Breach Analysis and Inundation Mapping - NRCB

Breach Analysis and

Inundation Mapping

Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir

(SR1)

Prepared for:

Alberta Transportation

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

11687 Lebanon Road

Cincinnati, OH 45241-2012

March 8, 2017

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled Breach Analysis and Inundation Mapping was prepared by Stantec

Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Alberta Transportation (the “Client”). Any

reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s

professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document

and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on

conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into

account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information

supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of

such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages

of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions

taken based on this document.

Prepared by

(signature)

Enter Name

Reviewed by

(signature)

Enter Name

BREACH ANALYSIS AND INUNDATION MAPPING

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 1.1

1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................................................................................ 1.2

2.0 SOURCE DATA .............................................................................................................2.3

3.0 BREACH ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................3.4

3.1 BREACH SCENARIOS ...................................................................................................... 3.4 3.1.1 Flood-Induced Failure Scenario of Off-Stream Storage Dam ............... 3.4 3.1.2 Post-Flood Failure Scenario of Off-Stream Storage Dam ....................... 3.4 3.1.3 Flood-Induced Failure Scenario of Diversion Structure .......................... 3.4 3.1.4 Post-Flood Failure Scenario of Diversion Structure .................................. 3.5 3.1.5 Cascade Failure Potential .......................................................................... 3.5

3.2 BREACH LOCATION ....................................................................................................... 3.5

3.3 BREACH HYDROGRAPH DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 3.5

3.4 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 3.7 3.4.1 Model Geometry ......................................................................................... 3.7 3.4.2 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................... 3.7

4.0 RESULTS AND INUNDATION MAPPING ........................................................................4.9 4.1.1 Flood-Induced Failure of Diversion Structure ........................................... 4.9 4.1.2 Post-Flood Failure of Off-Stream Storage Dam ....................................... 4.9

5.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................5.11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Summary of Estimated Dam Breach Parameters ................................................. 3.6 Table 2 – Summary of Land Use Types for Extended HEC-RAS Geometry......................... 3.7 Table 3 – Summary of Boundary Conditions .......................................................................... 3.8 Table 4 – Summary of Results for Post-Flood Failure of Off-Stream Storage Dam .......... 4.10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - SR1 Location Map .................................................................................................... 1.2

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Hydrologic and Breach Data

Appendix B – Breach Routing Results


Introduction

March 8, 2017

dh u:\110773396\component_work\dams_diversion\hydrotechnical\analysis\breach_analysis\report\sr1_breach_analysis_report_revb_20170307.docx

1

.

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir (SR1) is located approximately 12 km west of the City of

Calgary, approximately 28 km upstream of the Glenmore Reservoir on the Elbow River. The

project is comprised of three primary elements: diversion structure, diversion channel and off-

stream storage dam. Both the Diversion Structure and Off-Stream Storage Dam are considered

dams. A location map of SR1 is provided in Figure 1.

The Off-Stream Storage Dam is a flood storage facility comprised of an earthen embankment,

outlet works, and emergency spillway that will store diverted flood waters and release the flow

once the flood has passed. The Off-Stream Storage Dam has a maximum storage capacity at

the Emergency Spillway (Elevation 1210.75 m) of 77900 dam3 and a pool area of 7.8 km2. The

dam embankment has a crest elevation of 1213.5 m corresponding to a maximum height of

approximately 28.5 m and length of approximately 4.4 km. The impoundment area will remain

dry before flood events. Inflow will be controlled to limit the maximum water level to 1210.75 m.

The Diversion Structure is a regulating structure comprised of an earthen Floodplain Berm,

regulating Diversion Inlet and Service Spillway gate structures, and Roller Compacted Concrete

(RCC) Auxiliary Spillway that will be operate during floods to control the flow into the Off-Stream

Storage Dam via the Diversion Channel. The Diversion Structure is designed to safely pass the

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) with a maximum headwater elevation of 1217.8 m at the

Auxiliary Spillway and gate structures. The Floodplain Berm spans the floodplain for

approximately 1.0 km and has a crest elevation of 1218.3 m at the downstream end and 1221.4

m at the upstream end. The maximum height of the Floodplain Berm is approximately 6 m

which is above the simulated PMF water surface profile. The impoundment created by the

structure is not a well-defined pool, but behaves more like a roadway embankment.


Introduction

March 8, 2017


1

.

2

Figure 1 - SR1 Location Map

1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY

The methods and results of these breach analyses and inundation mapping are summarized, but

this report does not provide commentary on dam hazard classification or recommended actions

to be taken on mitigating potential hazards posed by SR1.

Methodology used in this analysis is consistent with guidance outlined by the Canadian Dam

Association (CDA) Dam Safety Guidelines, 2007 (Reference 1).


Source Data

March 8, 2017


2

.

3

2.0 SOURCE DATA

The following information was used to perform the breach analyses and develop inundation

mapping for SR1:

Aerial imagery from Amec (dated 2013) (Reference 2)

1m Lidar data from Amec (dated 2013) (Reference 3)

Aerial imagery from Government of Alberta (dated 2014) (Reference 4)

15m Lidar data from AltaLIS (dated 2013) (Reference 5)

0.5m Lidar data from Tarin Resource Services (dated 2015) (Reference 6)

Glenmore Reservoir bathymetric data (dated 2013) (Reference 7)

Golder Working HEC-RAS model for Elbow and Bow Rivers (dated 2014) (Reference 8)

Structure drawings for Highway 8 bridge on Elbow River (dated 2014) (Reference 9)

Structure drawings for Highway 22 bridge on Elbow River (dated 1986) (Reference 10)

Glenmore Dam spillway rating curve data (dated 2014) (Reference 11)

SR1 preliminary design drawings and surfaces


Breach Analysis

March 8, 2017


3

.

4

3.0 BREACH ANALYSIS

3.1 BREACH SCENARIOS

The CDA recommends the analysis of two scenarios when conducting a dam breach and

inundation analysis. These would typically be a “sunny-day” failure and a “flood-induced”

failure. In the case of SR1, a “sunny-day” failure is not realistic because neither the Off-Stream

Storage Dam or Diversion Structure is designed to have a permanent pool. The “sunny-date”

scenario has been replaced with a post-flood failure scenario.

3.1.1 Flood-Induced Failure Scenario of Off-Stream Storage Dam

The flood-induced failure scenario assumes a failure of the Off-Stream Storage Dam coincident

with a flood of magnitude greater than the dam can safely pass. The SR1 Off-Stream Storage

Dam has been designed assuming a dam classification of “Extreme” (Reference 1) and

therefore is capable of safely passing an Inflow Design Flood (IDF) equivalent to the portion of

the PMF which would be diverted to SR1 if the Diversion Inlet gates failed to be closed when SR1

reaches its design capacity of 1210.75 m. The pool elevation will maintain 1.5 m freeboard to

the crest of the Off-Stream Storage Dam under this scenario, so a failure by piping would be the

only potential failure mode. Because a flood-induced failure of the Off-Stream Storage Dam

would require the coincident failure of both operation and a piping failure during a transitory

period of elevated flows, Stantec does not consider it a valid failure scenario and no further

analysis was performed to evaluate it.

3.1.2 Post-Flood Failure Scenario of Off-Stream Storage Dam

The post-flood failure scenario assumes a failure of the Off-Stream Storage Dam after the IDF

event as the reservoir is being slowly drained. This scenario assumes a piping failure when SR1 is

filled to the emergency spillway at elevation 1210.75 m, representing conditions immediately

after a major flood event, but before significant volume can be released from SR1. The Elbow

River, Glenmore Reservoir, and Bow River are simulated with elevated flows, below the flood

damage threshold, to simulate conditions just after a major flood has occurred but before

significant storage has been recovered from Glenmore Reservoir. Appendix A1 presents a

schematic cross section detailing the assumed configuration of the Off-Stream Storage Dam for

the post-flood failure scenario.

3.1.3 Flood-Induced Failure Scenario of Diversion Structure

The flood-induced failure scenario assumes a failure of the Diversion Structure coincident with a

flood of magnitude greater than the dam can safely pass. The SR1 Diversion Structure has been

designed assuming a dam classification of “High” (Reference 1), however critical components

have been designed to safely pass the PMF event. This structure has been assessed in this

analysis using the PMF as the IDF as a conservative assumption. During this scenario, failure was


Breach Analysis

March 8, 2017


3

.

5

assumed to occur in the Auxiliary Spillway by overtopping at the maximum head elevation of

1217.8 m during the PMF event. The Bow River is assumed to be at the 100-year flood flow.

Appendix A2 presents a schematic cross section detailing the assumed configuration of the

Diversion Structure for the post-flood failure scenario.

3.1.4 Post-Flood Failure Scenario of Diversion Structure

The post-flood failure scenario assumes a failure of the Diversion Structure after the IDF event.

The Diversion Structure does not function as a dam except during a flood event, so Stantec does

not consider this a valid failure scenario and no further analysis was performed to evaluate it.

3.1.5 Cascade Failure Potential

Glenmore Reservoir is located approximately 28 km downstream of the SR1 Off-Stream Storage

Dam. The Glenmore Reservoir facility is comprised of Glenmore Dam and the Southeast Dyke. A

failure of the SR1 Off-Stream Storage Dam would release 77,900 dam3 of water and has the

potential to cause a cascade failure at Glenmore Reservoir.

The Glenmore Reservoir Southeast Dyke is an earthen embankment approximately 1.4 km long

with a crest elevation of 1080.4 m and maximum height of approximately 8.4 m. An alternative

post-flood induced failure of the SR1 Off-Stream Storage Dam was considered where the

Southeast Dyke fails by overtopping when Glenmore Reservoir’s pool reaches elevation 1080.4

m.

The Glenmore Dam is a concrete gravity dam approximately 280 m long with a crest elevation

of 1079.92 m and maximum height of approximately 24 m. A detailed structural analysis would

be required to determine whether a cascade failure of Glenmore Dam is probable which is

outside the scope of this study. Therefore, a cascade failure of Glenmore Dam has not been

evaluated.

3.2 BREACH LOCATION

A single breach location was considered for the failure of the SR1 Off-Stream Storage Dam near

the outfall corresponding to the maximum dam height as shown in Appendix A3. The single

breach location is suitable to produce the greatest potential impact to downstream areas.

A single breach location was considered for the failure of the SR1 Diversion Structure in the

Auxiliary Spillway where it is expected to overtop as shown in Appendix A4. The single breach

location is suitable to produce the greatest potential impact to downstream areas.

3.3 BREACH HYDROGRAPH DEVELOPMENT

Breach hydrographs were developed using the “Dam Break” capabilities of the US Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS)


Breach Analysis

March 8, 2017


3

.

6

software, Version 4.1 (Reference 12) for the Off-Stream Storage Dam. For the Diversion Structure

failure or cascade failures, the breach was simulated within the breach routing model using the

same “Dam Break” functions. The breach function requires the input of estimated dam breach

parameters and impounded volumes. Breach parameters for failures of the SR1 Off-Stream

Storage Dam and Glenmore Reservoir Southeast Dyke were estimated using empirical

equations. Since there is uncertainty in predicting dam breach parameters, Stantec used

several empirical equations and based final breach parameters on the average of the

estimates and engineering judgment (References 13 - 21).

Failure of concrete structures such as the SR1 Diversion Structure Auxilliary Spillway cannot be

evaluated using the same empirical equations. Breach parameters for this structure were

assumed based on engineering judgment to represent a nearly instantaneous failure of

approximately one third of the Auxiliary Spillway length.

Table 1 summarizes the breach parameters estimated for this analysis. These values are based

on the assumed failure conditions, height of breach, impoundment water volume above

breach, and width of the embankment. Bavg is the average width of a breach failure and tf is

the time for the breach to fully develop. The results of the empirical calculations that served as

the basis for the breach parameters estimation are included in Appendix A5-A6.

Table 1 – Summary of Estimated Dam Breach Parameters

SR1 Diversion

Structure Flood-

Induced Failure

Scenario

SR1 Off-Stream

Storage Dam Post-

Flood Failure

Scenario

Glenmore Reservoir

Southeast Dyke

Cascade Failure

Scenario

Range of Breach Width Estimates (m) n/a 49.9 – 119.3 14.7 – 124.5

Range of Failure Time Estimates (hrs) n/a 0.55 – 1.90 0.42 - 3.63

Bavg (m) 72.0 94.4 59.6

Tf (hours) 0.10 1.16 1.50

The IDF used in the flood-induced failure scenario was computed based on a calibrated HEC-

HMS model developed as part of the SR1 project and is documented in detail in the Stantec

report entitled “Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project: Probable Maximum Flood Analysis”

(Reference 22). For the flood-induced failure of the SR1 Diversion Structure Auxiliary Spillway, the

IDF is the PMF on the Elbow River with a peak discharge of 2770 cms and a total hydrograph

duration of 7 days. The IDF hydrograph is included as Appendix A7.

Routing of the IDF through the SR1 Off-Stream Storage Dam was not performed because a

flood-induced failure was not considered valid for that structure. For the post-flood failure

scenario of the Off-Stream Storage Dam, a starting pool elevation of 1210.75 m was selected

matching the the Emergency Spillway elevation. The stage-storage curve for the SR1 reservoir

was developed based on 2013 and 2015 LiDAR data and the SR1 design grading. The stage-

storage curve and resulting breach hydrograph is presented in Appendix A8-A9.


Breach Analysis

March 8, 2017


3

.

7

3.4 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT

For routing of the breach hydrograph and development of inundation mapping, Stantec used

the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) software, Version 5.0.3

(Reference 23). HEC-RAS is an unsteady, one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) flood

routing model. The breach routing model includes approximately 53 km of the Elbow River from

the confluence with the Bow River to approximately 1.2 km upstream of the SR1 Diversion

Structure. The model includes and approximately 49 km of the Bow River from approximately

Centre Street to just upstream of the confluence with Highwood River.

3.4.1 Model Geometry

The routing model geometry for the Elbow River downstream of Glenmore Dam and the Bow

River was based on the 2014 Golder Working Model provided by the City of Calgary (Reference

8). The Golder model is a calibrated steady flow model of the Elbow River and Bow River

designed to simulate up to the 2013 event. Stantec made modifications to the Golder

geometry to make it suitable for an unsteady simulation. These modifications primarily included

converting ineffective flow areas designed to simulate buildings to blocked obstructions,

eliminating unnecessary split flow reaches to improve unsteady model stability and adding 2D

flow areas representing floodplains in the City of Calgary downtown to allow for more accurate

simulation of overland flows.

Stantec revised and extended the Golder model upstream of Glenmore Reservoir to Highway 22

using 1m and 15m LiDAR data, 2013 Glenmore Reservoir bathymetric data, and structure

drawings / rating curves provided by the City of Calgary (References 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11).

The new cross sections have an average spacing of approximately 300 m. Manning’s roughness

values were selected based on land uses determined from aerial imagery and HEC-RAS

guidance as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 – Summary of Land Use Types for Extended HEC-RAS Geometry

Land Use Type Manning’s Value, n

Woods 0.150

Grass 0.040

Channel 0.038

Brush 0.080

3.4.2 Boundary Conditions

The model uses a normal depth boundary condition at the downstream end of the Bow River

reach from the Golder model.


Breach Analysis

March 8, 2017


3

.

8

The PMF event hydrograph is used as inflow at the upstream end of the Elbow River during the

flood-induced failure scenario. During the flood-induced failure scenario, the Bow River was

assumed to be at the 100-year discharge based on flood-frequency data from the Golder and

Associates Report entitled “Bow River and Elbow River Basins: Hydrology of 2013 Flood Event”

(Reference 24). The 100-year flows were distributed as constant flows along the Bow River based

on flow change locations in the original Golder Model.

Inflows at the upstream end of the Bow River and the Elbow River during the post-flood failure

scenario are assumed constant values based on flows observed during the 2013 flood event.

Table 3 summarizes the boundary conditions used in the model for each failure scenario.

To maintain stability of the post-flood failure routing model, a minimum flow of 400 m3/s was

assigned at the location of the breach hydrograph.

Table 3 – Summary of Boundary Conditions

Location Flood-Induced

Failure Scenario

Post-Flood Failure

Scenarios

Elbow River Upstream Inflow PMF Hydrograph 30 m3/s

Bow River Inflow Upstream of Elbow River 2020 m3/s 400 m3/s

Bow River Lateral Inflow at Fish Creek 500 m3/s n/a

Bow River Lateral Inflow at Fish Creek 80 m3/s n/a

Bow River Downstream Normal Depth 0.0022 m/m 0.0022 m/m


Results and Inundation Mapping

March 8, 2017


4

.

9

4.0 RESULTS AND INUNDATION MAPPING

4.1.1 Flood-Induced Failure of Diversion Structure

Failure of the Diversion Structure Auxiliary Spillway during the IDF event will have minimal impact

downstream of the structure. According to breach routing results, such a failure would increase

the peak discharge in the Elbow River immediately downstream of the diversion structure from

2770 m3/s to a peak of 3103 m3/s for less than 30 minutes. The spike in flow corresponds to

approximately a 0.2 m increase in the water surface elevation. By the Highway 22 bridge, which

is located approximately 1 km downstream of the Diversion Structure, the increase in water

surface elevation due to the breach is less than 0.1 m. Based on these results, inundation

mapping would show negligible change to inundation limits and has not been developed.

Water surface elevation and discharge hydrographs at locations of interest have been included

in Appendix B1.

4.1.2 Post-Flood Failure of Off-Stream Storage Dam

Two post-flood failure scenarios were evaluated for the Off-Stream Storage Dam. With no

cascade failure and with a cascade failure of the Glenmore Reservoir Southeast Dyke. Table 4

includes a summary of the arrival time of the start of the breach wave, peak water surface

elevations and peak discharges along the Elbow and Bow Rivers resulting from each failure

scenario. All listed water surface elevations are headwater elevations.


Results and Inundation Mapping

March 8, 2017


4

.

1

0

Table 4 – Summary of Results for Post-Flood Failure of Off-Stream Storage Dam

Location

Arrival Time

after Start of

Breach

(hr:min)

No Cascade Failure

Glenmore Reservoir

Southeast Dyke

Cascade Failure

WSE

(m)

Discharge

(m3/s)

WSE

(m)

Discharge

(m3/s)

Elbow River at Breach (Station 44,946) 0:00 1180.96 17309 1080.96 17309

Elbow River at Sarcee Bridge (Station 19,779) 2:20 1086.88 10227 1086.88 10227

Glenmore Reservoir Southeast Dyke

Overtopping 2:40 1082.47 2445 1082.23 3314

Elbow River at Glenmore Dam (Station 11,417) 2:40 1082.14 4433 1081.93 4188

Elbow River at Elbow Drive Bridge (Station

7,206) 3:00 1059.68 29711 1059.43 28201

Elbow River at 1st St (Patterson) Bridge (Station

2,954) 3:20 1050.68 16881 1050.58 16111

Elbow River at 9th Ave Bridge (Station 287) 3:30 1044.48 21321 1044.48 20631

Bow River at 17th Ave (Cushing) Bridge

(Station 44,288) 4:00 1037.86 4131 1037.33 3730

Bow River at Glenmore Trail (Graves) Bridge

(Station 37,138) 4:40 1023.76 3648 1023.50 3282

Bow River at Highway 2 Bridge (Station 18,031) 5:50 988.40 40172 988.88 46582

Bow River at Confluence with Highwood River

(Station 0) 8:10 952.99 3865 953.43 4608

1 Discharge for 1D model segments only, does not include flow spread over 2D floodplain

2 Discharge increases due to flow discharged over Glenmore Reservoir Southeast Dyke re-entering Bow River

According to the Golder frequency discharge study (Reference 24), the 100-year discharge for

the Bow River upstream of the confluence with Highwood River is 3,400 m3/s and downstream of

the confluence it is 5,610 m3/s. The breach routing model terminates at the confluence with the

Highwood River. Peak discharges from the breach routing model are less than the 100-year

discharge downstream of the confluence indicating that sufficient attenuation has occurred to

end the breach analysis.

Inundation limits for each of the failure scenarios were mapped to determine the potential

impacts on property and the potential risk to human life downstream of SR1. Appendix B2-B13

presents the maximum inundation extents which result from the post-flood failure scenarios.


References

March 8, 2017


5

.

1

1

5.0 REFERENCES

1. Canadian Dam Association. (2007). Dam Safety Guidelines.

2. Amec. (2013). 30 cm Resolution Orthophotography flown in October 2013 by Valtus Imagery Services.

Provided to Stantec at in August 2014 by Alberta Transportation.

3. Amec. (2013). 1M LiDAR Topographic Data Flown in September, 2013. Provided to Stantec in August

2014 by Alberta Transportation.

4. Government of Alberta. (2014). Orthophotography of Elbow River Area, Post-2013 Flood Event.

Provided to Stantec in October 2014 by Alberta Transportation.

5. AltaLIS. (2013). AltaLIS LiDAR15 DEM 15M LiDAR with 2013 Vintage in Study Area.

6. Tarin Resource Services. (2015). 0.5M LiDAR Flown in November 2015.

7. Challenger Geomatics Ltd. (2013). Calgary Glenmore Reservoir Bathymetric Survey, September, 2013.

Prepared for Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd, October, 2013.

8. Golder and Associates Ltd. (2014). Bow and Elbow River Working Hydraulic Model (HEC-RAS format).

Provided to Stantec by City of Calgary in November 2014.

9. Alberta Transportation. (2014). Elbow River Bridge on HWY 8, Near Calgary, Flood Repair, Drawing

41174-P.

10. Alberta Transportation. (1986). Elbow River Bridge 17 km South of Cochrane General Layout, Drawing

11622-C.

11. City of Calgary. Glenmore Spillway Curves (Microsoft Excel format). Provided to Stantec by City of

Calgary in October 2014.

12. US Army Corps of Engineers. (2015). Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), Version 4.1. Hydrologic

Engineering Center, Davis, California.

13. Johnson, F.A and Illes, P. (1976). “A Classification of Dam Failures.” Water Power Dam Construction, 28,

43-45.

14. Singh, Krishan P. and Snorrason, A. (1982). SWS Contract Report 288: Sensitivity of Outflow Peaks and

Flood Stages to the Selection of Dam Breach Parameters and Simulation Models. Illinois Department of

Energy and Natural Resources, State Water Survey Division.

15. Singh, Krishan P. and Snorrason, A. (1984). “Sensitivity of Outflow Peaks and Flood Stages to the

Selection of Dam Breach Parameters and Simulation Models.” Journal of Hydrology, 68, 295-310.

16. MacDonald, T. C., and Langridge-Monopolis, J. (1984). “Breaching Characteristics of Dam Failures.”

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 110 (5), 567-586.

17. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). (1987). FERC 0119-1: Engineering Guidelines for the

Evaluation of Hydropower Projects. Office of Hydropower Licensing.

18. Froehlich, D. C. (1987). “Embankment Dam Breach Parameters.” Proceedings of the 1987 National

Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Williamsburg Virginia, 570-575.

19. US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). (1988). ACER Technical Memorandum No. 11: Downstream Hazard

Classification Guidelines. Assistant Commissioner-Engineering and Research, Denver, Colorado, 57.

20. Von Thun, Lawrence J. and D. R. Gillette. (1990). Guidance on Breach Parameters, unpublished internal

document, USBR, Denver, Colorado, 17. (Referenced in Wahl 1998).

21. Froehlich, D. C. (1995). “Embankment Dam Breach Parameters Revisited.” Proceedings of the 1995

ASCE Conference on Water Resources Engineering, ASCE, San Antonio, Texas, 887-891.

22. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2015). Spring Bank Off-Stream Reservoir Project: Probable Maximum Flood

Analysis. August 2015 Draft.

23. US Army Corps of Engineers. (2016). River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), Version 5.0.3. Hydrologic

Engineering Center, Davis, California.

24. Golder and Associates. (2016). Bow River and Elbow River Basins: Hydrology of 2013 Flood Event,

Report Number 13-1326-0054.9000. Prepared for City of Calgary, February 2016.

APPENDIX A – HYDROLOGIC AND

BREACH DATA

1180

1185

1190

1195

1200

1205

1210

1215

0 60 120 180 240 300

Ele

va

tio

n (

m)

Station (m)

Appendix A1 - Off-Stream Storage Dam Post-Flood Breach Schematic

Top of Dam, Elev = 1213.5 m

Emergency Spillway, Elev = 1210.75 mBreach WSE = 1210.75 m

SR1 Off-Stream Storage Dam

Water Volume at

Start of Breach = 77900 dam3

Breach Bottom, Elev = 1185 m

Piping Failure

1211

1212

1213

1214

1215

1216

1217

1218

1219

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ele

va

tio

n (

m)

Station (m)

Appendix A2 - Diversion Structure Flood-Induced Breach Schematic

Top of Adjacent Floodplain Berm, Elev = 1218.3 m

RCC Auxiliary Spillway Crest, Elev = 1215.8 m

Breach WSE = 1217.8 m

Breach Bottom, Elev = 1212.5 m

Overtopping Failure

1069

1071

1073

1075

1077

1079

1081

1083

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Ele

va

tio

n (

m)

Station (m)

Appendix A3 - Southeast Dyke Post-Flood Cascade Breach Schematic

SE Dyke Crest Elevation, Elev = 1080.4 mBreach WSE = 1080.4 m

Breach Bottom, Elev = 1072.0 m

Overtopping Failure

Glenmore Reservoir

Appendix A4 – Off-Stream Storage Dam Breach Location

Simulated Off-Stream Storage

Dam Breach Location

Appendix A5 – Diversion Structure Breach Location

Simulated Diversion

Structure Breach Location

Appendix A6 - Dam Breach Parameter EstimationEarthen Embankment Breach Parameter Comparative Spreadsheet

Project Data:

Dam: SR1 Off-Stream Storage Dam, Preliminary Design

Location: City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Notes: Post-flood breach scenario

Inputs:

Data Convention:

Height of dam hd 93.5 feet 28.5 meters User Input Data

Height of breach hb 93.5 feet 28.5 meters

Height/depth of water at breach hw 84.5 feet 25.8 meters

Storage S 63172.0 ac-feet 77921514.6 m3 Calculated value.

Volume of water at breach Vw 63172.0 ac-feet 77921514.6 m3

Width of dam at base Wbase 765.0 feet 233.2 meters

Width of dam at crest Wcrest 33.0 feet 10.1 meters

Estimated breach side slope Z 1.0 1.0

Baseflow Qbase 0.0 ft3/s 0.00 m3/s

Type of Failure Piping

Dam has core wall? Yes

Erosion resistant embankment? Yes

Average of Calculated Values:

Breach width BAVG 309.6 feet 94.4 meters

Breach bottom width BW 232.4 feet 70.8 meters

Breach formation time tf 1.2 hours 1.16 hours

Peak discharge Qp 510,141 ft3/s 14446.1 m3/s

Breach side slope Z 0.83 0.83

Volume of embankment eroded Ver 11560327.9 ft3 327364.0 m3

Volume of water discharged Vo,Vout 63172.00 ac-feet 77921514.6 m3

Source Equation B B Z Ver Ko Kc Cb

(m) (ft) (m3) (m)

1 - Johnson and Illes 1976 49.9 163.6

2 - Singh and Snorrason 1982, 1984 99.8 327.3

3 - MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis 1984 107.2 351.7 371787.0

4 - MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis 1984 0.500

5 - FERC 1987 85.5 280.5

6 - FERC 1987 0.625

7 - Froehlich 1987 102.0 334.7 1.0

8 - Froehlich 1987 1.107 121.6 0.6

9 - USBR 1988 77.3 253.4

10 - Von Thun and Gillette 1990 1.000

11 - Von Thun and Gillette 1990 119.3 391.3 54.9

12 - Froehlich 1995 114.2 374.7 1.0

13 - Froehlich 1995 0.900

Default

calculation, user

can change.

English Units SI Units

Estimates of Breach Width & Dimensions

𝑊

U:\110773396\component_work\dams_diversion\hydrotechnical\analysis\Breach_Analysis\Report\Appendixes\Appendix_A\A5_SR1_Breach_Parameters.xlsx Page 1 of 3


Project Data:

Dam: SR1 Off-Stream Storage Dam, Preliminary Design


Notes: Post-flood breach scenario

Inputs:

Data Convention:










Type of Failure Piping











Default

calculation, user

can change.


Source Equation tf

(hours)

14 - Singh and Snorrason 1982, 1984 0.625


16 - FERC 1987 0.550

17 - Froehlich 1987 1.701

18 - USBR 1988 1.038



21 - Von Thun and Gillette 1990


23 - Froehlich 1995 1.897

Estimates of Failure Time

U:\110773396\component_work\dams_diversion\hydrotechnical\analysis\Breach_Analysis\Report\Appendixes\Appendix_A\A5_SR1_Breach_Parameters.xlsx Page 2 of 3


Project Data:

Dam: Glenmore Reservoir Southeast Dyke


Notes: Post-Flood Cascade breach scenario

Inputs:

Data Convention:










Type of Failure Overtopping











Source Equation B B Z Ver Ko Kc Cb

(m) (ft) (m3) (m)

1 - Johnson and Illes 1976 14.7 48.2

2 - Singh and Snorrason 1982, 1984 29.4 96.5

3 - MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis 1984 124.5 408.3 81792.4


5 - FERC 1987 25.2 82.7

6 - FERC 1987 0.625

7 - Froehlich 1987 85.1 279.2 1.4

8 - Froehlich 1987 2.293 78.2 0.6

9 - USBR 1988 25.2 82.7


11 - Von Thun and Gillette 1990 75.9 249.0 54.9

12 - Froehlich 1995 96.6 317.0 1.4

13 - Froehlich 1995 1.400

Default

calculation, user

can change.


Estimates of Breach Width & Dimensions

𝑊

U:\110773396\component_work\dams_diversion\hydrotechnical\analysis\Breach_Analysis\Report\Appendixes\Appendix_A\A6_SE_Dyke_Breach_Parameters.xlsx Page 1 of 3


Project Data:

Dam: Glenmore Reservoir Southeast Dyke


Notes: Post-Flood Cascade breach scenario

Inputs:

Data Convention:










Type of Failure Overtopping











Default

calculation, user

can change.


Source Equation tf

(hours)

14 - Singh and Snorrason 1982, 1984 0.625


16 - FERC 1987 0.550

17 - Froehlich 1987 3.470

18 - USBR 1988 0.655





23 - Froehlich 1995 3.632

Estimates of Failure Time

U:\110773396\component_work\dams_diversion\hydrotechnical\analysis\Breach_Analysis\Report\Appendixes\Appendix_A\A6_SE_Dyke_Breach_Parameters.xlsx Page 2 of 3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168

Dis

ch

arg

e (

m3/s

)

Time (hrs)

Appendix A8 - PMF Hydrograph Developed by Stantec

Appendix A9 - Off-Stream Storage Dam Stage-Storage CurveDeveloped for Preliminary Design

Elevation (m) Volume (dam3)

1185.0 0

1187.5 11

1190.0 104

1192.5 778

1195.0 3994

1197.5 9515

1200.0 17337

1201.0 21175

1202.0 25411

1203.0 30008

1204.0 34957

1205.0 40271

1206.0 45953

1207.0 51999

1208.0 58397

1209.0 65164

1210.0 72292

1211.0 79799

1212.0 87684

1213.0 95952

1214.0 104596

1215.0 113586

1185

1190

1195

1200

1205

1210

1215

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

Ele

va

tio

n (

m)

Volume (dam3)

Dam Crest,

Elev 1213.5 m

EM Spillway,

Elev 1210.75 m

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 60 120 180 240 300

Dis

ch

arg

e (

m3/s

)

Simulation Time (min)

Appendix A10 - Off-Stream Storage Dam Breach Hydrograph from HEC-HMS

Peak Discharge = 19793 m3/s

42 minutes after start of breach

Beginning of breach

Dip in hydrograph caused by

transition from orifice to weir flow

APPENDIX B – BREACH ROUTING RESULTS

1206

1208

1210

1212

1214

1216

1218

1220

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Ele

va

tio

n (

m)

Dis

ch

arg

e (

m3/s

)

Simulation Time (hrs)

Appendix B1 - Diversion Structure Flood-Induced Breach Hydrograph Routing

Discharge Downstream of Auxiliary Spillway

Discharge at Hwy 22 Bridge

Stage Downstream of Auxiliary Spillway

Headwater at Hwy 22 Bridge

Flow Spike Caused by Breach of SR1

Diversion Structure Auxiliary Spillway

Increase in Flood Stage Caused

by Breach of SR1 Diversion

Structure Auxiliary Spillway

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

51488.00

42161.58

51654.60

42515.51

43254.

46

42827.2743080.62

51795.06434

23.91

52115.6952655.73

4369

2.29

4432

3.42

4581

9.06

4400

1.89

4755

3.14

4494

6.1

4805

8.27

4458

5.04

4859

4.56

48203.75

4680

7.35

4613

4.76

4547

4.1346

392.8

7

4776

1.38

4949

9.62

4930

5.38

4894

6.96

4984

0.07

5120

1.83

5139

0.29

5089

0.09

5007

2.94

5025

5.45

50368

.02

5057

2.82

-35000-35

000

-34000-34

000

-33000

-33000

-32000

-32000

-31000

-31000

-30000

-30000

-29000

-29000 -28000

-2800

0

-27000

-2700

0

5653

000

5653000

5654

000

5655

000

5655000

5656000

5656000

5658000

5658

000

5659000

5659

000

Breach Analysis and Inundation Mapping

B2

Alberta TransportationSpringbank Off-Stream Reservoir (SR1)

Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 3TM 114

0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline

Inundation Extents, No Cascade Failure

Inundation Extents Southeast Dyke Cascade Failure

Elevation Contour (5 meter)

U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($$¯

1:20,000 (At original document size of 11x17)110773396

Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibil ity for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

City of CalgaryAlberta

Prepared by AAD on 2017-02-22Technical Review by DEH on 2017-02-22

Independent Review by DTH on 2017-02-27

SR1 Diversion Structure SR1 Off-StreamStorage Dam

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

3317

8.05

42515

.514282

7.27

4216

1.58

4195

7.66

3851

8.42

3715

0.25

4162

1.57

3754

6.24

38722.

08

3814

5.23

3791

2.56

39073

.38

4126

1.23

3679

8.06

4098

1.74

3972

7.5

3639

6.67

3601

5.07

4047

6.69

4029

3.61

39458.

51

3537

3.46

3516

9.38

3429

2.85

3383

6.05

4008

3.15

3578

6.25

3358

4.13408

5.45

3491

0.23

3455

4.58

-27000

-27000

-26000

-26000

-25000

-25000

-24000

-24000

-23000

-23000

-22000

-22000

-21000

-21000

-20000

-20000

5654

000

5654

000

5655

000

5655

000

5656

000

5656

000

5657

000

5657

000


B3


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($$¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

2998

1.25

2967

4.7

3025

0.02

24583.52

2960

5.6

35786.25

3052

8.5733178.05

33001.82

31168.38

35373.46

30881.4

25996.79

35169.38

25174.94

26460.34

32742.86

34292.85

33836.05

26806.44

33584.1

27212.37

28109.28

32591.95

27044.95

2946

5.31

29218.8

34085.45

28382.52

34910.23

28983.98

34554.58

28796.69

31426.04

31874.53

32234.67

-2100

0

-21000

-2000

0

-20000

-19000

-19000

-18000

-18000

-17000

-17000

-16000

-16000

-15000

-15000

-14000

-1400

056

5100

0

56520005653000

5653

000

5654000

565500056

5500

05656000

5656

000

565700056

5700

0


B4


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

26806.44

13292.31

13546.68

13787.54

13965.7913899.98

14270.05

14142.09

1578

7.08

1589

9.43

1606

0.0619989.84

1537

8.37

1564

1.45

1617

6.43

1551

3.18 14925.88

15096.111524

8.93

2122

2.71 16

323.5

5

14480.64

14624.09

14762.521759

3.67

20348.99

1736

1.58

1733

9.86

17805.42

21959.45

1719

1.45 170

04.62

16543.27

18840.2125996.79

22966.88

25174.94

24583.52

26460.34

23472.8

24294.64

18067.6623835.88

19796.12 19760.97-1500

0

-15000

-14000

-14000

-13000

-13000

-12000

-12000

-11000

-11000

-10000

-10000

-9000

-9000

-8000

-8000

5648000

5648

000

56490005650000

5650

000

565100056

5100

05652000

5652

000

565300056

5300

056

5400

0


B5


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

4223

.474 4167.869

3808.896

3931.360

3297

.058

6286.6006180.651

6426.953

4323

.412

11343.

01

6111.64110796.886033.910

6520.9675952.600

10888.59

8854.004

4082.5757180.710

5784.9278957.185 5887.031

5658.388

8745.164

11098.59

10704.837104.483

9083.054

9872

.662

12166.84 1115

2.62

7425.9835392.009

10012.

66

2468.865

8485.661 8067

.700

7321.0167518.278

3568.25

4365.1

51

7984

.517

7915

.787

7812

.588

11437

.47

6601

.994

9791

.103

7709.5

82

5303.4068250

.792

12242.76

1030

7.29

12006.22

9707

.108

12378.09

4983

.768

11871.84 6985.463

9540.124

6710

.158

4829.8

39441

7.275

1329

2.31

6935.4

52 6880.8

341151

3.74

6836

.832

4651.532 4573.228

1300

8.97

4708.3

12

12568.68

13546.68

16176.43

13787.54

16323.55

16060.06

11694.59 1160

4.04

15899.43

15787.08

17191.45

12763.59

17004.6216543.27

15641.45

14270

.05

15513.18

15378.37

15248.93

15096.11

14925.88

14762.52

14624.09

14480.64

13899.98

1414

2.09 13965.79

-10000-10

000

-9000-90

00-8000

-8000

-7000

-7000

-6000

-6000 -5000

-5000

-4000

-4000

-3000

-3000

5648

000

5649

000

5649000

5650

000

5651000

5651000 5652000

5653000

5653000

5654000

5654

000

5655000

5655

000

5656000


B6


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

4223.474

2636

.383

3808.8

96

2536

.347

1448.382

4778

4.74

3931.360

3072.717

1530.444

1928.071

1374.079

659.0451

1238.401

1844.155

3146.362

1132.153

1740.489

3224.472

754.5057858.0198

4323.412

1085.344

1620.941

4819

9.89

3385.971

883.9458

588.4315

2766

.218

978.5546

1477.87148430.80

4082.575

707.7057

2146.081

2331.512

1754.691

464.2836

4804

9.87

3568

.25

420.3724

4795

5.00

1861.469

48602.46

213.8709

4727

1.82

2468.865

47047.15

48730.03

275.1028

4677

4.9748911.67

4656

3.80

170.9389

155.6

76

4510

4.63

44309.26 44264.89

83.75642

4523

5.17

4519

0.07

44792.97

44456.87

40452.9646024.37

46328.92

45479.06

41758.58

41642.84

41903.18

4559

8.16

45580.37

41493.0141302.68

45560.96

4398

0.16

44138

.52

40543.33

42229.79

4380

8.40

43657.

23

45743.16

42408.71

41038.04

42662.33

40983.66

40984.66

40852.38

40853.38

40786.74

43493.01

42899.5943060.51

43115.

08

4327

1.91

40702.94

-6000

-6000

-5000

-5000

-4000

-4000

-3000

-3000

-2000

-2000

-1000

-1000

0

0

1000

1000

5652000 5652

000

5653000

5653

000

5654000

5654

000

5655000

5655

000

565600056

5600

05657000

5657

000

565800056

5800

0


B7


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

3734

7.97

37185.33

37111.79

36966.

62

32136.26

37646.80

37789.9537862.17

34445.53

36379

.25

39362.

51392

51.68

39101.

1438

978.0

334423.53

38031.47

37947.74

3991

9.03

3892

7.23

39506.

42

34552.9838

785.2

5

3973

0.15

4010

5.43

38177.78

4018

2.93

4003

5.71

36547

.14

39662

.61

34221.83

3245

6.18

36693.

99

3596

7.96

32931.48

3239

7.15

39607.52

32588.4432776.14

38529.67

35267.4935388.09

4149

3.01

3341

8.71

38390.25

4130

2.68

33736.61 3351

8.5434061.42

34801.33

38347.58

3322

1.82

35672.98

35084.03

4032

7.90

34940.01

41038.04 40983.66

40984.6640

452.9

640852.38

40853.38

40786.7440

543.3

3

4070

2.94

-3000

-3000

-2000

-2000

-1000

-1000

5646000

5646000

5647000

5647000

5648000

5648000

5649000

5649000

5650000

5650000

5651000

5651000

5652000

5652000

5653000

5653000


B8


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

33518

.54

31013.02

31293.79

31594.91

2321

2.06

2334

8.77 22988.65

3199

6.1

30851.283213

6.26

2350

8.66

27219.64

33418

.71

2354

9.27

2358

9.50

27518.10

2364

1.65

26870.25

26651.78

27669.

05

2377

4.35

25787.16

2784

9.16

26044.77

26381.07 26397.29

30639.50

26304.69

32456.

183293

1.48

32397.15

3258

8.44

25558.45

3277

6.14

2818

4.42

24008.

28

3322

1.82

2533

6.67

30421.99

2513

4.05

2477

9.29

2465

3.2625

047.6

9

24360.

95

24506.

902490

9.77

2851

2.8830090.31

29872.7429654.60 29

312.0

629

053.2

428

790.2

1

-4000

-4000

-3000

-3000

-2000

-2000

-1000

-1000

0

0

1000

1000

2000

2000

5639

000

5640000

5640

000

5641000

5641000

56420005643000

56430005644000

5645000

5645000

5646000564700056

4700

0


B9


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

15800.77

26381.0726304.69

26044.77

25787.16

18101.1318016.16

18017.16

17973.72

16891.16

25558.45

2533

6.67

17787.99

2513

4.05

2477

9.29

24008.

28

2465

3.2625

047.6

9

2334

8.77

2490

9.77

2350

8.6623

641.6

523

549.2

7

24506.

90243

60.95

23774

.3523

589.5

0

2359

0.50

2321

2.06

17527.81

18349.67

1948

0.10

19001.922298

8.65 19229.17

18715.76

1975

4.86

17162.76

2231

1.57

2218

0.17

2011

6.18

2191

3.67

2259

7.34

2048

6.26

2147

3

2083

9.52

2120

4.09

-3000

-3000

-2000

-2000

-1000

-1000

0

0

1000

1000

2000

2000

3000

3000

56340005635000

5635

000

5636000

5636000

5637000

5637000

5638000

5638000

5639000

5639000

5640000564100056

4100

0


B10


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

8277.925

1797

3.72

11521.13

1047

0.94

11135.20 1078

0.39

11700.60

11994.76

12318.03

8623.1

42

13326.44

12701.34

13049.88

17787.

99

9108

.651

13711.80

9936.068

9519

.493

14037.64

17527.81

14345.36

1606

7.24

14601.01

16584.

95 15800.77

16891.16

14867.55

15137.39

15336.93

17162.76

3000

3000

4000

4000

5000

5000

6000

6000

7000

7000

8000

8000

9000

9000

5634

000

5634

000

5635

000

5635

000

5636

000

5636

000


B11


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($$¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

5307.660

2570.5

27

1991

.140

5643.281

2337.8

42

1535

.900

3565.569

1171

.545

2910.116

5142.17*

0

3840.3

39

6046.648

825.1624

385.6672

3194.539

4976.69* 4323

.063

6300

.200

8623

.142

8277

.925

6559

.558

4811.213

7927

.637

7675

.805

6931.8597246.0

71

9000

9000

1000

0

10000

11000

11000

12000

12000

13000

13000

14000

14000

15000

15000

16000

1600

0

17000

1700

0

5631000

5632

000

5633000

5633

000

563400056

3400

056

3500

05636000

5636

000

563700056

3700

0


B12


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

11343.01

9031.276

7180.710

8957.185

8601

.464

8745.164

10704.83

8534

.981

10091.40

9872.6

62

11152

.627425.983

10012.66

1061

1.40

8067.700

7321.016

8423

.292

7577.166

7984.5177915.787

11437.47

6601.994

9791.103

7709.582

7063.149

1237

8.09

8250.7

92

12242

.76

10307.29

12006.22

13965

.79

12763.

59

1256

8.68

1389

9.98

11871.84

6985.463

9540

.124

6710.1

58

1169

4.59

6747.8

71

6935.4526880.834

11513.74

6836.832

11604.

04-7000

-7000

-6000

-6000

-5000

-5000

-4000

-4000

5646000

5646000

5647000

5647000

5648000

5648000

5649000

5649000

5650000

5650000

5651000

5651000

5652000

5652000

5653000

5653000


B13


Notes


0 400 800Meters

LegendModel XS

River Centerline




U:\11

0773

396\

comp

onen

t_wor

k\da

ms_

diver

sion\

hydr

otec

hnica

l\ana

lysis\

Breac

h_An

alysis

\GIS

Figur

es\F

or_B

reac

h_Re

port\

Appe

ndix_

B2_A

D.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2017

-03-0

8 By:

adob

son

($

$ ¯






Documents

Breach Analysis and Inundation Mapping - NRCB