In-River Future Flood Mitigation Actives....

[troutfriend]

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

[Chadillac]

not a bad piece of media for once. Jim Stelfox retired?! who is going to run the stewardship program?

[Current]

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

 

"Gut-wrenching" is right. Best use of the word "boondoggle" I've heard recently.

 

Another article with comments from Van Tighem:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/proposal+future+floods+doesn+poses+environmental+concerns/9211683/story.html

 

 

Folks, it seems this ludicrous plan is getting the fast-track. Opportunities for input are where? I had the opportunity to reply to an Alberta WaterPortal newsletter with the promise my comments would be forwarded to the Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force.

 

I blurted out the email below and sent to info@albertawater.com :

 

"To the Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force,

 

I have been contemplating how to express my concerns with the construction and operation of flood control dams and dry ponds proposed in the headwaters of the Elbow and Highwood rivers. Kevin Van Tighem’s comments in a recent article in the Calgary Herald express exactly my perspective on the proposed structures.

 

The article is here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/proposal+future+floods+doesn+poses+environmental+concerns/9211683/story.html

The points I would like to reiterate are as follows:

 

- The operation of the proposed structures have the potential to create huge impacts upstream for existing fisheries, ecological, recreational, and aesthetic values; many of which we have been working hard over recent decades to protect and enhance (e.g. federally and provincially listed fish species at risk)

- The retention of headwaters flows will serve little benefit for reducing downstream flood effects

- Healthy watershed headwaters systems are important for naturally mitigating both flood and drought events

 

In addition to Mr. Van Tighem’s comments I would add my concern that the operation of the dry ponds could result in a large amount of vegetation removal upstream of the structures due to scour, sediment deposition, and flood drowning. This would increase the potential for both flood and drought effects due to the disturbance of natural hydrological processes (i.e. overland water retention and release) maintained by the existing vegetation.

 

Perhaps there is a more suitable downstream location where a wetland complex could be incorporated in the design. Or several structures could be built in previously disturbed agricultural areas. I would be interested in seeing more sensible alternative options.

 

These are my initial thoughts on the topic. I look forward to further opportunities to provide input."

 

 

We all need to send letters. But where? Contact http://www.albertawater.com/ as a start.

 

Please read the articles posted. Maybe there are viable alternatives. Maybe we can create or restore wetland complexes to incorporate into the design. I know there are hundreds of corporations who would jump on the bandwagon to supply funds to create or restore wetland areas to help mitigate flood effects. They would do this as compensation for wetland loss due to development in a heartbeat.

 

To build in the headwaters is not viable. We've been managing fisheries for decades to protect species at risk and now this? It will be a mess upstream of these dams. Do it in a previously disturbed setting if anywhere.

 

I'm surprised this thread is so quiet. Or maybe not. Not a lot of press on the issue.

 

Thanks, all. Get involved.

[Taco]

Hard to get all up in arms when your friends and neighbours have had their lives gutted

 

It's an issue I've spent more than a little time thinkin' about

[Current]

I understand that part. Looking for alternatives to the current proposal.

[Current]

Channelize the entire river through High River and build bypass channels around both sides of the town would be a better alternative, IMO.

[Taco]

No *hit...

 

The whole thing is a political and emotional minefield right now. Hopefully cooler head will prevail IF we get through next spring without something similar occurring.

[Current]

Politics and emotion are driving these projects hard right now.

 

http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=35416D2AD8030-E01E-20F2-DFDF09F744559C82

 

Cool head thinking is not prevailing. What we have is an exercise in momentum started by a knee-jerk reaction to get "something" done.

 

I'm just asking those who have concerns to stay informed and those who have alternatives in mind to present them.

 

 

Thanks

[Taco]

No *hit...

 

The whole thing is a political and emotional minefield right now. Hopefully cooler head will prevail IF we get through next spring without something similar occurring.

[ginger]

Channelize the entire river through High River and build bypass channels around both sides of the town would be a better alternative, IMO.

Current, get current, last week's proposal appeared to be to fast track two things 1. a channel around High River (ie your alternative?) 2. a dry berm on the Elbow in the vicinity of the mouth of Quirk creek. Dry berms on the Highwood seem to have been put aside, at least for now. I would think our community might want to focus on the utility of the Elbow dry berm and I, for one, am heavily influenced by Van Tighem's comments.

[Current]

Not my alternative. I don't really want the river channelized. Just throwing that out there.

 

Please, if you have more current information, post it here. Just trying to stay on top of things and encouraging others to do the same. We're all here to help. I'm not here to debate or argue.

 

Thanks for the clarity, Ginger. Please keep us current on what you are hearing or reading.

 

It sounds like consultation and environmental review are set to begin on the dry dam(s) upstream of Calgary.

 

"During a speech to the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, Premier Alison Redford announced that consultation and environmental reviews are set to begin on a diversion channel around High River and a dry dam upstream of Calgary." http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=35416D2AD8030-E01E-20F2-DFDF09F744559C82

 

Again, I'm not here to debate anything. This is just a good place for us to share and sort out information as it comes in.

 

If anyone hears more about the aforementioned consultation opportunities please post them here.

 

Thanks

[troutfriend]

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.

[Current]

 

I would think our community might want to focus on the utility of the Elbow dry berm and I, for one, am heavily influenced by Van Tighem's comments.

Sorry, I'm not being very cool-headed about this. I will be looking to focus my attention as you mention above and on berms/dams in the Highwood.

[peetso]

Hard to get all up in arms when your friends and neighbours have had their lives gutted

 

It's an issue I've spent more than a little time thinkin' about

 

I've had friends and family affected by the flood as well . . . but lets not let one tragedy turn into an even bigger one.

[bcubed]

I've had friends and family affected by the flood as well . . . but lets not let one tragedy turn into an even bigger one.

 

 

So did I, the cost of the Headwaters berms could go a LONG way in buying out people who want out, and be far more effective then these ridiculous proposals.

[peetso]

So did I, the cost of the Headwaters berms could go a LONG way in buying out people who want out, and be far more effective then these ridiculous proposals.

 

Absolutely.

 

Its where I'd rather see my tax dollars going as well.

 

Hope it didn't come across as though I was advocating for dry dams/berms

[Taco]

Wait and see what'll happen if we get another bad flood in the next couple of yrs. We'll have proposed dry dams above every on-stream community from Grande Prairie to Wild Horse. The Electorate will demand it.

[Taco]

And it wasn't even a once in a hundred yr flood

 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Alberta+June+flood+extraordinary+expert+research+shows/9225489/story.html

[Taco]

 

As soon as the Public Review process starts on these flood mitigation projects someones needs to start posting that info, I can find FA online.

[Current]

Some information here on the Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force and some Feedback Response Documents: http://albertawater.com/

 

There's some good content in the Response Documents from water, ecology, and restoration experts among others.

 

 

You can also sign up for News Alerts. Opportunities for input through the Public Review process will hopefully be posted.

 

 

Alberta WaterPortal are collecting and sending to feedback to the Task Force through this email address: info@albertawater.com

 

Feel free to start writing. It's the only opportunity I know of currently. As Taco says, there is FA else online.

[BBBrownie]

-

[albertatrout]

http://www.gov.ab.ca/release.cfm?xID=36304AC3F1B7A-F805-B232-0890B4D81610852C

 

Update on the governments intentions. Try not to barf while reading the PC political drivel mixed in with the plans. Not much for details yet but be ready for environmental reviews and opportunities to provide feedback. Sounds to me like an excuse to sneak in another irrigation reservoir near High River is included, i was waiting for that (better than a dry dam in terms of spending, but saying it's for flood mitigation should help ram it through). People concerned about head water fisheries will want to get organized and be ready for a fight.

[troutfriend]

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.

[CDone]

Troutfriend, do you know if there are any provisions for creation of fish habitat for all of the 'on bank mitigation' projects currently underway? That kilometer long rock wall they are creating under the cliff face below Diamond Cove looks like it will be a featureless dead zone as do many off the others being built.

 

Colin

[bcubed]

They'll stick willow stakes on it, which the beavers will all eat. That bank sucked anyway, mucky and not really fishy until well downstream..

 

 

http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Documents/Water-Documents/Diamond_Cove_Community_Presentation_2014.pdf

 

 

at least trout like riprap...