DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrology of the Delta Marsh Watershed: Water Balance Characterization and Analysis of Land Use Changes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydrology of the Delta Marsh Watershed: Water Balance Characterization and Analysis of Land Use Changes Hydrology of the Delta Marsh Watershed: Water Balance Characterization and Analysis of Land Use Changes by Gregory John Schellenberg A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Civil Engineering University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada December 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Gregory John Schellenberg Abstract A hydrological model was used to examine the water balance of the Delta Marsh Wa- tershed (DMW) currently and as impacted by land use changes. Understanding DMW hydrology can help to improve conditions in the Delta Marsh. MIKE SHE model results showed that the water balance is typical of prairie conditions with limited wintertime activity, significant spring melt runoff, and high summertime evapotranspiration and infiltration. Results showed that the DMW contributes approximately 40 million m3 of water to the Delta Marsh in an average year, or 710 m3/ha/yr. Portage Creek is the single greatest inflow from the watershed (31% of total) and the West Marsh area also receives large runoff volumes (combined 37% of total). Analysis of land use changes showed that urban expansion in the DMW would increase annual marsh inflows by over 50% under one urbanization scenario due to associated decreases in infiltration and transpiration. An agricultural shift towards row crop predominance would have minimal impact on the DMW water balance. Conversion of cropland to natural vegetation would decrease annual runoff by 12% to the marsh due to increased surface ponding, infiltration, and transpiration. i Acknowledgments I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the following people/organizations, with- out whom this thesis would not be possible: My co-advsiors, Dr. Shawn Clark and Dr. Trish Stadnyk for your guidance, support, feed- back, and patience throughout the course of the project. Thank you both for inspiring me to pursue a career in water resources engineering. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) for research funding through the Industrial Postgraduate Schol- arship. This scholarship afforded the invaluable opportunity to work together with many of DUC’s outstanding staff at both Oak Hammock and Delta Marshes. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Dale Wrubleski for your guidance, mentorship, and encourage- ment throughout the project - and for all the rides out to Oak Hammock! Thanks also to Dr. Pascal Badiou, Bob Emery, and Bryan Page for sharing your wealth of knowledge about the Delta Marsh and for providing field support without which this project would not be possible. Thank you to everyone at DUC for your patience in awaiting this thesis - I hope it was worth the wait! ii iii Everyone at Hatch for your encouragement and gentle nags of “is your thesis done yet?”. Your support and flexibility in helping me to complete this degree are truly appreciated. The staff and students I have had the privilege of working alongside. You all proved that great people and water resources engineering go hand-in-hand. In particular, our lab technologist and fearless fieldwork leader, Alexander Wall, for your countless contribu- tions to the project and your friendship. Parsa Aminian, for being with me every step of the way. My best memories of grad school will always be tied to you, and I could not be more grateful for that. I’m looking forward to many more years of putting work aside to joke around and enjoy each other’s com- pany. My family for your unwavering love and support through all these years of education. I cannot begin to thank you for everything you’ve done for me. Jackie Coleman, who has been my girlfriend, fiancée, and wife over the course of this program (proof that relationships can progress faster than graduate degrees!). More im- portantly, you have been a selfless cheerleader, my primary motivation, and my source of confidence. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for everything. Contents Abstract i Acknowledgments ii Contents iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Motivation . 5 1.2 Objectives . 6 2 Literature Review 9 2.1 Canadian Prairie Hydrology . 10 2.1.1 Climate . 10 2.1.2 Evapotranspiration . 13 2.1.3 Infiltration . 17 2.1.4 Groundwater . 19 2.1.5 Overland flow . 22 2.2 Hydrological Modelling . 25 2.2.1 Model classifications . 26 2.3 Water Balance Characterization . 27 2.4 Land Use Changes . 31 2.5 The Delta Marsh . 35 3 Study Area and Data Collection 38 3.1 Location and General Background . 38 iv Contents v 3.2 Delta Marsh - Restoring the Tradition . 40 3.3 Field Data Collection . 42 3.3.1 Hydrometry . 43 3.4 Digital Data Collection . 47 3.4.1 Topography . 47 3.4.2 Land use . 51 3.4.3 Hydrography . 52 3.4.4 Meteorology . 53 3.4.5 Geology . 56 4 Project Methodology 58 4.1 Hydrological Model Selection . 59 4.2 Watershed Delineation . 63 4.2.1 DEM harmonization . 64 4.2.2 Wetland DEM Ponding Model . 66 4.2.3 Delineation and ground-truthing . 67 4.3 MIKE SHE Model Development . 71 4.3.1 Simulation specification . 73 4.3.2 Model domain and grid . 73 4.3.3 Topography . 76 4.3.4 Climate . 77 4.3.5 Land use . 82 4.3.6 River and lakes . 86 4.3.7 Overland flow . 91 4.3.8 Unsaturated zone . 95 4.3.9 Saturated zone . 100 4.4 Model Calibration . 102 4.4.1 Calibration data . 102 4.4.2 Calibration statistics . 106 4.4.3 Calibration procedure . 109 4.5 Model Validation . 111 4.5.1 Validation data . 112 4.6 Land Use Change Scenarios . 113 4.6.1 Urbanization . 113 4.6.2 Row crop . 116 4.6.3 Naturalization . 120 5 Results and Discussion 122 Contents vi 5.1 Calibration Results . 123 5.2 Validation Results . 131 5.3 Model Uncertainty . 137 5.4 Baseline Hydrologic Conditions . 139 5.4.1 Water balance . 140 5.4.2 Marsh inflows . 145 5.5 Land Use Change Results . 152 5.5.1 Urbanization . 153 5.5.2 Row crop . 155 5.5.3 Naturalization . 158 5.5.4 Relative marsh inflows . 160 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 164 6.1 Conclusions . 165 6.2 Limitations . 167 6.3 Significance of Findings . 169 6.4 Recommendations for Future Work . 170 Appendix A Supplementary Model Information 175 References 176 List of Tables 4.1 Breakdown and description of DMW land use classes . 84 4.2 Calibrated surface roughness parameters . 92 4.3 Definitions of UZ soil properties . 97 4.4 Calibrated UZ soil parameters . 98 4.5 Calibrated hydraulic conductivities and leakage coefficients . 99 4.6 Transition date ranges for surface-subsurface leakage coefficients . 100 4.7 Definitions of SZ hydrogeologic properties . 101 4.8 Calibrated SZ hydrogeologic parameters . 102 4.9 Primary model calibration parameters . 111 5.1 Incremental sensitivity analysis/calibration results by parameter set . 127 5.2 Calibration statistics for Portage Creek streamflow calibration . 130 5.3 Validation statistics for Portage Creek streamflow . 132 5.4 Total annual marsh inflow volumes . 147 5.5 Change in average annual marsh inflow volumes . 161 A.1 Land use classes by sub-basin . 175 vii List of Figures 2.1 Ecozones of Canada . 11 2.2 Climate normals of selected prairie cities . 14 3.1 Study area location plan . 39 3.2 Points of discharge measurement in the DMW . 45 3.3 Field measurement of point discharge . 46 3.4 Spatial coverage of DUC elevation contours . 49 3.5 Climate stations and data availability near the DMW . 54 4.1 WDPM output for a selected region . 68 4.2 Delineated DMW and sub-basin boundaries and DEM sources . 72 4.3 MIKE SHE model domain and grid layout/sizing . 76 4.4 Input precipitation and temperature timeseries . 80 4.5 Input reference evapotranspiration timeseries . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparison of Swamp Forest and Phragmites Australis
    COMPARISON OF SWAMP FOREST AND PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS COMMUNITIES AT MENTOR MARSH, MENTOR, OHIO A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jenica Poznik, B. S. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Master's Examination Committee: Approved by Dr. Craig Davis, Advisor Dr. Peter Curtis Dr. Jeffery Reutter School of Natural Resources ABSTRACT Two intermixed plant communities within a single wetland were studied. The plant community of Mentor Marsh changed over a period of years beginning in the late 1950’s from an ash-elm-maple swamp forest to a wetland dominated by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel. Causes cited for the dieback of the forest include salt intrusion from a salt fill near the marsh, influence of nutrient runoff from the upland community, and initially higher water levels in the marsh. The area studied contains a mixture of swamp forest and P. australis-dominated communities. Canopy cover was examined as a factor limiting the dominance of P. australis within the marsh. It was found that canopy openness below 7% posed a limitation to the dominance of P. australis where a continuous tree canopy was present. P. australis was also shown to reduce diversity at sites were it dominated, and canopy openness did not fully explain this reduction in diversity. Canopy cover, disturbance history, and other environmental factors play a role in the community composition and diversity. Possible factors to consider in restoring the marsh are discussed. KEYWORDS: Phragmites australis, invasive species, canopy cover, Mentor Marsh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project like this is only possible in a community, and more people have contributed to me than I can remember.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays
    remote sensing Article Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays Brian T. Lamb 1,2,* , Maria A. Tzortziou 1,3 and Kyle C. McDonald 1,2,4 1 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The City College of New York, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA; [email protected] (M.A.T.); [email protected] (K.C.M.) 2 Earth and Environmental Sciences Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10016, USA 3 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 4 Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Group, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 July 2019; Accepted: 3 October 2019; Published: 12 October 2019 Abstract: The spatial extent and vegetation characteristics of tidal wetlands and their change are among the biggest unknowns and largest sources of uncertainty in modeling ecosystem processes and services at the land-ocean interface. Using a combination of moderate-high spatial resolution ( 30 meters) optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite imagery, we evaluated several ≤ approaches for mapping and characterization of wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Sentinel-1A, Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR), PALSAR-2, Sentinel-2A, and Landsat 8 imagery were used to map wetlands, with an emphasis on mapping tidal marshes, inundation extents, and functional vegetation classes (persistent vs. non-persistent). We performed initial characterizations at three target wetlands study sites with distinct geomorphologies, hydrologic characteristics, and vegetation communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramsar Sites in Order of Addition to the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance
    Ramsar sites in order of addition to the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance RS# Country Site Name Desig’n Date 1 Australia Cobourg Peninsula 8-May-74 2 Finland Aspskär 28-May-74 3 Finland Söderskär and Långören 28-May-74 4 Finland Björkör and Lågskär 28-May-74 5 Finland Signilskär 28-May-74 6 Finland Valassaaret and Björkögrunden 28-May-74 7 Finland Krunnit 28-May-74 8 Finland Ruskis 28-May-74 9 Finland Viikki 28-May-74 10 Finland Suomujärvi - Patvinsuo 28-May-74 11 Finland Martimoaapa - Lumiaapa 28-May-74 12 Finland Koitilaiskaira 28-May-74 13 Norway Åkersvika 9-Jul-74 14 Sweden Falsterbo - Foteviken 5-Dec-74 15 Sweden Klingavälsån - Krankesjön 5-Dec-74 16 Sweden Helgeån 5-Dec-74 17 Sweden Ottenby 5-Dec-74 18 Sweden Öland, eastern coastal areas 5-Dec-74 19 Sweden Getterön 5-Dec-74 20 Sweden Store Mosse and Kävsjön 5-Dec-74 21 Sweden Gotland, east coast 5-Dec-74 22 Sweden Hornborgasjön 5-Dec-74 23 Sweden Tåkern 5-Dec-74 24 Sweden Kvismaren 5-Dec-74 25 Sweden Hjälstaviken 5-Dec-74 26 Sweden Ånnsjön 5-Dec-74 27 Sweden Gammelstadsviken 5-Dec-74 28 Sweden Persöfjärden 5-Dec-74 29 Sweden Tärnasjön 5-Dec-74 30 Sweden Tjålmejaure - Laisdalen 5-Dec-74 31 Sweden Laidaure 5-Dec-74 32 Sweden Sjaunja 5-Dec-74 33 Sweden Tavvavuoma 5-Dec-74 34 South Africa De Hoop Vlei 12-Mar-75 35 South Africa Barberspan 12-Mar-75 36 Iran, I. R.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Wetland Mapping Standard
    FGDC Working Draft Wetland Mapping Standard FGDC Wetland Subcommittee and Wetland Mapping Standard Workgroup Submitted by: Margarete Heber Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Date: March 26, 2007 Federal Geographic Data Committee Wetland Mapping Standard Table of Contents 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective.............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Scope.................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Applicability ........................................................................................................ 4 1.5 FGDC Standards and Other Related Practices..................................................... 4 1.6 Standard Development Procedures and Representation ...................................... 5 1.7 Maintenance Authority ........................................................................................ 5 2 FGDC requirements and Quality components............................................................ 6 2.1 Source Imagery .................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Classification.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY and the NATIONAL WETLANDS RESEARCH CENTER PROJECT REPORT FOR: GALVESTON BAY INTRODUCTION the U.S. Fi
    NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY AND THE NATIONAL WETLANDS RESEARCH CENTER PROJECT REPORT FOR: GALVESTON BAY INTRODUCTION The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory is producing maps showing the location and classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. The Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States by Cowardin et al. is the classification system used to define and classify wetlands. Upland classification will utilize the system put forth in., A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System For Use With Remote Sensor Data. by James R. Anderson, Ernest E. Hardy, John T. Roach, and Richard E. Witmer. Photo interpretation conventions, hydric soils-lists and wetland plants lists are also available to enhance the use and application of the classification system. The purpose of the report to users is threefold: (1) to provide localized information regarding the production of NWI maps, including field reconnaissance with a discussion of imagery and interpretation; (2) to provide a descriptive crosswalk from wetland codes on the map to common names and representative plant species; and (3) to explain local geography, climate, and wetland communities. II. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Field reconnaissance of the work area is an integral part for the accurate interpretation of aerial photography. Photographic signatures are compared to the wetland's appearance in the field by observing vegetation, soil and topography. Thus information is weighted for seasonality and conditions existing at the time of photography and at ground truthing. Project Area The project area is located in the southeastern portion of Texas along the coast. Ground truthing covered specific quadrangles of each 1:100,000 including Houston NE, Houston SE, Houston NW, and Houston SW (See Appendix A, Locator Map).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Wells Harbor Ecology (Materials from the Wells NERR)
    APPENDICES Appendix B Wells Harbor Ecology (materials from the Wells NERR) CHAPTER 8 Vegetation Caitlin Mullan Crain lants are primary producers that use photosynthesis ter). In this chapter, we will describe what these vegeta- to convert light energy into carbon. Plants thus form tive communities look like, special plant adaptations for Pthe base of all food webs and provide essential nutrition living in coastal habitats, and important services these to animals. In coastal “biogenic” habitats, the vegetation vegetative communities perform. We will then review also engineers the environment, and actually creates important research conducted in or affiliated with Wells the habitat on which other organisms depend. This is NERR on the various vegetative community types, giving particularly apparent in coastal marshes where the plants a unique view of what is known about coastal vegetative themselves, by trapping sediments and binding the communities of southern Maine. sediment with their roots, create the peat base and above- ground structure that defines the salt marsh. The plants OASTAL EGETATION thus function as foundation species, dominant C V organisms that modify the physical environ- Macroalgae ment and create habitat for numerous dependent Algae, commonly known as seaweeds, are a group of organisms. Other vegetation types in coastal non-vascular plants that depend on water for nutrient systems function in similar ways, particularly acquisition, physical support, and seagrass beds or dune plants. Vegetation is reproduction. Algae are therefore therefore important for numerous reasons restricted to living in environ- including transforming energy to food ments that are at least occasionally sources, increasing biodiversity, and inundated by water.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Fighting in Manitoba
    Flood Fighting in Manitoba A History and Background of Manitoba’s Flood Protection Works Flood Fighting in Manitoba Southern Manitoba has extensive flood control Flood protection work has prevented property measures in place, particularly in the Red River damage and reduced the potential impact of Valley, from Winnipeg, south to the US border. flooding on families and communities. Since Flood controls were built after the devastating flood the 1997 flood, more than $1 billion has been of 1950, which flooded the Red River Valley and invested in flood mitigation efforts in Manitoba. the City of Winnipeg. Construction of the Red River This investment has prevented over $7 billion in Floodway was completed in 1968. Additional flood damages throughout Manitoba. control improvements, including an expansion of the The 2011 flood affected a large geographic floodway, were made after the Flood of the area and thousands of Manitobans. Early flood Century in 1997. This flood was substantially larger forecasts and flood-mitigation efforts helped many than the 1950 flood, but resulted in far less property communities get a head start on protecting homes damage because of the flood control measures in and lands, but damage was still widespread. place. There are also flood control measures along the Assiniboine River. Flood Control Infrastructure in Southern Manitoba DauDpahuinp hRiniv Reriver ! ! LakLeake FirsFt iNrsat tNioantion WaWterahteernhen WinWninipneigpoesgiossis LakLea kSet. SMta. rMtianrtin RivReriver DikDesikes " W"aWtearhteernhen LakLea kSet. SMta. rMtianrtin DuDcuk ck DikDesikes LittLleit tSlea sSkaastkcahtecwhaenwan " " EmEemrgeerngceyn Ccyh aCnhnaenlnel MoMuonutanitna in DikDesikes " " ProPvr.o Pv.a Prkark FairFfoairrdford LaLkeake MoMssoeyssey FirsFt iNrsat tNioanti!on !St.S Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: an Introduction
    ONE Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: An Introduction RebeCCA R. SHARITZ, DAROLD P. BATZER, and STeveN C. PENNINGS WHAT IS A WETLAND? WHY ARE WETLANDS IMPORTANT? CHARACTERISTicS OF SeLecTED WETLANDS Wetlands with Predominantly Precipitation Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Groundwater Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Surface Water Inputs WETLAND LOSS AND DeGRADATION WHAT THIS BOOK COVERS What Is a Wetland? The study of wetland ecology can entail an issue that rarely Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and needs consideration by terrestrial or aquatic ecologists: the aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or need to define the habitat. What exactly constitutes a wet- near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. land may not always be clear. Thus, it seems appropriate Wetlands must have one or more of the following three to begin by defining the wordwetland . The Oxford English attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is pre- Dictionary says, “Wetland (F. wet a. + land sb.)— an area of dominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is land that is usually saturated with water, often a marsh or nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow swamp.” While covering the basic pairing of the words wet water at some time during the growing season of each year. and land, this definition is rather ambiguous. Does “usu- ally saturated” mean at least half of the time? That would This USFWS definition emphasizes the importance of omit many seasonally flooded habitats that most ecolo- hydrology, soils, and vegetation, which you will see is a gists would consider wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Red River Floodway Operation Report Spring 2019
    RED RIVER FLOODWAY OPERATION REPORT SPRING 2019 June 28, 2019 Manitoba Infrastructure Hydrologic Forecasting and Water Management Branch Water Management and Structures Division Printed on Recycled Paper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2019 Red River spring flood resulted from above normal to well above normal winter snow fall in the upper Red River basin, including significant late season snowfall in the Fargo area, combined with normal soil moisture going into freeze-up in the fall. The March Outlook published by Manitoba’s Hydrologic Forecast Center estimated that the peak flow at Emerson could exceed the flow seen in the 2011 flood under favorable conditions, and exceed the 2009 flood under normal conditions. Under unfavorable conditions, the 2019 flow at Emerson was forecast to be second only to 1997 in the last 60 years of records. The observed peak at Emerson for the 2019 spring flood was approximately 60,700 cfs (1720.0 m3/s), and occurred on April 25. This is similar to the peak flow observed at Emerson in 2010. The 2019 peak flow measured at Emerson equated to a 1:15 year flood. However, due to the small contributions of tributaries in the lower portion of the basin, the peak natural flood flow at James Avenue only equated to a 1:6 year flood. The 2019 Red River spring flood was driven primarily by significant winter precipitation in the upper portion of the basin, and most of the tributaries on the Canadian side of the border had peaked long before the flood crest arrived. Ice was not a major concern on the Red or Assiniboine rivers in 2019, however, some ice jamming did occur north of the City of Winnipeg in the Selkirk and Netley Creek areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Provincial Flood Control Infrastructure Review of Operating Guidelines
    A REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF MANITOBA INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION August 2015 2 - Provincial Flood Control Infrastructure Panel Members Harold Westdal Chair Rick Bowering Hydrological Engineer Barry MacBride Civil Engineer Review of Operating Guidelines - 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While much of the work in this report is technical in nature, that work can only be guided and have meaning within a human context. In this respect the Panel is deeply grateful to the large numbers of people who freely gave their time and provided the Panel with the benefit of their experience and knowledge. The Panel would like to acknowledge the work of David Faurschou and Marr Consulting, the participation of municipal governments, First Nations, producer associations, provincial staff, those people who provided excellent advice at the Panel’s roundtable sessions and the many members of the public who took the time to attend open house sessions. The Panel also thanks the staff of the department for providing access to historical documents and technical support, and for attending the open house sessions. 4 - Provincial Flood Control Infrastructure TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Flood Control Infrastructure Matters . .9 2 Terms of Reference and Approach .....................................13 2.1 Review Process .................................................14 2.2 Public Engagement. 15 2.3 Presentation of this Report .........................................15 3 Manitoba’s Flood Control System ......................................17 3.1 Diking ..................................................19 3.2 Flood Control Works ..............................................19 3.3 Benefits of the System ............................................19 4 Operating Guidelines and Rules .......................................25 4.1 Operating Guidelines in Practice .....................................26 4.2 Operational Considerations . 27 5 The Red River Floodway .............................................28 5.1 Background ..................................................28 5.1.1 How the Floodway Works .
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Water Levels on Lake Manitoba and Along the Fairford River, Pineimuta Lake, Lake St
    Regulation of Water Levels on Lake Manitoba and along the Fairford River, Pineimuta Lake, Lake St. Martin and Dauphin River and Related Issues A Report to the Manitoba Minister of Conservation Volume 2: Main Report July 2003 The Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory Committee Cover Photo: Looking west along the Fairford River from the Fairford River Water Control Structure. Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory Committee, Main Report, July 2003 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Establishment of the Lake Manitoba Regulation Review Advisory Committee ............. 4 1.3 Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Overview of Committee Activities .................................................................................. 5 2.0 Lake Manitoba Drainage Basin ........................................................................................... 8 2.1 General Description.......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Lake Winnipegosis.................................................................................................. 10 2.1.2 Lake Manitoba .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Portage Diversion Layout Recent and Future Projects
    Portage Diversion Layout Recent and Future Projects Assiniboine River Control Structure Public and worker safety improvements Completed in 2015 Works include fencing, signage, and safety boom Electrical and mechanical upgrades Ongoing Works include upgrades to 600V electrical distribution system, replacement of gate control system and mo- tor control center, new bulkhead gate hoist, new stand-by diesel generator fuel/piping system and new ex- terior diesel generator Portage Diversion East Outside Drain Reconstruction of 18 km of drain Completed in 2013 Replacement of culverts beneath three (3) railway crossings Completed in 2018 Recent and Future Projects Portage Diversion Outlet Structure Construction of temporary rock apron to stabilize outlet structure Completed in 2018 Conceptual Design for options to repair or replace structure Completed in 2018 Outlet structure major repair or replacement prioritized over next few years Portage Diversion Channel Removal of sedimentation within channel Completed in 2017 Groundwater/soil salinity study for the Portage Diversion Ongoing—commenced in 2016 Enhancement of East Dike north of PR 227 to address freeboard is- sues at design capacity of 25,000 cfs Proposed to commence in 2018 Multi-phase over the next couple of years Failsafe assessment and potential enhancement of West Dike to han- dle design capacity of 25,000 cfs Prioritized for future years—yet to be approved Historical Operating Guidelines Portage Diversion Operating Guidelines 1984 Red River Floodway Program of Operation Operation Objectives The Portage Diversion will be operated to meet these objectives: 1. To provide maximum benefits to the City of Winnipeg and areas along the Assiniboine River downstream of Portage la Prairie.
    [Show full text]