In-River Future Flood Mitigation Actives....

[troutfriend]

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?

 

[bcubed]

All you have to do is drive the highwood road right now and see why this proposal for 'dry' berms is ridiculous. If a storm of that size hit again, there is no culvert that will hold back the amount of water that was coming down....

 

A note for those who aren't quick to tell where the highwood ones are located. The first 'dam' would be directly at the Kananaskis Gate. Funny, since during the presentation they said they are kept away from "habitation near by"... I guess Eden Valley being less then 2 km away isn't nearby enough..

 

Second site is at within the canyon, west of Longview.

 

Guess we might as well start generating power with these berms to help pay for them.....

[Jayhad]

Troutfriend,

thank you for the info, that said what can we do, I have been emailing, writing and calling city staffers about Bow river boat access for over 3 years and I've never had a response except for automated "thank-you for you input" form letters.

[duanec]

my perspective is somewhat skewed, but i believe that most of the suggestions tabled are "easy" 'high visibility' attempted fixes that will probably have limited value. perhaps solves some issues, short term, but in reality create other ones.

also consider that the bow system is already overallocated, and some of the major rights holders prodded the gov't to study the feasibility of changing the storage options on the bow system, and none of the initial findings were 'easy'. all involved major undertakings that would involve years of stakeholder input, review, due process, etc. and lots and lots of funds.

and they could not agree and wrap that up...although that's still on the books.

 

the issues, and what's being attempted to mitigate against is quite varied and complex, and so probably should be the solution.

requires some big picture/long term thinking, and that's been fundamentally lacking for quite some time.

 

my0.02.

[bcubed]

Considering how stuff like 'river scraping' was pushed through without all the appropriate measures, I'd be interested to see the amount of meaningful environmental assessment prior to throwing up these berms.

[peetso]

All you have to do is drive the highwood road right now and see why this proposal for 'dry' berms is ridiculous. If a storm of that size hit again, there is no culvert that will hold back the amount of water that was coming down....

 

A note for those who aren't quick to tell where the highwood ones are located. The first 'dam' would be directly at the Kananaskis Gate. Funny, since during the presentation they said they are kept away from "habitation near by"... I guess Eden Valley being less then 2 km away isn't nearby enough..

 

Second site is at within the canyon, west of Longview.

 

Guess we might as well start generating power with these berms to help pay for them.....

 

If this happens I will go full George Hayduke.

[peetso]

Does anyone have any info on who to email/mail/phone/contact about my extreme opposition to any and all dams proposed on the Highwood River?

 

This is something that cannot be allowed to happen.

[troutfriend]

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.

[bcubed]

I love the notion of gravel removal. Talk about the most futile waste of money. Tervita must be ecstatic, could be doing this till eternity as its been sold as one of the best way to stop floods.

[peetso]

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.

 

. . . 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.

 

this hurts

[troutfriend]

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)

[ginger]

Does anyone know if dry berms have been used on other trout streams and if the fishery has been affected? Clearly they will be awful to look at on a local basis but on my limited understanding they do not affect normal flow patterns at all and it isn't completely obvious to a layman that it's devastating for the fishery. Dams must be much worse than dry berms and it must be recalled that Bow is not a bad fishery despite the fact that it is a multiple dam tailwater. I know these comments border on treason on this forum and to be clear I've spent a lot of time on the Highwood and would certainly prefer it not be touched in anyway. On the other hand, having recently had some first and second hand experience with flood damage I would like too see mitigation measures at least explored. In any event, they will be explored and the fly fishing community will be marginalized in the process if it takes a strident "don't even consider touching it" position.

[troutfriend]

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.

[ginger]

Lots of good points TF particularly on the fish and silt/cobble migration. I did look at the power point before my first post. I agree it's a type of dam and assume you agree that if the dry berms are subject to the same engineering, environmental and other regulatory scrutiny as conventional dams that is a bit of a start anyway. I also get the hanging culvert point but I'm assuming that these structures would be a lot more sophisticated than the simple culvert under a road grade scenario. Maybe I'm wrong but we are not going to decide that from a slide show. I don't get the point about sacrificing Eden valley at all--I would have thought that having a flood control structure upstream might save some of the type of damage they suffered in the recent event. Also, I agree that home buy-outs are much preferable to any in-river structure but I don't think the thousands of homes that went under water in High River, Bragg Creek and the Calgary Elbow floodplain are going to be relocated.

 

In any event TF, I think to very large degree we are on the same side. My point is that the implementation of some flood mitgation measures is virtually certain and a nuanced approach from our team could help. Regulatory tribunals almost always ignore the extreme "stop this at all costs" position. What I should have said first off is thank you for bringing this to our attention.

[Jayhad]

Flood mitigation is being smart enough to know not to buy property in a flood plain that you aren't prepared to lose. Floods, which will continue to happen will soon teach people that there aren't solutions except get out of the way. Harry passage, class 2 was essentially wiped off the map, and that was planned to contain the waters. This process is a complete waste of yours and my tax dollars

[troutfriend]

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.

[bcubed]

660-830 million dollars would go a long way in buying out homes in flood zones...

 

After seeing the amount of wood that got moved around on the highwood, any culvert is a joke. Wonder how the habitat would be behind the berm after all the sediment that was present in the 'pond' started to drop out...

[Toirtis]

My concern is that if the projections for much higher than normal snowfall for the Calgary to the Rockies area for this winter is correct, that much of this may be a moot point for the next year.

[DonAndersen]

Folks,

 

There is no question that floods of 1995, 2005 and 2013 have effected houses and businesses + the real effects that happened in the rivers and streams.

They were gutted out.

Now I'm wondering what is worse, being gutted out and turned into a gravel plain with a stream running down the middle or cutting the water flow and reducing the profound effects of the flooding. Just remember, we've had 3 of these floods since 1995. Previous to that, if I recall.correctly, you have to go back k 50 years to see a similar flood. Perhaps not only the populace will appreciate the dry dams but maybe the trout will as well.

So, after spending the 800 million, maybe they will never be required in your lifetime. Like fire depts. you spend $ and hope like hell you never need it.

And as I pointed out to a friend of mine today - $800 million is petty cash. Between the Stoney Trail, the proposed 36 extension + the west leg of the LRT, Calgary has sucked <> 4 billion outta the rest of us.

 

Still not convinced which options are best,

 

 

Don

[Harps]

These plans will decimate trout populations every time there is a flood, way worse than the flood itself.

Fish will get trapped in the bypass structures, trapped in upland areas behind pools, won't be able to travel upstream through the structures and will generally have a much more difficult time, worse than the natural flooding they have evolved to endure.

 

Areas upstream of the ""dry dam" will be destroyed in any event large enough to fill the culvert to capacity. Plus any constructed culverts will increase flows, increase scour and cause a massive erosion area and a equally massive deposition of gravel downstream which will change the rivers. Unless they create a concrete spill pool and energy dissipator... further destroying the aquatic environment and eliminating upstream fish passage.

 

These are dumb plans, a quick, not thought out action that is in direct response to the emotional need of the folks that want this.

How many rivers need to be modified to make the whole province flood proof? If we protect Calgary, we need to protect Edmonton and Red Deer and Medicine Hat and Sundre and Edson and Rocky, and Lethbridge and pincher creek, and coleman and claresholm, nanton, irvine, drumhellerFortmcMurryCanmorePeaceRiverGrandPrairie, etc, etc.

 

What will the enduring maintenance costs be?
How will we monitor and ensure that the aquatic environment isn't harmed?

Who will rescue trapped fish?

Who pays for damage when the "protection" fails?
Whose land is destroyed for this?

The costs are much higher to the environment and to Albertans then represented.
I for one will not pay for such a ****ed up plan.

Do what Lethbridge did in the 60's, buy out the residents move all vulnerable infrastructure out of the floodplains, and let the rivers run in a place where they have access to floodplains- When will we learn that we can't go against nature and physics.

[bcubed]

god i love the voice of reason

[albertatrout]

Though I agree the ideas seem like they could cause a lot of damage/ unnecessary harm they do have some positive attributes. The way I see a dry dam working is the area behind them would only hold water during a significant flood event. Depending on the residence time, theoretically it could simply create a cottonwood/ riparian flood dependent type forest upstream while lowering flood impacts downstream (look at the Oldman valley next time you go through Brocket to see what kind of forest temporary flooding creates). I'm not sure how they handle woody debris but I do see how softening the peaks during the flood could greatly benefit fish habitat downstream. I like the idea of removing development from flood plains but I do not think relocating downtown Calgary is a viable option so some outside the box thinking maybe needed. I do know man-made lake systems have contributed to huge increases in fish biomass in mountain streams due to buffering (and additional) benefits. Fish would be lost in temporary puddles/ low spots but that happens in nature too (I found many rainbows and bulls in the forest this summer a short distance from the creeks). All effects need to be looked at to judge what kind of impact these structures would have on fish and habitat, that's what EIA's are for.

 

I would rather see a dry dam with fish passability than a new collection of water storage reservoirs which forever block fish movements.

[bcubed]

AT, there is a pretty massive ecological difference between a cottonwood floodplain and a mountain lodgepole pine forest. Who are we to decide that these dams will 'greatly benefit fish habitat'. Seems these floods are a hell of a lot more natural then us building a berm in the headwaters.

 

They're estimating the storage of the top berm on the Highwood to be 84 million cubes. Given a very generous 100 cms flowing out of the culvert (that's one hell of a culvert..), you'd be looking at a residence time of approximately 9 days (with no additional water being added, which obviously would not be happening)...Think that cataract creek was flowing at over 200 cms, and you'll understand that the residence time would be dramatically higher during the worse case scenario.

 

Alberta can't even get fish-exclusion devices on their irrigation canals, i can't imagine the *hit show that these would turn into.

[Harps]

Though I agree the ideas seem like they could cause a lot of damage/ unnecessary harm they do have some positive attributes. The way I see a dry dam working is the area behind them would only hold water during a significant flood event. Depending on the residence time, theoretically it could simply create a cottonwood/ riparian flood dependent type forest upstream while lowering flood impacts downstream (look at the Oldman valley next time you go through Brocket to see what kind of forest temporary flooding creates). I'm not sure how they handle woody debris but I do see how softening the peaks during the flood could greatly benefit fish habitat downstream.

 

The flooding behind the dam itself wouldn't be the biggest issue, although all the suspected flood area would need to be graded to allow positive drainage and minimize fish loses. Also the damned time might actually prevent floodplain growth- inundation of areas with dryer upland vegetation and possibly years of riparian forest vegetation that is far from the water. The type of bedload deposition, the inundation times, the hydraulic, none of it is similar. The Brocket area of the Oldman is not really comparable.

 

"Softening" of the peaks will reduce bedload movement and "refreshing " of streambeds (including spawning areas). It could prevent the movement of gravel downstream, creating areas of massive degradation in the river exposing buried infrastructure and eliminating those critical areas where oxygenated water flows through loose substrate. It will change the dynamic that large woody debris plays on the system, which changes LWD related habitat use (trout spawn closer to LWD in any give stream, if it is available), as well as changes the hydraulic function of LWD, such as stabilizing point bars, banks, and islands and allowing a mobile alluvial channel to stabilize (promotes vegetation growth in a protected area that has had the deposition of finer materials).

Reducing and removing peaks also impacts biodiversity by reducing flood related invert migration and recolonization, changing bedload compositions and all the other reasons I've pointed out above.

The river system evolved to function in its current state in the conditions of it's current state. by changing those conditions we are limiting the capacity of the system to respond to change and to remain in it's preferred state (largely based on energy).

 

Man made lake systems can promote more biomass, often just by the fact that there is more habitat available for aquatic things to live in. It isn't necessarily "better" habitat, in fact, often we will lose biodiversity because of it, or cause an imbalance that encourages "worse" conditions, such as Didymo blooms below dams. Plus, who needs those great migratory fisheries that we've already ****ed up beyond repair... Lake Sturgeon used to travel the whole length of the river from Diefenbaker to the confluence of the Castle and Oldman (S.Sask up the Oldman). We screwed that with a few good weirs and two massive dams. Bull trout used to move down to Lethbridge, then back upstream... has the Alberta gov't ever done a winter survey to see how far bulls move down in the winter now?

 

I could go on, and on about all the negative aspects of this plan. Realistically after all the ****ing around that we do, the river will attempt to stabilize itself, either by destroying something we've constructed, or changing it's own characteristics. How that river changes, though, may not be better for the existing fishery, although we as angers may not see much of a difference except in ratios of fish, best times to fish, and what different flies we have to use.

[albertatrout]

AT, there is a pretty massive ecological difference between a cottonwood floodplain and a mountain lodgepole pine forest. Who are we to decide that these dams will 'greatly benefit fish habitat'. Seems these floods are a hell of a lot more natural then us building a berm in the headwaters.

 

They're estimating the storage of the top berm on the Highwood to be 84 million cubes. Given a very generous 100 cms flowing out of the culvert (that's one hell of a culvert..), you'd be looking at a residence time of approximately 9 days (with no additional water being added, which obviously would not be happening)...Think that cataract creek was flowing at over 200 cms, and you'll understand that the residence time would be dramatically higher during the worse case scenario.

 

Alberta can't even get fish-exclusion devices on their irrigation canals, i can't imagine the *hit show that these would turn into.

 

I do agree for the most part, I'm just thinking out loud trying to look at all aspects of the proposal. In a best case scenario it wouldn't impact fish habitat/ populations, worst case it could be very detrimental. I don't trust the provincial government even in the slightest so I am very skeptical of what they plan to do. I was just trying to point out why it may not be a 100% bad idea.