Columbia River Project Water Use Plan - BC Hydro

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1.2 Characteristics of major lakes and reservoirs of the Upper Columbia Dam Dam Completed (year) Dam Height (m) 2 Max. Depth (m) Max. Res. Area (km 2 ) Mean Outflow (m 3 /s) Kinbasket Mica 1973 244 ~185 425 590 Revelstoke Revelstoke 1984 175 ~125 115 750 Arrow Keenleyside 1968 52 290/190 520 1,080 Koocanusa Libby 1973 95 107 186 350 Duncan Duncan 1967 39 147 75 90 Kootenay Cora Linn 1931 38 154 390 780 Drawdown (m) Drawdown Area (km 2 ) Drawdown Area (% full) Kinbasket 47 220 50% Revelstoke 1.5 2.4 2% Arrow 20 159 30% Koocanusa 52 Duncan 28 Kootenay 3 The water balance for Kinbasket Reservoir is given in Table 2.1. Also given is the annual water yield from the drainage. The yield is the average annual outflow divided by the drainage area and represents the average depth of net annual precipitation over the drainage. The local inflow to Kinbasket Reservoir has about twice the yield as the Columbia River above Donald, indicating increased precipitation in the local drainage. Table 1.3 Length of reservoirs * Reservoir Length (km) Kinbasket Reservoir 190 Columbia Reach 100 Canoe Reach 90 Revelstoke Reservoir 130 Upper Revelstoke 80 Lower Revelstoke 50 Arrow Lakes Reservoir 240 Revelstoke Reach 55 Upper Arrow 70 Narrows 25 Lower Arrow 90 Kootenay Lake* 107 * Table 3.1, Pieters et al. (2003); values in italics are approximate
Local inflow to Kinbasket dominates the water balance contributing 66% of the inflow. In contrast, the Canoe River, while having a high yield contributes only 3% due to its relatively small drainage. Table 2.1 Annual water balance for Kinbasket Reservoir Area (km 2 ) Flow (m 3 /s) Yield (m/yr) Qin Columbia R. at Donald Station 9,710 172 0.56 Qin Canoe River near Valemount 368 (2%) 19* (3%) 1.6* Qloc Local Flow into Kinbasket 11,422 (53%) 376 (66%) 1.0 Qout Columbia River at Nagle Creek (Mica Dam Outflow) 21,500 567 0.83 *Estimated from partial data for 1966-1967. Prior to Mica Dam, most of Kinbasket Reservoir was river, with the exception of Kinbasket Lake which was approximately 10 km long, located near Kinbasket Creek on the Columbia Reach. Water Survey Canada had gauges at several sites along what would become Kinbasket Reservoir, shown in Figure 1.2. The data from these sites (Appendix 1) allow the division of Kinbasket Reservoir into the regions given in Table 2.2. The inflow of the Upper Columbia Reach is particularly large, matching the inflow of the Columbia River at Donald. Table 2.2 Drainage, flow and yield of regions in Kinbasket Reservoir Canoe River Canoe Reach Wood Arm 3 Lower Columbia Reach 1 Upper Columbia Reach 2 Columbia River Above Donald Drainage (km 2 ) 368 2,922 956 3,250 4,290 9,710 Inflow (m 3 /s) ~19 86 40 85 165 172 Yield (m) ~1.6 0.93 1.3 0.82 1.2 0.56 % of outflow 3% 15% 7% 15% 29% 30% 1 Between Mica Dam and the Columbia River at Surprise Rapids 2 Between the Columbia River at Surprise Rapids and Columbia River at Donald Revelstoke Reservoir Revelstoke Reservoir is shown in Figure 1.3. The entire length was formerly a river and the resulting reservoir is very narrow. The water balance for Revelstoke Reservoir is given in Table 2.3. For Revelstoke, the outflow from Mica Dam is the dominant (71%) inflow to the reservoir. While the local drainage to Revelstoke Reservoir is relatively small (19%), the higher yield of this drainage means that the local inflow still contributes 29% to the total outflow.
Page 1: Columbia River Project Water Use Pl
Page 4 and 5: This is a progress report for a lon
Page 6 and 7: CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke R
Page 13 and 14: Hydrology of Kinbasket and Revelsto
Page 15: 1. Introduction The hydrology of Ki
Page 19 and 20: exceptions: in late fall of 2003 th
Page 21 and 22: Results Daily flow data for the fou
Page 23 and 24: Acknowledgements We gratefully ackn
Page 25 and 26: Figure 1.2 Kinbasket Reservoir with
Page 27 and 28: Figure 3.1. (a) WSC station 08NB005
Page 29 and 30: Figure 4.1. (a) WSC station 08ND007
Page 33 and 34: Figure 6.1. (a) WSC station 08NB019
Page 37 and 38: Figure 6.5. Comparison of flows in
Page 41 and 42: Figure 8.1. (a) BC Hydro station
Page 43 and 44: Appendix 1 Gauging Stations in the
Page 45: CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke R
Page 48 and 49: Contents 1. Introduction...........
Page 50 and 51: drainage for Kinbasket Reservoir in
Page 52 and 53: 3. Results The tributary chemistry
Page 54 and 55: Survey of tributaries to Revelstoke
Page 56 and 57: Mica and Revelstoke was very low, <
Page 58 and 59: 6.80 7.30 Figure 1 pH of Tributarie
Page 60 and 61: 44.8 39.9 Figure 3 Nitrate and Nitr
Page 62 and 63: Figure 5 Total Phosphorus (μg/L) o
Page 64 and 65: 12 24 22 12 17 Figure 7 Conductivit
Page 66 and 67:
Figure 9 Total Dissolved Phosphorus
Page 68 and 69:
Flow (m 3 /s) T (°C) C25 (μS/cm)
Page 70 and 71:
Flow (m 3 /s) T (°C) C25 (μS/cm)
Page 72 and 73:
NN (μg/L) C25 (μS/cm) TP (μg/L)
Page 74 and 75:
Flow (m 3 /s) C25 (μS/cm) NN (μS/
Page 76 and 77:
References Appendix 1 Summary of Me
Page 78 and 79:
Table A2-2 Tributaries to Revelstok
Page 82 and 83:
*Reference tributary, additional da
Page 84 and 85:
Table A3-5 Columbia River and refer
Page 86 and 87:
Table A3-6 Sampling location, water
Page 88 and 89:
Table A3-8 Water Quality For Beaver
Page 91 and 92:
CTD Surveys Kinbasket and Revelstok
Page 93 and 94:
List of Figures Figure A1 Map showi
Page 95 and 96:
Additional casts were also collecte
Page 97 and 98:
3. Results Before examining Kinbask
Page 99 and 100:
and Columbia Arm (K3co), with addit
Page 101 and 102:
The variation in the conductivity o
Page 103 and 104:
Figure A1 Map showning approximate
Page 105 and 106:
T (°C) C25 (μS/cm) T (°C) C25 (
Page 107 and 108:
km 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 Kca1 K1f
Page 109 and 110:
km 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 Kca1 K1f
Page 111 and 112:
km 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 Kca1 K1f
Page 113 and 114:
km −3.8 −3.85 −3.9 −3.95
Page 115 and 116:
km −17.5 K3co K3co −18 K3co −
Page 117 and 118:
km 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.
Page 119 and 120:
depth (m) depth (m) depth (m) depth
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
km 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R3up R2m
Page 127 and 128:
km 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R3up R2.
Page 129 and 130:
km 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 R3up R2m
Page 131 and 132:
km 49 R2.1 48.5 48 47.5 47 46.5 46
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 (
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix 2 List of profiles No Date
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix 3 Additional Profiles Prof
Page 145:
CLBMON-3 Kinbasket and Revelstoke R
Page 148 and 149:
Reservoir Water Chemistry Kinbasket
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 173 and 174:
PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY IN KINBASKET A
Page 175 and 176:
Acknowledgements Thanks to Pierre B
Page 177 and 178:
Methods Field Sampling Primary prod
Page 179 and 180:
eadings at Kinbasket Forebay and at
Page 181 and 182:
Chlorophyll a (mg/m 2 ) 40 30 20 10
Page 183 and 184:
Primary Productivity (mg C/m 2 /d)
Page 185 and 186:
Discussion Given that primary produ
Page 187 and 188:
(2007) Report. Fisheries Project Re
Page 189 and 190:
KB 24 Aug 2009 2 0 0.67 0.14 0.98 K
Page 191 and 192:
RD 22 Sept 2009 20 2 0.07 0.02 0.11
Page 193:
Appendix B Integrated Chl a for Kin
Page 197 and 198:
PHYTOPLANKTON POPULATIONS IN KINBAS
Page 199 and 200:
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRO
Page 201 and 202:
Figure 17 Average abundance (Cells/
Page 203 and 204:
SECTION 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Sampling Pr
Page 205 and 206:
SECTION 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Study Limit
Page 207 and 208:
Table 2 Kinbasket Reservoir phytopl
Page 209 and 210:
Table 3 Revelstoke Reservoir phytop
Page 211 and 212:
contributors to phytoplankton abund
Page 213 and 214:
Figure 6 Average phytoplankton biov
Page 215 and 216:
Figure 7 Average phytoplankton abun
Page 217 and 218:
Figure 10 Average phytoplankton bio
Page 219 and 220:
Table 9 Average seasonal phytoplank
Page 221 and 222:
Figure 14 Kinbasket Reservoir month
Page 223 and 224:
Figure 17 Average abundance (Cells/
Page 225 and 226:
SECTION 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Phytopla
Page 227:
REFERENCES Canter-Lund, H. and J.W.
Page 231 and 232:
Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs
Page 233 and 234:
Figure 13. Monthly average zooplank
Page 235 and 236:
1. Introduction This report summari
Page 237 and 238:
Table 2. Seasonal average zooplankt
Page 239 and 240:
The predominant copepod was D. bicu
Page 241 and 242:
14). Daphnia biomass was also relat
Page 243 and 244:
iomass, while in Kinbasket reservoi
Page 245 and 246:
Schindler, E.U., L. Vidmanic, D. Se
Page 247 and 248:
density (ind/L) density % 18 16 14
Page 249 and 250:
composition % composition % composi
Page 251 and 252:
iomass (�g/L) biomass (�g/L) bi
Page 253 and 254:
# of eggs per gravid female # of eg
Page 255 and 256:
density (#/L) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 19
Page 257 and 258:
iomass (ug/L) biomass % 70 60 50 40
Page 259 and 260:
density (#/L) density (#/L) density
Page 261 and 262:
# of eggs per gravid female # of eg
Page 263 and 264:
density (ind/L) biomass (ug/L) 30 2
Page 265 and 266:
density (ind/L) biomass (ug/L) 30 2
show all

Columbia River Project Water Use Plan - BC Hydro

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?