Flood Indicators: Improving Forecasting in Alberta. Ryan Bjornsen, Alberta WaterSMART AI-EES Workshop: Alberta Flood Mitigation February 18, 2014

Transcription

1 Flood Indicators: Improving Forecasting in Alberta Ryan Bjornsen, Alberta WaterSMART AI-EES Workshop: Alberta Flood Mitigation February 18, 2014

2 Presentation Overview 1. Our Project - What, Why and How 2. Alberta s Forecasting Program Overview 3. Challenges for Alberta 4. Challenges Across the Board 5. Successes in Other Jurisdictions 2

3 Would not be possible without Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions (AI-EES) Alberta WaterSMART Research Team Larissa Sommerfeld Lindsay Kline Colin Savoy Kim Sturgess Mike Kelly Mark Bennett (Bow River Basin Council) Subject matter experts here in the room and abroad ESRD - River Forecasting Centre 3

4 What Research based jurisdictional review of: 5 Canadian (including Alberta) 5(6) International (including the European Commission) Purpose: Understand what other jurisdictions do in terms of flood forecasting and determine which elements could be extracted and implemented in Alberta to improve flood forecasting Original Purpose: Focused on indicators (data collected and used for flood forecasting like precipitation, river flows, water levels, etc.) Due to commonalities between indicators used in all jurisdictions, we expanded to look at the forecasting programs in their entirety at a very high-level 4

5 What it s not This project does NOT assess nor critique Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development s (ESRD s) forecasting of the June 2013 floods 5

6 Why There was no high-level comparative review of forecasting programs within Canada and around the world Alberta is currently looking for ways to improve its forecasting program Now is the time to determine how to beef-up Alberta s forecasting program Source: 6

7 How Project started in November 2013 with some research before the research Netherlands United Kingdom Colorado, US European Union Japan Canadian Jurisdictions British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Australia Map Source: Modified from 7

8 Basis for Selection of Jurisdictions Jurisdiction British Columbia Saskatchewan Reason Similar geography, shared watershed Shared watersheds, looking to improve flood forecasting program, recent flooding (2011) Manitoba Experience with flooding, recent flooding (2011), looking to improve flood forecasting program Ontario Colorado, US Australia Japan Netherlands United Kingdom European Commission Experience with flooding, example outside of western Canada with a different geographical context Experience with flooding, recent flooding (2013), similar geography Flood mitigation is high on political agenda, experience with flooding, recent flooding (2010/2011) Vast experience with natural disasters and emergency response, advanced technology Vast experience with flooding, world renowned flood framework Recent experience with flooding, well regarded forecasting program Policy perspective (Water Framework Directive) 8

9 Desktop Research, Interviews and Correspondence Contacts: David Campbell, Head British Columbia River Forecast Centre Edwin Welles, Hydrologist & Executive Director Netherlands Deltares USA Russell Turner, Hydrometeorology Services Manager UK Flood Forecasting Centre Emily Higginson, Water Level Management Specialist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Dwight Boyd, Director of Engineering Ontario Grand River Conservation Authority Jeff Perkins, Manager - Australia Flood Forecasting and Warning Hazards, Warnings and Forecasts Division Bureau of Meteorology Kevin Houck, Chief - Colorado Watershed and Flood Protection Section Colorado Water Conservation Board Evan Friesenhan, Colleen Walford & David Watson - Alberta River Forecast Centre Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Akinbola George, Acting Director Manitoba River Forecast Centre Phillip Mutulu, Former Director - Manitoba River Forecast Centre Standardized Questionnaire: Various individuals - Saskatchewan Hydrology Services Water Security Agency 9

10 Results Everyone Does it Differently Comparative Matrix Jurisdictional Background Flood forecasting on political agenda Currently looking at how to improve forecasting Major flood event since 2010 Governance Structure Flood legislation in place Forecasting driven at a national level Forecasting driven at a state/provincial level Responsibilities/Characteristics of Flood Forecasting Group Collecting data Publishing data Developing flood forecasting models Preparing watches, warnings and advisories Delivering briefings to government Delivering briefings to emergency services Delivering briefings to media Development of flood risk and hazard maps Meteorological and hydrological are combined Indicators Measured Meterological Hydrological Soil Moisture Storm Surges Data Collection Methods and Technology Staffed meteorological stations Automated weather stations Citizen science (in place or considering) Automated Snow Pillow (ASP) stations Collected by a national agency Collected by a local authority Collected by an international group Collected by an acedemic group Formal collaboration with other jurisdictions Informal sharing with other jurisdictions Use meteorological forecasts from multiple sources Near real time transmission Instantaneous transmission Data Management Using or considering the Delft-FEWS framework WISKI Forecasting Models Model in the process of being updated Collaboration for Purposes other than Data Collection With other government departments With univeristies With other jurisdictions Direct Communication with Public National Government Provincal/State Municipal Media Local Organizations Public Education and Awareness Information readily accessible and available to public Identified Challenges Data deficiencies not enough staff long work hours during flood event technology gaps Canada International AB BC SK MB ON AUS Co, UK NLD JPN USA Comparative Matrix Jurisdictional Background Flood forecasting on political agenda Currently looking at how to improve forecasting Major flood event since 2010 Governance Structure Flood legislation in place Forecasting driven at a national level Forecasting driven at a state/provincial level Canada International AB BC SK MB ON AUS Co, UK NLD JPN USA NOTE: For comparison only white boxes do not indicate deficiencies! 10

11 Alberta Forecasting Program Overview 11

12 Similar Assessment 12

13 Challenges for Alberta ALBERTA 1. Data Collection and Processing 2. Communication with Authorities 3. Public Communication 4. Public Education and Awareness 5. Timing of Warnings ACROSS THE BOARD 1. Data Collection and Processing 2. Public Education and Awareness 3. Timing of Warnings 4. Limitations of Models 5. Forecasting Group Staffing/Management 6. Funding Challenges 7. Ice Jam Forecasts (Canadian) 8. Flash Flooding Forecasts 13

14 Challenges for Alberta 1. Data Collection and Processing Precipitation data is only collected twice a day in northern Alberta (from ESRDs Fire Weather Office) Population is spreading to new parts of the province places that are not heavily gauged/monitored (e.g. Fort McMurray, flood prone areas near valleys) Reliance on data from non-esrd networks (e.g., some data may not be specifically suitable for forecasting during a flood event) Durability/resiliency of remote sensing networks during flood events 14

15 Challenges for Alberta 2. Communication with Authorities The RFC is responsible for communicating to all at risk municipalities and the Alberta Emergency Management Agency - Alberta Emergency Alert System PRO: The forecasting centre has direct communication with authorities and therefore the possibility of miscommunication or misinterpretation is mitigated CON: Diverts the RFC resources away from forecasting 15

16 Challenges for Alberta 3. Public Communication Clarifying the public s understanding of the roles of the RFC, municipalities and the Alberta Emergency Management Agency Who is responsible for issuing flood warnings? Understanding what data the public wants and how they want it to be communicated Needs to be user friendly and readily accessible Wants/needs of the public and other clients, such as emergency managers, can be mutually exclusive Transparency of data for the public, academics and other organizations 16

17 Challenges for Alberta 4. Public Education and Awareness Lack of basic understanding of geography, typical meteorological events, flood seasons, flood zones/mapping Lack of understanding of flood preparedness and emergency response (i.e. what to do in a flood event) Clearly defining the roles of who is responsible for educating the public Not the RFC GoA, municipalities, WPACs, other 17

18 Challenges for Alberta 5. Timing of Warnings Realistically meeting the demand for more information and advanced warning about a potential flood event Finding the balance: causing panic and causing event fatigue If more information is forthcoming, municipalities must be prepared to communicate with their citizens Information needs of public and emergency responders may differ Need to find a happy medium but what is it? 18

19 What could be done to overcome these challenges? Alberta Challenge 1. Data Collection and Processing 2. Communication with Authorities 3. Public Communication 4. Public Education and Awareness Reconsider Alberta s Program based on what other jurisdictions are doing 5. Timing of Warnings 19

20 What could be done to overcome these challenges? These are by no means the solutions, but are merely presented to provide food for thought 20

21 1. Data Collection and Processing Key Point: Value of Citizen Science Alberta Challenge 1. Data Collection and Processing Success in Other Jurisdictions Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS) Network Non-profit volunteer-based network Manual observations of rain, hail and snow on a daily basis Helps supplement data gaps and adds to existing data, particularly for snow (in Canada) Development has been driven by lack of extensive monitoring networks run by provincial and/or federal programs Does not provide real time or near-real time data Can be useful for flood forensics, not really applicable for forecasting during a flood event Network endorsed by the NWS Development of network in Canada supported by Environment Canada 21

22 as an aside more data = more data management: WISKI AB, SK, MB, ON (currently using) Delft-FEWS Netherlands, Australia, NWS (currently using) SK, MB, ON (looking into) 22

23 2. Communication with Authorities Key Point: Forecasters not responsible for communication with authorities Alberta Challenge Success in Other Jurisdictions 2. Communication with authorities United Kingdom (England and Scotland) Daily Flood Guidance Statements for authorities and emergency responders (information available up to five days pre-flood) British Columbia Emergency Management BC (roles clearly defined) 23

24 3. Public Communication Key Point: Use of a wide variety of communication methods Alberta Challenge Success in Other Jurisdictions United Kingdom (England and Scotland) Floodline know number across the country that citizens can call in times of flood to get updates Online version of Floodline 3. Public Communication Ontario Conservation Authorities (39 local organizations in all southern Ontario watersheds that are responsible to disseminate any and all water related information) Netherlands WMCN provides information to public Japan Emergency alert sirens, radio, internet, TV, mobile phone 24

25 United Kingdom - Floodline Source: 25

26 4. Public Education and Awareness Key Point: Identified as a struggle in most jurisdictions Alberta Challenge Success in Other Jurisdictions Awareness seems to be high only when: 1. events happen regularly; or 2. are particularly destructive All Canadian jurisdictions seem to struggle with this British Columbia Fraser Basin Council knowledge translation 4. Public Education and Awareness Japan Hazard maps Ontario Conservation Authorities Australia Flood fact sheets, public information 26

27 Importance of Public Education and Awareness Source: Seki 27

28 5. Timing of Warnings Key Point: Challenge for Alberta due to geography (close to headwaters) Alberta Challenge Success in Other Jurisdiction Japan Forecasts lead times of six hours, issuing of warnings directly based on river height at bridges and gauges across the country British Columbia Forecasts up to five days in advance, High Streamflow Advisories issued 3 days 18 hours in advance European Commission European Flood Alert System (EFAS) provides flood alert information to emergency responders, decisionmakers 3-10 prior to flooding 5. Timing of Warnings Colorado Flood Threat Portal (publicly available) offers daily assessment of flood potential around the state, issued daily from May through September 28

29 What Stood Out. Jurisdiction British Columbia Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Colorado, US Australia Japan Netherlands United Kingdom European Commission What s notable? Grey modelling, multiple flood forecasting models for the same basin Long-term view: 25 year Water Security Plan Moving toward using additional data from sources like CoCoRaHS Successful collaboration within the province (CA s and province) Abundance of data, organizational structure of CWCB Political focus, learning from other jurisdictions Technology data collection and transmission Governance structure Solid public communication structure, user friendly Flood Directive foundation for forecasting, warning and response in all states 29

30 Value of Collaboration Underlying key theme throughout research = collaboration Sharing data, technologies, forecasts and predictions, ideas, challenges, etc If you re sharing a watershed it makes sense to share your data and methodology Agreements (formal and informal) Australia/UK, Australia/USA - MOUs SK/MB/BC and states below European Commission UK (England-Scotland) Japan/NASA source: 30

31 Next Steps 1. Wrap-up research loose ends 2. Create a comprehensive research report 3. Create a summary report for today and tomorrow s breakout sessions Both reports will be made publicly available on the Alberta WaterPortal 31

32 Thanks for listening Source: Questions? 32