Flood and drought mitigation - Matt Machielse
•Download as PPT, PDF•
5 likes•4,961 views
Matt, Assistant Deputy Minister with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development presented at Alberta’s Watershed Management Symposium: Flood and Drought Mitigation. He explained key findings from the Government of Alberta’s flood mitigation engineering studies are presented, along with next steps for major flood mitigation projects.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Flood and drought mitigation - Matt Machielse
Similar to Flood and drought mitigation - Matt Machielse (20)
More from YourAlberta
More from YourAlberta (8)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Flood and drought mitigation - Matt Machielse
- 1. Flood and Drought Mitigation Alberta's Watershed Management Symposium: Flood and Drought Mitigation April 29, 2014
- 2. 2
- 4. 4 City of Calgary Memorial -Sunnyside
- 6. Estimated 2013 Flood Flows River Location 2013 Flow (cubic meters/second) Flood Size Bow Calgary (upstream of Elbow) 1780 1% Bow Bassano Dam 4200 0.5% Elbow Upstream of Glenmore Reservoir 1220 0.5% Highwood Upstream of Town of High River 1820 0.5% Sheep Upstream of Turner Valley 720 1% Red Deer Upstream of Glennifer Reservoir 1800 2% 6
- 7. Improving Alberta’s Flood and Drought Resiliency 7
- 8. Flood Mitigation Framework: Purpose and Principles Flooding cannot be prevented, but we can be better prepared Preparedness, protection and resilience – Reduce risk – Define the “1:100” standard as a 1% chance in any given year Assess, select, coordinate and implement mitigation measures and policies Evaluate based on: – Understanding causes, risks and impacts; and – Social, environmental and economic cost/benefit 8
- 9. Watershed Management Systems Approach Each river basin is a system Focus on river basins where flooding and drought risks are highest Implement best combination of upstream, local, individual and policy-based mitigation measures to protect against 1:100 flooding events. Enhance the ability to protect against water shortages as well. 9
- 10. 1) Overall Watershed Management System-wide view 2) Flood Modelling, Prediction, and Warning Systems Tools to prepare Albertans for future floods 3) Flood Risk Management Policies Rules that reduce the risk to people, infrastructure, the environment and economy 4) Water Management and Mitigation Infrastructure Layers of flood protection at regional levels 10 Seven Key Elements of Mitigation
- 11. 5) Erosion Control Resiliency of our river systems to handle high water flows 6) Local Municipal Mitigation Initiatives Layers of flood protection at the local level 7) Individual Mitigation Measures for Homes Flood protection for homes most at-risk Seven Key Elements of Mitigation 11
- 12. 1) Overall Watershed Management Actions to date: •Southern Regional Storm Water Management Plan implemented •Wallaceville (High River) relocation program BritishColumbia Saskatchewan Montana SOUTH RIVER SUB-BASIN SASKATCHEWAN RED DEER RIVER BASIN BOW RIVER BASIN OLDMAN RIVER BASIN Alberta WATERTONR. BELLYR. RED DEER ROSEBUD HIGHWOODR. ELBOW RIVER RIVER RIVER RED DEERR. BERRYCREEK BOWR. SOUTH SASKATCHEWANR. LITTLE BOWR. MILK R. CASTLER. OLDMANR. WILLOW CROWSNEST R. CREEK MARYR. OLDMANR. ST. South Saskatchewan River Basin 12 Seven Key Elements of Mitigation Bow River Sub-Basin
- 13. 2) Flood Modelling, Prediction, and Warning Systems Work completed: •$8.7 Million to update flood hazard mapping •Eight mapping studies complete: Work ongoing: •Advisory and river basin data updates 13 • Banff • Penhold • Rycroft • Thorsby • Two Hills • Irvine • Walsh • Pine Creek Seven Key Elements of Mitigation
- 14. 3) Flood Risk Management Policies Floodway development restrictions: •Bill 27 received Royal Assent •Stakeholder consultation on regulations are underway Floodway relocation program 14 Seven Key Elements of Mitigation
- 15. 4) Water Management and Mitigation Infrastructure Assessment of: Existing water management infrastructure Proposed dams and structures for: Bow and Ghost Rivers Elbow River Sheep River Highwood River 15 Seven Key Elements of Mitigation
- 16. 5) Erosion Control Flood Recovery and Erosion Control (FREC) •$216 Million committed •Program ended on March 31, 2014 16 Seven Key Elements of Mitigation
- 17. 6) Local Mitigation Initiatives – by Community New Program slated for 2014: Resilience and Mitigation Program (RAMP) $1.6 Billion in requests 17 Seven Key Elements of Mitigation
- 18. 7) Individual Mitigation Measures for Homes Actions to date: Disaster Recovery Program Amendments to Emergency Management Act Minimum standards for homes (STANDATA) Seven Key Elements of Mitigation
- 20. Mitigation Focus • Non-Structural Mitigation - managing healthy river systems and minimizing man made impacts – For flood control and drought management – Allows rivers to sustain themselves naturally • Wetlands for water retention and habitat • Healthy riparian areas for erosion control and protection of aquatic ecosystems • Structural Mitigation - large-scale engineering projects
- 21. Non-Structural Mitigation Pilots Wetland Restoration in key areas Enhancing riparian health on impacted rivers
- 22. Structural: On-Stream and Off-Stream Detention or Storage Dams and Reservoirs Several sites examined Captures flood water using a dam or a weir and stores it in a reservoir On-stream storage: the reservoir is part of the river Off-stream storage: the reservoir is not part of the river
- 23. Structural: By-Pass or Diversion • Bypass the flood risk area by building a tunnel or canal • The water can be moved: – Around the risk area and back into the same river; or – Diverted from the risk area and into another river Example: Winnipeg By-Pass Floodway
- 25. Eleven (11) water management infrastructure sites throughout the province require upgrades to ensure operational effectiveness during future floods Upgrade Existing Water Control Infrastructure
- 26. Examples - Water Control Infrastructure Travers Dam and Reservoir • Provides water to communities, First Nations, industry, irrigation • Requires emergency spillway Bullhorn Wasteway • Provides emergency spill capacity for flood water • Structure requires upgrading
- 27. Example – Water Control Infrastructure • This structure is 100 years old. • Provides water to Brooks, Lakeside Packers, irrigators, habitat. • Requires emergency spillway structure. Bassano Dam – normal year Bassano Dam – June, 2013
- 28. Mitigation for Communities The current cost estimate for flood-affected communities exceeds $1.6 Billion. Canmore - 2013 Turner Valley - 2013 Ft. McMurray - 2013
- 29. Bow River Sub-Basin (Bow, Ghost, Elbow, Sheep and Highwood) Ghost River Sheep River Highwood River Elbow River BritishColumbia Saskatchewan SOUTH RIVER SUB-BASIN SASKATCHEWAN RED DEER RIVER BASIN BOW RIVER BASIN OLDMAN RIVER BASIN Alberta WATERTONR. BELLYR. RED DEER ROSEBUD HIGHWOODR. ELBOW RIVER RIVER RIVER RED DEERR. BERRYCREEK BOWR. SOUTH SASKATCHEWANR. LITTLE BOWR. MILK R. CASTLER. OLDMANR. WILLOW CROWSNEST R. CREEK MARYR. OLDMANR. ST. Bow River Basin South Saskatchewan River Basin
- 30. Bow and Ghost Rivers: structural mitigation options Includes: •Two proposed dry dams; and •Community mitigation Future Focus: •Community mitigation
- 31. Initiatives going forward River Project Type Recommendation Bow BG1 Dam Not Recommended BW1 Dam Not Recommended BR1 Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed
- 32. Elbow River Watershed Bow River Basin
- 33. Elbow River - structural mitigation options Included: •4 possible dry dams •1 off-stream storage site •Calgary tunnel diversion Dry Dam Site Off-Stream Storage Site Calgary Tunnel Site
- 34. Elbow River - structural mitigation options Future Focus: •1 proposed dry dam; •1 off-stream storage site; and •Calgary tunnel diversion. – The City of Calgary is conducting a feasibility study on the tunnel. Off-Stream Storage Site Schematic (near Springbank Road) McLean Creek On-Stream Dam Site Schematic
- 35. Proposed Structural Mitigation Options McLean Creek Site Springbank Road Site Calgary Tunnel
- 36. Off-Stream vs On-Stream Storage • Drought Protection: live storage can be added to either option • On-stream (MC1): $189 Million – Protects Bragg Creek and Calgary – Store 58,000 dam3 of water • Off-stream (SR 1): $193 Million – Protects Calgary – Store 57,000 dam3 of water – Less physical disturbance to the stream – Less construction window restrictions – Fish passage on the Elbow River can be implemented
- 38. Effects of Springbank (SR1) Off-stream storage 2013 event2013 event 2013 event with SR1
- 39. Effects of McLean Creek (MC1) On-stream storage 2013 event2013 event 2013 event with MC1
- 40. Initiatives going forward River Project Type Recommendation Elbow FC1 Dam Not Recommended EQ1 Dam Not Viable EC1 Dam Not Viable MC1 Dam Decision required after Calgary tunnel study SR1 Off-Stream Approved for engineering design Priddis By-Pass Not Recommended Calgary Tunnel Study Further Community Mitigation Berms/Dyke s Approved to proceed
- 41. Sheep River Watershed 41 Bow River Basin
- 42. Sheep River - structural mitigation options Includes: •1 proposed dry dam (S2) •Community mitigation measures Future Focus: •Community mitigation measures S2 Dam Sheep River Basin Town of Turner Valley
- 43. Initiatives going forward River Project Type Recommendation Sheep S2 Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed
- 44. Highwood River Watershed Bow River Basin
- 45. High River- structural mitigation options Includes: •2 proposed dry dams •3 by-pass (north and south of High River) options •Town of High River flood protection (currently being constructed)
- 46. High River By-Pass Channel Options TongueCreek Tongue Creek High River Highwood River Tongue Creek By-Pass Northern By-Pass Southern By-Pass
- 47. Berms and Bank Protection Projects Town of High River
- 48. Ongoing Berm Construction in High River
- 49. By-Pass Channels Being considered to further protect the Town of High River Future focus: – North by-pass option – South by-pass option – Both north & south
- 52. Proposed High River Northern By-Pass Option
- 53. Proposed High River Southern By-Pass Option Little Bow Dam & Reservoir Little Bow Diversion Includes: By-pass channel to Little Bow River; and Dam and storage reservoir to retain flood water.
- 54. Initiatives going forward 54 River Project Type Recommendation Highwood H5(2) Dam Not Recommended H2 Dam Not Recommended High River By-Pass By-Pass Channel Study Further Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed
- 56. Ft. McMurray 56 Historic flooding - 1977
- 57. Fort McMurray – Dyking Flood Mitigation Options 57
- 58. Initiatives going forward 58 River Project Type Recommendation Athabasca Ice Control Structure Not Recommended Crooked Rapids Dam Not Recommended Clearwater Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed
- 59. Red Deer River Sub-Basin 59 Red Deer Drumheller Sundre
- 60. Affected Municipalities • Municipalities – Sundre – Mountainview County – Red Deer County – City of Red Deer – Drumheller – Regional Water Systems • Potential Actions – Dyking – Regulating flows 60
- 61. Potential Water Detention Sites • Provides storage of flood water • Supplies water to Glennifer Lake during water shortages 61
- 62. Initiatives going forward River Project Type Recommendation Red Deer S1(c) Dam Not Recommended S4 Dam Not Recommended S5 Dam Not Recommended S6 Dam Not Recommended S9 Dam Not Recommended S13(b) Dam Not Recommended S14 Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed
- 63. South Saskatchewan River Sub-Basin • Main flooding occurred in City of Medicine Hat • Medicine Hat has developed a flood protection plan • Southern Regional Stormwater Management Plan underway Medicine Hat CFB Suffield
- 64. Medicine Hat Flood Protection Sites
- 65. Moving forward
- 66. Engineered Projects Considered River Project Type Recommendation Bow BG1 Dam Not Recommended BW1 Dam Not Recommended BR1 Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed Elbow FC1 Dam Not Recommended EQ1 Dam Not Viable EC1 Dam Not Viable MC1 Dam Decision required after Calgary tunnel study SR1 Off-Stream Approved for engineering design Priddis By-Pass Not Recommended Calgary Tunnel Study Further Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed Sheep S2 Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed
- 67. Engineered Projects Considered River Project Type Recommendation Highwood H5(2) Dam Not Recommended H2 Dam Not Recommended High River By-Pass By-Pass Channel Study Further Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed Red Deer S1(c) Dam Not Recommended S4 Dam Not Recommended S5 Dam Not Recommended S6 Dam Not Recommended S9 Dam Not Recommended S13(b) Dam Not Recommended S14 Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed Athabasca Ice Control Structure Not Recommended Crooked Rapids Dam Not Recommended Clearwater Dam Not Recommended Community Mitigation Berms/Dykes Approved to proceed
- 68. Mitigation Spending (in $ millions) Decision/Description Total 2013 / 14 2014 / 15 2015 / 16 2016 / 17 Community mitigation Flood Erosion Control Program Resilience and Mitigation Program High River 216 325 87 191 - 87 25 110 - - 110 - - 105 - Non-structural 21 - 7 7 7 Upgrades to infrastructure 104 - 8 38 58 Elbow/ Highwood Projects 150 - 75 75 - Total 903 278 225 230 170 $625 million in Budget 2014/2015 to 2016/2017
- 69. Next Steps • Ongoing studies – City of Calgary Tunnel Proposal (early June) – More detailed engineering assessment of select structural mitigation options (SR1, MC1, By-pass), RFP’s in June – Implementation of non-structural (watershed management) mitigation options over 3 years • Implementation of Resilience & Mitigation Program (RAMP) – 3 year funding
- 70. Next Steps • Upgrades of existing water infrastructure – 3 year funding • Ongoing stakeholder engagement • Formal regulatory approval processes – beginning this fall
- 71. Regulatory Process • Environmental Assessment based on scale and complexity of proposed project • Provincial approvals under the Water Act, Historical Resources Act, Natural Resources Conservation Board Act and Public Lands Act • Federal processes under the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would likely occur concurrently
- 72. Municipal Engagement • Discussions with community leadership – Meetings with municipal officials within flood-affected watersheds will provide community leaders with more detail surrounding upcoming flood mitigation projects – Meetings will take place in each watershed during May/June
- 73. Questions?
Editor's Notes
- Unprecedented impact
- Source: Google Earth Source: ESRD and ERIS ArcGIS Source: NASA ISERV Source: ANDY CLARK/REUTERS Source: Jeff Nash / Offshoot Studios
- Source: Google Earth Source: ESRD and ERIS ArcGIS Source: NASA ISERV
- Healthy riparian areas have deep-binding roots and offer functional natural infrastructure. They weather flood and drought better, and are still performing functions better afterward as well.
- http://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/spring_outlook/images/portage_02.jpg
- Flow values were obtained from: “Draft - Southern Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Flood Mitigation Measure for the Bow River, Elbow River and Oldman River Basins” the information that we used is in Appendix F & G of “Volume 4 – Flood Mitigation Measures”. AMEC, 2014 The AMEC report describes SR1 as a 57,000 dam3 off-stream storage facility. Flow would be diverted to SR1 at a flow of 300 m3/s in the Elbow River, with a maximum diversion capacity of 350 m3/s. In order to demonstrate the effect of SR1 in the visualization tool we assumed that the 2013 peak flow of 1270 m3/s could be reduced by 350 m3/s. Therefore, we assumed that 700 m3/s downstream of the Glenmore Reservoir (2013 event) would be reduced to 350 m3/s.
- Flow values were obtained from: “Draft - Southern Alberta Flood Recovery Task Force Flood Mitigation Measure for the Bow River, Elbow River and Oldman River Basins” the information that we used is in Appendix F & G of “Volume 4 – Flood Mitigation Measures”. AMEC, 2014 The AMEC report describes MC1 as a 58,000 dam3 dry dam on the Elbow River near McLean Creek with an outflow of 802 m3/s. Table 2 from Appendix F suggests the MC1 dry dam would result in a flow reduction of 700 m3/s and 698 m3/s for the 1:100 and 1:500 events, respectively. Section 1.3.6 of Appendix F suggests a peak flow of 236 m3/s entering the Glenmore Reservoir could be reduced to 170 m3/s downstream of the reservoir with flood operations. The 2013 peak flow entering Glenmore Reservoir was estimated to be 1270 m3/s. It was assumed that a peak flow reduction of 700 m3/s from MC1 would result 570 m3/s inflow to the Glenmore Reservoir. Glenmore Reservoir operations resulted in a peak flow reduction to 700 m3/s in 2013. In order to demonstrate the effect of MC1 in the visualization tool we assume that Glenmore Reservoir operations are able to reduce peak flow from 570 m3/s to 170 m3/s (no flood effect). Therefore, the flow used for visualization was 170 m3/s.
- Describe the Highwood River Basin. Identifying the Town and other communities Identify locations of the Advisory Panel’s dry dam schemes H5(2) and H2 and High River flood by-pass BP-1
- Diversion at High River. North and south alignments are feasible, right of way required would be in the order of 400m in width. Cost for north alignment between $400-$450M. Most community proposals include a combination of berms. This has proved to be an economical method of protecting existing development. Relocation of people and facilities considered when protection not practical. Philosophy continues to be to allow as much room for the natural river as possible.
- Describe the South Sask River Sub-Basin Identifying the City of Medicine Hat Identify extent of DND and irrigation district
- State that this graphic is courtesy of the City of Medicine Hat, and that overland flow is just one method of structural mitigation that is being developed by the City.
- We recognize the need for meaningful consultation, two-way communication. Commencing in mid-May, the Resiliency and Mitigation Branch is planning to hold a series of meetings with municipalities within flood-affected watersheds. The sessions are intended to provide your community leaders and senior officials with more detail surrounding upcoming provincial flood mitigation projects and local initiatives. Meetings will provide technical rationale on provincial mitigation decisions, information on community mitigation funding, and associated timelines.