troutfriend

How to become a fishing guide in Alberta: Step 1: get boat Done.

Harvesting a fish dramically reduces its ability to make new fish. (Probably somewhat accurate)

A sad day indeed for the Mitchell family, the fishing community and maybe more so, the entire conservation community. Regrets to his family, especially Matt who has lost his father and the best fishing buddy anyone could ever ask for. I thank you for your generosity and passion for the resource. peace. bm

Thanks Barry for all you have done for our provinces fisheries; imparting your knowledge, dedicating your time and sahring your passion. It is truely appreciated. You will be missed. Thank you.

Every waterbody is different, and has unique characteristics that sustain that fishery. This would lend them to ideally having unique regulations governing each fishery. During the provincial fishery roundtable meetings there is always conversation and a desire for simplified regulations by some anglers. Therefore the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Check out the presentation on the roundtable meeting from last April. Hope that helps. There is likely a presentation on there discussing the science of slot limits vs. Length mins. From a few years ago.

Hello all, The City of Calgary's feasibility report on the 58th ST tunnel comes out officially tomorrow! Take a look at that report, then read this article... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579558370315425370 When are we going to revisit the radically less expensive and permanent solution of buy outs? Yes, there is a larger social cost for those who live in the floodplain and may need to be moved, but the economic cost and the risk and allowing those residence to continue to reside in the floodplain is carried by all Canadians. We are not going to move the downtown core, and nor am i advocating for that, but we need to take steps to allow the river to function naturally to dissipate its own energy by reclaiming its natural floodplain. The options on the table are an attempt to dissipate flows to reduce flooding and avoid damage and loss of life; but in reality they are shifting the risk and would be impacting ecosystems that we love, cherish and value. Please take the time to read about the proposals (http://www.alberta.ca/Flood-symposium.cfm) and understand their impacts. Also understand that the attached proposed budgets only speculate on the cost of the structures installation, not the associated costs of moving of highways and new bridges (all projects except the tunnel require highways and bridges to be re routed), moving of people or purchasing land (how much do you think the land in Springbank is worth?), park infrastructure in k- country (this would create a reservoir from McLean Creek to beyond Station Flats), environmental costs, etc etc... If you feel passionately about this I would encourage you to take time to read (to be effective there is a requirement to fully understand the proposals) and make your concerns heard to government officials, because you can rest assure that those in Bragg Creek and along the lower Elbow voices are well heard.

There is talk about restoration project, lets hope there is some follow through with productive results. Note: The provinces recently announced $21 million for "non-structural restoration" solutions discussed at the April 29th symposium, comes from the total bill earmarked at $625 million for all restoration projects. (3.3%) April 29th flood symposium presentation There is a large rip rap project ongoing at the water ski park, Many willows are being planted in the design, but it appears to get them there they drove over many more with heavy equipment. Many of the other announced hardened protection options also will get this type of treatment. Hopefully there is an initiatives and an adequate budgets to maintain and water these new plantings for the next year or two until they become established, or there benefit will be limited. Note: I stated above that the province has not rejected the Priddis Creek by-pass channel, this was an error on my part as it appears after re-watching the symposium this weekend that they have indeed taken this concept off the table.

CDone, as I understand it that 700 meter reach (semantics) below diamond cove and most all other projects will have some provisions for provincial and federal "compensation" in the near future- (some will fall through the regulatory cracks). The Province is unrolling what they are calling the "FISHES" program which will allow for $10 million of habitat restoration work to be completed in the next while (no formal time lines set as of yet). I am not aware of any specific plans on how this money will be spent, but there is little benefit if the projects are simply eye candy (ie sticking willows into a rip rapped rock wall with no long term monitoring or efforts to maintain these plants- check out the new work along the stampede grounds, east of Mcleod Trail north). Additionally the province also announced last week that there would be an additional $21 million for "soft engineering" projects ($7 million for each of three years). These could be concepts including live crib walls or other natural/living designs, but we will see how these get designed as the devil is often in the details; and they only tend to work when there is some followup and long term plan in place to water and manage people movements in these areas. The crib wall at Southland Dog Park is a good example of how these structures function properly to enhance functionality and withstand flood events (the rip rap in that location was mostly blown out, but the crib wall still functions). Also there will be Federal compensation dollars from DFO in the future available following the projects underway. The limitation is that federal compensation projects often have caveats included which can limit the usefulness of those dollars for on the ground projects, but maybe that can be relaxed to help engage people through education and awareness. Building habitat is great, but building functionality and resiliency is much better. Personally I would like to see some of these dollars going towards making a serious attempt to buy out more people residing in the floodplain, this is the only real way to avoid the next flood!

I went to the provincial meeting last week to see what was up. Was very interested to see the projects off and those still on the table. "albertatrout" - If i may be so bold, you would have had even more sickness in the crowd when they each took a turn applauding the wild concepts and those that drove the process including Markin. Very disheartening. I would like to point out that there are still multiple dry dams in play. Specifically one for the Elbow River Proper called "Mclean Creek 1" (MC1) which is pretty new to the party. It would be located up stream of Bragg Creek, but downstream of the confluence of Mclean Creek itself... somewhere around the old North of 60 site... This is also conveniently located in very close proximity to the headwaters of Priddis Creek, so there is still the option to run water down that system (They never formally said "no" to that option- unlike the other projects the clearly are no longer investigating). Secondly there is the proposal for the off site storage reservoir that would take water off the Elbow River just before it crossed under highway 22, and swing it north and east into a plot of land north of the Elbow River and East of Hwy 22... this site would require some sort of major dam on the Elbow River to divert only high flows... (They have 5 of these just north of Dayton, Ohio on the Maimi River and they are called Dry dams - check it out on google earth try Taylorsville Dam ) to focus flows to the side channel in the case of high water. The third major proposal is the Highwood diversion... There is one north routing diversion and are two southern routing options there (they will select one of the three options), but the one southern option that would take the water directly down the Little Bow would also require up to 3 dry dams. This is required because if it were to receive the same volume of water experienced in 2013 into Travers at the same time - the irrigation reservoir would not have the capacity to hold that much volume without major infrastructure upgrades. The maintenance of these structures has not been accounted for in any of the costing calculations (it say this explicitly when looking at the numbers in their presentations) and it is highly unlikely that these projects will come in under budget, and I personally doubt anyone will do a true cost accounting of the true impact on the fishery including the local business that depend on it. Hypothetically - if we agree that 75% of the rainbows in the Bow River found between Bearspaw and Carseland spawned in the Highwood drainage... and they most often spawned (according to AESRD research) above the communities of Okotoks and High River then what could the impact be if fish are lost into these diversion systems while they are up spawning? With the scalping and potential river braiding in the Highwood River will this create a temperature barrier? The spawning in Calgary has been irreversibly altered with the current run on bank "mitigation" projects... How many of those projects have you seen come through the environmental review process? I fear much of the damage has been done, and if we anglers want to stand up to the process and make a difference, I think we will need to have a unified voice understanding that perceived safety of communities will trump recreational anglers most everyday. Any structures add to these systems MUST not be able to introduce fish into diversion structures! Anybody wanting to fight this cannot use the fishery as their primary crutch or you will be labeled and forgotten, Maybe think of riparian health and the role that provides in mitigating floods for free... Maybe talk about the health of the rivers, water quality and the fishery as reflective on how we treat the river itself. Maybe we need to better understand the processes that lead to flooding in the first place and address those instead. Maybe we need to revisit the notion of moving more people out of the floodplain- for that is THE ONLY way to avoid being flooded! peace.

note: check out the FlyFishCalgary sub forum "Trout Unlimited Canada" (at the bottom of the main page) and their "Stewardship License Project"....

The road was damaged following the flooding in various locations, but the industry was required to maintain access the Moose Mountain area to maintain their operations and for the ongoing logging sites. this way they do not run logging truck through Bragg Creek (a concession they made to the community which they have not 100% abided by). Because the road was repaired by industry, and not the province, it is still officially closed to public access. After they are done working on site industry will either remove their bridges and let the province make permanent repairs, or the province will have to make agreements to compensate them for their repairs.

Taco, You are right; many people had their lives turned upside-down by this event. That is tragic on so many levels. Saying that, those people living downstream of the dry dam that were affected this year, will still be living in the active floodplain that has been heavily altered by community encroachment and additional inputs from increased storm sewer inputs. Essentially more water, less absorption and a smaller channel. What if they build this dry dam, and the major rains come again, but instead of sitting to the west of the dry dam, they sit over Mclean Creek for three days (or any drainage east of Quirk Creek)? Then residence still residing in the active floodplain will be impacted. Again.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/865802/scientists-pan-albertas-massive-dam-plan-for-elbow-river/

Yet today as we speak they have started to rebuild Harvie Passage, and they have re-channelized Cougar Creek in Canmore to (as far as I can see) a similar standard! How can people expect different results from the same actions? My point to Eden Valley is this, if they design this in a way to be a dam upstream of the community, what grantees will the residence of Eden Valley have in that the structure will survive a major flood if debris plugged up the culvert? I do agree that buy outs are the sensible solution unfortunately for those living along our rivers. The project costs is in my mind and others extremely under estimated at $660- 830 million and this does not start to take into account the cost the environment. Rivers can be rebuilt for that price to function properly.

Please take a look at the structures planned in the slide show from last night (specifically sides 35, 36 and 37)... They are designing dams and they will require the same authorizations and designs as a dam... no matter what they plan to call them. It is really a culvert with soil over top and we all know how culverts impact fisheries all across the east slopes of this province! How will this change silt and cobble movement downstream in these headwaters? it will stop most cobble movement and allow all the silt to move. What will the maintenance cost? Large woody debris and other materials up stream will always be a problem in a culvert... Are they trading one risk (to homes in the floodplain) for another (the residence in Eden Valley)? Or the residence upstream of 58th ST on the Elbow River for the risk to residence below 58th ST on the Bow River? Anyone ever see a culvert in the east slopes that is not hanging? Or a barrier to fish migration? Far more issues for a migratory species like bull trout who mainly spawn above Eden Valley in K-Country and winter in the canyon section. They have started to make offers on purchasing residence along the Elbow River (apparently as of Oct 24 - 10 offers have been accepted and there are 53 or so in the cue) and that is a road that is far batter and more cost effective in the long run, but it is much more challenging socially.

Presentation from last night... http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/YourAlberta/v6community-flood-mitigation-power-point-publication-copy/29 (EDIT- This may not start at the first slide- so go backwards to see the entire presentation)

So I attended the meeting tonight to discuss the plans for the future flood mitigation. The overwhelming tone of the meeting was "Get it Done!" from the government led panel tasked with developing projects to protect communities from future flooding. This includes dams on the Elbow (up around Cobble Flats) and Highwood (above Eden Valley) and future plans are being developed to see if there are additional locations on the bow for retention sites as well and these plans will be formalized by December. This also includes a plan to run an above ground flood channel to avoid High River and another that would run out of Glenmore reservoir along 58 ST and then empty into the Bow. Some in the community want more gravel removal from the Bow River and the Elbow River, and the city sounded like they were willing to help out. So Jayhad, I wish I had an answer for you, but i do not know where to turn. DFO? AESRD? Maybe there is some potential help with the Eden first nations band? I do not know. What I do know is that the community residents sitting around me snickered when anything "environmental" was brought up and replaced by the notion that this will allow the children to sleep again. I have been a fisheries biologist for many years in this province, and I understand the impact this event has had on many families and lives, but never have I ever been so gutted after a meeting. This is a pretty big freight-train. I need a few days to digest this. peace.

Many areas along the eastern slopes were impacted by the floods this summer. We may have lost some spawning age class, but over all the changes to the rivers was likely positive in the long run for the ecosystems. Living in an active flood plain has a been devastating for many of those in our community... so how do we move forwards? What will be the long term impacts be for our river ecosystems if strategies are implemented to circumvent flows around High River and the Calgary downtown core? What happens if Flood Detention Sites (ie. dams) are constructed on the headwaters of the Elbow, Sheep and Highwood Rivers? Do these ideas sound far fetched? Sadly no, they are being entertained currently in southern Alberta. http://alberta.ca/flood-symposium.cfm Check out the power point presentation to see some of the ideas being proposed. How do you think this will impact or change these ecosystems over time? These proposals are being pushed through by a powerful group that would add legitimacy by focusing on tragic losses to peoples property, with little or no concern for the environmental consequences. Do Not think for one second that DFO or ASERD (Fish and Wildlife) will actually have any tools in the tool box to stop these projects! Look at what is going on in your rivers already! Instreams works are ongoing in Turner Valley (river channeling), Black Diamond (river channeling), High River (Scalping), throughout Calgary (rip raping)...etc .etc... How will this change these rivers?

It is hard to make a stand towards stopping the SLS train when the conductor is also the regulator. Who is really driving this process? Alberta Forestry or SLS?

Rivers move and migrate naturally. They always will. Once a community, bridge or house is constructed in the floodplain it then becomes something that governments are obliged to protect, and the easiest and cheapest way to do this is with riprap. Communities, bridges and houses have advocates, a voice and a well defined value. Rivers become an inconvenience and will sadly loose out in every case. This happens around the world... Flooding claimed lives in Kansas, Colorado and the Sudan over the weekend. Is it the weather that needs to take the blame? or should there be more emphasis put on how we develop communities and infrastructure in areas where water has a potential to impact communities? Where rivers have migrated and developed a new channel and now circumvent bridges (Turner Valley, Black Diamond etc...) should we be moving the rivers back under these structures and channelizing the rivers with riprap? or should we be building longer bridges? Rivers need to drop horsepower and one way they accomplish this is through the natural creation of bends. If we remove a bend to straighten a river and make it flow under a structure or through a community, where is that energy going that you have added to the river? Channelizing and riprapping the rivers just transfers the problem downstream. The river will find a way to reduce the horsepower, the bridge will be safe for now, but someone downstream will be impacted. Dredging or scalping a river is an interesting option, but experts agree there is a long list of metrics that need to be collected to assess potential feasibility and these need to be evaluated. how much of that is being proposed and where will this information be available for the ongoing work in High River? If they did this "evaluation" work prior to the flood is the information even relevant anymore? Note: Councillor Tim Whitford proposed scalping the Highwood River for a while now - the recent event makes it convenient. http://www.highrivertimes.com/2013/05/09/town-could-nab-federal-funding-for-flood-project I drove through Canmore this weekend and saw that they have nearly returned Cougar Creek to its pre-flood status. Now I do not know how much engineering they have done to mitigate future events, but I do know that that community is developed on an alluvial fan - these areas function to naturally absorb and dissipate energy as spring flows increase. Channelizing this system again only concentrates the energy downstream towards the highway and railway at the bottom which are restricted by culverts. I must admit I did not glace at the culverts this past weekend, but if there was ever an example of the impact of undersized culverts those previously installed would be the poster children! If the decision makers (Alberta Infrastructure and the Railway) decided to replace the culverts in this area with the same size and design of culvert, and the engineers attempted to rebuild the creek to the previous standards, I hope the residents are not surprised when the river has the same response in the next large event. I personally hope that communities do not go and clean up the materials in the riparian area including garbage, log jams in the trees and other materials left over from this event. These area very good reminders of what these amazing rivers can do, and just how high waters got during this event. Everyone need to remember this and not make the same mistakes again and again.

I was just attempting to suggest for those others intereseted who may have some time to help, I know TUC is also supporting Paul and the Fish and Wildlife staff on the orgainzation side for some of the fish rescue efforts as they develop. Peace.

TUC is taking names and is helping organize rescue efforts with fish and wildlife. Try contacting them!

Well said Smitty.

Or Prussian Carp. They are in there too.