7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
1/49
Flood 2005: Lessons Learned
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 502
Susan
Ryan
Presented by Kelly Carter and Ryan WillsonJ une 14, 2006
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
2/49
ENSC401 Field School IENSC501 Field School IIENSC502 Special Projects in Environmental ManagementENSC503 - Environmental Assessment and Hearings
ENSC 502 students 2005-2006A.Beal, K. Beyak, K. Carter, S. D'Abadie, S. Durham, E. Fulowski, C. Greene,K. Harris, T. Hirsche, E. J ohanson, T. Lesack, J . Martin, J . Migdal, D. Nalley,M. Panek, A. Pfliger, N. Poon, J . Purcell, G. Rokosh, S. Roome-Sandrin,E. Savard, D. Stein, E. Swerdfeger, M. Towey, and R. Willson.
Project Mentors L. Henderson, W. Holden, D. Iredale, M. Iwanyshyn,D. Nuell, and C. Ryan.
B.Sc. Environmental Science Program
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 502
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
3/49
Flood 2005: Lessons Learned
Hydrologic Aspects of Elbow River Watershed Flooding
Bow River Ecological Changes Following Flood 2005
Surface Water Quality Changes During Flooding
Spatial distribution of Flood Damage in Rideau and Roxboro
Flood Risk Perceptions of Rideau and Roxboro Residents: AnExploratory Review
City of Calgary Riparian Zone Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 502
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
4/49
Hydrologic Aspects of Elbow River
Watershed FloodingKim Beyak, Stephen dAbadie, Sarah Durham,
Mike Panek, Elise Savard, Ryan Willson
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 502
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
5/49
Elbow River Watershed
Elbow Riverapproximately 120
km Watershed area is
1230 km2
Alluvial AquiferArea is 67 km2
25 year average
discharge 8 m
3
/s SignificantHistorical Floods in1923 and 1932
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
6/49Image from ENSC 502, 2002-2003
River-connected,
highly permeable, sandand gravel bottomlands
Elbow RiverAlluvial Aquifer
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
7/49
Glacial drif t
Alluvial gravel
(aquifer)
Shale
Sandstone
river
Water table
Schematic cross section of Elbow River showing
alluvial aquifer
Meyboom, 1961
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
8/49
The Big Question
How do hydrological aspects interact toinfluence flood magnitude and
frequency?
Bow River J une 2005: Center Street Bridge
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
9/49
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 thesethree factors was dominant? Are other flood
years similar?3. How accurate are recurrence intervals?
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
10/49
Maximum discharge at each river gauging stationduring three major flood events.
10
100
1000
Bragg Creek Above Calgary Glenmore Dam
Log
Disc
harge
(cms
)
River Discharge does not increase significantly
moving downstream
Log
Discharge(m
3/s) 2005
1992
1990
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
11/49
Floods can be influenced by more than just
precipitation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1981 1990 1995 2005
PeakDischarge(cms
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PeakAnnualPrecipitation(m
Discharge (cms)" Precipitation (mm)
Comparing peak discharge volumes at Sarcee Bridge and precipitation amounts recordedat Elbow River Ranger Station for extreme years.
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
12/49
1981 Elbow River Flood
interaction of climatic factors
Discharge Mean Temperature Total SnowfallTotal Rainfall
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400500
JanJanFebFebMarMarAprAprMayMa
yJunJunJul JulAugAugSepSe
pOctNovNovDecDe
c
Time (day)Quantity(cms,mmx
10,cmx
10,degrees
C)
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
13/49
Does the alluvial aquifer return to pre-floodlevels between flood years?
Baseflow recession calculations depicting the amount of water stored within the aquifeduring the recession period following a peak discharge event.
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
1965-1
966
1966-1
967
1967-1
968
1968-1
969
1992-1
993
1993-1
994
1994-1
995
1995-1
996
1996-1
997
2002-2
003
2003-2
004
2004-2
005
Flow Recession Year
Es
timat
edAqu
iferS
torage
(M
illionso
fm
3)
* *
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
14/49
Flood Recurrence Intervals
A Flood Recurrence Interval (RI) is theprobability of a flood of a given magnitudeoccurring in any given year
The term 1 in 100 yearor 1 in 5 yearflooddoes not refer to how often that flood occurs, butthe probability of that flood occurring
A 1 in 100 yearflood may occur more thanonce in 100 years
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
15/49
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 thedam
Glenmore Reservoir was at 64 % of capacity
on J une 5, 2005
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
16/49
RI for a flood of the magnitude experienced in J une 2005
Discharge Stations
Bragg Creek
Above Glenmore
Dam
Below Glenmore
Dam
(a) RI ( using allavailable years)
1 in 72 yrs(1934- 2005)
1 in 24 yrs(1979 - 2005)
1 in 49 yrs(1908 - 2005)
(b) RI (1979-2005at all stations) 1 in 28 yrs 1 in 24 yrs 1 in 28 yrs
Recurrence Intervals are
Sensitive to the Data Set
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
17/49
Conclusions
1. Flooding is influenced most by climatic factors aboveBragg Creek
2. In 2005 the main factor influencing the flood magnitudewas 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
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
18/49
Bow River EcologicalChanges Following
the 2005 Flood
Elizabeth Fulowski, Trevor Hirsche, J essica Martin,J enn Migdal, J oey Purcell, Erin Swerdfeger
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 502
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
19/49
http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/maroochyriverrecovery/images/river_health.jpg
Healthy Unhealthy
Stable banks Bank erosion and sediment infill
Low sediment nutrientconcentrations
High sediment nutrientconcentrations
Low abundance of rock algaeand aquatic plants
High abundance of rock algaeand aquatic plants
Potential changes due to flooding
Healthy Unhealthy
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
20/49
PurposeInvestigate the ecological changes after
the 2005 flood
StudyPre and post flood comparison using data
including last years ENSC 502 data
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
21/49
Ogden
Heritage
Southland
Pine Creek
Ogden
Heritage
Southland
Pine Creek
Samples taken November5th and 10th, 2005
Methods followed AlbertaEnvironments (AENV)Water Quality SamplingManual 2002 or otherstandard methods
Study Area
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
22/49
River Parameters
Rock algae (Periphyton)
Stream Insects (Macroinvertebrates) Aquatic Plants (Macrophytes)
River bed profiles River Sediment Nutrients
- Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P)
Brown Trout spawning nests (redds)
- Elbow River
Summary of Results
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
23/49
Summary of Results
Recovered quickly: Rock algaeTime 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
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
24/49
Worm
(Oligochaeta)
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~sjtaylor/cave/cave_ol
ig.jpg
Midge
(Chironomidae)
http://www.wwa-fs.bayern.de/datenufakten/Biologie/Bilder/chir
onomidae.jpg
Midge
(Simullidae)
http://www.arpa.vda.it/foto/figura_Simuliidae_26
18_s.jpg
Mayfly
(Ephemerillidae)
http://www.famu.org/mayfly/images/pluteus_nym.jpg
Caddisfly
(Tricoptera)
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/stream/c
adb.jpg
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
25/49
Results: Stream Insects
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ogden
Heritage
Southland
Pine Creek
Site
Number of Groups
2005
2004
At each site along the Bow River, insect diversity decreased from 2004 to2005.
A ti Pl t
http://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpg7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
26/49
Aquatic Plants
Advantages
Traps sediment, thereby cleaning the water column
Habitat for stream insectsDisadvantages
Increases in sediment nutrients can lead to excessive
macrophyte growth Affects dissolved oxygen
http://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpg
http://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq10.jpg
http://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpghttp://members.fortunecity.com/macrophytes/aq13.jpg7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
27/49
Results: Aquatic Plants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Ogden Heritage Southland Pine Creek
Site
Biom
ass
(g/m
2)
2005
2004
Macrophyte biomass observed at four sites in the Bow River with mean and
SE (standard error) for 2004 and 2005.
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
28/49
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1980 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.
#
redds
Results: Brown Trout redds
No data availablethese years
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
29/49
Results: River Bed Profiles
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance from West Bank (m)
Dep
th
(m)
Before
After
0
1
2
3
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Distance from West Bank (m)
Depth
(m)
Before
After
VE: ~7.5VE: ~30
Ogden Southland
Vertically Exaggerated (VE) stream profiles near the Ogden and Southland
sites showing the cross-section of the stream bed before and after the
flood.
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
30/49
Conclusions
Major ecological changes were foundalong 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 toestablish long term changes
Spatial Distribution of Flood
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
31/49
Spatial Distribution of Flood
Damage in Rideau and RoxboroHow was the J une 2005 flood damage
distributed, and what influenced thatdistribution?
Distance from riverElevation above river
Were current bylaws appropriate for
minimizing damage?
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
32/49
What did we study?
Tangible Damage
due to overland flowand undergroundseepage
Door-to-door survey
GIS to integrate and
evaluate data
Floodway
Floodfringe
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
33/49
Initial Findings
Response Rate
96%
Total Amounts of Damage Within 6m Setback: > $1,150,000
Outside 6m Setback: > $1,157,000
P t f H S t i i D
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
34/49
Percentage of Homes Sustaining Damage
74%26% Grandfathered
No Damage
GrandfatheredDamaged
70%30%
OutsideSetback No
Damage
OutsideSetback
Damaged
Overland Flow in the J une 2005 Flood
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
35/49
JEvent
Overland flowaccounted foronly 17% of
total damage
Majority of
damage resultof groundwater
table comingup intobasement
Average Damage vs Distance from 6m Setback
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
36/49
n=1
n=1
n=1
n=0
n=1
n=1
n=1
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1
n=3
n=4
n=4
n=2
n=2n
=3
n=12
n=10
n=6
n=2
n=12
n=19
n=20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 6 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264
Distance from 6m Setback (m)
AverageDamage(tenofthousand
s$)
Average Damage vs. Distance from 6m Setback
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
37/49
Proportional Damage to Homes
74% of homes inside setback damaged
63% of homes less than 6m outsidesetback damaged
Setback only moderately appropriate forminimizing damage
Damage vs. Ground Elevation above
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
38/49
Ground elevation was as predictive of damageas distance from river
50% of flood damage occurred to homes withground elevations < 2.98m above the river (90%
to homes < 3.66mabove river)
Variability suggests other factors are relevant
gElbow River
Comparison of basement depth and
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
39/49
p p
ground elevation with river stage
Study Conclusions
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
40/49
Study Conclusions
Underground seepage (not overland flow)
responsible for most of flood damage
Ground elevation above river was as gooda predictor of this damage as distancefrom floodway
What does this tell us about the
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
41/49
What does this tell us about the
setback?
A better approach:A better approach: Regulate basement depths with respect toRegulate basement depths with respect to
river (and water) table elevationriver (and water) table elevation
Consider zoning areas based on basementConsider zoning areas based on basementelevation above 1:100 year river (andelevation above 1:100 year river (and
groundwater level) as well as distance fromgroundwater level) as well as distance fromfloodwayfloodway
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
42/49
Future City of CalgaryRiparian Zone Assessment
Presented by: Alison Beal
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 502
Elizabeth Fulowski, Trevor Hirsche, J essica Martin,J enn Migdal, J oey Purcell, Erin Swerdfeger
A t f Ri i H lth
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
43/49
Assessment of Riparian Health
Previous work has been conducted at a
large scale by Cows and Fish along theSouth Saskatchewan River Basin
Extensive assessment within urban areaswill help to evaluate the riparian zonesusceptibility to erosion in future flood
events
Riparian Health in Calgary
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
44/49
Riparian Health in Calgary
Proposed Assessment: Identify erosion susceptibility
Cost and benefit of re-naturalization EXAMPLE: Southland - outer meander exhibiting
substantial erosion after the flood
Photo courtesy of Don Binns,City of Calgary Parks
BEFORE AFTER
Riparian Zone Recommendations
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
45/49
Riparian Zone Recommendations
Re-naturalizing bank may reduce impactof flood water on river banks
A healthy riparian zone including woodyvegetation is the most effective in limiting
erosion due to flooding
Acknowledgements
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
46/49
g 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
Photo courtesy of Susan Ryan
Acknowledgements
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
47/49
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 J ohnson, U of C
Dr. Mary-Ellen Tyler U of C, EVDS
Acknowledgements
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
48/49
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
7/28/2019 ENSC502 05-06 Living With Our Rivers BRBC Combined
49/49
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