Appendices D and E

APPENDIX D Performance Measure Results

This appendix displays the full set of Performance Measures results across the four scenarios of the Bow River Operational Model versus the Base Case:

Base Case Scenario 1. Stabilized Lower Kananaskis and Kananaskis River Scenario 2. Water Bank at 40,000 af Scenario 3. Water Bank at 60,000 af Scenario 4. Integrated Scenario

The performance measures include:

1. Flow in Kananaskis River 2. Flows in various reaches 3. Flow frequency curves for various reaches 4. Flow frequency curves for various reaches 5. Master Agreement on Apportionment 6. Flood events in Calgary 7. Diversion difficulty days 8. Low flow diversion restriction shortages9. Stage frequency curves for various reservoirs 10a. Stage probability plot 12a. Shortages 12b. Shortages (as a percent of the request) 12c. Shortage frequency curves 13. Number of days of shortages 14. Consecutive-day shortages 18. Stages for Walleye spawning 20. Frequency curve of the percentage of the WCO met 21. Frequency curve of the percentage of the IFN met 23. Flow at the mouth of the Bow 24. Flow frequency curve for the mouth of the Bow 30. Power Revenue 31, 32. Total power revenue and power generation Box and Whisker Plots 40. Flood events 50. Glenmore recreation season 51, 52, 53. Travers, McGregor, and Little Bow Recreation 54, 55. Travers and McGregor pump intake problems 56a. Rafting/kayaking hours (daily and annual) 56b. Rafting/kayaking days 57. Annual stage variation (aggregated across record) 58. Annual stage variation (by-year) 59. Hydropeaking 60. Siksika demands 61. IFN flow duration curves 62. Bassano flow classifications 64. Percent of natural flow before the Bow/Oldman confluence

Bow River Project Final Report 77 1. FLOW IN KANANASKIS RIVER

This PM is generated by the OASIS graphical use interface (GUI). The model outputs the flow in the Kananaskis River between Lower Kananaskis and Barrier. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

2. FLOWS IN VARIOUS REACHES

This PM is generated by the OASIS GUI. The model outputs the flow in the Bow River below Bassano Dam. Initially the idea was to include multiple reaches on one plot; however, during the CAN process it became clear that stakeholders preferred comparing one reach’s performance across a number of alternatives instead. The PM can be generated within seconds for any reach in the model. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

3. FLOW FREQUENCY CURVES FOR VARIOUS REACHES

This PM is generated by the OASIS GUI. The model outputs the frequencies of flows in the Bow River below Bassano Dam by sorting the flows largest to smallest and assigning an exceedance probability to each data value. For each

Bow River Project Final Report 78 percentage of time considered, the plot displays the probability that the flow is greater than or equal to a given flow. The PM can be generated within seconds for any reach in the model. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

4. FLOW FREQUENCY CURVES FOR VARIOUS REACHES

The plot and description of this PM is captured in PM 3. Initially the idea was to include multiple reaches on one plot; however, during the CAN process it became clear that stakeholders preferred comparing just one reach’s performance across a number of alternatives instead. The PM can be generated within seconds for any reach in the model. The chart above provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

5. MASTER AGREEMENT ON APPORTIONMENT

The model tracks the daily contributions for the Bow, Oldman, and Red Deer Rivers toward the flow into Saskatchewan. The contributions are summed annually and displayed with the total required apportionment for comparison.

Contribution to Saskatchewan by Source: Current Operations Base Case

16000000 Old Man Red Deer Bow Required Apportionment 14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000 Volume of water (cdm)

4000000

2000000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Bow River Project Final Report 79 Contribution to Saskatchewan by Source - Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River 16000000 Old Man Red Deer Bow Required Apportionment 14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000 Volume of water (cdm) 4000000

2000000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Contribution to Saskatchewan by Source - Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af 16000000 Old Man Red Deer Bow Required Apportionment 14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000

Volume of water (cdm) 4000000

2000000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Contribution to Saskatchewan by Source - Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af 16000000 Old Man Red Deer Bow Required Apportionment 14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000 Volume of water (cdm) 4000000

2000000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Bow River Project Final Report 80 Contribution to Saskatchewan by Source - Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario 16000000 Old Man Red Deer Bow Required Apportionment 14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000 Volume of water (cdm) 4000000

2000000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

6. FLOOD EVENTS IN CALGARY

The model counts the number of flood flow events across the simulation period according to flood flow classifications provided by the City of Calgary. Flood flow events are counted for floods on the Bow River as well as floods on the Elbow River. There are a large number of categories on the plot; however, the simulation runs considered so far have only produced minor floods on the Elbow.

Number of events 4

0 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank Water Bank Integrated Kananaskis Lake and at 40,000 af at 60,000 af Scenario Kananaskis River

Elbow Minor Elbow Overbanks Elbow Evacuation Elbow Catastrophic Bow Above Elbow Big Bow Big Bow Above Elbow Damaging Bow Below Elbow Damaging Winter High Flow Damaging

7. DIVERSION DIFFICULTY DAYS

The model will count the number of flow events in each year which, according to criteria specified by BRID, describe flows that cause diversion difficulty. During high flow events the sediment load and debris present in the water column can damage irrigation equipment and the diversions are shut off to prevent damage. During low flows the aquatic vegetation can make diversions difficult.

Bow River Project Final Report 81 Diversion Difficulty Days - Current Operations Base Case

Number of difficulty days Number 20

0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Diversion Difficulty Days Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River

180

160

140

120

100

Number of difficulty days Number 40

0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Diversion Difficulty Days Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af

Number of difficulty days Number 20

0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Problem Breakage Shutoff Weeds (low Q)

Bow River Project Final Report 82 Diversion Difficulty Days Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af

Number of difficulty days Number 20

10 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Diversion Difficulty Days Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

20 Number of difficulty days Number

0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Problem Breakage Shutoff Weeds (low Q)

8. LOW FLOW DIVERSION RESTRICTION SHORTAGES – ROLLED INTO PM 7

This PM was going to show a count of the days where the BRID diversion experienced impact because of low flows. The PM has been rolled into PM 7 which shows all days where BRID experienced some diversion difficulty.

9. STAGE FREQUENCY CURVES FOR VARIOUS RESERVOIRS

This PM is generated by the OASIS GUI. The model outputs the frequencies of stages on Spray reservoir by sorting the stages largest to smallest and assigning an exceedance probability to each data value. For each percentage of time considered, the plot displays the probability that the stage is greater than or equal to a given stage. The PM can be generated within seconds for any reservoir in the model. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

Bow River Project Final Report 83

10A. STAGE PROBABILITY PLOT

The model provides the timeseries output of a given reservoir’s stage, under the base case or alternate scenarios, across the simulation period in two week increments. For each captured day a collection of stage percentiles are determined; with each percentile corresponding to a band in the rainbow plot. The plot indicates the likelihood that the reservoir stage will be within or above a given band. The PM is generated for a collection of model nodes: 65, 80, 130, 145, 155, 185, 195, 218, 262, 340, 342, 344, 347, 352, 357, 523, 532, 534, 535, 536, 547, and 548. The example plot below is for McGregor, node 340, under the Current Operations Base Case.

Likelihood of Reservoir Stage - Current Operations Base Case

875

874

873

872 Stage (m) 871

870

869

1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/1 11/1 12/1 10/15 11/15 12/15 12/31

Probability that the stage will be within or exceed a given band: 2 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 75% 75 - 90% 90 - 100% upper rule mean stage actual stage in 1972 min stage

Bow River Project Final Report 84 10B. STORAGE PROBABILITY PLOT

This PM is generated in a similar fashion and for the same collection of nodes as in PM 10a. The example plot below is for McGregor, node 340, under the Current Operations Base Case.

Likelihood of Reservoir Storage - Current Operations Base Case

400000

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000 Storage (cdm) 100000

50000

1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/1 11/1 12/1 10/15 11/15 12/15 12/31 Probability that the stage will be within or exceed a given band: 2 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 75% 75 - 90% 90 - 100% upper rule mean stage actual storage in 1936 min stage

12A. SHORTAGES

The model outputs the daily shortage and maximum diversion for each of the irrigation districts and Calgary. Each entity’s shortages are plotted on separate plots so that the performance of different runs may be directly compared. There are shortage plots for EID, WID, BRID, Calgary, and the entire system. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

Bow River Project Final Report 85

12B. SHORTAGES (AS A PERCENT OF THE REQUEST)

The model outputs the shortages, under each of the base case and alternate scenarios, as a percent of the total request for each of the irrigation districts and Calgary. This chart is available in BROM however, it was not tyoically used.

PM12A was found to be more useful.

12C. SHORTAGE FREQUENCY CURVES

This PM is generated by the OASIS GUI. The model outputs the frequencies of shortages in EID by sorting the shortages largest to smallest and assigning an exceedance probability to each data value. For each percentage of time considered, the plot displays the probability that the shortage is greater than or equal to a given shortage. The PM can be generated within seconds for any of the irrigation districts, Calgary, or the total system. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

Bow River Project Final Report 86 13. NUMBER OF DAYS OF SHORTAGES

The model counts the number of days where there is some shortage (>0.01cdm) in EID, WID, BRID, Calgary, and the total system.

400 WID EID BRID 350

300

250

200

150 Number of events

across entire record 100

0 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

14. CONSECUTIVE-DAY SHORTAGES

The model tracks the number of consecutive day shortage events for each of the irrigation districts.

16 WID (10 days) EID (5 days) BRID (5 days) 14 12 10 8 6 entire record 4 Number of events across 2 0 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Bow River Project Final Report 87 18. STAGES FOR WALLEYE SPAWNING

The Walleye spawning is assessed by counting the number of good years where the reservoir stage on June 1 has not fallen below the reservoir stage on April 1. This is an indicator that the Walleye eggs have been protected. This PM is implemented for Crawling Valley, Lake Newell, McGregor, and Travers reservoirs.

Walleye Spawning Stages - Crawling Valley

If the stage on June 1 is lower than that on April 1 then the walleye eggs have not been protected and the year is considered bad for walleye spawning. Pike spawning needs are similar to walleye.

100% 90%

80% 68% 74% 72% 74% 72% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Number of years 30% 20% 32% 26% 28% 26% 28% 10% 0% Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Walleye Spawning Stages - Lake Newell

If the stage on June 1 is lower than that on April 1 then the walleye eggs have not been protected and the year is considered bad for walleye spawning. Pike spawning needs are similar to walleye.

100% 9% 7% 12% 12% 10% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 91% 93% 88% 88% 90% 40%

Number of years 30% 20% 10% 0% Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Good Years Bad Years

Bow River Project Final Report 88 Walleye Spawning Stages - McGregor

If the stage on June 1 is lower than that on April 1 then the walleye eggs have not been protected and the year is considered bad for walleye spawning. Pike spawning needs are similar to walleye.

3% 1% 100%

90%

80% 70% 60% 50% 97% 100% 100% 99% 100% 40%

Walleye Spawning Stages - Travers

If the stage on June 1 is lower than that on April 1 then the walleye eggs have not been protected and the year is considered bad for walleye spawning. Pike spawning needs are similar to walleye.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 40%

Good Years Bad Years

Bow River Project Final Report 89 20. FREQUENCY CURVE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF THE WCO MET

The model outputs the frequencies of the WCO-percentage-met by sorting values largest to smallest and assigning an exceedance probability to each data value. For each percentage of time considered, the plot displays the probability that the percentage of the WCO met is greater than or equal to a given percentage. The PM is generated for each reach that has an Instream Objective (IO), because the IO is necessary to determine the WCO. The WCO is defined as the greater of (1) 110% of the IO, or (2) 45% of the natural flow. The PM is generated for the following reaches for each week in the year:

IO Number OASIS Arc Upstream / Downstream Name

1 210.22 Below Bearspaw to Calgary

2 220.249 Calgary to Pine Creek/Bonnybrook

Pine Creek/Bonnybrook to Highwood 3 250.28 confluence

4 280.289 Highwood confluence to Carseland

5 290.319 Carseland to Bassano

6 342.506 Travers to Little Bow South of Travers

Bow-Oldman confluence to 17 570.58 Medicine Hat

30 320.56 Bassano to Scandia

The full set of WCO curves can be viewed in the BROM WCO Plotmaker. The example chart below is for IO-1 (Below Bearspaw to Calgary) for Week 15:

100%

50%

% of WCO met 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of time (years)

Current Operations Base Case Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

Bow River Project Final Report 90 21. FREQUENCY CURVE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF THE IFN MET

The model outputs the frequencies of the IFN-percentage-met by sorting values largest to smallest and assigning an exceedance probability to each data value. For each percentage of time considered, the plot displays the probability that the percentage of the IFN met is greater than or equal to a given percentage. The PM is generated for the following reaches for each week in the year:

IFN Reach OASIS Arc Upstream / Downstream Name Name

Bassano to Scandia (Before EID/BRID BW1A 320.56 return flows) Scandia to Bow/Oldman confluence (After BW1B 569.57 EID/BRID return flows) BW2 290.319 Carseland to Bassano BW3 280.289 Highwood confluence to Carseland BW4 250.28 Pine Creek/Bonnybrook to Highwood confluence

BW5 210.22 Below Bearspaw to Calgary BW7 194.195 Ghost to Bearspaw BW8 184.185 Horseshoe to Ghost BW9 125.165 Canmore to Kananaskis BW10 96.125 Bow/Cascade confluence to Canmore BW11 90.095 Banff to Bow/Cascade confluence KN1 155.160+155.165 Kananaskis below Barrier KN3 145.150+145.155 Kananaskis below LKan

The full set of IFN curves can be viewed in the BROM IFN Plotmaker. The example chart below is for IFN Reach BW1A (Bassano to Scandia (Before EID/BRID return flows)) for Week 15:

100%

50%

& of IFN met 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of time (years)

Current Operations Base Case Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

Bow River Project Final Report 91 23. FLOW AT THE MOUTH OF THE BOW

This PM is generated by the OASIS GUI. The model outputs the flow in the Bow River below the confluence with the Oldman where the Bow and Oldman form the South Saskatchewan River. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

24. FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE FOR THE MOUTH OF THE BOW

This PM is generated by the OASIS GUI. The model outputs the frequencies of flows in the Bow River below the confluence with the Oldman by sorting the flows largest to smallest and assigning an exceedance probability to each data value. For each percentage of time considered, the plot displays the probability that the flow is greater than or equal to a given flow. The chart below provides an example of the PM information generated by the model.

Bow River Project Final Report 92 30. POWER REVENUE

The model tracks the average annual power generation revenue and average annual ancillary services revenue for the TransAlta Utilities system in the Upper Bow basin.

Average Annual Power Revenue

100.0 Energy Generation Ancillary Services 90.0 80.9 79.1 79.3 79.1 78.3 80.0

70.0 23.4 22.3 22.5 22.1 20.8

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 57.5 56.8 56.7 57.0 57.4 20.0 Revenue (millions of dollars) 10.0 0.0 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

31, 32. TOTAL POWER REVENUE AND POWER GENERATION BOX AND WHISKER PLOTS

The PM is created for four variables: power generation revenue, ancillary services revenue, total power revenue, and power generation. For each day the model calculates revenue from generation, revenue from ancillary services, and total power generation. For each box and whisker plot the quartiles, minimum, and maximum values are determined based on the corresponding model output.

Total Revenue

100.0

95.0

90.0

85.0

80.0

75.0

70.0

revenue (million dollars) 65.0

60.0 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Bow River Project Final Report 93 Ancillary Services Revenue 29.0

27.0

25.0

23.0

21.0

19.0

revenue (million dollars) 17.0

15.0 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Power Generation Revenue

75.0

70.0

65.0

60.0

55.0

50.0

revenue (million dollars) 45.0

40.0 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Power Generation 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 power generated (million MWh) 0.40 Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Bow River Project Final Report 94 40. FLOOD EVENTS

Those days where the flows are considered flood flows are provided by the model and plotted. The PM is generated for the base case and each alternate scenario, for four reaches: (1) the WID diversion to Highwood confluence, (2) Carseland to Bassano, (3) below Bassano but before ID return flows, and (4) below Bassano but after ID return flows. The example below shows reach (2) Carseland to Bassano, under the current operations base case:

Current Operations Base Case Flood events - Carseland to Bassano

1996 1994 1992

1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978

1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 1964 1962 Year 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1950 1948 1946 1944 1942 1940 1938 1936 1934 1932 1930 1928 5/4 5/14 5/24 6/3 6/13 6/23 7/3 7/13 7/23 8/2 8/12

Date

>410 cms >730 cms

Bow River Project Final Report 95 50. GLENMORE RECREATION SEASON

The model counts and classifies each recreation season day on Glenmore according to the following classification criteria provided by the City of Calgary: ideal days are within 1m of 1075.33m, above average days are within 1.5m to 1m of 1075.33m, and acceptable days are within 1.8 to 1.5m of 1075.33m. The percentages are then based on the total number of recreation season days in the simulation.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% across record 20% 10% Percent of rec-season days Percent of rec-season 0% Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

51, 52, 53. TRAVERS, MCGREGOR, AND LITTLE BOW RECREATION

The model counts and classifies each recreation season day on Travers according to the classification criterion provided by the BRID: ideal days are when the stage is above 855.0m. The PM is also generated for recreation on McGregor and Little Bow. For McGregor the criterion is to stay above 871.7m and for Little Bow the criterion is to stay above 852.5m. The percentages are then based on the total number of recreation season days in the simulation. For each year and for all three reservoirs recreation season runs from 5/15 to 9/10.

Travers recreation season (stage above 855.0 from 5/15 to 9/10)

Bow River Project Final Report 96 McGregor recreation season (stage above 871.7 from 5/15 to 9/10)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% across record 20%

10% Percent of rec-season days Percent of rec-season 0% Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Little Bow recreation season (stage above 852.5 from 5/15 to 9/10)

54, 55. TRAVERS AND MCGREGOR PUMP INTAKE PROBLEMS

When stage on Travers or McGregor drops below a certain level there are irrigators whose pump intakes no longer reach the water. The model counts the number of days across the record where the stage is too low in order to determine the percentage of days with pumping problems.

Bow River Project Final Report 97 Travers stage below 853.5 meters (problems with pump intake irrigation withdrawls)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Percent of days across record 20% 10%

0% Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

McGregor stage below 871.5 meters (problems with pump intake irrigation withdrawls)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Percent of days across record 10% 0% Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

56A, 56C. RAFTING/KAYAKING HOURS (DAILY AND ANNUAL)

The first plot shows rafting and kayaking hours for each rafting season day. Only rafting season days are plotted and so along the x-axis there is a jump from 9/15 of one year to 5/15 of the next year. The second plot shows the annual sum of rafting hours in each year. In order to optimize for power generation in the TransAlta reservoirs the model estimates the flows through the generation plants for each hour in the simulation. Therefore, the model can track the number of hours in each rafting season day where the flow is at least 30cms. Hours are only counted if they belong to a stretch of at least three hours within the hours of 9AM to 9PM to ensure that the rafting hours are usable by rafters. Rafting and kayaking season runs from 5/15 to 9/15. The two PMs below are generated for the Kananaskis River below Barrier Reservoir.

Bow River Project Final Report 98 Rafting hours below Barrier (counts only those hours in stretches of at least 3 hours where flow >= 30cms)

Number of hours 4

0 08/11/91 08/11/91 07/10/91 07/10/91 09/12/91 09/12/91 05/15/93 07/14/92 07/14/92 07/26/91 07/26/91 05/31/93 05/31/93 05/23/91 05/23/91 07/18/93 05/15/89 05/19/94 05/19/94 08/27/91 05/31/89 05/31/89 06/16/93 06/16/93 06/12/92 06/12/92 08/15/92 07/18/89 08/31/92 08/31/92 05/19/90 05/19/90 05/27/92 06/16/89 06/16/89 07/22/90 07/22/90 06/24/91 06/24/91 08/19/93 08/19/93 07/22/94 07/22/94 08/19/89 08/19/89 06/08/91 07/02/93 07/02/93 07/30/92 07/30/92 07/06/94 07/02/89 07/02/89 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/07/94 08/07/94 06/28/92 09/04/93 07/06/90 07/06/90 06/20/94 06/20/94 06/04/94 08/03/93 08/03/93 08/23/90 08/23/90 08/07/90 08/07/90 09/04/89 09/04/89 09/08/94 09/08/94 06/20/90 06/20/90 08/03/89 08/03/89 06/04/90 09/08/90 Rafting season days

Current Operations Base Case Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

Annual rafting hours below Barrier (counts only those hours in stretches of at least 3 hours where flow >= 30cms)

1670

1470

1270

1070

870

670

Number of hours 470

270

70 1972 1974 1976 1952 1952 1954 1956 1978 1978 1932 1934 1970 1936 1936 1942 1942 1958 1958 1962 1992 1992 1944 1944 1946 1964 1966 1966 1994 1950 1938 1938 1928 1982 1948 1948 1968 1968 1984 1984 1986 1986 1930 1940 1940 1960 1960 1990 1990 1988 1980

Current Operations Base Case Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

Bow River Project Final Report 99 56B. RAFTING/KAYAKING DAYS

The PM is generated for the Kananaskis River below Barrier Reservoir. The number of rafting/kayaking hours is counted in order to determine the number of rafting days, and the logic for counting rafting hours is the same as that used in PM 56a.

Annual rafting days below Barrier (days with a minimum of three consecutive hours with flow >= 30 cms)

130

120

110

100

90 Number of days

70 1972 1974 1976 1952 1952 1954 1954 1956 1978 1932 1932 1970 1992 1992 1934 1934 1936 1958 1958 1962 1942 1942 1994 1994 1964 1964 1966 1966 1944 1946 1950 1950 1938 1928 1928 1968 1968 1948 1930 1930 1990 1960 1940 1940 1988 1980 1980 1982 1982 1984 1986

Current Operations Base Case Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

57. ANNUAL STAGE VARIATION (AGGREGATED ACROSS RECORD)

The model determines the minimum and maximum annual stage variation on Lower Kananaskis from the target stage of 1663.5m by finding the lowest and highest stage in each year and calculating the distance of each to the target stage.

100% (0m - 0.5m] above target (0.5m - 1.5m] above target (1.5m - 2.5m] above target 90% (2.5m - 3.5m] above target >3.5m above target 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

target elevation of 1663.5 m 20% 10% Percent of time above Lower Kananaskis 0% Current Operations Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Base Case Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

Bow River Project Final Report 100 Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Current Operations and Kananaskis Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Base Case River 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

60% 70%

target elevation of 1663.5 m 80% (0m - 0.5m] below target (0.5m - 3m] below target (3m - 5.5m] below target 90%

Percent of time below Lower Kananaskis (5.5m - 8m] below target >8m below target 100%

58. ANNUAL STAGE VARIATION (BY-YEAR)

The model determines the annual minimum and maximum stage on Lower Kananaskis.

1667

1665

1663

1661

1659 Stage (m)

1657

1655

1653 1928 1930 1932 1936 1938 1940 1942 1946 1948 1950 1952 1956 1958 1960 1962 1966 1968 1970 1972 1976 1978 1980 1982 1986 1988 1990 1992 1934 1944 1954 1964 1974 1984 1994

Current Allowed Minimum (Base Case) Current Allowed Maximum (Base Case) Max Stage - Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Min Stage - Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Max Stage - Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Min Stage - Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Max Stage - Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Min Stage - Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Max Stage - Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario Min Stage - Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

Bow River Project Final Report 101 59. HYDROPEAKING

This PM is implemented for the flows out of the Lower Kananaskis generation plant and the Barrier generation plant. The estimated daily variance in flow is computed as the maximum flow in a given day divided by the minimum flow in the current and previous two days. The model provides the timeseries output of this ratio across the simulation period in two week increments. For each captured day a collection of percentiles are determined; with each percentile corresponding to a band in the rainbow plot. The plot indicates the likelihood that the estimated variance will be within or above a given band. Once again, the minimum and maximum daily flows can be estimated because the flows through the TransAlta generation plants are estimated for each hour in the simulation.

The full set of Hydropeaking charts can be viewed in the BROM Hydropeaking Plotmaker. The example chart below is for flows out of the Lower Kananaskis generation plant under the Current Operations Base Case for 1972:

Estimated daily variance in flow (maximum intra-day flow / minimum intra-day flow) - Current Operations

12000

10000

8000

6000

two prior days) 4000

2000 MaxQ / Min(MinQ of the current and

1/1 1/15 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 7/15 8/1 9/1 11/1 12/1 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 8/15 9/15 10/1 10/15 11/15 12/15 12/31

Probability that the stage will be within or exceed a given band: 2 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 75% 75 - 90% 90 - 100% actual variance in 1972 mean variance

Bow River Project Final Report 102 60. SIKSIKA DEMANDS

For each year, the model outputs the volume of water of the required Master Apportionment, the actual Siksika diversion, and the actual flow out of the basin. All of the lines on this PM are displayed as a percentage of the total required flows, where the total required flows are the sum of the annual Master Apportionment and the annual required Siksika diversion of 35,000 acre feet. The flow out of the basin is displayed on the right axis because it is consistently so much higher than the total requirements that were it displayed on the left axis the differences between the red, green, and black lines would be impossible to see.

Siksika demands - Current Operations Base Case

109% 300%

107% 250%

105% 200%

103% 150%

101% 100%

Percent of Total Requirements Percent of Total Requirements 99% 50% Percent of Total Requirements

97% 0%

1928 1931 1934 1937 1940 1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994

Siksika Use Above Appor Req Apportionment Total Requirements Flow out of Basin (on right y-axis)

Siksika demands - Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River

109% 300%

107% 250%

105% 200%

103% 150%

101% 100%

Percent of Total Requirements Percent of Total Requirements 99% 50% Percent of Total Requirements

97% 0%

1928 1931 1934 1937 1940 1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994

Siksika Use Above Appor Req Apportionment Total Requirements Flow out of Basin (on right y-axis) (Total Requirements = the sum of the annual Master Apportionment and the annual required Siksika diversion of 35,000 acrefeet)

Bow River Project Final Report 103 Siksika demands - Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af

109% 300%

107% 250%

105% 200%

103% 150%

101% 100%

Percent of Total Requirements Percent of Total Requirements 99% 50% Percent of Total Requirements

97% 0%

1928 1931 1934 1937 1940 1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994

Siksika Use Above Appor Req Apportionment Total Requirements Flow out of Basin (on right y-axis)

Siksika demands - Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af

109% 300%

107% 250%

105% 200%

103% 150%

101% 100%

Percent of Total Requirements Percent of Total Requirements 99% 50% Percent of Total Requirements

97% 0%

1928 1931 1934 1937 1940 1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994

Siksika Use Above Appor Req Apportionment Total RequirementsSiksika demands - Scenario 4: IntegratedFlow outScenario of Basin (on right y-axis)

109% 300%

107% 250%

105% 200%

103% 150%

101% 100%

Percent of Total Requirements Percent of Total Requirements 99% 50% Percent of Total Requirements

97% 0%

1928 1931 1934 1937 1940 1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994

Siksika Use Above Appor Req Apportionment (TotalTotal Requirements Requirements = the sum of the annual MasterFlow out Apportionment of Basin (on right y-axis) and the annual required Siksika diversion of 35,000 acrefeet)

Bow River Project Final Report 104 61. IFN FLOW DURATION CURVES

The model outputs the frequencies of flows in the reaches with IFNs by sorting values largest to smallest and assigning an exceedance probability to each data value. For each percentage of time considered, the plot displays the probability that the flow in the IFN reach is greater than or equal to a given flow. The PM is generated for the following reaches for each week in the year:

IFN Reach OASIS Arc Upstream / Downstream Name Name

BW5 210.22 Below Bearspaw to Calgary

BW7 194.195 Ghost to Bearspaw BW8 184.185 Horseshoe to Ghost BW9 125.165 Canmore to Kananaskis BW10 96.125 Bow/Cascade confluence to Canmore BW11 90.095 Banff to Bow/Cascade confluence KN1 155.160+155.165 Kananaskis below Barrier KN3 145.150+145.155 Kananaskis below LKan

The full set of IFN flow duration curves can be viewed in the BROM IFN Plotmaker. The example chart below is for IFN Reach BW1A (Bassano to Scandia (Before EID/BRID return flows)) for Week 15:

200 150 100 50

Flow (cms) 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of time (years)

Current Operations Base Case Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af Scenario 3: Water Bank at 60,000 af Scenario 4: Integrated Scenario

Bow River Project Final Report 105 62. BASSANO FLOW CLASSIFICATIONS

The model counts the number of flow events at Bassano across the simulation period. The events are classified into four bins: flows above 1299cfs, flows between 1200cfs and 800cfs, flows between 800cfs and 400cfs, and flows less than 400cfs.

400-800 cfs 800-1200 cfs >=1200cfs 20000

16000

12000

8000

4000

Number of days across entire record 0 Current Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Operations Stabilized Lower Water Bank at Water Bank at Integrated Base Case Kananaskis Lake 40,000 af 60,000 af Scenario and Kananaskis River

64. PERCENT OF NATURAL FLOW BEFORE THE BOW/OLDMAN CONFLUENCE

The model calculates the percent of natural flow by dividing the annual sum of the flow in the arc before the Bow/ Oldman confluence by the annual sum of the naturalized inflows before the confluence.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Percent of natural flow (annual) 10% 0%

1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

Current Operations Base Case Scenario 1: Stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River Scenario 2: Water Bank at 40,000 af

Bow River Project Final Report 106 APPENDIX E: Water Quality Model Results

SCOPE OF STUDY

To test the water quality impacts of an alternate scenario, Alberta Environment agreed to run the OASIS output through its Bow River Water Quality Model (BRWQM), which covers the reaches of the Bow from Bearspaw Dam to Bassano Dam. The BRWQM is an integrated system of selected surface water quality and quantity models that is used to assess and compare the water quality impacts of different scenarios and has been used as part of a number of computer model exercises to support the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (Government of Alberta, 2010). At the point in the project when the Consortium worked with Alberta Environment to run the BRWQM, it was decided to test the integrated scenario. At that time, the integrated scenario included stabilized Lower Kananaskis Lake and Kananaskis River, and restored Spray; a water bank and increased storage at Langdon reservoir were not part of the integrated scenario when the BRWQM was run.

Alberta Environment took output from the OASIS model for both the base case and the integrated scenario and ran it through the BRWQM. This analysis was done to represent three hydrologically different years, selected by the Consortium: 1982, 1988 and 1993. The assessment nodes, reflecting the three reaches of the river in the model (Bearspaw to Highwood, Highwood to Carseland, and Carseland to Bassano), were Stiers Ranch, Carseland and Bassano, and the parameters were water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and phosphorus. Due to the time constraints of the project, this model run was done using a semi-final version of the data. However, the nature of the subsequent changes to the Bow River Operational Model would not have any significant effect on the BRWQM results. As the Bow River Operational Model is refined over time, there will be future opportunities to again run it through the BRWQM.

ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE BRWQM INPUTS

1. Meteorological conditions: use the recorded meteorological data at Calgary International Airport during 1988, 1990, 1993. 2. All boundary flow conditions are based on the simulated flows from OASIS. 3. Water quality conditions for these corresponding source waters are based on what were defined for the Bow River Water Quality Modelling during calibration/validation stage during the corresponding year. However, 1988 was not simulated in the original water quality model, and as such water quality condition in 2001 was applied for these in 1988. 4. Calgary wastewater loading in 2007 was applied for representing the Calgary wastewater loading in all the three selected years; i.e., 1988, 1990, 1993, for both scenarios. 5. Initial condition (water column and sediment column) were set to be the same between the two scenarios.

BRWQM EXCEEDANCE RULES

CENTRAL BOW RIVER LOWER BOW RIVER

Temperature o C <24 oC at any time <29 oC at any time

DO mg/L 5 mg/L acute daily minimum 5 mg/L acute daily minimum

6.5 mg/L chronic 7 day running average 6.5 mg/L chronic 7 day running average

Ammonia mg_N/L Lower of US EPA or 0.2 mg/L during growing season for Lower of US EPA or 0.2 mg/L during growing season for aquatic vegetation aquatic vegetation

Nitrate mg_N/L 1.5 mg/L 1.5 mg/L

TDP mg_P/L 0.015 mg/L during growing season for aquatic vegetation 0.015 mg/L during growing season for aquatic vegetation

TP mg_P/L 0.028 mg/L -

TSS mg/L if background concentration (assuming 7 day exposure): if background concentration (assuming 7 day exposure): <25 mg/L then conditions must not exceed a SEV value of 6 <25 mg/L then conditions must not exceed a SEV value of 6 >25 mg/L conditions must not exceed an SEV value of 7 >25 mg/L conditions must not exceed an SEV value of 7 >250 mg/L conditions should not increase more than 10% >250 mg/L conditions should not increase more than 10% above background level above background level

Bow River Project Final Report 107 SUMMARY OF BOW RIVER WATER QUALITY MODELLING RESULTS

1. WATER TEMPERATURE Water Temperature Exceedance (days) Evaluation Averaging Assessment Base Case Integrated Scenario Criteria Period Node 1988 1990 1993 1988 1990 1993 Stiers Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Bow River <=24o C instantaneous Carseland 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Bow River <=29o C anytime instantaneous Bassano 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. DISSOLVED OXYGEN - ACUTE Dissolved Oxygen Exceedance - acute (days) Evaluation Averaging Assessment Base Case Integrated Scenario Criteria Period Node 1988 1990 1993 1988 1990 1993

Stiers Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Bow River >=5.0 mg/L instantaneous Carseland 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Bow River Bassano 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. DISSOLVED OXYGEN - CHRONIC Dissolved Oxygen Exceedance - chronic (days) Evaluation Averaging Assessment Base Case Integrated Scenario Criteria Period Node 1988 1990 1993 1988 1990 1993 Stiers Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Bow River >=6.5 mg/L 7 day mean Carseland 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Bow River Bassano 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. TOTAL DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS Total Dissolved Phosphorus Exceedance Evaluation Averaging Assessment Base Case Integrated Scenario Criteria Period Node 1988 1990 1993 1988 1990 1993 Stiers Ranch 169 118 164 167 119 166 Central Bow River <=0.015 mg/L daily mean Carseland 131 0 167 131 79 165 Lower Bow River Bassano 62 63 133 58 65 134

BRWQM PREDICTED TEMPERATURE (o C) AT BASSANO FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE DROUGHT EVENT SCENARIOS

35 Base Case Integr. Alternative Case BRBC Criteria 30

25 C)

o 20

15 Temperature ( 10

11/19/87 01/08/88 02/27/88 04/17/88 06/06/88 07/26/88 09/14/88 11/03/88 12/23/88 02/11/89

Bow River Project Final Report 108