Flood Forecasting Jurisdictional Review Improving Flood Forecasting in Alberta

April 30, 2014

Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions (AI-EES) and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta make no warranty, express or implied, nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information contained in this publication, nor that use thereof infringe on privately owned rights. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of AI-EES or Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta. The directors, officers, employees, agents and consultants of AI-EES and the Government of Alberta are exempted, excluded and absolved from all liability for damage or injury, howsoever caused, to any person in connection with or arising out of the use by that person for any purpose of this publication or its contents.

Executive Summary Since the destructive June 2013 floods that impacted southern Alberta, the Government of Alberta, professional organizations, businesses, community groups, NGOs and municipalities have evaluated Alberta’s flood management and mitigation capacity. This evaluation has included an examination of the province’s flood forecasting program.

A robust flood forecasting program is a critical component in ensuring Alberta is prepared for future floods. Improving Alberta’s forecasting program has been identified as an area of action for flood management in the province. The purpose of the “Flood Indicators: Improving Flood Forecasting in Alberta” project was to examine how Alberta and other jurisdictions – both Canadian and international – forecast flood events and to identify best practises that could be applied in Alberta. The research included in this project focused on identifying successes and areas for improvement in Alberta’s forecasting program. This research was followed by a review of the flood forecasting programs (including communications strategies, timing of warnings, the roles of government and technology) and notable successes in select jurisdictions, including: British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, European Union (EU), Netherlands, United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Colorado (US) and Japan.

The purpose of a flood forecasting program is to forecast flood events in order to provide sufficient warning to authorities and the public. A flood forecasting program includes the following components: data collection and monitoring; modelling and forecasting; warning construction and communication; and response and further dissemination. In most cases, the majority of jurisdictions surveyed have robust programs in place that are responsible for data collection and monitoring, modelling and forecasting as well as warning construction. In many jurisdictions, entities separate from the forecasting group are responsible for communication with authorities and the public leading up to and during a flood event.

This project focused on describing Alberta’s flood forecasting program and the program’s challenges. These challenges include:

• Data collection: Data collection challenges include a lack of precipitation stations in northern Alberta, a lack of monitoring stations in parts of the province where more people are moving, reliance on data collected outside the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) network that is not always suitable for flood forecasting and a need for more resilient remote sensing networks. • Communication with authorities: The Alberta River Forecasting Centre (RFC) is responsible for communicating directly with authorities and municipalities leading up to and during a flood event. There is no communications officer embedded within the Alberta RFC to take on this role, nor is there a separate entity that is responsible for direct communication with authorities. This proved to be a significant challenge in the 2013 flood event when Alberta RFC

forecasters spent 30 man-hours in a 48-hour period on the phone communicating forecasting information to municipalities. • Timing of warnings: The Alberta RFC generally only issues a High Streamflow Advisory (rather than a Flood Watch or Flood Warning) prior to rain hitting the ground. The timing of flood warnings was identified as a challenge after the 2013 floods, but addressing how to change the timing of warnings is difficult: how does the Alberta RFC realistically meet the public’s demand for more information and advanced warning about a potential flood event without causing panic and warning fatigue? • Flash flood warnings: The Alberta RFC is not responsible and does not have the mandate for issuing flash flood warnings. Environment Canada also does not have a mandate for flash flood warnings. This is a policy gap across all levels of government in Canada. • Communication with the public: There is currently no clear distinction between the roles of the Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA), the Alberta RFC and municipalities. In order for flood-related communication to be presented as clearly as possible, the public should understand the difference between these three entities and their respective responsibilities. • Public education and awareness: There appears to be a general lack of public education and awareness as it relates to flooding, flood risk and geography, typical meteorological events, flood seasons, flood zones and mapping. There also appears to be a lack of understanding of how to be prepared for a flood and appropriate emergency response measures. • Forecasting group staffing and capacity: Finding and retaining staff is a challenge for the Alberta RFC. This is a common challenge for a variety of reasons: often there is insufficient funding to hire more forecasters; flood forecasting is a very specialized field of expertise and finding new forecasters can prove to be difficult; and retaining staff can be challenging due to the pressures and stresses associated with the job.

After completing a jurisdictional review of other Canadian and international jurisdictions, it became clear that many forecasting programs share similar structures and challenges. Many of these programs, however, also have unique characteristics that could be of interest to Alberta, examples of which are described below:

• Data collection: Colorado uses data from the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS) non-profit volunteer-based network. The data collected can supplement data already being obtained by government groups and can be useful for flood forensics. • Communication with authorities: In BC, Emergency Management BC is an entity that is separate from the flood forecasting group and is responsible for communicating flood risks with authorities. • Timing of warnings: In the EU, the European Flood Alert System (EFAS) can provide flood alert information to emergency responders and decision-makers three to ten days prior to flooding. Some jurisdictions, such as Manitoba, are able to provide significant advanced warning simply due to their geographical proximity to headwaters.

• Flash flood warnings: Forecasting flash floods and providing adequate warning of them was identified as a challenge in nearly all jurisdictions researched. In some cases, local municipalities in Australia have set up their own flash flood warning systems, rather than relying solely on the national Bureau of Meteorology for warnings. • Communication with the public: In the UK, a service called Floodline provides flood updates to the public. It is accessible via phone and internet. • Public education and awareness: Public education and awareness was identified as a challenge in most jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that are more disaster prone than others – such as Japan – appear to have high levels of public awareness about flood risk and response. • Forecast group staffing and capacity: Forecast group capacity appears to be fairly robust in other international jurisdictions. However, provinces such as BC and Manitoba have identified that forecast group staffing and capacity is a challenge.

A key theme visible throughout the research was that collaboration within and between jurisdictions is incredibly valuable. Informal or formal sharing of data, technologies, forecasts, predictions and ideas, can ultimately improve a jurisdiction’s forecasting program, as the need to “reinvent the wheel” is lessened.

In providing a snapshot of the flood forecasting programs of several Canadian and international jurisdictions, it is hoped that this jurisdictional review will provide a launching point for richer discussion on the successes, as well as areas for improvement, in Alberta’s flood forecasting program.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 11 2. Project Methods ...... 13 2.1 Basis for Selection of Jurisdictions...... 13 2.2 Research Questions ...... 14 2.3 Research Process ...... 14 2.4 Flow Charts ...... 16 3. Setting the Stage: An Overview of Flood Forecasting ...... 17 3.1 What is flood forecasting? ...... 17 3.2 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 17 3.2.1 Meteorological ...... 17 3.2.2 Hydrological ...... 18 3.2.3 Pedological...... 20 3.3 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 20 3.4 Warning Construction and Communication ...... 21 3.5 Response and Further Dissemination ...... 21 4. Alberta’s Flood Forecasting Program ...... 23 4.1 Background ...... 23 4.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 26 4.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 26 4.3.1 Snow Data ...... 27 4.3.2 Streamflow and River Height ...... 27 4.3.3 Precipitation ...... 27 4.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 27 4.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 29 4.5.1 Timing of Warnings ...... 31 4.5.2 Flash Floods ...... 32 5. Challenges for Alberta’s River Forecasting Centre ...... 33 5.1 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 33 5.2 Communication with Authorities ...... 34 5.3 Timing of Warnings ...... 34 5.4 Flash Flood Warnings ...... 34 5.5 Communication with the Public ...... 35 5.6 Public Education and Awareness ...... 35 5.7 Forecast Group Staffing and Capacity ...... 35 6. Jurisdictional Review ...... 36 7. British Columbia ...... 38 7.1 Background ...... 38 7.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 39 7.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 40 7.3.1 Data Management ...... 40 7.3.2 Meteorological Data ...... 41

7.3.3 Streamflow Data ...... 41 7.3.4 Snow Data ...... 41 7.3.5 Soil Moisture Data ...... 42 7.3.6 Ocean Data ...... 42 7.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 43 7.4.1 Ice Jams ...... 44 7.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 44 7.5.1 Timing of Warnings ...... 44 7.5.2 Emergency Management ...... 45 7.5.3 Communication Methods ...... 46 7.5.4 Flash Floods ...... 46 7.6 Public Education and Awareness ...... 46 8. Saskatchewan ...... 47 8.1 Background ...... 47 8.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 49 8.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 49 8.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 50 8.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 50 8.6 Public Education and Awareness ...... 51 9. Manitoba ...... 52 9.1 Background ...... 52 9.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 55 9.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 56 9.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 57 9.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 58 9.6 Public Education and Awareness ...... 58 10. Ontario ...... 60 10.1 Background ...... 60 10.2 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 62 10.3 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 63 10.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 63 11. European Union ...... 65 11.1 Background ...... 65 11.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 65 11.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 66 11.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 67 11.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 67 12. Netherlands ...... 68 12.1 Background ...... 68 12.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 70 12.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 71 12.3.1 Data Management ...... 71 12.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 72 12.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 72

13. United Kingdom (England and Scotland) ...... 73 13.1 Background ...... 73 13.2 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 75 13.3 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 75 13.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 76 13.5 Public Education and Awareness ...... 76 14. France ...... 77 14.1 Background ...... 77 14.2 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 79 14.3 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 79 14.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 80 15. Germany ...... 81 15.1 Background ...... 81 15.2 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 84 15.3 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 84 15.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 84 16. Switzerland ...... 86 16.1 Background ...... 86 16.2 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 88 16.3 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 88 16.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 89 16.5 Public Education and Awareness ...... 90 17. Australia ...... 91 17.1 Background ...... 91 17.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 94 17.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 94 17.4 Meteorological Data ...... 95 17.4.1 River Height and Streamflow Data ...... 96 17.5 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 97 17.6 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 98 17.6.1 Flash Floods ...... 102 17.7 Public Awareness and Education ...... 102 18. Colorado, USA ...... 104 18.1 Background ...... 104 18.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 106 18.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 107 18.3.1 Streamflow Data ...... 107 18.3.2 Snow Data ...... 108 18.3.3 Meteorological Data ...... 108 18.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 108 18.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 108 18.6 Public Education and Awareness ...... 109 19. Japan ...... 111

19.1 Background ...... 111 19.2 Policy and Legislation ...... 113 19.3 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 113 19.4 Modelling and Forecasting ...... 114 19.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event ...... 115 19.5.1 Timing of Warnings ...... 116 19.6 Public Education and Awareness ...... 116 19.6.1 Flood Hazard Maps ...... 116 19.6.2 Visual Aids ...... 116 20. Learning from other Jurisdictions ...... 119 20.1 Data Collection and Monitoring ...... 119 20.2 Communication with Authorities ...... 119 20.3 Flash Flood Warnings ...... 120 20.4 Communication with the Public ...... 120 20.5 Public Education and Awareness ...... 120 20.6 Forecast Group Staffing and Capacity ...... 120 21. Summary ...... 121 Acronyms ...... 122 References ...... 126

Tables

TABLE 1: BASIS FOR SELECTION OF JURISDICTIONS ...... 13 TABLE 2: JURISDICTIONAL EXPERTS CONSULTED BY PROJECT TEAM ...... 15 TABLE 3: FLOOD ADVISORY, WATCH AND WARNING COMMUNICATION IN ALBERTA ...... 30 TABLE 4: HYDROLOGIC FORECAST CENTRE INFORMATION PRODUCTS ...... 59 TABLE 5: BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY FLOOD PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ...... 99

Figures

FIGURE 1: ALBERTA'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 25 FIGURE 2: ALBERTA RFC'S FLOOD ALERT METHODOLOGY ...... 30 FIGURE 3: JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW MATRIX ...... 36 FIGURE 4: BRITISH COLUMBIA'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM...... 39 FIGURE 5: BRITISH COLUMBIA'S EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 45 FIGURE 6: SASKATCHEWAN'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 48 FIGURE 7: MANITOBA'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 53 FIGURE 8: MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS CONTRIBUTING TO MANITOBA ...... 55 FIGURE 9: ONTARIO'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 62 FIGURE 10: THE NETHERLANDS' FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 70 FIGURE 11: ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 74 FIGURE 12: FRANCE'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 78 FIGURE 13: GERMANY’S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 83

FIGURE 14: SWITZERLAND'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 87 FIGURE 15: AUSTRALIA'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM...... 93 FIGURE 16: DISTRIBUTION OF RAIN GAUGES IN AUSTRALIA ...... 96 FIGURE 17: DISTRIBUTION OF RIVER GAUGES IN AUSTRALIA ...... 97 FIGURE 18: PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT FLOOD WARNING COMMUNICATION METHODS ...... 101 FIGURE 19: COLORADO'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 105 FIGURE 20: JAPAN'S FLOOD FORECASTING PROGRAM ...... 112 FIGURE 21: BENEFIT OF FLOOD HAZARD MAPS IN JAPAN...... 116 FIGURE 22: STATIONARY POLES TO IDENTIFY HAZARD LEVELS IN JAPAN ...... 117 FIGURE 23: RIVER LEVELS AND CORRESPONDING ACTIONS IN JAPAN...... 118

1. Introduction Since the destructive June 2013 floods that impacted southern Alberta, the Government of Alberta (GoA), professional organizations, businesses, community groups, NGOs and municipalities have evaluated Alberta’s flood management capacity. Following the immediate and necessary response and recovery efforts undertaken, the GoA is now carefully identifying, considering and assessing the appropriate actions – including infrastructure, policy and forecasting options – required for mitigating and managing future floods. This evaluation has focused on determining the feasibility and effectiveness of flood mitigation options, such as relocation, dry dams, diversions and channelization, wetland storage, natural river functions, changes to existing reservoir options and land management1.

A robust flood forecasting program is a critical component in ensuring Alberta is prepared for future floods. Improving Alberta’s forecasting program has been identified as an area of action for flood management in the province. In August 2013, Alberta WaterSMART published a collaborative paper titled “The 2013 Great Alberta Flood: Actions to Mitigate, Manage and Control Future Floods”. Practitioners from across Alberta, Canada and the world participated in developing this report and collectively identified specific actions to mitigate, manage and control the impacts of extreme weather events such as floods and droughts. These actions were summarized into six overarching recommendations. The project “Flood Indicators: Improving Flood Forecasting in Alberta” aligns with the recommendation that called for improving Alberta’s operational capacity to deal with potential extreme weather scenarios through better modelling and data management.

Alberta’s River Forecast Centre (RFC) within Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) is responsible for assessing river conditions and developing short-term forecasts for the province based on data analysis and weather forecasts. Proactive and informed future flood management decisions will in part, require a clearer understanding of Alberta’s RFC program – what is working well, and what can work better.

The purpose of the “Flood Indicators: Improving Flood Forecasting in Alberta” project was to examine how Alberta and other jurisdictions – both Canadian and international – forecast flood events and to identify best practices that could be applied in Alberta. Research included in this project focused on identifying successes and areas for improvement in Alberta’s forecasting program. This research was followed by a review of flood forecasting programs (including communication strategies, timing of warnings and the roles of government and technology) and notable successes in select jurisdictions, including: British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, European Union (EU), Netherlands, United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Colorado (US) and Japan.

1 Alberta WaterSMART and Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions, “Bow Basin Flood Mitigation and Watershed Management Project,” 2014, 17.

Research findings and analysis from the “Flood Indicators: Improving Flood Forecasting in Alberta” project are summarized in two reports. Jurisdictional research is presented in this report, “Flood Forecasting Jurisdictional Review: Improving Flood Forecasting in Alberta”. The findings from the jurisdictional review were presented at a February 2014 workshop hosted by Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions (AI-EES). The workshop brought together flood forecasting experts from a variety of jurisdictions to discuss how Alberta’s flood forecasting program could be improved. The recommendations provided by experts in attendance at the workshop are summarized in a second project report titled, “Options for Improving Flood Forecasting in Alberta: A Synthesis Report of the February 2014 Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions ‘Flood Forecasting Methods and Models – Comparing Approaches and Best Practices’ Workshop”. Both reports are available on the Alberta WaterPortal (http://www.albertawater.com/).

The impetus for this project was the June 2013 floods, which prompted evaluation of Alberta’s flood response and management ability on a large-scale. A high-level comparative review of forecasting programs within Canada and around the world had not recently been completed, therefore, this project sought to fill that gap. The purpose of this project, however, was not to assess or critique the Alberta RFC’s forecasting of the June 2013 floods, but rather to identify general areas for improvement in Alberta’s forecasting program.

The hope is that the research findings from this project can act as a launching point for further research and action with the end goal of making Alberta’s flood forecasting program as robust as possible.

2. Project Methods

2.1 Basis for Selection of Jurisdictions In total, fourteen jurisdictions (including Alberta) were researched. Table 1 presents a summary of each jurisdiction included in this research project and the basis for its selection. In general, jurisdictions were chosen based some or all of the following criteria: geographical similarity to Alberta, recent experience with flooding (within the last five years) and how well the jurisdiction’s forecasting program is regarded by the international community.

Table 1: Basis for Selection of Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Basis for Selection British Columbia Similar geography, shared watershed with Alberta Alberta Recent flooding (2013), main focus of “Flood Indicators: Improving Forecasting in Alberta” research project Saskatchewan Shared watersheds with Alberta, looking to improve flood forecasting program, recent flooding (2011) Manitoba Experience with flooding, recent flooding (2011), looking to improve flood forecasting program Ontario Experience with flooding, example outside of western Canada with a different geographical context European Union Policy perspective (Water Framework Directive, Flood Directive) Netherlands Vast experience with flooding, world renowned flood framework United Kingdom (England Recent experience with flooding (2013), well regarded forecasting and Scotland) program France Recent flooding (2014), some areas very close to headwaters Germany Recent flooding (2013), some areas very close to headwaters Switzerland Recent flooding (2013), some areas very close to headwaters Australia Flood mitigation is high on political agenda, experience with flooding, recent flooding (2010/2011) Colorado, US Experience with flooding, recent flooding (2013), similar geography Japan Vast experience with natural disasters and emergency response, advanced technology

2.2 Research Questions A standardized questionnaire was devised before the project team began researching the jurisdictions listed above. The questionnaire included the following: • Why was this jurisdiction chosen? • What flood forecasting program does the jurisdiction have in place? • What level of government and/or government department is responsible for flood forecasting and monitoring? • Is there any legislation, policies, regulations and/or plans related to the flood forecasting and monitoring program? • Does the jurisdiction use any particular governance models or approaches? • What is the scale and what are the boundaries of the management? • Are there any trans-boundary or inter-jurisdictional elements that are important to note? • What flood indicators does the jurisdiction have in place? o How are the indicators defined? o How were the indicators developed? o How were the indicators implemented? o How does the local and regional geography affect the type of indicators selected? o How have the indicators been used to create an early warning system (EWS)? o What type of technology is used? • What systems are in place to monitor and warn for flash floods? • Who is responsible for data collection, monitoring, interpretation and reporting? • How is data communicated to decision-makers? • How far in advanced of a flood event is data communicated, and how often?

2.3 Research Process The information included in this report should be viewed as a snapshot of the flood forecasting programs in jurisdictions that were researched. While every effort was made to answer every question outlined above and to obtain as much information as possible about each forecasting program, information was at times unavailable due to: inaccessible or unavailable information, unanswered phone and email queries, and in some cases, language and time-zone barriers. For this reason, there is a varying level of detail on each jurisdiction included in this report.

The project team began research in November 2013 and concluded research in February 2014. Jurisdictional experts who were identified either by the project team or by specific flood forecasting programs within each jurisdiction provided information to the project team via direct telephone, email or in-person communication. These experts are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Jurisdictional Experts Consulted by Project Team Jurisdiction Expert(s) Consulted British Columbia David Campbell Head, British Columbia River Forecast Centre Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Alberta Evan Friesenhan Acting Head, River Forecasting Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

Colleen Walford River Flow Forecaster, River Forecasting Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

David Watson River Flow Forecaster, River Forecasting Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Manitoba Akinbola George Former Acting Director, Flood Forecasting and Coordination Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation

Phillip Mutulu Former Director, Flood Forecasting and Coordination Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Ontario Emily Higginson Water Level Management Specialist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Dwight Boyd Director of Engineering Grand River Conservation Authority Netherlands Edwin Welles Hydrologist & Executive Director Deltares USA

Hans van Duijne Cluster Manager Netherlands Soil Partnership

Jurisdiction Expert(s) Consulted United Kingdom Russell Turner Hydrometeorology Services Manager UK Flood Forecasting Centre

Michael Cranston Flood Forecasting and Warning Manager Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Australia Jeff Perkins Manager, Flood Forecasting and Warning Bureau of Meteorology Colorado, US Kevin Houck Chief, Watershed and Flood Protection Section Colorado Water Conservation Board

In addition to direct telephone, email and in-person discussions with the key personnel outlined above, information was also collected from secondary sources such as government websites and research reports, all publicly available online.

2.4 Flow Charts Each jurisdiction’s flood forecasting program is presented as a flow chart diagram in this report. These flow charts are modelled after a “Components of a Flood Warning System” diagram compiled by the Science, Engineering and Technology Panel in Queensland, Australia2.

In this report, each flow chart diagram breaks down flood forecasting programs into the components of: monitoring, flood forecasts, forecast interpretation, warning construction, warning communication, further dissemination and response. The purpose of the flow charts is to identify the primary organizations/entities that are responsible for the various components of each jurisdiction’s flood forecasting program and to visually show how these organizations/entities are connected.

2 The State of Queensland (Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist), “Components of a Flood Warning System,” figure, 2013, http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/comm-warn-about- floods.aspx

3. Setting the Stage: An Overview of Flood Forecasting

3.1 What is flood forecasting? A flood forecasting program is designed to forecast a flood event and provide adequate warning to the public and authorities. The main components of a flood forecasting program include: • Data Collection and Monitoring • Modelling and Forecasting • Warning Construction and Communication • Response and Further Dissemination

Flood forecasting is the use of available hydrological data (such as streamflow and precipitation), in harmony with meteorological forecasts and topographical data about a specific basin to forecast a flood event3. A flood forecasting program is centred on a forecasting model, which uses data from the monitoring of various meteorological, hydrological and pedological indicators to assess where a flood may occur and its extent. The product of a forecasting model – the forecast – is used to determine if a region should be ready to respond to a flood and what level of alert should be issued. Communication of this alert is a critical aspect of a flood forecasting program.

Accurate and early forecasting improves the efficacy of any standing, proposed, or new mitigation strategies. The intent of flood forecasting is to save lives, capital and infrastructure. For example, dam operators rely on forecasts to drain their reservoirs before peak flows arrive. Similarly, emergency responders need adequate warning to deploy temporary berms and evacuate the public.

3.2 Data Collection and Monitoring An extensive amount of data is required to forecast a flood event. Typically, data can indicate potential flooding because when critical levels (e.g. streamflow, precipitation) are reached, historical records may suggest that flooding will occur. Data collected by forecasters in each jurisdiction researched can be grouped into three general categories: meteorological, hydrological and pedological.

3.2.1 Meteorological Environment Canada (EC) maintains meteorological stations throughout the country. Information about current weather conditions is gathered at these sites in real time (a gauging station is said to have real time, or “near real time” (NRT) data collection when the information is published within

3Foundation of River and Basin Integrated Communication & MLIT Kanto Region, “River Information System and Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in Japan,” 2013 (presentation), http://whrm- kamoto.com/assets/files/River%20Information%20System%20Flood%20Forcating%20and%20Early%20Warning%20 in%20Japan%20for%20WGH%20in%20Seoul%202013.pdf

hours of being measured). These sites usually include precipitation gauges, which are used for monitoring the accumulation of rain, snow, sleet or hail, measured in millimetres of water4. Additionally, there are also thermometers for temperature, barometers for air pressure and wind monitors for wind speed and direction. All of these instruments measure the current conditions of the atmosphere.

In addition to the monitoring of meteorological conditions, EC produces meteorological forecasts. Twenty different North American forecasts are used to produce EC’s main forecast5. These forecasts are a combination of probabilistic, which predict the likelihood of getting more rain than predicted, and deterministic, which predict the amount of rainfall accumulation over a specified time period6. For Alberta, EC uses a deterministic forecast with a 2.5 kilometre resolution7. The forecast predicts how much rain will fall and where it will land. High/low pressure areas and other atmospheric conditions (wind speed/direction) influence where rain will actually fall and these variables are included in meteorological forecasts. Historic meteorological data is also accessible by EC. For example, the mean temperature and precipitation accumulation from the past twenty years (1981-2012) is used to describe normal and extreme weather patterns. These historic weather patterns are also helpful in creating meteorological forecasts, and by extension flood forecasts8.

Storm surges, tides and waves may be important to monitor in flood-prone coastal areas. For example, a high pressure system over the ocean coinciding with a strong high tide could cause coastal flooding. Some coastal jurisdictions such as England and Scotland include wave forecasting in their meteorological forecasting to predict the height and direction of waves approaching the shore9.

3.2.2 Hydrological The most direct way to monitor river flooding is through the use of streamflow gauges. The Water Survey of Canada (WSC) under the umbrella of EC has hydrometric stations on rivers that measure

4 “Climatology of Temperature and Precipitation,” Environment Canada, last modified March 25, 2014, accessed March 30, 2014, http://weather.gc.ca/saisons/clim_e.html 5 Bruce Davison, “Environment Canada Modelling Systems and the 2013 Alberta Floods,” (presentation, Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions, Flood Forecasting Methods and Models – Comparing Approaches and Best Practices, Calgary, AB, February 19, 2014). 6 “European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts,” ECMWF, last modified December 10, 2013, accessed December 12, 2013, http://www.ecmwf.int/ 7 Bruce Davison, “Environment Canada Modelling Systems and the 2013 Alberta Floods,” (presentation, Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions, Flood Forecasting Methods and Models – Comparing Approaches and Best Practices, Calgary, AB, February 19, 2014). 8 “Climatology of Temperature and Precipitation,” Environment Canada, last modified March 25, 2014, accessed March 30, 2014, http://weather.gc.ca/saisons/clim_e.html 9 Simone de Kleermaeker, et al., 2012, “A New Coastal Flood Forecasting System for the Netherlands,” Deltares and Rijkswaterstaat, http://proceedings.utwente.nl/246/1/Hydro12_44_New_Flood_Forecasting_System_for_Dutch_Coast_-_Paper.pdf

streamflow and water levels. For manual data collection, surveyors go into the river and measure the depth from the surface to the lowest point along the river bed.

Streamflow is the amount of water passing a point in the river, measured in cubic metres per second (m3/s or cms). The term “streamflow” is interchangeable with “river discharge”, however, in this report “streamflow” is the preferred term. The peak flow is the maximum streamflow, in cms, within a period of time10. To display this information, a hydrograph is used to plot streamflow data versus time to show when peak streamflows occurred. Hydrographs can also use artificial data to extrapolate and predict when peak streamflow conditions may occur11. In Alberta, dam operations have a huge impact on streamflow, particularly on the Bow River, which has thirteen dams upstream of Calgary12. The inflow/outflow data and storage/release data of these dams are key values that can be adjusted on hydrographs13.

3.2.2.1 Snow In jurisdictions with high elevations (e.g. mountainous regions), snow can influence the amount of water that enters a stream. Over the course of the winter, snow falling in the mountains accumulates and creates a snowpack14. As temperatures increase in the spring, the snowpack melts and creates runoff called snowmelt, which can add a substantial amount of water into stream channels15. The period in the spring when snowmelt is increasing flow in the rivers is called the freshet. When river flows rapidly increase and streams become overwhelmed, freshet flooding occurs.

Given the risk of freshet flooding, snowpack levels are measured throughout the winter months16. Some jurisdictions use automated monitoring stations to measure snowpack, while others use manual snow surveys. Some jurisdictions use both methods.

Automated snow pillows (ASPs) are commonly used in BC and Alberta. These large antifreeze filled bladders are used to measure snowpack. The weight of snow on top of the pillow pushes down on the

10 “Frequently Asked Questions,” Environment Canada Water Office, last modified April 15, 2013, accessed November 4, 2013, http://www.wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/mainmenu/faq_e.html 11 “Hydrograph Travel Time Analysis,” Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation, accessed November 5, 2013, http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/doctype30/Production/HyGrTvTmAys.pdf 12 “Bow River Fact Sheet,” Bow Riverkeeper, accessed November 5, 2013, http://brk.kobblefish.com/bow-river-fact-sheet 13 Tomonobu Sugiura, “River Information Management and Flood Forecasting in Japan,” (presentation), http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/basic_info/english/pdf/conf_04.pdf 14 “Snow Data,” Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development – Environmental Management, Water Management Operations Branch, accessed November 6, 2013, http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/basins/Map.aspx?Basin=10&DataType=4 15 “Forecasts/Reports,” Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, 2013, accessed November 11, 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/floodoutlook/forecasts_reports.html 16 Emergency Management BC, “The British Columbia Flood Response Plan,” 2012.

bladder and shoots antifreeze up into the measuring tube, which shows surveyors the snow water equivalent (the amount of water in millimetres that would be present if the snowpack were to melt) at a specific location17.

To manually gather snowpack data, surveyors follow a snow course and measure snow depth at regular locations. These measurements are converted into a snow water equivalent. In BC and Alberta, the survey is performed within one or two sampling periods each month. The sampling period is the range (approximately twelve days) within which the survey is completed.

Another phenomenon that occurs in the spring is ice break-up. In the event of ice break-up, ice formed on rivers begins to thaw creating large ice blocks that facilitate snowmelt or water to flow. In some cases, however, these ice blocks jam up in the river channel and cause ice jam flooding. This type of flooding is a particularly common problem in Manitoba and Ontario18.

3.2.3 Pedological Soil conditions can impact hydrology and subsequent flood forecasts. Soil moisture content is measured to determine how much water is contained in the soil layer on the ground. In Canada, soil moisture is measured in the fall prior to the ground freezing, and more regularly in warmer months19. When soil moisture content is at the absolute maximum level, the ground is considered saturated. If the ground cannot hold any more water due to soil saturation, there is a greater potential for runoff and flooding20. Additionally, water from precipitation or snowmelt entering the river channel from land is called runoff. Heavy runoff across the surface area of a river basin can have a dramatic effect on the amount of water in a river and can contribute to flooding21.

3.3 Modelling and Forecasting Most of the data described above is collected and displayed on a data platform, which gathers all the information into one program (such as WISKI or Delft-FEWS, described in later sections). Meteorological, hydrological (including snow), pedalogical, and storm surge data can be used to produce various maps, which a forecaster can use to determine the risk level of flooding. These data are also incorporated into a model. Most models include a topographic element through a digital

17 “Glossary of Terms,” BC River Forecast Centre, 2013, accessed November 4, 2013, http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/glossary.htm 18 Akinbola George (former Acting Director, Manitoba HFC), in discussion with Colin Savoy, October 2013. 19 Ibid. 20 Stephanie Pappas, “After Floods, Colorado Scientists Improve Forecasts,” Live Science, 2013, accessed November 6, 2013, http://www.livescience.com/40689-colorado-flood-forecasting-improvements.html 21 “Forecasts/Reports,” Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, 2013, accessed November 11, 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/floodoutlook/forecasts_reports.html

elevation model (DEM), GIS, or LiDAR. The model uses the available data and overlays it onto the topography to forecast the risk of flooding in the area22. The output from the model is evaluated by forecasters. This output can be compared with flood hazard maps, which identify flood extent, water levels and streamflow based on the probability of a flood occurring. Flood hazard maps can also be compared with flood risk maps that highlight flood prone areas with infrastructure (e.g., buildings, homes), a high density of people or fragile environments23.

3.4 Warning Construction and Communication Even the best flood forecast would not be useful without proper communication of flood risks to emergency responders and individuals in an affected area.

If a forecast is interpreted as posing a potential threat to an area, the level of severity will be assessed and, if required, an alert will be issued. For example, in Alberta there are three flood risk levels for which an alert will be issued:

1. High Streamflow Advisory (water levels are rising rapidly - low lying areas may experience flooding); 2. Flood Watch (water level is approaching the top of the bank - areas may experience flooding), and; 3. Flood Warning (rising water levels will result in flooding of areas adjacent to the stream)24.

In some jurisdictions, forecasters contact and provide information to an emergency management coordinator, who assumes responsibility for contacting government groups and local authorities. In other jurisdictions, an alert may be issued immediately and directly to the public via the internet. Alternatively, forecasters might be in contact with the federal and provincial government, or possibly municipalities and even stakeholders. Regardless of the method, the information forecasters have regarding a potential flood event must reach the appropriate response community in a timely manner.

3.5 Response and Further Dissemination The purpose of a clear response plan is to protect people, capital and infrastructure. Generally once a flood warning is announced, time is of the essence and it is imperative to have a clear response plan

22 “LISFLOOD Model,” European Commission Joint Research Centre: Institute for Environment and Sustainability, last modified September 14, 2010, http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lisflood-model.html 23 “A New EU Floods Directive,” European Commission, last modified April 25, 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/ 24 “Flood Preparedness with Alberta’s River Forecast Centre,” Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Blog, May 6, 2013, http://aesrd.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/flood-preparedness-with- albertas-river-forecast-centre/

outlined in advance. Many jurisdictions have an official emergency response plan25. For example, Japan regularly experiences natural disasters and has a well-defined plan for emergency response. In the case of flooding, this includes flood fighting groups who deploy local temporary berms and rescue workers who ensure the safe evacuation of citizens out of flood-prone areas. Hospitals are also informed of flood risks so they can be prepared for higher-than-usual patient inflows26.

After flood warnings have been communicated to authorities and responders, the public must be officially notified. Often, mass media is integral in communicating this information to the public. Public alerts will appear on TVs, radios, the internet and even cell phones. Recently, social media has been equally as useful in further dissemination of flood risk information. Twitter and Facebook played a large role in informing the public during the 2013 Alberta flood27. The possibility of power loss during an emergency can also occur, therefore, “low-tech” methods of communication can be utilized, including; door-to-door personal notification, sounding emergency sirens, and land-line phone calls.

25 Emergency Management BC, “The British Columbia Flood Response Plan”, 2012. 26 Ibid. 27 Alberta WaterSMART, “The 2013 Great Alberta Flood: Actions to Mitigate, Manage and Control Future Floods,” 2013.

4. Alberta’s Flood Forecasting Program

4.1 Background In Alberta, the RFC within ESRD is responsible for flood forecasting. Alberta’s RFC has the mandate to provide information related to current/future river or river ice conditions to enable Albertans to make decisions related to water supply and emergency response planning. The Alberta RFC is comprised of nineteen staff, including five open water River Flow forecasters.

The RFC was formed in the late 1970s in response to a large snowmelt in 1974. Prior to the formation of the RFC, there was no group in Alberta responsible for flood forecasting and little public demand for this kind of service. Up until this point, precipitation forecasts were issued by EC.

The Alberta RFC monitors and forecasts spring/snowmelt-related flooding, flooding due to heavy rainfall and ice jam flooding. Spring/snowmelt flooding typically occurs when a heavy plains snowpack still exists in late spring and melting is accelerated by sustained warmer temperatures or by precipitation.

Flooding due to heavy rainfall is typically expected between mid-May and mid-August. This type of flooding is usually driven by cold lows. The effects from these types of systems are exacerbated by steep slopes and orographic lift28. Flooding due to heavy rainfall is experienced in the Rocky Mountains, foothills, Swan Hills and Cypress Hills regions. The severity of rainfall-related floods can range from relatively minor (resulting in inundation of roads and/or agricultural land) to catastrophic flood events. In most cases, rainfall events in the eastern slopes of Alberta have the potential to produce flooding conditions all the way to the Saskatchewan provincial border as the flood wave makes its way downstream. Ice jam flooding can occur anytime when a river is ice covered, but it is more common during freeze-up or break-up processes.

Ice jams can occur on any river in Alberta, but the communities of Peace River and Fort McMurray are particularly susceptible to ice-related flooding and are monitored more closely. The Alberta RFC does not monitor or forecast for urban floods that are the results of storm drainage systems being overwhelmed by intense rainfall. This type of flooding is better managed at a municipal level because an intimate knowledge of local drainage networks is required.

Figure 1 shows a high-level summary of the Alberta flood forecasting program and the organizations/entities that are involved in/responsible for the various components of a flood

28 Orographic lift refers to the process of wind hitting a mountain, and having to rise over the mountain (“Topography,” University of Illinois, accessed November 1, 2013, http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/cond/orog.rxml)

forecasting program as described in Section 2. The sections that follow will describe each of these components in greater detail in the context of Alberta.

Note: The majority of information included in this section was gathered through the project team’s personal communication with the Alberta RFC.

Figure 1: Alberta's Flood Forecasting Program

4.2 Policy and Legislation Prior to June 2013, there were no policies or legislation in Alberta directed at flood forecasting and monitoring. After the June 2013 flood the Flood Recovery and Reconstruction Act (Bill 27) was introduced to enshrine new policies to prevent further development in floodways, lessen future damage in flood prone areas, and ensure homebuyers are informed of whether a property in a flood hazard area is eligible for future disaster assistance. Legislation for emergency response, including flood response, was developed earlier in the Alberta Emergency Act (2000). This act informs the activities of the Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) that plays a major role in flood response and recovery.

4.3 Data Collection and Monitoring According to the ESRD, flooding is dependent on four factors: soil moisture, snowpack, temperature and rainfall, although rainfall is the primary driver of flooding in Alberta29. The indicators that the Alberta RFC monitors include: snow, streamflow, river height, precipitation, temperature and soil moisture.

The Alberta RFC relies on data collected from various provincial, national and international sources, including the GoA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States Geological Survey (USGS), EC and the WSC program. The WSC is responsible for collecting river height and reservoir water level data in the province. GoA is responsible for collecting data such as snowpack, soil moisture and meteorological information.

In Alberta, data collected is transferred from monitoring stations via satellite and telephone telemetry. The Alberta RFC relies on the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), which obtains data from over 550 remote monitoring sites30.

The decision of when and where to place new hydrometric data and meteorological stations in Alberta rests with the Hydrometric Committee, which is an internal government committee comprised of representatives from ESRD (including the Alberta RFC, Fire and Forestry), EC and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD).

29 “Flood Preparedness with Alberta’s River Forecast Centre,” Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Blog, May 6, 2013, http://aesrd.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/flood-preparedness-with- albertas-river-forecast-centre/ 30 “Flood Forecasting Centres across Canada,” Environment Canada, last modified July 22, 2013, http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=7BF9B012-1

4.3.1 Snow Data Snow data is collected by using ASPs and taking manual snow course measurements. NRT ASP stations are available at select locations in Alberta’s Rocky Mountains. ESRD monitoring staff ski or helicopter into snow survey sites to take point measurements within a large area to get an average snow depth for that area. This data, however, does not provide the appropriate spatial or temporal distribution necessary for modelling purposes.

To obtain additional snow data, the Alberta RFC coordinates with EC. They also use the NOAA’s publicly available weekly snow cover maps for estimating area and water equivalent of snow.

Snow data is used to correct/calibrate information in the Alberta RFC’s forecast model. Snow data is also used to inform water availability outlooks, which are published in a monthly water supply report between February and May.

4.3.2 Streamflow and River Height Streamflow and river height data are collected from over 400 hydrometric stations run by the Operations Infrastructure Branch of ESRD and the WSC. All data is stored on the Alberta RFC’s WISKI database.

The densest network for NRT streamflow gauges is in the eastern slopes, foothills, central regions of the province and the Swan Hills and Peace Regions.

4.3.3 Precipitation Meteorological data, including precipitation and temperature, is collected from over 600 stations operated by ESRD’s Fire Weather Service, ERDS’s Operations and Infrastructure Branch, ARD and EC. NRT data are available for use in forecasting after a one to two hour delay (the delay is due to data transmission, acquisition, decoding and storing in the WISKI database.

The densest network for NRT precipitation gauges is in the eastern slopes, foothills, central regions of the province and the Swan Hills and Peace Regions.

4.4 Modelling and Forecasting Data is collected and input into WISKI, where it can be reviewed by forecasters before it is used for modelling purposes. The Alberta RFC uses two models: a forecasting model and a water supply model.

The Alberta RFC’s water supply model, VIPER, is a new product that develops statistical relationships between snow/precipitation as well as the flows and forecasts of previous months. This model forecasts the total volume of water that can be expected throughout Alberta’s irrigation season

(March to September). Forecasts produced by this model inform the content included in the Alberta RFC’s publicly available Water Supply report.

Water Information System KISTERS (WISKI) Developed by KISTERS, WISKI is a data management system that can be used for surface water, storm water and groundwater management. Additionally, WISKI can monitor extreme weather events such as flooding and drought.

As used in Canada, WISKI is a stand-alone web-based application that shows parameters such as water levels, streamflow and other indicators as specified by the user. Data is imported to WISKI through a variety of methods including; data loggers and sensors, telemetry, external data sources, file import, flow measurement devices, manual capture and historical data. Data can be displayed as a map, graph or tabular format and can be downloaded by the user. A series of thresholds can be selected in WISKI giving a colour-code for identifying hazard levels at areas on the map.

There are different variations of WISKI that can be used. For example, in Ontario WISKI Web Pro is used which provides users with direct access to the database and various options for viewing data. Other variations include; KiWIS for web services and information on stations and BIBER for water discharge management among other methods.

Once data is uploaded into WISKI, forecasters can manipulate the various parameters and present the information in a variety of formats. While uploading is sometimes slow, the flexibility and presentation of data is useful to gaining an understanding of weather conditions in a specific area.

SSARR (Streamflow Synthesis and Reservoir Routing – developed by the US Army Corp of Engineers) is the Alberta RFC’s rainfall/snowmelt run-off model. SSARR takes rainfall and air temperature information, applies an understanding of the topography of the assessed river basin and computes how much run-off can be expected. SSARR will compute the volume of water entering the basin (from precipitation or snowmelt) and then divide this input into base flow, sub-surface flow and surface flow components. Using this information, a flow value can be computed and then compared against gauged data in the river basin. In addition, Alberta RFC forecasters are frequently in contact with forecasters in Montana, as well as with BC Hydro, to coordinate forecasts in shared basins.

In preparation of producing a forecast, the following data is input into the SSARR model:

• Current soil moisture • Current streamflow • Current reservoir levels and operational plans • Current snow coverage and snow water equivalent on the ground • Forecast temperature • Forecast precipitation

In addition, forecasts from different agencies, such as EC, NOAA and ESRD’s five day forecasts are monitored.

4.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event The Alberta RFC provides real time river flow forecasting to support clients and stakeholders such as the public, provincial staff, municipal and community emergency managers, industry, provincial parks, national parks and other prairie provinces.

During the Open Water Forecasting season (mid-March to mid-October), an Alberta RFC “Forecaster- on-Duty” (the Forecaster) is always available. The Forecaster is responsible for monitoring daily changes in precipitation, streamflow, soil moisture and flood risk across the province and is required to prepare Forecaster Comments. Forecaster Comments are a product that describe recent and upcoming weather as well as river basin conditions and potential impacts due to recent and upcoming precipitation. Based on precipitation forecasts coming from various outlets (EC, NOAA, ESRD Fires) the Forecaster will determine if a risk to the provinces is present. At this time initial risk assessment model runs are completed and if a risk is present the Alberta RFC will call those communities at risk, GoA Dam Operators and provincial and federal monitoring staff and determine if 24/7 operations are required. GoA IT support staff, WISKI support staff and Data Management staff are put on standby at this time. These calls will be for information purposes only. As the precipitation forecasts are refined by the weather forecasting agencies, these are added to the RFC’s models. At this point, all staff in the Alberta RFC’s operations centre are aware of the situation and for the potential for flooding in particular locations. If needed, the Alberta RFC will communicate once again with local municipalities, advising them to be prepared. The forecast will be compared to historical threshold levels (known water levels or flow values where flooding has been reported at various locations). Once the storm track and precipitation forecast are confirmed, an advisory will be issued. The decision to issue a flood advisory is made by the Forecaster-on-Duty. Depending on the potential impact of flows an advisory, watch or warning is issued (see Figure 2) 31.

Different warning types are defined below:

• High Streamflow Advisory (HSA): An HSA is issued when stream levels are rising or are expected to rise rapidly, but no major flooding is expected. Minor flooding in low-lying areas is possible. Anyone situated close to the streams affected is advised to be cautious of the rising levels. • Flood Watch (FW-): A FW- is issued when stream levels are rising and will approach, or may exceed a bank. Flooding of areas adjacent to these streams may occur. • Flood Warning (FW+): A FW+ is issued when rising stream levels will result in flooding of areas adjacent to the affected streams. Anyone situated close to the river should take appropriate measures to avoid flood damage.

31 Evan Friesenhan. “Flood Forecasting Methodology in Alberta,” presentation, Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions Flood Forecasting Methods and Models – Comparing Approaches and Best Practices workshop, Calgary, AB, February 18, 2014.

Figure 2: Alberta RFC's Flood Alert Methodology

When HSAs, FW-s and FW+s are issued, they are posted on ESRD’s Advisories and Warnings page (see http://www.environment.alberta.ca/forecasting/advisories/index.html) as shown in Table 3. In addition, they are also issued through the Alberta Emergency Alert system, which posts updates on its website (www.emergencyalert.alberta.ca). The Emergency Alert system also sends out messages via road signage, Twitter, Facebook and RSS feeds and has the ability to interrupt radio and television broadcasts.

Table 3: Flood Advisory, Watch and Warning Communication in Alberta

Issued through Alberta Posted online? Callouts initiated? Emergency Alert system? HSA Yes Yes No FW- Yes Yes Yes FW+ Yes Yes Yes

In the event that a FW- or FW+ is issued, the Alberta RFC initiates callouts to internal and external clients to inform them of the situation. Internal clients include GoA staff (e.g. dam operators, monitoring staff, ESRD Approvals and Compliance staff, Municipal Affairs, Transportation) and external clients such as communities, counties, irrigation districts, First Nations, the Canadian National Railway

Company (CN Rail), Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP Rail), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), TAU and others. The Alberta RFC forecasters remain in regular and direct contact with these clients to provide forecast updates, additional information or to answer questions.

The Alberta RFC does not have the capacity to communicate directly with the public. This responsibility is covered at the local level. Local municipalities are responsible for emergency response, and for providing specific information and directions to residents. In serious situations, the Alberta Environment Support and Emergency Response Team (ASERT) is contacted by the Alberta RFC to aid in the response to an environmental emergency.

4.5.1 Timing of Warnings When the Alberta RFC was first established, forecasters engaged in direct communication with the media (rather than emergency managers), and issued flood advisories before rain hit the ground. The methodology of issuing advisories before rain fell resulted in some false alarms, and advisories that were not always heeded. In 1995, a large rain event produced the largest peak flow ever recorded on the Oldman River. The Alberta RFC issued the flood alert early before rain hit the ground, but little attention was paid, and no advanced emergency response was initiated. As a result, after 1995 the Alberta RFC changed the policy to issue alerts only once rain hit the ground.

The current timing of warnings methodology that includes the issuing of advisories involves a series of escalating decision points. When the Alberta RFC is informed by either EC or the ESRD Fire Weather group of a significant weather system, preliminary assessment model runs are completed. Based on the results of these models, the Alberta RFC may enter directly into an around the clock (24/7) operations or a state of readiness. In both these instances, the Alberta RFC contacts flood prone municipalities, provincial dam operations staff as well as provincial and federal monitoring groups to discuss potential risks posed by the incoming system. These municipal emergency managers and dam operators are provided a range of preliminary forecast peaks that include the most probable range of precipitation scenarios modelled by weather forecast models. Once the storm track is confirmed, communications with municipalities continue and advisories are issued. The tendency of systems to change course quickly and by-pass river basins once they have crossed the continental divide is well known. Due to this uncertainty, the highest level of advisory prior to rain on the ground has historically been the HSA, which coincides with the first level of activation for a number of municipal emergency preparedness plans.

To warn for spring flooding, the Alberta RFC typically issues a Spring Flood Advisory when heavy plains snowpack still exists late in spring and melting is accelerated by warmer temperatures, or precipitation. The purpose of the Spring Flood Advisory is to increase public awareness of where these conditions exist and their possible impacts.

There is no specific timeline that the RFC adheres to for issuing HSA, FW- or FW+. Alerts can be issued as far as three days in advance, but a solid forecast will not be available until 12 to 24 hours before an event occurs.

4.5.2 Flash Floods There are no formal flash flood monitoring and warning systems in place in Alberta or Canada. Due to the nature of flash floods (localized events that unfold rapidly due to intense precipitation), they are usually considered to be a meteorological event and therefore any communication or warning for flash floods is included in EC alerts.

In Alberta, there is a time lag between the collection and receipt of data by the Alberta RFC (see section 4.3.3 that shows information is received by the RFC on an hourly basis). This limits the use of a flash flood warning system as it is possible for a flash flood to occur before the data are received by the RFC.

5. Challenges for Alberta’s River Forecasting Centre A series of challenges for Alberta’s RFC were identified during the research for this report. These challenges were identified by the project research team in coordination with the Alberta RFC. The following challenges reflect areas that require further attention and improvements to ensure accurate and robust flood forecasts are produced. Areas identified are also indicative of the broader need for an organizational structure that strictly defines roles and responsibilities of each agency and actor to further enhance response protocol in the event of a flood. Many of these challenges are not exclusive to Alberta and are present in forecasting groups in other jurisdictions.

Specific challenges are grouped into the following categories:

a) Data collection; b) Communication with authorities; c) Timing of warnings; d) Flash flood warnings; e) Communication with the public; f) Public education and awareness; and g) Forecast group staffing and capacity

5.1 Data Collection and Monitoring Alberta’s data collection capacity is fairly robust with a variety of data being collected including snow measurements, stream flow and river height, precipitation and temperature, as well as soil moisture. Nonetheless, room for improvement exists in the following areas:

• Precipitation data gaps in northern Alberta: Northern Alberta is not heavily monitored. Historically, the population has been relatively small in the north compared to the heavily populated southern portion of the province. Currently, precipitation data is collected twice a day in northern Alberta by ESRD’s Fire Weather Office. Precipitation stations are manned lookout towers rather than automatic stations. While the original purpose of collecting this data was to monitor and predict forecast fire behaviour, the scope of this data collection changed to include information for flooding. Also, it is important to note that streamflow data is not a gap in northern Alberta: data is available to the Alberta RFC on an hourly near-real time basis. • Growing population: Alberta’s population is spreading to areas of the province that are not heavily gauged or monitored (e.g., Fort McMurray, flood-prone areas near valleys in northern Alberta). As population growth continues, data collection will be required in these previously ungauged/monitored areas so that flood forecasts and warnings can be provided to these newer, local communities. • Reliance on data from non-ESRD networks: The Alberta RFC relies on data that is collected outside of the ESRD network and is not always suitable for flood forecasting purposes.

• Durability/resiliency of remote sensing networks: During a flood event, streamflow gauges can become vulnerable and may be damaged or destroyed due to high water and fast river flows. Destruction of these important sourcing networks impairs the ability of forecasters to review and use data for flood forecasting. During the June 2013 floods, thirteen WSC streamflow gauges were damaged or destroyed resulting in a lack of reliable information. This was identified as a major issue for the Alberta RFC.

5.2 Communication with Authorities The Alberta RFC is responsible for communicating directly with authorities and municipalities leading up to and during a flood event. Currently, a communications officer is not embedded within the Alberta RFC, nor is there a separate entity responsible for direct communication with authorities. This proved to be a significant challenge in the 2013 flood event when Alberta RFC forecasters spent 30 man-hours in a 48-hour period on the phone communicating forecast information to municipalities.

The benefit of having the Alberta RFC communicating directly with authorities is that the possibility of miscommunication or misinterpretation is mitigated. The disadvantage of this current structure, however, is that the Alberta RFC’s resources are diverted away from their key mandate of flood forecasting.

5.3 Timing of Warnings Over the last decade, a transition away from issuing early flood warnings to the current methodology employed by the Alberta RFC has occurred, as outlined in Section 4.5.1.

The timing of flood warnings has been identified as a challenge and the current methodology has been criticized, however, addressing how to change the timing of warnings is also a challenge32. How does the Alberta RFC realistically meet the demand for more information and advanced warning about a potential flood event without increasing panic and causing warning fatigue?

5.4 Flash Flood Warnings Neither EC nor the Alberta RFC are responsible or have a mandate for issuing flash flood warnings. Flash flood forecasting and warning is a policy gap across all levels of government in Canada.

32Matt McClure, “Alberta Must Do a ‘Much Better Job of Forecasting’ After Failing to Sound Flood Alarm Early,” Calgary Herald, 2013, http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Alberta+must+much+better+forecasting+after+failing+so und+flood+alarm+early/8595081/story.html

5.5 Communication with the Public The AEMA is the entity currently responsible for ensuring public awareness in the event of a flood. The Alberta RFC and AEMA have a strong relationship but remain two separate entities. There is currently no clear distinction between the roles of the Alberta RFC, AEMA and municipalities when it comes to communicating with the public about a flood event. The public must clearly understand the difference between these three entities and their respective responsibilities so that a coordinated approach to emergency protocol and response can be maintained.

Also, there must be an improved understanding of the public’s need for what information is required, and how this information should be communicated. Any information put forward by the Alberta RFC, AEMA and/or municipalities must be user-friendly and readily accessible. Another challenge in the area of communication is that information required by the public and other clients such as emergency managers can be mutually exclusive.

5.6 Public Education and Awareness There appears to be a general lack of public education and awareness as it relates to flooding, flood risk and geography, typical meteorological events, flood seasons, flood zones and mapping. There is also a lack of understanding of flood preparedness and appropriate emergency response measures.

The Alberta RFC is currently not responsible for educating the public. This responsibility lies with the GoA, municipalities, Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils (WPACs) and other groups.

5.7 Forecast Group Staffing and Capacity As in other jurisdictions, finding and retaining forecasting staff is a challenge. This is for a variety of reasons, including; insufficient funding to hire more forecasters, flood forecasting is a specialized field of expertise which makes finding new forecasters difficult, and retaining staff can be a challenge due to the pressure and high stress levels associated with the job.

Generally, an assumption is that approximately half of a forecasting group’s staff leave their job after a major flood event. This can be attributed to the stress experienced and long hours worked during a flood event, as well as potential public criticism in the aftermath of an event. Strategies must be developed that focus on how to attract potential forecasters to the Alberta RFC, retain them, and manage workplace stress and fatigue to ensure the talent these employees have is retained.

6. Jurisdictional Review The purpose of this section is to provide a visual comparison of each jurisdiction that was included as part of this research project. Figure 3 below provides a high-level overview of specific components of each flood forecasting program researched. While reviewing the matrix, it is important to note that the white boxes do not necessarily indicate deficiencies in a program and the blue boxes that a jurisdiction has does not mean the jurisdiction has a better flood forecasting program than others. Assessing the overall performance, or successfulness, of each flood forecasting program was not within the scope of this project. Additional information for each jurisdiction included in Figure 3 is presented in the subsequent sections below.

Figure 3: Jurisdictional Review Matrix Canada International Category Co, AB BC SK MB ON AUS UK NLD JPN FRA DEU CH EU USA 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

Jurisdictional Review Matrix (Continued) Canada International Category Co, AB BC SK MB ON AUS UK NLD JPN FRA DEU CH EU USA 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 Sparse gauging stations

7. British Columbia

7.1 Background In BC, the provincial River Forecast Centre (BC RFC) operates within the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) and is responsible for flood forecasting.

Historically, the largest flood in BC occurred on the Fraser River in 1894. The most costly flood, also on the Fraser River, was in 1948. This was a costly flood because of the increase in urban development in the flood hazard area33. This event resulted in the development of the snow survey program and preliminary flood forecasting in the province. After another flood in 1972 the BC RFC was established and more forecasting capacity was developed for high-risk areas along the main stem of the lower Fraser River that is prone to high river flows.

The most recent major flood in BC was in 2011 when higher than average amounts of rain fell in northern BC, resulting in major flooding and evacuation of municipalities in the region.

When the BC RFC was created, the founders looked closely at the University of British Columbia’s (UBC’s) Watershed Model to inform the BC system. The UBC Watershed Model uses daily precipitation and temperature data to estimate watershed outputs from snowmelt and rainfall in the short-term. In addition to continuous meteorological data, the Watershed Model uses snowpack, soil moisture, groundwater storage and streamflow data as inputs. Ultimately the model produces a hydrograph and calculates surface and subsurface runoff34. The UBC recognized that the model could be used for longer-term forecasting by using temperature and precipitation information from weather concepts. This idea was explored later by the BC RFC. The BC RFC also looked to the NOAA’s Northwest River Forecast Centre in the United States to develop their operations.

Although data from federal sources is used for forecasting, BC’s forecasting program is run exclusively by the province. Once a flood warning is issued, municipal agencies take on some emergency management responsibilities while Emergency Management BC (EMBC) – a provincial body – remains the primary authority for delegating emergency response. Thus, while floods are managed at the provincial level, BC works with local municipal authorities and federal agencies within a system that involves all levels of government.

Figure 4 shows a high-level summary of the BC flood forecasting program and the organizations/entities that are involved in/responsible for the various components of a flood forecasting program as described in Section 2. The sections that follow will describe each of these components in greater detail in the context of BC.

33 “Flood Projects,” Fraser Basin Council, accessed January 14, 2014, http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/water_flood_projects.html 34 Jeannie Mei Ling Lee, “Applications of Geographic Information System Data in the UBC Watershed Model,” (master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, 1996).

Figure 4: British Columbia's Flood Forecasting Program

7.2 Policy and Legislation Legislation, polices and regulations related to flood forecasting and monitoring in BC include:

• The Federal-Provincial Cost Sharing Agreement, which allows BC to access WSC data; • The British Columbia Flood Response Plan; which describes the roles and responsibilities of the provincial government and agencies for the management of a flood event; • The Emergency Program Act, which outlines when to declare local or provincial emergencies and the responsibilities of different authorities; • The Emergency Program Management Regulation, which delegates responsibilities to authorities of provincial ministers, ministries, programs and government agencies; • The Dike Maintenance Act, which provides a legislative basis for operations regarding dikes in BC; and • The BC Dam Safety Regulation, which outlines the methods for reporting and inspection guidelines and the application process35.

7.3 Data Collection and Monitoring The BC RFC relies on meteorological, streamflow and snow data to make forecasts36. The BC RFC uses data from the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC), the WSC and the BC Ministry of Environment (MoE).

In addition, the BC RFC collaborates with BC Hydro. BC Hydro produces hydrological models and forecasts and publishes a seasonal volume runoff forecast. The BC RFC receives insight into BC Hydro’s plans for the upcoming season, but this information is not relayed in a formal manner37.

7.3.1 Data Management There has been an identified need for a better data management system that integrates data acquisition, management, forecasting, analysis and reporting38. Currently, forecasters spend a significant amount of time manually inputting data into spreadsheets.

The spatial resolution of the weather observation and forecast data has also been identified as an area for improvement. A better way to integrate this information into the models is needed. This is particularly important for extreme rainfall events39.

35 Emergency Management BC, “The British Columbia Flood Response Plan,” 2012. 36 “River Forecast Centre,” British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2013, accessed January 23 2014, http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/ 37 David Campbell (Head of the BC River Forecast Centre) in discussion with Colin Savoy, January 2014. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.

7.3.2 Meteorological Data Meteorological data is provided by EC and is also collected by the BC RFC. The data provided by the MSC includes historical and average climate data40.

7.3.3 Streamflow Data Streamflow data is provided by WSC. The WSC has 458 hydrometric stations in BC. There are also several gauges in the Yukon along the Liard River, upstream of where it flows into BC. All of these stations measure daily and monthly mean flow, water level and sediment concentration41. The BC MoE also owns streamflow gauges on the Fraser River because it is the longest river in BC that runs solely within the provincial borders, and is the biggest concern for flooding.

The southern half of BC is well gauged but there are data gaps in the north where there are generally less gauges. Due to increased development in the north (primarily from mining, oil and gas and pipeline development), however, there is a greater need to add gauges in this area. The BC RFC also has access to American data and forecast centres due to trans-boundary rivers between BC and the USA42.

Using the WSC’s streamflow data, the BC RFC produces a 7-day average streamflow forecast. This information is used internally to predict timing of freshets and chances of overland flooding43. In addition, from July to October, the BC RFC produces a Streamflow and Water Supply Bulletin44.

7.3.4 Snow Data Snow data is collected by the MoE through snow surveys and automated data transmission from snow stations45,46. Snow data are shared with the US. The US also has its own monitoring gauges for snowpack in BC as part of its SNOTEL program47.

The MoE manually collects snow data at the beginning of the month from January to June, with additional data collection periods in the middle of May and June48. There are 180 stations that collect manual snow data but not all stations are used during each survey49. Data collection occurs within the

40 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010. 41 Ibid. 42 David Campbell (Head of the BC River Forecast Centre) in discussion with Colin Savoy, January 2014. 43 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010. 44 River Forecast Centre,” British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2013, accessed January 23 2014, http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/ 45 Ibid. 46 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010. 47 David Campbell (Head of the BC River Forecast Centre) in discussion with Colin Savoy, January 2014. 48 River Forecast Centre,” British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2013, accessed January 23 2014, http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/ 49 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010.

first five days of the month. After the data has been analyzed (approximately one week), it is published in the BC RFC’s Snow Survey and Water Supply Bulletin 50, 51, 52.

There are 48 ASPs throughout the province. Data from the ASPs is collected in BC’s Data Collection Platform and is transmitted to the GOES satellite, where it is then relayed to a receiver in Victoria, BC53. Data from the ASPs are collected every hour and transmitted every one to three hours54. The ASPs are powered by solar panels situated on top of them.

At the ASP sites, the BC RFC also has precipitation gauges and snow depth sensors. To ensure that precipitation gauges do not freeze, they are mounted three metres high above the snow pack and filled with propylene glycol. In the winter, snow is measured using snow water equivalent. Snow depth sensors are located six metres about the ground and measure the distance to the snow surface55. Both precipitation and snow depth data are transmitted to the GOES satellite and are presented to the receiver in NRT56.

7.3.5 Soil Moisture Data Soil moisture content is minimally monitored in BC. For this reason, the BC RFC uses an interpretation of soil moisture as an input into its forecasting model, rather than real data57.

7.3.6 Ocean Data The BC MoE, in partnership with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), forecasts storm surges using a model developed by the DFO’s Institute of Ocean Sciences in conjunction with weather forecasts from EC and the NOAA. This forecast can predict the variability between sea surface height and expected astronomical tide on a daily basis. The BC RFC uses the storm surge forecasts for flood forecasting as enhanced tides can play a role in determining when rivers flood. In particular, flow forecasts for the Lower Fraser River from Hope to Vancouver include storm surge forecasts.

50 River Forecast Centre,” British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2013, accessed January 23 2014, http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/ 51 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010. 52 David Campbell (Head of the BC River Forecast Centre) in discussion with Colin Savoy, January 2014. 53 River Forecast Centre,” British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2013, accessed January 23 2014, http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/ 54 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010. 55 River Forecast Centre,” British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2013, accessed January 23 2014, http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/ 56 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010. 57 David Campbell (Head of the BC River Forecast Centre) in discussion with Colin Savoy, January 2014.

7.4 Modelling and Forecasting The BC RFC uses a variety of models to forecast floods. The majority of the BC RFC’s focus, however, is on forecasting flows for the Fraser River. The BC RFC uses two models to forecast flows for the Fraser: the Fraser Routing Model (FROUT) and the Water and Routing Numeric System (WARNS).

FROUT is a mass balance model that inputs flows from the headwaters and moves them downstream58. This system provides reliable forecasts for the next 18-24 hours. FROUT provides forecasts exclusively for the Fraser River and not for its tributaries.

WARNS is a model that spans the geographical boundaries of the Fraser River and its tributaries, which account for about one third of the province. WARNS was developed in the mid-1970s after major flooding on the Fraser River and is a summation model that breaks tributaries into elevation bodies. This model uses snow, temperature and precipitation data. Specifically, WARNS can model snowmelt and add precipitation to predict river flow levels. The model can predict high flows up to five days in advance but is based on five day weather forecasts, which can be unreliable.

The BC RFC is currently developing a model called Clever, which is similar to WARNS but uses a different and more accurate methodology for calculating and routing flow. The Clever model will increase the time horizon of forecasts (currently at five days) and increase the time step from daily to hourly59. The BC RFC has acknowledged that additional work needs to be done to determine which model (between FROUT, WARNS and Clever) is best for a select area. This is made challenging due to various hydrologic regimes in BC (e.g., rain, rain on snow and snowmelt-driven forecasting).

There are still areas in the province that do not have a hydrologic model for forecasting. For these areas, grey modelling – interpreting data to generate a forecast – is used. Snowpack, snowmelt, river rise and precipitation data is used to make quantitative and qualitative interpretations60.

The BC RFC creates forecasts based on models, historic floods, as well as frequency and collaboration with on-the-ground observers. The BC RFC has identified a desire to tie in risk-based flood assessment with their forecasting and flood warnings. In addition, accommodating for climate change in all BC RFC models is a gap in the system, which the BC RFC is aware of61.

58 David Campbell (Head of the BC River Forecast Centre) in discussion with Colin Savoy, January 2014. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Arlington Group, “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia,” 2010.

7.4.1 Ice Jams Most of the major overland flooding experienced on the Peace River has been due to ice jamming in the spring, however, due to low flow rates on the Peace River between 1975 and 1996 there was no major flooding due to ice jamming. Since the 1970s, BC Hydro has been regulating the flows on the river with the Bennett Dam, and keeps flow levels low enough during the spring (when ice jamming most commonly occurs) to prevent any flooding.

While the timing of spring freshets can be forecasted, ice jamming is more difficult to pinpoint. Prince George has been prone to ice-jam flooding and in the winter of 2007-08, emergency response was required as a result of this type of flooding. This event paved the way for BC’s first Fraser Basin Council Flood Forum. Many actions were taken as a result of this forum, particularly those involving floodplain maps, flood level gauges and education, however forecasting of ice-jams remains a difficult task62.

7.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event The BC RFC maintains close contact with government agencies during the spring.

If data suggests that a flood is likely to occur, the BC RFC will issue an information notice on its website. There are three levels of notice: 1. High Streamflow Advisory (flooding is possible); 2. Flood Watch (possibility of riverbanks flooding); and, 3. Flood Warning (riverbanks are flooding or will soon flood).

7.5.1 Timing of Warnings If there is a weather system that has the potential to cause a flood event in BC, EC will initiate communication with the BC RFC. This communication is initiated 10 – 12 days before a potential event. The BC RFC will then communicate with EMBC. A specific forecast for a potential flood will be generated five days before a flood and a High Streamflow Advisory can occur anywhere from three days to 18 hours in advance of an event.

EMBC is the agency in charge of sharing flood-related information with local authorities. Frequency of communications may increase from one call every few days to two calls each day as the event comes closer, depending on the predicted severity. The EMBC, in correspondence with the BC RFC, will issue an official flood warning anywhere from three days to 18 hours in advance of an event.

62 “Flood Projects,” Fraser Basin Council, accessed January 14, 2014, http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/water_flood_projects.html

7.5.2 Emergency Management For the most successful readiness and response to flooding, all authorities and government agencies need to be aware of the risks and provide assistance as outlined in the BC Flood Response Plan. This response plan is an agreement between several ministries and agencies within the provincial government that describes the coordination of management during a flood event63.

The Central Coordination Group (CCG) is a response team co-chaired by the EMBC and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) (see Figure 5)64. The CCG meets before freshet to initiate early planning for when the snow pillows and weather reports are forecasting freshet flooding. The CCG may require input from other authorities such as the FLNRO, the Ministry of Health, BC Government Communications and Public Engagement, the Ministry of Agriculture and the MoE65.

Figure 5: British Columbia's Emergency Management System

63 Emergency Management BC, “The British Columbia Flood Response Plan,” 2012. 64 Emergency Management BC, “The British Columbia Flood Response Plan,” 2012 65 Ibid.

The MoTI may delegate the responsibility of managing flood response for specific sites and wider regions to the Ministry Regional Operation Centres (MROC) and District Operation Centers (DOC).

At this point, responsibility for flood response would fall into the hands of local police departments and local emergency coordinators.

7.5.3 Communication Methods A variety of warning communication systems are used throughout BC. Mass warning systems (e.g., sirens, bells, whistles) as well as radio, television and the internet are commonly used for issuing warnings. Mobile public address systems (e.g., where police physically drive around the town or city and issue an alert), fan-out systems (e.g., block captains) and door-to-door contact are also used in some areas66.

7.5.4 Flash Floods Currently, there are no specific warning systems in place to monitor for and warn against flash floods in BC. Rain-driven flash flooding or flooding caused by landslides that dam rivers cannot be forecasted by the BC RFC. These events are dealt with at a local level in response to the event, rather than in preparation of the flood.

7.6 Public Education and Awareness The BC RFC publishes a variety of publicly-available products. For example, during freshet, the BC RFC publishes a weekly summary that includes a forecast for the following week67.

While data monitoring, forecasting and the issuing of warnings are done at the provincial level, local organizations also take responsibility for flood-related work. The Fraser Basin Council, for example, is active in flood hazard mapping, mitigation techniques and flood planning68. The Council is also highly involved with public education and outreach – an important task that the BC RFC and other provincial groups do not have the capacity for69.

66 British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Land and Parks – Water Management Branch and Ministry of Attorney General – Provincial Emergency Program, “References,” Flood Planning and Response Guide for British Columbia, Accessed January 21, 2014, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/fld_plan_resp_guide_99/chapter4.pdf 67 David Campbell (Head of the BC River Forecast Centre) in discussion with Colin Savoy, January 2014. 68 Flood Projects,” Fraser Basin Council, accessed January 14, 2014, http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/water_flood_projects.html 69 Ibid.

8. Saskatchewan

8.1 Background Saskatchewan is an important case study due to proximity to Alberta and experience with similar river systems. In 2011, Saskatchewan experienced severe flooding and has since re-examined its flood forecasting and response abilities.

Figure 6 shows a high-level summary of the Saskatchewan flood forecasting program and organizations/entities that are involved in/responsible for the various components of a flood forecasting program as described in Section 2. The sections that follow will describe each of these components in greater detail in the context of Saskatchewan.

Figure 6: Saskatchewan's Flood Forecasting Program

The Saskatchewan Water Security Agency (WSA) is responsible for flood forecasting. The WSA is described as the agency that “leads management of the province’s water resources to ensure safe drinking water sources and reliable water supplies for economic, environmental and social benefits for

Saskatchewan people”70. The Saskatchewan River Forecast Centre (RFC) within the WSA is responsible for flood forecasting.

8.2 Policy and Legislation The WSA was created in 2012 to bring all water management functions in Saskatchewan together. It is mandated to “ensure protection of water quality, maintenance of aquatic habitats and sustainable water supplies and to lead implementation of the 25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan”, which has the vision of “water supporting economic growth, quality of life and environmental well-being”71.

The 25 Year Water Security Plan outlines the following actions related to flood forecasting: • Development of improved flood forecasting tools (2016) • Development of a provincial emergency flood response plan that addresses community, individual and local government responsibilities (2014) • Development of a strategy to ensure communities and the public have access to flood hazard information and are aware of potential flood risks (2014)72

There are several key actions related to flood forecasting in the WSA’s 2013-14 Annual Plan, including73: • provide real-time hydrometric information for emergency preparedness, flood mitigation and flood response; • assess potential spring runoff and flood risk, forecast flood risk and notify potentially impacted communities of flood risk; • explore common approaches and partnership opportunities regarding flood forecasting with Alberta, Manitoba and Canada; and • develop a strategy to ensure communities and the public have access to flood hazard information and are aware of potential flood risks.

8.3 Data Collection and Monitoring The Saskatchewan RFC monitors soil moisture, winter precipitation, meteorological forecasts and hydrological information.

70 “About WSA,” Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, accessed December 20, 2013, https://www.wsask.ca/About-WSA/ 71 Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, “Plan for 2013-14,” accessed December 20, 2013, http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/PlanningAndReporting/2013-14/SWSAPlan1314.pdf 72 Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, “25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan,” 2012, https://www.wsask.ca/Global/About WSA/25 Year Water Security Plan/WSA_25YearReportweb.pdf 73Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, “Plan for 2013-14,” accessed December 20, 2013, http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/PlanningAndReporting/2013-14/SWSAPlan1314.pdf

There is a 283-station hydrometric network in Saskatchewan that is jointly operated by the WSA and the Government of Canada74. Alberta ESRD provides snow survey data for the headwaters of the Saskatchewan river basin, and precipitation maps are provided by the Agri-Environment Services Branch (AESB) of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

In addition, the National Weather Service (NWS) now has precipitation stations in Saskatchewan that were put in place after the 2011 flooding75. The NWS works with Saskatchewan by providing the province data that can be used in forecasting models.

The Saskatchewan RFC uses the time series software AQUARIUS for data management76.

8.4 Modelling and Forecasting The Saskatchewan RFC publishes 10-day forecasts for streamflows and reservoir levels, which are available online. In addition, the province publishes general provincial spring runoff outlooks (provided from January through March). The outlooks provide forecasts of potential spring flow conditions and describe the general water supply in the province77.

8.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event Saskatchewan Protection and Emergency Services is

responsible for coordinating overall provincial emergency planning, training and response operations for the safety of Saskatchewan residents, and for the protection of property and the environment before, during and after an emergency or disaster. It is responsible for delivering programming and services in spring runoff preparedness and flood recovery78.

74 Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, “2012-13 Annual Report,” 2013, http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/PlanningAndReporting/2012-13/201213SWSAAnnualReport.pdf 75 Brian Connelly, “Flood Forecasting Methodology in North Dakota” (presentation, CWRA Manitoba Branch Workshop, Flood Forecasting: Fact vs. Fiction?, Winnipeg, MB, January 31, 2014). 76 Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, “2012-13 Annual Report,” 2013, http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/PlanningAndReporting/2012-13/201213SWSAAnnualReport.pdf 77 “Spring Runoff Potential as of March 5, 2013,” Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, https://www.wsask.ca/Global/Lakes and Rivers/Provincial Forecast/SpringPotential_Runoff_Mar05_2013.pdf 78“Protection and Emergency Services,” Government of Saskatchewan, 2014, http://gr.gov.sk.ca/Protection-and-Emergency-Services

8.6 Public Education and Awareness In March 2013, the WSA launched a new mobile website to provide information during flood season. The site provides access to news and advisories. Users are also able to “search a list of communities and find their local area and view a chart of the stream flows and lake levels nearest them”79.

79 “Water Security Agency Launches Mobile Website,” Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, 2013, https://www.wsask.ca/About-WSA/News-Releases/2013/March/WATER-SECURITY-AGENCY-LAUNCHES-MOBILE- WEBSITE-/

9. Manitoba

9.1 Background The province of Manitoba has a long history of flooding. There have been numerous floods since the early 1800s, with the most recent devastating floods occurring in 1950, 1997, 2009 and 2011. The cause of flooding in Manitoba is often a result of heavy rainfall and melting of snowpack.

The 2011 flood resulted in the formation of a Task Force with the mandate of evaluating the province’s capacity to forecast and manage flooding. According to the Task Force, the 2011 flood was the worst in the recorded history of Manitoba and the result of high soil moisture at freeze-up, above normal winter snow, additional snow and spring rain heavy summer rains and severe rain events80. As of April 2013, the costs associated with flood preparation, flood fighting and repairs to infrastructure and disasters payments related to the 2011 flood totaled $1.2 billion81.

Figure 7 shows a high-level summary of the Manitoba flood forecasting program and the organizations/entities involved in/responsible for the various components of Manitoba’s flood forecasting program. The sections that follow will describe each of these components in greater detail in the context of Manitoba.

80 Government of Manitoba, “Manitoba 2011 Flood Review Task Force Report,” 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/2011flood/flood_review_task_force_report.pdf 81 Ibid.

Figure 7: Manitoba's Flood Forecasting Program

As shown in Figure 7, the Hydrologic Forecast Centre (HFC) (located within the Hydrologic Forecasting and Water Management Division of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation [MIT]) is responsible for flood forecasting and monitoring. Prior to 2013, the HFC was located under Manitoba Water

Stewardship (before the Ministry changed to Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship). According to personal communication with Steve Topping, Executive Director of MIT, the HFC is better placed in MIT because it is the ministry responsible for infrastructure-related flood response. According to the MIT website, “the department’s water control, drainage and transportation infrastructure duties cover the construction, maintenance and operation of 19,000 kilometres of weather roads, 2,200 kilometres of winter roads, over 21,00 bridges and culverts, 4,700 kilometres of drains, 75 dams, 61 reservoirs, 41 pumping stations, 24 northern airports and many other components”82.

The responsibilities of the HFC include83: • Providing flood condition reports, forecasts and warnings, including: o Weekly river flow reports (prepared throughout the year) o Lake and reservoir status reports (prepared during open water season) o Flash flood warnings, watches and advisories issued due to heavy rainfall • Providing data and forecasts for the operation of dams, floodways and diversions • Reviewing development and subdivision proposals to ensure that they comply with provincial regulations regarding flood, erosion and bank stability risks o Providing data and expertise for flood proofing, design of water control works or infrastructure sensitive to water levels o Performing hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and modelling to determine impacts of developments, land use changes and climate change on water regimes. • Preparing maps used to assess watershed conditions to form the basis for flood outlooks and river forecasts (based on data collected by Manitoba Water Stewardship, other provincial or federal government departments or the US NWS).

Manitoba is a unique jurisdiction because a variety of major drainage basins are centrally located within the province (see Figure 8) and “accurate forecasts are highly dependent on forecasts from other neighbouring provinces and the US”84. For this reason, it is important for Manitoba to have strong working relationships with other jurisdictions, particularly Saskatchewan and North Dakota.

82 “About the Department”, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/index.html 83 “Flood Forecast Info,” Government of Manitoba, 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/index.html 84 Phillip Mutulu, “Flood Forecasting in Manitoba,” (presentation, Prairie Hydrology Workshop, Government of Manitoba, January 29 – 30, 2013).

Figure 8: Major Drainage Basins Contributing to Manitoba

9.2 Policy and Legislation There is no specific legislation, policy, regulations or plans related to Manitoba’s flood forecasting program. However, in the aftermath of the 2011 floods, the Manitoba government commissioned a task force to assess the province’s ability to forecast and respond to floods. The Task Force formulated 126 recommendations, some of which were specific to the flood forecasting program.

The Task Force’s assessment of the HFC found the following: • There was a lack of a dedicated operations centre where flood forecasters could work; • MANAPI was inadequate – because it is a snowmelt model, it was unable to produce reliable runoff forecasts for rainfall events; • There was a lack of data management for handling large volumes of rainfall data; • Long hours affected the accuracy and reliability of forecasts; “the forecasters worked anywhere from 12-18 hours a day continuously for a period of about 100 days. Eventually…these factors in combination with the relative inexperience of the forecasters began taking their toll on the accuracy and reliability of the forecasts”.

• Inexperienced forecasting ability: “The Task Force heard from a number of sources that the inadequacy or lack of succession planning within the provincial government was a concern. This was particularly evident in the HFC where relatively inexperienced forecasters were required to deal with a flood event far beyond anything they had ever faced.”85

9.3 Data Collection and Monitoring The HFC works with a variety of stakeholders to obtain data and forecasts. These stakeholders include: • Other jurisdictions o SWA o US NWS o USGS • Manitoba government o MLIT o Surface Water Management Section, Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship o Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (MAFRD) o Manitoba Hydro • University of Manitoba • Consultants, such as Weather Innovations Consulting (WIN) • Public participation, such as Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS) network • EC and WSC

The HFC relies on information from meteorological and hydrometric stations. Meteorological stations are sparsely distributed throughout the province. The majority of hydrometric stations are WSC sites86.

The following data is collected: • Soil moisture (soil moisture condition at freeze up). Soil moisture is represented by the Antecedent Precipitation Index (API), which is based on a monthly weighting of the previous year’s percentage of normal precipitation. API is an indicator of soil moisture but not an explicit measurement and does not account for unusual weather conditions. Maps are produced that show cumulative precipitation up to freeze up, based on data from EC, MAFRD, Manitoba Fire Program, WIN and NWS. Soil moisture maps are produced based on satellite images and the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model.

85 Government of Manitoba, “Manitoba 2011 Flood Review Task Force Report,” 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/2011flood/flood_review_task_force_report.pdf 86 Akinbola George, “Flood Forecasting in Manitoba,” (presentation, CWRA Manitoba Branch Workshop, Flood Forecasting: Fact vs. Fiction?, Winnipeg, MB, January 31, 2014).

• Snow: The HFC uses data such as winter precipitation (based on data from EC and the NWS), snow depth, snow distribution (based on MODIS satellite images from NASA) and snow cover condition. • Hydrologic: The HFC relies on near-real time data collected from the WSC, USGS and NWS. Field measurements are provided by the WSC, MIT, consultants and the SWA. • Meteorological: Meteorological data is collected from local weather forecast websites, EC, the Weather Network, the Manitoba Fire Program, Spot Wx and the NWS.

Former acting Director of the HFC, Akinbola George, noted that Manitoba’s current meteorological and hydrometric data network is sparse87. To address this, Manitoba is assessing how data from other sources such as CoCoRaHS could help with its forecasting program. Manitoba currently uses the AQUARIUS data management software.

9.4 Modelling and Forecasting The HFC uses a model called the Manitoba Antecedent Precipitation Index (MANAPI). The MANAPI has been in use since the early 1970s in Manitoba. It is used for routine flood forecasting. Continuous improvements are always being made to the model.

The HFC has identified some limitations of MANAPI and include the inability to account for88: • Depression storage (e.g. prairie potholes) • Soil moisture distribution • Land use and cover • Physics of snowmelt • Frozen soil • Two dimensional overbank flows • Runoff from rainstorms • Ice-related flooding • Hysteresis effects (dependence of a system on past and current environment)

Many of these limitations, however, currently apply to many hydrologic models and are not necessarily Manitoba-specific challenges89.

87 Akinbola George, “Flood Forecasting in Manitoba,” (presentation, CWRA Manitoba Branch Workshop, Flood Forecasting: Fact vs. Fiction?, Winnipeg, MB, January 31, 2014). 88 Phillip Mutulu, “Flood Forecasting in Manitoba,” (presentation, Prairie Hydrology Workshop, Government of Manitoba, January 29 – 30, 2013) and Akinbola George, “Flood Forecasting in Manitoba,” (presentation, CWRA Manitoba Branch Workshop, Flood Forecasting: Fact vs. Fiction?, Winnipeg, MB, January 31, 2014).

89 Akinbola George, “Flood Forecasting in Manitoba,” (presentation, CWRA Manitoba Branch Workshop, Flood Forecasting: Fact vs. Fiction?, Winnipeg, MB, January 31, 2014).

The HFC is currently pilot testing the Delft-FEWS framework. The HFC is interested in the FEWS framework because Manitoba flood forecasters require an improved method of data management and because many counterparts in the US use FEWS.

9.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event In Manitoba, the HFC provides flood alerts. A high water advisory is issued when a heavy storm or high flows are expected and may cause water levels to rise but not necessarily to exceed bankfull. A flood watch is issued when river levels are approaching bankfull stage and are likely to overflow. Flood warnings are issued when river levels are exceeding bankfull and a flood is occurring or imminent90.

MIT sets up Flood Liaison Offices around the province when the province deems it necessary. These offices provide information on existing and forecasted flood levels, site specific topographic information for locations within the Red River Valley Designated Flood Area, highway information and general information about floodway operations.

Because of Manitoba’s geographical location, the province can expect one to two weeks of lead time before a flood event.

9.6 Public Education and Awareness The HFC produces a variety of products, outlined in below.

90 “Flood Report for Manitoba – May 13, 2013,”Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/floodoutlook/forecast_centre/daily_reports/2013/en/flood_report_may_31_ 2013.pdf

Table 4: Hydrologic Forecast Centre Information Products Product Description Spring Flood • Prepared during the winter months Outlooks • Usually issued in late February and late March • Provides estimates of peak flows and river stages for the lower, median and upper deciles for the weather conditions of the preceding months • Peak river level forecasts provided primarily for larger rivers • Peak flow forecasts provided primarily for smaller streams • Comparative peaks from past years are shown Wind Alerts on • Wind can push water up lake banks Major Lakes Weekly Lake Level • Weekly information on lake levels Weekly Flow • Weekly information on river flows Reports Flood Sheets • Daily water levels and forecasts for select locations • Data includes flow (cms), stage (metre), change from previous dates, total rise (metre), forecasted peak (metre) and previous peak stages and flows • Issued only when runoff from snowmelt or rainfall is underway Daily Flood • Issued when runoff (from snowmelt or rainfall) is already underway Reports • Based partly on observed streamflows and river levels in headwater areas • Usually updated on a daily basis when there is significant flooding • Includes daily narrative report explaining river conditions and forecasts • Forecasts based on existing watershed conditions and normal future weather conditions • Outline weather, description of impacts on the rivers • Flood routing performed for larger rivers • Flood sheets distributed via email and website, they show anticipated peak stages and dates • Publicly-available and accessed online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/floodoutlook/forecasts_reports.html#daily_flood _reports Daily Hydrographs • Prepared in the case of a serious flood event • Provided to flood fighters, planners, emergency responders • Show observed river levels and predicted levels for the next 7-10 days • New product that began for the Red River in 2010, will extend to other rivers in the future Maps • Precipitation • Moisture (ground conditions of moisture) • Snow depth

10. Ontario

10.1 Background In Ontario, floods are typically caused by melting snow, ice jams and heavy spring and summer rain and thunderstorms. In the summer of 2013, the City of Toronto suffered flash flooding as a result of severe thunderstorms. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), the July 8, 2013 flooding was Ontario’s most costly natural disaster to date, with preliminary damage costs reaching $850 million91. Additionally, parts of Northern Ontario experienced flooding in the fall of 2013. This flooding resulted in significant infrastructure damage and the loss of one life92.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Ontario Conservation Authorities are responsible for flood awareness and warning programs that are now integrated into a provincial emergency management framework93. The Surface Water Monitoring Centre (SWMC), a group that operates within the MNR, is the main group responsible for flood forecasting: monitoring water levels on lakes, rivers, streams and reporting potential flooding to the Conservation Authorities94.

The shared responsibility for flood management in Ontario came about after Hurricane Hazel caused extensive damage in 1954. After this storm and subsequent flood, flood management programs, including improved flood forecasting measures, were implemented and are still in existence today. Central to Ontario’s approach to flood management is a focus on warning the public of potential and imminent flooding, which is a direct result of the 1954 Hurricane Hazel disaster.

Ontario’s flood forecasting system is rooted within a collaborative process that uses the expertise of specific agencies to produce timely and accurate flood forecasts and warnings to the public. Responsibilities for promoting flood awareness are with local Conservation Authorities that vary in size across Ontario. Conservation Authorities are mandated to protect and manage Ontario’s water systems (lakes, rivers, streams, woodlands, and wetlands) and develop flood awareness programs that protect people and property from natural hazards such as flooding and subsequent erosion95. More broadly, the MNR is responsible for maintaining the Provincial Flood Warning System that alerts municipalities of potential flooding. Within the MNR is the SWMC, which monitors flood indicators and provides daily information and analysis to Conservation Authorities on flood risks throughout the province96. By 10:00 am every morning, the SWMC provides the results of an Antecedent Precipitation

91 “July flash flood Ontario’s most costly natural disaster,” Metro News, August 14, 2013, accessed October 30, 2013. http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/766586/july-flood-ontarios-most-costly-natural-disaster/ 92 “Northern Ontario floods leave man dead, four communities under state of emergency,” The Globe and Mail, September 10, 2013, accessed October 30, 2013. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/northern-ontario-floods- leave-man-dead-four-communities-under-state-of-emergency/article14233318/ 93 “Flood Protection and Prevention,” Conservation Ontario, presentation, 2010. Accessed January 27, 2014. 94 “Flood Monitoring- What MNR Does,” Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Accessed October 31, 2013, http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/EmergencyManagement/2ColumnSubPage/270719.html 95 “Flood Protection and Prevention,” Conservation Ontario, presentation, 2010, accessed January 27, 2014. 96 “Flood Protection and Prevention,” Conservation Ontario, presentation, 2010, accessed January 27, 2014, pg. 20.

Index Model to Conservation Authorities and MNR Districts that indicate potential flooding scenarios from predicted rainfall and snowmelt measurements. The roles and responsibilities of the SWMC are strictly to forecast, interpret and construct warnings for local municipalities and Conservation Authorities.

Figure 9 shows a high-level summary of the Ontario flood forecasting program and the organizations/entities that are involved in/responsible for the various components of a flood forecasting program as described in Section 2. The sections that follow will describe each of these components in greater detail in the context of Ontario.

Figure 9: Ontario's Flood Forecasting Program

10.2 Data Collection and Monitoring The SWMC relies on data from a variety of sources. Data and information on watershed conditions in Ontario are monitored and provided by EC; the WSC provides data from streamflow gauging systems;

NOAA provides weather data; Ontario Power Generation provides snow data; and the Conservation Authorities conduct small-scale data collection on local conditions97. The SWMC then uses this data for flood modelling and forecasting.

The SWMC has identified thawing ice and ice jams, storm surges, rainfall and snowmelt as the main reasons for flooding throughout the province of Ontario, for this reason, watershed conditions are monitored holistically so that upstream and downstream impacts of flooding can be accounted for. For example, ice blasting is performed in Ottawa every spring to lessen the potential for spring flooding downstream of the Rideau River. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) is responsible for breaking-up the ice with funding and support from the province and municipality to perform this flood mitigation strategy98.

The SWMC uses the WISKI data platform to manage information such flow data (rivers and dams), precipitation, water levels, water temperature, air temperature, wind speed, wind direction, snow depth and snow/ water equivalent99.

10.3 Modelling and Forecasting The SWMC uses an Antecedent Precipitation Index Model to indicate potential flooding scenarios from predicted rainfall and snowmelt measurements.

10.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event The SWMC constructs flood warnings and sends these warnings to the Conservation Authorities and the MNR Districts. Both the Conservation Authorities and the MNR Districts communicate flood risks and emergency protocol to local authorities, media outlets and the public.

In Ontario, there are two main types of flood messages; local messages and provincial messages. The Conservation Authorities are responsible for issuing local messages to specific municipalities within their region. The MNR District agencies are responsible for providing local flood warnings to remote and Northern municipalities that Conservation Authorities are not responsible for. Local messages include: flood warnings that warn the public of imminent flooding, flood advisories that communicate the potential for flooding in specific areas and Flood Outlook Statements that provide early notice of flood conditions 100. On the other hand, provincial messages are provided by the SWMC and provide

97 “Ontario Flood Forecasting and Warning,” Ministry of Natural Resources, Version 1.0 (2008), pg.18. 98 “Rideau River Flood Control,” City of Ottawa, http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/air-land-and- water/rideau-river-flood-control 99 “Surface Water Monitoring Centre Extranet,” Government of Ontario, http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Water/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_178320.html 100 “Dodging the Perfect Storm: Conservation Ontario’s Business Case for Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs, Services and Structures,” Conservation Ontario, September 2013, pg. 6.

broad and higher-level information for authorities and partner ministries to be aware of. Provincial flood messages can include a Provincial Flood Watch Statement that provides technical information on imminent flooding that authorities can use to respond to flood emergencies or a Provincial Watershed Conditions Statement that provides general, high-level information on watershed conditions101.

Prior to releasing a local or provincial flood message, the decision to issue a warning is based on data that shows stream flow, weather conditions, snow accumulation and soil moisture conditions. This decision is made by a duty officer at the SWMC who is supported by an engineer, a hydrogeologist, three other duty officers, and two policy advisors102. Once it is determined that a flood will occur, Conservation Authorities establish a Flood Watch Centre where staff begin the emergency response procedure that allows for updates to be constantly communicated to local authorities and municipalities. In Ontario, flood warnings are communicated as early as they can be detected, which is typically two to four days notice prior to a flood event103.

101 “What are Provincial and Local Flood Messages?” Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/EmergencyManagement/2ColumnSubPage/239496.html 102 Written interview with Emily Higginson, Water Level Management Specialist at the Surface Water Monitoring Centre, Government of Ontario, January 31, 2014. 103 Ontario Flood Forecasting and Warning: Implementation Guidelines for Conservation Authorities and the Ministry of Natural Resources.” Ministry of Natural Resources: Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee, (2008) pg. 30.

11. European Union

11.1 Background Spring 2013 proved to be a devastating year for Europe due to the extreme flooding of the Danube and Elbe Rivers. Weeks of heavy rainfall caused water levels to rise significantly and flooding impacted central European countries such as Austria, Germany, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. In Germany, flooding resulted in the evacuation of tens of thousands of people and significant infrastructure damage that exceeded a record set in 2002104.

11.2 Policy and Legislation Both the EU Water Framework Directive and the EU Floods Directive provide guidance to Member States on overall water management and flood preparedness. In 2007, the European Commission implemented the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC, which requires all Member States to assess and manage flood risks in their respective jurisdictions due to numerous damaging floods that had occurred since 1998105. Member States are required to produce flood management strategies that address regional and local circumstances and risks106. Once a flood management strategy is created, Member States must undertake preliminary flood risk assessments, establish flood hazard maps and implement flood risk management plans. Because the EU provides a broad policy framework for Member States, no specific flow chart diagram has been created to describe its processes.

Flood forecasting is addressed in the EU Floods Directive in that Member States are required to develop best practices relevant to their jurisdiction. The mandate set out in the EU Floods Directive is “to establish a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at the reduction of the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the community”107. As a result of this mandate, there are multiple shared programs (i.e. WISE, EFAS and LISFLOOD, which are described below) and management plans between countries. This high-level of collaboration ensures that flood risks are addressed for every water basin despite international borders.

The EU Floods Directive requires Member States to produce three documents to aid in flood forecasting and preparedness measures. These documents include: a preliminary flood risk assessment (due in 2011); Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps (due in 2013); and Flood Risk Management Plans (due in 2015). Assessments, maps and plans are submitted to the European Commission, which coordinates the information with the EU Water Framework Directive. For example, flood risk

104 “Europe Floods: Hungary Danube Set for Record High,” BBC News: Europe, June 7, 2013, accessed November 1, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22811172 105 “A New EU Floods Directive,” European Commission, accessed November 1, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/ 106 “Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,” European Commission, OJ L 311, 6.11.2007, pg. 2(10). 107 “A New EU Floods Directive,” European Commission, accessed November 1, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/

management plans are coordinated with river basin management plans that also consider other factors such as long-term developments, climate change and sustainable land-use practices108.

The European Commission is responsible for ensuring that Member States adhere to the EU Flood Directive and also oversees the function of agencies including: the Directorate General (DG) of Environment, the Joint Research Centre and Eurostat. The European Commission uses the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) with the European Environment Agency (EEA) to gain knowledge of water issues throughout Europe including flood information109. Otherwise known as the Group of Four, each of these agencies have a specific role and responsibility when it comes to overall flood management. The DG of Environment leads the policy and strategy aspect of WISE while liaising with Member States on reporting requirements for legislation such as the EU Flood Directive. The EEA hosts the WISE webpage and Water Data Centre while the Joint Research Centre conducts monitoring and modelling services that contribute directly to flood forecasting. Lastly, Eurostat collects and disseminates data related to water – such as flood indicators and GIS data – and uploads it to WISE110. The legislative approach to flood forecasting used in the EU promotes collaboration between different Member States to produce congruent flood risk assessments, maps and management plans. The cooperation and division of roles and responsibilities between different agencies within the EU ensures that all flood forecasting information and data is being addressed.

11.3 Data Collection and Monitoring The European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) – a European Commission initiative - monitors data collected from 5,000 meteorological stations and 500 hydrological stations across Europe. The Global Runoff Data Centre in Germany, European Terrestrial Network for River Discharge and the European Hydrological Services also provide data to inform overall flood forecasting for the EU. Data used in the EU’s flood forecasting model, LISFLOOD, include: rainfall, snow accumulation and snowmelt, soil and vegetation moisture, surface runoff, groundwater runoff, and wave height.

In addition, the European Exchange Circle on Flood Mapping (EXCIMAP) and the European Exchange Circle on Flood Forecasting (EXCIFF) are two European bodies established to focus on knowledge and information concerning flood risks. EXCIMAP reviews current flood mapping practices in Europe while EXCIFF provides flood monitoring and detection practices that are useful to flood forecasting111.

108 “A New EU Floods Directive,” European Commission, accessed November 1, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/ 109 “The Water Information System for Europe,” European Commission and European Environment Agency, accessed November 1, 2013, http://water.europa.eu/ 110 Ibid. 111 “Handbook on Good Practices for Flood Mapping in Europe,” EXCIMAP, November 2007, pg. 5.

11.4 Modelling and Forecasting While multiple agencies within the EU are responsible for flood management, the Joint Research Council (JRC) is responsible for monitoring and forecasting floods. The JRC operates within the European Commission and uses the EFAS.

Established by the European Commission in 2010, EFAS provides an overview of ongoing and forecasted flood risks in Europe to provide early warnings to local populations and communities112. The goal of EFAS is to provide early flood forecasts to hydrological service organizations and provide forecasts more than three days in advance of a flood event113. To achieve this, EFAS collects 70 different numerical weather forecasts from sources including the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Deutscher WetterDienst (DWD) and the European Consortium on Meteorology - Limited Area Ensemble Prediction System (COSMO-LEPS)114.

EFAS uses LISFLOOD – a GIS-based hydrological rainfall run-off routing model - that combines historical information and real-time data, to produce hydrological forecasts. To identify areas at risk of flooding, LISFLOOD uses topographical maps combined with flood hazard maps and hydrological models to identify areas where river systems could overflow115.

11.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event EFAS provides flood alert information to authorities in specific countries and regions approximately three to ten days in advance of a flood. EFAS has been known to provide accurate early warnings three to six days prior to a flood116. In the event of a flood, a flood warning email is sent to members of the National Hydrological Service (NHS) that fluvial flooding is likely to occur. Subsequently, the NHS can access an overview of flood warnings and alerts on a protected web server to determine next steps for flood preparedness. Typically, once EFAS provides a warning to a region expecting flooding, that country or jurisdiction is responsible for implementing preparedness and response measures.

112 “European Flood Awareness System (EFAS),” European Commission: Joint Research Centre, http://www.efas.eu/ 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 115 “LISFLOOD Model,” European Commission Joint Research Centre: Institute for Environment and Sustainability, accessed November 1, 2013, http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lisflood-model.html 116 “European Flood Awareness System (EFAS),” European Commission: Joint Research Centre, http://www.efas.eu/

12. Netherlands

12.1 Background The Netherlands, an EU member state (see section 11), has an extensive history and experience with flooding as a result of the country’s low-laying geography where approximately 26 percent of the country is below sea level117. As a result, flood management practices are well-developed to address geographical and coastline challenges in a country with widespread river systems and a high population growth rate. The Netherlands’ experiences with flood management and implementing state-of-the art flood control measures have captured international attention and remain a model for other jurisdictions.

In 1916 and 1953, serious floods impacted the Netherlands’ low laying regions that included the cities of Amsterdam, the Hague and Rotterdam. Dikes built to contain these major floods proved effective. However, constantly restructuring and reinforcing these structures was unfeasible, especially in densely populated areas.118 To address the need for more permanent flood-prevention measures, enormous dams were built on flood-prone rivers such as the Rhine and Meuse. Smaller mitigation measures have also been implemented, such as controlling the muskrat population that burrows into dike structures and weakening their integrity119. The Dutch government spends 1.3 billion Euros per year to maintain these and other flood control structures. Local water boards also spend millions on structural maintenance120.

Flood control in the Netherlands is an evolving field where new approaches prioritize the environment. For example, following extremely high water levels in 1993 and 1995 that resulted in the evacuation of a quarter million people, the Room for the River program was established to facilitate increased quantities of water and higher flow rates121.

Over time, the Netherlands has developed an integrated system of flood forecasting that utilizes expertise from different institutions and research organizations. The Water Management Centre (WMCN) is the information centre for the overall Dutch water system while the National Meteorological Institute (KNMI) provides weather forecasts. Deltares, a private company, provides models and data to the WMCN. This information is then disseminated to authorities who can intervene and manage water in the event of a flood.

117 “Did you Know?” Holland, http://www.holland.com/global/tourism/article/did-you-know.htm 118 Andrew Higgins, “Lessons for U.S. from a Flood-Prone Land,” The New York Times, November 14, 2013, accessed November 1, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/europe/netherlands-sets-model-of-flood- prevention.html?_r=0 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid. 121 “Room for the River Programme,” Programme Directorate, http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/meta- navigatie/english/room-for-the-river-programme/

In the Netherlands, flood protection is the responsibility of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment while emergency services remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Security and Justice. Both of these departments function within the “Rijkswaterstaat”, which is the National Water Authority responsible for Public Works, Transport, and Water Management. Beneath this national level of government, twelve provinces are responsible for planning flood infrastructure projects such as building dams and dikes. Approximately four-hundred municipalities throughout the Netherlands also have a role in flood mitigation decision-making and are represented by an elected mayor. At the same level as municipalities, there are 25 regional water boards whose main function is water management and flood protection122.

While the Netherlands remains a world leader in flood mitigation and infrastructure, their approach to flood forecasting and modelling is considered to be among the best in the world. The Netherlands’ flood forecasting program is outlined in Figure 10.

122 Robert Slomp, “Risk and Water Management in the Netherlands: A 2012 Update,” Rijkswaterstaat, July 9, 2012, pg. 35-37.

Figure 10: The Netherlands' Flood Forecasting Program

12.2 Policy and Legislation In addition to this system of flood forecasting already in place in the Netherlands, the EU Flood Directive also requires updated flood risk assessments, flood hazard maps, and flood risk management

plans from all EU member states (see Section11), including the Netherlands123. Implementation of the Flood Directive has been ongoing since 2008, with involvement from the private company Deltares. Deltares has provided data and information to produce several hundred inundation simulations, guidelines for flood hazard and risk maps, as well as flood hazard maps that show potential consequences for a range of flooding scenarios124.

12.3 Data Collection and Monitoring Data collected includes precipitation, wind, water levels and coastal conditions. All data gathered from monitoring stations, meteorological forecasts from the KNMI and hydrological models provided by Deltares are sent to the WMCN where data is interpreted. Based on this data, the WCMN provides information to authorities and the general public.

12.3.1 Data Management Created by Deltares, Delft-FEWS is a hydrological forecast and warning system used by flood forecasters all over the world in countries like England, Wales and Scotland, the Netherlands, the United States and parts of Asia. The primary focus of the Delft-FEWS system is to provide users with a forum to manage data and produce drought and flood forecasts125. In addition to this, the Delft-FEWS system can also be used for water resources management, groundwater monitoring, water quality forecasting and real-time control126.

For flood forecasting, Delft-FEWS ensures that external data can be imported to further determine hydrological and meteorological data to further predict flooding. This use of external data allows Delft- FEWS to provide a wide range of information to users that has otherwise been unavailable. In order to provide this information, data is passed through a process of validation, interpolation and transformation to ensure a good-quality final forecast127.

The Delft-FEWS system differs from other modelling frameworks in that it is an open system that allows for a wide range of models to be used128. For the user, Delft-FEWS provides easy to read and understand forecasts that provide graphical information and map-based displays that can be viewed in a variety of formats such as HTML129. To display this information, Delft-FEWS pulls hydrological data from various sources identified from the user such as satellites or point measurements of

123 “Implementation of the EU Flood Directive,” Deltares, pg. 1. 124 Ibid, pg. 4. 125 “Delft-FEWS Software.” Deltares. (2010): Pg. 2. 126 “Introduction to Delft-FEWS.” Deltares. (July 2009): Pg. 2. 127 Ibid, pg. 4. 128 Ibid, pg. 10. 129 Ibid, pg. 15.

precipitation. In the event of a flood, Delft-FEWS will process this indicator data to provide an alert to the flood forecaster who can then determine the possible extent of flooding and subsequent actions.

The Delft-FEWS system has become a popular choice amongst flood forecasters around the world due to the system’s ability to provide a foundation for models and data to coexist to produce flood forecasts. This system has ultimately changed the rigid input/output format of other flood forecasting systems to utilize greater flexibility in using data and models130, which has in turn improved overall flood forecasting in many countries.

12.4 Modelling and Forecasting The SOBEK model is used by Deltares. SOBEK is a standard hydraulic model that focuses on how to move water downstream without causing extensive damage. The SOBEK model can be input into the Delft-FEWS framework131. Delft-FEWS is a state-of-the-art data management, hydrological forecast and warning system built by Deltares and used by the Government of the Netherlands to provide early warning to flood forecasters and emergency authorities. Input data into the system includes: water levels, precipitation, meteorological forecast data, radar data and numerical weather predictions132.

The KNMI provides meteorological data. The KNMI operates the HiRLAM numerical model, which calculates and predicts weather events two days in advance and within a 55 kilometre range133.

Alternative models and forecasts can also be obtained from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office and Dutch Continental Shelf Model if more information is required.

12.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event In the event of a flood, warnings are generated by the WMCN and sent by e-mail to the twenty-five regional water boards and the Rijkswaterstaat. Typically, warnings can be provided by KNMI and Delft- FEWS two days in advance of a flood. Given the reliable information, efficient protocol in-place and interconnectedness between agencies, the Dutch model of flood forecasting remains a leading example.

130 M. Werner et al., “Delft-FEWS Flow Forecasting System,” Environmental Monitoring & Software 40 (2013): pg. 67. 131 Edwin Welles (Hydrologist at Deltares), interview with Lindsay Kline, January 23, 2014. 132 Ibid. 133 “Rainfall Forecasts with a Very High Resolution Version of HiRLAM,” KNMI, accessed November 2013, http://www.knmi.nl/~bruijnde/ireland/wm_am_en.html

13. United Kingdom (England and Scotland)

13.1 Background Historically, the UK, an EU member state (see section 11), has experienced significant coastal and fluvial flooding that has impacted infrastructure and local economies throughout the state. Flooding that occurred in the winter of 2014 in English communities along the River Thames provides an example of how extensive and harrowing flooding can be in this region. As flood vulnerability remains high in the UK, outstanding flood forecasting and response programs in both England and Scotland have proven capable of responding to these natural disasters in a coordinated and proactive manner.

In England, the Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring, forecasting, interpreting forecasts, constructing warnings and communicating these warnings to the public. Similarly, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is also responsible for these areas of flood forecasting, but operates solely within Scotland.

In the UK, the Meteorological Office (otherwise known as the Met Office), is the national weather service that provides meteorological and hydrological information and data to the Environment Agency and SEPA134. For flood forecasting purposes, involvement of the Met Office ensures that weather forecasts are included to predict the timing and likelihood of flooding so that emergency responders can prepare and respond in a timely way. The Met Office collaborates with both the Environment Agency and SEPA through the Flood Forecasting Centre in England and Scottish Flood Forecasting Service in Scotland. England and Scotland’s flood forecasting program is outlined in Figure 11. It is important to note that the sections to follow focus only on the forecasting programs in England and Scotland, not the broader UK.

134 “About Us,” Met Office, accessed January 2014, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us

Figure 11: England and Scotland's Flood Forecasting Program

13.2 Data Collection and Monitoring In order to provide forecasts and subsequent warnings, the Environment Agency and SEPA monitor rainfall, river levels, groundwater levels and sea conditions to determine flood risk135. The data provided by these indicators is integral to determining flood risk in specific areas and communities throughout England and Scotland.

13.3 Modelling and Forecasting After major flooding throughout the United Kingdom in spring 2007, the British Government requested that Sir Michael Pitt conduct an independent review of the flood and what changes could be implemented to prevent further damage and destruction. Once produced, the report (nicknamed the Pitt Review) called for widespread and fundamental changes to the way flood forecasting and warning was approached in the UK136. Ultimately, this report led to the creation of the Flood Forecasting Centre (FFC) in England and the Scottish Flood Forecasting Service (SFFS) in 2009.

Both agencies are fully operational at twenty-four hours per day and seven days per week with employees from the Met Office and Environment Agency/ SEPA137. This fully-operational and around- the-clock system ensures that hydro-meteorological data is continuously monitored so that the most up-to-date information can be provided. The FFC and SFFS receive: • Meteorological and hydrological monitoring data from the Met Office and Environment Agency/ SEPA; • Coastal storm surge information from the National Oceanography Centre; and • Data from the National River Flow Archive to further produce flood forecasts and warnings.

This level of collaboration, especially between hydrological and meteorological agencies, provides various stakeholders with the information they need to prepare for a flood. Both the FFC and SFFS produce daily Flood Guidance Statements that assess the risk of coastal, tidal, river, groundwater and surface water flooding. Each Flood Guidance Statement offers a risk-assessment for flooding that considers weather forecasts, flood forecasts, catchment conditions and the operational status of flood defences138. Produced every morning at 10:30am, Flood Guidance Statements are intended for initial use by emergency responders, local authorities, governments and municipalities. Information provided in each of these statements equips emergency responders and local authorities to plan and prepare

135 “How We Forecast Floods, Issue Warnings, and Communicate Flood Risk,” Environment Agency, accessed January 2014, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31680.aspx 136 “The Pitt Review- Lessons Learned from the 2007 Floods,” Environment Agency, accessed January 2013, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/33889.aspx 137 “Scottish Flood Forecasting Service,” Met Office, accessed February 2014, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publicsector/devolved/scotland-flood-forecasting-service 138 “Flood Guidance Statement: User Guide Version 2.1,” Flood Forecasting Centre, May 2013, pg. 2.

for flooding as well as interface with the public and mass media to communicate warnings and plans of action. Alongside each Flood Guidance Statement is a coloured risk matrix that indicates the potential impacts and risk of river, coastal, surface water and groundwater flooding139. Representing a variety of likelihoods and impacts in each risk matrix provides emergency responders with the ability to prepare and respond to a variety of flooding conditions.

While both England and Scotland use similar approaches to flood forecasting and warning communication, both jurisdictions have made small changes to the general UK model. These changes help to facilitate the specific concerns and issues in each respective country.

13.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event Depending on the likelihood of a flood, three warnings can be produced: 1. Flood Alert: 2. Flood Warning; and 3. Severe Flood Warning140.

To communicate these risks, warnings are broadcast on local radio and television stations and published to the Floodline information service that is updated every 15 minutes. Floodline is a direct warning service in both England and Scotland that the public can sign-up for to receive advance notification of imminent flooding. Notification can be received by phone (land-line or mobile) or online and warning messages are relevant to the area customers live141. Floodline is a source of up-to-date and reliable information that the public can use to determine the risks of coastal and river flooding in their area.

13.5 Public Education and Awareness In addition to their monitoring, forecasting and communication roles, the Environment Agency and SEPA produce flood risk maps that show areas and communities at risk of flooding. Three maps can be produced showing risks of flooding from the sea, rivers, reservoirs, groundwater and surface water. Additionally, flood risk maps are produced that show three-day flood risk forecasts throughout England and Scotland142. This is an excellent resource posted to the online Floodline information service. The public can view this information at any time to determine the risk of flooding in their areas to further prepare and plan accordingly.

139 “Flood Risk Matrix” in Flood Guidance Statement: User Guide Version 2.1, Flood Forecasting Centre, May 2013, pg. 4. 140 Ibid. 141 “Floodline’s Direct Warning Service,” SEPA, accessed January 2014, http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/sepas_floodline_service.aspx 142 “Three Day Flood Risk Forecast,” Environment Agency, accessed January 2014, http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/3days/125305.aspx

14. France

14.1 Background France, an EU member state (see section 11), has experienced several major floods over the past two decades. For example, in 2002 and 2005, flooding in the Gard region in south-eastern France caused considerable damage and loss of life. In both these instances, rainfall accumulations exceeded average monthly rainfall amounts in a matter of days. The September 2002 flood saw rainfall accumulation that exceeded 600 millimetres in 12 hours. The resulting floods caused 24 deaths and approximately $1.6 billion in economic losses143. In June 2010, there was significant flooding in the region that killed 19 people and severely impacted local towns and villages144. Again, in the winter of 2014, major flooding occurred as a result of heavy rainfall that impacted the region over the course of several days145. France’s flood forecasting program is outlined in Figure 12.

143 “Flash Floods and Urban Flooding in France,” Climate Adaptations, accessed March 12, 2014, http://www.climateadaptation.eu/france/flash-floods-and-urban-flooding/ 144 Ibid. 145 “Flood Hit South-Eastern France After Record Rainfall,” Euronews, January 20, 2014., accessed March 12, 2014, http://www.euronews.com/2014/01/20/floods-hit-south-eastern-france-after-record-rainfall/

Figure 12: France's Flood Forecasting Program

Located in Toulouse, France, Service Central d’Hydrometeorologie et d’Appui a la Prevision des Inondations (SCHAPI) is the technical flood forecasting centre within the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Planning that provides meteorological and hydrological information.

Created in 2003, SCHAPI was implemented to aid in the response to severe thunderstorms and torrential rain storms that impact regions of France, specifically the Gard region. The main purpose and mandate of SCHAPI is to inform the public of imminent flood risks through the use of flood vigilance maps. SCHAPI coordinates flood forecasting at the national level to further support State Local Service (SPC) centres146. Since 2005, SCHAPI has produced a daily national flood vigilance map in partnership with Meteo-France (the national weather agency) and regional centres to join meteorological forecasts with hydrological data147.

Regional flood forecasting centres, also known as State Local Services (SPC), also have an integral role in communicating flood risk to local populations. Each SPC produces a local flood vigilance map informed by meteorological and hydrological data for its region, maintains a network of hydrological stations, and communicates with local and regional authorities in the event of a flood148.

In addition to SCHAPI and the local SPCs, the National Operational Centre for Interministerial Crisis Management (Le Centre Opérationnel de Gestion Interministérielle des Crises, COGIC) and the seven French civil defense zones (Centre Opérationnel de Zone, COZ) are contacted by SCHAPI to provide emergency management services in the event of a flood. To achieve this collaborative and coordinated system of flood forecasting, legislation preventing technological and natural catastrophes was introduced in 2003. This new law – the loi Risques n2003-699 - streamlined the country’s approach to flood forecasting and warning dissemination while creating a partnership between Meteo-France and SCHAPI to share meteorological and hydrological data for improved forecasts.

14.2 Data Collection and Monitoring Meteo-France monitors water levels, precipitation, wind speed and direction, coastal waves and soil moisture and provides this information to SCHAPI and the SPCs.

14.3 Modelling and Forecasting French forecasters use the OSIRIS application, a crisis management software that considers all stages of flood risk including: preventive measures, preparation of action plans, river monitoring and overflow forecasting, flood warning, measures to lessen the effects of flooding, management of the crisis situation and monitoring the recovery phase149. EFAS (see Section 11) is also used to provide

146 “Partner 12: SCHAPI,” Imprints, accessed March 12, 2014, http://www.imprints-fp7.eu/en/projectes/89 147 “Improved Flood Resilience through Joint Forecasting in Scotland and Northern Ireland,” SEPA, December 2009, pg. 51. 148 Caroline Wittwer, “La Prevision des crues en France: etat des lieux perspectives,” SCHAPI, presentation, http://chy.scnatweb.ch/downloads/Wittwer.pdf 149 “World Water Day 2004: Ongoing Research Projects.” http://ec.europa.eu/research/dossier/do220304/floods_en.html

early warnings of flooding conditions while ATHYS – a distributed rainfall/runoff model150 - is used to determine the distribution of rainfall throughout France151,152. This process of data collection, monitoring, interpretation and reporting is shared between Meteo-France, SCHAPI and SPCs.

14.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event To communicate the risk of flooding, SCHAPI provides an internet-based flood vigilance map that shows a national view of flood risks as well as local views, which can be accessed by selecting a specific region. This map is also linked to Meteo-France’s meteorological vigilance map and is updated daily at 10:00 am and 4:00 pm153. Flood vigilance maps are an important strategy used by SCHAPI and Meteo- France to determine flood risks because each map covers a 20,000 kilometre area that is home to 90 percent of the French population154. Each map highlights risk through the use of colour bands. For example, red is highest risk, orange is considerable risk, yellow is high and rapid water, and green is no risk155. A daily conference call occurs between SCHAPI and Meteo-France to determine flood risks and potential actions. In the event of a flood, SCHAPI also consults with regional offices (SPC) and civil defence authorities (COGIC and COZ) to determine emergency protocol.

This system of flood forecasting can provide warnings up to ten days in advance of a flood. However specific information can be provided 12 hours and up to five days in advance, which gives communities enough time to evacuate and prepare 156.

150 Caroline Wittwer, “La Prevision des crues en France: etat des lieux perspectives,” SCHAPI, presentation, http://chy.scnatweb.ch/downloads/Wittwer.pdf 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 153 Improved Flood Resilience through Joint Forecasting in Scotland and Northern Ireland,” SEPA, December 2009, pg. 51. 154 Caroline Wittwer, “La Prevision des crues en France: etat des lieux perspectives,” SCHAPI, presentation, http://chy.scnatweb.ch/downloads/Wittwer.pdf 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid, slide 14.

15. Germany

15.1 Background In spring 2013, a stationary low-pressure system sat over central Europe, resulting in high rainfall and significant rain-on-snow flooding. In Germany, the heavy rainfall led to high water levels on the Elbe River, which resulted in the evacuation of large cities such as Dresden157. The flooding caused approximately $15.6 billion in infrastructure damages and is considered to be Germany’s most expensive and destructive natural disaster to date158.

There are three large rivers in Germany: the Elbe, the Rhine and the Danube. The headwaters of the Elbe and Danube Rivers are located in the Swiss Alps and run through Germany ultimately draining into the North Sea. These rivers are subject to flooding due to snowmelt in the mountains and heavy rainfall in the spring, which can cause extensive flooding in the country’s south-west region.

Germany is an EU member state (see section 11). The responsibility for flood forecasting is assigned to Germany’s states, as directed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany159. There are sixteen states (otherwise known as the Lander) in Germany that operate independently. For the states located along major rivers, flood forecasting is organized like a chain of command where an upstream flood forecasting centre will pass on data and information for their area to downstream states160. While the smaller states are responsible for flood forecasting, the German Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG) is the national authority responsible for mediating and integrating water services related to transportation.

While the BfG does not have a large role in flood forecasting, it does provide information on water levels for the general public. This data is made possible from select gauging stations prevalent on German federal waterways including the Rhine, Elbe and Danube161 which is then applied to the WAVOS and Delft-FEWS data management frameworks to determine expected water levels162. This data is provided to state-level Flood Information Service Centres who can use this information to model and forecast potential flooding.

157 “Germany Flooding Forces Evacuations and Railway Shutdown,” CBC News, published June 10, 2013, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/germany-flooding-forces-evacuations-and-railway-shutdown-1.1345069 158 “After the Flood: Life in Germany’s Disaster Zone,” Spiegel Online: International, July 12, 2014, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/multimedia-special-german-communities-rebuild-after-mass-flood- a-910812.html 159 “Operational Flood Forecast in Bavaria,” Bavarian Environment Agency, 2009, pg. 1. 160 Dennis Meibner, “Abstract of the Presentation ‘Water-Level Forecasting Along Major Rivers in Germany’,” WMO Workshop on Inter-comparison of Flood Forecasting Models, Koblenz, Germany, September 14-16, 2011. 161 “Water Levels - Data from Selected Gauging Stations on German Federal Waterways.” BfG , accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.bafg.de/EN/06_Info_Service/01_WaterLevels/waterlevels_node.html 162 Dennis Meibner, “Abstract of the Presentation ‘Water-Level Forecasting Along Major Rivers in Germany’,” WMO Workshop on Inter-comparison of Flood Forecasting Models, Koblenz, Germany, September 14-16, 2011.

For example, the Bavarian Flood Information Service (BFIS) is just one of the sixteen German federal states that conducts flood forecasting and provides warnings to German authorities. The BFIS is located within the Bavarian Environment Agency in Munich and supports five regional forecast centres, 17 state offices for water management and various local authorities within Bavaria. While the BFIS is responsible for flood forecasting and warning construction, the local authorities within Bavaria, and every other federal state, are responsible for communicating flood warnings and messages to the public163. Each German state can relay flood warnings to the public by publishing this information online, using phone services as well as a tele-text program. Germany’s flood forecasting program is outlined in Figure 11.

163 Alfons Vogelbacher, “Communication of Uncertainties in Practice - An Example from Bavaria,” HEPEX, October 29, 2013, http://hepex.irstea.fr/communication-of-uncertainties-in-practice-an-example-from-bavaria/

Figure 13: Germany’s Flood Forecasting Program

15.2 Data Collection and Monitoring The German Weather Service (DWD), German Federal Institute of Hydrology and the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC) monitors snow/water storage, surface runoff, groundwater runoff, precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil/water storage, canopy water storage and snow melt, and uses this data to determine flood risks.

Each German state maintains monitoring stations. For example, in Bavaria there are 600 meteorological stations, of which 560 transmit data telemetrically. There are 320 river gauges and 120 snow/water equivalent stations. Data from the river and snow stations is reported every one to three days164.

The DWD and Bavarian Environment Agency also provide precipitation data from 700 Bavarian monitoring stations. Additionally, the GRDC located in Kolenz, Germany can provide historical river discharge information to German states.

15.3 Modelling and Forecasting Germany uses the River Flood Model (RMS) to determine flood risk. The model captures flow depth in time and space, depending on river channel slope, size, roughness and confluence of rivers165. The RMS uses a numerical modelling approach that includes Germany’s major river basins, including the Elbe, Danube and Rhine166.

Flood forecasters at each Flood Information Service Centre rely on deterministic forecasts rather than probabilistic forecasts. Across Germany, a variety of models are used, including COSMO-EU/DE/LEPS, SNOW 3, GFS, ALADIN, MOSS and LISFLOOD167.

15.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event In the event of an imminent flood, two warnings are produced: alert limits that indicate the maximum impacts of a flood in a specific area, and alert levels that provide criteria for the release of flood warnings. In the event of a flood, numerical precipitation forecasts are capable of providing three days of advanced warning168. Furthermore, in the case of a flood, forecasters are able to update flood

164 Alfons Vogelbacher, “Communication of Uncertainties in Practice - An Example from Bavaria,” HEPEX, October 29, 2013, http://hepex.irstea.fr/communication-of-uncertainties-in-practice-an-example-from-bavaria/ 165 “Germany River Flood,” Risk Management Solutions, 2006: pg. 1. 166 Ibid. 167 Alfons Vogelbacher, “Communication of Uncertainties in Practice - An Example from Bavaria,” HEPEX, October 29, 2013, http://hepex.irstea.fr/communication-of-uncertainties-in-practice-an-example-from-bavaria/ 168“Disaster 2.0: Germans Turn to Facebook for Flood Relief,” Spiegel Online International, accessed March 25, 2014, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/flawed-warning-systems-send-germans-to-facebook-for-flood-relief- a-904765.html

forecasts three or four times per day. Flood warnings are communicated to decision-makers by a flood report produced by Flood Information Service Centres throughout the sixteen Federal States in Germany. Emergency authorities, on the other hand, communicate flood warnings to the media and general public so that preparedness and response measures can be implemented.

In the event of a flood, Disaster Protection Authorities exist at the national level of government to provide each Federal State with assistance in the emergency management procedure. This additional agency indicates that there is a distinction between flood forecasting and water management agencies and emergency management organizations169.

169 “Flood Management Practice in European Union,” FLOODsite, http://www.floodsite.net/html/cd_task17- 19/flood_management_practice.html

16. Switzerland

16.1 Background Like Alberta, Switzerland’s rivers originate in headwaters located in the nearby Swiss Alps mountain range. The Rhine, which is Switzerland’s largest river, flows north from the Swiss Alps through the Netherlands and Germany and empties into the North Sea170.

Switzerland recently experienced major flooding in June 2013 when a low pressure system hovered over the northern arc of the Alps, resulting in extensive rainfall. This rainfall caused major flooding in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Switzerland.

Switzerland has four official languages – French, German, Italian and Romansh. For consistency, all government organizations will be referred to by their French title and corresponding acronym, where possible and appropriate. Switzerland’s flood forecasting program is outlined in Figure 14.

170 Zurich Insurance Group, “European Floods: Using Lessons Learned to Reduce Risks,” 2013, accessed March 2014, http://www.zurich.com/internet/main/sitecollectiondocuments/insight/european-floods-using-lessions- learned-en.pdf

Figure 14: Switzerland's Flood Forecasting Program

16.2 Data Collection and Monitoring The Office Fédéral de l'Environnement (OFEV) is responsible for flood forecasting. The OFEV collects its own data, but also relies on other organizations and groups. The OFEV collects all hydrological data. Federal legislation dictates that the OFEV must perform hydrological surveys across the country. Completed by OFEV’s Hydrology Division, these national surveys determine the balance of water and the quality of both surface water and groundwater. In addition, OFEV has 260 gauging stations for lake water levels and river discharge data, 90 percent of which are automated and transmit data in near real time. OFEV is also responsible for compiling all of the data, using the Deltares FEWS framework, and then putting it into their forecasting models171.

MétéoSuisse, a national organization, is responsible for monitoring meteorological data. The agency operates Swiss MetNet stations, which measure precipitation and temperature. MétéoSuisse also provides meteorological forecasts. Radar imagery, also from MétéoSuisse, is used for qualitative support to precipitation data.

Snow data is collected by the Institut für Schnee-und Lawinenforschung (SLF) – a research institute separate from the government. In some cases, the SLF provides its snow data to the OFEV172.

16.3 Modelling and Forecasting The OFEV uses a deterministic and probabilistic model for forecasting. The Rhine and its tributaries are included in the model, and there are separate forecast models for the Rhone, Ticino and Inn Rivers, which are being integrated into the system173.

OFEV uses the Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning (HBV – Hydrological Bureau Water balance- section) for flash flood forecasting in the Rhine basin; the Water flow and balance Simulation Model (WaSiM), for the Rhone and Emme basins; and the Precipitation-Runoff-Evapotranspiration HRU Model (PREVAH) for the Sihl and Linth basins. These are all hydrological models that are used to forecast average hourly water levels and discharges174. The HBV and WaSiM models include both a rainfall-runoff model and a hydrodynamic river flow model, which can be combined into a hydrologic routing model within HBV175. The PREVAH hydrologic routing model is linked to a hydrodynamic model called FLORIS.

171 “FEWS – Flood Early Warning System, Switzerland,” Deltares, accessed March 2014, http://content.oss.deltares.nl/fews/files//National%20Flood%20Forecasting%20System%20Switzerland%20(FEWS-FOEN).pdf 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid.

An OFEV forecaster interprets the model’s results and publishes them online after consulting other experts from MétéoSuisse and SLF176.

Discharge forecasts show current levels and hourly forecasts for the next three days. The forecasts are issued at 9:30am every workday. If a flood is predicted, the frequency of calculating forecasts is increased to twice daily up to every two hours177. On typical days OFEV updates their website at noon and 5pm. During critical conditions they publish forecasts for a 48-hour period. Additionally a hydrological bulletin is issued every Monday and Thursday describing the forecasts for the next three days178.

16.4 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event In the event of a flood, an alert is sent to cantonal authorities through the Central Nationale d’Alarme (CENAL) if the hazard level is above 2 (yellow, see description below). A public natural hazards alert bulletin, prepared jointly by OFEV and MétéoSuisse, is issued an hour after the local authorities have been alerted about a potential flood threat. In some events, SLF contributes snow conditions to the bulletin179. The issuing of a warning is based on the interpretation of the forecast rather than the station data.

In the event of a flood, the Confédération (Swiss national government) and the media will issue a warning to the public180.

The five hazard levels for flood risk used by OFEV are: • Hazard level 1 (Green): Low hazard or none – less than 1:2 year flood event • Hazard level 2 (Yellow): Medium hazard – between a 1:2 and 1:10 year flood event • Hazard level 3 (Amber): Significant hazard – between a 1:10 and 1:30 year flood event • Hazard level 4 (Red): High hazard – between 1:30 and 1:100 year flood event • Hazard level 5 (Dark Red): Very high hazard – greater than a 1:100 year flood event

A level 1 is a low threat and is only communicated via the OFEV website. At level 2, OFEV contacts CENAL. At level 4, state-licenced radio and TV stations must broadcast the warnings to the public181.

176 “FEWS – Flood Early Warning System, Switzerland,” Deltares, accessed March 2014, http://content.oss.deltares.nl/fews/files//National%20Flood%20Forecasting%20System%20Switzerland%20(FEWS-FOEN).pdf 177 Ibid. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid. 180 “Flood Risk in Switzerland,” ch.ch. Confédération Suisse, 2014, accessed March 2014, https://www.ch.ch/en/flood-risks/ 181 “FEWS – Flood Early Warning System, Switzerland,” Deltares, accessed March 2014, http://content.oss.deltares.nl/fews/files//National%20Flood%20Forecasting%20System%20Switzerland%20(FEWS- FOEN).pdf

16.5 Public Education and Awareness OFEV provides up to date information about flood risk on their public website. They also post a groundwater bulletin and a hydrological bulletin.

17. Australia

17.1 Background Australia has an extensive history of flooding, droughts and other natural disasters, and in recent years has suffered from major flooding. From December 2010 to January 2011, floods in the state of Queensland resulted in over 78 percent of the state being declared a disaster zone (an area larger than France and Germany combined)182. The flooding was followed by Tropical Cyclone Oswald in January 2013. Due to increasing flood risk and flood events throughout the country, there has been significant government emphasis on improving flood monitoring, forecasting and mitigation since 2011.

There are three types of flooding in Australia: inland rivers – slow onset flooding; mountain/coastal rivers – quick onset flooding; and flash flooding183.

Australia’s flood forecasting program is outlined below in Figure 15184. At the highest level, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) is responsible for flood forecasting and warning. The BoM is Australia’s national weather, climate and water information agency. The BoM is responsible for providing flood forecasting and warning services in each Australia state and territory. It is an agency within the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio within the national Department of the Environment. The BoM has about 1,500 staff. Of these, there are 37 flood forecasters. In total, there are 54 staff members in the Flood Warning and Forecasting Section. The flood forecasters in the BoM are responsible for: • collecting rainfall and river height data; • publishing real-time rainfall and river data; • developing flood forecasting models; • preparing watches and riverine flood warnings, including predictions (for flash floods, short- term floods and seasonal forecasting); • delivering briefings to government, emergency services and media; and • maintaining historical flood intelligence185

The BoM collects real-time rainfall and river data, which is updated half hourly online and presented as maps, tables and plots. The BoM is responsible for issuing flood warnings and river height forecasts and directly briefs other agencies, local governments, emergency services and the media. The BoM

182 Jeff Perkins, 2013, “Outcomes of the Australian Floods of 2010 – 2013,” presentation. 183 “Flood Preparedness and Safety,” Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/flood/EMA_Floods_warning_preparedness_safety.pdf 184 The State of Queensland (Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist), “Components of a Flood Warning System,” figure, 2013. http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/comm- warn-about-floods.aspx. 185 Jeff Perkins, 2013, “Outcomes of the Australian Floods of 2010 – 2013,” presentation.

stores and analyzes historical flood information, including flood warning data, peak height, effects of floods and flood history.

Flood forecasting operations are state-based and regional BoM offices work in conjunction with state and territory governments, water agencies, emergency management agencies, catchment authorities and local councils to carry out forecasting and monitoring activities186. Forecast and monitoring services are delivered by Flood Warning Centres and Regional Forecasting Centres as well as field meteorological offices in each state and territory, along with a head office in Melbourne. The BoM is currently in the process of centralizing its flood forecasting operations. However, it is unclear at this time how this will (or if it will) affect regional forecasting centres.

186 “Flood Forecasting and Warning Services – Information Sheet 6,” Bureau of Meteorology, 2013.

Figure 15: Australia's Flood Forecasting Program

17.2 Policy and Legislation There is no specific legislation related to Australia’s flood forecasting and monitoring program. However, the BoM operates under the authority of the Meteorology Act (1995) and the Water Act (2007), both of which provide the legal basis of its activities. In addition, the BoM must fulfill Australia’s international obligations under the Convention of the World Meteorological Organization and related international meteorological treaties and agreements187.

The lack of specific legislation related to flood forecasting has been identified as a gap. Because no legislation explicitly delineates which level of government is responsible for flash flood forecasting and warning, this has been a grey area and a cause for confusion for all levels of government188.

Following the 2010/11 floods and 2013 tropical cyclone, inquiries and reviews were commissioned to examine national and state extreme weather preparedness. These reviews included the following: • The Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry • Victorian Floods Review: “The Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings and Response” • Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Capacity to Response to Future Extreme Weather and Natural Disaster Events (2011) – colloquially known as the “Munro Report”.

These inquiries and reviews found areas of improvement for flood forecasting in Australia, including: • The need for more specific BoM warnings as they relate to possible flash flood warnings, despite the fact that flash flood warnings rest with local councils • Clarification and allocation of responsibilities of state and local governments for flood management, with defined boundaries of the BoM’s role • A need for increased flood warning capacity by increasing the number of frontline BoM hydrologists • Adopting the use of new technologies that use accurate ground-elevation data, robust floodplain hydraulic models, new spatial information technology and internet map-serving software (Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist 2013).

17.3 Data Collection and Monitoring The BoM collects meteorological, hydrological and pedological data. Meteorological and hydrological indicators are the primary indicators used for flood forecasting. While data on soil moisture and saturation is gathered, it is predominantly used for drought, rather than flood, forecasting.

187 “About Us,” Bureau of Meteorology, 2013, http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/index.shtml?ref=hdr 188 Chloe Munro, “Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Capacity to Respond to Future Extreme Weather and Natural Disaster Events and to Provide Seasonal Forecasting Services,” 2011, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bc0cc118-a6f2-496c-82fd-0b092c4cc7a5/files/bom- review.pdf

Indicators related to snow do not play a significant role in flood forecasting; only a small portion of Australia experiences snow-related floods. However, Perkins identified that a snowmelt model may be brought into the BoM’s new FEWS framework189.

According to the Munro report, the BoM’s observation network includes: • Surface observations o Staffed meteorological stations (approximately 58 sites) o Automated weather stations (AWS) (approximately 615 sites) o Cooperative observers (approximately 370 sites) o Rainfall observing stations (approximately 7,300 sites, many of which are manned by volunteers) • Upper air and satellite observations o Weather balloons o Radar wind profilers o Aircraft observations o Satellite data (from Japanese and Chinese geo-stationary satellites and from US, EU and Chinese polar orbiting satellites and others) o Ground satellite reception facilities • Weather radars o 65 operational weather surveillance radars o One Doppler radar. No new and notable technology is used. Instead, the BoM tends to rely on robust and reliable technology.

17.4 Meteorological Data The BoM monitors rainfall by using radar, and sometimes satellites, to track heavy rain and its movements, as well as by using a vast network of monitoring gauges throughout the country. The majority of rain gauges are located along the coastal areas of Australia (see Figure 16). There are approximately 4,100 rain gauges in Australia, about half of which belong to the BoM190,191.

189 Perkins, Jeff (Manager, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Bureau of Meteorology) in discussion with Larissa Sommerfeld, December 2013. 190 Jeff Perkins, 2013, “Outcomes of the Australian Floods of 2010 – 2013,” presentation. 191 Chris Leahy, “HyFS –A New National Forecasting System for Australia,” 2013, presentation, October 30, 2013, http://oss.deltares.nl/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f13f26a1-cb37-494a-8c51- 5591c2d0293b&groupId=145641

Figure 16: Distribution of Rain Gauges in Australia

17.4.1 River Height and Streamflow Data

The BoM collects river height data either through manual reading of gauges or automatic recording stations that communicate to a base either via radio or telephone. River height data is used for flood warning, water resources planning and recreational use.

The BoM’s hydrological network is complemented by data from more than 4,000 sites, collected by more than 240 water sector organizations (see Figure 17)192. Of these stations, the BoM operates a network of 221 hydrologic stations. These stations identify streamflow trends and detect long-term variability and changes in streamflow. Each station represents an unregulated catchment (an area where there are minimal effects of water resource development and/or land use changes). Each station holds high quality streamflow data and long-term records for 30 years or more. Collectively, the stations are geographically and temporally representative of all hydroclimatic regions across Australia. The streamflow variables that are measured and reported include:

• Annual total flow (volume/year) • Daily maximum flow (volume/day) th • Q90 – 90 percentile daily flow per year (volume/day)

192 Chloe Munro, “Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Capacity to Respond to Future Extreme Weather and Natural Disaster Events and to Provide Seasonal Forecasting Services,” 2011, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bc0cc118-a6f2-496c-82fd-0b092c4cc7a5/files/bom- review.pdf

th • Q 50 – 50 percentile daily flow per year (volume/day) th • Q 10– 10 percentile daily flow per year (volume/day) • Summer flow (Dec-Jan-Feb) (Volume/season) • Autumn flow (Mar-Apr-May) (Volume/season) • Winter flow (Jun-Jul-Aug) (Volume/season) • Spring flow (Sep-Oct-Nov) (Volume/season) • Percentage ceased to flow (percentage of the year during which there is no flow in the river) • Annual baseflow (volume/year).

Figure 17: Distribution of River Gauges in Australia

17.5 Modelling and Forecasting Streamflow rates, river height and precipitation data are used as inputs into flood forecasting models. The BoM uses both short and long-term seasonal forecasting.

The current forecasting model that is being used by the BoM has been in place since 1992. This is an event-based model, where things can be modeled included the impact of dams in a catchment and outflow strategies. According to Perkins, this model is “robust and flexible and fast”193. The United River Basin Simulator (URBS) Model is “the most wide-spread hydrological model for real time flood forecasting in Australia” and is used by the BoM194. The URBS is limited in that numerical weather prediction and rainfall cannot be calculated. To address this limitation, the BoM is adopting the Deltares Delft-FEWS framework that will allow for far more integration between all the data that the BoM collects.

193 Perkins, Jeff (Manager, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Bureau of Meteorology) in discussion with Larissa Sommerfeld, December 2013. 194 SKM, “Joint Calibration of a Hydrologic and Hydrodynamic Model of the Lower Brisbane River,” 2011, http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/8825/SKM_Joint_Calibration_of_Hydrologic _and_Hydrodynamic_Model.pdf

17.6 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event Flood forecasts are provided by the BoM to state governments, local governments, emergency services, dam operators and other infrastructure owners. Flood warnings are issued locally and are the responsibility of local BoM offices and regional governments. For this reason, early warning systems vary across the country. The BoM has created brochures to describe flood warning systems for individual rivers.

As shown in Table 5, the BoM provides a variety of flood communication services. Alerts, watches, advice, warnings and predictions of expected river height are communicated to decision-makers through Bureau offices195. The BoM works closely with state/territory and local governments to rely flood-related information. Local governments and agencies are responsible for interpreting the results of the BoM’s forecasting, and issue warnings and advice on local flood responses as required.

195 Chloe Munro, “Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Capacity to Respond to Future Extreme Weather and Natural Disaster Events and to Provide Seasonal Forecasting Services,” 2011, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bc0cc118-a6f2-496c-82fd-0b092c4cc7a5/files/bom- review.pdf

Table 5: Bureau of Meteorology Flood Products and Services Delivery Products Purpose Description Users Channels Flood Alert/ To warn of possible General Local Watch/Advice flooding (if flood public, response producing rain is industry, organizations; expected to happen in local BoM offices; the near future). government, website; emergency radio; services telephone recorded information services Generalized To warn that flooding is No information on the severity of As above As above flood warning occurring or is expected flooding or the particular location *(generally to occur in a particular of the flooding is provided in this issued when region (for catchments instance. These warnings are issued river heights where no specialized for areas where no specialized exceed the warning equipment has warning systems have been minor flood been installed) installed. As part of its Severe level) Weather Warning Service, the BoM also provides warnings for severe storms that may cause flash flooding. In some areas the BoM has implemented local monitoring systems in collaboration with local councils to assist with flash flood warning.

Delivery Products Purpose Description Users Channels Warnings of Where the BoM has • Minor flooding: Causes As above As above “minor”, installed specialized inconvenience. Low-lying areas “moderate” warning systems the next to watercourses are or “major” warning will identify the inundated which may require flooding river valley, the the removal of stock and locations expected to be equipment. Minor roads may flooded, the likely be closed and low-level brides severity of the flooding submerged. and when it is likely to • Moderate flooding: In addition occur to the above, the evacuation of some houses may be required. Main traffic routes may be covered. The area of inundation is substantial in rural areas requiring the removal of stock. • Major flooding: In addition to the above, extensive rural areas and/or urban areas are inundated. Properties and towns are likely to be isolated and major traffic routes like to be closed. Evacuation of people from flood affected areas may be required. Predictions of To provide specific Predictions of expected river height Flood Bureau expected information to flood at a town or other important management offices; river height management locations and the time that this authorities website authorities height will be reached. This particular service is the most useful because it allows local emergency authorities and people in the flood threatened zone to determine the area and likely depth of flooding. This type of warning can only be provided for locations with specialized flood warning systems and for which flood forecasting models are available.

The Queensland Floods Science, Engineering and Technology Panel was formed to address flood- related issues. The panel compiled the strengths and weaknesses of using different flood warning communication methods, as shown in Figure 18196

196 The State of Queensland (Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist), “Components of a Flood

100

Informative Accurate/Trustworthiness Timelines Audience Reach Varying audience capacities Reliable/Resilient Little labour required Quick; reliable; limited information and reach, but Sirens/Alarms becoming more versatile with voice and remote capabilities Can reach wide audience very quickly; no power Text message needed; less reliable for areas with poor mobile phone coverage Automated Landlines becoming less common; people often not at telephone home/indoors Electricity not required; widest reach - home, work, Radio message travelling; variable accuracy, requires public to be listening Electricity required; variable accuracy; limited reach; Television requires public to be listening Quick dissemination, becoming very widespread; Websites/social capacity for images; electricity/internet required; media variable accuracy Quick dissemination, but usually has to be actively Email accessed; power and telecomm infrastructure needed; internet required Direct, specific communication; requires access to Speaker phone flooded area; difficult to hear Direct communication; chance to ask questions; high Doorknocking credibility; resource intensive, requires access to flooded area Ability to reach almost all audiences, but may miss Letterbox drop youth; slow, requires access to flooded area Useful for roads, infrastructure and location-specific Noticeboards information; can be controlled remotely Informative/detailed; ability to reach wide audience; Print media time needed; variable accuracy Uses information from multiple sources; persuasive, Word of mouth variable accuracy Legend Works well for this aspect Satisfactory for this aspect Limited use for this aspect Does not support this aspect Variable for this aspect Figure 18: Pros and cons of different flood warning communication methods

Warning System,” figure, 2013. http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/comm- warn-about-floods.aspx.

101

17.6.1 Flash Floods The BoM defines flash flooding as “flooding occurring within six hours of rain, usually the result of intense local rain and characterized by rapid rises in water-levels197.” As stated previously, the area of flash flood warnings is a grey one; there is no clearly defined role or responsibility in legislation stating which level of government is responsible for flash flood warnings.

According to a BoM public awareness publication, “flash flooding results from relatively short, intense bursts of rainfall, often from severe thunderstorms. It can occur in almost all parts of Australia and poses the greatest threat of loss of life….They cause serious problems in urban areas where drainage systems are often unable to cope. They also can occur in rural areas where the nature of terrain and steepness of the streams could lead to very rapid development of flooding”198

The BoM does not have any specific flash flood warning systems. Currently, “flash flood warnings [are] meteorologically based with minimal hydrological input”199. However, the Severe Weather Warning Service provides warnings for severe storms that could result in flash flooding. In some areas, the BoM has implemented local monitoring systems in collaboration with local councils to assist with flash flood warning. Flash flood warnings are the responsibility of local governments.

17.7 Public Awareness and Education

Rainfall data that is publicly available includes: • Rainfall ranges: compares current rainfall with past values for a station, as well as showing a range of scenarios for the future. The scenarios are not forecasts. They are simply a range of possible values based upon long term rainfall records, with no one scenario favoured over another. • Rainfall – 3 month outlook: Rainfall outlooks for the coming season are derived from the BoM’s official climate outlook model. • Forecast rainfall: Rainfall forecasts that are 1 – 5 day forecasts are produced from computer models that do not contain input from weather forecasts. Forecasts include the total forecast rainfall and chance of rainfall. • Latest radar image: shows the most recent radar images for certain areas for the past 24 hours.

197 “Australian Water Information Dictionary,” Bureau of Meteorology, 2014, http://www.bom.gov.au/water/awid/initial-a.shtml 198 “Flood Preparedness and Safety,” Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/flood/EMA_Floods_warning_preparedness_safety.pdf 199 Robert Thompson, “Australian Bureau of Meteorology – Flood Warning Field and Data Collection Systems – A Highly Available National Service,” 2011, Australian Government.

102

• Latest rainfall: includes latest rainfall information for the last hour and the last 24 hours. • Recent rainfall tables: shows rainfall tables for major regions and areas within those regions over the last 36, 24, 18, 12, 9, 6, 3, 1, 1 month to date, 1 week and 1 day time scales. • Recent rainfall report: The weekly rainfall update provides a detailed analysis of the rainfall recorded across the country during the past week. The page is updated every Tuesday afternoon, for the seven days ending that day. The update includes a rainfall map, a table of the highest falls recorded for the week by state, some commentary and an analysis of the impact of recent rainfalls on parts of Australia experiencing rainfall deficits. • Average rainfall: Maps that show the average rainfall for the time scales of annual, seasonal, monthly, and over the period from 1961 – 1990. • Rainfall trends: Annual rainfall time series for the entire country, regions or territories and states on an annual, seasonal and monthly time scale.

River Height data that is available online includes: • River height plots: Provide a graphical view of recent observations of a station. The data has been collected in real time either by polling the station or by the station reporting the data on its own by radio transmission. This plot brings together all the data received over the last 4 or 7 days (this varies according to how quick the river behaviour is). The data is extracted from the database and filtered to remove some bad data. This filtering of bad data is not comprehensive. The plots also show some details of the station at the top. They also show, where available, the flood class levels. • River height series: River height series provides a tabular view of recent observations at a station. • Latest river heights: A table of river height observations for selected locations. Each table shows the data for a collection of river basins.

Streamflow information from each hydrologic station can be publicly viewed or downloaded as daily, monthly, seasonal or annual time series.

103

18. Colorado, USA

18.1 Background Colorado is a state that has extensive history with flooding. Over the last 100 years, Colorado has experienced four major floods in 1921, 1965, 1976 and 2013. In 1921, torrential rains caused the Arkansas River to flood, which “led to the rebuilding of [the town of] Pueblo and the rerouting of the river”200. In 1965, flooding resulted in costly property loss and led to the construction of the Chatfield Dam, which was built to protect Denver from future floods. In 1976, flash flooding in the Big Thompson Canyon killed 144 people and prompted Colorado to establish safe areas and warning signs, as well as increased attention on improving flood forecasting. In September 2013, Colorado experienced a flood of unprecedented size that resulted in the loss of at least eight lives and severe damage over a large area of the state’s Front Range.

Instead of providing a general overview of how flood forecasting works at the highest levels in the United States, Colorado was selected to provide more detail on how one specific jurisdiction in the United States handles flood forecasting. Colorado’s flood forecasting program is outlined in Figure 19.

200 Tom McGhee, “Colorado’s Flood history Led to Changes,” The Denver Post, September 19, 2013, accessed October 31, 2013, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24134434/colorados-flood-history-led- changes

104

Figure 19: Colorado's Flood Forecasting Program

The state of Colorado, primarily through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is the primary level of government responsible for flood forecasting and monitoring. The CWCB was created nearly 75 years ago to provide policy direction on water issues and is Colorado’s most comprehensive

105

water information resource. The CWCB is a state organization that is part of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.

The CWCB is governed by a 15 member Board and is responsible for protecting streams and lakes, water conservation, flood mitigation, watershed protection, stream restoration, drought planning, water supply planning and water project financing. The CWCB has more than 40 staff members and functions under six major program areas: management, finance and administration, interstate and federal, stream and lake protection, water supply planning, and watershed and flood protection.

One of the main roles of the CWCB is that of Chair of the Governor’s Flood Task Force (FTF), and co- chair of the Governor’s Water Availability Task Force (WATF). These Task Forces monitor conditions that affect Colorado’s water supply, including snowpack, precipitation, reservoir storage, streamflow and weather forecasts. Meetings of the task forces are held regularly and are occasionally held together.201 The majority of the FTF duties have been transferred over to another group called the Flood Technical Advisory Partnership, which is more of an emergency management group202.

Other members of the CWCB Flood Task Force include203: • The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) • NRCS • US Army Corps of Engineers • NWS • USGS Geological Survey • NOAA • US Bureau of Reclamation • Colorado Governor’s Office • Colorado Division of Emergency Management • Colorado Division of Water Resources • Colorado Geological Survey

18.2 Policy and Legislation The responsibility for flood mitigation lies with the State. However, the State of Colorado relies on federal programs and services. First, the federal government requires all states to prepare a Flood

201 “Colorado Water Conservation Board,” Colorado Department of Natural Resources, http://cwcb.state.co.us/Pages/CWCBHome.aspx 202 Kevin Houck, (Chief, Watershed and Flood Protection Section) in discussion with Larissa Sommerfeld, December 2013. 203 Colorado Water Conservation Board, “Chapter 6: Flood Preparedness Activities and Flood Hazard Mitigation,” 2006, in Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater Criteria Manual.

106

Hazard Identification Plan, following a Presidential Disaster Declaration (pursuant to Section 409 of the Stafford Act). If a state has an approved flood hazard plan, it is eligible for federal flood mitigation assistance.

The State of Colorado prepared its first Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan as a result of the Presidential Declaration of Disaster for Larimer Country in 1982. Over the years, various additions and revisions have been made to the plan204.

Local governments are responsible for implementing effective flood mitigation, based on federal and state data, before and after floods occur.

18.3 Data Collection and Monitoring Flood forecasting and monitoring is a State responsibility. However, the majority of the data that is collected for flood monitoring is collected by federal agencies, such as the NOAA, the USGS and the NWS.

Colorado uses streamflow, rainfall and snowpack data for flood forecasting. In addition the State Climatologist also collects data, including snowpack, reservoir storage and streamflow.

Colorado also relies on some citizen-science, notably CoCoRaHS, which is a cooperative network of volunteer citizen scientists across the state.

The CWCB monitors conditions that affect water supply, including snowpack, precipitation, reservoir storage, streamflow and weather forecasts. The CWCB also conducts an annual spring snowmelt review and issues pre-flood forecasts as applicable205.

18.3.1 Streamflow Data Streamflow monitoring is conducted by the USGS. There are 306 sites that monitor streamflow in Colorado. According to the USGS,

…current data typically are recorded at 15-to 60-minute intervals, stored onsite and then transmitted to USGS offices every 1 to 4 hours, depending on the data relay technique used. Recording and transmission

204 Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, “State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan,” State of Colorado, last modified on December 31, 2013, http://www.dhsem.state.co.us/emergencymanagement/mitigation-recovery/mitigation/state-colorado-natural-hazards-mitigation-plan 205 Kevin Houck, (Chief, Watershed and Flood Protection Section) in discussion with Larissa Sommerfeld, December 2013.

107

times may be more frequent during critical events. Data from current sites are relayed to USGS offices via satellite, telephone and/or radio telemetry and are available for viewing within minutes of arrival.206

The Colorado Division of Water Resources also conducts state-level streamflow monitoring. The federal Bureau of Reclamation monitors reservoir levels at certain water bodies.

18.3.2 Snow Data In Colorado, snow data is important to flood forecasting. Data is obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s SNOTEL automated system. SNOTEL is designed to collect snow data in the western US, as well as Alaska. SNOTEL stations can provide data on the following parameters: air temperature, precipitation, snow water content, snow depth, barometric pressure, relative humidity, soil moisture, soil temperature, solar radiation and wind speed/direction207. SNOTEL is monitored remotely on a daily basis.

The SNOTEL program is facing challenges due to budget cuts in the US. In October 2013, the Natural Resources Conservation Service announced it may eliminate 47 out of 72 snow sites in Colorado208. Soil moisture data is also collected by the NRCS, typically in the same locations as the SNOTEL sites. However, soil moisture data is not as widely reported as snow.

18.3.3 Meteorological Data Precipitation data is collected by the NWS and provided in a variety of time scales, ranging from the last hour to the last 120 days. Colorado’s ALERT system also monitors precipitation and weather levels.

18.4 Modelling and Forecasting The River Basin Forecast Centre (within the NOAA), the Climate Prediction Centre (within the NWS), the Colorado Conservation Board and the Flood Task Force/Water Availability Task all issue flood forecasts.

18.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event In the event of a flood, the CWCN and the Colorado Office of Emergency Management are responsible for communicating with authorities and municipalities. The CWCB communicates technical support (i.e. specific information on the flood event), while the Colorado Office of Emergency Management

206 “USGS Threatened and Endangered Stations,” USGS, last modified April 30, 2014, http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/ThreatenedGages/ThreatenedGages.html 207 “SNOTEL and Snow Survey & Water Supply Forecasting,” National Water & Climate Center, last modified May 2013, http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/SNOTEL-brochure.pdf 208 “Federal Budget Cuts Threaten Snowpack Monitoring in Colorado,” Associated Press, The Denver Post, November 29, 2013, http://www.denverpost.com/weathernews/ci_24620815/federal-budget-cuts-threaten- snowpack-monitoring-colorado

108

coordinates the logistical response support. Both agencies work closely together during times of flooding209.

The NWS and Colorado’s ALERT system are responsible for issuing watches and warnings in the event of a flood.

18.6 Public Education and Awareness There are a variety of alerts and ways to share information in the event of a flood or possible flood event. For example, the USGS Water Alert is a service that “sends e-mails or text (SMS) messages when certain parameters, as measured by a USGS real-time data collection station, exceeds user-definable thresholds”210. In addition, USGS Water Now is a service that provides current water conditions directly to a phone or email address.

Colorado also posts all food related information on its “Flood Threat Portal” from May to September. Information included on the portal (available at www.coloradofloodthreat.com) includes a flood threat bulletin and map, which is issued daily; a 7 to 15 day flood threat outlook updated twice a week; and a statewide 24-hour precipitation map.

209 Houck,Kevin (Chief, Watershed and Flood Protection Section) in discussion with Larissa Sommerfeld, February 14, 2014. 210 “USGS WaterNow,” USGS, last modified February 24, 2014, http://water.usgs.gov/waternow/

109

Wireless Emergency Alerts in the United States

Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA)s are a way to notify the public that a flood warning has been issued. It is part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), along with the Emergency Alert System (EAS). WEA was implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and FEMA and participating wireless carriers were required to use it as of April 20121.

Authorized government alerting authorities, including local and state public safety agencies, FEMA, the FCC, the Department of Homeland Security and the NWS send an automatic warning for emergencies to all WEA-capable phones during an event2. The reason for sending these alerts includes Presidential Alerts, AMBER Alerts, and Imminent Threat alerts (severe man- made disasters and natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, extreme wind, blizzards, ice storms, tsunamis, and dust storms, where life or property may be threatened)3, 4. The service was used to save lives in Colorado during the 2013 floods – notifying residents about flooding, evacuation routes and road conditions5.

The service is free and there is no need to download an app or to sign up to receive messages. When an alert is issued in an area, cell towers will broadcast the message; all the cell phones within range will display a “text” as a screen pop-up and this will be accompanied by a loud ringtone and unique vibration. The geographic region for which an alert is issued is typically small.

As shown in the figure below, the alert will provide basic information such as: the sender of the alert, what the alert is for and what action to take6. Often an alert will advise the receiver to seek additional information, but if a threat is imminent (e.g. tornado, earthquake), the alert will advise the receiver to seek shelter7

8 WEA Example: The figure above shows a WEA text informing the users of a flash flood .

When the NWS issues an alert, it must be authorized by FEMA in partnership with the FCC and the wireless industry, which ultimately transmits the message9 . Unlike standard texts, the technology used ensures that the message is received, even in congested areas.

Not all phones are capable of receiving wireless alerts and users can opt-out of alerts. The Warning, Alert and Response Network Act allows users to block all WEAs except those issued by the President10.

Sources 1 “Wireless Emergency Alerts,” Federal Communications Commission, February 26, 2013. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-emergency-alerts-wea 2 “Weather-Ready Nation,” National Weather Service, May 24, 2013. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/com/weatherreadynation/wea.html#.UvpWWPldW-4 3 “Wireless Emergency Alerts,” CTIA – The Wireless Association, November 2013. http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless- emergency-alerts 4 “Mobile Weather Warnings on the way!” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June 6, 2012. http://www.noaa.gov/features/03_protecting/wireless_emergency_alerts.html 5 “Wireless Emergency Alerts,” CTIA – The Wireless Association, November 2013. http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless- emergency-alerts 6 Ibid. 7 “Mobile Weather Warnings on the way!” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June 6, 2012. http://www.noaa.gov/features/03_protecting/wireless_emergency_alerts.html 8 “Weather-Ready Nation,” National Weather Service, May 24, 2013. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/com/weatherreadynation/wea.html#.UvpWWPldW-4 9 “Wireless Emergency Alerts,” CTIA – The Wireless Association, November 2013. http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless- emergency-alerts 10 “Wireless Emergency Alerts,” Federal Communications Commission, February 26, 2013. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-emergency-alerts-wea

110

19. Japan

19.1 Background Japan has extensive experience dealing with flooding and natural disasters. For example, Japan experiences flash flooding, river flooding and storm surges due to typhoons, tsunamis, hurricanes and tropical storms. Japan also experiences flooding related to precipitation events and mountain run-off. Japan has extremely steep mountains and therefore the river channels are also steep and short. Japan receives a much higher than average amount of precipitation per year than the world average due to three precipitation seasons: heavy snowfall in the winter, a rainy season in June and July, and a typhoon season in September and October. Despite this abundance of precipitation, there is not a large capacity for storage along the rivers, so the water typically moves quickly downstream and to the ocean. These mountainous river systems are erratic and do not always conform to a defined channel211.

Between 1934 and 1959, Japan experienced extreme weather resulting in typhoons and other weather events. These storms resulted in significant loss of life, including in 1959 when 5,000 lives were lost after a massive flood event. A series of legislative measures were put into place in 1959 and onwards in response to these events. Recent floods, such as the Tokai heavy rain in 2000 and the multiple heavy rainstorms in 2004, have resulted in new government-led flood forecasting and mitigation efforts.

These new flood forecasting and mitigation efforts include work on river improvement, runoff control and damage mitigation measures that utilize structural and natural solutions. Structural measures include: embankments, dams, channel excavations, water storage, super levees and underground floodways to mitigate urban flooding.

Flood forecasting is the responsibility of the Japanese government. The Flood Fighting Act outlines the responsibilities of different organizations in the flood monitoring and forecasting process212. The two main government bodies responsible for flood forecasting are the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). The MLIT and JMA are jointly involved in monitoring, flood forecasting, forecast interpretation and warning construction, as shown in Figure 20.

211 “Land and Climate of Japan,” MLIT, 2007, accessed February 2014, http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/basic_info/english/land.html 212 Foundation of River and Basin Integrated Communication & MLIT Kanto Region, “River Information System and Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in Japan, 2013, accessed November 2013, http://whrm- kamoto.com/assets/files/River%20Information%20System%20Flood%20Forcating%20and%20Early%20Warning%20 in%20Japan%20for%20WGH%20in%20Seoul%202013.pdf

111

Figure 20: Japan's Flood Forecasting Program Note: Japan is divided into 47 prefectures. They are equivalent to provinces or states.

112

19.2 Policy and Legislation In Japan, there is a wide range of legislation related to flooding, which is referred to as the Comprehensive Flood Risk Management Program. Legislation included under this program includes:

• The Flood Fighting Act, which was enacted in 1949 after severe flooding and typhoon damage in the 1940s. Its primary purpose is to outline how warnings are communicated to municipalities and flood fighting groups. • The River Law (1964); the Law for Prevention of Disasters due to Collapse of Steep Slopes, the Flood Control Special Accounting Law (1960), and the First Five Year Plan for Flood Control (1960) all address a range of topics related to flooding. For example, the River Law provides a legislative basis for river management on highly managed rivers, which ensures water supply for users, flood control and consistently focuses on environmental issues.

19.3 Data Collection and Monitoring There are 2,400 telemetered river discharge gauges, 2,800 telemetered rainfall stations and 26 weather radars throughout Japan. Monitoring is pervasive across the entire country and stream gauges are abundant in all rivers213.

The MLIT is responsible for collecting river data, such as river height and streamflow. This data is collected in real time and is received in as little as two minutes after it is collected. Precipitation data is collected by rain radar units across the country. The MLIT also monitors soil moisture content214.

The MLIT has access to a CCTV network that is set up across the country to monitor rivers and roads. The CCTV network cameras have vast coverage and as a result, flooding can be captured on video.

The JMA collects extensive data including satellite imagery, temperature, precipitation, wind, sunshine duration and snow depth. The JMA also gathers oceanographic observations such as wave, tsunami and tropical cyclone data215.

There are two notable types of technology used in Japan: the radar rain gauge system and X-band radar rainfall imaging. The radar rain gauge system has a range of 240 kilometres and can identify the extent of a raincloud, its direction, speed and strength216. The X-band radar rainfall imaging technology

213 Tomonobu Sugiura, “River Information Management and Flood Forecasting in Japan,” presentation, accessed November 2013, http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/basic_info/english/pdf/conf_04.pdf 214 Ibid. 215 “Weather Warnings/Advisories,” Japan Meteorological Agency, 2002, accessed November 2013, http://www.jma.go.jp/en/warn/index.html 216 Foundation of River and Basin Integrated Communication & MLIT Kanto Region, “River Information System and Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in Japan, 2013, accessed November 2013, http://whrm- kamoto.com/assets/files/River%20Information%20System%20Flood%20Forcating%20and%20Early%20Warning%20 in%20Japan%20for%20WGH%20in%20Seoul%202013.pdf

113

has a high resolution with a 250 metre grid cell. Rainfall data are relayed from the sensors to the MLIT with a one to two minute delivery time217. The use of fibre optic cables allows for this quick delivery time.

19.4 Modelling and Forecasting The MLIT is the primary government branch responsible for flood forecasting. However, local JMA offices make forecasts for smaller rivers that are not included in the major rivers for flooding.

The MLIT uses a model called the Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS). Data from a variety of external sources is also used as an input into the IFAS model. IFAS can use ground rainfall data or satellite rainfall data to accurately predict flood run-off levels using GIS functions. It was determined that within IFAS, satellite data proves to be very similar to on the ground measuring and is an accurate representation of what is observed. This makes IFAS particularly useful in areas without sufficient gauges. Satellite-based rainfall data is publicly available online from NASA, NOAA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and is processed through JMA.

Ground-based rainfall data, DEM and land-use data from the USGS, soil data from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and NASA, and geological data from the Commission of the Geological Map of the World (CGMW) are all used as inputs into IFAS. These data are processed through the MLIT218. IFAS displays its results in a visualization simulation so flood risk can easily be identified.

IFAS was developed by the Infrastructure Development Institute (IDI), a MLIT organization, and is distributed for free. IFASs design makes it easily adaptable for use in other countries. For example, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam were all included in the thought process for developing IFAS219. Japan was highly involved in the development of Pakistan’s forecasting system and also played a key role in developing Thailand’s flood forecasting system220,221).

217 Foundation of River and Basin Integrated Communication & MLIT Kanto Region, “River Information System and Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in Japan, 2013, accessed November 2013, http://whrm- kamoto.com/assets/files/River%20Information%20System%20Flood%20Forcating%20and%20Early%20Warning%20 in%20Japan%20for%20WGH%20in%20Seoul%202013.pdf 218 Tomonobu Suguira, et al., “Development of Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS) and Its Applications,” 2009, accessed November 2013, http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/activity/pdf/reports/sugiura.090112.pdf 219 Ibid. 220 “Thailand to Launch World’s First Flood Forecast System Today”, Coconuts Bangkok, September 20, 2013, accessed January 2014.

114

19.5 Communication with Authorities and the Public during a Flood Event The protocol for communicating warnings and alerts is well developed in Japan due to the high frequency of natural disasters in the country. For example, 10 percent of all earthquakes in the world occur in Japan222.

When there is a risk of flooding due to heavy rain, a flood forecast is announced by MLIT and the JMA. This information is sent to the prefectures and the mass media. This forecast contains critical information for responders that will help them protect areas from damage, initiate flood fighting activities and inform local residents.

As outlined in the Flood Fighting Act, when the risk of flooding spans two or more prefectures, the MLIT and Director-General of the JMA inform the Governors of the prefectures and the public by working cooperatively with the mass media.

The MLIT issues a flood fighting alarm for larger rivers that may cause serious damage due to flooding, while the Prefectural Governor issues a flood fighting alarm for smaller rivers. When the MLIT issues a flood alarm, they must inform the Prefectural Governor immediately.

For both situations, the Prefectural Governor immediately informs all flood-related administrative organizations. The MLIT and JMA jointly announce the warnings to prefectures and the media223.

Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK: Japan Broadcasting Corporation) is a special corporation that is not state- operated. It differs from private companies in that it is regulated by the Management Commission that is appointed by the Prime Minister. This structure paves the way for the mass media being responsible for communicating about emergency situations to the public224.

When a warning is shown on television, ¾ of the screen will be taken up by the flood warning that includes river information, water levels and other information. On cell phones, the warning will appear automatically. Cell phone users do not need to sign up for a flood alert or have an app; rather, the alert is set to “hijack” any phone in or near the hazard area. In addition, there are emergency warning

221 “UNESCO Launches a Comprehensive Project to Strengthen Flood Forecasting and Management Capacity in Pakistan,” Natural Sciences Sector, November 11, 2011, accessed January 2014, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single- view/news/unesco_launches_a_comprehensive_project_to_strengthen_flood_forecasting_and_management_capa city_in_pakistan/#.UydIlvldW-5 222 Foundation of River and Basin Integrated Communication & MLIT Kanto Region, “River Information System and Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in Japan, 2013, accessed November 2013, http://whrm- kamoto.com/assets/files/River%20Information%20System%20Flood%20Forcating%20and%20Early%20Warning%20 in%20Japan%20for%20WGH%20in%20Seoul%202013.pdf 223 Ibid. 224 “Mass Media,” Japan Fact Sheet, accessed November 2013, http://web-japan.org/factsheet/en/pdf/e41_mass.pdf

115

devices across the nation. Similar to air raid sirens, these alarms will sound when a warning is communicated through mass media.

19.5.1 Timing of Warnings River information and current alert levels are broadcast instantly on TV, the internet and mobile phones. Flood forecasts have a six hour lead time225.

19.6 Public Education and Awareness 19.6.1 Flood Hazard Maps Flood hazard maps are made available to the public by the government of Japan. Research in Japan has shown that citizens who have looked at hazard maps in advance of a flood evacuate at a quicker rate during a flood event than those who have not seen a hazard map (see Figure 21)226.

Figure 21: Benefit of Flood Hazard Maps in Japan 19.6.2 Visual Aids

225 Tomonobu Sugiura, “River Information Management and Flood Forecasting in Japan,” presentation, accessed November 2013, http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/basic_info/english/pdf/conf_04.pdf 226 K. Seki, “Comprehensive Flood Management in Japan,” MLIT, 2005, accessed November 2013.

116

The Japanese government also has raised awareness of flooding by creating visual aids that qualify observed water levels into cautionary levels for flood responders and residents (see Figure 22)227. Predetermined actions will be taken when water levels reach a predetermined point (see Figure 23)228. The five water levels and their corresponding actions are:

1. Advisory - Responders on standby. 2. Caution - Responders are on flood watch, mobilizing flood-fighting group. 3. Warning - Issuing flood evacuation recommendation. Decision made by municipal governor. 4. Danger - Completing evacuation. Risk of serious disaster. 5. Flood - Rescuing residents who fail to evacuate. Highest water level the embankment can bear.

Figure 22: Stationary Poles to Identify Hazard Levels in Japan

227 Foundation of River and Basin Integrated Communication & MLIT Kanto Region, “River Information System and Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in Japan, 2013, accessed November 2013, http://whrm- kamoto.com/assets/files/River%20Information%20System%20Flood%20Forcating%20and%20Early%20Warning%20 in%20Japan%20for%20WGH%20in%20Seoul%202013.pdf 228 Ibid.

117

Figure 23: River Levels and Corresponding Actions in Japan.

118

20. Learning from other Jurisdictions Alberta’s flood forecasting program is facing challenges in data collection; communication with authorities; timing of warnings; flash flood warnings; communication with the public; public education and awareness; and forecast group staffing and capacity (refer to Section 5).

Many of these challenges are not exclusive to Alberta; some are common challenges in many of the jurisdictions that were surveyed. Some jurisdictions have found interesting ways to address these challenges, examples are described in the sections below. It is important to note, however, that these examples are by no means the “one and only solutions” for the challenges that Alberta is facing. They are presented to provide “food for thought” and additional research into the practicality of implementing these solutions in Alberta is required.

20.1 Data Collection and Monitoring In Colorado, the forecasting program uses some data from CoCoRaHS, a non-profit volunteer-based network. Manual observations of rain, hail and snow are provided on a daily basis. This data can help supplement data gaps and add to existing data. However, the network cannot provide real time or near-real time data.

In Canada, jurisdictions such as Ontario and Manitoba are working to integrate CoCoRaHS data into their existing data frameworks. The development of the CoCoRaHS Canada network has been driven by a lack of extensive monitoring networks run by provincial and/or federal programs, and the development of the network in Canada is supported by Environment Canada229.

20.2 Communication with Authorities Most flood forecasting centres in other jurisdictions are not responsible for communicating flood warnings to authorities or the public. For example, in BC the RFC is only responsible for flood forecasting while Emergency Management BC is responsible for notifying local authorities in the event of a flood.

Alternatively, a unique aspect of Switzerland’s flood forecasting is how warning communication differs depending on the severity of a predicted event. If the flood event poses a low threat, information will only be posted on the OFEV website. For medium level risk, OFEV will alert the Confédération and the Cantons through CENAL, which initiates responders to take action. In a high-level hazard flood event, in addition to the previous modes of communication, OFEV will contact mass media directly and issue an alert to the public.

229 Rick Fleetwood, “EC National Snow Measurement Network Project,” presentation, WMO Snow-Watch Workshop, January 28-30, 2013, https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/OSY/Meetings/GCW- PS1/Doc3.1_EC_NetworkProject.pdf

119

20.3 Flash Flood Warnings Flash flood warnings appear to be a challenge in the majority of jurisdictions surveyed. For example, in Australia, there is a lack of definitive legislation that allocates responsibilities for flash flood forecasting to a specific level of government. This has been an area of frustration for the BoM and local municipalities. From the research obtained in this project, no specific legislation related to flash flood warnings was found.

20.4 Communication with the Public The UK’s ability to produce daily flood guidance statements within agencies that use the expertise and knowledge of both hydrologists and meteorologists results in accurate reports and timely flood warnings. Additionally, the UK’s flood warning communication and timing of warnings is exemplary due to their use of Floodline. Authorities and the general public can access Floodline by phone or online at any time to receive data and information on flooding and/or drought conditions in a specific area. This open, transparent and accessible system ensures that people and communities across England and Scotland are aware of flooding risks in their areas.

20.5 Public Education and Awareness Public education and awareness was identified as a challenge in most jurisdictions. Awareness of flooding only appears to be high when events happen regularly or are particularly destructive. All Canadian jurisdictions appear to struggle with this, although there are some local knowledge building groups in BC, like the Fraser Basin Council, and the Conservation Authorities in Ontario. In countries such as Australia, for example, all relevant information is easily accessible on the BoM’s website, which may result in a higher level of public education and awareness.

20.6 Forecast Group Staffing and Capacity Forecast group staffing and capacity was identified as a challenge in many of the jurisdictions surveyed. In Australia, there are fifty-four staff members in the flood forecasting section of the BoM230. However, it is difficult to compare the capacity of different forecasting groups across jurisdictions, as some are likely to be larger and better funded than others due the jurisdiction’s size and prevalence of flood risk. Perhaps the best way to ensure Alberta’s RFC has sufficient staffing and capacity is to confirm that staffing and capacity is comparable to similar jurisdictions.

230 Jeff Perkins, 2013, “Outcomes of the Australian Floods of 2010 – 2013,” presentation.

120

21. Summary The destructive June 2013 floods that impacted southern Alberta left behind devastating amounts of damage and destruction. Despite the clean-up and recovery challenges, opportunities in improving flood mitigation and forecasting measures began to present themselves. While flood management challenges facing Alberta are numerous, there are specific areas where improvements can be made to significantly advance flood forecasting in our province. Of critical importance is continued will from policymakers, communities and individuals to address these challenges. Areas that require improvement include; rethinking how and when warnings are issued, communication in the event of a flood, and increasing the operational capacity of the Alberta RFC. Despite these identified gaps, Alberta’s approach to flood forecasting is established and working well. Areas such as data collection methods, modelling and data management have been updated and share similarities with other jurisdictions that remain leaders in flood forecasting. Nonetheless, Alberta’s geography, climate and river systems point to the need for a well-rounded, state-of-the-art flood forecasting and warning dissemination system.

This jurisdictional review has shown that Alberta is facing similar challenges in flood forecasting and warning dissemination as other national and international jurisdictions. For example, other jurisdictions have struggled in the areas of flash flood forecasting, modelling and data management. From this comparison, it is evident that opportunities exist for Alberta to further consider improving the current system of flood forecasting and determine how these changes could occur. Above all, this study exemplified the importance of recognizing that flood forecasting programs must be specific to the region in which they are applied. For this reason, unique approaches in modelling, forecasting, and warning should be explored that reflect Alberta’s unique geography, water systems and populations. Valuable lessons that can be learned from other jurisdictions that have experienced flooding similar to Alberta indicate the need for flood forecasting and warning dissemination practices to be well- rounded and reflective of local conditions.

121

Acronyms Acronym Definition AEMA Alberta Emergency Management Agency AESB Agri-Environment Services Branch ALADIN Model API Antecedent Precipitation Index ARD Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development ASERT Alberta Environment Support and Emergency Response Team ASP automated snow pillow ATHYS Model BC RFC British Columbia River Forecast Centre BfG German Federal Institute of Hydrology BFIS Bavarian Flood Information Service BoM Australian Bureau of Meteorology CCG Central Coordination Group CCTV Closed Circuit Television CENAL Central Nationale d’Alarme cms cubic metres per second CN Rail Canadian National Railway Company CoCoRaHS Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow COGIC Le Centre Opérationnel de Gestion Interministérielle des Crises COGIC the National Operational Centre for Interministerial Crisis Management COSMO-LEPS European Consortium on Meteorology - Limited Area Ensemble Prediction System COZ Centre Opérationnel de Zone COZ civil defense zones CP Rail Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board Delft-FEWS Flood Early Warning System DEM digital elevation model DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DG Directorate General DOC District Operation Centres DWD Deutscher WetterDienst DWD German Weather Service EAS Emergency Alert System EC Environment Canada ECMWF European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts EEA European Environment Agency

122

Acronym Definition EFAS European Flood Awareness System EMBC Emergency Mangament BC ESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development EWS Early Warning System EXCIFF European Exchange Circle on Flood Forecasting EXCIMAP European Exchange Circle on Flood Mapping FCC Federal Communications Commission FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFC English Flood Forecasting Centre FLNRO Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations FLORIS Model FROUT Fraser Routing Model FTF Flood Task Force FW- Flood Watch FW+ Flood Warning GFS Global Forecast System GIS Geographic Information Systems GoA Government of Alberta GOES Geostationary Opertional Environmental Satellite GRDC Global Runoff Data Centre HAS High Streamflow Advisory HBV Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning HFC Hydrologic Forecast Centre HiRLAM Model IBC Insurance Bureau of Canada IDI Infrastructure Development Institute IPAWS Integrated Public Alert and Warning System JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency JMA Japan Meteorological Agency JRC Joint Research Council KNMI National Meteorological Institute LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LISFLOOD Model MAFRD Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development MANAPI Manitoba Antecedent Precipitation Index Met Office UK Meteorological Office MIT Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation MLIT Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastrucutre and Transport

123

Acronym Definition MNR Ontario Minitry of Natural Resources MODIS Model MoE BC Ministry of Environment MOSS Model MoTI Ministry of Transporation and Infrastrucutre MROC Ministry Regional Operation Centres MSC Meteorological Service of Canada NASA National Aeonautics and Space Administration NHK Nippon Hoso Kyokai NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation NHS National Hydrological Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRT near real time NWS National Weather Service OFEV The Office Fédéral de l'Environnement OSIRIS Model PREVAH Precipitation-Runoff-Evapotranspiration HRU Model RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RFC Alberta River Forecast Centre RMS River Flood Model RVCA Rideau Valley Conservation Authority SCHAPI Service Central d’Hydrometeorologie et d’Appui a la Prevision des Inondations SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SFFS Scottish Flood Forecasting Service SK RFC Saskatchewan River Forecast Centre SLF Institut für Schnee-und Lawinenforschung SNOTEL Snow Telemetry SNOW 3 Model SOBEK Model SPC State Local Service Centres SWA Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (former name of WSA) SWMC Surface Water Monitoring Centre UBC University of British Columbia URBS United River Basin Simulator USGS United States Geological Survey VIC Variable Infiltration Capacity WARNS Water Numeric System

124

Acronym Definition WaSiM Water flow and balance Simulation Model WATF Water Availability Task Force WAVOS Model WEA Wireless Emergency Alerts WIN Weather Innovations Consulting WISE Water Information System for Europe WISKI Water Information System KISTERS WMCN Water Management Centre WPACs Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils WSA Water Security Agency (formerly SWA) WSC Water Survey of Canada

125

References

“A New EU Floods Directive.” European Commission. Accessed November 1, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/

“About the Department. ”Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation. 2013. http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/index.html

“About Us.” Bureau of Meteorology. 2013. http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/index.shtml?ref=hdr

“About Us.” Met Office. Accessed January 2014. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us

“About WSA.” Saskatchewan Water Security Agency. Accessed December 20, 2013. https://www.wsask.ca/About-WSA/

“After the Flood: Life in Germany’s Disaster Zone.” Spiegel Online: International. July 12, 2013. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/multimedia-special- german-communities-rebuild-after-mass-flood-a-910812.html

Alberta WaterSMART. “The 2013 Great Alberta Flood: Actions to Mitigate, Manage and Control Future Floods.” 2013.

Alberta WaterSMART and Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions. “Bow Basin Flood Mitigation and Watershed Management Project.” March 31, 2014.

Arlington Group. “Flood Protection Strategies in British Columbia.” 2010.

“Australian Water Information Dictionary.” Bureau of Meteorology. 2014. http://www.bom.gov.au/water/awid/initial-a.shtml

“Bow River Fact Sheet.” Bow Riverkeeper. Accessed November 5, 2013. http://brk.kobblefish.com/bow-river-fact-sheet

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Land and Parks – Water Management Branch and Ministry of Attorney General – Provincial Emergency Program, “References,” Flood Planning and Response Guide for British Columbia, Accessed January 21, 2014, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/fld_plan_resp_guide_99/chapter4.pdf

“Climatology of Temperature and Precipitation.” Environment Canada. Last modified March 25, 2014. Accessed March 30, 2014. http://weather.gc.ca/saisons/clim_e.html

126

Colorado Water Conservation Board. “Chapter 6: Flood Preparedness Activities and Flood Hazard Mitigation.” 2006. In Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater Criteria Manual.

“Colorado Water Conservation Board.” Colorado Department of Natural Resources. http://cwcb.state.co.us/Pages/CWCBHome.aspx

Connelly, Brian. “Flood Forecasting Methodology in North Dakota.” Presentation at the CWRA Manitoba Branch Workshop, Flood Forecasting: Fact vs. Fiction?, Winnipeg, MB, January 31, 2014.

Davison, Bruce. “Environment Canada Modelling Systems and the 2013 Alberta Floods.” Presentation at the Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions Flood Forecasting Methods and Models – Comparing Approaches and Best Practices workshop, Calgary, AB, February 19, 2014. de Kleermaeker, Simone, et al., 2012, “A New Coastal Flood Forecasting System for the Netherlands,” Deltares and Rijkswaterstaat. http://proceedings.utwente.nl/246/1/Hydro12_44_New_Flood_Forecasting_System_for_Dutc h_Coast_-_Paper.pdf

“Delft-FEWS Software.” Deltares. 2010.

“Did You Know?” Holland. Accessed November 1, 2013. http://www.holland.com/global/tourism/article/did-you-know.htm

“Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.” European Commission. OJ L 311, 6.11.2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060

“Disaster 2.0: Germans Turn to Facebook for Flood Relief.” Spiegel Online International. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/flawed-warning-systems- send-germans-to-facebook-for-flood-relief-a-904765.html

Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management. “State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan.” State of Colorado. Last modified on December 31, 2013. http://www.dhsem.state.co.us/emergency-management/mitigation- recovery/mitigation/state-colorado-natural-hazards-mitigation-plan

127

“Dodging the Perfect Storm: Conservation Ontario’s Business Case for Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs, Services and Structures.” Conservation Ontario. September 2013. Pg. 1-18.

Emergency Management BC. “The British Columbia Flood Response Plan.” 2012.

“Europe Floods: Hungary Danube Set for Record High.” BBC News: Europe. June 7, 2013. Accessed November 1, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22811172

“European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.” ECMWF. Last modified December 10, 2013. Accessed December 12, 2013. http://www.ecmwf.int/

“European Flood Awareness System (EFAS).” European Commission: Joint Research Centre. Accessed November 1, 2013. http://www.efas.eu/

“Federal Budget Cuts Threaten Snowpack Monitoring in Colorado.” Associated Press. The Denver Post. November 29, 2013. http://www.denverpost.com/weathernews/ci_24620815/federal-budget- cuts-threaten-snowpack-monitoring-colorado

“FEWS – Flood Early Warning System, Switzerland.” Deltares. Accessed March 2014. http://content.oss.deltares.nl/fews/files//National%20Flood%20Forecasting%20System%20Sw itzerland%20(FEWS-FOEN).pdf

“Flash Floods and Urban Flooding in France.” Climate Adaptations. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.climateadaptation.eu/france/flash-floods-and-urban-flooding/

Fleetwood, Rick. “EC National Snow Measurement Network Project.” Presentation, WMO Snow- Watch Workshop, January 28-30, 2013. https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/OSY/Meetings/GCW- PS1/Doc3.1_EC_NetworkProject.pdf

“Flood Forecast Info.” Government of Manitoba. 2013. http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/index.html

“Flood Forecasting and Warning Services – Information Sheet 6.” Bureau of Meteorology. 2013.

“Flood Forecasting Centres across Canada.” Environment Canada. Last modified July 22, 2013. http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=7BF9B012-1

128

“Flood Guidance Statement: User Guide Version 2.1.” Flood Forecasting Centre. May 2013. Pg. 1-8.

“Flood Hit South-Eastern France After Record Rainfall.” Euronews. January 20, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.euronews.com/2014/01/20/floods-hit-south-eastern-france- after-record-rainfall/

“Flood Management Practice in European Union.” FLOODsite. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.floodsite.net/html/cd_task17-19/flood_management_practice.html

“Flood Monitoring - What MNR Does.” Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Accessed October 31, 2013. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/EmergencyManagement/2ColumnSubPage/270719.h tml

Flood Preparedness and Safety,” Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/flood/EMA_Floods_warning_preparedness_safety.pdf

“Flood Preparedness with Alberta’s River Forecast Centre.” Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Blog. May 6, 2013. http://aesrd.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/flood- preparedness-with-albertas-river-forecast-centre/

“Flood Projects.” Fraser Basin Council. Accessed January 14, 2014. http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/water_flood_projects.html

“Flood Protection and Prevention.” Conservation Ontario. Presentation. 2010. Accessed January 27, 2014. http://www.conservation- ontario.on.ca/projects/floodstatus/CA_roles_and_responsibilities_CO_2010.pdf

“Flood Report for Manitoba – May 13, 2013.”Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation. 2013. http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/floodoutlook/forecast_centre/daily_reports/2013/en/fl ood_report_may_31_2013.pdf

Flood Risk Matrix” in Flood Guidance Statement: User Guide Version 2.1. Flood Forecasting Centre. May 2013. Pg. 1-9.

“Flood Risk in Switzerland.” ch.ch. Confédération Suisse. 2014. Accessed March 2014, https://www.ch.ch/en/flood-risks/

129

“Floodline’s direct warning service.” SEPA. Accessed January 2014. http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/sepas_floodline_service.aspx

“Forecasts/Reports.” Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation. 2013. Accessed November 11, 2013. http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/floodoutlook/forecasts_reports.html

Foundation of River and Basin Integrated Communication & MLIT Kanto Region. “River Information System and Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in Japan.” 2013. Presentation. http://whrm- kamoto.com/assets/files/River%20Information%20System%20Flood%20Forcating%20and%20 Early%20Warning%20in%20Japan%20for%20WGH%20in%20Seoul%202013.pdf

“Frequently Asked Questions.” Environment Canada Water Office. Last modified April 15, 2013. Accessed November 4, 2013. http://www.wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/mainmenu/faq_e.html

Friesenhan, Evan. “Flood Forecasting Methodology in Alberta.” Presentation at the Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions Flood Forecasting Methods and Models – Comparing Approaches and Best Practices workshop, Calgary, AB, February 18, 2014.

George, Akinbola. “Flood Forecasting in Manitoba.” Presentation at the CWRA Manitoba Branch Workshop, Flood Forecasting: Fact vs. Fiction?, Winnipeg, MB, January 31, 2014.

“Germany Flooding Forces Evacuations and Railway Shutdown.” CBC News. June 10, 2013. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/germany-flooding-forces- evacuations-and-railway-shutdown-1.1345069

“Germany River Flood.” Risk Management Solutions. Newark, CA, USA. 2006: pg. 1-2.

“Glossary of Terms.” BC River Forecast Centre. 2013. Accessed November 4, 2013. http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/glossary.htm

Government of Manitoba. “Manitoba 2011 Flood Review Task Force Report.” 2013 http://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/2011flood/flood_review_task_force_report.pdf

“Handbook on Good Practices for Flood Mapping in Europe.” EXCIMAP. (November 2007): Pg. 1- 60.

Higgins, Andrew. “Lessons for U.S. from a Flood-Prone Land.” The New York Times. November 14, 2013. Accessed November 1, 2013.

130

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/europe/netherlands-sets-model-of-flood- prevention.html?_r=0

“How we Forecast Floods, Issue Warnings, and Communicate Flood Risk.” Environment Agency. Accessed January 2014. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31680.aspx

“Hydrograph Travel Time Analysis.” Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. Accessed November 5, 2013. http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/doctype30/Production/HyGrTvTmAys.pdf

“Implementation of the EU Flood Directive.” Deltares. Pgs. 1-4.

“Improved Flood Resilience through Joint Forecasting in Scotland and Northern Ireland.” SEPA. December 2009. Pg. 1-104.

“Introduction to Delft-FEWS.” Deltares. July 2009.

“July Flash Flood Ontario’s Most Costly Natural Disaster.” Metro News. August 14, 2013. Accessed October 30, 2013. http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/766586/july-flood-ontarios-most- costly-natural-disaster/

“Land and Climate of Japan.” MLIT. 2007. Accessed February 2014. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/basic_info/english/land.html

Leahy, Chris. “HyFS –A New National Forecasting System for Australia.” 2013. Presentation. October 30, 2013. http://oss.deltares.nl/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f13f26a1-cb37- 494a-8c51-5591c2d0293b&groupId=145641

Lee, Jeannie Mei Ling. “Applications of Geographic Information System Data in the UBC Watershed Model.” Master’s Thesis. University of British Columbia, 1996.

“LISFLOOD Model.” European Commission Joint Research Centre: Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Accessed November 1, 2013. Last modified September 14, 2010. http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lisflood-model.html

“Mass Media,” Japan Fact Sheet. Accessed November 2013. http://web- japan.org/factsheet/en/pdf/e41_mass.pdf

131

McClure, Matt. “Alberta Must Do a ‘Much Better Job of Forecasting’ After Failing to Sound Flood Alarm Early.” Calgary Herald. July 11, 2013. http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Alberta+must+much+better+forecasting+after+f ailing+sound+flood+alarm+early/8595081/story.html

McGhee, Tom. “Colorado’s Flood History Led to Changes.” The Denver Post. September 19, 2013. Accessed October 31, 2013. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24134434/colorados-flood-history-led-changes

Meibner, Dennis. “Abstract of the Presentation ‘Water-Level Forecasting Along Major Rivers in Germany.” WMO Workshop on Inter-comparison of Flood Forecasting Models. Koblenz, Germany, September 14-16, 2011.

“Mobile Weather Warnings on the way!” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June 6, 2012. http://www.noaa.gov/features/03_protecting/wireless_emergency_alerts.html

Munro, Chloe. “Review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s Capacity to Respond to Future Extreme Weather and Natural Disaster Events and to Provide Seasonal Forecasting Services.” 2011. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bc0cc118-a6f2-496c-82fd- 0b092c4cc7a5/files/bom-review.pdf

Perkins, Jeff. 2013. “Outcomes of the Australian Floods of 2010 – 2013.” Presentation at the 10th National Hydrologic Warning Council Training Conference and Exposition, in Ponte Verdra, Florida, June 3 to 6, 2013.

“Protection and Emergency Services.” Government of Saskatchewan. 2014. http://gr.gov.sk.ca/Protection-and-Emergency-Services

“Rainfall Forecasts with a Very High Resolution Version of HiRLAM.” KNMI. Accessed November 2013. http://www.knmi.nl/~bruijnde/ireland/wm_am_en.html

“Rideau River Flood Control.” City of Ottawa. Accessed January 2014. http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/air-land-and-water/rideau-river-flood- control

“River Forecast Centre.” British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013. Accessed January 23 2014. http://bcrfc.env.gov.bc.ca/

“Room for the River Programme.” Programme Directorate. Accessed November 1,

132

2013. http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/meta-navigatie/english/room-for-the-river- programme/

Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, “2012-13 Annual Report,” 2013, http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/PlanningAndReporting/2012-13/201213SWSAAnnualReport.pdf

Saskatchewan Water Security Agency. “25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan.” 2012. https://www.wsask.ca/Global/About WSA/25 Year Water Security Plan/WSA_25YearReportweb.pdf

Saskatchewan Water Security Agency. “Plan for 2013-14.” http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/PlanningAndReporting/2013-14/SWSAPlan1314.pdf

“Scottish Flood Forecasting Service.” Met Office. Accessed February 2014. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publicsector/devolved/scotland-flood-forecasting-service

Seki, K. “Comprehensive Flood Management in Japan.” MLIT. 2005. Accessed November 2013.

SKM. “Joint Calibration of a Hydrologic and Hydrodynamic Model of the Lower Brisbane River.” 2011. http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/8825/SKM_Joint_Calibr ation_of_Hydrologic_and_Hydrodynamic_Model.pdf

Slomp. Robert. “Risk and Water Management in the Netherlands: A 2012 Update.” Rijkswaterstaat. July 9, 2012. Pg. 1-102.

“SNOTEL and Snow Survey & Water Supply Forecasting.” National Water & Climate Center. Last modified May 2013, http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/SNOTEL-brochure.pdf

“Snow Data.” Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development – Environmental Management, Water Management Operations Branch. Accessed November 6, 2013. http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/basins/Map.aspx?Basin=10&DataType=4

“Spring Runoff Potential as of March 5, 2013.” Saskatchewan Water Security Agency. https://www.wsask.ca/Global/Lakes and Rivers/Provincial Forecast/SpringPotential_Runoff_Mar05_2013.pdf

Sugiura,Tomonobu. “River Information Management and Flood Forecasting in Japan.” Presentation. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/basic_info/english/pdf/conf_04.pdf

133

Suguira, Tomonobu, et al. “Development of Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS) and Its Applications.” 2009. Accessed November 2013. http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/activity/pdf/reports/sugiura.090112.pdf

“Surface Water Monitoring Centre Extranet.” Government of Ontario. Accessed January 2014. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Water/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_178320.html

“Thailand to Launch World’s First Flood Forecast System Today.” Coconuts Bangkok. September 20, 2013. Accessed January 2014.

“The Pitt Review- Lessons Learned from the 2007 Floods.” Environment Agency. Accessed January 2013. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/33889.aspx

The State of Queensland (Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist). “Components of a Flood Warning System.” Figure. 2013. http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/publications/understanding-floods/comm-warn-about- floods.aspx.

The Water Information System for Europe.” European Commission and European Environment Agency. Accessed November 1, 2013. http://water.europa.eu/

Thompson, Robert. “Australian Bureau of Meteorology – Flood Warning Field and Data Collection Systems – A Highly Available National Service.” 2011, Australian Government.

“Three day flood risk forecast.” Environment Agency. Accessed January 2014. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/3days/125305.aspx

“Topography.” University of Illinois. Accessed November 1, 2013. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/cond/orog.rxml

UNESCO Launches a Comprehensive Project to Strengthen Flood Forecasting and Management Capacity in Pakistan,” Natural Sciences Sector, November 11, 2011, accessed January 2014, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single- view/news/unesco_launches_a_comprehensive_project_to_strengthen_flood_forecasting_an d_management_capacity_in_pakistan/#.UydIlvldW-5

“USGS Threatened and Endangered Stations.” USGS. Last modified April 30, 2014,

134

http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/ThreatenedGages/ThreatenedGages.html

“USGS WaterNow.” USGS. Last modified February 24, 2014. http://water.usgs.gov/waternow/

Vogelbacher, Alfons. “Communication of Uncertainties in Practice - An Example from Bavaria.” HEPEX. October 29, 2013. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://hepex.irstea.fr/communication-of- uncertainties-in-practice-an-example-from-bavaria/

“Water Levels - Data from Selected Gauging Stations on German Federal Waterways.” BfG. Accessed March 25, 2014. http://www.bafg.de/EN/06_Info_Service/01_WaterLevels/waterlevels_node.html

“Water Security Agency Launches Mobile Website.” Saskatchewan Water Security Agency. 2013. https://www.wsask.ca/About-WSA/News-Releases/2013/March/WATER-SECURITY-AGENCY- LAUNCHES-MOBILE-WEBSITE-/

Weather Warnings/Advisories.” Japan Meteorological Agency. 2002. Accessed November 2013. http://www.jma.go.jp/en/warn/index.html

“Weather-Ready Nation,” National Weather Service, May 24, 2013. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/com/weatherreadynation/wea.html#.UvpWWPldW-4

Werner, M. et al. “Delft-FEWS Flow Forecasting System.” Environmental Monitoring & Software 40 (2013).

“What are Provincial and Local Flood Messages?” Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Accessed January 2014. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/EmergencyManagement/2ColumnSubPage/239496.h tml

“Wireless Emergency Alerts,” CTIA – The Wireless Association, November 2013. http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless-emergency-alerts

“Wireless Emergency Alerts,” Federal Communications Commission, February 26, 2013. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-emergency-alerts-wea

Wittwer, Caroline. “National and Regional Services for Flood Forecasting and Hydrometry.” SCHAPI. Presentation provided in Toulouse, France, March 25-27, 2009.

“World Water Day 2004: Ongoing Research Projects.” http://ec.europa.eu/research/dossier/do220304/floods_en.html

135

Zurich Insurance Group. “European Floods: Using Lessons Learned to Reduce Risks.” 2013. Accessed March 2014. http://www.zurich.com/internet/main/sitecollectiondocuments/insight/european-floods- using-lessions-learned-en.pdf

136