appendix a sediment trap design - wordpress.com€¦ · • the sediment traps are planned to be...

23

Appendix A Sediment Trap Design

Suite 200, 150 - 13 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2R 0V2

Phone: 403.237.0606 Fax: 403.263.2493 www.matrix-solutions.com

5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx

December 17, 2013 Matrix 5821-522

Mr. Kevin Kemball MILLENIUM EMS SOLUTIONS LTD. 6111 - 91 Street Edmonton, Alberta T6E 6V6

Subject: Conceptual Design of Apetowun Creek Sediment Control Traps, 16-23-053-24 W5M

Dear Mr. Kemball:

This report includes the conceptual design of four sediment traps at three locations along Apetowun Creek downstream of the Obed Mountain Mine. The works are proposed to assist in containment and cleanup of sediment deposited along Apetowun Creek following the mine containment pond breach on October 31, 2013. These works are estimated to be used for at least 2 years until it has been determined sufficient sediment released from the mine has been removed from the creek.

1 BACKGROUND Apetowun Creek originates near the southern limit of Obed Mountain Mine. It travels 18.5 km from the mine before joining with Plante Creek and 6 km later, the Athabasca River (Figure 1 and 2).

On October 31, 2013 an onsite containment pond at the Obed Mountain Mine released water and solids into Apetowun Creek. The pond contained surface and process water and solids sediment from the mine washing process. It is estimated that 670,000 m3 was released to the creek from this breach. The solids included mainly clay, silt or mud, shale and coal fines. As the surge moved downhill, additional natural materials eroded and were brought along with the flow. The heavier particles of soil were retained within the headwaters of Apetowun Creek while the finer materials travelled through the entire creek length to the Athabasca River. The surge created channel disturbance to the first 5 km of Apetowun Creek downstream of the mine.

2 BASIS The conceptual design of the traps is based on the following:

• discussions with Kevin Kemball and Kevin Peters with Millennium • discussions with Doug Wood from Clearflow Enviro-Systems Group Inc.

5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

• 2 m LiDar of the entire reach of the creek • 2010 aerial photographs of the creek • site photographs of the proposed sediment trap locations taken in late November and early

December 2013 • site-specific information regarding the existing creek morphology and observations provided by

Kevin Peters • Water Survey of Canada (WSC) Regional Data (stations listed in Section 5)

3 DESIGN BASIS AND CONCEPTS The conceptual sediment traps have been designed based on the following:

• As per communication with Kevin Kemball (Millennium) on November 28, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is considering the upper reaches of the creek to have no fish habitat, therefore, design for fish passage through the sediment traps or Apetowun Creek is not required at this time. Discussion regarding possible modifications to the designs to provide fish access is provided in Section 8 of this report. Discussions with DFO on the status of Apetowun Creek are ongoing.

• The sediment traps are planned to be located near roads to allow vac-trucks access to remove accumulated sediment. The frequency of sediment removal from the traps is yet to be determined.

• During removal of sediment, a temporary dam should be placed at the upstream end of the trap. Incoming flow will overtop the diversion rock check and allow the flow through the natural channel. Details regarding the temporary dam will be determined during the detailed design.

• Flocculants (provided by Clearflow) are expected to be applied in controlled amounts to improve the settling performance of the traps.

• Due to an environmental protection order on the mine, no outflow into Apetowun Creek from the Main Tailings Pond is assumed.

• The design particle size for the traps is to be 75 microns based on particle size analysis information (provided by Millennium).

• The assumed settling factors applied include: a particle settling rate of 0.48 cm/s (based on Stoke’s Law), a non-spherical particle shape factor of 1.2, a non-ideal settling factor of 1.2 and a minimum factor of 1.3 to allow for some loss in effective area caused by non-uniform flow conditions.

• Detailed topographic surveys have yet to be completed at the proposed trap sites. Following these surveys and prior to construction, modifications to the conceptual designs will be required.

• Field fitting of these traps during construction is also expected.


4 SITE-SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS Site observations were completed by Kevin Peters in late November and early December 2013 for all three proposed trap sites (two traps are proposed at Location 2). Observations are as follows:

4.1 Sediment Trap Location 1 (DX Road Crossing) • Following the breach, water overtopped the road causing erosion to the road material and a scour

hole on the downstream side of the road • Existing 1,000 mm (approximate) diameter culvert remains. • Significant damage to banks and downed trees cleared an approximate 15 m wide path along the

creek. • Plenty of sediment backed up and dropped out on the upstream side of the culvert. Sediment was

reported to be 1 m thick in areas. • A natural spring is present on the upstream north side • Channel water depth in early December ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 m. • Channel width on the upstream side of the road is 4 to 6 m wide and 5 to 8 m wide on the

downstream side. • Cobbles, small pockets of gravel (mostly further upstream) and some small riffles are present both

upstream and downstream. • Banks range from 1 to 2 m heights.

4.2 Sediment Trap Location 2 (Lease Road Crossing) • Existing single span bridge crossing. Abutments on the bridge (especially the right abutment) have

been eroded. • Less damage to banks and riparian vegetation than at Sediment Trap Location 1. • Good access to the site off a lease road. • Fairly flat section of channel, slow moving, mostly frozen over as of December 4. • Banks composed of cobbles, some silt, well vegetated. • Bank height is < 1.0.m. • Predominantly natural cobbles exist on the downstream side of the bridge. • Channel width is 4 to 6 m wide. • Before freeze up cobbles and riffles could be seen. • Limited bank erosion, sediment deposition and little timber damage.

4.3 Sediment Trap Location 3 (Adjacent to Canadian Natural Resources Limited Well Pad)

• CNRL lease site, good access off of Emerson Road onto Gorge Creek Road. • Not much sediment on the banks in this area. • Water very clear and < 0.3 m deep in early December. • Channel width is 6 to 8 m. • Gentle slope section of channel. • Bed material consists of cobbles, riffles and some gravels.


• Low bank composed of cobbles, silt and vegetation. • Flood plain is about 18 to 20 m wide on both sides (creek bank to tree line).

5 HYDROLOGY A regional analysis was completed to estimate the monthly mean flow conditions in Apetowun Creek. The following WSC Stations were used:

• Whiskeyjack Creek, 07AD004, Drainage Area: 3.35 km² • Wampus Creek, 07AF003, Drainage Area: 25.9 km² • Eunice Creek, 07AF003, Drainage Area: 17.1 km² • Deerlick Creek, 07AF004, Drainage Area: 14.0 km²

The drainage areas for the four potential sediment trap locations are as follows:

• Sediment Trap Location 1 = 5.18 km² • Sediment Trap Location 2 = 17.3 km² • Sediment Trap Location 3 = 70.3 km²

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the mean and maximum monthly flows, based on the regional flow analysis, for each proposed sediment trap location along Apetowun Creek.

Table 1 Estimated Mean Monthly Flows (m3/s)

Sediment Trap Location April May June July August September October November 1 0.03 0.16 0.20 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08 2 0.11 0.53 0.66 0.42 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.26 3 0.46 2.15 2.69 1.72 1.14 0.85 0.74 1.07

Table 2 Estimated Maximum Monthly Flows (m3/s)

Sediment Trap Location April May June July August September October November 1 0.12 0.28 0.42 0.26 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.11 2 0.39 0.95 1.40 0.86 0.55 0.42 0.32 0.37 3 1.59 3.85 5.70 3.49 2.24 1.70 1.32 1.51

Previous regional flood frequency analyses in the area show reasonably consistent relationships based upon drainage areas (Matrix 2009). Table 3 shows the maximum instantaneous flow values for each proposed sediment trap location.


Table 3 Maximum Instantaneous Flows

Return Period Sediment Trap

Location 1:2 yr Flow

(m³/s) 1:10 yr Flow

(m³/s) 1:100 yr Flow

(m³/s) 1 0.83 2.43 6.53 2 2.77 8.13 21.8 3 11.2 33.1 88.6

6 DESIGN FEATURES The design features of the sediment traps (Figures 3, 4 and 5) are as follows:

6.1 Trap Locations • The traps have been designed as off-channel to minimize impacts to the existing creek and minimize

possible modification requirements for fish passage if required in the future.

• The distance from the access road to the traps will be a maximum of 50 m to ensure vac-truck access.

• Minimizing disturbances outside the required footprint of the trap will be achieved by appropriate sizing and layout prior to construction to clearly establish stripping/disturbance limits.

• Once timber clearing and ground conditions are identified, the trap locations and configurations may be modified to best fit the terrain and site-specific overburden conditions.

6.2 Trap Sizes • Sediment traps 1 and 2 have been designed to settle the design particles up to the 1:10 year

maximum instantaneous flow. Any greater flows will overtop the diversion rock structure (Figure 6) and flow down the natural creek channel.

• Sediment Trap 2 will be split into two separate traps (one on each side of the road) identified as Sediment Trap 2A (upstream of the road) and Sediment Trap 2B (downstream of the road).

• Due to the significantly higher drainage area (and therefore, higher flows), Sediment Trap 3 would require an unfeasibly large trap surface area and disturbance to riparian vegetation to settle the design particle size at the 1:10 year instantaneous flow. Sediment Trap 3 has, therefore, been designed to settle the design particles up to the maximum June flow (5.70 m³/s).

6.3 Trap Details • The traps will feature riprap protected inlet areas with boulders to promote mixing at the upstream

end of the trap and a 1.5 m high rock overflow weir at the downstream end.


• The typical trap excavation will be approximately 2 m deep to provide for at least 1.0 m of settlement storage.

• Side slopes will be typically excavated at 2H:1V to be stable. Flatter slopes or over-excavation of unstable silt material may be required depending upon site-specific materials encountered.

• As specified by Clearflow, flocculent blocks will be placed in rows just upstream of the traps. Placement and quantity is to be determined.

• The banks, inlet and outlet areas of the trap will be lined with biodegradable loose weave jute matting that has been treated with flocculent powder. As per information provided by Clearflow, this is expected provide erosion protection as well as attract sediment to the banks. This matting will biodegrade in 3 years with no removal necessary.

• For sediment traps 2A and 2B, two 5 × 5 m wide pits will be dug 0.5 m deeper than the trap grade at the top of the curve (as indicated on Figures 4 and 5). Just downstream of each of these will be a 1 m high, treated jute covered rock overflow to encourage further settlement of the finer particles.

• Treated jute curtains will also be placed at the downstream end of the trap (upstream of the outlet channel) for further settlement capture if possible.

• Table 4 illustrates the design data for each of the traps.

Table 4 Design Data

Location Design Inflow (m³/s) Minimum Required Surface Area (m²)

1 2.43 660 2A and 2B 8.13 2,210

3 5.70 1,550

Figures 3, 4 and 5 provide the conceptual designs of the three sediment traps. Figure 6 includes typical details for each trap.

7 ESTIMATED QUANTITIES Table 5 provides an estimate of the quantities of materials for planning purposes for the proposed design. These quantities are estimates based on the available information and will be refined following the detailed survey.


Table 5 Estimated Quantities

Quantity

Excavated Material 24,000 m³ Class 1 Riprap 875 tonnes

Gravel 180 m³ Geo-Jute Matting 3,700 m²

Boulders (diameter 600 to 800 mm) 16 to 20

8 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE FISH PASSAGE AND HABITAT Modifications to the design to provide fish passage through the traps depend on the design fish in the creek and information gathered during the detailed survey. Possible modifications include:

• Creating flatter slopes at the inlet and outlet of the trap to ensure these aren’t barriers to fish passage.

• Maintaining a base flow in the temporarily abandoned section of existing channel between the diversion and outlet.

• Following the 2 to 3 years of expected operation of the sediment traps, the diversion, inlet, outlet heights can be lowered therefore turning the sediment trap into possible fish habitat.

• Alternatively, the diversion can be removed completely, and the trap can be filled in resulting in the re-establishment of the existing creek channel.

9 ADDITIONAL OPTIONS The following additional measures are recommended to be investigated further to provide additional sediment capture within Apetowun Creek:

• A controlled release of tested clean water from the East Conveyor Pond or the Main Tailings Pond at Obed Mine prior to freshet using a 6-inch pump (0.114 m³/s) would provide a controlled flow through the creek and cause settlement of some of the sediment in the traps. This sediment could then be removed prior to freshet when flows will be more variable.

• In the event that further sediment capture is required, investigation into a low berm (0.5 to 0.75 m high) composed of natural material across the creek between Sediment Trap Locations 1 and 2 is recommended. This would create increased ponding area and thus sediment settling.


10 CLOSURE We trust that this letter report meets your approval. If you have any questions or comments, please call either of the undersigned at 403.237.0606.

Yours truly,

MATRIX SOLUTIONS INC. Reviewed by James Bigelow, B.Sc. E.I.T. Dave Cooper, P.Eng. Hydrotechnical Engineer Principal Hydrotechnical Engineer

JB/cm Attachments

REFERENCES Matrix Solutions Inc. (Matrix). 2009. Obed Mountain Mine - Renewal Application Surface Water

Management Plan. Report prepared for Coal Valley Resources Inc. Obed Mountain Mine. Calgary, Alberta. October 2009.

DISCLAIMER

We certify that this letter report is accurate and complete and accords with the information available during the site investigation. Information obtained during the site investigation or provided by third parties is believed to be accurate but is not guaranteed. We have exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence in assessing the information obtained during the preparation of this letter report.

This letter report was prepared for Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. The letter report may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without our written consent and that of Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. Any uses of this letter report by a third party, or any reliance on decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of that party. We are not responsible for damages or injuries incurred by any third party, as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this letter report.

cmcconkey

APEGA

\\mat

rix-s

olut

ions

.com

\pub

lic\A

ctiv

e_P

roje

cts\

5821

\Dra

fting

\201

3\58

21-O

B-S

C-1

3.dw

g -

LP -

Mon

day,

Dec

embe

r 16,

201

3 1:

22:5

1 P

M -

Car

men

Jan

zen

Plo

t 1:1

= L

ette

r (P

)

Coal Valley Resources Inc.

Disclaimer: The information contained herein may be compiled from numerous third party materials that are subject to periodic changewithout prior notification. While every effort has been made by Matrix Solutions Inc. to ensure the accuracy of the information presented atthe time of publication, Matrix Solutions Inc. assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the third party material.

Location Plan

Apetowun Creek Sediment Control Traps

Z. SteeleD. CooperJ. Bigelow5821-OB-SC-13December 2013Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:

Reference: 83F (Edson), Edition 2, UTM Zone 11, NAD © Department of Natural ResourcesCanada. All rights reserved.

Figure

1No. DATE DESCRIPTION BY

REVISION

UTM83-11500025000

Meters1:250000

2500

R22 W5M

HighLevel

GrandeCache

Hinton

Edson

Whitecourt

Bonnyville

AthabascaSwan

Hills

Canmore

BanffDrumheller

Airdrie

DraytonValley

RockyMountain

House

FortMcMurray

Barrhead

Jasper

LloydminsterCamrose

Wetaskiwin

Red Deer

Brooks

MedicineHat

Lethbridge

ColdLake

Peace River

GrandePrairie

EDMONTON

CALGARY

Sediment Trap 1

Sediment Trap 2

Sediment Trap 3

Tp 53

R23R24R25R26

Tp 52

Tp 51

Tp 54

Tp 55

Tp 56

0 2013/12/10 Issued for Client Review JB1 2013/12/12 Issued Final -- Conceptual Plan JB2 2013/12/17 DCRevised Final

Rooster Creek

Plante Creek

Gorge Creek

Atha

basc

a Ri

ver

Apetowun Creek

Plo

t 1:1

= T

ablo

id (L

)\\m

atrix

-sol

utio

ns.c

om\p

ublic

\Act

ive_

Pro

ject

s\58

21\D

rafti

ng\2

013\

5821

-OB

-SC

-13.

dwg

- O

vera

ll - M

onda

y, D

ecem

ber 1

6, 2

013

1:22

:51

PM

- C

arm

en J

anze

n



Overall Plan


Z. SteeleD. CooperJ. Bigelow5821-OB-SC-13December 2013Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:

Reference: Airphoto provided by Coal Valley Resources Inc.

Figure


REVISIONPERMITSTAMP

UTM83-1110005000

Meters1:50000

500

Easting (m)

Nor

thin

g (m

)

Drainage Area

Road

Road - Light Use

Trail

467000 468000 469000 470000 471000 472000 473000 474000

475000 476000 477000 478000 479000 480000 481000 482000 483000 484000 485000

5935

000

5936

000

5937

000

5938

000

5939

000

5940

000

5941

000

5942

000

5943

000

5944

000

5945

000

5946

000

467000 468000 469000 470000 471000 472000 473000 474000 475000 476000 477000 478000 479000 480000 481000 482000 483000 484000 485000

5935

000

5936

000

5937

000

5938

000

5939

000

5940

000

5941

000

5942

000

5943

000

5944

000

5945

000

5946

000

0 2013/12/10 Issued for Client Review JB1 2013/12/12 JBIssued Final -- Conceptual Plan

Permit to PracticeP5540

NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

2 2013/12/17 DCRevised Final

Apetowun Creek

Road

Rock Check Diversion toDeflect ≤ 1:10 Year Flow

A-

10 m BottomWidth

5 m

< 60 m for Vac

Truck Access

2H:1

V

Flows > 1:10 Year Flow Will

Pass Through Natural ChannelB6

Typical Inlet Section(See Figure 6)

Typical Diversion Section(See Figure 6)

Rock Overflow and Boulders Promote Mixing with Floc

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

S1-A

1263

1264

1266

1268

1270

1263

1264

1266

1268

1270

0+000 0+010 0+020 0+030 0+040 0+050 0+060 0+070 0+080

10 m10 m

5 m

< 60 m For Vac Truck Access

1.5 m

0.3 m Freeboard

12

12

12

12

Road

1.5 m

Flocculent Treated JuteMatting Along Banks

Waste Material

Waste Material

Photo 1. Looking downstream at DX road crossing over Apetowun Creek. - Photo taken by Kevin Peters(MEMS) on November 2013.

Plo

t 1:1

= T

ablo

id (L

)\\m

atrix

-sol

utio

ns.c

om\p

ublic

\Act

ive_

Pro

ject

s\58

21\D

rafti

ng\2

013\

5821

-OB

-SC

-13.

dwg

- S

T1 -

Mon

day,

Dec

embe

r 16,

201

3 1:

22:5

1 P

M -

Car

men

Jan

zen



Sediment Trap 1


5821-OB-SC-13Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:

Reference:

Figure


REVISIONPERMITSTAMP

UTM83-111050

Meters1:500

5

SectionA- Horizontal Scale 1:300

Vertical Scale 1:150

Site Plan

Z. SteeleD. CooperJ. BigelowDecember 20130 2013/12/10 Issued for Client Review JB

Note1. Conceptual design has been done using provided 2 m LiDAR contours. Trap layout and

configurations may be modified following the detailed survey and before construction.1 2013/12/12 JBIssued Final -- Conceptual Plan


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION


Apetowun Creek

A-

B6

Rock Check Diversion to Deflect≤ 1:10 Year Flow

Flows > 1:10 Year Flow

Will Pass Through

Natural Channel



Road

B6

5m WideAccess Road

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

S2-A

1220

1222

1224

1226

1220

1222

1224

1226

0+000 0+010 0+020 0+030 0+040 0+050 0+060 0+070 0+080 0+090 0+100 0+110

10 m 10 m

5 m


1.5 m

0.3 m Freeboard

12

12

12

12

Road

1.5 m

10 m

1.5 m

0.3 m Freeboard

12

12

10 m

1.5 m

12

12



Waste Material

WasteMaterial

WasteMaterial

Photo 2. Looking downstream at existing span bridge crossing. Proposed sediment trap 2A is to the leftof the photo. - Photo taken by Kevin Peters (MEMS) on November 2013.

Photo 3. Looking downstream from the span bridge. - Photo taken by Kevin Peters (MEMS) onNovember 2013.

Plo

t 1:1

= T

ablo

id (L

)\\m

atrix

-sol

utio

ns.c

om\p

ublic

\Act

ive_

Pro

ject

s\58

21\D

rafti

ng\2

013\

5821

-OB

-SC

-13.

dwg

- S

T2 -

Mon

day,

Dec

embe

r 16,

201

3 1:

22:5

1 P

M -

Car

men

Jan

zen



Sediment Trap 2A and 2B



Reference:

Figure


REVISIONPERMITSTAMP

UTM83-1120100

Meters1:1000

10Site Plan




Notes1. Conceptual design has been done using provided 2 m LiDAR contours. Trap layout and

configurations may be modified following the detailed survey and before construction.2. Two collection pits (5 m wide x 5 m long x 0.5 m) should be dug into the trap at the above

noted locations. These pits will be separated by a 0.5 m high, treated jute mat covered class Iriprap rock check. These pits will provide a collection point for sediment removal. Additionaldetails will be finalized following the detailed survey.

1 2013/12/12 JBIssued Final -- Conceptual Plan


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION


Apet

owun

Cre

ek

B6

A-

130 m

Rock Check Diversion toDeflect ≤ Max. June Flow

Flow

s >

Max

. Jun

eFl

ow W

ill Pa

ss T

hrou

ghN

atur

al C

hann

el



Treated Jute CurtainsIf Possible

Design Water Level

5m Wide Access Road

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

S3-A

1021

1022

1024

1026

1021

1022

1024

1026

0+000 0+010 0+020 0+030 0+040 0+050

10 m

1.5 m

0.3 m Freeboard

1

2

1

2


Waste Material

Waste Material

Photo 4. Looking upstream at Apetowun Creek near proposed Sediment Trap 3.

Plo

t 1:1

= T

ablo

id (L

)\\m

atrix

-sol

utio

ns.c

om\p

ublic

\Act

ive_

Pro

ject

s\58

21\D

rafti

ng\2

013\

5821

-OB

-SC

-13.

dwg

- S

T3 -

Mon

day,

Dec

embe

r 16,

201

3 1:

22:5

1 P

M -

Car

men

Jan

zen



Sediment Trap 3



Reference:

Figure


REVISIONPERMITSTAMP

UTM83-1120100

Meters1:1000

10Site Plan




Notes1. Conceptual design has been done using provided 2 m LiDAR contours. Trap layout and

configurations may be modified following the detailed survey and before construction.2. Two collection pits (5 m wide x 5 m long x 0.5 m) should be dug into the trap at the above

noted locations. These pits will be separated by a 0.5 m high, treated jute mat covered class Iriprap rock check. These pits will provide a collection point for sediment removal. Additionaldetails will be finalized following the detailed survey.

1 2013/12/12 JBIssued Final -- Conceptual Plan


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION


Channel Bottom

2.5

1

2.5

1

10 (typ.)1

10 (typ.)1

H Varies (See Table)Min. 500 mm ThickKey into Bed

W - Channel Base Width(See Table)

Native BedMaterialL (See Table)

Channel Slope (s)

Rock Check(Class I Riprap)

21

41 Key Min. 0.5 m into Bed

H

Need for UnderlyingNon-Woven Filter Fabric tobe Field Determined Basedon Native Soil Material

0.5 m

0.5 m

11

11

Height of ExistingChannel (Varies)

Typical Diversion SectionN.T.S.

Typical Diversion Section Along Centreline of ChannelScale 1:50

Possible Additional Rock ChecksRequired Downstream of Diversionto Protect Against Erosion

Min. 500 mm Thick RiprapOver 150 mm Thick Gravel

12.5

12.5

W

Q10 Varies

Typical Inlet and Outlet SectionScale 1:100

Min. 0.3 m Freeboard

Treated Geo-Jute Matting

Approx. 1 m (to be Confirmedwith Detailed Survey)

6 m6 m3.15 m

12

141

4

Approximate Existing Ground

Approximate Existing 2% Grade

Three to Four 600 mm -800 mm Diameter Boulders

500 mm Thick Class I RiprapOver 150 mm Thick Gravel

Typical Trap ProfileB- Scale 1:100

Native BedMaterial

0.75 m

Treated Geo-Jute Matting

Treated Geo-Jute Matting Tie into Existing Channel

Plo

t 1:1

= T

ablo

id (L

)\\m

atrix

-sol

utio

ns.c

om\p

ublic

\Act

ive_

Pro

ject

s\58

21\D

rafti

ng\2

013\

5821

-OB

-SC

-13.

dwg

- Ty

pica

l - M

onda

y, D

ecem

ber 1

6, 2

013

1:22

:51

PM

- C

arm

en J

anze

n



Typical Details



Reference:

Figure


REVISIONPERMITSTAMP

Z. SteeleD. CooperJ. BigelowDecember 2013

PercentPassing

10030-8020-505-20

Diameter (mm)500350300200

Mass (kg)130704010

Stone Size

Gradation of Class I RiprapDiversion Structure Design Table

Sediment Trap Height of Diversion -H (m)

Channel Base Width- W (m)

Length of DiversionStructure - L (m)

1 0.60 4.0 3.6

2 1.00 6.0 6.0

3 0.75 8.0 4.5

0 2013/12/10 Issued for Client Review JB1 2013/12/12 JBIssued Final -- Conceptual Plan


NOT FORCONSTRUCTION


appendix a sediment trap design - wordpress.com€¦ · • the sediment traps are planned to be...

Documents