Flood Season Is Right Around The Corner...

[jpinkster]

There are a lot of nervous folks here in Calgary as we edge closer to flood season. As someone who lived in a community adjacent to the river, I will never forget what happened in June of 2013.

The NDP have committed to nearly $297M in flood mitigation projects on the Elbow River. The linchpin of Elbow River flood mitigation will be the Springbank Dry Dam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp5Rut8CrmU.

 

To date, shovels have not gone into the ground, and Calgary is no safer from floods today than it was in 2013.

Calgary Herald, Don Braid: No flood projects yet, so pass the sandbags

Here's the main problem: instead of addressing the cause, we are responding to the effects. Deterioration of riprarian areas in Eastern Slopes headwaters plays a very big role when it comes to flooding. Fens and other natural vegetation act as a natural sponge and can mitigate the impacts of flooding further downstream. Without a natural buffer in place, flood waters race out of the mountains and into the prairies at a torrid pace.

Imagine what a $297M investment in our headwaters could accomplish with natural solutions to flood mitigation/prevention? I think it's time for a new approach.

[monger]

A sustained rain in a localized area, delayed snow melt.....perfect storm. The land was not going to soak up this freak event. I doubt we will see it again in our lifetimes

[jksnijders]

"A sustain rain in a localized area, delayed snow melt.....perfect storm. The land was not going to soak up this freak event. I doubt we will see it again in our lifetimes"

 

 

Pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

[jpinkster]

A sustain rain in a localized area, delayed snow melt.....perfect storm. The land was not going to soak up this freak event. I doubt we will see it again in our lifetimes

I totally agree, 2013 was unlike anything else I've seen.

 

There isn't one single solution to flood mitigation. We can't just build dams and ignore our headwaters. We also can't just focus on headwaters and ignore dams. Projects like the Springbank Dry Dam will go a long ways to help with major flood events. Regular maintenance in our headwaters will help mitigate those typical runoff/flood years.

[lad]

I totally agree, 2013 was unlike anything else I've seen.

 

There isn't one single solution to flood mitigation. We can't just build dams and ignore our headwaters. We also can't just focus on headwaters and ignore dams. Projects like the Springbank Dry Dam will go a long ways to help with major flood events. Regular maintenance in our headwaters will help mitigate those typical runoff/flood years.

What regular maintenance can be done with the actual headwaters?

[jpinkster]

This video runs through a few aspects:

 

Fens, bogs and wetlands play a critical role in holding water and building up that "natural infrastructure". Vegetation and land use evaluation can play a critical role. By remediation natural vegetation and protecting riparian areas, we can build up that natural buffer.

 

Here's a great example of an investment that can make a really positive contribution to natural flood mitigation:

http://www.ducks.ca/news/provincial/alberta/duc-receives-11-6-million-in-wrrp-funds-for-wetland-restoration/

[BurningChrome]

Projects like the Springbank Dry Dam will go a long ways to help with major flood events.

There are many who think that dams made the 2013 floods worse. Wonder what happens when they rush the Springbank dam to appease the squeaky wheels and it lets go during a flood event. Personally I have no sympathy for the people who are building and re-building multimillion dollar houses in Rideau and Roxboro if they get flooded again. As the saying goes, some people have more dollars than sense.

[jpinkster]

But isn't there a big difference between a dam designed for flood mitigation and a flood designed for power generation? My understanding is that the Ghost Dam plays very little role in flood mitigation because that isn't what it was designed to do.

[Tpetey]

Ghost dam, as well as the upstream dams, could play a much bigger role in flood mitigation if it was in Transalta's best interest to do so. Transalta makes money from power production, not flood mitigation.

[Jayhad]

This is retarded..... turn the flood planes back in to wetlands and let those losers that built in the flood plane eat rocks

[tika]

What regular maintenance can be done with the actual headwaters?

Stop the Ghost clearcut logging would be a good first step.

[lad]

This video runs through a few aspects:

 

Fens, bogs and wetlands play a critical role in holding water and building up that "natural infrastructure". Vegetation and land use evaluation can play a critical role. By remediation natural vegetation and protecting riparian areas, we can build up that natural buffer.

 

Here's a great example of an investment that can make a really positive contribution to natural flood mitigation:

http://www.ducks.ca/news/provincial/alberta/duc-receives-11-6-million-in-wrrp-funds-for-wetland-restoration/

So there is actually zero "regular head water maintenance" that can be done by people.

[jpinkster]

I'd classify planting willows and restoring banks as tangible "regular head water maintenance" that could be done by people.

[albertatrout]

Your videos over simplify the issue immensely. Willows/ a few riparian plantings can have localized impacts in terms of preventing sedimentation/ improving fish cover values but will have no impact on a watershed level. Also, what was the natural forest extent prior to human development and fire suppression? We may actually be living in a time period where the land has more natural flood mitigation traits than it did 200-300 years ago. If a massive fire rips through the headwaters, then what? Remember we have only been here a little over 100 years, I know of relatively un-impacted drainage's that are considered to have had 1 in 50 year floods 3 times in the past 6 years. How confident are we these events will not occur again soon, or may occur more frequently from time to time over the long term record? We really don't know. The overall forest age/ structure would have far more impact on lower drainage flood potential than any of the factors we can address with simple changes/ adding a wetland or two. We are due for a big fire, there's a lot of fuel up there, the trigger could become much more sensitive.

 

You can justify the sort of projects you mention as fish and wildlife habitat enhancements, but I really don't feel you can call it flood mitigation with any appreciable level of confidence. Also, adding more wetlands/ fens can increase water temperatures which, often favors invasive species such as Brook Trout. Brookies love backwaters and can take over beaver dominated systems rapidly. I have seen groups calling for releasing beavers all over the place lately, as a flood mitigation measure. Even this could have negative impacts on the remaining cutts and bullies, especially considering in terms of flood mitigation it would have negligible impact further down in the system where the infrastructure is. We need to be careful we don't do more harm than good, even changes with the best of intentions can have very negative long term consequences. Not meaning to be a downer, just saying its worth your time taking a more in depth look at this issue than many of our decision makers even get around too. I have seen man made habitat projects turn creeks from native fish to brookie habitat in the past decade, it does happen.

[jpinkster]

Your videos over simplify the issue immensely. Willows/ a few riparian plantings can have localized impacts in terms of preventing sedimentation/ improving fish cover values but will have no impact on a watershed level. Also, what was the natural forest extent prior to human development and fire suppression? We may actually be living in a time period where the land has more natural flood mitigation traits than it did 200-300 years ago. If a massive fire rips through the headwaters, then what? Remember we have only been here a little over 100 years, I know of relatively un-impacted drainage's that are considered to have had 1 in 50 year floods 3 times in the past 6 years. How confident are we these events will not occur again soon, or may occur more frequently from time to time over the long term record? We really don't know. The overall forest age/ structure would have far more impact on lower drainage flood potential than any of the factors we can address with simple changes/ adding a wetland or two. We are due for a big fire, there's a lot of fuel up there, the trigger could become much more sensitive.

 

You can justify the sort of projects you mention as fish and wildlife habitat enhancements, but I really don't feel you can call it flood mitigation with any appreciable level of confidence. Also, adding more wetlands/ fens can increase water temperatures which, often favors invasive species such as Brook Trout. Brookies love backwaters and can take over beaver dominated systems rapidly. I have seen groups calling for releasing beavers all over the place lately, as a flood mitigation measure. Even this could have negative impacts on the remaining cutts and bullies, especially considering in terms of flood mitigation it would have negligible impact further down in the system where the infrastructure is. We need to be careful we don't do more harm than good, even changes with the best of intentions can have very negative long term consequences. Not meaning to be a downer, just saying its worth your time taking a more in depth look at this issue than many of our decision makers even get around too. I have seen man made habitat projects turn creeks from native fish to brookie habitat in the past decade, it does happen.

Really appreciate the perspective. I offered my opinion (as uninformed as it may be) and you offered yours. That's what constructive dialogue is all about.

[albertatrout]

Really appreciate the perspective. I offered my opinion (as uninformed as it may be) and you offered yours. That's what constructive dialogue is all about.

Just trying to give you more to think about. If my tone seems harsh I apologize, just the nature of key board discussions. I highly recommend reading up on some of the historical information/ what has been attempted in other jurisdictions. Part of the follies of social media campaigns is they produce very cool videos/ ideas but often without much thought/ research behind them. The public (not saying you, just speaking in general terms) often take it hook line and sinker and the politicians follow the masses meaning we do not always get optimal outcomes.

[jpinkster]

and the politicians follow the masses meaning we do not always get optimal outcomes.

I work at City Hall, I know all about "finger in the wind" politics.

[DonAndersen]

With thanx to Taco who wisely saved this site.

 

Looking over the legacy pictures it is clear that there exists a lot fewer trees in the first set of pictures as compared to today.

The ridges I hunted when I was raised in Turner Valley are now completely covered with trees. Not a lot of elk habitat left. The grasslands are now forest.

 

http://mountainlegacy.ca

 

Don