Page 1

FINAL REPORT

HARDISTY CREEK FISH HABITAT AND FISH PASSAGE ASSESSMENTS AND CORRECTIVE DESIGNS

Submitted to: Foothills Model Forest Box 6330 Hinton, Alberta T7V 1X6

DISTRIBUTION: 9 Copies

Foothills Model Forest Hinton, Alberta

1 Copy

Golder Associates Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta

May 2004

03-1370-045


May 2004

-i-

03-1370-045

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In October 2003, Golder Associates was retained by Foothills Model Forest on behalf of the Hardisty Creek Restoration Project (HCRP) to undertake a fish passage and habitat restoration on Hardisty Creek, in and near Hinton, Alberta. The project included hydrological design criteria development, fish habitat and fish passage assessments, and development of remediation prescriptions for fish passage and fish habitat. The hydrological assessment reviewed several existing reports and derived the discharges shown in Table I to represent existing and future hydrologic conditions in the watershed.

Future

conditions are representative of the peak watershed disturbance that is currently anticipated to occur in 60 to 70 years. These projections are the best available at the time of report preparation, and the timelines should be treated as tentative. Table I – Flow Predictions for Hardisty Creek Parameter FMF Culvert ID Drainage Area Fish Passage Discharge

Weldwood Haul Road

Hardisty Avenue

Robb Road

C20241

C20243

C20250

36.6 km

2

1.64 m3/s

2

36 km

19 km2

1.62 m3/s

0.85 m3/s

Existing Conditions (<7.7% watershed disturbance) 100 Year Return Period Discharge

13.6 m3/s

11.8 m3/s

9.0 m3/s

25 Year Return Period Discharge

8.8 m3/s

7.8 m3/s

5.8 m3/s

2 Year Return Period Discharge

2.5 m3/s

2.3 m3/s

1.7 m3/s

Future Conditions (24% watershed disturbance) 100 Year Return Period Discharge

24.4 m3/s

21.1 m3/s

16.1 m3/s

25 Year Return Period Discharge

15.1 m3/s

13.4 m3/s

9.9 m3/s

2 Year Return Period Discharge

3.7 m3/s

3.4 m3/s

2.4 m3/s

Fisheries assessments at each crossing location and at the Kinsmen Park reach of Hardisty Creek were undertaken to support the fish passage and fish habitat analyses. The Kinsmen Park assessment revealed areas of bank instability, lack of in-stream hydraulic variability, channel over-widening, and floodplain constriction. Assessments near the Robb Road crossing provided

Golder Associates


May 2004

-ii-

03-1370-045

natural templates from a relatively undisturbed reach from which to develop corrective prescriptions for the Kinsmen Park reach.

The flow capacity and fish passage performance of the Robb Road, Hardisty Avenue and Weldwood Haul Road crossings of Hardisty Creek are summarized in Table II. None of the crossings currently provides adequate fish passage due to high flow velocities at the fish passage design discharge. Each crossing also currently has a perched outlet that may impede fish passage under lower flows. The Robb Road and Hardisty Avenue crossings will pass the design flood discharges with pond surcharges that do not overtop the roadway, but the existing Weldwood Haul Road culverts will overtop for discharges less than the design flood. Under predicted future hydrologic conditions, none of the three crossings will pass the design flood event. Table II â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Summary of Fish Passage and Capacity Assessment for Hardisty Creek Culverts Robb Road

Hardisty Avenue

Weldwood Haul Road

Design Flood Criteria

50-year Flood

100-year Flood

50-year Flood

Current Design Flood

7.4 m3/s

11.8 m3/s

10.9 m3/s

Flood Performance

Pass (2.1 m surcharge)

Pass (0.86 m surcharge)

Road will overtop

Future Design Flood

12.5 m3/s

21.1 m3/s

19.4 m3/s

Flood Performance

Road will overtop

Road will overtop

Road will overtop

Fish Passage Discharge Fish Passage Criterion Velocity Criterion Met At Fish Passage Criterion Met?

3

0.85 m /s

1.62 m /s

1.64 m3/s

1.0 m/s

1.0 m/s

1.0 m/s

3

3

3

3

0.05 m /s

0.30 m /s

0.38 m /s

No

No

No

Discussions with Weldwood and the Town of Hardisty led to the selection of the following alternatives for each crossing structure: â&#x20AC;˘

Robb Road C20250: Weldwood elected to proceed with design of a new culvert crossing at this location. The new culvert will be required to meet fish passage and flood capacity criteria as previously discussed. Fish passage remediation for the existing structure is not required;

Golder Associates


May 2004 â&#x20AC;˘

-iii-

03-1370-045

Hardisty Avenue C20243: The existing culverts will provide adequate flood passage capacity for the next 40 to 50 years, under the current harvest plan for the Hardisty Creek watershed. Culvert replacement will likely be required before that time, and at that time, the replacement structure will be designed to meet predicted future flood capacity criteria. Fish passage remediation for the existing culvert is required; and

â&#x20AC;˘

Weldwood Haul Road C20241: Weldwood elected to construct a bridge at this location. The new bridge will be designed to meet fish passage and flood capacity criteria as previously discussed. Fish passage remediation for the existing structure is not required.

Detailed design drawings for a replacement culvert to meet capacity and fish passage criteria at the Robb Road crossing of Hardisty Creek are provided in Appendix III. The design is based on a single, 3730 x 2290 mm SPCSP pipe arch culvert, 44.2 m long. This culvert will be depressed 0.3 m below the streambed and filled with substrate. Rock fish baffles will be installed to facilitate fish passage, due to the steep bed slope. The estimated cost of the replacement structure is $147,000, exclusive of detour costs. A fish passage remediation design for the Hardisty Avenue crossing of Hardisty Creek is provided with the Kinsmen Park fish habitat corrective prescriptions that are provided in Appendix IV. The total estimated construction cost for the Kinsmen Park reach is $44,100. This includes culvert backflooding for fish passage, and habitat enhancements including riffles, plantings, meanders, boulder clusters and floodplain expansion. Detailed design drawings for a replacement bridge to meet capacity and fish passage criteria at the Weldwood Haul Road crossing of Hardisty Creek are provided in Appendix V. The design is based on a two-lane precast concrete bridge on piles, with a 10.0 m deck width and a 6.0 m creek bed width. The estimated cost of the replacement structure is $158,000, exclusive of detour costs.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-iv-

03-1370-045

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 2. HARDISTY CREEK HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................3 2.1 Regional Hydrologic Analyses of Peak Streamflow ...........................................................3 2.2 Hardisty Creek Hydrology ..................................................................................................6 2.3 Fish Passage Design Discharges .......................................................................................10 2.4 Hydrology Conclusions.....................................................................................................11 3. FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENTS..........................................................................................12 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................12 3.2 Review of Available Information......................................................................................12 3.3 Crossing Surveys...............................................................................................................13 3.3.1 Robb Road Crossing ...............................................................................................14 3.3.2 Hardisty Avenue Crossing ......................................................................................15 3.3.3 Weldwood Haul Road Crossing..............................................................................16 3.4 Kinsmen Park Survey........................................................................................................17 3.5 Hardisty Creek Upstream of the Hardisty Avenue Crossing.............................................17 3.6 Hardisty Creek Between Hardisty Avenue and the Pedestrian Bridge..............................18 3.7 Hardisty Creek Between the Pedestrian Bridge and Switzer Drive ..................................19 3.8 Hardisty Creek Downstream of Switzer Drive..................................................................20 3.9 Moderately Disturbed Reach Surveys ...............................................................................21 3.9.1 Downstream of Robb Road.....................................................................................21 3.9.2 Upstream of Robb Road..........................................................................................22 4. EXISTING STREAM CROSSING PERFORMANCE...........................................................23 4.1 Culvert Capacity................................................................................................................23 4.1.1 Robb Road C20250.................................................................................................23 4.1.2 Hardisty Avenue C20243........................................................................................24 4.1.3 Weldwood Haul Road C20241 ...............................................................................26 4.2 Fish Passage ......................................................................................................................28 4.2.1 Robb Road C20250.................................................................................................30 4.2.2 Hardisty Avenue C20243........................................................................................30 4.2.3 Weldwood Haul Road C20241 ...............................................................................31 4.3 Summary and Recommendations ......................................................................................32 5. STREAM CROSSING REMEDIATION FOR FISH PASSAGE...........................................34 5.1 Remediation Requirements ...............................................................................................34 5.2 Remediation Alternatives ..................................................................................................34 5.3 Riffle Structure Design......................................................................................................36 5.4 Hardisty Avenue C20243 ..................................................................................................37 6. STREAM CROSSING REMEDIATION FOR CAPACITY ..................................................39 6.1 Robb Road C20250 ...........................................................................................................39 6.2 Hardisty Avenue C20243 ..................................................................................................39 6.3 Weldwood Haul Road C20241..........................................................................................40 N:\Active\7000\2003\031-370045 \Final Report\Draft Report -8Jan04.doc

Golder Associates


May 2004

-v-

03-1370-045

7. KINSMEN PARK STREAM REHABILITATION ................................................................42 7.1 Floodplain Reconstruction ................................................................................................42 7.1.1 Design .....................................................................................................................42 7.1.2 Construction............................................................................................................43 7.1.3 Budget.....................................................................................................................43 7.2 Riffle Structures ................................................................................................................45 7.2.1 Design .....................................................................................................................45 7.2.2 Construction............................................................................................................46 7.2.3 Budget.....................................................................................................................46 7.3 Meanders ...........................................................................................................................48 7.3.1 Design .....................................................................................................................48 7.3.2 Construction............................................................................................................49 7.3.3 Budget.....................................................................................................................49 7.4 Boulder Clusters ................................................................................................................52 7.4.1 Design .....................................................................................................................52 7.4.2 Construction............................................................................................................52 7.4.3 Budget.....................................................................................................................52 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................55 9. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................56

Golder Associates


May 2004

-vi-

03-1370-045

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I Responses to Questions Posed by Hardisty Creek Restoration Committee Members during Draft Report Review Appendix II Stream Habitat Classification System Appendix III Design Drawings for Robb Road Culvert Appendix IV Corrective Action Prescriptions for Kinsmen Park Reach Appendix V Design Drawings for Weldwood Haul Road Bridge

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Stream Gauging Data Considered in Regional Hydrologic Analyses ..............................4 Table 2 – Effective Disturbed Area in the Hardisty Creek Basin.....................................................7 Table 3 – Predicted Flood Discharges for Hardisty Creek at the Mouth..........................................7 Table 4 – Peak Flow Predictions for Hardisty Creek (7.7% Disturbance) .......................................9 Table 5 – Peak Flow Predictions for Hardisty Creek (24% Disturbance) ........................................9 Table 6 – Stage-Discharge Data for Robb Road Culvert ...............................................................24 Table 7 – Stage-Discharge Data for Hardisty Avenue Culverts.....................................................25 Table 8 – Stage-Discharge Data for Weldwood Haul Road Culverts ............................................27 Table 9 – Summary of Fish Passage and Capacity Assessment for Hardisty Creek Culverts..................................................................................................................33 Table 10 – Summary of Calculated Conditions at Hardisty Avenue Culverts ...............................38 Table 11 – Materials Cost Estimate for Floodplain Reconstruction...............................................43 Table 12 – Equipment Cost Estimate for Floodplain Reconstruction ............................................44 Table 13 – Material Cost Estimate for First Downstream Riffle Construction ..............................47 Table 14 – Equipment Cost Estimate for First Downstream Riffle Construction ..........................47 Table 15 – Material Cost Estimate for Lower Riffle Construction ................................................47 Table 16 – Equipment Cost Estimate for Lower Riffle Construction ............................................47 Table 17 – Material Estimate for Meander Construction ...............................................................50 Table 18 – Equipment Cost Estimate for Meander Construction...................................................50 Table 19 – Material Cost Estimate for Boulder Cluster Construction............................................52 Table 20 – Equipment Cost Estimate for Boulder Cluster Construction........................................53 Table 21 – Material and Equipment Cost Estimate for Kinsmen Park Reach................................54

Golder Associates


May 2004

-vii-

03-1370-045

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Hardisty Creek Watershed ..............................................................................................2 Figure 2 – Comparison of Single-Variate and Multi-Variate Model Performance ..........................6 Figure 3 – Comparison of Hydrologic Model Flood Predictions for Hardisty Creek ......................8 Figure 4 – Mean Monthly Unit Flow Estimates for Hardisty Creek ..............................................10 Figure 5 – Outlet of Robb Road Culvert ........................................................................................14 Figure 6 – Outlet of Hardisty Avenue Culverts..............................................................................15 Figure 7 – Outlet of Weldwood Haul Road Culverts .....................................................................16 Figure 8 - Hardisty Creek Upstream of the Hardisty Avenue Crossing .........................................18 Figure 9 – Hardisty Creek Between Hardisty Avenue and the Pedestrian Bridge .........................19 Figure 10 – Left Downstream Bank of Hardisty Creek Between the Pedestrian Bridge and Switzer Drive.........................................................................................................20 Figure 11 – Right Downstream Bank of Hardisty Creek Between the Pedestrian Bridge and Switzer Drive ..................................................................................................20 Figure 12 – Hardisty Creek Downstream of Switzer Drive Crossing ............................................21 Figure 13 – Hardisty Creek Downstream of Robb Road................................................................22 Figure 14 – Hardisty Creek Upstream of Robb Road ....................................................................22 Figure 15 – Inlet of Hardisty Creek Culvert at Robb Road............................................................23 Figure 16 – Inlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Hardisty Avenue................................................25 Figure 17 – Inlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Weldwood Haul Road .......................................27 Figure 18 – Outlet of Hardisty Creek Culvert at Robb Road .........................................................30 Figure 19 – Outlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Hardisty Avenue .............................................31 Figure 20 – Outlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Weldwood Haul Road ....................................32 Figure 21 – Triangular-Shaped Riffle Cross-Section used for analysis at Hardisty Avenue .........36 Figure 22 – Stage-Velocity-Discharge Rating Curve for Riffle Structure .....................................37 Figure 23 – Recommended Downstream Riffle Remediation at Hardisty Avenue Culverts .........37 Figure 24 – Typical Bank and Floodplain Reconstruction using Rock Keys, Geotextile and Soil Layers, and Live Vegetative Stock..........................................................44 Figure 25 – Typical Bank and Floodplain Reconstruction Following Five Years of Growth ...................................................................................................................45 Figure 26 – Typical Stream Channel Before Riffle Construction ..................................................48 Figure 27 – Typical Stream Channel after Riffle Construction; Note Addition of Pool and Cascade Habitats....................................................................................................48 Figure 28 – Typical Restoration Prescription for Outer Bank of Meander; Note Use of LWD and Boulders for Erosion Protection ...........................................................51 Figure 29 – Typical Restoration Prescription for Point Bar; Note Use of LWD and Boulders to Provide Fish Habitat at Higher Flows ................................................51 Figure 30 – Typical Stream Channel Lacking Boulder Cluster Habitat.........................................53 Figure 31 – Typical Stream Channel Following Installation of Boulder Clusters .........................54

Golder Associates


May 2004

1.

-1-

03-1370-045

INTRODUCTION

The Hardisty Creek watershed is shown in Figure 1. The creek has a watershed area of 37 km2 and falls from an elevation of 1650 m to 950 m as it flows approximately 16.5 km from its headwaters on High Divide Ridge to its confluence with the Athabasca River at Hinton. Its upper watershed is currently largely undisturbed. However, stream crossings and land development appear to have adversely affected fish habitat and fish passage in the lower watershed, and planned forestry activities are predicted to cause hydrologic changes in the future. The Hardisty Creek Restoration Project (HCRP) is a multi-stakeholder initiative with a mandate to restore the fish, wildlife, vegetation and overall health of the Hardisty Creek watershed. The HCRP comprises the Athabasca Bioregional Society, Foothills Model Forest, Town of Hinton, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Alberta Transportation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Hinton Fish and Game Association, Weldwood of Canada Ltd. and the public. Other stakeholders, such as Canadian National Railway, are also pursuing initiatives to improve the quality of the Hardisty Creek watershed. In October 2003, the Foothills Model Forest (FMF) retained Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to conduct fish habitat and fish passage assessments at the Robb Road, Hardisty Avenue and Weldwood Haul Road crossings of Hardisty Creek, and to develop corrective action designs for fish passage at these crossings and for fish habitat in the Kinsmen Park reach of the creek. Section 2 of this report provides a review of Hardisty Creek hydrology, Section 3 provides a fish habitat assessment of the Kinsmen Park reach, and Section 4 provides an assessment of the fish passage potential and flood capacity of the three road crossings. Section 5 provides remediation designs for fish passage and Section 6 provides remediation designs for stream crossing capacity. Section 7 of the report contains corrective action designs for the Kinsmen Park reach of Hardisty Creek, and Section 9 provides a summary of conclusions and recommendations arising from this project.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-2-

03-1370-045

Weldwood Haul Road C20241

Hardisty Avenue C20243

Robb Road C20250

Figure 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hardisty Creek Watershed

Golder Associates


May 2004

-3-

2.

HARDISTY CREEK HYDROLOGY

2.1

Regional Hydrologic Analyses of Peak Streamflow

03-1370-045

Peak flow characteristics for a stream are affected by a variety of factors including topography, drainage area, aspect, disturbance, road development, vegetation cover, soils, geology, and climate.

However, due to limited data sets, hydrology for ungauged streams is frequently

estimated based on single variate regional analyses that relate flood magnitude to watershed drainage area. Alberta Environment (AENV 1992) prepared flood frequency estimates for Hardisty Creek that were used for floodplain delineation within the Town of Hinton (NHCL 1994). Flood frequency estimates were determined from regional streamflow data. Their analysis used the 7 nearby Environment Canada stream gauging stations listed in Table 1. Many other nearby stations were eliminated from the analysis because of short periods of record or flood peaks that appeared to be significantly influenced by routing. Flood data that differed from the regional data, including those from Whiskeyjack Creek (a tributary of Hardisty Creek) and Cache Percotte Creek (a watershed adjacent to Hardisty Creek) were also eliminated from the analysis. Pearson Type III flood frequency magnitudes were used to derive regional relationships between discharge and drainage area. Hydroconsult (1997) prepared regional flood curves for operational use in the Foothills Model Forest. Their analysis considered many of the same stations included in the previous analysis. Three stations were added due to the availability of five more years of data increasing their periods of record to that suitable for analysis. Two stations omitted by the previous analysis due to routing influences were also included. The Cardinal River, which is located just south in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, was included because of similar characteristics, and stations on the Pembina River and Wolf Creek were excluded because of dissimilar watershed characteristics. Once again, data from Whiskeyjack and Cache Percotte Creeks were omitted from the analysis, based on dissimilarity with regional data. Stream gauging data considered in both of the single variate regional hydrologic analyses, as well as the subsequent multivariate analysis by Golder (2002) are shown in Table 1.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-4-

03-1370-045

Table 1 – Stream Gauging Data Considered in Regional Hydrologic Analyses Station 07AC001

Stream Name and Location Wildhay River near Hinton

Drainage Area

Period of e Record

AENV (1992)

Hydroconsult (1997)

Golder (2002)

959 km2

1965 – date

(b)

YESd

-

2

1965 – 1977

(a)

(c)

YES

07AD003

Cache Percotte Creek near Hinton

7.15 km

07AD004

Whiskeyjack Creek near Hinton

3.13 km2

1965 – 1993

(c)

(c)

YES

2

1955 – date

YES

YES

YES

07AF002

McLeod River above Embarras River

2560 km

07AF003

Wampus Creek near Hinton

25.4 km2

1967 – date

YES

YES

YES

2

1967 – 1990

YES

YES

YES

2

1968 – 1991

YES

YES

YES

2

1973 – date

(b)

YES

d

YES

2

1984 – date

(a)

YES

YES

07AF004

Deerlick Creek near Hinton

14.0 km

07AF005

Eunice Creek near Hinton

17.1 km

07AF010

Sundance Creek near Bickerdike

174 km

07AF013

McLeod River near Cadomin

331 km

07AF014

Embarras River near Weald

647 km2

1984 – date

(a)

YES

YES

07AF015

Gregg River near the Mouth

364 km

2

1985 – date

(a)

YES

YES

07AF016

Erith River below Hanlan Creek

595 km2

1991 – 1995

(a)

-

-

Wolf Creek at Highway No. 16A

2

1955 – date

YES

-

-

07AG003

829 km

2

07BA001

Pembina River below Paddy Creek

2900 km

1956 – 1993

YES

-

-

07BA003

Lovett River near the Mouth

101 km2

1975 – date

YES

YES

YES

2

1962 – 1989

-

YES

YES

05DD008

Cardinal River near the Mouth

495 km

(a) Removed from analysis due to short period of record. (b) Removed from analysis due to influence of routing on flood peak. (c) Removed from analysis due to significant difference from other regional data. (d) Retained in analysis with note that peak flows fall below the regional curve. (e) Some streams with very short periods of record are not listed.

Golder (2002) developed a model to predict the magnitude of the 2-year, 25-year and 100-year floods for watersheds within the Weldwood Forest Management Agreement (FMA) area. The model was based on a standard multivariate regression analysis using the available watershed information: • • • • • • •

drainage area; average basin elevation; maximum basin elevation; average basin slope; aspect; disturbance (i.e. clearcut portion of the watershed); and road density (i.e. total length of road per unit area).

Golder Associates


May 2004

-5-

03-1370-045

This analysis used a data set similar to that used by Hydroconsult (1997). Data from the Wildhay River were omitted due to routing concerns, as noted by AENV (1992), and data from Whiskeyjack and Cache Percotte Creeks were included in the analysis. A forward stepwise regression technique was used to identify the following significant parameters: drainage area, average watershed elevation, disturbance and road density. The following assumptions were used to derive the peak flow model: â&#x20AC;˘

Zero disturbance in areas with no Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) data;

â&#x20AC;˘

The period of disturbance in each watershed coincides with the stream gauging period of record; and

â&#x20AC;˘

Zero climate change over the history of record for the hydrologic data.

The model is valid for watersheds within the Weldwood FMA, disturbances less than 40% and road densities less than 1.2 km/km2. The multivariate peak flow model is recommended for small (A<500 km2), ungauged and disturbed watersheds. The model shows that peak discharges are higher for watersheds with greater area, elevation, disturbance and road density. Peak flows for highly-disturbed watersheds can be up to 4 times greater than for undisturbed watershed conditions. The multivariate model matches calibration data much better than a single-variate model, as shown in Figure 2. The input added to the multivariate analysis (elevation, disturbance and road density) appears to account for much of the variability in the measured data. The results of the multivariate model are qualitatively consistent with those presented by Scherer and Pike (2003), which examined the effects of forest harvest on the magnitude of low flows, annual water yields and peak flows and the timing of peak flows. This comparison of results should not be interpreted as a criticism of the Hydroconsult (1997) or AENV (1992) analyses. These were developed based on more limited data, were intended for application over a broad geographic range, and were appropriately conservative in their conclusions. Hydroconsult (1997) recommends that factors such as watershed slope, vegetation and storage be considered when specifying design discharges based on their design curves.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-6-

03-1370-045

20 18

25 Year Flood Discharge (m3/s)

16

Eunice Creek

14

Deerlick Creek

12

Wampus Creek

10

Cache Percotte Creek

8

Whiskeyjack Creek

6 4 Derived from Gauged Data Predicted by Hydroconsult Single-Variate Analysis Predicted by Golder Multi-variate Model

2 0 0

5

10

15 Drainage Area (km2)

20

25

30

Figure 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Comparison of Single-Variate and Multi-Variate Model Performance 2.2

Hardisty Creek Hydrology

Given that watershed elevation, disturbance and road density appear to be important variables affecting discharges in regional streams, an analysis of Hardisty Creek hydrology must take these into account.

The watershed elevation will be constant with time.

Based on Weldwood

operational plans for their FMA above Hinton, watershed disturbance is expected to increase over the next several decades as presented in Table 2. Road densities within the watershed are expected to remain relatively constant with time, at 0.5 km/km2 above Hardisty Avenue and 0.6 km/km2 above the Weldwood haul road.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-7-

03-1370-045

Table 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Effective Disturbed Area in the Hardisty Creek Basin Years Projected Beyond 2002

Effective Disturbed Area (% of total area)

0 to 10 Years

1.5%

10 to 20 Years

1.4%

20 to 30 Years

7.7%

30 to 40 Years

7.4%

40 to 50 Years

6.1%

50 to 60 Years

18%

60 to 70 Years

24%

a

(a) These projections are the best available at the time of report preparation. These timelines for forestry development in the Hardisty Creek watershed could change and should be treated as tentative.

Flood discharges were estimated for Hardisty Creek at the mouth using the Golder (2002) multivariate model. Model results for the 7.7% disturbance and 24% disturbance scenarios, as well as those predicted by the AENV (1992) and Hydroconsult (1997) models are presented in Table 3 and Figure 3. Table 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Predicted Flood Discharges for Hardisty Creek at the Mouth Return Period

Single-Variate Models

Golder (2002) Multi-Variate Model

AENV (1992)

Hydroconsult (1997)

7.7% Disturbance

24% Disturbance

2 Years

4.6 m3/s

5.1 m3/s

2.5 m3/s

3.7 m3/s

5 Years

10.5 m3/s

-

-

-

10 Years

15.5 m3/s

15.7 m3/s

-

-

20 Years

20.7 m3/s

22.0 m3/s

-

-

25 Years

-

-

8.8 m3/s

15.1 m3/s

50 Years

27.8 m3/s

31.8 m3/s

-

-

100 Years

33.2 m3/s

41.5 m3/s

13.6 m3/s

24.4 m3/s

Golder Associates


May 2004

-8-

03-1370-045

45

AENV (1992) Hydroconsult (1997) Golder (2002) 24% Disturbed Watershed Golder (2002) 7.7% Disturbed Watershed

Annual Maximum Instantaneous Discharge (m3/s)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 1

10

100

Return Period (years)

Figure 3 – Comparison of Hydrologic Model Flood Predictions for Hardisty Creek The model results for Hardisty Creek show that flood discharges predicted by the multi-variate model are significantly lower than those predicted by the single-variate models by AENV (1992) and Hydroconsult (1997). However: •

These results are consistent with the observations of AENV (1992) and Hydroconsult (1997) that data for Whiskeyjack Creek, a tributary that comprises 9% of Hardisty Creek’s drainage area, and Cache Percotte Creek, which is located immediately adjacent to the Hardisty Creek watershed, plot consistently below curves generated based on regional data.

The “small watershed” regional data (stream gauging stations with

drainage areas less than 100 km2) are based on data from Deerlick, Eunice and Wampus Creeks, which have watershed disturbances of 37%, 16% and 32%, respectively. These disturbances undoubtedly have a significant effect on peak flows from these watersheds, which anchor the bottom end of the regional curves. Whiskeyjack and Cache Percotte Creeks had minimal disturbance over their stream gauging periods of record. •

The model results are consistent with anecdotal observations of flood discharges on Hardisty Creek (Wallace 2003) that indicate ponding has been observed upstream of the Robb Road culvert at a frequency of approximately one year in eight. The multi-variate Golder Associates


May 2004

-9-

03-1370-045

model predicts a 10-year flood discharge of 4 m3/s, and a 2-year flood discharge of 1.7 m3/s, at Robb Road. These compare to values of 9.4 m3/s and 3.0 m3/s, respectively, generated by the Hydroconsult (1997) single-variate model.

Hydraulic calculations

indicate that the Robb Road culvert will begin to flow full at a discharge of approximately 3.4 m3/s (slightly less than the 10-year flood), so the lower estimates are in agreement with the multi-variate model. Flood discharge estimates for the three crossings of interest on Hardisty Creek are provided in Table 4 (7.7% disturbance scenario) and Table 5 (24% disturbance scenario). Table 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peak Flow Predictions for Hardisty Creek (7.7% Disturbance) Parameter FMF Culvert ID Drainage Area Effective Disturbance Road Density

Weldwood Haul Road

Hardisty Avenue

Robb Road

C20241

C20243

C20250

36.6 km

2

2

19 km2

36 km

7.7%

7.7% 2

7.7% 2

0.5 km/km2

0.6 km/km

0.5 km/km

1219 m

1219 m

1371 m

100 Year Return Period Discharge

13.6 m3/s

11.8 m3/s

9.0 m3/s

25 Year Return Period Discharge

8.8 m3/s

7.8 m3/s

5.8 m3/s

2 Year Return Period Discharge

2.5 m3/s

2.3 m3/s

1.7 m3/s

Average Elevation

Table 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peak Flow Predictions for Hardisty Creek (24% Disturbance) Weldwood Haul Road

Hardisty Avenue

Robb Road

FMF Culvert ID

C20241

C20243

C20250

Drainage Area

36.6 km2

36 km2

19 km2

Parameter

Effective Disturbance Road Density

24 %

24% 2

24% 2

0.5 km/km2

0.6 km/km

0.5 km/km

1219 m

1219 m

1371 m

100 Year Return Period Discharge

24.4 m3/s

21.1 m3/s

16.1 m3/s

25 Year Return Period Discharge

15.1 m3/s

13.4 m3/s

9.9 m3/s

2 Year Return Period Discharge

3.7 m3/s

3.4 m3/s

2.4 m3/s

Average Elevation

Golder Associates


May 2004

2.3

-10-

03-1370-045

Fish Passage Design Discharges

The regional analysis presented by Hydroconsult (1997) was used to estimate regional mean monthly unit discharges, as well as low and high monthly unit discharges with a ten year return period. These are presented in Figure 4. As discussed in Section 2.2, this analysis tends to overpredict high discharges and therefore is conservative. However, mean monthly discharges are of longer duration than floods discharges and are expected to be less sensitive to the effects of disturbance.

Therefore, use of this regional analysis is somewhat conservative for existing

conditions, and less so for predicted future conditions.

0.050 Average Flows in Region 0.045 1:10 Year Low Mean Monthly Flow 1:10 Year High

2

Monthly Unit Discharge (m /s/km )

0.040

3

0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005

em be

r

r D ec

er ob ct

em be N ov

r O

pt

em

be

st Se

Au

gu

ly Ju

ne Ju

M ay

r il Ap

ch M ar

br ua Fe

Ja

nu

ar

y

ry

0.000

Figure 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Mean Monthly Unit Flow Estimates for Hardisty Creek May and June typically have the highest mean discharge, ranging from 0.18 m3/s/km2 to 0.19 m3/s/km2. The highest monthly discharge with a ten year return period is 0.44 m3/s/km2 and occurs in June. In other words, the mean discharge during the month of June has a 10% chance of being greater than 0.44 m3/s/km2 in any given year. The one-in-ten year June event was selected as the high flow design event for fish passage. Fish passage design discharges for the

Golder Associates


May 2004

-11-

03-1370-045

Robb Road, Hardisty Avenue and Weldwood Haul Road crossings are 1.64 m3/s, 1.62 m3/s and 0.85 m3/s, respectively. 2.4

Hydrology Conclusions

A review of regional hydrology indicates that flood design discharges for Hardisty Creek are currently significantly lower than those recommended by previous studies. However, planned changes to the upper watershed may cause flood discharges to increase by up to 80%. This must be considered in the selection of design discharges for any stream crossing or habitat structures on Hardisty Creek. Fish passage design discharges were selected based on the conservative analysis previously undertaken by Hydroconsult (1997).

Golder Associates


May 2004

-12-

3.

FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENTS

3.1

Introduction

03-1370-045

Fish habitat assessments were conducted for each of the three stream crossings (Robb Road, Hardisty Avenue and the Weldwood Haul Road), for the reach of Hardisty Creek within Kinsmen Park, for a moderately disturbed reach of Hardisty Creek upstream and downstream of the Robb Road crossing. Assessments of the crossings were completed to provide fisheries information to assist with the development of fish passage remediation options. The Kinsmen Park assessment was completed to determine existing habitat conditions and to provide information required to develop restoration prescriptions. Assessments of the reaches upstream and downstream of the Robb Road crossing were completed to determine suitable channel geometry and potential analogous template habitat features that could be â&#x20AC;&#x153;scaled-upâ&#x20AC;? to be applicable within the Kinsmen Park reach. The overall objective of the fish habitat assessments was to support the development of detailed plans to guide the implementation of restoration and remediation activities at a number of sites within the Hardisty Creek watershed. When completed, these restored and remediated sites will demonstrate practical and proven restoration techniques addressing the range of riparian and fish habitat impacts within the study area.

These sites will also serve to provide educational

opportunities to both public and professional groups. 3.2

Review of Available Information

Prior to conducting any field investigations, existing information on the channel and habitat characteristics of Hardisty Creek was reviewed. Available aerial photography was reviewed for the Hardisty Creek watershed for years ranging from 1948 to 1980. Photos were assessed to determine historical channel geometry (including sinuosity, width, etc.), areas of visible erosion and deposition, extent of floodplain and riparian vegetation, and overall changes to the watershed condition. This assessment indicated that the

Golder Associates


May 2004

-13-

03-1370-045

channel condition in the middle and upper reaches of the watershed has generally maintained its historic form and function. The lower reaches, which have been altered by urban (Town of Hinton) and industrial (Weldwood) development, exhibit substantial changes. This includes the loss of channel length (reduced sinuosity), increasing incidence of erosion and in-channel deposition, and loss of surrounding vegetation. In addition, the number of stream crossings has increased from seven between the Robb Road crossing in 1948 to 11 (including utility rights-ofway) in 1980. Soil, biophysical, NTS, Land Use Districts (Town of Hinton) and Kinsmen Park redevelopment maps were also reviewed for historical information. Generally, these maps confirm the conditions identified in the air photo assessment. Previous studies were reviewed to determine additional aquatic habitat and fisheries inventory information. These included studies conducted by Rich McCleary (Biologist, Fish and Watershed Research Program, Foothills Model Forest) to assess fish species presence and age class distribution within the Kinsmen Park reach of Hardisty Creek in the fall of 2002. During this study, 35 rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and one brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were captured. The rainbow trout ranged in length from 32 mm to 183 mm. These fish likely represent young-of-the-year and juvenile (one, two and three year old) fish. The brook trout was a juvenile (147 mm in length) specimen. This information was used in the determination of fish passage designs for the crossings and to guide the development of restoration prescriptions. Anecdotal historical information for the Hardisty Creek watershed and surrounding area was provided by Carl Hunt (Regional Fisheries Biologist, Fish and Wildlife, Alberta Environment), Gabrielle Kosmider (Fish Habitat Biologist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans), Yvonne Carignan (Habitat Protection Engineer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and James Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Neil (Senior Fisheries Biologist, Golder Associates). 3.3

Crossing Surveys

Habitat surveys were conducted on October 24 and November 1, 2003, immediately upstream and downstream of the three culvert crossings addressed in the fish passage hydraulic assessment.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-14-

03-1370-045

These included Robb Road, Hardisty Avenue and the Weldwood Haul Road. Detailed assessments of culvert capacity and fish passage are presented in Sections 4 of this report. 3.3.1

Robb Road Crossing

The Robb Road crossing has a single culvert, as shown in Figure 5. The Robb Road culvert inlet is at grade with the channel bed and substrate upstream of the crossing is mostly gravel with some cobble. Fines and boulders are limited.

Figure 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outlet of Robb Road Culvert The culvert outlet is perched 10 cm above a 30 m2 pool. The maximum pool depth was measured as 0.4 m deep and provides resting and limited cover habitat for fish. The substrate downstream of the culvert is predominantly cobble with some gravel and boulder. Fines are limited. The culvert has a diameter of 1.5 m, length of 32 m, and slope of 2.2%. The uniform nature of this culvert does not provide any resting areas along its length and velocities (especially at higher flows) limit the migration of resident fish. Riparian and floodplain condition immediately adjacent to the crossing is disturbed by maintenance of the road and sideslopes. Vegetation is limited to alder, willow, red osier dogwood and non-woody grass species.

Golder Associates


May 2004

3.3.2

-15-

03-1370-045

Hardisty Avenue Crossing

The Hardisty Avenue crossing has two culverts, as shown in Figure 6. The smaller culvert inlet is approximately 0.4 m higher than the larger culvert, does not provide fish habitat and will not be discussed in this Section. The inlet of the lower culvert is at or just below grade with the channel bed and substrate upstream of the crossing is mostly cobble with some gravel and boulder. Fines are limited.

Figure 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outlet of Hardisty Avenue Culverts The culvert outlet is perched 9 cm above a 100 m2 pool. The maximum pool depth was measured as 0.6 m deep and provides resting and limited cover habitat for fish. The substrate downstream of the culvert is predominantly cobble with some gravel and boulder. Fines are limited. The culvert is a pipe-arch (2440 x 1750 mm) with a length of 40.55 m, and slope of 2.2%. The uniform nature of this culvert does not provide any resting areas along its length and velocities (especially at higher flows) limit the migration of resident fish. Riparian and floodplain condition immediately adjacent to the crossing is disturbed by maintenance of the road and sideslopes. Vegetation is limited to alder, willow and non-woody grass species.

Golder Associates


May 2004

3.3.3

-16-

03-1370-045

Weldwood Haul Road Crossing

The Weldwood Haul Road crossing has two culverts, as shown in Figure 7. The smaller culvert is approximately 0.3 m higher than the larger culvert, does not provide fish habitat and will not be discussed in this Section. The inlet of the lower culvert is at or just below grade with the channel bed and substrate upstream of the crossing is mostly cobble. Gravel, boulder and fines are limited.

Figure 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outlet of Weldwood Haul Road Culverts The culvert outlet is perched 22 cm above a 10 m2 pool. The maximum pool depth was measured as 0.2 m deep and provides limited resting and cover habitat for fish. The substrate downstream of the culvert is predominantly cobble and boulder with some gravel. Fines are limited. The culvert itself is a 1.8 m CSP with a length of 18.1 m, and slope of 2.3%. The uniform nature of this culvert does not provide any resting areas along its length and velocities (especially at higher flows) limit the migration of resident fish. Several reaches (greater than 20 m) up and downstream of the culvert were observed to be dry with all flow being subsurface and limiting fish migration to and from the culvert. Riparian and floodplain condition immediately adjacent to Golder Associates


May 2004

-17-

03-1370-045

the crossing is disturbed by maintenance of the road and sideslopes. Vegetation is limited to nonwoody grass species. 3.4

Kinsmen Park Survey

Habitat mapping and evaluation was conducted for Hardisty Creek within Kinsmen Park between the Hardisty Avenue and the Switzer Drive crossings. The fish habitat assessment extended 100 m upstream and downstream of the crossings. Fish habitat mapping, based on the Habitat Classification System (O’Neil and Hildebrand 1986), included delineation of habitat types, substrate characteristics and general water width and depth. This system divides habitats into five primary meso-habitat types and assigns three quality classes to Run, Pool, and Flat habitat with Class 1 being the highest (Appendix II). In addition to habitat features, the following criteria were also considered:

3.5

Overall channel restoration options;

Specific fish habitat restoration options;

Specific stream bank and floodplain vegetation restoration options;

Perennial surface flow restoration options;

Opportunities for public involvement in restoration activities;

Watershed aesthetics; and

Flow conveyance requirements. Hardisty Creek Upstream of the Hardisty Avenue Crossing

Within this reach, shown in Figure 8, the channel was predominantly riffle with several midchannel gravel bars. The channel is heavily incised and banks are considered stable. Numerous undercut banks were observed and several accumulations of large woody debris (LWD) were noted. The low water channel width varied from 5 m to 10 m and the water depth was less than 0.2 m. Generally, the channel increased in width and decreased in depth from up to downstream. Substrate consisted of cobble (60%), gravel (25%), boulder (10%) and fines (5%). Riparian

Golder Associates


May 2004

-18-

03-1370-045

vegetation consisted of red osier dogwood, balsam poplar, balsam fir and willow species. Several wildlife snags were observed along the left downstream bank.

Figure 8 - Hardisty Creek Upstream of the Hardisty Avenue Crossing

3.6

Hardisty Creek Between Hardisty Avenue and the Pedestrian Bridge

Within this reach, shown in Figure 9, the channel was predominantly riffle with several midchannel gravel bars. One large pool was observed immediately downstream of the culvert outlet (refer to Section 3.3.2) and several very small pools were observed throughout the reach. The channel is heavily incised and banks are considered stable except for the sub-reach extending 30 m downstream from the culvert outlet. No undercut banks or accumulations of LWD were noted. The low water channel width varied from 5 m to 15 m and the water depth was less than 0.2 m (except for the large pool which had a maximum depth of 0.6 m). Generally, the channel decreased in width and depth from up to downstream. Substrate consisted of cobble (40%), gravel (35%), boulder (20%) and fines (5%). Riparian vegetation consisted of red osier dogwood, balsam poplar, balsam fir, black spruce and willow species.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-19-

03-1370-045

Figure 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hardisty Creek Between Hardisty Avenue and the Pedestrian Bridge

3.7

Hardisty Creek Between the Pedestrian Bridge and Switzer Drive

Within this reach, shown in Figures 10 and 11, the channel was predominantly riffle with several mid-channel gravel bars. Several (very) small pools were observed throughout the reach. The channel is moderately incised and banks are considered stable. Gabions line the right downstream bank along this entire reach and the left downstream bank along the lower two-thirds of this reach. Several undercut banks were observed beneath the gabions and no accumulations of LWD were noted. The low water channel width varied from 10 m to 3 m and the water depth was less than 0.2 m. Generally, the channel width and water depth decreased from up to downstream. Substrate consisted of gravel (50%), cobble (40%), boulder (5%) and fines (5%). Riparian vegetation consisted of red osier dogwood, balsam poplar, balsam fir, black spruce and willow species.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-20-

03-1370-045

Figure 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Left Downstream Bank of Hardisty Creek Between the Pedestrian Bridge and Switzer Drive

Figure 11 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Right Downstream Bank of Hardisty Creek Between the Pedestrian Bridge and Switzer Drive 3.8

Hardisty Creek Downstream of Switzer Drive

Within this reach, shown in Figure 12, the channel was predominantly riffle with several midchannel gravel bars. Several small pools were observed throughout the reach. The channel is moderately incised and banks are considered stable. Large concrete spoil was previously placed on both the right and left downstream banks along this reach.

No undercut banks or

accumulations of LWD were noted. The low water channel width varied from 4 to 6 m and the water depth was less than 0.3 m. Generally, the channel width decreased from up to downstream. Substrate consisted of gravel (65%), cobble (25%), boulder (5%) and fines (5%). Riparian vegetation consisted of red osier dogwood, balsam poplar, alder and willow species.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-21-

03-1370-045

Figure 12 – Hardisty Creek Downstream of Switzer Drive Crossing

3.9

Moderately Disturbed Reach Surveys

Assessments of the reaches up and downstream of the Robb Road crossing were completed to determine suitable channel geometry and potential analogous template habitat features that could be “scaled-up” to be applicable within the Kinsmen Park reach. These reaches are considered to be moderately disturbed. 3.9.1

Downstream of Robb Road

The reach downstream of Robb Road, shown in Figure 13, was historically selectively logged with minimal disturbance to the stream channel or riparian and floodplain areas. Numerous examples of LWD accumulations and boulder clusters were noted throughout this reach to create a sinuous channel plan-form and a natural riffle-pool sequence along the channel profile.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-22-

03-1370-045

Figure 13 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hardisty Creek Downstream of Robb Road 3.9.2

Upstream of Robb Road

The reach upstream of Robb Road, shown in Figure 14, is bisected by a utility corridor right-ofway with moderate disturbance to the riparian and floodplain vegetation and minimal disturbance to the stream channel. Numerous examples of natural riffle structures were noted throughout this reach to create a sinuous channel plan-form and a riffle-pool sequence along the channel profile

Figure 14 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hardisty Creek Upstream of Robb Road

Golder Associates


May 2004

-23-

4.

EXISTING STREAM CROSSING PERFORMANCE

4.1

Culvert Capacity

4.1.1

Robb Road C20250

03-1370-045

The Robb Road crossing, the inlet of which is shown in Figure 15, currently consists of a 1.5 m diameter round CSP culvert. It is 32 m long and has a downstream slope of 2.2%. The culvert appears to be in good condition, with only minor damage to the inlet section.

Figure 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Inlet of Hardisty Creek Culvert at Robb Road The capacity of this culvert is governed by inlet conditions. Anecdotal evidence (Wallace 2003) indicates that ponding currently occurs approximately one year in eight. Stage-discharge data for the culvert are presented in Table 6. The culvert capacity analysis indicates that the existing structure will pass the current 25-year flood with a surcharge of 0.9 m and the current 50-year flood with a surcharge of 2.1 m above the crown of the culvert inlet. This analysis does not consider routing effects due to storage, which could be significant for this crossing, as the road

Golder Associates


May 2004

-24-

03-1370-045

crest at the culvert is 6.2 m above the upstream culvert invert and there is a broad floodplain area upstream. Table 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Stage-Discharge Data for Robb Road Culvert Parameter

2 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance) 2 Year Flood (24% Disturbance) 25 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance) 25 Year Flood (24% Disturbance) 50 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance)

Discharge

Pond Elevation Above Inlet Invert

0.5 m3/s

0.57 m

1.0 m3/s

0.83 m

3

1.11 m

3

1.35 m

3

2.43 m

3

6.3 m

3

3.6 m

1.7 m /s 2.4 m /s 5.8 m /s 9.9 m /s 7.4 m /s 3

50 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

12.5 m /s

>10 m

100 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance)

9.0 m3/s

5.1 m

100 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

3

16.1 m /s

>13 m

Future runoff conditions in the Hardisty Creek watershed are expected to cause higher flood discharges than currently exist. Under these conditions, this culvert is not expected to pass floods of 25 year return period or greater, without significant surcharging and potential overtopping of the road. Drift accumulation would increase the risk of blockage and overtopping. 4.1.2

Hardisty Avenue C20243

The Hardisty Avenue crossing, the inlets of which are shown in Figure 16, currently consists of a 1200 mm diameter round CSP culvert and a 2440 x 1750 mm pipe-arch culvert. They are 40.55 m long and have downstream slopes of 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. The upstream invert of the smaller culvert is 0.4 m higher than the upstream invert of the pipe-arch. The culverts appear to be in good condition, apart from deformations to the inlet and outlet sections. Stage-discharge data for the culverts are presented in Table 7.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-25-

03-1370-045

Figure 16 – Inlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Hardisty Avenue Table 7 – Stage-Discharge Data for Hardisty Avenue Culverts Parameter

Discharge

Pond Elevation a Above Inlet Invert

0.5 m3/s

0.26 m

3

0.40 m

3

0.80 m

3

1.00 m

3

1.69 m

1.0 m /s 2 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance) 2 Year Flood (24% Disturbance) 25 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance) 25 Year Flood (24% Disturbance) 50 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance) 50 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

2.3 m /s 3.4 m /s 7.8 m /s 3

13.4 m /s 3

9.7 m /s

3.00 m 2.05 m

3

3.88 m

3

17.0 m /s

100 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance)

11.8 m /s

2.61 m

100 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

21.1 m3/s

5.36 m

(a) Elevation above invert of pipe-arch culvert.

The capacities of these culverts are governed by inlet conditions. Anecdotal evidence indicates that overtopping of the roadway occurred in the early 1980’s. A review of flood data for

Golder Associates


May 2004

-26-

03-1370-045

Whiskeyjack Creek, a Hardisty Creek tributary, indicate that its flood of record occurred in 1980, though no data are available for 1982 or 1983. On regional streams (Wampus, Deerlick and Eunice Creeks and the Lovett River), the June 1980 event was approximately equal to the 70-year flood. The observed overtopping occurred during drift accumulation at the culvert inlets. The culvert capacity analysis indicates that the existing structures will pass the current 25-year, 50-year and 100-year floods with zero, 0.30 m and 0.86 m surcharge above the crown of the pipearch culvert inlet. This analysis does not consider routing effects due to storage, which would be minimal for this crossing. The road crest at the culvert is 4.5 m above the culvert invert. Future runoff conditions in the Hardisty Creek watershed are expected to cause higher flood discharges than currently exist. Under these conditions, surcharges of 1.25 m, 2.13 m and 3.61 m above the crown of the pipe-arch culvert are expected for the 25-year, 50-year and 100-year floods, respectively. Since a surcharge of 2.75 m would overtop the road, this would occur for floods with return periods of less than 100 years. Drift accumulation would increase the risk of blockage and overtopping. 4.1.3

Weldwood Haul Road C20241

The Weldwood Haul Road crossing, the inlets of which are shown in Figure 17, currently consists of a 1.6 m diameter round CSP culvert and a 1.8 m diameter round CSP culvert. They are 17.9 m and 18.1 m long, respectively, and have downstream slopes of 2.5% and 2.3%, respectively. The invert of the smaller culvert is 0.3 m higher than the invert of the larger one. The culverts appear to be in good condition, apart from minor deformation at the outlet of the smaller culvert. Stagedischarge data for the culverts are presented in Table 8.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-27-

03-1370-045

Figure 17 – Inlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Weldwood Haul Road Table 8 – Stage-Discharge Data for Weldwood Haul Road Culverts Parameter

Discharge

Pond Elevation Above Inlet Inverta

0.5 m3/s

0.49 m

3

0.66 m

3

1.01 m

3

1.23 m

3

1.0 m /s 2 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance) 2 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

2.5 m /s 3.7 m /s

25 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance)

8.8 m /s

1.96 m

25 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

15.1 m3/s

2.81 mb

50 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance)

10.9 m3/s

2.26 mb

50 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

19.4 m3/s

3.78 mb

100 Year Flood (7.7% Disturbance)

13.6 m3/s

2.61 mb

100 Year Flood (24% Disturbance)

24.4 m3/s

4.95 mb

a – Elevation above invert of 1.8 m culvert. b – Pond elevations greater than 2.1 m will overtop the downstream roadway .

Golder Associates


May 2004

-28-

03-1370-045

The capacities of these culverts are governed by inlet conditions. These culverts have a low fill depth, and due to a road grade that decreases to the east, will overtop when the culverts surcharge by approximately 0.3 m, equal to an upstream pond elevation of 2.1 m above the invert of the 1.8 m diameter culvert. A drift barrier is present on the upstream channel centerline. The culvert capacity analysis indicates that the existing structure will pass the current 25-year flood, but the current 50-year and 100-year floods would overtop the roadway. This analysis does not consider routing effects due to storage, which would be minimal for this crossing. Future runoff conditions in the Hardisty Creek watershed are expected to cause higher flood discharges than currently exist.

Under these conditions, flows less than the 25-year flood

discharge would overtop the roadway. Drift accumulation would increase the risk of blockage and overtopping. 4.2

Fish Passage

The fish passage assessment for the three culvert crossings on Hardisty Creek is based on a comparison of the target fish species (rainbow trout and bull trout) swimming performance to the velocity characteristics of the existing culverts. Fish swimming capabilities can be classified into burst speed (highest attainable speed maintained for up to 20 seconds), prolonged speed (maintainable for up to 200 minutes) and sustained speed (a cruising speed which can be maintained indefinitely). In natural watercourses, fish generally use sustained and prolonged speeds for migrating upstream and occasionally use burst speeds to overcome high velocity areas or elevated jumps. Mean flow velocities in culverts are typically higher than those in natural channels. Furthermore, velocity profiles in culverts are generally more uniform than in natural channels and provide fewer opportunities for fish to rest. When culvert velocities exceed sustained swimming speeds, fish must use prolonged speeds or burst speeds. This limits the length of culvert that may be navigated.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-29-

03-1370-045

The flow velocity through a culvert must not exceed the maximum swimming speed for the target fish species. Maximum swimming speeds are affected by fish species, life stage, fish length, culvert length, inlet and outlet conditions, and the presence of baffles or some other feature to provide passage assistance. Researchers have developed numerous predictions of swimming performance and culvert passage abilities for fish. Two of the most common references are discussed below with respect to the culverts located on Hardisty Creek. Katopodis and Gervais (1991) developed swimming performance assessment graphs for fish, based upon swimming mode. Data relating to fish which swim in the subcarangiform mode (i.e. trout and salmon) were used for the purposes of this assessment. Swimming distance is the distance between resting areas and, in a plain culvert, is equal to the culvert length. The fish length used for the swimming performance assessment is based on the target fish species and life stage; in the case of Hardisty Creek, adult (250 mm fork length) salmonids. Based upon this research, the maximum prolonged swimming speed would be 0.7 m/s to pass a 40 m culvert. Scruton et. al (1998) developed swimming capability graphs for sport fish based upon sustained, prolonged and burst swimming performance characteristics of selected adult salmonids (brook trout). Environmental variables, fish physiology, life history and migration distance were all considered during the determination of swimming performance. This study was undertaken by the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to assist in the application of the No Net Loss principle to infrastructure development projects by DFO biologists. Based upon this research, the maximum prolonged swimming speed would be 1.2 m/s to pass a 40 m culvert. Neither Katopodis and Gervais (1991) or Scruton et. al (1998) determined swimming performance for rainbow trout or bull trout specifically. Rather, they provided general capability graphs for fish with similar swimming modes (the former) and closely-related salmonids (the later). It is recommended that a flow of 1 m/s be adopted as the maximum allowable mean flow velocity through the culverts on Hardisty Creek.

Golder Associates


May 2004

4.2.1

-30-

03-1370-045

Robb Road C20250

The Robb Road culvert outlet, shown in Figure 18, is currently perched with a hang height of approximately 10 cm above a shallow pool. This was classified as a potential partial barrier in the overview assessment on 27 September 2002. The velocity criterion of 1 m/s corresponds to a discharge of 0.05 m3/s and a depth of 0.10 m at this crossing, under existing conditions. This compares to an estimated mean annual flow at this crossing of 0.10 m3/s.

Figure 18 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outlet of Hardisty Creek Culvert at Robb Road 4.2.2

Hardisty Avenue C20243

The Hardisty Avenue culvert outlets, shown in Figure 19, are currently perched with hang heights of approximately 9 cm (pipe-arch culvert) and 42 cm (round culvert) above a shallow pool. This was classified as a potential partial barrier in the overview assessment on 30 September 2002.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-31-

03-1370-045

The velocity criterion of 1 m/s corresponds to a discharge of 0.30 m3/s and a depth of 0.10 m at this crossing, under existing conditions. This compares to an estimated mean annual flow at this crossing of 0.20 m3/s.

Figure 19 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Hardisty Avenue 4.2.3

Weldwood Haul Road C20241

The Weldwood Haul Road culvert outlets, shown in Figure 20, are currently perched with hang heights of approximately 22 cm (east culvert) and 50 cm (west culvert). A shallow pool currently exists below the east culvert. This was classified as a potential partial barrier in the overview assessment on 27 September 2002. The velocity criterion of 1 m/s corresponds to a discharge of 0.38 m3/s and a depth of 0.09 m at this crossing, under existing conditions. This compares to an estimated mean annual flow at this crossing of 0.20 m3/s.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-32-

03-1370-045

Figure 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outlets of Hardisty Creek Culverts at Weldwood Haul Road 4.3

Summary and Recommendations

The flow capacity and fish passage performance of the Robb Road, Hardisty Avenue and Weldwood Haul Road crossings of Hardisty Creek are summarized in Table 9. The analysis indicates that none of the crossings currently provides adequate fish passage due to high flow velocities at the fish passage design discharge. Each crossing also currently has a perched outlet that may impede fish passage under lower flows. The Robb Road and Hardisty Avenue crossings will pass the design flood discharges with pond surcharges that do not overtop the roadway, but the existing Weldwood Haul Road culverts will overtop for discharges less than the design flood. Under predicted future hydrologic conditions, none of the three crossings will pass the design flood event.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-33-

03-1370-045

Table 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Summary of Fish Passage and Capacity Assessment for Hardisty Creek Culverts

Design Flood Criteria

Robb Road

Hardisty Avenue

Weldwood Haul Road

50-year Flood

100-year Flood

50-year Flood

7.4 m /s

11.8 m /s

10.9 m3/s

Flood Performance

Pass (2.1 m surcharge)

Pass (0.86 m surcharge)

Road will overtop

Future Design Flood

12.5 m3/s

21.1 m3/s

19.4 m3/s

Flood Performance

Road will overtop

Road will overtop

Road will overtop

0.85 m3/s

1.62 m3/s

1.64 m3/s

1.0 m/s

1.0 m/s

1.0 m/s

Current Design Flood

Fish Passage Discharge Fish Passage Criterion Velocity Criterion Met At Fish Passage Criterion Met?

3

3

3

3

0.05 m /s

0.30 m /s

0.38 m3/s

No

No

No

Based on the analysis presented here, it is recommended that fish passage remediation be undertaken at all three crossings and that capacity remediation be undertaken at the Weldwood Haul Road to pass predicted future design flood discharges. When the Robb Road and Hardisty Avenue crossings are replaced, they should be designed to meet fish passage criteria and to pass predicted future flood design discharges.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-34-

5.

STREAM CROSSING REMEDIATION FOR FISH PASSAGE

5.1

Remediation Requirements

03-1370-045

Discussions with Weldwood and the Town of Hardisty subsequent to the presentation of the preceding analysis on November 25, 2003, led to the selection of the following alternatives for each crossing structure: •

Robb Road C20250: Weldwood elected to proceed with design of a new culvert crossing at this location. The new culvert will be required to meet fish passage and flood capacity criteria as previously discussed. Fish passage remediation for the existing structure is not required;

Hardisty Avenue C20243: The existing culverts will provide adequate flood passage capacity for the next 40 to 50 years, under the current harvest plan for the Hardisty Creek watershed. Culvert replacement will likely be required before that time, and at that time, the replacement structure will be designed to meet predicted future flood capacity criteria. Fish passage remediation for the existing culvert is required. Installation of a drift catcher upstream of the existing crossing is recommended to reduce the risk of roadway overtopping due to drift accumulation at the culvert inlets; and

Weldwood Haul Road C20241: Weldwood elected to construct a bridge at this location. The new bridge will be designed to meet fish passage and flood capacity criteria as previously discussed. Fish passage remediation for the existing structure is not required.

5.2

Remediation Alternatives

The existing Hardisty Avenue crossing currently has two barriers to fish passage:

The culverts are perched above the pool at their outlets; and

The steepness and concentration of flow at each crossing means the fish passage flow velocity criterion of less than 1 m/s is typically only satisfied during a small portion of the open-water conditions and not at all during the high flow months of May through September.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-35-

03-1370-045

The existing scour pools below the culverts likely formed during flood events when high velocity flows scoured away the downstream bed and bank material. The culverts appear to be placed slopes similar to that of the natural channel (2 to 3%), but they are narrower, smoother and lack the irregularity of a natural channel, resulting in high, uniform velocities and unfavourable conditions for fish passage. Two alternatives were considered to allow for fish passage through the culverts during spring and summer flows: 1. Fill the downstream pool and retrofit baffles into the culvert: a)

Substrate large enough to resist scour from high velocity flows would be placed in the downstream pool to remediate the perched condition. Additional large diameter material, up to boulder size, would be required downstream of the pool to provide energy dissipation and prevent a recurrence of bed degradation. Well-graded fill would be required to discourage subsurface flow; and

b)

Baffles would be installed in the existing culverts to reduce flow velocities through the culvert, provide resting areas and provide additional flow depth for fish passage. However, baffles reduce culvert capacity and are difficult to retrofit into existing culverts. In mobile bed streams, they tend to infill and clog with debris. Baffled culverts would have additional maintenance requirements.

2. Construct a riffle structure downstream of the scour pool to backflood the culvert. The pool would provide a resting spot for fish and also enhance energy dissipation during high flow events. Water depth through the culvert would be maintained during low flows. During flows larger than the fish passage design event, supercritical flow would be pushed down the culvert and a hydraulic jump would form in the lower culvert. Larger discharges would cause the hydraulic jump to be pushed further down the culvert and eventually into the downstream pool. Baffle installation is not recommended, because the existing culverts do not have extra flow capacity to allow for baffles, the design does not provide a downstream pool for fish to rest in, and baffles are unsuitable given the steepness and mobility of the bed and the observed drift problem. Culvert backflooding is the preferred alternative. This will enhance fish passage and

Golder Associates


May 2004

-36-

03-1370-045

provide a resting area downstream of the culvert. Culvert hydraulics will need to be assessed to determine if conveyance capacities are compromised by the downstream control structure, and it will be necessary to raise the streambed for some distance downstream of each crossing. 5.3

Riffle Structure Design

In order to provide sufficient flow depth during low flows, the downstream riffle at each culvert should be designed to concentrate the flows to a smaller channel under low flow conditions. For analysis purposes, the triangular shaped cross-section illustrated in Figure 21 was used. In reality, the surface of the riffle would be constructed out of boulders and large rocks to provide bed roughness and small resting eddies for fish. To attain fish passage through the reach, several riffles may be required to create a proper transition from the culvert outlet pond to the existing channel. The slope between riffles should be kept as small as site conditions allow (no more than one to two percent higher than the natural channel bed) in order to keep flow velocities low.

1

6

1:25 Year Flood (11m wide) 1:10 Year May

0.5m

0.9m

slope = 3-4% Figure 21 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Triangular-Shaped Riffle Cross-Section used for analysis at Hardisty Avenue The cross-section shown in Figure 20 was used to develop a rating curve for the downstream tailwater conditions at the Hardisty Avenue crossing. The stage-discharge-velocity rating curve of the riffle is provided in Figure 22. During the fish passage remediation design, the riffle height was increased just enough to reduce the mean flow velocity through the culvert to approximately 1 m/s.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-37-

03-1370-045

1.2

1.8

1.6 Depth 1.4

Velocity

Depth of Flow (m)

0.8

1.2

1 0.6 0.8

0.4

0.6

Average Flow Velocity (m/s)

1

0.4 0.2 0.2

0

0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Discharge

Figure 22 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Stage-Velocity-Discharge Rating Curve for Riffle Structure 5.4

Hardisty Avenue C20243

The recommended prescription for fish passage is shown on Figure 23. This measure is included in the corrective action prescriptions for the Kinsmen Park reach of Hardisty Creek and is discussed in more detail in Section 7.

round culvert

arch culvert

1.75 m

1.0 m

S = 2.2% (arch) S = 2.6% (round) constructed riffle (slope 1% to 2% higher than natural grade)

Figure 23 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Recommended Downstream Riffle Remediation at Hardisty Avenue Culverts

Golder Associates


May 2004

-38-

03-1370-045

A summary of hydraulic conditions at the existing Hardisty Avenue culverts under fish passage and existing 100-year flood conditions, with a riffle for provision of fish passage, is provided in Table 10. Table 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Summary of Calculated Conditions at Hardisty Avenue Culverts Fish Passage Discharge (with riffle)

100 Year Flood Discharge (with riffle)

Discharge (m3/s)

1.62

11.8

Riffle Height (m above outlet)

0.9

0.9

Tailwater (m above outlet)

1.5

2.0

Headwater (m above inlet)

0.77

2.49

Discharge (m3/s)

0.12

2.60

Control Type

Inlet

Outlet

Inlet Velocity (m/s)

1.11

2.30

Outlet Velocity (m/s)

0.11

2.30

Submerged Inlet?

No

Yes

Fish Passage?

Yes

No, velocity

1.50

9.20

Outlet

Outlet

Inlet Velocity (m/s)

1.14

2.71

Outlet Velocity (m/s)

0.48

2.71

Submerged Inlet?

No

Yes

Fish Passage?

Yes

No, velocity

1200 Round Pipe

Parameter

3

Discharge (m /s) Arch Pipe

Control Type

Golder Associates


May 2004

-39-

6.

STREAM CROSSING REMEDIATION FOR CAPACITY

6.1

Robb Road C20250

03-1370-045

The Robb Road culvert is sized adequately to pass the current 50-year flood with moderate upstream ponding, which meets Weldwood operating rules (Weldwood 2002). The calculated surcharge of 2.1 m above the culvert crown for this event would likely be reduced somewhat by storage in the floodplain upstream of the Robb Road. This capacity could be reduced by drift accumulation. In the future, increased disturbance in the Hardisty Creek watershed is predicted to increase flood discharges.

Under these conditions, the existing culvert would be expected to experience

significant surcharging during floods with return periods of less than 25 years. To perform adequately under these conditions, it is recommended that when this culvert is replaced, the following structure be constructed: • • • • • • • •

3730 x 2290 mm Structural Plate Pipe Arch; 44.2 m long to accommodate 2.5H:1V road sideslopes; Embedded 0.3 m below substrate; Boulder fish baffles to meet fish passage criteria; Concrete headwall treatment for uplift prevention; Flow capacity with zero surcharge: 13.2 m3/s (>50 year future flood); Assumed construction during sideslope reconstruction; and Estimated cost $147,000 exclusive of detour costs.

Engineered design drawings for the recommended culvert are provided in Appendix III. 6.2

Hardisty Avenue C20243

The Hardisty Avenue culvert is sized adequately to pass the current 100-year flood with moderate upstream ponding. The calculated surcharge of 0.85 m above the pipe-arch culvert crown for this event would likely be reduced somewhat by storage in the floodplain upstream of the Robb Road. This capacity could be reduced by drift accumulation. In the future, increased disturbance in the Hardisty Creek watershed is predicted to increase flood discharges.

Under these conditions, the existing culvert would be expected to experience

Golder Associates


May 2004

-40-

03-1370-045

significant surcharging during floods with return periods of less than 25 years. Because the existing structure provides enough capacity for flood passage under current conditions, and fish passage can be achieved using the prescriptions described in Section 5, replacement of this structure at the present time is not recommended. When it is replaced, it is recommended that the following structure be considered : • • • • • •

3890 x 2690 mm Structural Plate Pipe Arch; 41 m long to accommodate current road sideslopes; Embedded 0.3 m below substrate; Concrete headwall treatment for uplift prevention; Flow capacity with no surcharge: 21.1 m3/s (100 year future flood); and Estimated cost $210,000 exclusive of paving and detour costs.

Serious consideration should also be given to constructing a bridge at this location. Immediate installation of a drift barrier upstream of this crossing is also recommended. Such a structure would significantly reduce the risk of roadway flooding during extreme events, as were encountered in the early 1980’s. This is discussed further in Appendix II. 6.3

Weldwood Haul Road C20241

The Weldwood Haul Road culvert is sized adequately to pass the current 25-year flood without overtopping the roadway. For floods of greater return period, or of lesser return period under future conditions, the roadway would be overtopped. Capacities could be reduced further by drift accumulation. In the future, increased disturbance in the Hardisty Creek watershed is predicted to increase flood discharges.

Under these conditions, the existing culvert would be expected to experience

significant surcharging during floods with return periods of less than 25 years. Weldwood has indicated that they would prefer to replace the existing culverts with a bridge having the following specification: • • • • • •

Two-lane precast concrete bridge; Drilled or driven piles; 10.0 m deck width curb-to-curb; 6.0 m bed width; Design waterway capacity: 24.4 m3/s (100 year future flood); and Estimated cost $158,000 exclusive of detour costs. Golder Associates


May 2004

-41-

03-1370-045

The preceding cost estimate is based on the assumption of geotechnical conditions that require short piles specified based on design scour depths, rather than longer piles required due to unstable ground conditions. Design drawings providing preliminary engineering data for the recommended bridge are provided in Appendix V.

A structural design is currently being

undertaken by others for this crossing, so the actual materials and installation for the bridge may change from that specified at the preliminary engineering stage.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-42-

7.

KINSMEN PARK STREAM REHABILITATION

7.1

Floodplain Reconstruction

7.1.1

Design

03-1370-045

Floodplain reconstruction using soil excavation and bioengineering techniques is proposed for the 25 m reach between the two uppermost riffles immediately downstream of the Hardisty Avenue culvert outlet. These techniques involve a combination of rock, geotextile and vegetative methods to provide long-term bank stability. Rock keys are proposed for the channel bed in the slope toe zone at an elevation at or below the expected level of scour. These rock keys will protect up-slope treatments and may provide limited areas of velocity refuge for juvenile salmonids. Fill material will be encased within a geotextile fabric. This fabric is perforated with openings that can be stretched to 10 mm for installing live willow stakes. These opening will also allow grass seedlings to emerge when a native grass seed mixture is applied prior to installation. DeKoWe 700 geogrid can be used on slopes up to 1H:1V and in direct contact with water flow velocities up to 3 m/s. Recommended vegetative materials include sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and yellow willow (S. lutea). Both are pioneer species suited to sandy or gravelly floodplains. Ideally, stock material should be collected locally to ensure suitability to the Hardisty Creek watershed. In areas where the floodplain is constricted, some excavation above the banks is required to provide relief during high flows. A calculated floodplain width of 40 m is required above the bankfull height of approximately 1 m above the channel bed. Every effort will be made to preserve the existing riparian vegetation (especially mature coniferous trees), however herbaceous and non-woody vegetation lost during excavation may be replaced through planting using native species and natural regeneration. Willow stakes will be planted and native grass seed mixture applied to all areas exposed during excavation.

Golder Associates


May 2004

7.1.2

-43-

03-1370-045

Construction

The rock keys will be constructed with 250 mm diameter rock. This material will be placed on the existing channel bed. Scour will be mitigated by backwater effects from the next downstream riffle. The area between the rock toe and the existing bank will be backfilled with topsoil up to a depth of 250 mm. DeKoWe 700 (or equivalent) geogrid will be used to encase top soil fill material. A native grass seed mixture developed by Weldwood Canada for the Hinton bioregion will be incorporated into the top soil prior to encasing within the geogrid. The geogrid will be installed by placing two metres of fabric along the top of the rock toe and backfilled with top soil to a depth of 250 mm. The geogrid will then be wrapped around the soil and pinned along the top using stakes. Successive layers of geogrid will be setback 250 mm to create a bank slope of 1H:1V. Live material should be cut during the winter or early spring prior to leaf-out and stored until needed for planting. Storage can be most easily accomplished by laying stock between layers of straw and covering the entire structure with sufficient snow. Alternatively, live material can be collected during the summer, stripped of all foliage and planted immediately or rooted stock can be purchased and planted. The latter option may be cost prohibitive and is discussed further in Appendix II. 7.1.3

Budget

The channel bank reconstruction downstream of the Hardisty Creek culvert outlet will require the materials listed in Table 11. Table 11 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Materials Cost Estimate for Floodplain Reconstruction Quantity 2 rolls

Size

Description Cost DeKoWe 700 geotextile (or $900 per roll equivalent) 100 1500 mm X 30 mm Live willow poles $2 per pole* 400 500 mm X 10 mm Live willow stakes $1 per pole* 50 m3 Top soil $12.5 per m3 800 250 mm diameter Cobble $1 each * assumes cost to collect, transport and plant cuttings with crew earning $10/hour 200 m2

Golder Associates

Total Cost $1,800 $200 $400 $625 $800


May 2004

-44-

03-1370-045

The channel bank reconstruction downstream of the Hardisty Creek culvert outlet will require the equipment listed in Table 12. Table 12 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Equipment Cost Estimate for Floodplain Reconstruction Description Medium sized excavator Large skid steer loader

Hours per Bank 12 12

No. of Banks 2 2

Cost per Hour $120 $60

Total Cost $2,880 $1,440

The total cost to reconstruct the two channel banks within Kinsmen Park would be $8,145. Photographs of typical bank and floodplain reconstruction are provided in Figures 24 and 25.

Figure 24 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Typical Bank and Floodplain Reconstruction using Rock Keys, Geotextile and Soil Layers, and Live Vegetative Stock

Golder Associates


May 2004

-45-

03-1370-045

Figure 25 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Typical Bank and Floodplain Reconstruction Following Five Years of Growth

7.2

Riffle Structures

7.2.1

Design

Constructed riffles are meant to mimic natural rapids in form, materials and function. They function to provide upstream pools for fish holding habitat and downstream turbulence to ensure oxygen saturation and energy dissipation along the stream profile. Riffle locations were selected based on channel planform geometry and confining conditions (gabions, pedestrian bridge, culvert outflow locations) and the need to protect the existing mature riparian zone. A general riffle-pool interval of 35 m was selected. A mean low-water channel width of 9 m and bankfull width of 18 m has been assumed for each of the riffle locations. This mean channel width is representative of the existing conditions in the

Golder Associates


May 2004

-46-

03-1370-045

middle and lower reaches of Hardisty Creek within Kinsmen Park and will be established once following channel infilling is completed in the upper reach. 7.2.2

Construction

Each riffle will be constructed using 26 boulders (750 mm diameter) installed perpendicular to the channel thalweg. Boulders will be “keyed” into the channel bed by 150 mm resulting in a crest height of 600 mm above the existing channel bed. The riffle immediately downstream of the culvert outlet will be constructed using two rows of boulders resulting in a crest height of 1.35 m in order to provide sufficient backwater within the culvert to provide adequate fish passage. Boulders will also be “keyed” into each bank by one boulder (750 mm). The riffle crest and downstream surface will be tapered toward the centre of the channel to maintain sufficient depth for fish passage during periods of low flow. Following installation of the “key” boulders, well-graded fill will be placed upstream with a surface slope of 25% (4H:1V) and a downstream slope of 5% (20H:1V). The fill will be wellgraded 250 mm minus pit run material. During fill placement, it is important to ensure the material does not become sorted. Well graded material will minimize pore spaces and decrease the permeability of the riffle. Both the upstream and downstream slopes will be “feathered” into the existing channel bed. During placement of the pit run fill material, larger cobbles will be placed with approximately 50% of their diameter exposed above the downstream slope to provide surface roughness. These cobbles will be configured to concentrate low flow across the face of the slope and maintain fish passage during low flow. 7.2.3

Budget

Construction of the riffle immediately downstream of the Hardisty Creek culvert outlet will require the materials listed in Table 13.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-47-

03-1370-045

Table 13 – Material Cost Estimate for First Downstream Riffle Construction Quantity 60 164 m3

Size 750 mm diameter 250 mm minus

Description Boulder Pit run fill

Cost $25 per boulder $8 per m3

Total Cost $1,500 $1,312

Construction of the riffle immediately downstream of the Hardisty Creek culvert outlet will require the equipment listed in Table 14. Table 14 – Equipment Cost Estimate for First Downstream Riffle Construction Hours per Structure 6 6

Description Medium sized excavator Large skid steer loader

No. of Structures 1 1

Cost per Hour $120 $60

Total Cost $720 $360

Construction of the lower eight riffles will require the materials listed in Table 15. Table 15 – Material Cost Estimate for Lower Riffle Construction Quantity 208 656 m3

Size 750 mm diameter 250 mm minus

Description Boulder Pit run fill

Cost $25 per boulder $8 per m3

Total Cost $5,200 $5,248

Construction of the lower eight riffles will require the equipment listed in Table 16. Table 16 – Equipment Cost Estimate for Lower Riffle Construction Description Medium sized excavator Large skid steer loader

Hours per Structure 3 3

Number of Structures 8 8

Cost per Hour $120 $60

Total Cost $2,880 $1,440

The estimated total cost to construct the nine riffles within Kinsmen Park is $18,660. Before and after photographs of typical riffle construction are provided in Figures 26 and 27.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-48-

Figure 26 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Typical Stream Channel Before Riffle Construction 7.3

Meanders

7.3.1

Design

03-1370-045

Figure 27 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Typical Stream Channel after Riffle Construction; Note Addition of Pool and Cascade Habitats

In areas of channel meander, a cross-sectional geometry will be constructed to establish and inside point bar and an outside pool with the thalweg against the outer bank. The insides of meanders are areas of sediment deposition, and the proposed structures are designed to encourage deposition within the upper 1/3 of the point bar. The outside of meanders are pools and the proposed structures are designed to protect the channel profile while maintaining the thalweg close to the outer bank. Typically, LWD will consist of coniferous logs (preferably with the root ball attached) with minimum dimensions of 2 m in length and 200 mm in diameter. Material density on point bars will be four pieces of LWD and two boulders per 10 m of channel length. Material density along

Golder Associates


May 2004

-49-

03-1370-045

the outside of the meanders will be eight to ten pieces of LWD and five boulders per 10 m of channel length. 7.3.2

Construction

LWD incorporated into point bars will be placed on top of the existing channel bed material and orientated downstream. Additional LWD may be placed on top of the base layer to provide increased mass. Ballast will be provided by 500 mm boulders placed between the LWD and all materials will be cabled together using the Hilti epoxy system (or equivalent), ½â&#x20AC;? galvanized wire rope and galvanized clamps to form a single aggregate complex. This complex will cover the upper 1/3 of the point bar created between the bankfull and low flow elevations. The lower 2/3 of the point bar will remain exposed to aggrade and degrade naturally under varying flow regimes. Live willow stakes will be planted within the complex to further encourage the deposition of sediment during high flows. LWD incorporated into the outside of the meanders will be trenched into the bank to provide additional anchoring and will extend less than 0.5 m from the bank. Additional LWD may be placed on top of the bank to provide additional protection during higher flows. All LWD will be cabled together using galvanized wire rope and galvanized clamps to form a single aggregate complex. Boulders will be placed along the toe of the bank to provide protection from erosion and to create cover habitat for fish. Live willow stakes will be planted in the floodplain areas on the top of the bank and all disturbed soil will be re-vegetated using a native grass seed mixture. 7.3.3

Budget

Construction of the nine meander bends (point bar and outside bank) will require the materials listed in Table 17.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-50-

03-1370-045

Table 17 – Material Estimate for Meander Construction Quantity 252 126 250 m

Size 2 m X 200 mm diameter 500 mm diameter ½” diameter

200

½” diameter

30 tubes

Hilti system

Description LWD Boulder Galvanized wire rope Galvanized clamps Hilti epoxy

Cost $20 per boulder $4 per metre

Total Cost $600* $2,520 $1,000

$0.50 per clamp

$100

$20 per tube

$600

* assumes 10 hours of logging truck time and donation of LWD by Weldwood

Construction of the nine meander bends (point bar and outside bank) will require the equipment listed in Table 18. Table 18 – Equipment Cost Estimate for Meander Construction Description Medium sized excavator Large skid steer loader

Hours per Meander 2.5 1

Number of Meanders 9 9

Cost per Hour $120 $60

Total Cost $2,700 $540

The estimated total cost to construct the nine channel meanders within Kinsmen Park is $8,060. Photographs showing typical inner and outer bend treatments at meanders are provided in Figures 28 and 29.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-51-

03-1370-045

Figure 28 – Typical Restoration Prescription for Outer Bank of Meander; Note Use of LWD and Boulders for Erosion Protection

Figure 29 – Typical Restoration Prescription for Point Bar; Note Use of LWD and Boulders to Provide Fish Habitat at Higher Flows

Golder Associates


May 2004

-52-

7.4

Boulder Clusters

7.4.1

Design

03-1370-045

Boulder clusters in groups of three to five boulders are inherently stable and provide holding habitat for salmonids when placed within the lower half of riffle structures. At higher discharges, boulder clusters provide instream cover and add stability to the riffle while transferring scouring forces to the next downstream pool. At lower discharges, pocket pools created downstream of the boulders provide areas of refugia for juvenile fish. 7.4.2

Construction

Boulder clusters will be constructed in seven different areas of Hardisty Creek within Kinsmen Park. Each area ranges in length from five to 20 m for an aggregate total of 65 m. Assuming an average low-water channel width of nine meters, the total surface area to be treated is 585 m2. Boulders will be 500 mm diameter rock and placed in clusters of three to five. Each cluster will be separated and staggered by approximately four metres and confined to the centre portion of the channel (i.e. no closer than two metres from the low flow edge of water). The arrangement of the clusters should guide the stream flow in a pattern consistent with the immediate channel reach. The boulders within the clusters will be separated by 100 to 250 mm. 7.4.3

Budget

The complete boulder cluster construction will require the materials listed in Table 19. Table 19 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Material Cost Estimate for Boulder Cluster Construction Quantity 160

Size 500 mm diameter

Description Boulder

Cost $20 per boulder

Total Cost $3,200

The complete boulder cluster construction will require the equipment listed in Table 20.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-53-

03-1370-045

Table 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Equipment Cost Estimate for Boulder Cluster Construction Description Medium sized excavator Large skid steer loader

Hours per Structure 1 0.5

Number of Structures 40 40

Cost per Hour

Total Cost

$120 $60

$4,800 $1,200

The estimated total cost to construct the 40 boulder clusters within Kinsmen Park is $9,200. Before and after photographs of typical boulder cluster construction are provided in Figures 30 and 31.

Figure 30 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Typical Stream Channel Lacking Boulder Cluster Habitat

Golder Associates


May 2004

-54-

03-1370-045

Figure 31 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Typical Stream Channel Following Installation of Boulder Clusters The estimated total cost for construction of the floodplain reconstruction, riffle structures, meander treatments and boulder clusters for this project is $44,065, exclusive of mobilization and demobilization costs and applicable taxes. This value may be reduced through contributions of labour, equipment and/or materials. The works may be staged over several years if necessary. A summary of costs is provided in Table 21. Table 21 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Material and Equipment Cost Estimate for Kinsmen Park Reach Item

Materials

Floodplain Reconstruction

Equipment

Total Cost

$3,825

$4,320

$8,145

$13,260

$5,400

$18,660

Meander Treatments

$4,820

$3,240

$8,060

Boulder Clusters

$3,200

$6,000

$9,200

$25,105

$18,960

$44,065

Fees

Disbursements

Total Cost

Riffle Construction

Sub-total Item Permitting Construction Monitoring Sub-total

$877

$35

$912

$12,454

$1,938

$14,392

$13,331

$1,973

$15,304

Total

Golder Associates

$59,369


May 2004

8.

-55-

03-1370-045

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report has presented a hydrological assessment of Hardisty Creek, including existing and predicted future conditions. These were combined with assessments of fish habitat and fish passage at three crossings to develop corrective prescriptions to enhance the overall health of Hardisty Creek. Specific recommended actions included: •

Replacing the existing Robb Road culvert with a single, 3730 x 2290 mm SPCSP pipe arch culvert, 44.2 m long, at an estimated cost of $147,000;

Backflooding the Hardisty Avenue culverts and constructing habitat enhancements, including riffles, plantings, meanders, boulder clusters and floodplain expansion, at an estimated cost of $44,100; and

Replacing the Weldwood Haul Road culverts with a two-lane precast concrete bridge on piles, with a 10.0 m deck width and a 6.0 m creek bed width, at an estimated cost of $158,000.

We trust the above meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or require additional details, please contact the undersigned. GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Nathan Schmidt, Ph.D., P.Eng. Associate, Senior Water Resources Engineer

Jan den Dulk, B.Sc., R.P.Bio. Fisheries Biologist

Golder Associates


May 2004

9.

-56-

03-1370-045

REFERENCES

Alberta Environment 1992.

Flood Frequency Analyses Hinton Floodplain Study.

Water

Resources Management Services, Technical Services Division, Hydrology Branch, Alberta Environment. Report submitted by A.M. Mustapha and prepared by A. De Boer. Golder 2002. Weldwood FMA Peak Flow Model. Submitted to Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Hinton, Alberta, by Golder Associates Ltd., December 2002. Hydroconsult 1997. Hydrologic Operational Manual Main Report. Submitted to Foothills Model Forest by Hydroconsult EN3 Services Ltd., February 1997. Katopodis, C. and R. Gervais 1991. Ichthyomechanics. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Canada. NHCL 1994.

Hinton Flood Risk Mapping Study.

Submitted to Alberta Environmental

Protection, River Engineering Branch, for the Canada-Alberta Flood Reduction Program, by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., May 1994. Scherer, R. and R.G.Pike 2003. Effects of Forest Management Activities on Streamflow in the Okanagan Basin: Outcomes of a Literature Review and a Workshop. Forest Research Extension Partnership: FORREX Series 9, 45 p. Scruton, D.A., R.S. McKinley, R.K. Booth, S.J. Peak and R.F. Goosney 1998. Evaluation of swimming capability and potential velocity barrier problems for fish. Part A. Swimming performance of selected warm and cold water fish species relative to fish passage and fishway design. CEA Project 9236 G 1014, Montreal, Quebec. Wallace, D. 2003. Personal communication in email from Chris Spytz to Nathan Schmidt, 20 November 2003. Weldwood 2002. Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules. Weldwood of Canada Ltd., Hinton Division, May 15, 2002, 101 p.

Golder Associates


APPENDIX I RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY HARDISTY CREEK RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING DRAFT REPORT REVIEW


May 2004

-I-1-

03-1370-045

The following questions regarding the draft report were posed by the Hardisty Creek Restoration Committee during the review meeting of 19 February 2004 and in subsequent communications. Responses are summarized here to directly address these questions. Where applicable, responses have also been integrated into the final report. 1. Has Golder assessed the condition of a blocked inlet of the Hardisty Avenue culvert? A blocked inlet has not been assessed. Depending on the degree of blockage, the result could be increasing levels of ponding upstream of the culvert, up to overtopping of Hardisty Avenue for significant blockage during high flow events. Overtopping of Hardisty Avenue was observed in the early 1980’s, and culvert maintenance has in the past involved debris removal. 2. Does Golder recommend a drift/debris catcher upstream of the Hardisty Avenue culvert to mitigate potential blockages? Installation of an appropriate debris control structure upstream of the Hardisty Avenue culvert is recommended to reduce the risk of overtopping due to debris accumulation at the culvert inlet. A comprehensive treatment of debris control structures is found in the U.S. Federal Highway Administration document HEC-9, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/hydpub.htm. Care must be taken to select and design a structure that does not represent a safety hazard, and drift removal must be integrated into the Town of Hinton’s inspection and maintenance program. 3. Has Golder considered recommending rooted stock for bioengineering applications? The cost for collecting and growing rooted willow (Salix exiqua) stock by Tree Time Inc. (the only company of three contacted to provide a quote) are as follows: • 100, 0.75 m plants - $750 • 200, 0.75 m plants - $1,000 • 500, 0.75 m plants - $1,500 Costs include the collection of all cutting material, production of large container rooted cuttings, harvesting and boxing. Seedlings can be picked up at the Smoky Lake Forest Nursery in Smoky Lake Alberta, or shipped at an additional cost. Cutting material is generally collected in the spring before leaf-out and takes 15 to 20 weeks to grow to 0.75 m. 4. Has Golder determined the conditions required to expose the geotextile (within 30 m downstream of the Hardisty Avenue culvert outlet) to velocities greater than 3 m/s? Will these conditions ever occur? The maximum design outlet velocity from the culverts during the existing 1:100 year flood event is 2.7 m/s. As this flow enters the pool downstream of the culvert and upstream of the first riffle, this discharge will be reduced. Flow velocities along the Golder Associates


May 2004

-I-2-

03-1370-045

channel banks in this reach should not approach 3.0 m/s. Under the potential future hydrological regime, the existing culverts will not handle the 1:100 year flood without overtopping. It is anticipated that these culverts will be replaced at some future date, before large-scale logging activities in the upper watershed. 5. Has Golder assessed the potential for the boulders in riffle #1 (just downstream of the Hardisty Avenue culvert outlet) to sink (auger)? The mechanism for boulder augering would be due to formation of a horseshoe vortex on the upstream side of the boulder, scour of bed material by the vortex, and movement of the boulder into the scour hole. Horseshoe vortices will not form at a grade control structure that spans the stream width, so augering is unlikely. 6. Has Golder assessed the potential for the boulder clusters throughout Kinsmen Park to sink (auger)? Individual boulders or boulder clusters could experience augering during extreme flood events. The likelihood of augering depends on the scour susceptibility of the bed material and the stability of the boulders relative to the scour hole. It is recommended that boulders be installed â&#x20AC;&#x153;flat side downâ&#x20AC;? to maximize stability. The relatively large cobble-sized bed material in Hardisty Creek has a relatively low scour potential. However, there is a risk that individual boulders or clusters could auger during extreme flood events. 7. Has Golder assessed the 1:100 flood for both Weldwood Crossings? The bridge design for the Weldwood Mill Haul Road accommodates the 1:100 year flood discharge with a minimum freeboard of 0.50 m. The culvert design for the Robb Road culvert is designed to pass a flood of 13.2 m3/s with zero surcharge. The design 1:50 year flood is 12.5 m3/s and the design 1:100 year flood is 16.1 m3/s. The 1:100 year flood would be accommodated with a surcharge of approximately 0.3 m. 8. Has Golder assessed the potential for sediment deposition upstream of the Robb Road crossing? This was not addressed during the crossing assessment and design of mitigation measures. However, it appears that only minor deposition of coarse bed material has occurred upstream of the existing culvert. The recommended replacement culvert is substantially larger (a 3730 x 2290 mm pipe arch to replace a 1500 mm round culvert) which should enhance bed load passage. 9. Further explain why the level of embeddedness for the Robb Road culvert was selected by Golder? The 0.30 m embedment was selected to allow a reasonable depth of substrate to be placed in the culvert, while still allowing anchored boulders (0.50 m diameter) to protrude above the substrate. Flow through the culvert will result in variations in bed elevation across

Golder Associates


May 2004

-I-3-

03-1370-045

the breadth of the culvert, as will local flow patterns around anchored boulders, so it is anticipated that in some areas the substrate thickness will be much less than 0.30 m. 10. Has Golder assessed the potential for LWD accumulation within the Robb Road culvert (i.e. debris getting hung up on the fixed boulders within the culvert)? There is potential for debris accumulation at the culvert inlet and within the culvert. However, the boulder diameter of 500 mm is less than 25% of the culvert height of 2290 mm, and the boulders will be embedded below the substrate placed in the culvert. The new culvert (3730 mm x 2290 mm pipe arch) will be substantially larger than the existing 1500 mm round culvert, and thus be less likely to accumulate drift. A regular inspection and maintenance program for this culvert should include removal of drift accumulations at the culvert. 11. Has Golder assessed the potential for ice to build-up within the Hardisty Avenue culvert (especially at the outlet)? Will ice build-up affect flood flows early in the spring? Laminar ice buildup has been observed in the Hardisty Creek channel and in the Hardisty Avenue culverts. Ice removal is a maintenance issue and can be managed using steam or heat tracing. Late winter inspections are recommended to identify significant ice blockages. Nineteen years of record from the nearby Whiskeyjack Creek (Environment Canada Station 07AD004; period of record 1965 to 1993) shows that the earliest spring flood peak occurred on May 9, and that the two largest annual floods occurred on June 4 and August 5. Depending on the persistence of ice in the Hardisty Avenue culvert, there may not be a high risk of ice blockage during spring flood events. 12. Will Golder add a disclaimer to Table 2 indicting that the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Effective Disturbed Areas (% of total area)â&#x20AC;? are projections and are subject to change? A footnote has been added to Table 2 to inform the reader of this possibility. 13. Section 2.2: It is important to note that timelines for forestry development in the watershed could occur somewhat differently than what is identified in the table and the text should note that the dates are tentative and subject to change. A footnote has been added to Table 2 to inform the reader of this possibility. 14. Robb Road: The cost estimate for the pipe-arch on Robb Road increased from $115,000 in the first draft to $147,000 in the final draft. Does the boulder fish baffles account solely for the increase? The first draft report recommended a 43.0 m long, 3400 x 2100 mm Structural Plate Pipe Arch, and the final draft report recommended a 44.2 m long, 3730 x 2290 mm Structural Plate Pipe Arch. The change was primarily due to a higher culvert roughness due to the placement of boulder fish baffles within the culvert. The steepness of the natural channel and culvert at this location requires that resting areas be provided for adequate fish

Golder Associates


May 2004

-I-4-

03-1370-045

passage in the culvert. The larger culvert also provides for zero surcharge during the design flood event. 15. The report does not mention any thalweg requirements through the Robb Road pipe arch. Is it a non-issue? This is not an issue. Flow through the culvert and the presence of boulders will likely cause some variation in bed elevation across the channel and cause a thalweg to form, but it will not be necessary to pre-construct one. 16. Weldwood Mill Haul Road: For the report please expand the size and font of bridge design page so it is more easily readable. Note in the text that a structural design assessment is being undertaken for the haul road crossing so on-site installation characteristics and structural materials of the crossing may change. Figures included in the report will be provided in 11” x 17” format. The copy provided to Weldwood will include full size (22” x 34”) drawings, folded in a figure pouch. An appropriate note regarding the structural design has been added to the report text in Section 6.3. 17. Are there any comments/recommendations regarding the re-establishment of the stream channel/substrate at the site where the existing culverts sit (i.e., gradient, low-flow channel, etc.)? When the existing culverts are removed, the stream channel should be graded to a constant slope from approximately 30 m upstream to 30 m downstream of the existing culverts. This will eliminate the existing drop at the culvert outlets. Material with equivalent size and gradation to that present in the channel should be used if any fill material is required. A low flow channel can be excavated to match the upstream and downstream channel cross-sections. However, the cross-sections shown on the conceptual design drawing show that this low flow channel is only slightly deeper than the remainder of the channel. If the low flow channel is not excavated, it will eventually form due to scour during flood events. Similarly, the flow at the bridge will be slightly constricted during flood events, because there is no floodplain at that section. This will eventually result in scour and formation of a shallow pool underneath the bridge. It is for this reason that the bridge headslope armour is designed to extend 1.0 m below the reconstructed bed elevation.

Golder Associates


APPENDIX II STREAM HABITAT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM


May 2004

-II-1-

03-1370-045

A) Riffle - Portion of channel with increased velocity relative to Run and Pool habitat types; broken water surface due to effects of submerged or exposed bed materials; relatively shallow (less than 25 cm) during moderate to low flow periods. Riffle (RF) - Typical riffle habitat type; limited submerged or overhead cover for juveniles and adult life stages; coarse substrate Riffle-Boulder Garden (RF/BG) - Riffle habitat type with significant occurrence of large boulders; availability of significant instream cover for juveniles (to lesser extent adults) at moderate to high flow events. B) Rapids (RA) - Portion of channel with highest velocity relative to other habitat types. Deeper than Riffle (ranging from 25-50 cm); often formed by channel constriction. Substrate extremely coarse; dominated by large cobble and boulder material. Instream cover provided in pocket eddies (P3) and associated with cobble/boulder substrate. C) Run - Portion of channel characterized by moderate to high current velocity relative to Pool and Flat habitat; water surface largely unbroken. Deeper than Riffle habitat type. Can be differentiated into four types; deep-slow, deep-fast, shallow-slow, and shallow-fast. Run (Class 1) (R1) - Highest quality Run habitat type. Maximum depth exceeding 1.5 m; average depth 1.0 m. High instream cover at all flow conditions (submerged boulders/bedrock fractures, depth). Generally of deep-slow type (to lesser extent deep-fast) and situated proximal to upstream food production area (i.e., RF, R3). Run (Class 2) (R2) - Moderate quality Run habitat type. Maximum depth reaching or exceeding 1.0 m, generally exceeding 0.75 m. High instream cover during all but low flow events (baseflow). Generally of either deepfast type or moderately deep-slow type. Run (Class 2)/Boulder garden (R2/BG) - Moderate quality Run habitat type; presence of large boulders in channel; high instream cover (boulder, bedrock fractures, turbulence) at all but low-flow events (baseflow). Depth characteristics similar to R2; however, required maximum depth lower due to cover afforded by boulders. Run (Class 3) (R3) - Lowest quality Run habitat type. Maximum depth of 0.75 m, but averaging <0.50 m. Low instream cover at all but high flow events. Generally of shallow-fast or shallow-slow types. Run (Class 3)/Boulder garden (R3/BG) - Similar to R3 in depth and velocity characteristics; presence of large boulders in channel offers improved instream cover during moderate and high flow events.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-II-2-

03-1370-045

D) Flat (FL) - Area of channel characterized by low current velocities (relative to RF and Run cover types); near-laminar (i.e., non-turbulent) flow character. Depositional area featuring predominantly sand/silt substrate. Differentiated from Pool habitat type on basis of high channel uniformity and lack of direct riffle/run association. More depositional in nature than R3 habitat (sand/silt substrate, lower food production, low cover, etc.). Flat (Class 1) (F1) - High quality Flat habitat type. exceeding 1.5 m; average depth 1.0 m or greater.

Maximum depth

Flat (Class 2) (F2) - Moderate quality Flat habitat type. Maximum depth exceeding 1.0 m; generally exceeding 0.75 m. Flat (Class 3) (F3) - Low quality Flat habitat type. Maximum depth of 0.75 m, averaging less than 0.50 m. E) Pool - Discrete portion of channel featuring increased depth and reduced velocity (downstream oriented) relative to Riffle and Run habitat types. Pool (Class 1) (P1) - Highest quality Pool habitat type. Maximum depth exceeding 1.5 m; average depth 1.0 m or greater; high instream cover at all flow-conditions (submerged boulder, bedrock fractures, depth, bank irregularities). Generally featuring high Riffle and/or Run association (i.e., food input). Often intergrades with deep-slow type of R1. Pool (Class 2) (P2) - Moderate quality Pool habitat type. Maximum depth reaching or exceeding 1.0 m, generally exceeding 0.75 m. High instream cover at all but low flow events (baseflow). Pool (Class 3) (P3) - Low quality pool habitat type. Maximum depth of 0.75 m, averaging <0.50 m. Low instream cover at all but high flow events. Includes small pocket eddy type habitat. F) Features - Includes the following instream features: Chutes (CH) - Area of channel constriction; generally resulting in channel deepening and increased velocity. Associated habitat types are R1, R2. Ledges (LG) - Areas of bedrock intrusion into the channel; often creates Chutes and Pool habitat. Logjams (LJ) - Channel obstructed by logs. Beaver dams - BD. Beaver Ponds - BP. Other - Miscellaneous features (fallen tree, large boulder, etc.). G) Cover Types:

LWD - Large Woody Debris OV - Overhanging Vegetation DT - Depth/Turbidity

BL - Boulder AV - Aquatic Vegetation UB - Undercut Bank.

Golder Associates


May 2004

-II-3-

03-1370-045

Citation: Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Neil, J. and L. Hildebrand. 1986. Fishery resources upstream of the Oldman River Dam. Prepared for Alberta Environment, Planning Division. R.L&L. Environmental Services Ltd. Report No. 181: 131 p. + 7 app.

Golder Associates


APPENDIX III DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR ROBB ROAD CULVERT


TO HINTON

PLACE AND COMPACT SIMULTANEOUSLY IN LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 0.150 m WHEN COMPACTED. COMPACT TO A MINIMUM OF 95 % OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. PLACE FILL SUCH THAT THE LEVEL ON ONE SIDE OF THE PIPE DOES NOT EXCEED THE LEVEL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PIPE BY MORE THAN 0.300 m

12.800 6.400

AT NO TIME SHALL LOADED EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT BE PERMITTED TO CROSS OVER STRUCTURE. OBTAIN THE ENGINEER'S APPROVAL BEFORE USING EQUIPMENT ABOVE THE PIPE.

ADJACENT EMBANKMENT MATERIAL

2.5 H : 1 V 2.5 H : 1 V

0.150

0.300

SHAPE OF GRANULAR FILL AND CLAY SEAL ENVELOPE

3730 mm TY DIS HAR EK CRE

1

1

1

EXCAVATE AT 1:1 OR AS REQUIRED FOR STABILITY

1 (TYP.)

1.300

3730 X 2290 mm PIPE ARCH

0.150 1

1 1

2.5 H : 1 V

1 (TYP.)

0.600 EXCAVATE 0.600 m MINIMUM BELOW THE PIPE INVERT AND REPLACE WITH GRANULAR MATERIAL

20.441

1.290

1

1 0.150

2.5 H : 1 V

THE 0.300 m OF "DESIGNATION 6, CLASS 80" OVER THE PIPE SHALL BE PLACED, LEVELED AND COMPACTED WITHOUT VIBRATION. SUBSEQUENT FILL OVER THE PIPE SHALL BE PLACED AND COMPACTED BY EQUIPMENT MOVING PERPENDICULAR TO THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS OF THE PIPE

COMPACT MATERIAL AT AND ABOVE THIS LEVEL TO A MINIMUM OF 95 % OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT

44.228

PLACE AND COMPACT "DESIGNATION 2, CLASS 40" UNDER THE HAUNCHES IN THIN LAYERS, FILLING ALL CORRUGATIONS AND ENSURING FIRM CONTACT WITH THE PIPE.

1.995 3.990 7.980

23.787

PLACE 0.150 m LIFT OF "DESIGNATION 2, CLASS 40" IN AN UNCOMPACTED STATE

PLACE AND COMPACT SIMULTANEOUSLY IN LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 0.150 m WHEN COMPACTED

WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC (TERRATRACK 400W OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) TO BE PLACED UNDER PIT RUN GRAVEL AS SHOWN

REMOVE OR STABILIZE SOFT OR YIELDING MATERIAL BELOW THIS ELEVATION AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER

PROJECT LOCATION

BACKFILL DETAILS SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

SITE PLAN

NOTES Survey By 1. Golder Associates Ltd. under direction of N. Schmidt, October 2003.

500 mm DIA. ROCK

Benchmark 1. All survey data are referenced to the existing upstream culvert invert elevation of 100.000 m (local datum). A new benchmark shall be established before removal of the existing culvert.

100 mm

400

500 mm

SITE MAP

REFERENCE

Hydrotechnical Data 1. Drainage area: 19.0 km 2. 2. Design discharge: 13.2 m 3/s (estimated 1:50 year maximum instantaneous discharge under future watershed conditions). 3. Average surveyed slope of streambed: 0.030 m/m. 4. Mean outlet velocity for design discharge: 3.36 m/s.

100

LONGITUDINAL SECTION 500 mm DIA. ROCK

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SCANNED BY MAPTOWN. © 1996 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES. 83 F/5 NAD 83 UTM ZONE 11

Structure 1. 1- 3730 x 2290 mm SPCSP Pipe Arch, 44.228 m invert length on square to roadway. Pipe arch invert buried 0.30 m under pit run substrate, complete with boulder fish baffles. Plate thickness is 3 mm. 2. Boulders shall be placed in a triangular pattern, one upstream and two downstream, spaced 1 m apart on centre. Boulder clusters shall be installed on 6 m intervals along the length of the culvert General Notes 1. Dimensions are given in metres unless noted otherwise. 2. In longitudinal seams, bolts in valleys shall be installed closer to visible edges of plates than bolts on crests. 3. All longitudinal seams to be staggered 2N. 4. Culvert assembly shall be in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. 5. The Contractor shall be responsible for all utility locates.

ROCK FISH BAFFLE SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE CL EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD PROPOSED FINISHED GRAVEL WIDTH 12.800

SOUTH

106.00

104.00 103.00

107.00 PROPOSED ROAD FILL

SEE DRAWING 2 FOR DETAILS OF END TREATMENT

105.00

NORTH

6.400

CL FINISHED GRAVEL EL. 106.176

CLAY SEAL (TYP. BOTH ENDS)

CLASS I RIPRAP TO BE PLACED 0.500 m THICK (U/S END ONLY)

106.00 1V

2.5 H

EXISTING ROAD FILL

1V

1V 1.5 H 0.300

EXISTING 1.5 Ø CSP X 32.0

ROCK FISH BAFFLE (TYP.) REFER TO DETAIL

105.00 1.5 H

2.5 H 1V

250 mm MINUS PITRUN GRAVEL SUBSTRATE

1 - 3730 x 2290 mm SPCSP PIPE ARCH, 44.228 m INVERT LENGTH

TOP OF CLASS II RIPRAP 101.000 m

ELEVATION (m)

100.00 99.00

STREAMBED EL. 100.288 INVERT EL. 100.12

1.1250

94.00 93.00

6.000 NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC (TERRA FIX 360 R OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) TO BE PLACED UNDER ALL RIPRAP (TYP. BOTH ENDS)

0.150 0.450

0.600

GRANULAR MATERIAL DESIGNATION 2, CLASS 40

17.828 18.953

101.00 100.00 99.00 98.00

20.919 22.044

WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC (TERRATRACK 400W OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) SHALL BE PLACED UNDER PIT RUN GRAVEL AS SHOWN

102.00

STREAMBED EL. 98.670

0.300 INVERT EL. 98.88

6.512

97.00

95.00

FLOW

0.500

98.00

96.00

GRANULAR MATERIAL DESIGNATION 6, CLASS 80

103.00

CLASS II RIPRAP TO BE PLACED 0.800 m THICK (D/S END ONLY)

102.00 101.00

104.00

6.257

1.125

0.800 7.500

ELEVATION (m)

107.00

6.400

FINISHED GRAVEL SHOULDER EL. 106.056 (TYP.)

TOP OF CLASS I RIPRAP EL. 102.300 m

FOOTHILLS MODEL FOREST HARDISTY CREEK RESTORATION HINTON

97.00 96.00 95.00

HARDISTY CREEK CULVERT ON ROBB ROAD 4 km SOUTH OF HINTON

94.00 93.00

LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH CL CULVERT

DRAWING: 1


A 1001 A 1501 C 1501 C 1502 C 1503 S 1001 S 1002 S 1003

A 1501 (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT)

150

CUT-OFF SHOULDER

K

2.5:1

CONCRETE ARCH

ARCH

Y

C CONCRETE SHOULDER 2 ROWS OF 19 mm DIA x 254 mm LONG GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLTS c/w 2 NUTS @ 488 mm INTERVALS, STAGGERED * BACK ROW OF BOLT HOLES TO BE FIELD DRILLED ** BOTH ROWS OF BOLT HOLES TO BE FIELD DRILLED

V

BEVEL

G

CONCRETE

STEP BEVEL POINT

Y C

B

B

CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL

C 1501 @ 300 (FIELD CUT AND SPLICE WITH C 1502 PROVIDING MINIMUM 450 mm OVERLAP) C 1501 TO BE EXTENDED 600 mm INTO CONCRETE SHOULDER AS SHOWN (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT) TYPICAL BOTH SIDES

BOLTS

A

DEPTH - MIN.

B

5170 700

DEPTH - MAX.

C

1920

THICKNESS

D

350

WIDTH

E

600

F

600

G

300

WIDTH

J

500

DEPTH

K

400

RADIUS

L

7877

LENGTH

H

1125

CENTRE

V

450

TOP & BOTTOM

Y

• • •

• • • •

920

CUT-OFF WALL (m 2)

2.1 m3

SHOULDER

(m 2)

0.6 m3

LENGTH

(m 2)

1.0 m3

TOTAL

(m 2)

3.7 m3

58

C 1501 @ 300 (FIELD CUT TO SUIT) A

460

400

SECTION - END VIEW

350

400 410

C 1501 TO BE EXTENDED 600 mm INTO CONCRETE SHOULDER (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT) TYPICAL BOTH SIDES

S 1501 TO BE EXTENDED 600 mm INTO CONCRETE ARCH (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT) TYPICAL BOTH SIDES

TYPE "A" OV E MIN RLA 30 P 0

A

TYPE "B"

325

A

BAR DIMENSIONS ARE OUT TO OUT

19 mm DIA x 254 mm LONG GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLTS c/w 2 NUTS @ 244 mm INTERVALS ** BOLT HOLES TO BE FIELD DRILLED

300

E

2:1

2.5:1

MASS (kg) 28 51 132 64 25 8 10 44 362

BAR TYPES C 1503 @ 300

C 1502 @ 300 (FIELD CUT OR SPLICE TO SUIT)

450

D

LENGTH (mm) 1680 5400 12000 2250 900 995 1320 2000 TOTAL

DIMENSIONS ARE GIVEN IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. HOLES IN THE CULVERT PLATE (22 mm DIA) TO BE FIELD DRILLED TO RECEIVE ANCHOR BOLTS (DO NOT BURN). AFTER PIPE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY BACKFILLED, CONCRETE END TREATMENT SHALL BE BUILT STARTING WITH THE CUT-OFF WALL FOLLOWED BY THE SHOULDERS AND THE ARCH. POUR BEGINNING FROM THE CUT-OFF WALL. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAN/CSA-G30.18 "BILLET-STEEL FOR CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT". ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE GRADE 400 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SPLICES, BENDS, AND REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A23.3. REINFORCING STEEL TO BE CONTINUOUS BETWEEN EACH SECTION, WELDING OF REINFORCEMENT IS NOT PERMITTED. REFER TO THE CURRNT VERSION OF B352 "REINFORCEMENT" SECTION 5 OF THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. REINFORCING STEEL AS NOTED IN THE BAR LIST IS CALLED UP BY THE FOLLOWING CONVECTION: A - CONCRETE ARCH C - CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL S - CONCRETE SHOULDER ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE MADE FROM TYPE 50 PORTLAND CEMENT CONFORMING TO A23.1-00. STRENGTH REQUIREMENT 30MPa AT 28 DAYS. CONCRETE SHOULDERS AND CONCRETE ARCH TO BE GIVEN A BROOM FINISH AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EDGE OF THE CULVERT. EXPOSED VERTICAL FACES TO BE FIVEN A CLASS I FINISH. ALL OUTSIDE EDGES TO BE SHAPED WITH A CONCRETE EDGER. CONCRETE TO BE COVERED WITH A CURING MEMEBRANE UPON COMPLETION OF POUR. FORMS ARE TO BE LEFT IN PLACE FOR A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS FOLLOWING POUR.

• •

S 1001 AND S 1002 @ 300

A STR STR D E C B STR

NOTES FOR SPCSP CONCRETE END TREATMENT

DEPTH

NUMBER OF ANCHOR BOLTS (c/w 2 NUTS)

21 6 7 18 18 10 10 14

1000

5170

3730

B

STEP BEVEL POINT

E

WIDTH

10 15 15 15 15 10 10 15

245

2:1

E

A 1001 @ 244

E

CULVERT

DATA

SIZE NO. TYPE

400

H

MARK

DIAMETER mm

245

J

CONCRETE END TREATMENT DATA

BAR LIST

3730

A'

TYPE "C"

250

TYPE "D"

250

TYPE "E"

150

REBAR DETAIL NTS

E

PLAN VIEW OF CONCRETE COLLAR S 1501 TO BE EXTENDED 600 mm INTO CONCRETE ARCH (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT)

G

2

F

1

19 mm DIA x 254 mm LONG GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLTS c/w 2 NUTS @ 244 mm INTERVALS ** BOLT HOLES TO BE FIELD DRILLED

END OF CULVERT

50

P

SPACER BAR C 1503 @ 300

2.5

S 1001 AND S 1002 @ 300

C

CULVERT CULVERT

OVERLAP MIN 300

SECTION - SHOULDER

2290

G

V

G

G

1

S 1001 @ 300 (FIELD BEND TO SUIT)

B

Y

19 mm DIA x 254 mm LONG GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLTS c/w 2 NUTS @ 341 mm INTERVALS * * BOLT HOLES TO BE FIELD DRILLED

C 1501 @ 300 (FIELD CUT TO SUIT)

J G

S 1501 TO BE EXTENDED 600 mm INTO CONCRETE ARCH (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT) C 1501 TO BE EXTENDED 600 mm INTO CONCRETE SHOULDER (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT)

Y

SHAPED ALL AROUND WITH CONCRETE EDGER (TYPICAL)

K

D A 1001 @ 244

Q

B

CULVERT

CULVERT H

SEE DETAIL D

B

75

K

75

SEE DETAIL

G

100

S 1002 @ 300 J

Q

2 ROWS OF 19 mm DIA x 254 mm LONG GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLTS c/w 2 NUTS @ 488 mm INTERVALS. STAGGERED ** BOTH ROWS OF BOLT HOLES TO BE FIELD DRILLED

* BACK ROW OF BOLT HOLES TO BE FIELD DRILLED

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

P

C 1502 @ 300 (FIELD CUT OR SPLICE TO SUIT)

DETAIL - CUT-OFF

FOOTHILLS MODEL FOREST HARDISTY CREEK RESTORATION HINTON

CONCRETE END TREATMENT FOR ARCH CULVERT

A 1501 (FIELD CUT AND BEND TO SUIT)

DETAIL - ARCH

DRAWING: 2


APPENDIX IV CORRECTIVE ACTION PRESCRIPTIONS FOR KINSMEN PARK REACH


100

Hardisty Avenue

FLOW

Thalweg 1-Nov-03 Large Culvert Invert Proposed Riffle

Elevation (m)

98

HARDISTY AVENUE

96

Pedestrian Bridge 94

92

Switzer Drive

RIFFLE

3+88

A'

A

Mean Channel Slope = 0.021 m/m

CHANNEL INFILL

BOULDER CLUSTER

88

2 3+4

THALWEG

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Chainage (m) Positive Upstream

OUTER BANKS

RIFFLE POINT BAR

90

STREAM PROFILE

RIFFLE

3+18

BOULDER CLUSTER OUTER BANKS

72 2+

4

20

BANKFULL

1

1 750 mm Ø ROCK

POINT BAR OUTER BANK

EXISTING SUBSTRATE

RIFFLE

POINT BAR

TYPICAL PROFILE - RIFFLE SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

OUTER BANKS

BOULDER CLUSTER

BASEFLOW

POINT BAR

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION - MEANDER SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

TYPICAL PLAN VIEW - BOULDER CLUSTER

RIFFLE

2+32

BOULDER CLUSTER

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION - RIFFLE SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

BOULDER CLUSTER

05 2+

OUTER BANKS

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION - BOULDER CLUSTER SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

RIFFLE

1+7 2

BOULDER CLUSTER

POINT BAR

POINT BAR

OUTER BANKS

OUTER BANK

30 1+ OUTER BANKS

RIFFLE BOULDER CLUSTER

POINT BAR RIFFLE

OUTER BANKS

POINT BAR

SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

TYPICAL PLAN VIEW - RIFFLE SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

POINT BAR

1+00 EXTENT OF DEPOSITION

RIFFLE

EXTENT OF DEPOSITION

IVE ER DR SWITZ

EXCAVATE SOIL

EXCAVATE SOIL

THALWEG

TYPICAL PLAN VIEW - MEANDER SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

STAKES GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

EXISTING CHANNEL BED

LIVE POLES OR ROOTED STOCK

1m

10 m

SOIL 500 mm BOULDER

40 m

FLOW

FLOODPLAIN RECONSTRUCTION CROSS-SECTION - A-A' SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE TOP OF BANK

PLAN VIEW

FOOTHILLS MODEL FOREST HARDISTY CREEK RESTORATION HINTON

HARDISTY CREEK AT HINTON KINSMEN PARK STREAM REMEDIATION PRESCRIPTIONS

NOTES TYPICAL PLAN SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE: 1


100

Hardisty Avenue

FLOW

Thalweg 1-Nov-03 Water Surface Elevation 1-Nov-03 Large Culvert Invert

Elevation (m)

98

HARDISTY AVENUE

96

Pedestrian Bridge 94

92

Switzer Drive

3+94 90

Mean Channel Slope = 0.021 m/m

BM1 88 450

400

350

300

250

3+50

200

150

100

50

0

STREAM PROFILE

BM2

BM4

100

99

100

99

98

99 98

98 97

97

96

96

95 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Elevation (m)

50 2+

101

Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

3+00

BM3

80

94 0

70

80

0

95 94

94

93

93

92 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Elevation (m)

95

80

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

92 91

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

91 90 89 88

0

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 1+00

Elevation (m)

92

Elevation (m)

93

93

10

80

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 1+50

94

89

70

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

94

90

60

91 10

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 2+00

90

50

92

0

91

40

93

95

92

30

94

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

93

20

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 3+00

95

96

10

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

96

0

IVE ER DR SWITZ

60

96

Elevation (m)

Elevation (m) Elevation (m)

0+50

50

97

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 2+50

BM7

40

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 3+50

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

EXTENT OF EXISTING GABIONS

30

97

0

00 1+

20

98

1+50

BM6

10

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 3+94

BM5

96 95

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

2+00

97

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 0+50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Distance referenced to LDB (m)

STREAM CROSS-SECTION AT STATION 0+00

BM8 FOOTHILLS MODEL FOREST HARDISTY CREEK RESTORATION HINTON

BM9 00 0+

FLOW NOTES

HARDISTY CREEK AT HINTON KINSMEN PARK STREAM REMEDIATION PRESCRIPTIONS

PLAN VIEW

FIGURE: 2


APPENDIX V DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR WELDWOOD HAUL ROAD BRIDGE


103

103 Approximate existing roadway fill

102

102

0+80

C'

101 Existing north culvert 100

100

99

99 98

98

Average downstream channel slope 0.030 m/m

Stream thalweg

97

B'

0+60

97

96

96

95 -40

95 -30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PROJECT LOCATION

90

Station (m) Distance from North Culvert Upstream Invert 0+40

A'

C

CHANNEL PROFILE

0+20 0+00

Hardisty Creek

0-20

Flow

Existing Culverts B

103

Elevation (m)

103

Cross-Section A-A' at Station 0-32

102

102

101

101

100

100

99 98

99

Cross-Section C-C' at Station 0+51

North Culvert at Station 0+00 (Inlet Invert) North Culvert at Station 0+18 (Outlet Invert)

SITE MAP

98 Cross-Section D-D' at Station 0+85

97 96

97 96

0

SITE PLAN

Elevation (m)

A 10.0 m Clear Roadway

5

10

15

20

Distance from Left (m) (Looking Downstream)

25

30

NOTES Survey By 1. Golder Associates Ltd. under direction of N. Schmidt, October 2003.

CHANNEL CROSS-SECTIONS Benchmark 1. All survey data are referenced to the existing downstream north culvert crown elevation of 100.000 m (local datum). A new benchmark shall be established, or new survey performed, before removal of the existing culvert.

CL Bearing and Pile

PLANT END 104

105

CL Bearing and Pile

Bridge Delineator (TYP.) (4 Required)

ATHABASCA END

104

Guardrail

103

Precast Concrete Barrier, (TYP.) to A.T. Standard Specifications (4 Required)

102

102

101

101

100

100

Q100 Design WL Elev. 99.15 m

1.5 H (TYP.)

0.50 m Min.

1.0 V (TYP.)

99

Structure 1. Two-lane bridge designed to L100 loading. 2. Drilled or driven pile foundation. 3. 10.0 m single span between pile bent centrelines. 4. 10.0 m deck width from face of curb to face of curb. 5. 6.0 m channel bed width with 1.5H:1V sideslopes.

10.0 m c/c

103

Approximate existing road grade

Hydrotechnical Data 1. Drainage area: 36.6 km². 2. Design discharge: 24.4 m³/s (estimated 1:100 year maximum instantaneous discharge under future watershed conditions). 3. Average surveyed slope of streambed: 0.030 m/m. 4. Mean outlet velocity for design discharge: 3.45 m/s.

99

1.0 m Thick (TYP.) 98

98

Elevation (m)

105

Elevation (m)

D

Temporary Benchmark Top of Culvert Elev. 100.000 (non-geodetic)

Elevation (m)

D'

Elevation (m)

C L Existing Roadw ay

Water surface elevation 24-Oct-03 101

General Notes 1. Dimensions are given in metres unless noted otherwise. 2. Channel bed shall be graded to uniform gradient in reach upstream and downstream of bridge. 3. This drawing is conceptual and does not provide structural or geotechnical design details. 4. The Contractor shall be responsible for all utility locates.

Class II Riprap Headslope Armour D50 = 600 mm, 1.0 m Thick, (TYP.). 97

97

1.0 m Below Design Channel Bed

96

REFERENCE

Non-Woven Geotextile 96

Channel bed width 6.0 m at Elev. 98.20 m

95 0

5

10

95 15

Distance from Left (m) ( Looking Downstream )

BRIDGE ELEVATION B-B'

20

25

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SCANNED BY MAPTOWN. © 1996 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES. 83 F/5 NAD 83 UTM ZONE 11

FOOTHILLS MODEL FOREST HARDISTY CREEK RESTORATION HINTON

HARDISTY CREEK BRIDGE ON WELDWOOD HINTON PLANT SITE HAUL ROAD

FIGURE: 1


[Title will be auto-generated]  

http://foothillsri.ca/sites/default/files/null/FWP_2004_05_RPT_HardistyFishHabitatPassageAssessmentCorrectiveDesign.pdf

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you