Appendix A Sediment Trap Design - WordPress.com€¦ · • The sediment traps are planned to be...
Transcript of 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.
5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx 3 Matrix Solutions Inc.
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.
5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx 4 Matrix Solutions Inc.
• 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.
5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx 5 Matrix Solutions Inc.
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.
5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx 6 Matrix Solutions Inc.
• 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.
5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx 7 Matrix Solutions Inc.
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.
5821-522 LR-1213 final revised.docx 8 Matrix Solutions Inc.
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.
\\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
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.
Overall Plan
Apetowun Creek Sediment Control Traps
Z. SteeleD. CooperJ. Bigelow5821-OB-SC-13December 2013Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:
Reference: Airphoto provided by Coal Valley Resources Inc.
Figure
2No. DATE DESCRIPTION BY
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
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.
Sediment Trap 1
Apetowun Creek Sediment Control Traps
5821-OB-SC-13Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:
Reference:
Figure
3No. DATE DESCRIPTION BY
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
Permit to PracticeP5540
NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
2 2013/12/17 DCRevised Final
Apetowun Creek
A-
B6
Rock Check Diversion to Deflect≤ 1:10 Year Flow
Flows > 1:10 Year Flow
Will Pass Through
Natural Channel
Typical Inlet Section(See Figure 6)
Typical Diversion Section(See Figure 6)
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
< 60 m For Vac Truck Access
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
< 60 m For Vac Truck Access
Flocculent Treated JuteMatting Along Banks
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
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.
Sediment Trap 2A and 2B
Apetowun Creek Sediment Control Traps
5821-OB-SC-13Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:
Reference:
Figure
4No. DATE DESCRIPTION BY
REVISIONPERMITSTAMP
UTM83-1120100
Meters1:1000
10Site Plan
SectionA- Horizontal Scale 1:300
Vertical Scale 1:150
Z. SteeleD. CooperJ. BigelowDecember 20130 2013/12/10 Issued for Client Review JB
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
Permit to PracticeP5540
NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
2 2013/12/17 DCRevised Final
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
Typical Inlet Section(See Figure 6)
Typical Diversion Section(See Figure 6)
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
Flocculent Treated JuteMatting Along Banks
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
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.
Sediment Trap 3
Apetowun Creek Sediment Control Traps
5821-OB-SC-13Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:
Reference:
Figure
5No. DATE DESCRIPTION BY
REVISIONPERMITSTAMP
UTM83-1120100
Meters1:1000
10Site Plan
SectionA- Horizontal Scale 1:200
Vertical Scale 1:100
Z. SteeleD. CooperJ. BigelowDecember 20130 2013/12/10 Issued for Client Review JB
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
Permit to PracticeP5540
NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
2 2013/12/17 DCRevised Final
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
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.
Typical Details
Apetowun Creek Sediment Control Traps
5821-OB-SC-13Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:
Reference:
Figure
6No. DATE DESCRIPTION BY
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
Permit to PracticeP5540
NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
2 2013/12/17 DCRevised Final