Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Susan Ryan
Water table
Meyboom, 1961
Shale Sandstone
Study Purpose
1. What causes flooding?
Precipitation in the watershed Stream Discharge Elbow River alluvial aquifer behaviour
2. During the 2005 flood event which one of these three factors was dominant? Are other flood years similar?
3. How accurate are recurrence intervals?
Maximum discharge at each river gauging station during three major flood events.
1000
2005 1990
100
1992
Comparing peak discharge volumes at Sarcee Bridge and precipitation amounts recorded at Elbow River Ranger Station for extreme years.
Discharge
Mean Temperature
Total Rainfall
Total Snowfall
Does the alluvial aquifer return to pre-flood levels between flood years?
Estimated Aquifer Storage (Millions of m3) 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200
Baseflow recession calculations depicting the amount of water stored within the aquifer during the recession period following a peak discharge event.
19 65 -1 19 96 66 6 -1 19 96 67 7 -1 19 96 68 8 -1 19 96 92 9 -1 19 99 93 3 -1 19 99 94 4 -1 19 99 95 5 -1 19 99 96 6 -1 20 99 02 7 -2 20 00 03 3 -2 20 00 04 4 -2 00 5
Flow Recession Year
Flood Probability
Recurrence Intervals and Flows
1 in 20 Year Flood = 340 m3/s 1 in 100 Year Flood = 758 m3/s (As calculated by Alberta Environment)
When flows exceed 170 m3/s flooding begins below the dam
Glenmore Reservoir was at 64 % of capacity on June 5, 2005
1 in 28 yrs
1 in 24 yrs
1 in 28 yrs
Conclusions
1. Flooding is influenced most by climatic factors above Bragg Creek 2. In 2005 the main factor influencing the flood magnitude was precipitation upstream of Calgary
In any given year a number of factors interact to determine the magnitude of discharge in the Elbow River Precipitation is generally the flood trigger
3. Over-winter groundwater storage doesnt play a significant role in spring floods 4. Recurrence interval estimation is highly sensitive to length of data record
Healthy
http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/maroochyriverrecovery/images/river_health.jpg
Unhealthy
Purpose
Investigate the ecological changes after the 2005 flood
Study
Pre and post flood comparison using data including last years ENSC 502 data
Study Area
Ogden
Samples taken November 5th and 10th, 2005 Methods followed Alberta Environments (AENV) Water Quality Sampling Manual 2002 or other standard methods
Ogden
Southland
Pine Creek
Pine Creek
River Parameters
Rock algae (Periphyton) Stream Insects (Macroinvertebrates) Aquatic Plants (Macrophytes) River bed profiles River Sediment Nutrients
- Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P)
Summary of Results
Recovered quickly: Rock algae Time for recovery unknown: Aquatic insects Variable response to flood Aquatic plants (dramatic decrease) Little observed change: Water quality Trout redds Other findings: Sediment nutrients lower in most samples
Worm
(Oligochaeta)
Midge
(Chironomidae)
Midge
(Simullidae)
Mayfly
(Ephemerillidae)
Caddisfly
(Tricoptera)
2005 2004
Southland
Site
Heritage Ogden
10
15
20
25
Number of Groups
At each site along the Bow River, insect diversity decreased from 2004 to 2005.
Aquatic Plants
Advantages Traps sediment, thereby cleaning the water column Habitat for stream insects Disadvantages Increases in sediment nutrients can lead to excessive macrophyte growth Affects dissolved oxygen
2005 2004
Macrophyte biomass observed at four sites in the Bow River with mean and SE (standard error) for 2004 and 2005.
# redds
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
Number of Brown trout redds observed in the lower Elbow River since 1980 (no survey 2003). Data courtesy of C. Bjornson, Golder Associates.
Southland
Before
Before
Depth (m)
1
0.3
Depth (m)
After
After
20
40
60
80
100
15
30
45
60
75
90
VE: ~30
VE: ~7.5
Vertically Exaggerated (VE) stream profiles near the Ogden and Southland sites showing the cross-section of the stream bed before and after the flood.
Conclusions
Major ecological changes were found along the Bow River Some already recovered (rock algae), although other parameters may take a while to recover Scouring is most likely responsible for many of the changes Further analysis would be required to establish long term changes
Floodfringe
Initial Findings
Response Rate
96%
30%
70%
4
n= 20
n=
n= 12
12
n= 10
n= 3
n= 4
n= 3 1
n= 2
n= 2
n= 4
n= 2
n= 6
0 -6 0 12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264
n= 3
n= 3
n= 1
n= 1
n= 1
n= 1
n= 0
n= 1
n= 1
n= 1
n=
Study Conclusions
Underground seepage (not overland flow) responsible for most of flood damage Ground elevation above river was as good a predictor of this damage as distance from floodway
A better approach:
Regulate basement depths with respect to river (and water) table elevation Consider zoning areas based on basement elevation above 1:100 year river (and groundwater level) as well as distance from floodway
EXAMPLE: Southland - outer meander exhibiting substantial erosion after the flood
BEFORE AFTER
Acknowledgements
Don Binns City of Calgary Parks Bert van Duin Westhoff Engineering Resources, Inc. Mac Hickley Rivers Valley Council Cathy Ryan - U of C, ENSC 502 Mentor Susan Ryan - RVC Dr. Mary-Ellen Tyler U of C, EVDS
Acknowledgements
Don Binns City of Calgary Parks Chris Bjornsen Golder Associates Maarten Dankers ENSC graduate Bert van Duin Westhoff Engineering Resources, Inc. Mac Hickley Rivers Valley Council Don Iredale U of C Mike Iwanyshyn U of C Doreen LeClair, Ray Walker, Al Sosiak - AENV Farzin Malekani U of C Brenda Mottle U of C Dr. Cathy Ryan U of C Gillian Savage and Travis Johnson, U of C Dr. Mary-Ellen Tyler U of C, EVDS
Acknowledgements
David Nuell Cathy Ryan Linda Henderson Mac Hickley Bill Morrison Susan Ryan Chris Arko Bryce Haimila Larry Garner Terry Fedick Gordon Smith Dave Lieske
Acknowledgements
Dr. Anil Gupta (AENV) Dr. Masaki Hayashi (U of C) Mike Iwanyshyn (U of C) Dr. Shawn Marshall (U of C) Greg Rokosh (ENSC 502) Dr. Cathy Ryan (U of C) Dr. Caterina Valeo (U of C) Alberta Environment Environment Canada Natural Resources Canada