MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - A 26-page report commissioned by the Westward Ho Campground Association into flood erosion concerns at the county-owned facility has identified a number of areas of concern and recommended possible solutions.
The Little Red Deer River Conceptual Bank Stabilization Assessment report is expected to come before council at an upcoming meeting. The association provided the Albertan with a copy of the report.
Located on the Little Red Deer River south of Highway 27, the campground currently has 315 yearly sites and about 60 weekend sites. The association operates the campground under a 10-year lease.
“The erosion along the south part of the park its getting bad,” association president Pat Strey told council at the recent council meeting. “We have lost a good portion of four to five sites, and it gets worse every time the Little Red Deer River experiences high flows. The study points out that doing nothing will result in the loss of sites further inland as well.”
Cascade Water Resources Inc. was retained by the association to undertake a mobility and stabilization report at the campground.
The entire river frontage on the left downstream bank (LDB) of the river at the camp is approximately 1,560 metres (m) long. Currently about half the distance (780 m) of the river front is associated with campsites that extend to the water’s edge.
The objectives of the study were to undertake a high-level review of current conditions of the LDB and determine areas of concern that require action to avoid loss of lands that are being used for camping purposes.
In all, six areas of concern (AoC) were identified and examined, ranging from AoC 1 where the river starts its flow past the campground to AoC 6 where the river reaches the Highway 22 bridge.
“The upstream portion of AoC 1 on the LDB is well protected by wood debris/a log jam,” the report states. “It is recommended that this log jam be left in place as it provides good protection. It also provides good fish and aquatic habitat.”
The recommendation for protection at the site is deflectors and/or groyne (a low wall or sturdy barrier) or riprap revetment protection.
The recommendation for AoC 2 is for deflector and/or groyne or riprap revetment protection.
“In general, AoC 2 appears to have the highest risk ranking. This is due to the relatively large number of sites under direct threat.”
The recommendation for AoC 3 is for deflectors and/or groin or riprap revetment protection.
“This area is of low concern at the moment but as the meanders develop upstream this area has little natural erosion protection or setback distance to protect it.
“The lowest risk area is AoC 3. At the present this area has low risk but a large flood could directly impact associated sites.”
An alternative recommendation states, “Sites could be abandoned here but at some point, protection will likely be required to prevent the loss of more sites.”
The recommendation for both AoC 4 and AoC 5 is for riprap revetment protection.
The alternative recommendation for both sites states, “Sites could be abandoned here with natural mechanisms providing protection. At some point protection may be required to protect sites located to the west and northwest downstream.”
The recommendation for AoC 6 is for riprap revetment for the upper half of the area and groyne for the downstream area.
In conclusion the report states, in part, “The AoC protected and sequence undertaken will likely depend (on) available funding as protection all AoC will require significant capital. In total approximately 460 metres of bank stabilization is needed to protect all six AoCs.”
The report did not include an estimated cost for the recommended bank stabilization.
Council carried a motion instructing administration bring the recent 26-page river bank stabilization assessment report before the next council meeting and that “decisions be deferred until council has a chance to consider the report.”
