 9. Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbances on Threepoint Creek, 2016

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

T1 11U 669933 5627184 Bridge Unknown 15 5 L/R MD -- disturbance/armouring specifics unknown, poor imagery

T2 11U 671508 5626647 Bridge Unknown 15 5 L/R MD -- disturbance/armouring specifics unknown, poor imagery

T3 11U 673071 5625511 Bridge Unknown 7 5 L/R G -- disturbance/armouring specifics unknown

L 20, T4 11U 675736 5623728 Bridge/Riprap Unknown 5 L/R S -- disturbance/armouring specifics unknown R 12

T5 11U 676212 5623755 Ford -- 40 5 L/R G/MD -- side channel

T6 11U 676344 5623465 Riprap 0.5 - 1 508 5 - 8 L/R G/MD -- side channel, cumulative riprap measured, riprap around infrastructure

T7 11U 676867 5623304 Ford -- 25 5 L/R G/MD -- side channel

T8 11U 676801 5623186 Ford -- 10 5 L/R G/MD -- --

T9 11U 678696 5621485 Bridge Unknown 10 5 L/R MC -- disturbance/armouring specifics unknown

T10 11U 679139 5621434 Pugging -- 61 10 L G -- multiple access points, livestock watering area

T11 11U 680532 5622097 Riprap Unknown 140 3 L MC -- disturbance/armouring specifics unknown

T12 11U 680602 5622134 Pugging -- 20 6 L G -- livestock watering area

L 35, T13 11U 680976 5622355 Bridge Unknown 2 - 9 L/R MC -- riprap at bridge R 55

T14 11U 681893 5622850 Riprap Unknown 120 4 R MD -- riprap protecting residences near Kew

T15 11U 682721 5623358 Wall and Riprap Unknown 115 2 - 4 R G -- riprap protecting house

T16 11U 683701 5625299 Riprap Unknown 102 2 - 10 L MD -- riprap and groynes protecting house

T17 11U 684410 5626223 Ford -- 25 5 L/R G/MD -- --

T18 11U 684746 5626654 Riprap Unknown 130 2 - 5 L G -- side channel, potential failed armouring along road

L 5, T19 11U 685364 5626711 Ford -- 2 L/R G/MD -- -- R 9

T20 11U 685680 5626378 Ford -- 15 7 R G/MD -- --

T21 11U 686065 5626667 Riprap 0.5 - 1.5 138 2 - 6 L MD -- riprap protecting road and house

T22 11U 686318 5626523 Riprap 0.5 - 1.0 260 2 - 9 L MD -- riprap protecting houses

T23 11U 686382 5626242 Riprap 0.5 - 1.0 65 2 - 5 L MD -- riprap protecting house

T24 11U 686677 5626196 Riprap 0.5 - 1 78 5 - 15 L MC -- riprap associated with large berm (~8,400m2) and RoW

L 43, T25 11U 686840 5626064 Riprap 0.5 - 1 3 - 10 L/R G/MD -- riprap at RoW R 45

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 43

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Location (UTM; NAD83) Diam. of Armouring/Disturbance Length Depth Bank Riparian Plates Site Armouring Comments Type (m) (m) (L/R) Type (App.A) Grid Easting Northing (m)

T26 11U 687089 5626074 Riprap 0.5 - 1 81 1 - 3 L S -- --

T27 11U 687222 5625854 Riprap 0.5 - 1 171 8 R G/MD -- riprap protecting houses

T28 11U 687650 5625551 Riprap 0.5 - 1 75 5 R G -- --

T29 11U 688417 5625643 Riprap 0.5 - 1 104 6 L G/MD -- riprap protecting road and house

T30 11U 688303 5625501 Riprap 0.5 - 1 298 4 R SH -- --

L 14, T31 11U 688595 5625218 Bridge -- 5 L/R G/S -- Hwy. 22 bridge R 22

T32 11U 689210 5625707 Riprap 0.5 - 1.5 79 4 L G/MD -- riprap protecting house

T33 11U 691497 5628021 Riprap 0.5 - 1 248 4 R G -- riprap and groynes protecting race track

T34 11U 691602 5628283 Riprap 0.5 - 1 127 4 L G/S -- riprap protecting house

L 100, T35 11U 691862 5627882 Bridge/Riprap 0.5 - 1 11 L/R G/MD -- riprap at bridge R 120

T36 11U 694764 5625797 Possible Failed Riprap 0.5 - 1.5 80 3 R G -- riprap protecting house

T37 11U 694986 5625303 Riprap 0.5 - 1 159 3 R G -- riprap protecting road, riprap may be failing

L 15, T38 11U 695214 5625540 Riprap 0.5 - 1 7 - 25 L/R G/MD -- riprap at RoW R 20

T39 11U 695276 5625548 Riprap 0.5 - 1 135 6 R MD -- riprap protecting house, tied into riprap at RoW

T40 11U 695492 5625544 Riprap 0.5 - 1 62 6 L GR -- --

L 23, T41 11U 695423 5625306 Ford -- 5 L/R MD -- -- R 26

T42 11U 695366 5625168 Riprap 0.5 - 1 184 8 R MD -- riprap protecting house

T43 11U 696702 5623908 Possible Failed Riprap -- 280 5 L GR -- riprap along agricultural field

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 44

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada 4.0 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

A total of 317 riparian disturbances were encountered over approximately 300 km of riverine habitat within the Bow River sub-basin in 2016. As compared to observations made during the original inventory, marked increases in the frequency and cumulative length of riparian disturbances were confirmed in the Upper Elbow, Sheep River, and Highwood River reaches. The most notable among these occurred in the Sheep River, where 76% of disturbances observed in 2016 were either new (i.e., constructed since 2006) or existing sites that had increased in size since 2006. The resulting proportion of disturbed riparian habitat in this reach, consequently, jumped from 6.4% in 2006, to 10.3% in 2016.

In reaches surveyed for the first time in 2016 (i.e., Upper Bow River, Lower Bow River, and Lower Elbow River reaches), the distribution of riparian disturbances followed expected patterns, in that flood mitigation measures (e.g., hard armouring) were often clustered in proximity to private and public infrastructure located adjacent to active channels and/or within floodplains. In general, disturbances were primarily observed within town and city boundaries, adjacent to railway tracks, and at linear development crossings (e.g., bridges). Although not traversed in 2016, a review of imagery of the Threepoint Creek Reach suggests that an additional 3.2 km of riparian habitat was been altered by anthropogenic influences. Among all the Project’s reaches, the Lower Elbow River had the highest proportion of disturbed riparian habitat (23.5%).

Numerous potential restoration opportunities were identified. These include four site-specific locations where bio-engineering-based restoration techniques were expected to be suitable for long-term habitat restoration and feasible from logistical planning and construction application perspectives. We also recommend that, pending restoration planning priorities, consideration be given to the incorporation of ‘softening’ techniques at existing hard armoured sites where naturalized elements were lacking or had otherwise failed. There were several such opportunities in each of the six reaches that were traversed where the addition of new or supplemental bioengineering elements (e.g., revegetation) would be beneficial from an ecological perspective. Note, though, that prior to the application of these types of softening techniques, the proponents of the existing disturbances will need to be engaged to ensure that site integrity and functionality will not be compromised. Permission for supplemental restoration efforts at these sites will be necessary.

We contend that the Project’s pilot element (i.e., review of imagery only from the Threepoint Creek Reach) provided an accurate understanding of current, discernible riparian disturbances within Threepoint Creek. However, it is recommended that a traverse of the reach be made to confirm each of the disturbances and to identify any other disturbances that were obscured during imagery review (e.g., cattle pugging). Based on the potential accuracy of the pilot’s disturbance identification and attribute measurement (i.e. to be confirmed by field observations), its application alone may be a consideration for other watercourses not yet surveyed (e.g., Kananaskis and Crowsnest rivers) and/or as a cost-conscious monitoring technique in watercourses where field observations have already established a baseline of confirmed disturbances.

Notwithstanding the potential for use of the pilot’s approach, it is recommended that this Project be repeated, either periodically (e.g., in 2026) or 2 to 3 years following the next 1:30 year flood event in the Bow River sub-basin. East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 45

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada 5.0 CLOSING

We have appreciated the opportunity to partner again with Trout Unlimited Canada in 2016 to replicate and expand the inventory of riparian habitat disturbances within the Bow River sub-basin. The results of this Project, combined with those in 2006, have provided an increased understanding of the cumulative disturbances that have occurred in the past decade, and will be a valuable benchmark for future comparisons.

Sincerely, EAST SLOPES AQUATIC CONSULTING INC.

Greg Eisler, B.Sc. (Hons), P. Biol., R.P. Bio. Ryan Popowich, M.Sc.

Principal – East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Sr. Aquatic Biologist

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 46

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada 6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 Personal Communication

Peterson, Lesley. Alberta Provincial Biologist. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, AB.

6.2 Literature Cited

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). Unpublished Data. Spatial Data of Water Act Approval Applications Following the 2013 Flood. Inclusive of files received through December 15, 2015. Provided by Water Approvals Team – Calgary District Office.

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2016. FISHES Program Updates. Website: http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/2013-flood-recovery-programs/southern- alberta-fisheries-habitat-enhancement-and-sustainability-program/fishes-program-updates.aspx Accessed April 2016.

AMEC. 2009. South Saskatchewan River Basin in Alberta: Water Supply Study. Prepared for Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Lethbridge, Alberta.

Brewin, M.K. 1994. Reproductivity of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and Brook Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Alberta’s Upper Bow River and Tributaries. Prepared as thesis for M.Sc. at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 172 pp. + 1 app.

Popowich, R. and G.R. Eisler. 2007. An Inventory of Bank Armour and Riparian Disturbance Along the Elbow, Sheep and Highwood River, Alberta – Trout Unlimited Canada Riparian Mapping Project. Prepared by Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. 18 pp. + app.

Trout Unlimited Canada. 2016. Request for Proposals – Bank Armour and Riparian Disturbance Inventory, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, Sheep Rivers. Calgary, Alberta. 5 pp.

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | 47

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Appendix A Photograph Catalogue

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-1

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 1 Downstream view of riprap armouring at UElb20 Plate 2 Upstream view of riprap along right downstream bank (June 9, 2016). near Redwood Meadows (UElb20) (2006).

Plate 3 Downstream view of failed riprap along right downstream Plate 4 Former location of riprap protecting Allen Bill Pond and bank at UElb37 (June 9, 2016). River Cove Group Camp (UElb2) (June 9, 2016).

Plate 5 Downstream view of side channel at UElb22 (June Plate 6 Riprap, no longer in active channel, protecting 9, 2016). transmission pole at UElb 33 (June 10, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-2

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 7 Manipulated banks at UElb19 (June 9, 2016). Plate 8 Dam structure at UElb19 (June 9, 2016).

Plate 9 Downstream view of riprap armouring upstream from Plate 10 Upstream view of riprap armouring upstream from Bragg Bragg Creek (UElb9) (June 9, 2016). Creek (UElb9) (June 9, 2016)

Plate 11 View of potential restoration opportunity at Allen Bill Day Plate 12 View of potential restoration opportunity at gauge station Use Area (UElb3/R01) (June 9, 2016). near Bragg Creek (UElb12/R02) (June 9, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-3

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 13 Downstream view of large riprap berm along the left Plate 14 View of riprap and established vegetation at S16 downstream bank at S1 (June 11, 2016). (June 11, 2016).

Plate 15 Riprap at residence on right downstream bank at S26 Plate 16 Riprap protecting recreation area in Okotoks (S42) (June 11, 2016). (June 12, 2016).

Plate 17 Riprap protecting recreation area in Okotoks (S42) Plate 18 View of riprap on left downstream bank at riprap (June 12, 2016). protecting Turner Valley Gas Plant (S2) (June 11, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-4

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 19 Armouring in inactive channel (S20) (June 11, 2016). Plate 20 Partially recovered bank (S54) (June 12, 2016).

Plate 21 Dewatered channel (S42) (June 12, 2016). Plate 22 growth of vegetation (S42) (June 12, 2016).

Plate 23 Partially failed riprap at golf course in High River (H24) Plate 24 View of added riprap armouring on right downstream (July 7, 2016). bank (H26) (July 7, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-5

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 25 View of revegetated bank (H61) (August 26, 2016). Plate 26 Recovering riparian habitat (H69) (August 26, 2016).

Plate 27 Riparian revegetation (H65) (August 26, 2016). Plate 28 Potential restoration site (H76/RO3) (August 26, 2016).

Plate 29 Riprap and groynes (UBow2) (September 30, 2016). Plate 30 Groyne at golf course (UBow2) (September 30, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-6

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 31 Riprap berm on side channel adjacent to pedestrian Plate 32 View of riprap armouring on right downstream bank pathway (UBow4) (September 30, 2016). (UBow9) (September 30, 2016).

Plate 33 Riprap armouring adjacent to pedestrian pathway Plate 34 View of riprap (and anglers in foreground) along the (UBow10) (September 30, 2016). right downstream bank (LBow5) (July 27, 2016).

Plate 35 Berm with riprap elements (LBow 24) (July 27, 2016). Plate 36 Berm with riprap elements (LBow 25) (July 27, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-7

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 37 Downstream view of root wads incorporated into riprap Plate 38 Downstream view of cribwall incorporated into riprap armouring at LElb38 (July 3, 2016). armouring at LElb41 (July 3, 2016).

Plate 39 Downstream view of revegetation with limited success at Plate 40 Downstream view of riprap, gabions, and concrete on hard armouring site, LElb37 (July 3, 2016). left downstream bank at LElb12 (July 3, 2016).

Plate 41 Downstream view of riprap and concrete armouring of Plate 42 Downstream view of crib wall with successful right downstream bank at LElb19 (July 3, 2016). revegetation associated at LElb14 (July 3, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-8

Bank Armouring and Riparian Disturbance, 2016: Bow, Elbow, Highwood, and Sheep Rivers Trout Unlimited Canada

Plate 43 Downstream view of presumed crib wall failure at Plate 44 Downstream view of wattle fence and willow staking at LElb17 (July 3, 2016). LElb16 (July 3, 2016).

East Slopes Aquatic Consulting Inc. Page | A-9