Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin Advice to the Government of Alberta with Addendum

Home , Medicine River (Alberta), Red Deer River

Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin Advice to the Government of Alberta With Addendum

July 23, 2015

Submitted by: Submitted to:

P. Kim Sturgess, P.Eng., FCAE Cathy Maniego and Andrew Wilson CEO Resilience and Mitigation Branch WaterSMART Solutions Ltd. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development #200, 3512 - 33 Street NW 205 JG O'Donoghue Building Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A6 7000 - 113 Street Edmonton, Alberta T6H 5T6

Please note:

The Room for the River process applied in the Red Deer River Basin and the subsequent Room for the River report are not government policy. The advice in this report will be taken under consideration by the Government of Alberta to help inform sound water management and policy decisions.

This was not a public consultation process. The project was carried out with a technical working group, the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance, and the Red Deer River Municipal Users Group to provide advice to the Government of Alberta. It is a step toward developing a comprehensive inventory of flood mitigation projects and all options were put forward for consideration. Options presented in this report reflect concepts suggested by contributors; their inclusion in this report should not be viewed as an endorsement.

Executive Summary In the nearly two years since the 2013 floods in Alberta, many mitigation options for the province’s flood-prone areas have been identified, studied, and implemented by the Government of Alberta (GoA), municipalities, non-government organizations, and others. In the fall of 2014 the GoA announced that it wanted to look more closely at the approach taken by the Netherlands to manage flooding in the Rhine River branches – the Room for the River program. A pilot project was undertaken in the Bow River Basin in late 2014 to consider the extent to which Dutch measures could be adapted and applied to reduce vulnerability of people and infrastructure and improve the overall quality of the Bow and Elbow rivers. A secondary objective was to develop and pilot a systematic Room for the River framework and process that, if deemed appropriate, could be replicated in other basins throughout the province.

Building on the Bow Basin pilot, a second initiative was carried out in spring 2015 in the Red Deer River Basin. As with the Bow project, contributors reflected the many interests in this basin, including water managers, watershed groups, municipalities, environmental groups, domain experts, and the interested public. The ten river segments examined for the Red Deer project included four on the Red Deer River main stem plus six tributaries (Fallentimber Creek, Bearberry Creek, James River, Raven River, Little Red Deer River and Medicine River). An initial scan was done for each segment, identifying examples of and opportunities for mitigation in four categories: conveyance, diversion, detention, and defence. The most promising opportunities were identified by project contributors who also provided feedback on the Room for the River approach and its potential application in Alberta.

Contributors noted that it is essential to talk about flood mitigation in the broader context of water management, including impacts of potential options on water supply and water quality. The Red Deer Basin is home to a diversity of human activities, and interests vary depending on the segment or tributary being considered. What happens on land affects the rivers, and any Room for the River-type program must aim to develop resilience and mitigation throughout the watershed, looking at environmental, economic, and social components and connections across the whole basin.

Various flood response mechanisms and practices are already in place in the Red Deer River Basin. The Dickson Dam, although not built to manage floodwaters, was operated effectively in recent floods and has played an important role in flood mitigation. Seasonal operational schemes are continually refined to help manage flood flows. The City of Red Deer has many setbacks with few homes in its 1:100 year floodway. With respect to conveyance, Alberta Transportation has an extensive inventory of bridges and roads creating pinch points and the issues that may need to be addressed. And finally, the current warning system appears to be doing the job below Dickson Dam in terms of communications between dam operators, Red Deer County, and other counties downstream.

The most promising opportunities focused on conveyance, detention, and defence. There is a strong need to reconsider how we design and build bridges and roads, and to ensure we are building to more resilient standards. In areas that are susceptible to repetitive flooding, it was suggested that rebuilding not occur at all. Land management practices need to improve; in the headwaters, for example, the linear footprint, including the use of off-highway vehicles on erosion prone slopes, should be reduced. In other parts of the basin, pipeline crossings need to be assessed and reviewed to guard against leaks and ruptures under flood conditions. Stronger efforts are needed throughout the basin to retain, restore, and protect wetlands, which store water and replenish groundwater supplies. Contributors

ii recognized the importance of protecting critical infrastructure such as municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities, and they supported the strategic use of berms and dikes.

Relocation of existing infrastructure did not emerge as a readily feasible option, largely because vulnerable communities such as Drumheller and highly developed parts of Sundre would need to be completely moved. Nevertheless, moving out of the floodplain remains the only way to ensure that people and property are not flooded in the future. Selective relocation could be a cost-effective option for smaller communities or individual homeowners. At the very least, the cost of potentially moving smaller communities or individuals out of the floodplain should be assessed. When relocation is not feasible, defence mechanisms such as berms and dikes are needed. In other areas susceptible to flooding, the focus was on establishing and enforcing adequate setbacks so that development does not occur in these areas and future relocations and buyouts can be avoided. To help address potential floodplain development, it was suggested that having clear regulations that are supported by the GoA makes flood mitigation strategies much easier to implement.

Contributors offered advice on a potential Room for the River program for Alberta, suggesting that:  An integrated, multi-barrier approach is essential.  Any program that the GoA might initiate should include both mandatory requirements and voluntary components.  There are important lessons from the Dutch Room for the River program, but an Alberta program should not be marketed as a “Dutch initiative.”  Multiple perspectives are needed on a wide range of potential flood mitigation options before any program is developed. This will help make the program relevant to local and regional stakeholders.  Ongoing engagement, commitment, and funding will be needed from all levels of government.  Transparency and sharing of information are critical to identify solutions and coordinate implementation.  A program like this should be used to encourage collaboration among the water projects in the province and help avoid duplication.

Similar to the Bow River Basin pilot project, contributors to this project noted that a Room for the River-type program could be a valuable component of the water management discussion in Alberta. The objectives, scope, and governance should be clearly defined appropriate to the Alberta context and well communicated. Objectives should be more broadly defined than in the Netherlands’ approach to perhaps focus on long-term watershed resilience, encompassing safety and security, water supply, and water quality. It will be essential to raise individual and community awareness and understanding about watershed functions and the effects of flooding. And, perhaps most importantly, the program would need long term political, local, and financial support and accountability.

The approach used in this project is a way to fuel momentum and interest in water management, support the Water for Life goals, build on the expertise and experience of the water community, and provide a long-term program for thoughtful and effective water management and flood mitigation throughout Alberta.

iii

Contents

Executive Summary ...... ii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Context ...... 1 1.2 Building on the Bow Room for the River Experience ...... 2 2. The Room for the River Management Approach ...... 3 2.1 The Dutch Approach ...... 3 2.2 The Southern Alberta Context ...... 6 2.3 Scope of the Red Deer Room for the River Project ...... 8 2.4 Process and Approach...... 11 3. Advice to Government of Alberta from the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River Basin ...... 12 3.1 Initial Scan of the Red Deer Basin Study Area ...... 12 3.1.1 Basin-wide Options ...... 12 3.1.2 Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters ...... 14 3.1.3 Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek ...... 17 3.1.4 Segment 3: Bearberry Creek ...... 19 3.1.5 Segment 4: James River ...... 21 3.1.6 Segment 5: Raven River ...... 23 3.1.7 Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam ...... 25 3.1.8 Segment 7: Little Red Deer River ...... 30 3.1.9 Segment 8: Medicine River...... 32 3.1.10 Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake ...... 34 3.1.11 Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller ...... 39 3.2 Most Promising Opportunities ...... 42 3.3 Feedback on the Room for the River Approach ...... 47 4. Closing Comments ...... 52 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 54 Appendix A: Contributors to the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River Basin ...... 55 Appendix B: Segment Identification Methodology ...... 56 Addendum ...... 61

List of Tables Table 1: Room for the River Measures: Dutch Definitions ...... 5 Table 2: Differences between River Systems in the Netherlands and Southern Alberta ...... 6 Table 3: General Examples of the Room for the River Measures in the Alberta Context ...... 7 Table 4: Project Scope ...... 8 Table 5: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters ...... 15 Table 6: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek ...... 17 Table 7: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 3: Bearberry Creek ...... 20 Table 8: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 4: James River ...... 22 Table 9: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 5: Raven River ...... 24 Table 10: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam ....26 Table 11: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 7: Little Red Deer River ...... 31 Table 12: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 8: Medicine River ...... 33 Table 13: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake ...... 34 Table 14: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller ...... 40 Table 15: Most Promising Opportunities to Create Room for the River ...... 42

List of Figures Figure 1: Geographic Scope of the Project in the Red Deer River Basin ...... 10 Figure 2: Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters ...... 15 Figure 3: Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek ...... 17 Figure 4: Segment 3: Bearberry Creek ...... 19 Figure 5: Segment 4: James River ...... 21 Figure 6: Segment 5: Raven River ...... 23 Figure 7: Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam ...... 25 Figure 8: Segment 7: Little Red Deer River ...... 30 Figure 9: Segment 8: Medicine River...... 32 Figure 10: Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake ...... 34 Figure 11: Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller ...... 39

1. Introduction Access to water is fundamental to human settlements and is the basis for our economic activity and quality of life. Although droughts have been more common in Alberta’s recent history, floods are not rare. With the 1990 and 2005 flood events still memorable, the June 2013 floods were devastating, affecting families, homes, businesses, property, infrastructure, and landscapes. Following emergency responses by various authorities and volunteer agencies, the Government of Alberta (GoA) established the Flood Recovery Task Force and, subsequently, the Resilience and Mitigation Branch in Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD).1

Since the 2013 floods, various mitigation options have been identified, studied, and implemented by the GoA, municipalities, non-government organizations, and others in the Red Deer River Basin and elsewhere. Berms and other local protection measures have been built or are planned in many locations, and flood policy and regulatory operations are being reviewed in a number of jurisdictions. A study completed by Stantec in May 2014 focused on the Red Deer River Basin and identified several large and small engineered mitigation approaches, as well as many potential policy options for flood mitigation. This project does not replicate the extensive work done to date; rather it is intended to build on existing work by continuing the discussion and highlighting the complexity of a system that requires layers of flood mitigation.

With a number of options still under consideration in the Red Deer River Basin and elsewhere, the GoA announced in the fall of 2014 that it wanted to look more closely at the approach taken by the Netherlands to manage flooding in the Rhine River branches, called the Room for the River program. A pilot project subsequently explored opportunities to create more room for the river in the Bow River Basin. That work, described briefly in Section 1.2, provided a foundation for the Red Deer Room for the River project. Like the Bow River pilot, this project focused primarily on flood mitigation. For this project, drought and water quality were considered given the broader context of overall water management, but only as they related to options intended to mitigate flooding. It was acknowledged that flooding plays an important role in the Red Deer River ecosystem, particularly on cottonwood recruitment, and these aspects were considered as potential mitigation measures.

1.1 Purpose and Context In response to serious flood threat and severe impacts on people and property, the Netherlands initiated its Room for the River program in the later 1990s (see Section 2.1 for more details). The objective of the Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin project was to learn from the Dutch experience and from the Bow River Basin pilot to identify and consider potential flood mitigation options in the Red Deer River Basin to reduce vulnerability of people and infrastructure, and to improve the overall environmental quality of the river. This was done by:  Building on what has already been identified, studied, and implemented in the Red Deer River Basin,  Applying a systematic, informed framework and process that could be replicated in other basins, and  Building on the work done and the lessons learned in the Bow Room for the River pilot.

1 This department is now Alberta Environment and Parks but is referred to throughout this report as ESRD as that was the name of the department when the work was done.

A key to success was working with water managers, watershed managers, and experts who know the river system best (see Appendix A for a list of contributors to this project). Many of these organizations and individuals have not only been directly involved in managing water in the Red Deer River Basin, they also actively participated in previous collaborations to model and identify Red Deer River water management opportunities for both drought and flood mitigation.2 This project further drew on their expertise and sought comments on costs, risks, and benefits of potential Room for the River-type options for flood mitigation in the Red Deer River Basin, including environmental and fisheries impacts.

This project had three target outcomes: 1. Provide specific advice to the GoA, including:  A scan of specific, actionable opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along the Red Deer River, including select tributaries, from the headwaters to downstream of Drumheller.  Recognition of what has already been done along the Red Deer River and select tributaries to create room for the river.  Identification of the most promising opportunities.  Suggestions on a potential broader program, process and engagement. 2. Elevate understanding among the water community in the Red Deer Basin of the Room for the River program, measures and associated opportunities in Alberta. 3. Produce a tested framework and process for applying Room for the River measures to all watersheds in Alberta.

1.2 Building on the Bow Room for the River Experience The Bow Room for the River pilot ran from October to December 2014. The study area included the main stems of the Bow and Elbow Rivers from above Ghost Dam on the Bow and the confluence with Quirk Creek on the Elbow to the southern boundary of the city of Calgary. The two river systems were examined in a total of eight segments (four for each river system), to create an initial scan of the mitigation measures already implemented and what options remained. Facilitated by WaterSMART on behalf of ESRD’s Resilience and Mitigation Branch, the pilot project engaged a technical working group of stakeholders familiar with the river systems as well as a broader forum through the Bow River Basin Council. The resulting advice was documented in the project’s final report, which was submitted to the GoA in December and simultaneously released to the public for comment.

From the initial scan, twenty possible “no regrets” opportunities, defined as mitigation measures that should be beneficial under all river conditions, were identified across the Bow Basin in two main categories: policies and decisions, and projects or actions. Opportunities related to policies and decision making are broader in scope and could take longer to implement; e.g., strengthening and enforcing policy and regulation to minimize new development in the floodplain. Potential projects or actions are specific and could be advanced in the near term, such as revising the Southwest Calgary Ring Road Bridge designs to leave room for the Elbow River and Fish Creek.

2 For more information on these projects, visit the Water Portal at http://albertawater.com/work/research- projects/ssrb-water-project.

The pilot affirmed that a systemic, watershed-based approach to flood mitigation is essential. Mitigation options implemented in one part of a river system and its tributaries can have major consequences in other parts of the system, potentially transferring unacceptable risk from one community or region to another. All mitigation options will affect the watershed; the options chosen must function to build the health and natural resiliency of the watershed and allow for sound water management under flood, drought, and normal conditions.

The report also included advice on how a potential Room for the River program might be implemented in Alberta, stressing the need to raise individual and community awareness and understanding about watershed functions and the effects of flooding.3 As well, the various jurisdictions with responsibilities for flood mitigation need to effectively share and communicate knowledge, data, and other scientific findings. Perhaps most importantly, the pilot noted that, to succeed, a program of this nature would need long-term political, local, and financial support and accountability.

The approach used in the Bow pilot was well received and sparked good discussion about broader water management and specific mitigation opportunities. Feedback on the pilot’s report was accepted throughout January 2015; a final report and addendum based on feedback was submitted to the GoA and released publicly at the end of February.4 Lessons learned from the Bow pilot provided a solid basis for the Room for the River project in the Red Deer River Basin.

2. The Room for the River Management Approach

2.1 The Dutch Approach Room for the River is a program designed and implemented by the Government of the Netherlands. It followed a transition in river management policy away from the historic approach of managing flood risk by raising embankments and toward a new approach of creating room for conveyance throughout the river system.

In 1996, the Flood Protection Law (now Water Law) was introduced. It set specific protection levels and required five-year reviews and reports to Parliament on the Rhine design parameters and flood infrastructure. In 2001, the levels from two recent flood events resulted in the design discharge for the Rhine branches being increased from 15,000 m3/s to 16,000 m3/s. At the same time, a new policy was introduced, adding two key components: the preference for no further dike heightening (i.e., that dike heightening be considered only as a last resort), and a secondary program objective of enhancing natural and cultural landscape values (i.e., “spatial quality”). Thus the specific goals of the current Dutch program are to: 1. Safely cope with a 1:1,250 year discharge of 16,000 m3/s without flooding, and 2. Enhance the overall spatial quality of the river landscape.

3 Ducks Unlimited Canada, for example, has published Wetland Conservation and Restoration as Flood Mitigation Tools in the Bow River Basin, January 2014, available online at http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/BRB- Wetlands-as-Flood-Mitigation-Final-2.pdf 4 The Bow Room for the River report and addendum are available online at http://albertawater.com/albertawater-blog/2572-public-feedback-room-for-the-river-pilot-in-the-bow-river-basin.

The Dutch process followed five main steps: 1. Define the problem with specific objectives and clear constraints, considering the geo- ecological functioning of the system and the long-term consequences of current policy. 2. Develop an inventory of potential projects that could be considered to help achieve the specific program objectives. 3. Determine the expected hydraulic impact, cost-effectiveness, and attractiveness of all potential projects and build the Planning Kit (see below), communicating all this data. 4. Working collaboratively with many participants and using the Planning Kit, select the suitable ideas against the objectives for the region; that is, which projects together can achieve the pre-defined goal within the budget constraints? 5. Implement the selected projects locally under national supervision with transparency and extensive engagement throughout.

Sharing knowledge with stakeholders has been a fundamental part of the program in the Netherlands. All results from the early research that went into the problem definition were captured in an understandable way in a single volume that was very explicit about the uncertainties.

The Planning Kit tool (“Blokkendoos”) is a simple, interactive, visual tool showing the hydraulic effect and cost data needed for any user to examine and select sets of individual mitigation measures. This tool allows the user to select various measures throughout the Rhine branches to try to collectively meet the safety objective within a pre-set budget. The tool created a common base of knowledge, allowed users to test their own ideas, and provided a sense of empowerment to affected communities.

The second objective – spatial quality – reflected a balance of functionality (for everyday use), sustainability (geo-ecologically robust), and attractiveness (culturally meaningful and aesthetic). An independent Spatial Quality team (the Q team) was struck to provide advice and to peer review spatial quality for all projects that went ahead.

Nine broad mitigation measures were identified under the Room for the River program (Table 1).

Table 1: Room for the River Measures: Dutch Definitions

Room for the River Measures (as described by the Dutch program*) 1. Dike relocation: Relocating a dike inland widens the floodplain and increases room for the river. 2. Depoldering: The dike on the river-side of a polder5 is lowered and relocated inland. This creates space for excess flows in extreme high water situations. 3. High-water channel: A high-water channel is a diked area branching off from the main river to discharge some of the water via a separate route. 4. Lowering floodplains: Lowering or excavating part of the floodplain increases the room for the river in high water situations. 5. Lowering groynes6: At high water levels, groynes may obstruct the flow in the river. Lowering groynes speeds up the rate of flow. 6. Removing obstacles: If possible, removing or modifying obstacles in the river bed will increase the rate of flow. 7. Water storage: Provide temporary water storage in extreme situations where the storm surge barrier is closed and there are high river discharges to the sea. 8. Deepening summer bed: Excavating or deepening the surface of the river bed creates more room for the river. 9. Dike reinforcement: Dikes are reinforced at given locations where river widening is not feasible. * Source: Room for the River Summary Brochure; March 2012.

Measure 8, essentially dredging, was commonly used in the past in the Netherlands to reduce sediment build-up in navigation channels. Their experience has shown that it has limited effect as the river typically quickly re-deposits sediment in dredged areas, which reduces the benefit or necessitates repeated dredging. Measure 7, water storage, is recognized as having very limited opportunities in the Netherlands. Some opportunities may exist upstream in Germany but those options have not advanced to date. A further limiting factor on potential storage infrastructure is the consequence of infrastructure failure; in the Netherlands, infrastructure failure would be catastrophic given the population density and location. In addition to the risk of catastrophic failure, large infrastructure also means that the burden of a reservoir is borne in a different area from the area that receives the benefits. For these reasons, water storage that uses natural low-lying areas such as polders is much preferred over storage that requires dam infrastructure.

Fisheries and habitat values are important throughout the floodplain area, the main channels, and side channels. Through the spatial planning team, the program has tried to restore aquatic and semi- aquatic spaces, although this is a particular challenge during low-flow periods.

A critical point when considering which measures are most appropriate is the nature of the hydraulic effect of managed water. Simply, water storage should reduce the water level downstream; creating a larger cross section should reduce the water level locally and upstream. These concepts are often poorly understood.

Rijkswaterstaat, the National Water Authority in the Netherlands, has administered the Room for the River program for about 14 years. Of the 700 projects identified in that time, 39 are expected to be

5 A polder is a low-lying tract of land enclosed by dikes that forms an artificial hydrological entity that has no connection with outside water other than through manually operated devices. (adapted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder) 6 A groyne is a rigid hydraulic structure built from a river bank. It directs high velocity flows away from the banks, mitigates erosion, and keeps navigation channels open. Groynes are generally placed in groups.

5 implemented by 2015 within a budget of €2.3 billion (about Cdn$3.3 billion). The expected effect is that 4,400 hectares of surface area (about 10% of the system) will be “returned” to the river floodplain. In so doing, the peak flow levels will be reduced so that water level is lowered by 30 cm on average along all three river branches, creating the conveyance capacity for the specified target of 16,000 m3/s. Additional information on the Room for the River program is available online in English at http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/.

2.2 The Southern Alberta Context Numerous differences in geography and hydrology exist between the Netherlands and Southern Alberta (Table 2) that must be recognized when potential Room for the River measures are being contemplated in this province. Furthermore, the Dutch measures are essentially engineered structural changes, whereas Alberta has indicated the importance of capitalizing on natural river and watershed functions for flood mitigation, as highlighted in the GoA’s 2014 Respecting Our Rivers document.7 These differences do not negate the opportunity to learn from the Dutch program and measures, rather they were recognized as important context throughout the project discussions.

Table 2: Differences between River Systems in the Netherlands and Southern Alberta Hydrology of the Netherlands Hydrology of Southern Alberta The Netherlands is in the coastal region, partly below Southern Alberta comprises mountains, foothills, and sea level prairies The Netherlands has a temperate humid, maritime Alberta has a relatively cold, dry, continental climate climate The Netherlands’ rivers branch through static Southern Alberta’s rivers course down steep slopes and channels through flat terrain with a leveed floodplain move and converge through foothills and onto the prairie The Netherlands has issues with sedimentation of fine Southern Alberta has issues with transport of fine and material (siltation) but few other water quality coarse material and debris, and significant water quality concerns concerns Development has encroached on the river throughout Southern Alberta has a mix of development near and on the country; Room for the River is lowering the flood the river and stretches that are free of development; level by removing the “straitjacket” Alberta is about mitigating flood while respecting our rivers’ natural characteristics One of the primary purposes of the Rhine River is The rivers are managed for water supply in a closed navigation for transport vessels upstream into basin; all rivers have multiple functions and uses, Germany; water supply is not a limiting factor including a healthy and thriving recreational cold water fishery Salt water is a concern Groundwater plays a key role The Netherlands is dealing with increasing river Southern Alberta is dealing with natural variability discharge where timing is less of an issue and trans- where timing is crucial and upstream retention within boundary upstream retention is difficult the same jurisdiction may be possible

With these differences in mind, Room for the River measures can be adapted to fit the Alberta context and categorized to reflect how mitigation is often discussed in Alberta: conveyance, diversion,

7 Online at https://pabappsuat.alberta.ca/albertacode/images/respecting-our-rivers.pdf.

6 detention, and defence. Examples in place or being considered on the Red Deer River main stem and select tributaries are included with the adapted measures in Table 3.

Table 3: General Examples of the Room for the River Measures in the Alberta Context Measure How it might be defined in the Alberta Examples on the Red Deer main stem context and selected tributaries CONVEYANCE • Relocate permanent or temporary barriers, • Bridge redesigns – enlarging the bridge possibly in combination with relocation of homes span where hydraulic capacity is and businesses via buyouts constricted • Reduce the size and location of infrastructure in • Restricted development in the floodplain the floodplain; e.g., roads, bridge abutments – the City of Red Deer has adopted the • Set development back from the river (floodway, province’s “Stepping Back from the flood fringe, floodplain) Water” initiative • Construct parks in the floodplain as flood zones • Relocation of houses or businesses – • Remove material from floodplain relocation of houses from the floodplain; • Change policy on allowing fill in floodplains the most recent relocations have been • Minimize obstacles in the riverbed downstream of Dickson Dam • Dredge river beds in high hazard areas DIVERSION • Create flood bypasses through the floodplain • Reconnection of natural drains DETENTION • Operational changes to current storage • Modifications to Dickson Dam infrastructure • Wetland restoration or preservation • Structural changes to current storage • Land use restrictions – forestry access infrastructure roads, oil and gas restrictions • Dredge reservoirs • New dams as identified by the 2014 • Construct new detention sites (on-stream, off- Stantec report (not recommended for stream, wetlands, ponds) further study by Stantec and GoA) • Designate agricultural and park lands in the floodplain as flood zones • Prevent destruction of naturally occurring detention sites (i.e., wetlands) • Restore riparian zones for absorption functions • Enforce land use practices in upper watershed to detain runoff DEFENCE • Reinforce barriers (permanent or temporary) at • Local berms – raise existing dikes in given locations Sundre to the updated flows of a 1:100 • Restore riparian zones for bank stabilization year event function • Reduce flow velocity upstream of settled areas • Flood-proof buildings in floodplains

2.3 Scope of the Red Deer Room for the River Project To ensure appropriate focus and timely completion, careful consideration was given to what was in scope and out of scope for this project. The project was intended to build on prior work and decisions, not replicate them, and the scope was set accordingly. The scope parameters are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Project Scope

In Scope Out of Scope Geography • Main stem of the Red Deer River from the • All tributaries not listed headwaters to downstream of Drumheller • Large catchment tributaries: • Medicine River • Little Red Deer River • James River • Bearberry Creek • Fallentimber Creek • Raven River Cause of • Spring freshet flooding • Precipitation events • Ice jams

Options and • Infrastructure options, operational changes, • Individual landowner-related decisions Opportunities and natural functions • Basin scale and local scale options • Primarily surface water quantity, but water quality and groundwater comments were captured Impacts • Upstream, downstream, and system-wide • Detailed engineering or feasibility and impacts constructability analysis • High-flow, low-flow, and “normal-flow” • Detailed environmental, social, or impacts economic impacts • Identification of potential complexities and dependencies Findings • Advice on where Room for the River • Comprehensive, triple bottom line measures have already been applied and a evaluation of options scan of further opportunities • A detailed prioritization study • Specific, actionable most promising options

The study area for this project was the Red Deer River and select tributaries, from headwaters to downstream of Drumheller. The tributaries were chosen because they had: sizeable human populations living near them, large catchment basins, heavy infrastructure, seen flooding in the past, or they contributed significant water yield to streamflow in the basin. To enable manageable discussion of mitigation opportunities, the study area was divided into ten segments, which were defined as groupings of reaches with similar geomorphology. Channel pattern and channel confinement were the main factors in reach delineation, but significant tributary confluences or changes in gradient could also indicate reach boundaries. The intent was to reflect the diversity of the

8 systems while maintaining a reasonable number of segments to enable productive discussion. The ten segments examined for this project included four on the Red Deer River main stem, plus six tributaries (Fallentimber Creek, Bearberry Creek, James River, Raven River, Little Red Deer River and Medicine River). These river systems are complex with many interdependencies and breaking them into segments does not imply that any one segment is independent of or more important than any other. A detailed description of the methodology used to define these ten segments appears in Appendix B.

Figure 1 illustrates the geographic scope of the entire project; maps of each segment appear in Section 3.1.

Figure 1: Geographic Scope of the Project in the Red Deer River Basin

2.4 Process and Approach A systematic, informed framework was developed for examining Room for the River measures in the Red Deer River Basin. For each of the ten river or tributary segments, research was undertaken to identify a) measures that had already been implemented, and b) remaining options that might be considered in the four categories noted above.

To complete the initial scan for each river segment, project staff first researched and reviewed recent flood and engineering studies and policy documents from municipalities, the GoA, and groups involved in the watershed. They also interviewed knowledgeable and experienced representatives from select municipalities, counties, non-government organizations (including the Watershed Planning and Advisory Council), and others. Once this information was compiled and details added to the framework for each segment, a one-day multi-stakeholder technical session was held in Red Deer in April 2015 to engage water managers, watershed managers, and experts. The compiled findings from the research, interviews, and technical working group session were presented to a joint meeting of the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance and the Red Deer River Municipal Users Group in early May to obtain broader input. This document – the project’s final report – with advice on Room for the River implementation and further options in the Red Deer River Basin was prepared and submitted to the GoA in early June. The entire process was facilitated by Alberta WaterSMART.

Like the Bow pilot project, this process and report are not government policy. Suggestions in this report are for consideration and do not, in the form presented, reflect policy of the GoA; the advice includes ideas that may be adopted but their presence in this report does not indicate that they are official policy. Nor was this a public consultation process. It was a project that drew on the experience and expertise of a technical working group as well as the local Watershed Planning and Advisory Council (the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance) in a joint forum with the Red Deer River Municipal User Group, to provide advice to the GoA. It represents one step towards gaining a comprehensive inventory of flood mitigation projects in the province.

3. Advice to Government of Alberta from the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River Basin

3.1 Initial Scan of the Red Deer Basin Study Area The project team compiled information from various sources for this project, including:  The Red Deer River Basin Flood Mitigation Study by Stantec (May 2014), which featured a broad set of relevant data, results of stakeholder engagement, and flood mitigation alternatives,  Climate Vulnerability and Sustainable Water Management in the SSRB Project – Red Deer River Basin Modelling, by Alberta WaterSMART (February 2015),  The website of the Red Deer River Watershed Alliance, and  Interviews with a number of technical working group participants.

Four main categories of measures were used for the initial scan and were retained for the subsequent analysis with stakeholders; these measures related to:  Conveyance,  Diversion,  Detention, and  Defence.

3.1.1 Basin-wide Options Throughout the course of the initial scan, a number of potential options were identified that could apply to multiple river segments. These ideas were captured in the following list of basin-wide options and were grouped into what appeared to be relevant themes.

Preserve channel capacity  Preserve channel capacity in areas that provide active floodplain storage, require high channel capacity, and have geomorphologic issues, geotechnical issues, special aquifer areas, or sensitive riparian zones. The channel capacity may be conserved by prohibiting development as necessary.  Implement a basin-wide bank erosion policy; e.g., establish setback zones from the river through channel migration zones and/or building development setbacks.

Limit development in floodplain  Recommendation in 1989 to stay out of the floodplain.  Either do not develop in areas that are not protected by dikes or do not develop in areas that are developable only because they are protected by dikes.  If deemed scientifically necessary, setback standards should be increased or enforced in flood fringe areas as well as in the floodplain.  Increase the required depth of pipeline crossings under a floodplain from 1.5 m depth requirement to a proposed depth of 30 m.  Review municipal land use policies to support Bill 27 and restrict development in the floodway, including identifying sites for storage of dangerous goods.  Some counties have a policy of no floodway development although not all rivers have provincial flood hazard mapping.

 Some counties have general policies that discourage floodplain development. Guidelines pertaining to floodplain development should be converted to regulations that prevent development in floodplains. Data are needed to support such regulations; e.g., floodplain maps.  There is a lot of talk about restricting or preventing development; the types of developments that are taking place should also be considered. Low impact development and proper stormwater management should be discussed and encouraged to detain water and thus slow water release into the river.

Consider additional storage in the basin  Storage in the basin should not be taken off the table. Consider additional dams or reservoirs. At the moment no new dams or reservoirs are being contemplated; these should be considered at the same time as regularly scheduled Dickson Dam code safety reviews. Dams to consider could include dams on small tributaries that would decrease the overall flow in the river instead of bigger dams (e.g., six small dams as opposed to one bigger dam). Suggested locations for larger structures were a dam upstream of Sundre, and/or mid-stream storage such as Ardley for both flood and drought mitigation. It should be noted that storage in the headwaters and in a mid-stream location presents fiscal and environmental trade-offs. Storage can encourage more risky floodplain development and exposure to catastrophic failure. Off- stream storage presents a different option with fewer environmental trade-offs.  Implement Alberta’s Wetland Policy to retain and restore wetlands. Also implement programs and projects that improve infiltration, such as municipal and agricultural drain disconnects.  It is important to remember the immense volume of water that passes in a high flow event. The capacity needed to detain or divert this volume is huge; there are limited opportunities in the Red Deer Basin for detention or diversion structures of this size.

Actively manage the river: debris management, aggregate extraction, training, naturalizing  Monitor and, if necessary, remove drift build-up at bridges during high flow events.  Selectively extract aggregate from floodplain in areas where water does not usually flow most years.

Protect natural functions (headwaters, aquifers, riparian areas)  Minimize the linear footprint by managing recreational activity in the headwaters that contributed to increased runoff such as industrial development, campsites, off road vehicles (ORVs), and trail networks.  Enforce the reclamation of roadways, not just river crossings, to reduce land fragmentation and access to sensitive areas.  Implement riparian restoration projects and encourage planting of trees and shrubs in riparian areas to provide natural bank stability, and prohibit or restrict the removal of existing natural vegetation.  Preserve beaver dams, log jams in the headwaters, wetlands, alluvial aquifers, and riparian integrity as they can have a positive effect in small flood events.  Recognize, protect and perhaps use the reservoir capacity of connected aquifers in floodplains. This includes fully understanding the functions and benefits aquifers offer to riparian health and water supply, establishing the in-ground testing and science needed to understand aquifer connectivity and potential, and building broad education and awareness of these functions

and benefits. Aquifers augment soil moisture in many areas of the Red Deer Basin; if aquifer connections are severed, this steady water supply could be gradually reduced. It is unclear how much benefit aquifers in the floodplain can offer for flood mitigation.  The Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program is a community-developed, farmer- delivered program that provides annual financial incentives for landowners to protect riparian areas. This program being implemented in some areas of the Red Deer River Basin.

Defend where critical  Create a basin-wide policy to identify critical highways and design them for higher flow rates.  Install line-of-defence dams on a basin wide scale.  Create a basin-wide bank erosion protection policy.  Assess pipelines to identify those that are susceptible to breakage or exposure during floods, and move those that are vulnerable.

Invest in flood mapping  Update and expand flood mapping, ensuring that the existing floodway exemption for Drumheller is considered or reflected.  While updating flood mapping and managing development, consider removing the distinction between floodway and flood fringe and instead map the full floodplain.  Flood mapping is critical not only for Sundre, Red Deer and Drumheller, but also for critical infrastructure along or in close proximity to the river and rural areas where development encroaches or may encroach on the floodplain.

Invest in forecasting and emergency response  Develop plans and procedures for emergency diking to protect critical infrastructure.

3.1.2 Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters This segment of the Red Deer River (Figure 2) extends from Douglas Lake to just upstream of Sundre, a distance of approximately 116 km. The upper reaches of this segment are steep, with large substrates and bedrock outcrops, moving towards a widened valley and shallower gradient at the downstream end. This reach provides important fish habitat and offers a range of recreational activities such as camping and kayaking. Portions of roads in this segment are vulnerable to large floods and some were damaged in the 2013 event. Discussions on this segment focused on minimizing further floodplain development and understanding the effects of watershed-scale disturbance on streamflow.

Figure 2: Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters

Table 5 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 5: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters

Measure What has already What options remain? been done?

CONVEYANCE • Consider modifications to Mountain Aire Lodge Bridge over Highway 40 • Examine repetitive loss areas8 on the Coal Camp Road and relocate the road in these areas if possible • Design infrastructure to allow flooding, especially of campgrounds in this area

DIVERSION

DETENTION • Build a dam upstream of Sundre for flood control, for example, build new Vam Creek Dam 35 km up from Sundre with 2270 km2 catchment area; 65,000,000 m3 (44,000,000 m3 FSL) storage (not recommended for further study by Stantec and GoA) • Build small-scale line-of-defence dams at major bridges along

8 Repetitive loss areas are areas where infrastructure is repeatedly washed out or destroyed in flood events.

Measure What has already What options remain? been done?

Highway 734 to attenuate flow (+/- 20 m3/s each) (not recommended for further study by Stantec) • Develop new logging ground rules to widen buffers surrounding ephemeral and intermittent streams • Build a series of engineered high elevation mountain structures, as in Montana and BC, to slow and retain flow. Maintenance would be a challenge in this basin’s steep terrain, particularly silting in the forebays and debris management • Maximize natural detention functions through land management practices (e.g., forestry, grazing, recreation, roads)

DEFENCE • Where Coal Camp road cannot be moved, look at bank erosion control to prevent roadway washout and isolation of residents

Additional commentary:  Headwaters upstream of Sundre have been degraded; the natural detention functions of the watershed, especially in the headwaters, should be protected and if possible, improved. Refined forest harvesting practices and re-establishment of cover will play an important role in this. A prohibition on clear cut logging in flood areas could be considered. Changes in grazing, ORV use, oil and gas, and other land use practices need to be examined and the trade-offs of decisions made for “short-term economic gains” need to be assessed.  The potential for logging to increase runoff is a concern among residents; more work is needed to improve modelling of riparian and groundwater impacts and to illustrate how logging is done to clarify what potential water quantity and quality impacts are and to resolve the perception of the impacts versus the actuality of the impacts.  The Foothills Research Institute and ESRD are looking at increasing buffers around ephemeral and intermittent streams. The Municipal Government Act suggests a minimum six-metre setback.  The Sibbald Flats area study shows that beaver dams, riparian areas, and wetlands can have an effect on smaller flood events.  An upstream dam on the Red Deer River, while having considerable potential to alleviate flooding in Sundre and further downstream to Gleniffer Reservoir, would have negative impacts on a stretch of river that now is “wild,” has tremendous tourism potential and marvelous ecological values. It is speculated that for the cost of such a dam, all the flood prevention projects identified to protect municipal infrastructure and lands in Sundre and the McDougal Flats area could likely be undertaken. Many groups feel an upstream dam on the main stem of the Red Deer should not proceed. Williams Creek Dam site was considered at the same time as Dickson Dam.  Some mitigation work is occurring at Bighorn Campground to re-route Bighorn Creek channel.  River training should be considered upstream of Sundre. In this area, poor land use practices have led to increased erosion and siltation of the river, and the active floodplain is increasing in width. The proposed river training should include debris removal, dredging, and erosion control.

3.1.3 Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek Segment 2 is Fallentimber Creek, as shown in Figure 3. From its headwaters to the confluence with the Red Deer River, it covers a linear distance of approximately 105 km. Agriculture, recreational fishing and forestry are the primary land uses along this stream and there is little floodplain development. Technical working group members described Fallentimber Creek as a flashy system with rapid runoff in response to rainfall events.

Figure 3: Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek

Table 6 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 6: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

CONVEYANCE • Mountain View County (MVC) • Prevent development near the river Municipal Development Plan • Design infrastructure to allow flooding, (MDP) prevents development in especially of campgrounds in this area the floodway (there is no provincial floodway mapping on Fallentimber Creek) • MVC Bergen Area Structure Plan: Tree cover promoted to

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

maintain the banks of the river • MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations discourage development in the floodway

DIVERSION

DETENTION • MVC riparian policy for • Build new Olson Ridge Site Dam 26 km SW Environmentally Sensitive Areas of Sundre: 250 km2 catchment area; (ESAs) – MVC may require 58,000,000 m3 storage (not recommended riparian fencing in ESAs for further study by Stantec and GoA) • MVC / Cows and Fish riparian • Implement and enforce Alberta’s Wetland fencing project Policy • Develop common goals with • Maintain riparian health for its natural landowners through storage function conservation easements - Legacy Land Trust • ALUS program - financial incentives to protect riparian areas

DEFENCE • MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations discourage tree or vegetation clearing within 30.5 m of land prone to flooding, shoreline erosion or slope instability hazards

Additional commentary:  Fallentimber Creek is a flashy and narrow catchment so preventing development near the floodway and flood fringe is particularly important. Local residents are generally opposed to development along the river and there is a desire to preserve agricultural activity along this segment.  The creek basin is long and narrow so any small changes to riparian zones or wetlands are felt greatly throughout the basin.  Potential developers in an area that does not have a flood hazard map from the GoA must demonstrate that they are not in the floodplain. Applicants hire a professional to do this work and this extra step can be a deterrent to developing in the flood fringe.  Mitigation measures can be taken in the floodplain, but hydrological conditions change and rivers move so there could be future liability issues with development in the floodplain.  Development setbacks could be widened to restrict development in the flood fringe.  The MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations could be further amended to discourage tree or vegetation clearing within the 1:1000 year floodplain.

3.1.4 Segment 3: Bearberry Creek Segment 3 – Bearberry Creek – flows from the headwaters through the town of Sundre to the confluence with the Red Deer River over a distance of approximately 55 km (Figure 4). The creek has been channelized through the town, offering potential for the application of natural channel design to help mitigate flooding. Land use in the Bearberry watershed includes forestry and recreation, but these activities are not as prevalent in this watershed as in others. Lower reaches are characterized by the Bearberry Plain, which is a wide floodplain with numerous relic stream channels capable of conveying large volumes of water. Developments in the Bearberry Plain include gravel extraction, the Sundre airport, and residences. There are concerns about gravel extraction due to its potential to alter groundwater-surface water interactions.

Figure 4: Segment 3: Bearberry Creek

Table 7 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 7: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 3: Bearberry Creek

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

CONVEYANCE • MVC MDP prevents • Increase hydraulic conveyance at: development in the floodway • Sundre major bridge (Centre St) • MVC Land Use Bylaw • Bridge 78518: Sundre major bridge (Hwy 22) Regulations on hazardous • Naturalize Bearberry Creek west of Highway 22 lands, prone to flooding: new • Increase conveyance by replacing damaged culverts development in the floodway and bridges with bigger ones not recommended • Widen development setbacks to restrict development in the flood fringe

DIVERSION

DETENTION • MVC Riparian Policy for ESAs • MVC / Cows and Fish riparian fencing project • Develop common goals with landowners through conservation easements - Legacy Land Trust • ALUS program - financial incentives to protect riparian areas

DEFENCE • MVC South McDougal Flats • Confine Bearberry Creek to the designated channel Area Structure Plan: Tree by combining roadway construction with a dike cover promoted to maintain improvement project adjacent to Bearberry Creek. the banks of the river. • Provide information to ensure that the public is Appropriate land uses could aware of the historical river data and historic water be grazing or hay lands as levels they can be flooded.

Additional commentary:  The 2005 flooding in Sundre was caused primarily by flows in Bearberry Creek, not the Red Deer River; the creek normally flows at 2 m3/s and in 2005, flow was 235 m3/s. This flow could not pass under the Highway 22 Bridge so it went down Highway 22 and flooded Sundre. The Centre Street Bridge in Sundre was not a big issue in 2005 because water flowed down Highway 22 instead of following the creek bed. If 2005 flood flows had reached this bridge, it would have likely washed out.  To confine Bearberry Creek to its designated channel, approximately 2.6 km of dikes and roadway are proposed east of Highway 22 and approximately 4 km west of Highway 22 to prevent breakout on the south side of the creek.  Upstream of Highway 22, Bearberry Creek meanders, and downstream of the highway it runs straight to the Red Deer River; the Province has artificially straightened the channel downstream of Highway 22. Many opportunities exist between Highway 22 and the confluence with the Red Deer River for natural channel design and wider bridges; it would be worth examining how naturalizing the creek could increase conveyance capacity and add more room for the river. The surrounding residential areas may be affected.

 Concerns exist about gravel development in the Bearberry Plains as such development can cut surface water off from groundwater and could affect fish spawning. McDougal Flats is under high pressure for gravel pit development.  Conduct a study to evaluate current and historical hydraulic connectivity in the area as well as to examine what historical floodplain development such as stripping and lowering of floodplains might have taken place.  New home buyers should have access to information that states where and when the river has historically reached their property. This information could potentially be documented on land titles.

3.1.5 Segment 4: James River The James River (Figure 5) flows about 100 km from the headwaters to the confluence with the Red Deer River. Land use activities are similar to those of other tributaries to the Red Deer, with forestry in the upper watershed and agriculture towards the outlet. There is relatively little development along the floodplain. Technical working group participants noted that effects of land use and road development are key considerations with respect to flooding in this segment.

Figure 5: Segment 4: James River

Table 8 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 8: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 4: James River

Measure What has already been What options remain? done?

CONVEYANCE • Modify bridges: • James Bridge (Hwy 22) to determine if any river training works are required • Widen bridge culvert at Hwy 734 • Repair Sundre bridges (Hwy 734) and redesign to be wide span • Redesign Bearberry major bridge (Hwy 584) • Design all new bridges and culverts for a 1% return flood event, at a minimum • Examine the bridge and transportation network in Clearwater County to potentially reduce the number of bridges • Develop a long-term plan to design for resilience by replacing bridges that are destroyed by flood with bridges that have a higher hydraulic capacity, rather than repairing to the original state • The eight county bridges along the James River wash out during floods and should all be considered in the long-term plan

DIVERSION

DETENTION • Build new James River Dam 22 km upstream of the confluence of the James River with the Red Deer River; 682 km2 catchment area and 73,000,000 m3 storage (not recommended for further study by Stantec and GoA)

DEFENCE

Additional commentary:  Debris flow does not appear to be a concern in this segment. Flow, not debris, caused the destruction of bridges in 2005 and 2013, which is why bridges should be rebuilt to different, more resilient, standards.  Gravel development should not be considered as an option to lower the floodplain. This creates a path for the river and has numerous negative environmental effects.  It was suggested that the counties and the GoA should jointly develop a long-term transportation plan. The plan would have updated bridge designs ready prior to a flood so that when a bridge washes out it is replaced with a bridge that has higher hydraulic capacity rather than be repaired to its original form. This plan should also focus on minimizing the number of bridges over the James River.

3.1.6 Segment 5: Raven River The Raven River – Segment 5 – flows 100 km from the headwaters to the confluence with the Red Deer River (Figure 6). This river supports a healthy brown trout fishery. There is substantial oil and gas activity in this region as well as forestry and agriculture. The Raven River is along the northern boundary of the Red Deer watershed, very close to the Clearwater River in the North Saskatchewan watershed. In 2005, water threatened to flow from the Clearwater into the North Raven, which would have substantially increased flow into the Red Deer River and destroyed the brown trout fishery in the Raven River. The road between the Raven and Clearwater rivers acts somewhat as a berm and prevents flow from entering the Red Deer watershed from the North Saskatchewan.

Figure 6: Segment 5: Raven River

Table 9 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 9: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 5: Raven River

Measure What has already been What options remain? done?

CONVEYANCE • Modify the Hwy 22 bridge and the Dickson major bridge (Hwy 766) • Clear debris on the Clearwater River to increase conveyance and reduce risk of spill into the North Raven River • Build a dike between the Clearwater River and the North Raven River to prevent flows from entering the North Raven River

DIVERSION

DETENTION • Explore potential of Raven Dam site just above confluence with Red Deer River • Consider future forest harvest practices while considering previous forest disturbance areas

DEFENCE

Additional commentary:  The North Raven River is one of the most notable blue ribbon brown trout fisheries in North America and would be significantly affected (likely permanently destroyed) if flows from the Clearwater came down the North Raven. Action needs to be taken to ensure that a Clearwater flood of any magnitude will not lead to even a short-term diversion of water from the North Saskatchewan River Basin (the Clearwater River) to the South Saskatchewan River Basin (the Red Deer River), with the focus of protecting the North Raven River. Debris constricts flows during floods, and problems arose when Clearwater River reversed and flowed down the North Raven. Berming to prevent spillage from the Clearwater into the Raven may be cost- prohibitive as a very long structure would be needed. Dredging and debris removal might be part of the solution.  Agricultural land (crops and pasture) already floods in this area, but residences have not been affected.  Some infrastructure will likely not be moved; e.g., oil installations, gas pipeline.  Bridges do not represent pinch-points in this segment, but culverts could be constricting during a flood.  Consider prohibiting clear cut logging in flood areas.

3.1.7 Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam Segment 6 is part of the Red Deer River main stem downstream from Segment 1; it flows approximately 89 km to the downstream end of Gleniffer Reservoir (Figure 7). This segment is largely braided and flows through agricultural land. The Red Deer River passes through Sundre, and various land uses occur along it, including oil and gas, gravel pits, and recreation. It was noted that wetland retention and restoration are important components of this segment for mitigating the effects of flooding.

Figure 7: Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam

Table 10 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 10: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 6: Red Deer River - Sundre to Dickson Dam

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

CONVEYANCE • Two buyouts upstream of Sundre • Implement long-term plan to increase in 2013 hydraulic capacity of Garrington major • Three buyouts downstream of the bridge (Hwy 587) Garrington Bridge after 2005 • Widen span of Sundre Bridge (Hwy 27) • MVC moratorium bylaw restricts • Create a defined “normal flow” channel land use in McDougal Flats flood as part of Sundre Channel Conveyance hazard area until current draft Improvements and Drift Removal provincial study is finalized • Dredge the river and remove debris • MVC MDP preventing around Sundre to keep the river in the development in the floodway original river channel • MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations • Establish setbacks from the river in MVC on hazardous lands, prone to by establishing channel migration zones flooding :new development in the and/or building development setbacks floodway area not recommended • Instead of installing the proposed 4.1 km berm in Sundre, relocate residents that the berm would protect and allow the area to flood • Avoid expanding residential component of golf courses in floodplains • Increase hydraulic conveyance capacity of conveyance under range roads to avoid small water back-ups

DIVERSION

DETENTION • Construction of Dickson Dam • Update the bathymetric survey of allows for flood mitigation Gleniffer Reservoir to determine if • ESRD plans to raise the abutments storage capacity has changed adjacent to the spillway • Make capital improvements to Dickson (approximately 0.5 m) to bring Dam: them to the same height as the • Increase the capacity of the service crest of the Dickson Dam to spillway by raising wing walls and reduce the vulnerability of that installing chute blocks in the stilling area being overtopped during high basin (planned in the near future) reservoir levels cause by an • Add a third fuse plug, modify the extreme probable maximum flood two existing fuse plugs, and raise (PMF) event the dikes around the reservoir • MVC Riparian policy for ESAs • Revise Dickson Dam operational • MVC and Cows and Fish riparian procedures and rules to increase active fencing project storage for flood mitigation: • Develop common goals with • Implement measures to allow for landowners through conservation the pre-flood event discharge of easements - Legacy Land Trust 350 m3/s (or higher) (already • ALUS program – financial underway) incentives to protect riparian • Delay filling the reservoir above areas annual low level until later in the summer or early fall • Review and potentially revise

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

Dickson Dam operational procedures such that flood mitigation is made an even higher priority than it is today • Consider allowing the reservoir level of Dickson Dam to exceed the FSL in very specific circumstances to reduce the peak outflow

DEFENCE • Stage 1 of Sundre berm • Raise existing berms in Sundre to reflect constructed in 2011, including updated understanding of 1% return 500 m of rock riprap placement flood • Red Deer County – Hwy 27 Bridge • Finish portions of the MVC stage 1 berm erosion control (underway) that are not yet at the required berm • Red Deer County – RR 40 bank height, and construct stage 2 of the armoring (underway) berm that will continue southeast from • Mountain View County erosion the east end of the stage 1 berm for control (underway): Erosion approximately 4.1 km. This berm would protection under bridge on RR 52 protect Sundre and the area southwest • Groynes installed upstream of of Sundre by allowing the Red Deer Sundre River to flow within a large channel area • Armoring of Garrington Bridge but prevent it from breaking out of the • McDougal Flats flood hazard study current channel location; it would cut off • MVC South McDougal Flats Area the old Red Deer River channel to the Structure Plan – Tree cover north promoted to maintain the banks • Stabilize banks immediately of the river downstream of the confluence with • MVC South East Sundre Area Bearberry Creek near groynes at Structure Plan – Tree cover Highways 27 and 6 promoted to maintain the banks • In MVC, undertake bank erosion control of the river along Coal Camp Road and use riprap for erosion control • Install necessary erosion protection at the confluence of the Red Deer River and Fallentimber Creek as appropriate

Additional commentary:  Debris removal can be applied to increase conveyance capacity of a channel and/or to remove hazards that pose risk to critical infrastructure. Targeted debris removal should be clearly defined and only used in specific, purposeful instances. Debris removal will likely affect the aquatic environment, fisheries, and erosion patterns; this would require careful study and management. This type of removal should likely be done in dry areas of the river bed, not in the active channel. Debris removal can have a positive impact on recreation. Historically it has not been possible to remove debris between Sundre and Dickson Dam because there is not enough access to this part of the river. Generally, debris is removed at Dickson Dam after floods.  Parts of the river could be excavated to create greater channel conveyance capacity for high flows. Suggested locations include both upstream and downstream of Sundre, by the

Garrington Bridge, and below Dickson Dam. It is recognized that excavation in the floodplain will have environmental impacts. This excavation should be carried out with minimal environmental impact, likely over a long time period (10 to 20 years) and only working in low flow times away from the active river channel. Additional potential benefits of this type of work could include channelization to minimize erosion of property and enhancement of recreational opportunities. (Note: This comment also applies to Segment 9 and other areas where selective aggregate extraction is mentioned.) Gravel extraction from the floodplain should be selective (e.g., one kilometre up- and downstream of Sundre Bridge, and three metres deep), may involve industry but should not be led by industry, and gravel should be reserved for use by local municipalities and counties.  Dredging, aggregate removal and gravel pit development should not be done in areas where it may have negative impacts on alluvial aquifers (e.g., near the Medicine Flats and McDougal Flats there is a worry that dredging will affect the aquifer). Aggregate extraction can sever the connection to the wider aquifer, reduce aquifer storage capacity on which landowners depend, and reduce ecological function including important groundwater-origin river base flows and spawning habitat. Aquifers are also perceived to have a tremendous capacity for water storage and flood attenuation. In addition to affecting interactions between surface and groundwater, gravel pits near the river also affect water quality. The extraction of aggregate below the high water table in floodplains could potentially accelerate flood issues in migrating river systems and promote severing of aquifer connectivity. Certainly, any discussion regarding extraction of aggregate in the floodplain needs scientific backing and a historical study.  In the 1950s, the Red Deer River channel was further north in the Bearberry Plain. In 2015, the GoA published a draft flood hazard map with a floodway including the historical channel. Mountain View County has proposed constructing a 4.1 km berm upstream of Sundre to cut off the historic channel and protect the infrastructure in Bearberry Plain. It was suggested that the berm, also known as Riverside Drive, should be built on road allowances and should be built higher than planned. The 4.1 km berm proposed along the north side of the river would change the velocity and level of water, causing higher water levels in Sundre. The area that the berm would run through is now a protected natural area; with regards to the protected natural area it was questioned why the berm could not be built around the area. A previous berm to block the 1952 channel did not prevent flooding in 2013 and there is apprehension about the proposed new berm, especially if it leads to changes or damage downstream. Hence, it might be better to relocate both the airport, portions of the golf course residences, and those that the berm is contemplated to protect and not build the berm; about 400 landowners and possibly others would be affected.  MVC is studying necessary erosion protection downstream of the proposed MVC berm upstream of Sundre.  Bank erosion is an issue at the confluence of Fallentimber Creek with the Red Deer River. Any hardening of the river bank on the Red Deer main stem upstream of the confluence could increase water level and water velocity, therefore increasing the potential for bank erosion.  We need to consider how relic channels could be used to create room for the river.  A robust tool is needed to establish larger riparian setbacks (e.g., 100 m rather than 30 m). This tool would be used in discussions with landowners and should be able to withstand scrutiny by decision makers.  Data are needed to support the decisions made. Clear requirements (regulations?) based on data and evidence are needed rather than guidelines or voluntary approaches that can be

ignored. RDC’s riparian fencing program is a good example of something that has demonstrated value and effectiveness and could be used to justify new requirements. Especially for defence options, good data and evidence are needed to support policy.  The GoA needs to establish clear rules about flood mapping and where development is permitted, including the flood fringe and flood hazard zone.  Using range roads to improve conveyance is an opportunity to build resilience; this could be done by improving hydraulic conveyance of culverts.  The PMF level has almost doubled since Dickson Dam was built, to approximately 10,100 m3/s. Dickson Dam presently is able to pass 5,300 m3/s. Phase 1 upgrades to Dickson Dam involve enhancing abutments adjacent to the spillway, while Phase 2 would raise the concrete wing walls along the spillway. ESRD plans to proceed with these phases in the near future. Phase 3 would see the addition of a third fuse plug and corresponding emergency spillway, but these upgrades would be very costly and are a lower priority at this time. The purpose of these upgrades is to increase conveyance capacity of the dam to align with theoretical PMF inflows (extreme high flows) to avoid an overtopping dam failure scenario, which would create extreme social, environmental, and economic damages downstream. These upgrades do not increase the storage of the reservoir or increase the flood attenuation abilities of Dickson Dam. The capital improvements to Dickson Dam will not raise the level of the reservoir and thus will not affect any landowners on Gleniffer Reservoir.  Dickson Dam operations and reservoir levels are currently tailored for flood mitigation during the highest risk time period of flooding in the basin, May to June; during this time the reservoir is at its lowest.  Operating Dickson Dam at any level above FSL could only be done in very specific scenarios. Operators would have many considerations to factor in before operating the reservoir higher than FSL. Dickson Dam is generally not operated above FSL.  Allowing pre-releases from Dickson Dam is critical for it to operate as intended. Limitations imposed by downstream development as well development around the reservoir should have minimal impact on the dam’s operations. Future development should be limited to ensure that pre-releases can continue.  The GoA (ESRD) and municipalities should ensure a strong focus on wetland retention when the Alberta Wetland Policy is implemented in the White Area. DUC and others have made a strong economic case for wetland retention compared to engineered solutions for more storage.9 Constructed solutions usually do not account for costs associated with land acquisition or maintenance. Further, if wetlands are not maintained, existing wetland storage is lost, which offsets any additional storage that a new structure might provide.  Risk of pipeline ruptures during floods needs to be assessed and responded to; e.g., shut down active vulnerable pipelines during high flows, increase depth of burial from current 1.5 m. This should be done on a basin wide scale.  Tighter restrictions are needed on seismic, forestry and energy development roads, as these linear disturbances increase access to public lands and tend to lead to more erosion. Such roads should be reclaimed to remove access by ORVs in the same way that river crossings are reclaimed.  Bridges should be better designed to reduce or eliminate need for riprap.

9 See A Business Case for Wetland Conservation and Restoration in the Settled Areas of Alberta Vermilion River Subwatershed Case Study, March 2013; published by Ducks Unlimited Canada, available online at http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/DUC-AB-Business-Case_Final.pdf.

3.1.8 Segment 7: Little Red Deer River Segment 7, the Little Red Deer River, flows for approximately 207 km from its headwaters to the confluence with the Red Deer River (Figure 8). The headwaters are characterized by a transition from mountains to foothills, and the river then flows downstream towards the confluence with the Red Deer through agricultural land. Other than existing historical gravel pits and acreages along the Little Red Deer, there is relatively little floodplain development along this segment.

Figure 8: Segment 7: Little Red Deer River

Table 11 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 11: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 7: Little Red Deer River

Measure What has already been What options remain? done?

CONVEYANCE • Water Valley campground • Modify: is floodable • Westward Ho major bridge (Hwy 27) to • MVC MDP prevents extend bank protection development in the • Bowden major bridge (Hwy 587) floodway • Mound major bridge (Hwy 766) • MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations on hazardous lands, prone to flooding: New development in the floodway area is not recommended

DIVERSION

DETENTION • Riparian policy for ESAs • Build proposed Little Red Deer River • MVC / Cows and Fish Confluence Site Dam on the Little Red Deer just riparian fencing project upstream of the confluence of the Little Red • Develop common goals Deer and Red Deer Rivers, 10 km downstream with the landowners of Dickson dam; 35,000,000 m3 storage; through conservation 2,575 km2 catchment area (not recommended easements – Legacy Land for further study by Stantec and GoA) Trust. • Build proposed Harmattan Site Dam 15 km east • ALUS program – financial of Sundre where the Little Red Deer River incentives to protect crosses Hwy 27; 5,600,000 m3 storage; 875 km2 riparian areas. catchment area (not recommended for further study by Stantec and GoA)

DEFENCE • Unofficial berm at • Repair and stabilize the Little Red Deer River Westward Ho bank to protect Camp Little Red Bank • MVC erosion control • Implement Water Valley Road erosion control • MVC Land Use Bylaw Regulations discourages tree or vegetation clearing within 30.5 m of land prone to flooding, shoreline erosion or slope instability hazards • MVC – Erosion control project, river revetment at Coal Camp Road

Additional commentary:  It was suggested that floodplain lowering should not be considered as a conveyance option in this segment. This is an important area for water supply and there are complex interactions between the alluvial aquifer, the Medicine River, the Red Deer River and the Little Red Deer River at this junction. Lowering the floodplain also has many negative environmental effects.

 We need to recognize the effects of installing mitigation measures (e.g., armoring lake edges; putting in dams, culverts, berms and riprap) on downstream areas. In some cases, it would be better to let the area flood.  The river revetment project at Coal Camp Road is a good example of avoiding unnecessary extraction in the floodplain. An engineered berm was installed in the riparian area away from the river in an area that was at risk of erosion. The river eroded the bank up until the berm but erosion was stopped when the river reached the berm.  Two multi-lot developments have flooded from ice jamming and some high water flooding (Silver Lagoon, an old oxbow).  Log jams can hold back flows and should be left in place when they occur during floods.  Debris management downstream of Dickson Dam and on major tributaries (e.g., Little Red Deer River) needs to be considered, not just upstream of the dam.  Consider increasing setbacks along the river through provincial regulations.

3.1.9 Segment 8: Medicine River The Medicine River (Figure 9) extends for about 196 km from its headwaters to the confluence with the Red Deer River just downstream of Gleniffer Reservoir. This is a unique setting as the Medicine, Red Deer, and Little Red Deer converge along the Red Deer River at the downstream end of this segment. Technical working group participants noted that agriculture and residential development are encroaching on this area. It was also noted that flooding does occur in farmland via old oxbow lakes and relic stream channels.

Figure 9: Segment 8: Medicine River

Table 12 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 12: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 8: Medicine River

Measure What has already been What options remain? done?

CONVEYANCE • Standard 30m setback in • Modify: Lacombe County • Rimbey major bridge (Hwy 761) • Lacombe County MDP • Eckville major bridge (Hwy 766) does not permit • Gilby major bridge (Hwy 12) permanent structures in 1:100 floodplain • New bridge at Medicine River crossing on RR30

DIVERSION

DETENTION • Build Medicine River Dam at Highway 592. Such a site would require the purchase of numerous private properties, including active farm building sites. Therefore, this potential option will only be explored further if the preferred detention storage sites do not provide appreciable flood mitigation

DEFENCE

Additional commentary:  When the Red Deer River floods intensely, there is a backwater problem in the Medicine River.  The Medicine River is hydraulically connected to the topographically higher Red Deer River through shallow groundwater channels. The local water wells, riparian areas, walleye fishery, and connecting wetland all depend on the hydraulic connectivity being preserved.  Floodwaters go into old oxbows in this area. In high flows, the Red Deer River and the Little Red Deer River flow overland and into the Medicine River, contributing to flooding on the topographically lower Medicine River.  Retention and restoration of wetlands, alluvial aquifers, and riparian areas would be ideal in this segment.  Floodplain lowering should not be considered as an option for conveyance in this segment. This is an important area for water supply and there are complex interactions between the alluvial aquifer, the Medicine River, the Red Deer River and the Little Red Deer River at this junction. Lowering the floodplain also has numerous negative environmental effects.  GoA should take a stronger stance and require municipalities to set development back from the river; this could be done through regulations as opposed to guidelines.

3.1.10 Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake Segment 9 is the main stem of the Red Deer River from the downstream end of Gleniffer Reservoir to where the Red Deer turns south near Buffalo Lake (Figure 10). This segment is approximately 134 km long, flowing through the city of Red Deer, which draws its drinking water from the river. Technical working group participants noted that the river has changed its course over the years with various flood events, but remains a reasonably well-defined floodplain. In addition to urban development through the city of Red Deer, agriculture and recreation are the main land use activities in Segment 9.

Figure 10: Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake

Table 13 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 13: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

CONVEYANCE • A development in Lacombe • Modify existing and planned bridges to remove county uses a golf course as a constriction: floodable buffer • Bridge 272: Innisfail major bridge (Hwy 54) • Lacombe County MDP does • Proposed bridges 80872 and 80873 – new not permit permanent Red Deer major bridge structures in 1:100 floodplain. • Bridge 977: Joffre Bridge (Hwy 11) [bigger

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

Where there has been no flood conveyance plans for future bridge] mapping new developments • Continue to remove and restrict dwellings in the must undergo engineering and floodplain; e.g., Red Deer County Channel geotechnical analysis. Conveyance Preservation: Review proposed bank • City of Red Deer has adopted stabilization projects for potential channel the provincial guideline conveyance improvements (buyouts) “Stepping Back from the • Introduce regulations, not voluntary guidelines, to Water” restrict future development in the floodplain, not • City of Red Deer has a River only in the flood way Valley and Tributaries • Prohibit development immediately downstream of Development Plan (Red Deer Dickson Dam to preserve the channel capacity for Parks Plan) that develops plans forecast event pre-release (~350 m3/s) or more for parks around all oxbows without causing localized flooding and river areas • Improve downstream conveyance, through • City of Red Deer Climate relocations, to enable Dickson Dam to pre-release Change and Adaptation and up to 350 m3/s or more without causing localized Mitigation Strategy Phase 1 flooding complete (Establishes goals) • Adopt a targeted maximum flood flow discharge • City of Red Deer and Red Deer rate of 2000 m3/s from Dickson Dam for the design County’s Intermunicipal of downstream flood mitigation structures Development Plan establishes • Remove Range Road 20 to increase conveyance a continuous intermunicipal capacity below Dickson Dam (remove the road and park system, where possible. the berm it runs along, as well as engineered • One buyout below Dickson drainage and overflow channels and blockages) Dam to increase conveyance • Define specific, detailed actions through City of for Dam pre-releases Red Deer Climate Change and Adaptation and • Red Deer County has a land Mitigation Strategy Phase 2 use bylaw prohibiting development in the 1:100 floodplain

DIVERSION • Remove barriers (e.g., gravel pits immediately below Dickson Dam) to reconnect river with natural high flow drainage routes and aquifers • Pursue local opportunities to retain or move flow; e.g., reinstate local diversions (drains, oxbows)

DETENTION • DUC wetland conservation and • Construct new mid-basin, multi-purpose, on- restoration projects stream or off-stream storage to provide additional high flow detention capacity; e.g., Ardley Site Dam just above the Buffalo Lake diversion (not recommended for further study by Stantec and GoA) • Construct tank alternatives for municipalities to free up storage in Dickson Dam for flood mitigation and/or offer temporary storage for municipal supply during high flow events • Enforce stricter wetland and riparian preservation and restoration guidelines; e.g., south and east of the city of Red Deer

Measure What has already been done? What options remain?

DEFENCE • Bank stabilization e.g. Red • Protect areas downstream of Dickson Dam to Deer County Dallas bank withstand flows of 2000 m3/s stabilization across from the • Harden and protect critical infrastructure with Anthony Henday WWTP dikes: • City of Red Deer and Red Deer • Water treatment plants and wastewater County’s Intermunicipal treatment plants Development Plan requires the • City of Red Deer’s civic yards dedication of reserves or • City of Red Deer Riverside industrial areas easements or the use of other • Stabilize banks in high priority areas: methods to protect and • Red Deer County Millars bank stabilization preserve natural areas, • City of Red Deer Riverview Park bank riparian habitat and flood stabilization (FRECP) fringes and associated slopes • City of Red Deer McKenzie Trails berm and establish a continuous (FRECP) linear park system • City of Red Deer CP Bridge protection

Additional commentary:  There are not a lot of issues with ice jams in this area due to the mitigative effect of the Dickson Dam.  The city of Red Deer has fewer than ten homes in its 1:100 year floodway. If there is going to be a new standard, it should be determined quickly to avoid new liabilities. Municipalities need to know what they are mitigating to.  Highway 54 is integral to the transportation network in the area and has already been raised in small specific sections, but could become vulnerable if large flood events occur more often.  Bridges 80872 and 80873 are connector bridges north of Red Deer. The abutment design needs to be revisited to reduce debris collection.  Wetland retention and restoration in this area are important, particularly at the confluence of the Red Deer, Little Red and Medicine rivers. Wetland restoration should be a priority through ongoing and new projects. Over time, any storage capacity created by engineered solutions is likely to be negated by poor land use practices and wetlands that have been lost. DUC and others have articulated a clear business case for wetland retention and restoration.10 Under the Alberta Wetland Policy’s mitigation protocol, land developers will have to provide more wetlands to compensate for ones that are permanently lost so a new market is expected to emerge. When a wetland is permanently lost to development and must be replaced, compensation is required. This would be done by undertaking a project to develop a wetland offset, making a payment in lieu, or buying an offset from someone else.  Municipal storage tanks or ponds were suggested as a flood mitigation option but this would be very expensive due to the amount of land that would be needed. They would also fill quickly in a big flood and would require careful management to be successful. Natural storage opportunities are possibly more realistic. Nevertheless, during a high flow event, municipal

10 See A Business Case for Wetland Conservation and Restoration in the Settled Areas of Alberta Vermilion River Subwatershed Case Study, March 2013; published by Ducks Unlimited Canada, available online at http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/DUC-AB-Business-Case_Final.pdf.

storage tanks could provide a clean reliable water supply rather than serve as a flood mitigation measure.  Clearer, stronger direction is needed in the form of regulations, laws, or standards to reduce planning discretion in making decisions about development in flood-prone areas. Guidelines and voluntary approaches are insufficient. Floodplain design standards are crucial and there may be a need for policy guidance on critical infrastructure protection in a basin where flows are controlled by a dam. We need to be prepared for natural flow, irrespective of infrastructure.  The river below Dickson Dam is very gravelly and very active. It moves often, particularly during high releases from Dickson Dam, creating erosion challenges for landowners. Ice does not scour away the gravel bars to keep the primary channel open. Water has moved out of the river bed in many places, especially in the stretch three to six kilometres immediately downstream of Dickson Dam. In the area surrounding Range Roads 20 and 21 the river has moved into abandoned gravel pits adjacent to the river bank. Then it can’t be controlled and encroaches onto farms and fields so landowners are losing land. This happens with normal releases from Dickson Dam, but more often it is due to releases in high flow events. Retraining the river is an option here because this is no longer a natural stretch. Another option is for GoA to purchase flood-prone lands just downstream of Dickson Dam and remove all structures; in this situation long-term land uses could be agriculture (where suitable) and natural park land. Certain complexities need to be considered if the river is to be trained directly downstream of Dickson Dam, specifically at the confluence with the Little Red Deer River and the Medicine River. These complexities surround aquifer connectivity and the walleye fishery on the Medicine River. It was suggested that prohibiting further gravel extraction downstream of the Dickson Dam should be considered; based on past experience this activity may promote river bed migration.  Land use along the Red Deer River has changed and more communities rely on it for drinking water, which is a consideration in how Dickson Dam is operated. The seasonal operations of Dickson Dam attempt to provide a balance and maximum benefit to water supply and flood mitigation.  Dickson Dam was built in the early 1980s with the provision that there would be no development around the reservoir. Allowing pre-releases from Dickson Dam is critical for it to operate as intended. Since the completion of Dickson Dam, development has occurred around Gleniffer Reservoir and development has changed downstream, this may restrict the dam from operating safely to mitigate flooding. Future development around Gleniffer Reservoir and downstream of Dickson Dam should be limited. Dickson Dam was built to supply water and augment flow; flood mitigation is a secondary role and the model may need to be refined. The current Dickson Dam seasonal reservoir level curve allows the dam to provide flood attenuation in the high risk flood time of year, specifically May and June.  Dickson Dam cannot guarantee an outflow cap of 2000 m3/s. Although the maximum historical outflow from Dickson Dam was 1550 m3/s in 2005, there is always a risk of a larger event when the reservoir is at FSL; in this situation the outflow could exceed 2000 m3/s.  New mid-basin, multi-purpose, on-stream storage may be a better option than increasing capacity of Dickson Dam. It would relieve pressure on Dickson during floods and would provide additional storage to mitigate drought. It could also provide an opportunity for functional flows that would create environmental benefits. New on-stream storage would have a range of associated fiscal and environmental challenges and the cost effectiveness was questioned;

these challenges were recognized but were not explored in detail. A different option would be to add new off-stream storage, which would likely pose fewer environmental concerns.  There is general support for the Stantec recommendation that the area downstream of Dickson Dam should not be bermed and armored. Hardening this area is likely to transfer flood risk downstream; furthermore, past efforts to harden the area have failed. There is also worry that berming this area will impede groundwater recharge; residents in this area rely on groundwater as their primary water source.  The risks need to be clearly defined and conveyed to landowners and others; for example, who assumes the risk and who bears the cost both in terms of danger and emergency response?  Each local situation needs to be considered and appropriate solutions identified; one solution will not work for all circumstances.  The restoration of abandoned channels and oxbows should be considered as a flood mitigation tool in areas where the river has been straightened. There are potential water quality and water supply benefits from restoring these areas as well.  Complete and consistent mapping across the basin is crucial for flood mitigation, and this information should be widely and easily available. Flood mapping could be more challenging for rural areas. Landowner input might be helpful in identifying past flood events.  Potential diversion options may provide good, but limited, local benefits but they could be controversial. They may also require ongoing maintenance at a high cost.

3.1.11 Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller This segment involves the Red Deer River main stem, flowing 145 km from near Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller. Large portions are confined within a deep river valley characterized by fine sediments and large cliffs. This is a relatively dry ecosystem and is home to many unique features such as the Badlands. This segment has relatively little development along the floodplain, but it does include the town of Drumheller and agriculture is a major activity.

Figure 11: Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller

Table 14 shows the initial scan of specific opportunities to further implement Room for the River measures along this river segment, as well as actions that have already been taken.

Table 14: Initial Scan of Opportunities for Segment 10: Red Deer River - Buffalo Lake to just downstream of Drumheller

Measure What has already been What options remain? done?

CONVEYANCE • Red Deer County has a • Modify existing and planned bridges to remove land use bylaw constriction: Bridge 9551 – Morrin Bridge (Hwy prohibiting development 27) in the 1:100 floodplain • Reclaim and preserve channel conveyance capacity through: • Land control • Removal of dwellings inside and outside of Drumheller • The formulation of development policy within protected and non-protected areas and floodways using regulated flow rates • Work with the Drumheller community directly to formulate development policy within protected and non-protected areas floodway and channel conveyance preservation areas, using regulated flow rates (suggested as maximum flood flow discharge rate of 2000 m3/s from Dickson Dam) • De-bottleneck the river by the Drumheller wastewater treatment plant • Local opportunities to reconnect drains and side channels

DIVERSION • Use the planned SAWSP diversion (planned to divert ~2 m3/s) to divert more flow during flooding

DETENTION • Upstream dam on • Construct new off-stream storage for irrigation Michichi creek projects to either free up storage in Dickson Dam • MPE study for Starland for flood mitigation and/or offer temporary County identifying storage during high flow events. potential surface water retention areas • DUC wetland restoration and conservation projects

DEFENCE • Construction is underway • Harden and upgrade existing dikes and construct for a permanent berm new diking systems to accommodate flow and drainage ditch to (2000 m3/s suggested in Stantec basin study) protect Drumheller through Drumheller. Relevant areas include: Health Centre. West Nacmine diking; East Central Nacmine Completion expected in diking, dike repair and flood gates; West 2015. Further Newcastle diking; Willow Estates (Drumheller) engineering study is in diking and road repair; 2nd St W to 5th St E progress. diking (Drumheller); 9th St W diking (Drumheller); Central Midland diking; East

Measure What has already been What options remain? done?

Midland berm; Michichi Creek diking; West Rosedale berm and diking; East Rosedale to Aerial Flats dike; SE aerial flats berm; constructing residences on elevated mounts in the Paarup development in Drumheller; Paarup Development Floodgate; Lehigh diking; East Coulee diking • Update flood mapping and expand it to cover the full basin to inform high priority areas for defence

Additional commentary:  Wetland retention in this area is important and should be a priority. Many projects are already in place and there are many more opportunities. Wetland retention provides recreational benefits as well as water security and other environmental goods and services.  The geology and morphology of the valley are not conducive to downstream diversions.  The planned SAWSP diversion will be very small (~2 m3/s) offering very little high flow diversion capacity. Furthermore, water coming out of the Drumheller Valley is so silty when the river flows at 1100 m3/s that diversion pumps typically shut down.  We need to balance reliance on dikes with letting the river pass, but Drumheller is an exception and must be defended.  Off-stream storage opportunities at Drumheller should be examined for both flood control and drought mitigation. Drought is much more common than flooding in Drumheller and downstream.  Dickson Dam cannot guarantee an outflow cap of 2000 m3/s. Although the maximum historical outflow from Dickson Dam was 1550 m3/s in 2005, there is always a risk of a larger event when the reservoir is at FSL; in this situation the outflow could exceed 2000 m3/s.

3.2 Most Promising Opportunities Having considered examples and opportunities within each river segment in the study area, it was then possible to look across the system for opportunities that offered the most promise while recognizing that there are trade-offs with every action. It was noted that it is often strategic to target some early big wins that can be celebrated and built on to build political momentum for the program.With input from contributors, some practical and implementable opportunities were identified as being promising and warranting further study (Table 15). Contributors recognized the importance of these specific opportunities, but stressed that moving out of the floodplain is still the only way to ensure that people and property are not flooded in the future. It may not be feasible to move the town of Drumheller, for example, but relocation could be a cost-effective option for smaller communities or individual homeowners. At the very least, the cost of potentially moving smaller communities or individuals out of the floodplain should be assessed.

All these potential opportunities are consistent with the principle that the “straitjacket” for the rivers should not be tightened; that is, at a minimum these opportunities should not further constrain the Red Deer main stem and the select tributaries examined in the basin, and where room for the river now exists, it should be maintained. Some of the most promising opportunities are basin-wide, others are common to several segments, and others are specific to one river segment. No priority is assigned to the various opportunities described in Table 15. All of the options that appear in this table also appear in the basin-wide options or in the list of options for the relevant segment.

Table 15: Most Promising Opportunities to Create Room for the River ** Suggested cost ranges: H = >$100 million, M = $10-$100 million, L = <$10 million Opportunity What is the benefit? What is the What are the associated impacts? cost? To flood To water To water Estimated Social, mitigation supply quality project cost Economic, H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H-M-L** Environmental -0- -0- L- /M- /H- L- /M- /H- CONVEYANCE Implement regulations, M 0 0 H for  This may avoid future problems by not guidelines, on infrastructure avoiding development in areas that developments in already in flood floodplain (fringe, place  Social and economic impacts on floodway) existing communities if forced to (Basin-wide, Segment L to H for relocate 9) future  Impacts on individual property development owners if current land holding value decreases Examine repetitive loss L+ 0 0 M  Would not mitigate floods in the areas with an eye to short term but would potentially redesign save money in the long term by not (Basin wide, Segment repeatedly rebuilding in areas that 1) are destroyed in every flood event Develop a long term H+ 0 0 M  This may be economically favourable transportation plan – as a joint project between counties have updated bridge and Alberta Transportation designs ready prior to a flood so that when a

Opportunity What is the benefit? What is the What are the associated impacts? cost? To flood To water To water Estimated Social, mitigation supply quality project cost Economic, H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H-M-L** Environmental -0- -0- L- /M- /H- L- /M- /H- bridge washes out it is replaced with a bridge that has higher hydraulic capacity rather than be repaired to its original form (Basin-wide, Segment 4) Selectively extract M+ M- for L L  Selective extraction from the aggregate from groundwater floodplain could reduce extraction floodplain in areas supply elsewhere, minimizing the effect on where water does not alluvial aquifers. For example, 3 m usually flow most years L- for surface deep selective extraction could occur (Multiple segments, water supply 1 km up- and downstream of Sundre Segments 6 and 9) Bridge  Benefits could include channelization to minimize erosion of property and enhancement of recreation opportunities  Selling the aggregate could offset price of extraction  Potential negative public concerns and perception exist  Concern that such extraction in the Red Deer Basin would set a precedent for other basins where the strategy may be less appropriate  Riparian zones could be affected as vegetation grows on gravel beds  Erosion could increase  Dredging and aggregate removal should not be done in areas where it may negatively affect the aquifer, which is perceived to have tremendous capacity for water storage and flood attenuation Use natural channel L+ 0 M+ locally M  Land would be bought from design downstream of developers (currently it is private Hwy 22 on Bearberry land) Creek (Segment 3)  Positive social impact with a new natural area  Positive environmental effect, should improve fish habitat Remove debris L+ 0 0 or L- L  Targeted debris removal should be between Sundre and clearly defined and only used for a Dickson Dam specific purpose. Should likely be (Segment 6) done in dry areas of the river bed, not in the active channel  Potential negative impacts on

Opportunity What is the benefit? What is the What are the associated impacts? cost? To flood To water To water Estimated Social, mitigation supply quality project cost Economic, H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H-M-L** Environmental -0- -0- L- /M- /H- L- /M- /H- fisheries, aquatic environment, and erosion patterns  Potential positive impact on recreation Resolve issues H+ for the L+ if solution 0 Nil to L  Dredging and aggregate removal immediately basin promotes should not be done in areas where it downstream to ensure aquifer may negatively affect the aquifer, Dickson pre-release recharge which is perceived to have can return to tremendous capacity for water ~350 m3/s storage and flood attenuation • Option: Train river  Costs may be covered by dredging (dredging or the river and extracting and selling berming) to keep gravel river in river bed.  River training would protect • Option: Remove farmland but restricts access to obstacles (e.g., RR RR 20 20) from  River training may have to be floodplain to allow repeated after high flow events free river  Might need to harden Hwy 54 movement  Creates buy-in to show something is (Segment 9) being done to protect land  Negative environmental impacts of Comment from ESRD at dredging in short term due to lower the working session water quality and impacts on fish that this pre-release habitat level has already been  Positive environmental impacts in implemented. long term with less erosion  Three flooding rivers are found in this area, any solution could support natural river functions so that there is no need to retrain the river repeatedly  This area is an alluvial aquifer Redesign and/or H+ 0 0 M to H  Some of these are already being rebuild roads and looked at bridges with insufficient hydraulic capacity; e.g.: • 80872 and 80873 (planned) • Morrin Bridge • Bridge 272 • Bridge 977 (Segment 10) DIVERSION Restore abandoned L to M+, L+ 0 L channels and oxbows depending (Segment 9) on location

Opportunity What is the benefit? What is the What are the associated impacts? cost? To flood To water To water Estimated Social, mitigation supply quality project cost Economic, H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H-M-L** Environmental -0- -0- L- /M- /H- L- /M- /H- DETENTION Retain and restore L to M+ L to M+ for L to M+ M to H  Good long-term return on wetlands anywhere in groundwater investment the watershed recharge  Costs depend on the extent of (Basin wide, Segment restoration; to restore wetlands 1) property must be bought out  Under the Alberta Wetland Policy mitigation protocol, land developers will have to provide more wetlands to compensate for ones that are permanently lost so a new trading market for offsets is expected to emerge. When a wetland is permanently lost to development and must be replaced, compensation is required  Variety of environmental goods and services provided  The impact on flood mitigation depends on where it occurs; current wetland retention is low, but if retention is increased, would have greater benefit Reduce linear footprint L+ 0 L+ locally L  Some local impacts due to restricted and ORV use in the land use headwaters  Affects forestry, oil and gas activities (Headwaters)  Increases resiliency of watershed Construct multi- M H L- H  On-stream facility could create purpose mid-stream changes in river course on-stream storage  On-stream facility would come with (Segment 9) environmental trade-offs, a different option would be to add new off- stream storage, which would likely pose fewer environmental concerns  May create fish passage issues  On-stream storage may decrease the water temperature and increase siltation downstream  Could help to manage functional flows  Some buy-outs or relocations may be necessary DEFENCE Assess existing pipeline L+ 0 H+ L for assessing  High economic impact if there is an crossings for safety and existing oil leak into the water supply review pipeline pipelines  Social impact if people can’t drink crossing regulations, the water especially in braided M for moving  Potentially very negative channels (Sundre area) crossings environmental impacts if a pipeline

Opportunity What is the benefit? What is the What are the associated impacts? cost? To flood To water To water Estimated Social, mitigation supply quality project cost Economic, H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H+ /M+ /L+ H-M-L** Environmental -0- -0- L- /M- /H- L- /M- /H- (Basin wide, Segments breaks into the river 5 and 6) Defend critical  Critical infrastructure, such as infrastructure municipal water and wastewater (Basin wide, Segments treatment plants must be defended 9 and 10) by appropriate means Build berm or dike on H+ 0 0 M  Reduces risk to people, fisheries and the Clearwater River to infrastructure on the North Raven prevent flows from  Potential environmental benefits; if entering the North the Clearwater breached into the Raven River North Raven, it would ruin the (Segment 5) brown trout fishery  There would be ongoing maintenance costs Raise existing berms in H+ 0 0 L  Landowners may oppose being cut Sundre to reflect off from the river updated the understanding of 1% flood (Segment 6) Finish portions of the M+ 0 0 L with  Positive economic impact as it MVC stage 1 berm ongoing protects the golf course and holiday southwest of Sundre maintenance community which attract visitors to that are not yet at the costs Sundre required berm height,  Positive for landowners as they and construct stage 2 would be protected, but creates of a berm that will potential “assumed protection” continue southeast  Potentially high environmental cost from the east end of of cutting off an old river channel the stage 1 berm for and berming an environmentally approximately 4.1 km protected area (Segment 6)  Increases the risk of erosion issues further downstream  Could increase flood potential downstream  This may not be a permanent solution – in the 2013 flood the stage 1 berm failed to stop flooding. An alternate option would be the relocation of the Sundre airport and the golf course; a cost benefit analysis should be completed for this option. Build required barriers Many projects are proposed for Drumheller, and dikes identified to protect Drumheller to protect the community should proceed in a timely manner. (Segment 10)

** Suggested cost ranges: H = >$100 million, M = $10-$100 million, L = <$10 million

3.3 Feedback on the Room for the River Approach Contributors noted that when it comes to flood response in the Red Deer River Basin, a number of mechanisms and practices are already in place and working well; for example:  The Dickson Dam, although not built for flood mitigation, was operated effectively in recent floods.  The City of Red Deer has many setbacks already and only a few homes are in its 1:100 year floodway.  Alberta Transportation has a good inventory of bridges and pinch points and the issues that may need to be addressed.  The current warning system is doing the job below Dickson Dam in terms of communications between Dam operators, Red Deer County, and other counties downstream.

Contributors nevertheless observed that more work is needed in several areas to better understand, for example:  The effects of forestry on headwaters under both flood and drought conditions. This is particularly relevant for surface water-groundwater interactions.  The role and impact of dikes and berms under non-flood conditions.  The likelihood of flood risk when considering the costs and benefits of options.

Several other specific areas were also identified as requiring attention and action:  Flood forecasting and communications efforts need to be improved.  Suitable mitigation targets should be explored, discussed, and agreed on before making decisions on policy options or infrastructure.  Data and evidence are the basis of good policy and this information needs to be collected, examined, and understood before new flood mitigation policies and legislation are created.

Contributors made a number of observations about important aspects of a Room for the River-type program in Alberta.

An Alberta program must have a clearly defined purpose, rationale, and objectives with measureable goals and outcomes. While it is correct to approach a flood mitigation program in a holistic manner, the scope of such an undertaking can “creep” to the point of becoming unmanageable. A line of sight on how decisions and policies can contribute to the end goal needs to be clear at the outset. In future, the Room for the River projects should be proactive, not reactive. It would be helpful to identify critical areas that are particularly susceptible to flooding as the first step in the project, prior to project discussions.

Furthermore, the Room for the River project could have clear and defined secondary objectives such as mitigating erosion in the basin, promoting tourism and recreational use of the river, and economic development enhancements for municipalities.

An integrated, multi-barrier approach is essential. A Room for the River-type approach is a broader way of thinking about managing water in a floodplain and informs discussion in the wider, more integrated context of the entire watershed. As part of the broader management discussion, flood mitigation should not be

considered in isolation; drought mitigation and water quality should also be considered. Examining the role and impact of tributaries as well as the main stem enables a larger conversation about land use and its impact on flooding and flood mitigation. It is essential to understand the whole river, needs of all users, and the range of issues that must be addressed. Surface and groundwater quantity and quality should be part of the discussion, as well as other values that are associated with provincial river systems. In the case of the Red Deer Basin, the Red Deer River and its tributaries are relatively “wild” compared to many other river systems in the south of the province. We have the opportunity to keep the rivers in this basin as natural as possible.

Any program that the GoA might initiate should include both mandatory requirements and voluntary components. To get the results needed, the expectations and requirements for all parties need to be clearly stated and understood. Voluntary guidelines and practices are unlikely to achieve the results that are needed to protect life, property, and infrastructure in extreme flood events. However, government programs should also support voluntary efforts such as education, outreach and proactive approaches that complement mandatory requirements (e.g., for wetland and riparian area management and restoration).

An Alberta program should not be marketed as a “Dutch initiative.” Although the Dutch experience can provide some valuable lessons, the Netherlands and Alberta are not the same. Alberta’s conditions vary a great deal from year to year and even from month to month, and a provincial Room for the River-type program should focus more on what that variability might mean for potential flood mitigation options. Alberta has done considerable work to develop a provincial approach (e.g., Respecting our Rivers) and this philosophy should be reflected in an Alberta program. Nevertheless, Alberta should look at work done in other jurisdictions, not just the Netherlands, consider how those lessons apply here, and then integrate them into any program developed for this province; the agricultural experience in California could be particularly useful.

Multiple perspectives are needed on a wide range of potential flood mitigation options before any program is developed. This will help make the program relevant to local and regional stakeholders. The use of a diverse and engaged technical working group for this project was a good way to identify and discuss priorities and get a variety of perspectives. If a program were to be developed for different parts of Alberta, it must be inclusive, relevant and transparent to the local or regional stakeholders and should involve a diverse group with ongoing engagement and communication throughout the exercise: municipalities (both elected officials and administrators), landowners, First Nations, the provincial government, the federal government (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as appropriate), local organizations, and the public.

The Room for the River program should be supported by sufficient science, data, modelling, and open communication to enable informed and transparent flood mitigation decisions. Comprehensive and accessible information gathering and accessible online modelling would enable stakeholders to participate in online scenario testing of various flood mitigation options while observing associated trade-offs, costs and benefits, similar to the Dutch Planning Kit tool (“Blokkendoos”). The program needs to have a process for responding to situations in which the evidence base is questioned; that is, a means of filling in gaps in the science needed to

inform decisions. Recommendations need to be science-based e.g., reasons for setback distances. Blanket policies are not science-based. Long range planning is needed, and data- driven climate change considerations need to be incorporated; perhaps the 1:100 threshold should be re-thought.

Sharing of information between complementary agencies and organizations is critical to identify solutions and coordinate implementation. Many agencies and organizations are involved with managing water on the landscape and their information, data, knowledge, and experience could be very useful in developing and implementing flood mitigation solutions (e.g., the Alberta Water Council and its source water protection project). A Room for the River-type program could be used to collate all ongoing water work in the province to ensure work is aligned. Flood mitigation solutions affect and are affected by other policies and activities that have different goals, so we need to ensure good understanding and coordination by the various partners and agencies who may be working in similar areas. It is important to collaborate across agencies and departments to avoid duplication and working at cross purposes.

In conjunction with this, and to enable information sharing, the Room for the River program could explore setting up a body (possibly similar to the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency) for watershed management, with a clear and focused mandate and the power to make change, and properly funded to look at each watershed and the associated issues and opportunities.

Land use should play a more central role in a Room for the River-type program. As an example, run off coefficients related to land use, which reflect the amount of stormwater runoff from different catchments, should be considered throughout the process and in relation to the different projects considered to make room for the river. (For more information, see (http://www.rdrwa.ca/sites/rdrwa.ca/files/pdf/ReportRiparianAreasWetlandsLandUse.pdf.)

As well, it was suggested that this work could conceivably become part of the Land Use Framework (LUF) initiative. The LUF is an ongoing program with momentum and legislative support and has many of the same participants involved as this program would need. It is a broad program that already includes some aspects of water management, so perhaps a Room for the River-type program could be one of its components.

Contributors also offered comments on what further engagement might be appropriate as well as how the process might move from a scan to prioritization and implementation.

There is a need for engagement, support, and cooperation from all levels of government. The program should be enabled by federal and provincial legislation that provides the regulations, the monitoring and, when needed, the follow up to ensure implementation and compliance. Such a program could break down barriers among federal, provincial, and municipal decision makers and expose them to the local issues and challenges. In this basin, for example, it might involve a tour to show politicians and other decision makers the “on the ground” issues such as degradation in the headwaters and siltation of Dickson Dam. The GoA, through the program, could set the objectives, framework, and criteria for mitigation, similar

to what has been done in the Netherlands. Then municipalities can provide cost-effective solutions. Ideally this would result in positive “give-get” projects as seen in the Nijmegen example.

The GoA should provide more direction and leadership to address issues, it was suggested that the GoA is asking stakeholders for their opinions too often on technical recommendations. It is important to ensure personnel and design support from the GoA for the projects proposed, not just financial support.

Ongoing commitment and funding will be needed from all orders of government. Funding for such a program must be sustainable and viable for the long term, and should be shared among the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. A strong and continuing commitment will be required to ensure a sustained and completed program that is not cut off before achieving its goals; this is especially important since some of the most promising flood mitigation opportunities will likely take a number of years to implement.

Decisions should be made using multi-objective analysis favouring long term solutions. Decisions should not be made solely based on direct cost-benefit analysis; rather than focusing on projects that give the greatest cost-benefit, favour projects that yield the greatest overall benefits. Thought should also be given to the order of implementation of the most promising options and their alignment with overall program objectives.

The flood mitigation approach should favour permanent, long-term solutions. Permanent solutions, such as buyouts instead of berming, or improving the design of damaged infrastructure rather than simply replacing it as before, may not always be easy, but may be the most effective approach in the long term. The program should encourage long-term behaviours and strategies, not just those that might offer cost benefits in the short term; wetland restoration, for example, should be viewed as an investment. Since major floods are by definition not common occurrences, Alberta needs to improve its institutional memory when it comes to documenting what happens to communities and infrastructure after major flood events to better inform provincial, municipal and homeowner decisions.

We need to look at social and political barriers to flood mitigation, not just engineering solutions. Floods are to be expected and if the floodplain is fully mapped, property owners and the GoA can negotiate a suitable response in vulnerable areas. People would be given the option to leave with fair compensation and if they don’t, they would not be compensated in any future floods.

As the project moves from an initial scan the contributors should continue to be updated and the public should be more broadly involved. Follow-up events and activities, such as updates, celebrations, discussions and evaluations of what did and did not work should take place. To engage the greater population, the program should drive extensive education to instill environmental stewardship in future generations. Story telling can be an effective means of engaging citizens. Particular areas where a need for education was discussed include: wetlands, healthy riparian areas and healthy grass lands and the impacts that these can have on water retention and runoff. The Room for the River report,

50 as available to the public, should be more visible there should be broader exposure to generate more feedback. Exposure should be through media such as:  Local news  Local radio  Municipals websites and newspapers  Via RDRMUG and RDRWA  Through municipal organizations such as AUMA, AAMDC, ASVA  Agricultural magazines

4. Closing Comments Contributors to this project identified important differences between the Red Deer River Basin and the Bow Basin. The Red Deer Basin already allows more room for its rivers and many of the larger urban centres, such as Red Deer, are already set well back. The large scale conveyance challenge along the Bow and Elbow rivers does not exist in this basin, and a partial system-wide solution can already be found in the form of the Dickson Dam. The result for the Red Deer Basin is that many smaller-scale flood mitigation options to resolve pressing local issues are needed and there is no “one size fits all” solution.

It is essential to talk about flood mitigation in the broader context of water management, including impacts of alternative options on water supply and water quality. The Red Deer Basin is home to a diversity of human activities, and interests vary depending on the segment being considered; for example, downstream of Dickson Dam, having too little water is as challenging as having too much. What happens on land affects the rivers, and any Room for the River-type program must aim to develop resilience throughout the watershed, looking at environmental, economic, and social interests and connections across the whole basin. Although within the scope of the project, there was very little discussion among contributors about ice jams in the Red Deer Basin.

Integration and coordination across agencies and organizations is important to avoid duplication and working at cross purposes. Alignment is needed between land use planning, watershed planning, and work underway across many municipal and provincial government bodies. Cross-basin, multiple interest discussions are rare yet highly valuable as they enhance understanding about regional interests and concerns and shed light on how government funds are being spent.

Extensive relocation did not emerge as a readily feasible option in this basin, likely because vulnerable communities such as Drumheller and highly developed areas of Sundre would need to be completely moved. Nevertheless, moving out of the floodplain remains the only way to truly ensure that people and property are not flooded in the future. Relocation could be a cost-effective option for smaller communities or individual homeowners. At the very least, the cost of potentially moving individuals out of the floodplain should be assessed.

Contributors recognized the need to protect communities that could not be moved through berms and dikes. In undeveloped flood-prone areas, the focus was on establishing and enforcing adequate setbacks so that future development does not occur in these areas. Related to this, many felt strongly that having clear regulations (instead of voluntary programs) that are supported by the GoA makes flood mitigation strategies much easier to implement.

Similar to the Bow River Basin pilot project, contributors noted that a Room for the River-type program could be a valuable component of the water management discussion in Alberta. The objectives, scope, and governance should be clearly defined and communicated and should be appropriate to the Alberta context. Objectives can be more broadly defined than in the Netherlands’ approach and perhaps focus on all aspects of watershed resilience, encompassing safety and security, water supply, and water quality. It will be essential to raise individual and community awareness and understanding about watershed functions and the effects of flooding. And, perhaps most importantly, the program would need long term political, local, and financial support and accountability.

The approach used in this project can fuel momentum and interest in water management, building on the expertise and experience of the water community, enabling them to work together and build on each other’s ideas, leading to a long-term program for thoughtful and effective water management and resilient flood mitigation and drought response throughout Alberta.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAMDC Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties ACRP Alberta Community Resilience Program ALUS Alternative Land Use Services ASVA Alberta Summer Villages Association AT Alberta Transportation AUMA Alberta Urban Municipalities Association ESA Environmentally sensitive area ESRD (Alberta) Environment and Sustainable Resources Development FRECP Flood Recovery Erosion Control Program FSL Full supply level GoA Government of Alberta LUF Land Use Framework MDP Municipal Development Plan MVC Mountain View County ORV Off-road vehicle PMF Probable maximum flood RAM Resilience and Mitigation (Branch, of ESRD) RDC Red Deer County RftR Room for the River SAWSP Special Areas Water Supply Project WPAC Watershed Planning and Advisory Council WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Appendix A: Contributors to the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River Basin Many thanks to the following organizations who contributed their knowledge, time and expertise to the Room for the River pilot project in the Red Deer River Basin. In some cases, more than one representative from the organization was involved.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (Fisheries, Dickson Dam Operations, River Forecast Section, Resilience and Mitigation, and Parks Branches) Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions Alberta Wilderness Association City of Red Deer Clearwater County County of Stettler No. 6 Cows and Fish: The Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society Ducks Unlimited Canada Kneehill County Lacombe County Medicine River Watershed Group Red Deer County Red Deer River Municipal Users Group Red Deer River Watershed Alliance Special Areas Sundre Petroleum Operators Group (SPOG) Spray Lakes Sawmills Stantec Consulting Ltd. Starland County Town of Sundre Trout Unlimited Canada West Fraser Mills

Alberta WaterSMART contributed through its contracted role as project facilitator.

Appendix B: Segment Identification Methodology The study area for the Red Deer Room for the River project is the Red Deer River, including select tributaries, from headwaters to downstream of Drumheller. The tributaries selected were those that had:  sizeable human populations living near them;  large catchment basins;  heavy infrastructure;  seen flooding in the past; or  contributed significant water yield to streamflow in the basin.

To examine the full study area in detail, it was decided that the river would be broken into study segments, defined as groupings of reaches with similar geomorphology. For the purposes of this study, reaches and segments were identified by using Google Earth™ to evaluate physical factors, as outlined in Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures.11 Channel pattern and channel confinement were the main factors that delineated reaches in this area, but significant tributary confluences or changes in gradient could also signify reach boundaries. In the end, the river system was divided into ten segments; this was thought to be a manageable number for the project team and the technical working group participants to handle.

The initial step of the analysis identified the significant tributary confluences throughout the study area. These confluences were labelled as reach boundaries. Additional reach boundaries were identified as the point of significant changes in channel form or geomorphological channel pattern.12 A classification of the characteristics of large alluvial rivers (Figure A1) produced by Kellerhals was used as the basis for defining reach breaks in the study area. This classification was based on an earlier classification of channel pattern developed by Shumm (Figure A2) that related channel pattern and stability to several factors such as silt content of the banks, the mode of sediment transport, the ratio of bed load to total load, and the slope and width-to-depth ratio of the channel.13 Church adapted Shumm’s classification to include steeper morphologies present in headwaters (Figure A3). The factors used in Shumm’s and Church’s methodologies (Table A1) are difficult to delineate in Google Earth™, whereas Kellerhals’ adapted methodology (Figure A3) relies on the use of aerial photography, which is appropriate to adapt to Google Earth™.14

11 BC Fisheries Information Services Branch (2001). Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures. Resources Inventory Committee. 12 BC Fisheries Information Services Branch (2001). Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures. Resources Inventory Committee. 13 Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. (2013). Geomorphic Classification of Rivers. Treatise on Geomorphology, Vol. 9. 14 Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. (2013). Geomorphic Classification of Rivers. Treatise on Geomorphology, Vol. 9.

Figure A1: Kellerhals’ classification of large alluvial rivers. 1a shows characteristics of channel pattern; 1b characterizes the frequency of islands; 1c describes the bar types; and 1d provides examples of lateral activity of the channel in the floodplain15

15 Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. (2013). Geomorphic Classification of Rivers. Treatise on Geomorphology, Vol. 9.

Figure A2: Shumm’s classification of alluvial rivers. In this method, channel pattern is related to relative stability and sediment load type16

16 Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. (2013). Geomorphic Classification of Rivers. Treatise on Geomorphology, Vol. 9.

Figure A3: Shumm’s classification of channel pattern as adapted by Church. In this method, channel pattern is related to sediment size and channel stability and gradient.17

17 Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. (2013). Geomorphic Classification of Rivers. Treatise on Geomorphology, Vol. 9.

Table A1: Channel pattern descriptions. These factors are associated with the listed channel patterns. Channel Width-depth Gradient Relative Grain size Sediment Pattern ratio Stability supply Straight Low Low High Boulder-silt Low Sinuous Low Low High Sand-silt Medium Wandering Medium Medium Low Boulders-gravel Low-Medium Meandering Medium Medium Medium Sand-silt Low-Medium Braided High High Low Gravel High Anastomosing High High Low Sand High

Using Google Earth™ the study area was examined from 3-5 km above the Earth’s surface. The locations where the stream changed from a straight channel to a wandering or meandering channel (Figure A1a), or from a single channel to a channel with multiple flow branches (Figure A1b), as described by Kellerhals, were labelled as reach breaks.

There were 78 identified reaches on the Red Deer River and selected tributaries (26 on the Red Deer River main stem, 6 on the Medicine River, 9 on the Little Red Deer River, 11 on the James River, 12 on Bearberry Creek, and 14 on Fallentimber Creek). For the purposes of this study, a more manageable number of stream segments was deemed necessary. To obtain a more manageable number of segments, the river was evaluated again from around 12-15 km above the Earth’s surface in Google Earth™. At this level, geomorphological factors such as the confinement and gradient of the river were examined. Segment boundaries were identified at points in the river with significant changes in confinement such as the change from a wide floodplain to a confined canyon, or significant changes in gradient.18 The gradient was estimated for each reach revealing that most of the Red Deer River is flowing through flat terrain, other than the portion flowing through the foothills or headwaters. The channel confinement had more variance. Some portions of the river were flowing through steeper terrain in narrow valleys, or within a low gradient, well-defined river valley, while in other portions the river travelled across a flat, wide floodplain. Reaches with similar channel confinement and gradient were grouped into river segments. For this study, it was decided that 10 segments would be manageable to work with. There were four identified segments on the main stem of the Red Deer River. Both the Medicine River and the Little Red Deer River were initially broken into two segments; however, after conducting interviews, the upstream segments of both of these rivers did not present many suggested options. On both of these rivers, it was decided to combine the two segments on each river into one segment for each river. Due to a suggestion made by several technical working group members from the interviews prior to the working group session, it was decided that the Raven River would be added to the study area. The Raven River, the James River, Bearberry Creek and Fallentimber Creek were not separated into segments to keep the number of segments at a manageable number. Additionally, the human populations living along these tributaries are relatively small, so it was thought that watershed experts representing these communities would be able to speak to the entire tributary while discussing flood management. In the end, the study area was divided into 10 segments: four segments on the Red Deer River and one segment for each of six tributaries (Fallentimber Creek, Bearberry Creek, James River, Raven River, Little Red Deer River and Medicine River).

18 BC Fisheries Information Services Branch (2001). Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures. Resources Inventory Committee.

Addendum This addendum reflects the feedback received in response to the Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin – Advice to the Government of Alberta report issued June 4, 2015. The Room for the River report was distributed online through the Alberta WaterPortal and received further public attention from presentations and newspaper articles.

Feedback on the report was welcomed until June 30, 2015. Feedback was received in writing through the Alberta WaterPortal, direct emails and letters. This addendum summarizes the feedback received, without attribution, in bullet point form, arranged to reflect the organization of the original report. In some instances, different respondents provided conflicting feedback; this reflects the complexity of many water management issues and this addendum presents both viewpoints. The content found in this addendum does not necessarily reflect the views of other participants or the project team.

This addendum will be forwarded to the Government of Alberta as advice as per the original Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin objective. Furthermore, all feedback has been captured in its raw form and will also be submitted to the Government of Alberta. Content in this addendum has been ordered to reflect the organization of the original Room for the River report. Feedback in its raw form will only be viewed by the authors of this report and the Government of Alberta.

The suggestions and comments in this addendum were received as feedback on the report Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin – Advice to the Government of Alberta. They were not reviewed or discussed by the project technical group or by WaterSMART and should not be perceived as having the endorsement of project participants.

2.2 The Southern Alberta Context  It was noted that floodplains are biodiversity hot spots and the connectivity backbone linking aquatic and terrestrial species at regional scales; floodplains are critical connection components of key ecological processes.

2.3 Scope of the Red Deer Room for the River Project  It was noted that including major Red Deer River tributaries in this study, as well as the river main stem, helped highlight important land use issues such as forestry, motorized recreation and linear disturbances as well as wetland retention and restoration.  It was suggested that Alberta must approach flood mitigation using a watershed approach.

2.4 Process and Approach  Strong support was expressed for the ecologically-based and cost-effective principles in the Room for the River in the Red Deer River Basin report in an effort to reduce vulnerable floodplain infrastructure and improve regional flood and drought resiliency.

3. Advice to Government of Alberta from the Room for the River Project in the Red Deer River Basin

3.1 Initial Scan of the Red Deer Basin Study Area 3.1.1 Basin-wide Options  It was noted that the statement “Minimize the linear footprint by managing recreational activity in the headwaters that contributed to increased runoff such as industrial development, campsites, off road vehicles (ORVs), and trail networks” on page 13 of the Room for the River report mixes recreational activities with industrial development. The respondent suggested that the relative area-wide impacts of industrial clear-cut logging are generally much greater than impacts from the oil and gas industry or ORV activities. The respondent felt that all three of these activities generate considerable impacts and concerns and should form part of the main recommendations of the Room for the River report.  It was suggested that stronger forestry and access regulations be put in place to protect riparian areas and wetlands in Red Deer River Basin headwaters; these areas prevent soil erosion, maintain stream flows, and reduce peak instantaneous discharge, providing a cost- effective method of flood-proofing.  There was support for the recommendation for proactive planning to reconsider the design and construction of bridges and roads to ensure that infrastructure provides room for the river during times of high flow.  It was suggested that introducing a selective relocation program would provide a long-term cost-effective solution for flooding, especially in rural and low density areas. Furthermore, it was suggested that in lower density areas, infrastructure placed in flood-prone areas should be re-examined.  It was suggested that aggregate mining or river dredging should not be considered for flood mitigation; as mentioned in Measure 8 on page 5 of the Room for the River report, sediments quickly redeposit and negate the effect of dredging. It was noted that aggregate mining may

expose aquifers to pollution risk, reduce aquifer storage capacity and degrade the overall ecological function.  It was suggested that strongly enforced legislation should be put in place to prohibit gravel mining and other aggregate related activities in active floodplains up to a 1:1500 year return period.  It was suggested that keeping functioning natural processes and values for long term water and food security should take highest priority in land use decision making in the Red Deer River Basin.  It was advised that riverine wetlands and alluvial reservoirs should be proactively identified and protected in flood plain areas.  It was suggested that flood and drought mitigation is achieved by the conservation of the floodplain, intact functioning riparian areas and alluvial aquifer connectivity. These functions feed springs, riverine wetlands, and water wells in and around the floodplain.

3.1.3 Segment 2: Fallentimber Creek  It was noted that the commentary under “Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters” in the Room for the River Report, as seen below, is also applicable to the Fallentimber Creek headwaters as there is clear cut logging in this segment of river. o “Headwaters upstream of Sundre have been degraded; the natural detention functions of the watershed, especially in the headwaters, should be protected and if possible, improved. Refined forest harvesting practices and re-establishment of cover will play an important role in this. A prohibition on clear cut logging in flood areas could be considered. Changes in grazing, ORV use, oil and gas, and other land use practices need to be examined and the trade-offs of decisions made for “short-term economic gains” need to be assessed.”

3.1.8 Segment 7: Little Red Deer River  It was noted that the commentary under “Segment 1: Red Deer River Headwaters” in the Room for the River Report, as seen below, is also applicable to the Little Red Deer River headwaters as there is clear cut logging in this segment of river. o “Headwaters upstream of Sundre have been degraded; the natural detention functions of the watershed, especially in the headwaters, should be protected and if possible, improved. Refined forest harvesting practices and re-establishment of cover will play an important role in this. A prohibition on clear cut logging in flood areas could be considered. Changes in grazing, ORV use, oil and gas, and other land use practices need to be examined and the trade-offs of decisions made for “short-term economic gains” need to be assessed.”

3.1.9 Segment 8: Medicine River  It was noted that in the Medicine Flats area the local water supply, the riverine wetland, the riparian wildlife corridor, and the Medicine River walleye spawning areas all depend on the alluvial groundwater connection being left intact.  There was support expressed for allowing the river to shift naturally throughout the flood plain in the Medicine Flats area.

3.1.10 Segment 9: Red Deer River - Dickson Dam to Buffalo Lake  A number of respondents suggested that aggregate extraction and related aggregate activities be prohibited in the flood plain. It was specifically suggested that this be prohibited in the Red Deer River / Medicine River Flood Plain area; it was noted that this was highlighted by the flood in June 2013 which was conveyed through abandoned gravel pits where the land had been lowered.  A number of respondents noted that they do not support hard armouring the section of river approximately 4 kms downstream from Dickson Dam for the following reasons: o Hard armouring will export the flooding problems downstream; o Past berming and armouring projects have failed during the first flood after construction, and o There is concern that the current proposed armouring will interrupt the flow of water into the aquifer that supplies water to the local residents.  It was suggested that gravel activities causing permanent landscape and hydraulic changes including extraction, berm, trenching, back filling, and reclamation of open water bodies have severely compromised the floodplain's natural capacity and function and have been costly to all downstream users who depend on it.  There is a perception that the construction of Dickson Dam has caused many of the current flood problems as it has allowed the river to meander and caused the river channel to become shallower. The perception is that large releases from Dickson Dam cause the river to erode its banks and the sediment from the erosion is filling in the river channel with sand and gravel. Additionally, it is perceived that due to Dickson Dam the river is now devoid of ice therefore the benefits of ice scouring in the main channel is lost and gravel is building up in the plane below the dam.  A number of respondents opposed the proposal of buyouts downstream of Dickson Dam and the removal of Range Road 20. There is concern that the removal of Range Road 20 will: o Put Highway 54 at risk; o Allow the Red Deer River to reroute into the Medicine River and destroy the lower 3 miles of the Medicine River which makes up much of the prime spawning habitat for Walleye, Pike, Goldeye, and Brown Trout; o Allow the river to cut off access to or destroy farm land, and o Destroy trees and wetlands that protect wildlife in the area.  A number of respondents supported the proposal to train the river below Dickson Dam to ensure that it remains within its original channel. Respondents felt that the potential aggregate recovery and sale would offset the costs involved and would stop the current erosion. It was suggested that the river should be trained for the following reasons: o This would relieve any concerns about the aquifer; o It will stop the river from migrating further and causing damage to Highway 54; o Valuable farmland and access will be retained, and o Range Road 20 will no longer flood.  It was suggested that, in combination with retraining the river, the left banks downstream of Dickson Dam on the Red Deer River should be re-enforced where they have been washed out. It was suggested that this re-enforcement would help force the river into its original pathway.

 It was suggested that gravel extraction adjacent to the river should be allowed in the area downstream of Dickson Dam, it was noted that old gravel pits in this area held large amounts of water during floods.

3.2 Most Promising Opportunities  There was support for the principle that the “straitjacket” on the rivers should not be tightened. The respondent suggested that at a minimum the most promising opportunities should not further constrain the Red Deer River or the select tributaries examined in the basin, and where room for the river now exists, it should be maintained.  One respondent noted that berms are out of place in the ‘most promising opportunities’ as they tighten the straitjacket in low density areas; there was instead support for moving back from the river and restoring the natural floodplains. The respondent noted that reliance on harmful river berms and dams tend to encourage vulnerable floodplain development and infrastructure that may increase the risk of catastrophic consequences from large storms.  It was noted that many of the ‘most promising’ mitigation options include using dams and berms. It was suggested that the mid-stream on-stream reservoir option would come at a very high environmental and financial cost. It was further noted that on-stream reservoirs replace productive flowing water with silty standing water, while blocking movement of materials and species.

3.3 Feedback on the Room for the River Approach  There was support for comprehensive information gathering to produce an accessible online modeling and cost-benefit analyses tool for the public to participate in further Room for the River assessment and implementation.  One respondent noted that they would encourage elected officials to participate in the Room for the River initiative and to be in touch with the land owners that are affected by flooding problems as each proposed solution will affect each landowner differently.  It was suggested that that the Room for the River initiative should concentrate more on the conservation of natural processes and the return of active floodplains to the Red Deer River and tributaries, giving the river natural room to move.  It was suggested that a provincial program would need to be mindful of ensuring municipal and industry contributions be made through appropriate representation with the appropriate authorization to make representative statements. Furthermore, the program must consider the weighting of input from municipalities and industry consultation relative to public contributions.  There was concern that the Room for the River discussions moved away from flood and drought mitigation through preservation of natural function and processes as described in the Room for the River purpose, toward a larger discussion and recommendations for hard structure engineering solutions and wholesale landscaping reshaping with little regard for natural riverine/riparian connectivity and ecosystem connectivity.  A respondent noted that they were troubled by the fact that they were not consulted during the first stages of the Room for the River initiative.  It was suggested that climate change provisions be factored into the Room for the River initiative along with climate change risk assessments.