1 / 23

Comparison of Kemp, Fletcher, Redfish and Bjerkness Creek Watersheds

Comparison of Kemp, Fletcher, Redfish and Bjerkness Creek Watersheds. Chris Gray, Katie Ward, Melissa MacLeod Selkirk College, Castlegar. Figure 1. General study area of the watersheds of interest within Kootenay Lake watershed. Table 2. Watershed Characteristics.

laszlo
Télécharger la présentation

Comparison of Kemp, Fletcher, Redfish and Bjerkness Creek Watersheds

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Kemp, Fletcher, Redfish and Bjerkness Creek Watersheds Chris Gray, Katie Ward, Melissa MacLeod Selkirk College, Castlegar

  2. Figure 1. General study area of the watersheds of interest within Kootenay Lake watershed.

  3. Table 2. Watershed Characteristics

  4. Summary of ComparisonHans Schreier, Martin Carver, Arelia Werner • Size: Redfish and Bjerkness = same size, Kemp Half the size • Aspect: Redfish = South Aspect Kemp, Fletcher, Bjerkness East Aspect • Geology: Redfish = Granodiorite, Kemp Granodiorite, Limestone, Basalt, Fletcher & Bjerkness :Granodiorite, Limestone, Slate, Mudstone Basalt, Granite • Stream Length: 6-10km (Kemp 6, Bjerkness 10km) • Elevation Range: All between 1770-2000 m • Minimum Elevation: all 530-550 m exept Kemp starts at 660 m • Elevation Slicing: Kemp & Redfish have very similar spatial distribution over the elevation range (less than 10 % of area below 1200m elevation) Bjerkness & Fletcher ) similar but 25-30% of area <1200 m elevation • % Area in Lakes: All < 1.2%

  5. Kemp, Redfish, Fletcher, Bjerkness Creeks Redfish Calibrations Kemp 2010-2060 Redfish 2010-2060 Fletcher 2010-2060

  6. Comparison Between Measured Mean Monthly Discharge (Redfish) and Selective Model Projections Jan-Apr. (Mean = 7 – A1B Scenarios)

  7. Comparison Between Measured Monthly Discharge (Redfish) and Selective Model Projections May-Aug (Mean = 7 A1B scenarios)

  8. Comparison Between Measured Monthly Discharge (Redfish) and Selective Model Projections May-Aug (Mean = 7 A1B scenarios)

  9. Summary of Calibration – Redfish Creek • All Projections are higher for the February-April period than the measured values (Largest over-estimation of discharge in April) • June – July projections are all below measured values (June shows has the greatest differences) • November-December projections are usually below measured values • Conclusions: • 1. Redfish peak flow projections in April might be too high • 2. Redfish early summer flow projections might be too low

  10. Kemp Creek Discharge Projections 2010-2039(Mean of 10 – A1B Scenarios)

  11. Redfish Creek Discharge Trends

  12. Fletcher Creek Discharge Trends

  13. Summary of Projections for Redfish and Fletcher Creek Discharge • October-April significant increases in discharges over time with largest increases in March and April • May Discharge remains the same • June – September mean monthly discharge declines with the largest declines in June and July • Redfish Creek Mean Monthly Discharge is mostly double of Fletcher for March-August and slightly higher for September- February (Fletcher Catchment area is about 65% less than Redfish). Kemp Creek discharge is about one order of magnitude lower than Redfish ( Kemp Catchment area is about 46% less than Redfish) • Kemp is less productive in producing water than Redfish and Fletcher)

  14. Estimates (not to be used)

More Related