ISSN 00978078, Water Resources, 2011, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 419–437. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011. Original Russian Text © D.V. Magritskii, A.A. Ivanov, 2011, published in Vodnye Resursy, 2011, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 387–406. WATER RESOURCES AND THE REGIME OF WATER BODIES

Inundations in Kuban Delta D. V. Magritskiia and A. A. Ivanovb a Moscow State University, Leninskie gory, GSP1, 119991 Russia b Kuban Mouth Hydrometeorological Station, ul. Rozy Lyuksemburg 60, Temryuk, 353520 Russia Received March 10, 2010

Abstract—A typification of inundations in Kuban River delta is proposed. The causes, recurrence, and the specific features of its manifestation in the delta are discussed for each identified type of inundations. The efficiency of the existing measures for inundation control is assessed. The presentday conveying capacity of major delta branches is evaluated; jamformation processes in the delta are studied. The causes, manifesta tion character, and consequences of extreme inundations of 1969 and 2002 are considered in detail. As the result, recommendations are proposed for the prevention or mitigation of damage caused by runoff and mixedtype inundations.

Keywords: Kuban, delta, branch, inundations, ice jams, storm surges, carrying capacity, inundation control measures. DOI: 10.1134/S0097807811040087

INTRODUCTION inundation control measures and improving the effi Inundations accompany the development of ciency of those known before. This can be done only human society since the ancient time; they head the after thorough analysis of the causes and characteristic list of natural calamities in terms of their destructive features of the inundations that have taken place in consequences. According to data of UNESCO, inun Kuban delta and by evaluating the essence and effi dations in the XX century killed 9 million, while earth ciency of measures aimed to control inundations. quakes and hurricanes killed 2 million [21]. The dam Various data on previous inundations in the lower age caused by inundation in the world is estimated at reaches of the Kuban and in its delta are given in [5, 9, dozens billion dollars. The areas of the territories suf 10, 14, 16–18, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32]. Almost no attention fering from inundations now exceed 3 million km2 has been paid to detailed studies of the causes and [31]. The population in these territories is about 1 bil characteristics of inundations in Kuban delta or to the lion. efficiency assessment of measures to control them. Inundations in mouth areas of many years are Only V.I. Korovin and G.A. Galkin [4–6, 14] pub much more frequent than in other parts of river basins lished the results of analysis of nearly 200 cases of large and sea coasts. Kuban delta is not an exception. inundations in Kuban basin over 275 years (up to year Because of the low elevations and small slopes of land 1975), their causes, and genetic types. These studies surface, as well as because of diverse hydroclimatic give a summary (for the basin as a whole) histogram of factors, which cause catastrophic water level rises, the the withinyear distribution of all types of inundations. delta territory has been repeatedly inundated by either Brief analysis of the causes and genetic types of inun river or sea water. The most recent inundation took dations in Kuban basin is also given in [25]. place in the winter and summer of 2002. The inunda tion affected populated localities, industrial facilities, The study carried out by the authors of this paper and agricultural fields; roads, buildings, bridges, was based on materials that have been published or are power transmission lines, etc. were completely or par available in various archives and refer to inundations in tially destroyed. The total losses were estimated at sev Kuban delta or on the eastern coast of the Sea of Azov, eral hundreds of millions of rubles. as well as on authors' data from the archives of Kuban Mouth Hydrometeostation (KMS) and Geographic Thus, Kuban delta, which is an economically and Faculty, MSU, collected in the recent 40 years both environmentally important region of Russia, where during and after inundations. These materials, in par various measures for protection of the territory, con ticular, formed the basis of first publications [10, 18], struction, and population against inundations have devoted to inundations in Kuban delta. been taken since long ago, and some experience has been accumulated, was found to be not fully protected Data on the major geographic, hydrographic, and against such calamities. Such situation causes concern water management characteristics of Kuban delta are and requires additional studies for developing new given in [17, 20, 22, 23, 28].

419 420 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV

TYPIFICATION OF INUNDATIONS In addition to the inundation groups mentioned IN KUBAN DELTA above, inundations caused by heavy showers under certain orographic, hydrogeological, and other fea By inundation is meant the flooding of an area tures of individual delta territories may appear without adjacent to a river or a water body, which causes mate any connection with a river or other water objects. rial or human health damage or kills people [26]. A Abundant rainwater does not completely infiltrate into wider and more ecological definition of this notion is the soil and is discharged into hydrographic network given in [7, 11]: «the inundation is a temporary flood (because of its shower character) or causes a consider ing of a territory, developed by humans for different able rise in groundwater table (because of the large vol purposes, which causes adverse social–economic and ume of previous precipitation). In some cases, rainwa environmental consequences expressed in material ter evacuation is hampered by the small slopes of delta and nonmaterial damage." However, the flooding of land areas, protection dikes, and channel banks. This lands not involving any damage can be regarded only may cause inundation of lands in the delta (and the as a flood from a river or a water body. At the same formation of powerful rain flows on them), weakening time, the impoundment is understood as the forma of soils, and even the formation of landslides. tion of a free water surface on an area resulting from level rise of a stream, water body, or groundwater [30]. Table 1 gives data on inundations in Kubab delta, for which sufficiently full and reliable data are avail By their size and total damage, inundations are able in the literature and KMS archives. As can be seen classified into small, large, outstanding, and cata in this table, inundations in the Kuban River are most strophic [26]. The category for an inundation is cho often due to the passage of floods through the river sen somewhat arbitrarily—taking into account the with simultaneous existence of ice jams in river chan recurrence and duration of inundations, a qualitative nels in the nearshore area. During the recent hundred characteristic of the degree of inundation of the terri years, inundations of the mixed and jam types account tory and the disturbance of the normal living condi for ~50–60% of all cases, while runoff inundations tions of people, or by the damage caused. In [7, 11], account for ~35–45%. About 10% of the cases are two five categories (classes) of inundations are given clear catastrophic setup inundations in 1914 and 1969. quantitative substantiations based on the number of killed and temporarily evacuated, the inundated area, and the damage. There exist other approaches to the RUNOFF INUNDATIONS AND MEASURES classification of inundations based on their social– FOR THEIR PREVENTION economic damage, including those accepted by inter The cause of runoff floodplain flooding and inun national organizations, insurance companies, dation is an rapid rise of water level in the river channel EMERCOM RF, etc. [7, 8, 21]. above a critical level Hcr, caused by maximal water flow The causes of inundations in Kuban delta are in the river Qmax. Note that maximal annual water flow diverse. The types of inundations are defined by their values can be recorded in Kuban delta head in any causes or groups of causes. In accordance in [26], time during the year, though they are most common in inundations in the delta can be primarily grouped into May–June (~40% up to 1973) and least common in runoff, jam, and setup. September (<1%). The recurrence of Qmax in the warm Runoff inundations are due to very large water flow season decreases toward the mouths of the main delta in the river and delta branches. Such inundations branches—the Protoka and the Kuban [20, 22]. This occur in the periods of spring–summer melting of sea is due to the inflow in the Kuban branch of water from sonal and highmountain snow, glaciers; after abun left tributaries, which have autumn–winter flood dant showers or steady precipitation; and, hypotheti regime (earlier, through the Kurkui arm, and since the cally, as the result of dam failure. late 1960s, through the Varnavinskii canal), typical of which are intense water withdrawal (in warm season) Jam inundations are caused by large resistance to for irrigation and watering, flooding over the flood water flow in the river and branches caused by ice jams. plain and plavni during freshets and spring flood, and However, inundations of this type are very rare in runoff distribution in the bifurcation points of Kuban delta. An important additional condition for a branches, etc. catastrophic flooding of the floodplain because of jams is the relatively high water flow during freshets or Water level in the river or a branch rising above the spring flood. Therefore, it is methodologically reason elevation Hcr causes the flooding of the floodplain and able to separate the category of runoff–jam inunda (in a critical case) economic and social facilities in it, tions or inundations of a mixedtype. i.e., an inundation. River water overflow and runoff inundations depend on the value and duration of the Setup inundations are caused by strong wind maximal water flow in the river, the carrying capacity induced water setups from the Sea of Azov. of the channel and the leveed part of the floodplain, Inundations in Kuban delta can also be divided and the morphological features of the floodplan. into those caused by natural or anthropogenic factors, These factors may change from year to year. This is or may be of a mixed origin. facilitated by manyyear variations in maximal values

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 421

Table 1. Data on inundations and considerable floods in the Lower Kuban and its delta (here and in Tables 2–4, dash means no data available) The cause of the Date List of delta areas affected by an inundations, the character of aftereffects phenomenon August 1737 Spring flood “…because of hot weather, water is high in the Kuban” [14] June–September Flood “…high summer floods” in the Kuban R. 1738 October 1–2, Sea surge During the siege of Achuevo fortress by Russian army, a sea storm and an accompany 1739 ing surge broke a ferry, dispersed the fleet, flooded the artillery and munitions. Water level rise was not higher than 2. The siege was raised, the campaign for Temryuk and Taman was postponed [5, 24, 33] March 7–May 27, Spring flood, After a severe winter, matching none in 100 years, two waves of extreme inundation August 8–Sep freshets covered the Kuban region. Water covered vast lowland areas in the river basin [14] tember 20, 1789 Spring 1795 Spring flood From a letter of ataman Golovatyi to the Governor of Tavricheskaya province: “…in this year, a high flood of the Kuban covered coastal lowlands and steppes in vast areas” [31] January 31, 1801 Sea surge “From northwest, all banks were flooded on both sides of the Sladkii Liman and Slad kii Erik above the sea from Kuchugur to Achuevo; the water reached as far as Chernyi Erik mouth. Water rise was 1 m; fishfarms were destroyed” [5] 1817 – “very high water rise caused extreme damage to Kuban and Terek” [4, 31] 1840 Sea surge Sladkovskoe, Rubtsovskoe, and other large straits were sanded Spring of 1845 Spring flood, After an extremely severe winter, “heavy rains and snowfalls caused very high water rise freshets in all mountain rivers, especially, in the Kuban and Afips; level rise was 1.4 m above the datum. Afipskoe and Alekseevskoe fortifications and an artillery battery in Mar’in Kut were inundated and completely destroyed” [4] March 9–27, Spring flood The entire lowland territory from Ekaterinodar to Temryuk (about 650000 ha, hun 1877 dreds of populated localities) was covered by a continuous water layer up to 1 m in thickness and remained in this state over more than one month [4] March 27, 1880 Spring flood, “The rapid snow melting and breakup of the Kuban was destructive. Ice hummocks ice jam 70 cm in thickness and about 2 m in height rushed downstream like an avalanche. The entire Kuban channel was blocked by ice causing water to overflow and flow through a forest, which nobody have seen to be flooded” [6] January 27, 1881 Flood, “During high powerful drift, water in the Kuban rose to unprecedented level because ice jams of a large jam. Stanitsa Troitskaya was destroyed; its inhabitants saved themselves plod ding wastedeep in water at a frost of up to minus 14°C [6] February 17, 1892 Sea surge “… a high inundation on Achuevskaya Spit because of a gusty wind destroyed 31 fish farms and killed 30 people, 400 cattle units; and 56 horses. The spit was inundated at a height of about 2 m.” The inundation covered a territory from Temryuk to Achuevo. The total losses were 45000 rubles [5] The spring of Spring flood, The Protoka River broke a levee at a Cosack camp (in Stanitsa Slavyanskaya) and as a 1906 ice jam wave with a height equal to a house rushed to the stanitsa. The flow destroyed three quarters between the camp and Zaporozhskaya street” [29] February 28, 1914 Storm, sea Settlements on the coast between the Kuban and Don mouths were flooded by a 3m surge thick water layer. Six hundreds of boats were cast ashore. In Temryuk, were water rose 1.7 m above the zero water level, water washed away a levee and flooded part of the town; on Achuevskaya spit, the surf destroyed houses and 100 fishfarms and canner ies. Up to 3000 were killed [5, 24] 1915 Spring flood, “Unprecedented” flood lasted for more than half a year, reaching its peak in June–Ju freshets ly. The zone of complete inundation included 130000 ha of land and tens of populated localities [4] Spring–summer Freshet “A catastrophic breakthrough of the Kuban R. into its old, BlackSea, channel filled 1917 the Vityazevskii liman by fresh water, and fishery resumed.” The same inundation freshened the Kiziltashskii liman, which “until May 1917 was a bittersalt marsh” [4] February 1928 Flood, Upstream of Tikhovskii GAS, water overflowed levee crests in many places; the right ice jams bank levee was breached. Water inundated 65000 ha of floodplain lands occupied by Kuban rice system [28] June 1931 Spring flood, Water covered the entire left floodplain of the Kuban R. and the branch with the same freshets name from Laba R. mouth to the Sea of Azov. The total area of lands inundated in the Lower Kuban area exceeded 400000 ha, of which 103000 ha were sown lands. The Troitskaya–Krymskaya railroad was destroyed for a year [4, 28]

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 422 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV

Table 1. (Contd.) The cause of the Date List of delta areas affected by an inundations, the character of aftereffects phenomenon March 1932 Freshet, ice jams Very high floods and inundation of floodplain lands took place in the Kuban R. (be in branches and tween Krasnodar and Tikhovskii), in the Protoka branch (to Stanitsa Grivenskaya), their mouths and in individual reaches of the Kubab because of numerous ice jams and levee fail ures. The inundation area were 137000 ha [14, 28] February 1937 Freshet, ice The floodplain near the Perevolokskii bifurcation point was inundated; in some places, jams gaps and scours in levees (archives of SK UGMS) March 1954 The same Large ice jams formed during ice drift and sea ice blocks in branch mouths; water in the river and branches rose above the critical level; levees were breached in many plac es, and hundreds of thousands of ha of lands were inundated. The total damage was above $2 million [4, 31] May 23–24, 1955 Sea surge Water level near Temryuk port rose by 150 cm. Sea and river water flooded the right bank floodplain [28] 1956 Spring flood During spring flood, the Kuban and its tributaries overflowed the banks and inundated 500000 ha of lands and 150 populated localities. The damage caused by this freshet could be much more significant, were it not for the Tshchikskoe and Shapsutskoe res ervoir. They made it possible to reduce the flow peak [4] February 18–20, Freshet, ice Levees were washed out 11–13 km downstream of Stanitsa Troitskaya; the gaps were 1963 jams up to 50–200 m in width. Eighteen kilometers upstream of the Demin Erik, the right hand bank was eroded in six places, water flowed onto the floodplain; 300 m down stream of Stanitsa Grivenskaya, the left natural levee was washed with a gap of 50 m in width. The damage from this small inundation was $15 million [31] June 16–21, 1966 Spring flood, A levee was eroded in the delta near Khan’kov Farm. Fifteen populated localities and freshets oilandgas fields (in Slavyanskii district) were completely inundated in the basin; up to 100 km of motor roads were destroyed. The damage from the inundation was $61 million [31] October 28–29, Sea surge The inundation affected part of southeastern and eastern coast of the Sea of Azov with 1969 a length of 150 km and a depth of 10–30 km. The propagation distance of the surge level rise along the Kuban and Protoka branches reached ~80–90 km. The maximal level rise at the DC was ~4 m. Considerable material damage was inflicted; people were killed (archives KMS) July 1972 Spring flood, A levee was breached at the Kazachii Erik branch and nearby agricultural fields were freshets inundated (KMS archives) September, Octo Showers Several houses were inundated and railroad embankment was eroded near Stanitsa ber 1972 Zaporozhskaya and Strelka Settlment. As the result, a locomotive with passenger cars went off the rails. Water level in lowland areas rose by 1.5 m (KMS archives) May 14–15, 1973 The same About 75 mm precipitation fell within 2 days. Railroad embankment was eroded near Stanitsa Zaporozhskaya (KMS archives) February 12, 1985 Freshet, ice A jam in the mouth of the Petrushina branch near Temryuk Town caused the inunda jams tion of houses, gardens, and subsidiary structures on the floodplain. The damage was insignificant (KMS archives) December 18–22, The same Ice jams formed 10 km upstream of Temryuk T. and Stanitsa Varenikovskaya. Several 1993 fields were inundated downstream of Stanitsa Varenikovskaya (KMS archives) January 22–30, Ice jams Ice jams formed at the mouth of the Petrushka branch. The inundated areas included 1996 the western part of Temryuk suburb and the nearby territory (on the right and left banks of the branch), the port, shorehouses, Temryuk Sturgeon Farm; the Temryuk–Verbino motor road was eroded (KMS archives) March 1998 Showers and About 50000 ha of land and 132 populated localities were inundated in the province. Land groundwater slide processes became more intense in Temryuk T. and Stanitsa Golubitskaya. Water layer rise in some areas reached 0.5–1.0 m. About 107 households and 300 persons were affected in Temryuk district. Power transmission towers were deformed (KMS archives) December 2001– Freshet, ice Ice jams formed at the mouth of the Petrushin branch, near Zaitsevo Koleno Farm, January 2002 jams Stanitsa Varenikovskaya, Khan’kova Farm, in the source of Protoka branch, down stream of Dubovyi Rynok GS. Large land areas were inundated, mostly along the Kuban branch (~74000 ha), including part of Temmryuk Town. Ten thousand people were affected [7, 10] July 8–9, 2002 Spring flood, Failure of a levee at the Protoka branch near Zaboiskii Settlement caused the inunda freshets tion of 1.5 km2 of rice fields and a pumping station of ChORS. The settlement almost did not suffer (KMS archives)

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 423 of river water flow and the magnitudes of freshets and only the part of the floodplain between the bank edge spring flood, vertical deformations of the channel, the and the protection dams were inundated (this can be construction of hydraulic structures and levees, eco classified as a “flood”). Moreover, levees in some river nomic transformations of the banks and the flood reaches protected the banks and hampered hazardous plain; channel operations; etc. horizontal deformations of branch channels. Under the effect of hydrological–morphological The carrying capacity of the Kuban branch, which processes and engineering measures, the carrying receives slightly less than half of Kuban River water capacity of the Kuban R. and its delta branches grad flow [22], in most sections in 1980–1981 was about 3 ually increased by the 1980s, while Qmax declined. 350–450 m /s and more. It increased toward the Recently, the carrying capacity of the natural channel branch mouth because of the more sound protection of the Lower Kuban did not exceed 1000 m3/s, while measures (as compared with the Protoka branch) in the actual water flow in the river was often greater than this branch, which recently was the most waterabun that. For example, from 1912 to 1972, the annual Qmax dant. It was expected that water overflow over the pro at the Krasnodar gauging station (GS) were below tection levees in the upper part of the branch was pos 3 3 1050 m /s only in 10% of cases, and the maximal Qmax sible at Qmax ≥ 750–800 m /s (i.e., with the occurrence in 1932 was above 2000 m3/s. Frequent floodplain of ≤1%), while further downstream (between 71– inundations in the lower reaches of the Kuban, which 62 km from the branch mouth to Temryuk Town), at 3 often turned into inundations, made it necessary to Qmax > 900 m /s. The inundation of floodplain at start the construction of a reliable system of levees and Varenikovskaya GS was a frequent event in the past dredging operations since the late XIX century. The (Table 2), and more often than at other gauging sta Navigation Directions of 1911 shows that the major tions, it can be accompanied by water overflow over portion of the Lower Kuban has already been leveed by the relatively low protection levees. The number of this time. Overall, the measures taken during the areas inundated in the Protoka branch was greater at XX century increased the carrying capacity of the the flow rates comparable with that in the Kuban Lower Kuban (along with the area between levees) up branch. Overflow into the floodplain could take place 3 3 to 1500 m /s, taking into account the maximal possi here at Qmax ≈ 300–400 m /s and more, while water ble release from the Krasnodar Reservoir and the max reached the crests of protection levees in some places imal carrying capacity of the Fedorovskii Hydrosystem (approximately, between the 100th and the 57th km 3 3 (1700 m /s). from the branch mouth) at Qmax ≥ 700 m /s. The pro Parts of branches have been leveed by the early XX tection against inundation was still poor in the lower century, and the sources of most small branches were righthand part of the river. However, flood water here blocked. The main period of embanking delta flowed into a nondeveloped plavni area. Water level in branches fell in the 1920s, and only the banks of the the Kazachii Erik does not reach the crest of the pro Protoka branch downstream of Grivenskaya GS and tection levees even at the very high water flow, which the coastal reach of the Kuban R. have not been has not been recorded there for a long time. embanked by the midXX century. Waters of freshets Protection levees do not solve the problem of flood and spring floods flowed over the rightbank plavni of control completely. At high water flow in the river, the the Protoka branch, when water flow at Grivenskaya levees were sometimes eroded and destroyed, allowing GS were >220 m3/s, i.e., during the major portion of water to flood developed floodplain lands. Moreover, each year [28]. The result is that ~18–20% of the the proper maintenance of long levees required con annual runoff in the Protoka branch (1936–1941 and siderable engineering efforts and material expenses. 1946–1953) did not reach the sea. Later the left and Therefore, further operations aimed to improve the partially the right bank of the Protoka branch were also embankment system failed to appreciably improve the leveed. Additional protection levees were also con situation with inundations, and, starting from the structed on the delta branch segments that have been 1940s, considerable attention has been paid to inte leveed but are eroded. grated solutions of the problem of highflood and The total length of levees from the dam of the Kras springflood control, mostly by constructing reser nodar Reservoir to the mouths of delta branches is voirs: the Tshchikskoe Reservoir at the mouth of the ~650 km. According to the data of PII Kubanvod Belaya R. (1939–1940), the Shapsugskoe Reservoir on proekt and KMS as of 1980–1981, the height of the the Afips R. (1952), the Krasnodar Reservoir on the levees above floodplain surface varies from about 1.5 to Lower Kuban (1973), etc. The Krasnodar Reservoir 2.5 m (Kuban branch) and from 0.5 to 3.5 m (Protoka has the largest effect on the regime of the Lower branch) in the upper parts of the branches, within 1.5– Kuban and the delta [18, 20, 22]. The regulating effect 3.0 m (Kuban branch) and 1.0–2.5 m (Protoka of the Krasnodar and other reservoirs caused a branch) in the middle part, and within 2.0–1.0 m and decrease in the mean annual Qmax from 1140 (1930– less along the lower reaches of the branches. Such 1972) to 813 m3/s (1973–1986) (Tikhovskii GS, delta height ensured the protection of populated localities head). This was also facilitated by the general decrease and developed floodplain lands against inundations in the Kuban’s water resources under the effect of nat even at very high water levels in the river and branches: ural factors and higher water consumption in the river

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 424 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV mal maxi depth, cm Inundation cr H > max H in the year with in the year will begin; 190 cm is the level at which will begin; 190 cm is the level The number of days The number of days year mean maximal mean , %**** cr H > max H season ividual industrial facilities in the town 24 27 3 9 55 5 16 27 83 spring summer autumn winter period The recurrence of years with The recurrence of years 1973–1989 731973–2003 53 0 40 0 80 88 0 48 3 3 152 18 1261968–1979 178 18 93 93 1973–1998 461973–2003 38 83 19 72 58 52 65 79 39 94 65 152 264 87 159 38 77 1929–1972 251916–1972 281973–2003 36 3 39 7 0 9 20 0 30 68 70 0 8 10 3 32 40 3 40 40 3 90 105 18 18 1973–1988 6 6 0 0 13 7 10 13 17 1912–1972 501973–2003 6 45 3 10 42 0 85 6 17 16 66 5 64 12 141 24 45 1973–2003 13 10 0 29 35 7 19 17 53 )/ – 1929–1972 48 45 9 32 80 18 66 69 141 within the 1.2/1.7 1930–19721.0/нет 86 1963–1972 100 81 90 28 20 63 95 80 100 52 50 127 117 77 27 165 39 1.6/1.7 1945–1972 11 0 0 11 18 8 14 10 19 2.0–2.5 level at which the inundation of ind level The height town, an em 1.7 ( bankment wall bankment wall 6 m in height of levees (above 1.1–1.6/1.3 1912–1956 56 65 12 65 95 48 157 49 87 0.7–1.9/1.7–2.5 1929–1972 951.2–1.3/1.4–1.6 1957–1972 90 6 37 01.3–1.5/– 73 100 0 1929–1972 35 90 6 30 13 216 2 123 71.3–1.4/1.5–1.6 1944–1963 199 35 70 10 15 18 27 52 17 58 2.1–2.3/2.1–2.3 1929–1972 27 32 7 23 66 8 32 35 109 bank edge)***, m = 420 cm. cr H er is for the right bank; onto the floodplain; 170 cm is Character of inundation The floodplain between levees (in levees The floodplain between the beginning of left bank) is inundated The same is levees The floodplain between inundated The same The same levees, The floodplain between industrial structures, and residen tial areas are inundated The floodplain of the right bank and the chan the levee between does not nel is inundated; water onto the left bank be overflow 6 cause of the embankment wall m in height (in levees The floodplain between the beginning of right bank) is inundated The same The same is levees The floodplain between inundated

e left bank, the second numb ta from Hydrological yearbooks; Hydrological ta from 670 670 170**190** 1912–1972 28 1973–2003 20 22 10 2 0 30 33 55 55 14 6 52 19 17 24 58 124 90–110 , cm above , cm above 400–450 400–460 700–740 cr H gauge datum* The level of wa The level ter overflow on ter overflow to the floodplain in the 1970s–1990s, for SlavyanskonKuban, in the 1970s–1990s, for SlavyanskonKuban, , cr H , 58 600–650 , 72 580–600 the inundation of town districts will begin; , , 105 330–400 , 12 200 , 9.0 140** Characteristic of hazardous water level rises in Kuban delta level Characteristic of hazardous water

, 24 , 120 , 6.9 , 18.5 chart), km ing to pilot GS, distance from the mouth from Tikhovskii 49 118.5 Troitskaya Varenikovskaya Zaitsevo Koleno Perevolokskii Uzel Temryuk Slavyanskon Kuban Demin Erik Grivenskaya Slobodka Dubovyi Rynok *Notes: da to according ** overflow water of level the is cm 140 section (accord **** at *** the first number is for th 2. Table

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 425 basin [20, 22]. The decrease in the mean and maximal regulating capacity of the Krasnodar Reservoir appre water flow was even larger in the lower reaches of delta ciably decreased during the 35 years of its operation branches. Thus, the recurrence, duration, and depth [35] of inundation in Kuban delta appreciably dropped A new hazard emerged in the early XXI century— because of the lower water flow, channel erosion the possible failure of the dam of the Krasnodar (because of the deficiency of river sediments in the Hydrosystem or even its destruction during a flood lower pool of the Krasnodar Hydrosystem) and the with rare occurrence or an earthquake with a magni accompanying drop in water levels [23] (Tables 1, 2). tude >7. Thus, according to data of T.N. Mel’nikova, In other words, the problem of runoff inundation con 5 medium earthquakes took place near the reservoir in trol in the delta has been principally solved by the the past 200 years, and 3 of these were recorded near 1980s. The only exceptions were individual parts of the the dam. Acts of terrorism are a serious hazard to Kuban and Protoka branches. hydrosystems, their probability being especially high With the onset of economic stagnation (in the in the Northern Caucasus. The destruction of the dam 1990s), the situation with the prevention of runoff of the Krasnodar Hydrosystem would cause a cata inundations became worse again. This was due to the strophic flood in the lower pool and the inundation of deformation and structural weakening of levees; a about 600000 ha of land with the population of about decrease in the volume of dredging operations; growth 400000. The material damage and the death toll in this of trees on the floodplain areas between levees, reduc case can be much larger than in any largest inunda ing the carrying capacity of the river and its branches. tions having taken place before. The destructive effect The result was that the carrying capacity of the Lower of the failure wave is mostly due to the very large water Kuban dropped from 1500 to 1300–1200 m3/s and less masses moving with a high speed and transporting bro [3]. Similar situation has formed in other delta ken iron and concrete structures, transport facilities, branches. The main consequence of the poor state of small buildings, stones, planks, logs, etc.; such water levees was their failure in some places along the Kuban can carry hazardous and toxic substances from and Protoka branches during floods of 2002 [10, 18]. destroyed stores of environmentally hazardous mate The carrying capacity of the river and delta rials or adsorbed by bottom sediments of the reservoir branches is almost unknown now, since considerable [1]. According to world statistics, as early as 15– works and studies along this line have not been carried 30 min after dam failure, considerable areas become out in the delta since long ago. Only the carrying inundated by a water layer with a depth from 0.5 to capacity of branch channels can be estimated in indi 10 m and more. Materials of the Committee on Dam vidual sections, for which water flow curves are avail Failure, International Council on Large Dams, show able and the elevations of water overflow are known. that the largest number of accidents involves earth The results of such calculations are given in Table 3. dams [1]. The maximal percentage of accidents is Their comparison with earlier data shows that the car associated with all types of dams with a height of 15– rying capacity of branch channels remains generally 30 m. The dam of the Krasnodar Hydrosystem is an the same. However, it was found to change in some earth dam with a maximal height of 23 m [12, 35]. sections because either of vertical channel deforma Therefore, considering its large age (>35 years) and tions or differences in the calculation methods and the other factors, the potential hazard of its failure is high. positions of the sections. The carrying capacity has Notwithstanding the problems mentioned above, increased in the sections near Stanitsa Troitskaya and the delta is protected against runoff inundations only NS No.4 ChORS and decreased near NS No. 10 by the maximalrunoff regulation in the Kuban River PAOS, GS MK AOS, NS No. 1 TOS+KOS, Stanitsa by the Krasnodar Reservoir, the floodcontrol system Varenikovskaya, GS AGOS1, Stanitsa Grivenskaya, of protection levees, the withdrawal of part of river and GS AGOS2 (Table 3). It was also found that the water into numerous melioration systems, and the overflow from the Kazachii Erik may take place at predominant erosional direction of channel processes water flow in the branch much less than it was assumed in the delta and a drop in bed elevations in most parts before. In the case of overflow onto the floodplain of branches (since the late 1960s). Therefore, the areas between levees, the water depth in all such areas recurrence and duration of inundations in the flood was not greater than 2 m (Table 2). According to [30], plain area between levees is still not high (Table 2) and such floods are classified as shallow. the Krasnodar Reservoir during its operation period Almost simultaneously with the decline in the state has prevented at least four catastrophic inundations in of levees and the decrease in the carrying capacity of the Lower Kuban and in the delta. This was in April– channels, a decrease was recorded in water flow in the May 1980, when population localities of Karachaevo Lower Kuban (the mean annual Q in 1987–2007 at Cherkessiya and Adygeya suffered from catastrophic 3 3 Tikhovskii GS was 412 m /s, and Qmax was 944 m /s); inundations; in June 1988 (when catastrophic floods the wearing of equipment and structures of many were recorded in almost all mountain and lowland hydraulic and melioration facilities in the lower waters in Krasnodar Territory and Adygeya; consider reaches of the Kuban increased. Moreover, the Shap able damage was inflicted to 130 populated localities, sugskoe Reservoir was drown down in 2003, and the 25000 houses were inundated or waterlogged, and

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 426 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV

Table 3. Estimates of channel carrying capacities in Kuban delta as of 2001–2004 (according to data of MSU, KMS, PII Kuban vodproekt) (PS is pumping station, HS is head structure, MC is main channel, PAIS is Petrovsko–Anastasievskaya Irrigation Sys tem (IS), AIS is Azov IS, TIS is Temryuk IS, KIS is Kurchanskaya IS, ChFS is Chernoerkovskii freshening canal, ChIRS is Cher noerkovskaya Irrigation Rice System, MChIS is Maryano–Cheburgolskaya IS) Floodplain overflow Maximal water Stream Section, distance from sea, km The flooded bank level, m BS flow, m3/s Kuban R. Tikhovskii GS, 116 9.30 1150 Left Kuban branch HS MC PAIS, 115.5 – 550 The same Serbin (Belyaev) GS, 115 9.50 550 Floodplain between levees Troitskaya GS, 102 8.52 500 Left PS no. 10 PAIS, 99.6 – 280 The same 85.0 6.50/6.90 525/575 Left/right PS no. 9 PAIS, 65.8 – 400 Left HS MC AIS, 55.1 – 300 The same PS no. 1 TIS and PS no. 1 KIS, 52.2 – 275 The same Stanitsa Varenikovskaya, 45.0 2.54 220 Floodplain between levees Kuibyshev Fishery Coll. Farm, 38.0 – 450 Right Anapskii supply conduit, 26.0 – 350/500 Left/right Zaitsevo Koleno GS, 22.0 2.50 350 Floodplain between levees Temryuk GS, 7.2 0.95 340 The same Truzhenik moray fishery Coll. Farm, 4.0 – 100 Left Protoka branch SlavyanskonKuban GS, 115 8.40 600 Right SadGigant State Farm, 109 – 550 The same HS ChFS, 107 – 450 The same HS MC ChIRS, 101 – 450 The same PS no.1 ChiRS, 87.2 – 400 The same PS no.2 ChiRS, 77.9 350 The same Demin Erik GS, 69.0 5.42 450 The same PS no.3 ChiRS, 65.5 – 450 The same PS no.4 MChIS, 64.5 – 425 Left Vasil’chikov Erik, 62.5 – 450 The same Grivenskaya GS, 52.0 3.39 300 Right PS no.4 ChiRS, 46.2 – >800 The same Prigibskii Canal, 39.0 – 330 Left 29.0 2.60 – Left/right PS no. 6 ChiRS, 14.2 – 300 Right Slobodka GS, 12.0 0.67 290 The same Acuevskii Sturgeon Fish Farm, 0.5 – 300 The same Kazachii Erik branch Dubovyi GS, 6.9 1.27 35 Floodplain between levees

~330000 ha of arable lands were flooded); in 1992 and essary to continue the implementation and improve in 2002. The possible catastrophic consequences of ment of the set of engineering and nonengineering the extreme summer inundation in 2002 for Kuban measures aimed to prevent such inundations and the lower reaches and delta can be seen from data on such development of methods for their prediction. The consequences for the middle and upper parts of the development and implementation of such inundation river basin, which are described in detail in [17, 32]. control methods in the Kuban basin (along with the To ensure the protection against runoff inundations delta) should be regarded as an organic whole. and mitigate their adverse effects in the future in both The list and character of the measures will be dif the Kuban’s basin and delta, the authors consider nec ferent for the runoffforming areas and the areas sub

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 427 ject of inundation hazard in Kuban basin. In the first water flows and levels, since a considerable part of the group of areas, preventive measures should be taken floodplain will be excluded form water exchange, and with the aim to recover and enhance the runoffregu the flow will be concentrated in the channel. There lating role of the river watershed (strict regulation of fore, the second direction in runoff flood control and measures of bog reclamation and agricultural develop the mitigation of their consequences should include ment of slopes, acrossslope plowing, planting of pro nonengineering preventive measures and, primarily, tective forest belts, cessation of mountain and pied responsible and strict control of the use of lands sub mont forest cutting, etc.). Additionally, the measured ject to the risk of inundation and the economic activity to be taken should facilitate the runoff regulation in in those lands. This approach should incorporate reg small and medium rivers (by constructing small multi ulatory zoning and regulation of land use on the terri purpose reservoirs), the system of emergency and early tories subject to inundation; the removal of important warning of the population and the appropriate services facilities or those constructed with violations of legal about showers and considerable thaws, floods on trib utaries (the extension and modernization of the mete or engineering regulations from the zones of periodic orological and hydrological monitoring networks), or potential inundation; the use of special engineering etc. solutions in the urbanization of floodplain areas that may be inundated; isolation of the storage sites of haz The list of measures for the areas in Kuban basin under inundation hazard is wider. Clearly, the imple ardous substances and wastes, etc. mentation of the system of engineering measures Other necessary measures include the following: aimed to prevent runoff inundations in the Lower Kuban R. and the delta should be continued, as it an increase in the number and modernization of proved its efficiency in the summer of 2002 and in the hydrological gauging stations (under both Krasno other nonstandard periods. Among others, the follow dar TsGMS and Kuban BVU); the completion of the ing measures should be mentioned: creation of the system for emergency and advanced the regulation of maximal Kuban water flow by the warning of the population; Krasnodar Reservoir; an increase in the regulating the development of an uptodate hydrological capacity of the reservoir bed; the replacement of the model of runoff formation in Kuban basin and its worn equipment and structures; the repair and stabil introduction in the practice of regional forecast cen ity improvement of the dam of the Krasnodar Hydro system; ters; reconstruction and commissioning of the Shapsug the prediction of rapidly developing floods and skoe Reservoir (is planned for 2013); runoff inundations based on improved calculation the reinforcement and restoration of channel levees methods and the improvement of the system for col in their failure sites and, in particular, in the places lection of hydrometeorological data with the use of where the banks are subject to the most considerable GIS technologies and mathematical modeling; and longlasting erosion; the construction of new dikes, including those with the use of modern material the assessment of the inundation characteristics of improving their stability and reducing their permeabil various delta areas with the use of GIS technologies at ity; permanent maintenance of all levees in proper different combinations of the governing factors; engineering conditions (part of such operations has the coordination of activities of various services been carried out by 2010 with the participation of PII and organizations involved in hydrometeorological Kubanvodproekt); monitoring and protection of economic facilities and the construction of efficient drainage systems in the population against inundation, evacuation of the populated localities and industrial regions; population, reclamation works, etc.; riverbed improvement and dredging operations, clearing of the channels from fallen trees and other increase in the funding of administrative depart garbage, deepening of mouth bars, floodplain clear ments, land users, hydrometeorological and nature ing; protection organizations, other juridical persons con the involvement of the regulation and distribution tributing to the implementation of floodcontrol mea potentialities of numerous hydraulic structures (HS) sures, and the introduction of tax benefits; in the Kuban lower reaches and delta in the floodcon promoting flood insurance among the population. trol system; the repair of those HS, the deepening and clearing of irrigation and, especially, watering canals. First successful attempts have been made to apply It is worth mentioning that the cost of engineering GIStechnologies and computer models for forecast measures and structures is high. Moreover, those mea ing. They were developed and validated against factual sures alone cannot ensure the complete protection data under NIR 0106 (2006–2008), carried out by against floods, and the embanking of channels, con SHI and participating organizations, including Geo versely, in some cases leads to an increase in maximal graphic Faculty, MSU.

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 428 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV

ICE JAMS, JAM AND JAM–RUNOFF Data on the jam formation sites are also incom INUNDATIONS, AND MEASURES plete. For example, in [13], both the river and the seg FOR THEIR CONTROL ment of the Protoka branch between its source and Stanitsa Grivenskaya are referred as such. The authors The passage of floods between midNovember and of [28] mention 17 especially hazardous places in late March sometimes causes breakup in the Kuban terms of jam formation in the Kuban R. and 10 such and its delta branches, which is accompanied by ice places in the Protoka branch, but no data are given drift, often resulting in ice jam formation in different about their location; 37 such places in the Kuban R. parts of the channel. Water level upstream of jam head, and 7 places in the Protoka branch are mentioned in even at relatively small Q, can exceed not only the [25]. maximal runoff H in the year, but also the value Hcr at In the opinion of the authors of this paper, the jam which floodplain inundation begins. Considerable jam hazardous sites are those with large channel turns and inundations form as the result of formation of large narrows, bifurcation sites (including those before and stable ice jams against the background of large islands, e.g., before Zaboiskii Island 71 km from the water flows. Water level rises caused by ice gorges, mouth of the Protoka branch), rifts (they number 16 which are also typical of the delta, commonly do not upstream of Varenikovskaya GS in the Kuban R. and 3 reach the critical elevations. downstream of it and 23 upstream of Grivenskaya GS Ice jams can be caused by many factors. They are in the Protoka branch and 2 downstream of it), the divided into 5 main groups: morphological, hydraulic, places with a considerable drop in longitudinal slope hydrographic, hydrometeorological, and anthropo (e.g., near Varenikovskaya and Grivenskaya GSs), genic [2, 34]. The factors are also divided into perma mouth bars, and bridges. An idea about the main and nent and varying from year to year. The factors affect most hazardous jamformation sites can be obtained ing Kuban lower reaches and delta may either reduce from a schematic map compiled by the authors of this or increase the probability of ice jam formation. The paper and available in KMS archives. former factors include mild winters and, as a conse Ice jams in Kuban delta can form from mid quence, the absence of freezeup and ice drift, often November to late March, but they are most frequent in weak and shorttime icedrift, low thickness of ice January and early and middle February (60% of cases) cover; breakup of the river and its branches at the (Fig. 1). Ice jams can occur 2–4 times during one win early stage of spring flood at relatively low water abun ter season. An important feature of jam formation in dance and with the ice cover considerably weakened Kuban delta is that it does not require large water flow by solar radiation. Contrary to that, the factors that in the river. The overwhelming majority of ice jams in facilitate jam formation are the presence of a large ice the delta (57%) were recorded at relatively low water accumulating area upstream of the delta; an abrupt flow in the delta head—from 100 to 400m3/s. Gorges downstream drop of water slope; frequent winter commonly form in early winter, but in some years they floods; not simultaneous breakup of different parts of may form in the middle or late winter during thaws fol the river and delta branches; specific morphological lowing by colds. and morphometric characteristics of the river and its Overall, the recurrence of ice jams at the gauging branches (the presence of rifts, islands, and meanders; stations in Kuban delta is not high: in years with ice shallow and narrow channel reaches); channel clog phenomena and under the conditions of nonregu ging by trees that have been washed by water; shallow lated river runoff, it varied from 20% near Temryuk GS mouth bars; accumulations of riverine and marine ice to 50% at SlavyanskonKuban GS (Table 4). After formations at the nearshore. 1973, it never exceeded 30%. This is due to the general Data on ice jams and gorges in the Kuban R. and in climate warming and increase in water temperature, a its delta branches are not abundant, since not all of decrease in the number of years and days with ice phe them were recorded by observers at hydrological gaug nomena and freezeup [19], thinner ice cover, regula ing stations (this is almost the only information source tion of maximal water flow during winter floods, and a about ice jams and gorges in the delta). This is due to decrease in the natural iceaccumulation area (for the the fact that the gauging stations are spaced far apart delta) by the presence of the Krasnodar, Fedorovskii, and located on relatively linear and branchfree seg and Tikhovskii hydrosystem (the latter was commis ments, where jams are rare; gages may exist only sev sion in 2005). At the same time, if we consider delta eral hours, forming and disappearing between stan branches all over their length, the recurrence of jams dard observation moments. Almost no special studies will reach 83 (1919–1972) and 59% (1973–2005), and of jam and gorge phenomena were carried out; no jams in the delta pass into the category of frequent ice aerial reconnaissance was used (except for the ice jams phenomena. Only one ice jam (in January 2002) was that caused considerable inundations of the floodplain recorded in the Kazachii Erik branch, i.e., its recur and failures of levees, as was the case in 1985, 1993, rence is only 2%. 1996, and 2002). Overall, the databank on jam and The decline in jam formation processes since the gorge phenomena in Kuban delta includes 195 such 1960s–1970s was less pronounced in the coastal parts cases for 1912–2002. of the branches. Important factors here are the back

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 429

P, % 16

12

8

4

0 2 31 23 1 23 1 2 31 23 November December January February March

Fig. 1. Recurrence of ice jams in Kuban R. delta, 5, since midNovember to late March in 1912–2002. The figures on the hori zontal axis are tenday intervals. water effect from the sea and a decrease in the longitu The control of ice jams and inundations they cause dinal slopes in the branches, the shallowness and clog is a difficult task because of high costs, the large num ging with wood fragments of mouth bars, and the ber of factors that may cause them, hence, the impos accumulations of river and sea ice that form some sibility to timely and reliably predict them. However, a times in the nearshore area. These factors have not series of measures for the prevention and jam inunda changed considerable in recent decades. The forma tions and the mitigation of their adverse consequences tion frequency of jams in the lower reaches and have been developed. They are in wide use now and mouths of major delta branches in the Kuban is not subject to permanent improvement. These measures large and equals 18% (Temryuk and Verbova kosa GSs) include preliminary ones, that are to be taken before and 11% (Slobodka and Achuevo GSs). This is the the passage of a winter flood; the measures of impact place (especially in the embanked and densely popu on the developing jam formation process (preventive lated Kuban branch) where the most hazardous ice measures); liquidation measures (the destruction of jams form, leading to large inundations. This was the ice jams that have formed and prompt lowering of case both before (e.g., in January 1940) and after 1973 water lever in the backwater zone; measures for (February 1985, January 1996, and January 2002), prompt population warning and, in emergency cases, when jaminduced inundations were practically evacuation. The measures mentioned above are mostly absent in other parts of branches (except for 2002). In of onetime character; however, longterm jam pre February 2006, the situation with ice jam formation in vention measures are also known. Let us consider Kuban branch mouth repeated again. some such measures, the experience in their applica tion in Kuban delta, and their efficiency. Ice jams in Kuban delta persist on the average not Preliminary measures include the construction of longer 1–2 days, sometimes, several hours; however, levees, river improvement operations and clearing of in some cases ice jams persisted for 5–16 days. The the channel from fallen trees (the best time for these length of ice accumulations commonly varies form operation is from midNovember to midDecember), several hundreds meters to several kilometers. The deepening of mouth bars (in late autumn, before thickness of ice accumulations in a jam in Kuban freezeup) with the necessary volumes of removed soil branch mouth can reach 1.0–1.5 (February 11–12, (~100–130 thous. m3/year in Protoka branch mouth 1985) and 1.5–2.0 m (January 9–10, 2002). Ice hum 90 thous. m3/year in Kuban branch mouth); hydrom mocks with a height of up to 5–7 m generally form on eteorological monitoring, including ice situation the mouth bar in the place of collision of river and sea (ground and aerial observations); prediction of jam ice. phenomena and their characteristics. The measures of the former three types are being implemented now Jam inundations are last not long, but the damage (the early XXI century); they have repeatedly demon they cause commonly exceeds that of runoff inunda strated their high efficiency. However, there are still tions, since the former are more difficult to predict few, if any, expedition and remote studies of ice situa and form in the cold season. Of hazard are also the tion and ice jams that form in the river and delta pressure of large ice masses on engineering structures, branches. The development of methods for predicting ice pileup on banks, and their wearing away because of jam phenomena and their characteristics are among ice movements in jams. priority measures. V.A. Buzin (SHI) under NIR 01–

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 430 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV % % 1 1 2 3 2 3 3 4 2 –1939 –1969 –1939 –1942 12 –19/70 100 100 1938–1939 1968 1938 1941 1938 1969 is the year (winter) is the year –1941, 1955–1956, 1963–1964 –1947, 1953–1954, 1959–1960 The top number is maximal 1940 1946 of jams per season, the bottom number of jams per season, the bottom of days of days Number with a jam freezeup for years with for years Recurrence, % phenomena for years with ice for years years for all 33 33 34 33 1–5 2355 9 9 9 10 10 11 1–3 tions* phenomena observa phenomena Number of years with ice Number of years 1973–20051919–20051973–1988 321927–1988 85 15 60 12 28 14 7 28 29 7 29 19 37 42 0 1973–19891928–19891919–19731973–2005 161919–2005 57 521973–2005 321919–2005 84 0 21 32 25 84 13 0 20 23 27 13 14 15 22 22 0 14 30 17 14 25 1–5 16 18 1919–19731973–20051919–20051943–1964, 531967–1979 32 85 49 25 40 50 27 41 57 25 50 1–14 1973–19991929–19991930–1942, 1962–1973 261973–2005 691930–1942, 1962–2005 321973–2005 32 191919–2005 25 20 53 85 25 9 59 11 29 31 71 – 74 13 – enomena were carried out not in all years. were enomena Varenikovskaya 1928–1973 Koleno Zaitsevo (Perevolokskii None) 41Temryuk 1919–1973 29 30 52 31 17 1–12 18 19 1–8 Kuban Demin Erik Grivenskaya 1929–1973Slobodka (Achue vo) 43 28 29 32 1–4 The recurrence and duration of ice jams in the reaches of hydrometric stations The recurrence and duration of ice jams in the reaches hydrometric Stream Gauging station Years* Kuban R. TikhovskiiKuban b. 1919–1973 Troitskaya 1927–1973 53 45 38 38 36 36 43 1–14 52 1–16 Protoka b. Slavyanskon * of ice ph this period, observations In In Kuban Delta 1919–1973 53 81 83 – 1–16 Table 4.

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 431

06 in 2008 proposed a method that enables effective ice cover by ships is an effective method, but its poten prediction of the probability of inundations in the tialities in the delta and nearshore area are limited delta in winter with the forecasttime interval of up to because of the small depth. When destroying ice floes 2 days based on data on water discharge from the Kras and the jam body, icebreakers should move upstream, nodar Reservoir, ice cover thickness, and the mean creating a zigzag canal in the jam body with a width daily air temperature in Krasnodar. not less than the vessel’s length. Hoverships can also be The measures for impact on jam formation process involved in the destruction of ice cover with a small may include preliminary weakening and destruction of thickness (less than 1 m). ice cover in branches and nearshore area; manipulat The weakening of ice cover by explosions is effec ing water discharges form reservoirs; regulation, where tive enough and sometimes used in the delta, though it possible, the inflow of ice masses from upstream river causes some damage to ichthyofauna. The explosion reaches, for example, by creating an artificial ice jam should involve several charges rather a single charge. in an upstream river or branch reach. Such measures The charges should be spaced 40–50 m apart and have should be taken only if the formation of hazardous a mass of 4.5–5.0 kg each. The preparation to blasting jams is very likely. can be accelerated by using cord extensions DKR4, The measured aimed to weaken or destroy ice cover which are commonly used for firing mine fields and and liquidate ice jams include scattering of cinder or made like fire hoses with explosive and a detonator coal dust with addition of salt, the use of icebreakers, inside. According to available data [2], good results artillery and air bombardment. The weakening of ice can be obtained with the use of special charges with cover by its blacking by cinder, coal dust, or soot with melters, developed by experts from Arzamas16 and addition of salt has been periodically used in the lower Vzryvstroi enterprises. reaches of the Kuban branch since the 1980s; in par The destruction of an already formed ice jam by ticular, it was implemented in 1985 and 2002 under the artillery and aerial bombardment has rarely yielded supervision of KMS. The experience of these works positive results. This was confirmed by the facts of shows that the application of this method in Kuban February 1993 and the winter of 2001–2002. Again, delta somewhat differs from its common use. First, the this is not always possible near populated localities. ice thickness in the river and its delta branches is rela Such measures are applicable when an open water area tively small, as well as the time required for its melting; exists downstream of the jam and the icecarrying therefore, the scattering of ice by cinder should began capacity of the channel segment is sufficiently high. in advance—before the day air temperature passes A very effective measure to control jams and jam through 0°C; however, the desired effect is attained induced inundations is the regulation of maximal only under solar weather. Second, because of the small flows in reservoirs in the period of breakup and ice thickness of branch channels, it is enough to scatter drift in the river. Thus, the construction of the Krasn cinder along the fairway as a single longitudinal band odar and other reservoirs caused a considerable 5–10 m in thickness. There is no need to scatter cinder decease in the recurrence of jam and gorge phenom on nearbank ice, because it will melt rapidly without ena in Kuban delta, while they disappeared com it. Third, cinder should be scattered from a helicopter pletely near some gauging stations, e.g., at Varenik (from the height of 50–100 m), since this is more rapid ovskaya GS. This was due to the indirect effect of nat and safe operation, considering the small thickness of ural and anthropogenic changes in the thermal and, ice cover. Fourth, the blackening mixture should be consequently, ice regime in the Lower Kuban: the ice prepared from 90% of cinder, coal dust, or ash and as thickness decreased 1.5 times, the duration of ice drift, little as 10% of common salt. With such composition freezeup, and the period with ice phenomena in gen of the blackening material, water mineralization in the eral declined, the frequency of years with the absence branches will mot exceed the ecologically admissible of freezeup and ice phenomena increased. level. The application rate of the blackening material The liquidation measures, in addition to the should not exceed 1–3 t/ha. Fifth, the application of destruction of formed ice jams, include controlled this method in branch mouths (in mouth bar areas), decrease of water level in the backwater zone, e.g., by where the depth is as little as 0.8–1.5 m and thick ice the partial disposal of river and branches' runoff pileups (hummocks) form, is not efficient and fails to (upstream of the jam head) into artificial gaps in levees yield the desired effect. or into irrigation and watering canals. Thus, the left The ice cover in Kuban delta branches and their bank in the lower part of the Protoka branch has been mouths is destroyed with the use of strongshell ves developed and leveed down to Slobodka GS (10 km sels, e.g., tugs, and by using pyrotechnics technology. from the branch’s mouth). Further downstream, a This was the case, for example, in 1953, 1963, 1965, road embankment rises 0.8–1.0 m above the bank 1967, 1968, 1985, and 2002 near Temryuk GS and fur edges on the left bank almost to Achuevskii bifurcation ther downstream; in 1993, 10 km upstream of Tem point. Local levees can also be seen here. Contrary to ryuk; in 1950, 1956, 1957, 1961, and 1963, near Slavy that, the right bank area still remains in the natural anskonKuban GS; in 1970, 1972, and 2002, near condition and forms a vast lowland (with elevations of Slobodka GS and downstream of it. The destruction of 0.1–0.4 m BS) plavni massif. This massif has no pop

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 432 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV ulation, industrial facilities, and agricultural lands; Thus, the existing carrying capacity of this system therefore, the inundation of this part of the delta will made it impossible to use this option in the winter of cause no damage or human losses and will have a 2001–2002. favorable effect on the functioning of liman–plavni system. The territory of more than 30000 ha (west of Notwithstanding the existing and new measures, the Prigibskii Canal) can accept large volumes of river jams and gorges still form in the delta. After the con water, which will later discharge into the sea and struction of the Krasnodar Reservoir in 1973, when Akhtarsko–Grivenskie limans. This will cause a rise in the problem of runoff inundations in the Lower Kuban water level in the plavni by as little as 0.3–0.5 m. This and in its delta was practically solved, the inundations massif can be inundated if water level in the branch after 1973 where caused by ice jams. rises above the elevations of rightbank edges (it has no levees on it within 29 km from the branch’s mouth, but The latest and most extreme runoff–jam inunda only natural levees with an elevation of up to 0.6 m BS) tion took place in the delta in December 2001–Janu or if water will flow through artificial gaps in the seg ary 2002 [10]. The inundation was caused by severe ments between the Head Structure of the Prigibskii frosts, alternating with thaws, and abundant precipita Cabal–29th km. This was the case in the winter of tion caused by southern Mediterranean cyclones. 2001–2002. Part of water runoff can be discharged Rains and snow melting have led to dangerous filling into the leftbank plavni downstream of Slobodka GS, of the Krasnodar, Shapsugskoe, and Varnavinskoe res since they are separated by a road embankment (Slo ervoirs, requiring rapid water discharge from them. bodka Settlement–Chernyi Erik Farm) from the The total water discharge from the reservoirs on Janu developed and populated eastern areas of this part of ary 1 and 2 was above 1000 m3/s. the delta and by a collector, from Achuevo Settlement. Therefore, jams in Protoka branch mouth, unlike The increased water flow in the river and delta those in Kuban branch mouth, are of almost no haz branches caused a rise in water level. Ice cover limited ard. Delta areas north of Stanitsa Grivenskaya and the level rise in the Protoka branch, while in the downstream of Temryuk can also be used as such tem Kuban branch system, water level rise was facilitated porary water accumulation zones. by water discharges from the Varnavinskoe Reservoir When powerful jams and inundations form and the background effect from ice jams in the channel upstream of Stanitsa Grivenskaya and Temryuk, delta (at Stanitsa Varnavinskaya, near Khan’kovo Farm, and areas adjacent to branches can be used as temporary Zaitsevo Koleno GS) in the nearshore area of the waterreceiving bodies. The determination of the list branch. Thus, on January 10, 2002, water level at Tem and boundaries of such areas requires special studies ryuk GS reached its historical maximum of 264 cm and sound decisions. Such waterreceiving bodies above the GS datum and rose 74 cm above the so should meet several important requirements: they called hazardous level, at which some regions of the should not contain populated localities and important town will be inundated. The considerable level rise in economic facilities; they should not be part of the Pri long reaches of the Kuban and Kazachii Erik branches azovskii Republican Wildlife Preserve; their elevations caused the inundation of a floodplain between levees, should be low enough; they should be used only for cultivating annual crops; should be separated from water overflow over the levees, and even their failure in developed and populated delta areas by road embank some places, resulting in the inundation of fields, pop ments and levees; the possibility should be provided, as ulated localities, and industrial facilities (Fig. 2). The required, for artificial withdrawal of water from these second phase of inundation started on January 18. areas back into branches or limans after the jams are The winter inundation flooded part of Temryuk, liquidated. The latter two conditions are satisfied by settlements and farms in Anapskii, Temryukskii, taking additional preparatory measures, which clearly Krymskii, Slavyanskii, and Kalininskii districts, makes it more difficult and expensive to use of such areas as temporary waterreceiving bodies. Water can 74000 ha of land, of which 34–50 thousands were be pumped out from such areas with the use of existing agricultural [7, 8]. Inundated were 19000 ha of winter discharge pumping stations. This was the case after the crops, 6000 ha of perennial grasses and ~9000 ha of fall winter inundation in 2002, when NS No. 3 TOS plowing. The inundated zone contained 1115 houses, pumped water from rice fields of Pravoberezhnyi State of which 325 were completely destroyed and Farm (460 ha in area) into the water of Petrushin 301 needed repair. About 600 oil and 20 gasproduc branch. ing wells of OAO Rosneft’–Krasnodarneftegaz were The discharge of part of water from the river and shut; the only plant in Russia that produced iodine (in delta branches into various canals is a cheap and effec Stanitsa Troitskaya) was waterlogged; Anapa water tive measure for rapidly decreasing water level intake was inundated. More than 10 thousands people upstream of the jam head. However, this can be imple were affected; 3300 were evacuated. The damage from mented only after reconstruction and enhancement of the inundation was ~2 billion rubles. The timely taken the carrying capacity of the delta melioration system. measures prevented even greater damage [10].

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 433

SEA OF AZOV Grivenskaya Slobodka Derevyankovka

AY B II SK K

U P Y ro R

M t E Petrovskaya o

T k

a

b

r .

SlavyanskonKuban Temryuk Orekhov Kut Anastasievskaya K ub Korzhevskii K an u b Khan’kov b r. a n R . Varenikovskaya Troitskaya

BLACK SEA Varnavinskoe Res.

0510 km 1234 567

89

Fig. 2. Schematic map of the hydrological situation in Kyban delta in December 2001–January 2002. (1) River, branches; (2) canals; (3) water bodies; (4) populated localities; (5) ice jam sites; (6) natural gaps in levees; (7) artificial gaps in levees; (8) sites of river water overflow over levees; (9) inundation zones.

SURGE INUNDATIONS AND THEIR tion conditions of catastrophic surges are not only the PREDICTION METHODS large speeds and duration of surge winds, but also a rare combination of hydrometeorological factors. Inundations of the third type—surge—are associ Maximal and hazardous surges in Temryuk Bay take ated with heavy sea storms. Surges in the nearshore place in two cases [15]. First, they occur when deep area of the Kuban are caused by western and northern cyclones from the Black Sea pass to the eastern Sea of winds, and the strongest surges are due to northwest Azov, and eastern and northeastern winds change to ern winds. The mean annual recurrence of N, NE, W, northern, next northwestern and western (left rota SW, and NW winds in the Kuban nearshore area tion). Waters that have accumulated in the southwest (Temryuk port) is 33.8, 23.6, and 9.2%, respectively. ern part (in the form of a long “surge wave”) are trans Surge winds and the level rises they cause in the east ported by surge winds along the southern shore to the ern Sea of Azov dominate in the spring and summer east, thus leading to water level rise in Temryuk port, with a peak in April–May. The recurrence of winds of next in Achuevo Settlement, and, finally, in Primor northern and western directions is 12 and 7 in the sko–Akhtarsk. Second, hazardous surge occur when, spring, 19 and 6 in the summer; 12 and 5 in the instead of their common way (through the Black Sea), autumn, and 5 and 7% in the winter. However, the cyclones enter the eastern Sea of Azov from the west or largest surge level rises in the Kuban nearshore area northwest, and southern winds change to southwest form in the autumn–winter season. In this season, the ern, western, and northwestern (right rotation). In speed of setup winds and the number of storms are such cases, water masses accumulated in the northern appreciably greater than in other seasons. Sea of Azov and in Taganrog Bay move southward as High surges cause the inundation of the nearsea the result of change in the wind. Winds of the southern delta zone and sometimes to inundations. The forma quarter of horizon create intense inflow of Black Sea

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 434 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV water into the Sea of Azov through Kerch Strait. If this The worst aftereffects in Kuban mouth were due to is followed by the appearance of strong northern or the surge inundations in 1739, 1831, 1843, 1892, 1914, northwestern winds above the Sea of Azov, huge water and 1969 (Table 1). The most abundant available data masses will be transferred into the southern part of the refer to the most recent catastrophic surge on October sea, creating here (especially, in the head of Temryuk 28–29, 1969 [9, 16, 24, 27, 33]. Bay) hazardous level rise. Its intense development was determined by the The shore of the delta from Kuban branch mouth high wind speed (30–35 m/s with gusts up to 40 m/s) to Protoka branch mouth (and further to Primorsko– and the rapid change in its direction from southwest Akhtarsk) is low. The elevations of the highest points ern and southern to western and northwestern. The on the shore almost nowhere exceed 1 m above the latter fact facilitated the concentration of large water mean level of the Sea of Azov. Therefore, wind masses (including those delivered through Kerch induced rise of water level ΔHs > 1 m can cause inun Strait from the Black Sea) mostly in the southeastern dation of the shore. The mean longterm value of Sea of Azov and the extremely high level rise. The highest annual surge level rises in Temryuk port is highest level marks were recorded at Perekopka Settle 0.91 m (1910–2006), and that at Primorsko–Akhtarsk ment (3.5 m BS) in the head of Temryuk Bay. Further is 1.0 m. Surges with ΔHs ~ 1 m for Temryuk port and northward the maximal levels were lower: 2.42 m BS Primorsko–Akhtarsk have different occurrence— near Sladkovskoe Girlo, 2.89 at Achuevo Settlement, ~20% or once in five years and ~45%, i.e., much more and 1.56 m BS in Primorsko–Akhtarsk. The relative often. The occurrence of elevations of 2 m at different surge level rise at Temryukport, Perekopka, and Pri ends of the delta coastline (DC) is 2 and 3%. The surge morsko–Akhtarsk GSs were 328, ~400, and 191 cm, level rise in the Sea of Azov during the catastrophic respectively. The surge was accompanied by a strong surge in October 1969 (ΔHs = 3.28 m at Temryuk port wind and waves. Wave height reached 2.5 m at Peresyp GS) had the occurrence of 0.2%, i.e., the recurrence Settl. and 3.2 m at Perekopka Settl. The duration of of once in 500 years. However, this does not mean that the surge was 15 h in Temryuk and 18 h in Primorsko such surge cannot occur more often. Akhtarsk. Surge inundations are difficult to control. An effi The aftereffects of this surge and the inundation it cient solution of this problem is the construction of caused were catastrophic. The inundation embraced a levees or the socalled surgecontrol barrier (e.g., the coastal zone 150 km in length and from 10 to 25– complex of protection structures in St. Petersburg 30 km in width (Fig. 3). The surge level rise propa against surge inundations in Neva Bay, Thames Barrier gated over major delta branches over ~100 km from protection complex on the Thames River in London their mouth sections, not reaching Stanitsa Troitskaya outskirts, protection levees and barriers along Nether (Kuban branch) and Baranikovskii farm (Protoka lands coast under Delta project, etc.). However, con branch). The nearchannel floodplain along the sidering the very large length of Kuban DC and the Kuban branch was inundated within a reach from local distribution of the most significant social–eco branch mouth to Zaitsevo Koleno GS and 15 km fur nomic facilities (between Peresyp Settlement and ther upstream. The propagation distance of the surge Kuban branch mouth, near the mouth of the Protoka wave onto the land in reedy shore segments with spe branch and Primorsko–Akhtarsk) this a very expen cific orographic and infrastructural features was 5– sive measure. Its cost is much greater than the losses 15 km. In limans it was much greater (15–35 km). that can be caused by catastrophic surge inundations The inundation caused considerable material dam that take place ~1–2 times in 100 years. age and even human losses (about 300 were killed). An alternative is to develop methods for predicting The settlements of Chaikino, Verbino, Kuchugury, catastrophic surges on the southeastern and eastern and Petukhovka and a fishfarm in Achuevo settle coast of the Sea of Azov, to elaborate a population ment were destroyed; the property of Temryuk fish warning and evacuation scheme and the engineering farm was dispersed of Kuban plavni; vessels from Tem protection of the key facilities with the use of a local ryuk port were thrown over a levee into the Petrushin levee system. The first large work devoted to forecast branch; railway embankment was destroyed almost ing rare and considerable level rises in the Sea of Azov completely between seaport and Temryuk. A cannery, was written by L.N. Kropachev [15]. Later, his method tank farm, storehouses, several houses on the right was improved; moreover, other methods for predicting bank were partially inundated (water depth reached high level rises in Kuban nearshore area appeared [33]. 1m); Zamosty settlement on the left bank of the The joint use of the most efficient statistical forecast Kuban branch was completely inundated (water level methods and hydrodynamic models of surge water in the settlement rose up to 1.5–2.0 m). No houses level variations allows one to accurately and timely were destroyed. predict a hazardous level rise on Kuban DC and take appropriate preventive measures to minimize the damage from inevitable inundation and evacuate the CONCLUSIONS population. Such forecasts are made by Krasnodar The studies carried out by the authors of this paper TsGMS. based on unique observational data (including the

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 435

n a t m i i p L Primorsko–Akhtarsk S i a ki y s a r k s a v t ue kh h A c A K ir p il SEA OF AZOV ’s k ii L im a S n lad ko vs Gi koe Achuevo rlo Slobodka Grivenskaya AY I B KI S . K r U b RY M Z a E oz k T u o le t v o G sk r ir o Petrovskaya Kuchugury lo e P Perekopka C hI Peresyp Chaikino C Golubitskaya Verbino Baranikovskii Akhtanizovskii K ur Liman L ch im an a sk SlavyanskonKuban Temryuk n ii a S k M Zaiytsevo Koleno r S MC Tikhovskii u PA h K Anastasievskaya IS K KK u K Kuban br. b C a M n Kiziltashskii R Liman Troitskaya . Var Varenikovskaya na vins kii C an.

BLACK SEA Varnavinskoe Res. 0510 km 1234567

Fig. 3. Schematic map of the inundation zone in the coastal part of Kuban R. delta on October 28–29, 1969. (1) River, branches; (2) artificial canals; (3) limans, spawninggrowing farms, reservoir; (4) populated localities; (5) propagation distance of surge level rise along branches; (6) inundation boundaries in the coastal zone of the delta; (7) Temryuk sea port. authors' observations) made it possible to develop a Inundations in Kuban delta can be caused by floods typification of inundations in Kuban delta; consider and spring floods with low occurrence, ice jams and the causes, recurrence, and specific features of mani large gorges, and sea surges. After the construction of festations of the three main types of inundations; typ the Krasnodar (1973) and other reservoirs, the ify and assess in detail the efficiency of the existing embankment of channels, and the implementation of measures for inundation control in the delta; develop dredging operations, the recurrence of runoff inunda additional recommendations for the prevention or tions in the delta decreased to nearly zero. Cata mitigation of the damage caused by runoff inundations strophic surge inundations occur ~2 times in 100 years and mixedtype inundations; assess the presentday and the methods of their prediction have large enough carrying capacity of the main delta branches; study forecast time lag. Of greatest hazard for Kuban lower jam formation processes in the delta; consider the reaches are now jam and runoffjam inundations. causes, manifestation character, and aftereffects of The forecasting of jam inundations and their con extreme inundations in 1969 and 2002, i.e., under the trol are now far from completely efficient (because the conditions of developed economic complex of the protection operations are laborious and expensive, the delta. decline in network hydrological observations and the

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 436 MAGRITSKII, IVANOV absence of remote observations, the large number of 4. Galkin, G.A., Klimaticheskie anomalii v Krasnodar possible causes of jam formation, the lack of coordina skom krae (Climate Anomalies in Krasnodar Terri tion in the activity of different organizations, etc.). tory), Krasnodar, 1989. This became even clearer during the winter inundation 5. Galkin, G.A., Catastrophic Surge Inundations in of 2001–2002. Nevertheless, in the authors' opinion, Eastern Azov Region in the XVIII–XX Century, the existing system of measures for preventing jam Mater. Nauch.Prakt. Konf. “Aktual’nye Voprosy inundations and minimizing their adverse conse Ekologii I Okhrany Prirody Azovskogo Morya I Vostoch quences should be preserved, provided that those mea nogo Priazov’Ya” (Urgent Problems of Ecology and Nature Protection in the Sea of Azov and Eastern Azon sures are taken jointly and systematically, the role of Region, 1990. individual components is enhanced, and additional measures are introduced, including those proposed 6. Galkin, G.A., and Korovin, V.I., Winter Severity and FreezeUp on the Kuban River in the XVIII–XX Cen the authors of this paper. The efficiency of jam inun tury, Izv. VGO, 1984, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 20–28. dation control and mitigation of aftereffects can be improved by taking into account the results of analysis 7. Dobrovol’skii, S.G., and Istomina, M.N., Navod neniya mira (Inundations in the WOrld), Moscow: of the efficiency of measures having been taken during GEOS, 2006. jam inundations. 8. Dobroumov, B.M., and Tumanovskaya, S.M., Inunda The warming of the regional climate, which is tions in Russian Rivers: Their Formation and Zoning, likely in the foreseeable future, and the hydrological Meteorol. Gidrol., 2002, no. 12, pp. 70–78. consequences of this process may change the situation 9. Ivanov, A.A., Hydrological AfterEffects of Inunda with inundations in Kuban delta. First, the occurrence tion on October 28, 1969, in Kuban Delta, in Materi and magnitude of autumn–winter floods will increase aly nauchnoi konferentsii po voprosam geografii Kubani and the water abundance in the summer season will (Materials of Sci. Conf. on Issues of Kuban Geogra decrease. Second, the character of jam formation in phy), Krasnodar, 1971, pp. 38–40. delta streams can change in different aspects. Thus, 10. Ivanov, A.A., Mikhailov, V.N., and Magritskii, D.V., the number of winters with jams may increase because The Causes, Chronicle of Events in the Lower Kuban of larger water flow in winter, greater amount of fragile in the Winter of 2001–2002, Bezopasnost’ Energet ice in autumn and early winter, and higher recurrence icheskikh Sooruzhenii, 2003, no. 11, pp. 275–283. of gorges. Conversely, the frequency and magnitude of 11. Istomina, M.N., Kocharyan, A.G., and Lebedeva, I.P., jams may decrease because of a higher air and water Floods: Genesis, Socioeconomic and Environmental temperature; a lesser number of severe winters, the Impacts, Vodn. Resur., 2005, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 389– amount, thickness, and strength of ice cover on the 398 [Water Resour. (Engl. Transl.), vol. 32, no. 4, river, in delta branches, and in the nearshore area. As pp. 349–358]. the result, eventually, the recurrence and duration of 12. Katalog “Vodokhranilishcha SSSR”(Catalogue “USSR jams in the lower reaches and the delta of the Kuban Reservoirs”), Moscow: Soyuzvodproekt, 1988. River should decrease. Third, a rise in the level of the 13. Katalog zatornykh i zazhornykh uchastkov rek SSSR Sea of Azov and the recession of the delta coastline will (Catalogue of Jam and Gorge Reaches in USSR Riv enhance the effect of marine factors on the branch and ers), Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1976, vol. 1. coastal delta regions. 14. Korovin, V.I. and Galkin, G.A., Genetic Structure of Inundations and Floods on Rivers of the Northwestern Caucasus over a 275year period, Izv. Akad. Nauk ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SSSR, Ser. Geogr., 1979, no. 3, pp. 90–94. This study was supported by the Russian Founda 15. Kropachev, L.N., Methods for PreCalculation of tion for Basic Research, project no. 080500305; Hazardous Level Rises in the Sea of Azov, Tr. Okean Program for Support of Leading Scientific Schools, ograficheskoi Komissii, 1960, vol. 7, pp. 136–147. NSh4964.2008.5; FTsP “Scientific and Scientific 16. Luk’yanov, V.A., Experience in Calculating Cata Pedagogical Personnel of Innovation Russia” (state strophic Level Rise near Kuban Shore in October 1969, contract 02.740.11.0336, contract 11.G34.31.0007). Tr. Gos. Okeanogr. Inst., 1972, no. 115, pp. 71–82. 17. Lur’e, P.M., Panov, V.D., and Tkachenko, Yu.Yu., Reka Kuban’. Gidrografiya i rezhim stoka (The Kuban REFERENCES River: Hydrography and Runoff Regime), St. Peters 1. Antropogennye vozdeistviya na vodnye resursy Rossii i burg: Gidrometeoizdat, 2005. sopredel’nykh gosudarstv v kontse XX stoletiya (Anthro 18. Magritskii, D.V., Typification of Inundations in the pogenic Impact on Water Resources of Russia and Lower Kuban River, Bezopasnost’ Energeticheskikh Nearby Countries) Koronkevich, N.I., and Sooruzhenii, 2003, no. 11, pp. 99–110. Zaitsev,I.S., Eds., Moscow: Nauka, 2003. 19. Magritskii, D.V., Variations in the Thermal and Ice 2. Buzin, V.A., Zatory l’da i zatornye navodneniya na Regime in the Kuban and Sulak Rivers, Tr. VI konf. rekakh (Ice Jams and JamInduced Inundations in “Dinamika i termika rek, vodokhranilishch i pribrezhnoi Rivers), St. Petersburg: Gidrometeoizdat, 2004. zony morei” (Proc. VI Conf. “Dynamics and Thermal 3. Voda Rossii. Rechnye basseiny (Water of Russia: River Processes in Rivers, Reservoirs, and the Coastal Zones Basins), Yekaterinburg: AKVAPRESS, 2001. of Seas), Moscow, 2004, pp. 172–175.

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011 INUNDATIONS IN KUBAN DELTA 437

20. Magritskii, D.V., and Ivanov, A.A., Assessment of the 27. Ovsienko, S.N., Calculation of a Catastrophic Surge Effect of Water Management Measures on Runoff near the Southeastern Coast of the Sea of Azov, Tr. Regime in the Lower Kuban River, Vestn. Mosk. Univ., GMTs SSSR, 1973, no. 127, pp. 33–36. Ser. 5, Geography, 2003, no. 5, pp. 46–54. 28. Simonov, A.I., Gidrologiya ust’evoi oblasti Kubani 21. Mazur, I.I., and Ivanov, O.P., Opasnye prirodnye prot (Hydrology of Kuban Mouth Area), Moscow: sessy. Vvodnyi kurs (Hazardous Natural Processes: Gidrometeoizdat, 1958. Introductory Course), Moscow: Ekonomika, 2004. 29. SlavyansknaKubani i Slavyanskii raion. Stranitsy istorii (SlavyanskonKuban and Slavyanskii Region: 22. Mikhailov, V.N. and Magritskii, D.V., PresentDay History), Krasnodar: Sov. Kuban’, 1995. Water Balance of Kuban Delta and the Evaluation of 30. SNiP 2.06.1585. Inzhenernaya zashchita territorii ot Kuban River Inflow into the Sea of Azov, Tr. Gos. zatopleniya i podtopleniya (SNiP 2.06.1585. Engi Okeanogr. Inst., 2008, no. 211, pp. 222–246. neering Protection of Territories against Inundation 23. Mikhailov, V.N., Povalishnikova, E.S., and Ivanov, A.A., and Waterlogging), Moscow, 2002. Water Level Fluctuations in the Kuban River Delta 31. Taratunin, A.A., Navodneniya na territorii Rossiiskoi over the Period of Many Years, Vodn. Resur., 2002, Federatsii (Inundations in the Territory of the Russian vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 133–140 [Water Resour. (Engl. Federation), Yekaterinburg: RosNIIVKh, 2008. Transl.), vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 115–122]. 32. Tumanovskaya, S.M., Methodological Issues in 24. Mikheenkov, N.D., Azov Inundations, Chelovek I Studying River Inundations: Case Study of Kuban Stikhiya (Humans and Nature), 1970. Basin, in Dokl. VI Vseros. gidrologicheskogo s’’ezda (Reports of VI AllRussia Hydrol. Congr.), Moscow: 25. Nagalevskii, Yu.Ya., Yurchenko, N.V., and Gaidamak Meteoagentstvo Rosgidrometa, 2006. ina, T.M., Inundations and Their Types in the Terri 33. Sheremetevskaya, O.I., Sgonnonagonnye kolebaniya tory of Northwestern Caucasus, in Mater. Mezhdunar. urovnya Azovskogo morya, metody ikh raschetov i prog nauch.prakt. konf. “Geografiya i region” (Mater. nozov (SurgeInduced Level Variations in the Sea of Intern. Sci.Pract. Conf. “Geography and the Azov, Methods of Their Evaluation and Prediction), Region”), Perm, 2002, issue IV, pp. 27–30. Obninsk: Inform. tsentr, 1977. 26. Nezhikhovskii, R.A., Voprosy Gidrologii Reki Nevy i 34. Shulyakovskii, L.G., On Ice Jams and Jam Water Lev Nevskoi Guby (Problems of Hydrology of the Neva els during River BreakUp, Meteorol. Gidrol., 1951, River and the Neva Gulf), Leningrad: Gidrometeoiz no. 7, pp. 45–48. dat, 1988. 35. http://www.kbvufgu.ru

WATER RESOURCES Vol. 38 No. 4 2011