okanagan river restoration initiative (orri) nemes...

ORRI design report Jan 29-07 1

Okanagan River restoration Initiative (ORRI) Nemes Lougheed Setback Dyke and Habitat Project Options

Internal Summary Report for the ORRI/COBTWG Committees

Executive Summary

In 2006, Kerr Wood Leidal Associates won a competition to provide an engineering design

that would allow the Okanagan River Restoration Project to proceed to the construction

phase. By November 30, 2006 they provided a design for the setback dyke and channel but

it had several shortcomings. Most critical among these was the failure to make use of any

of the existing river channel and floodplain. Excessive quantities of earth had to be

removed from the ORRI site and tipped elsewhere to build an entirely new channel and

floodplain (7,700 truck loads). Costs would be high and existing riparian and channel

habitat would be lost entirely. Furthermore, channel stability would be initially reduced as

the floodplain was re-built on new fill materials in the old channel.

The drawbacks of the KWL design prompted a follow-up search for less costly and risky

options, no excess material for off-site disposal and maximum use of the existing habitat

features and vegetation. This report compares the KWL option with 2 lower impact

alternatives. All three are discussed and provided to the ORRI Steering Committee and

COBTWG for further consideration.

The most practical designs for stream restoration projects are often taken from natural

configurations found in similar settings. In the case of ORRI, comparative examples can be

found a short distance upstream on the sockeye spawning grounds located within the

setback dyke reach. The characteristics found in this area led to the two alternative

designs to the KWL option. The first has been called the feasibility study plan (FSP) and

the second the maximum habitat protection plan (MHP).

Four aspects of the three options are compared in this report; the plan layout, flood levels,

habitats created and project costs (KWL $6.2M, FSP $2.1M, MHP $1.2M). Either of the


less expensive alternative options appear more practical and ecologically responsible.

However data gaps need to be filled to provide the survey information required to

adequately evaluate them. The surveys and analyses required are listed in this report with

estimated costs for their completion. No further surveys are required to construct the

setback dyke as designed by KWL. This is common to all of the ORRI options and may be

proceeded with as designed.

While the ORRI Steering Committee is undoubtedly anxious to adopt a final design as soon

as possible, the completion of a little more design work at this stage promises to provide

the information required to move ahead in a more fiscally responsible and risk-averse

fashion.

The ORRI Committee and the Canadian Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group

(COBTWG) are requested to review this report and provide direction as to whether it is

prepared to approve further planning which would lead the ORRI project toward

implementation.

_______________________________________________________________________

Acknowledgement: this report was greatly enhanced with reviews and comments by Chris

Bull, ORRI Project Coordinator.


CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 3

2. Plan Layout Options 7

3. Flood Capacity 12

4. Fish Habitat Assessment 14

5. Construction Costs for the ORRI Options 17

6. What’s Next 17

7. Appendices 18

Table 1: Cost Estimates for ORRI Options 19

Appendix A: Setback Dyke Design 23

Appendix B: Existing Channel Data 25

Appendix C: FSP Option 28

Appendix D: KWL Option Typical Cross-Sections 33

References 34


1. Introduction

There is no over-riding design for restoring rivers, only observations of natural channel

forms and features, some of which provide desirable habitats for fisheries. The two main

factors that create and maintain the river form are the energy available and the erodibility of

the channel and floodplain materials. The energy available is a combination of the slope or

fall in the reach and the discharge. This is a considerable force to be accommodated in the

design. In the case of the ORRI reach, at a median flood peak of 60 m3/sec the river exerts

432 KW of power in transporting water and sediment and overcoming friction between the

flow and the bed.

For a channelized stream like the ORRI reach above Vertical Drop Structure (VDS) 13,

forms and habitat features are best copied from similar unchannelized settings. There are

remnants of previous channels on the site; two meander pools and a broad floodplain

behind the existing dyke. However, these features were active before the river was

channelized and the gradient reduced from 0.19% prior to the construction of VDS 13 to

0.07-0.09% at present. In effect VDS 13 dissipates about 2/3 of the power that would have

been available to maintain the original channel.

Habitat features that are more typical of the reduced gradient reach can be seen in the

setback dyke reach upstream from the ORRI reach (Figure 1). The slope of a 1300 m

reference reach in the lower end of this section is 0.13%. At this slope and discharge, the

river does not meander or braid but small sections of side channels are developed known

as “anabranches”. A plot of channel types developed recently by Burge (2005) shows the

setback dyke and ORRI reach falling into this channel category. Local cross-sections

measured during spawning surveys indicate that the channel varies in width from 25 to 35

m and in depth from 1.5 to 2.5 m below the floodplain. The gravel bars and runs in the

anabranch segments have short runs with local slopes up to 0.3% that are heavily used by

spawning sockeye and also used by chinook salmon (Sections 5 and 6, Summit 2000). The

slope between anabranch segments and the geometry of the reach and these features

have not been surveyed in detail. This data gap should be eliminated as soon as possible.


Design goals for the ORRI project are based on ecosystem restoration for the whole site

including the river channel, floodplain, riparian zones and refugia. Some anabranch and

floodplain features with desirable habitat characteristics can be transferred from the

reference reach. Remnants of the pre-VDS 13 features can be integrated into this design

but they would not operate with the same form and original energy. Short anabranch

segments of higher slope may be developed between the two existing meander pools while

other segments may be added between new runs in the upper site. To minimize

excavation, segments of the existing channel should be integrated into the channel

alignment. Similarly, excess dyke materials may be re-shaped and left in place as island

refugia, or at additional expense, removed and added to the width of the setback dyke. To

utilize the existing floodplain, the profile of the channel can be raised with local runs and

riffles with a wider channel at the upper end of the site to avoid upstream flooding. The

existing pools and floodplain in the ORRI reach have not been surveyed in enough detail to

evaluate all of the habitat features that can be integrated into the reach.

Three channel design options are discussed in the remainder of this report:

1. KWL new channel and floodplain plan (KWL)

2. meandering option as outlined in the feasibility study plan ( FSP)

3. maximum habitat protection plan (MHP)

The KWL setback dyke design is summarized in Appendix A. The cost of this component is

included in all options. Unit values and components proposed in the KWL study have been

used in comparing costs.


Figure 1: Channel Characteristics in the ORRI and Setback Dyke Reaches


2. Plan Layout Options

The three ORRI site plans are shown in Figure 2. The active floodplain is indicated by a

blue overlay.

1. KWL Option

The KWL floodplain runs on the east side of the reach. It is excavated below the existing

floodplain level on the Nemes-Lougheed property and runs on fill placed in the existing

channel. There are several locations where the floodplain flows enter and exit the main

channel as the floodplain narrows and widens. The existing dyke is fully removed.

The main channel meanders mildly but there is insufficient gradient to create circulating

flow or point bars. This is the case for all meandering patterns in the reach because of the

backwater effect of VDS13. A variety of velocities and depths are created in three uniform

side channels and several deep pools in the main channel.

2. FSP Option

In the feasibility meandering option the existing floodplain is re-activated by raising the

channel in local riffles along the reach. The entrance to the channel is widened to prevent

flooding above the ORRI reach. No excavation of the floodplain is required. Portions of the

existing dyke are removed only where it is crossed by the channel. The remaining dykes

are re-shaped and left on the floodplain as island refugia. Unutilized segments of the old

channel may be filled or left as shallow pools depending on the requirement to balance the

cuts and fills on site.

The main channel consists of three short anabranch segments similar to those observed

upstream and a meandering mainstem between segments of the existing channel and the

two existing meander pools on the Nemes-Lougheed site. Approximately 1/3 of the new

channel follows the existing channel and does not require excavation. Shallow runs in the


old channel and a variety of velocities and depths are created in the anabranch and old

meander pool segments.

3. MHP Option

The maximum habitat protection option preserves the entire existing channel and utilizes

the existing floodplain. Habitat features are added in side channels excavated in the

Nemes-Lougheed properties that branch off and return to the existing channel. Access to

the side channels is controlled by the elevation of three or four riffles added to the existing

channel similar to those constructed below VDS 12 in 2001. Two side channels are added

at the upper end of the site to avoid upstream backwater effects during flood peaks. Single

side channels access the existing meander pools in the lower reach. Sufficient dyke

material is removed in the side channel areas to build the setback dyke on the KVR right of

way. The remainder is reshaped as island refugia. In addition to pools and shallow side

channel runs, shallow spawning riffles are created in the existing mainstem.


Figure 2: Three Options for the ORRI reach

1. KWL option


2. FSP option


3. MHP option


3. Flood Capacity

Profiles of the flood stage in the reach at a discharge of 110 m3/s are shown in Figure 3.

This is slightly higher than the highest discharge on record and was chosen to provide a

sensibly cautious approach. Backwater from VDS 13 at this discharge extends upstream

beyond the ORRI reach at approximately the same levels with and without the projects.

The upstream flood level is at elevation 298.2 in the existing channel, elevation 298.3 in the

KWL new channel option and 298.3 in the feasibility meandering option. The maximum

habitat protection option is not modeled but would be similar to the existing channel at the

upper end of the reach.

The existing channel and dykes can contain this flood as observed in 1990 when a flood of

106 m3/s occurred. The setback dyke is designed to the same elevation as the existing

dyke and would have the same or greater protection because of access to the wider

existing floodplain.

The ORRI meandering profile (FSP) and maximum habitat protection profile (MHP) require

additional survey information to complete the modelling, primarily a more detailed survey of

the existing floodplain and meander pools. The KWL profile is copied from the Mike 11

uniform flow model used by KWL. The figure is flipped to flow in the same direction for

comparison with the HEC uniform flow models. The Mike 11 flow model was not

successfully converted to a single equivalent HEC format by KWL.


Figure 3: Design flood capacity of the existing channel and ORRI options


4. Fish Habitat Assessment

Channel cross-sections and slopes have been measured as part of the fish monitoring and

redd scour projects in the anabranch channel in the dyke setback reach upstream from the

ORRI reach discussed in Section 1. The locations have not been tied into geodetic

elevations and their detailed configuration could not be used in the more general ORRI

uniform flow models. Instead, the mean velocity and depth in the channel predicted by the

models were used as indicators of available fish habitats. This produced unreliable

predictions when compared to observations of habitats in the existing channel (Appendix E:

LGL Fish Habitat Assessment, KWL Report). This is not surprising since uniform flow

hydraulic models are not designed to predict the complexity of fish habitats.

Based on the models, a measure of the velocity and depth combinations that occur during

a typical fall spawning discharge of 10 m3/s in the ORRI reach is shown in Figure 5. The

terms are combined in the Froude Number (velocity divided by a depth factor or V/(gD)1/2).

This parameter was used to describe the local hydraulic conditions at sockeye spawning

habitat sites in the ORRI and setback dyke reaches (Long 2006). The mean Froude

Number of the sites was found to be 0.315 with a standard deviation of 0.1. The mean

value and a shaded range are plotted on the graphs for comparison. The range is

consistent with spawning observed throughout the existing reach.

Portions of all of the ORRI options fall within the range. The lower end of the range in the

meandering option will decrease when the existing meander pools have been surveyed and

added to the cross-sections. The maximum habitat protection option is not shown in Figure

5 as it is based on adding the anabranch channels, short runs, and pools similar to those

observed in the setback dyke reach. Further surveying is required before these can be

designed reliably.

From a habitat viewpoint, the main difference between the KWL option and the meandering

or habitat addition option lies in the use of the energy available in the ORRI reach. The

energy available (measured as a drop in water surface elevation in the reach of about 0.9


m at 10 m3/s) is the same for all options. In the existing channel and the KWL new channel,

the energy is uniformly distributed as frictional losses along the mainstem and short side

channels. In the meandering and MHP options, the energy dissipation is concentrated in

three or four locations in short riffles or runs to create local habitats similar to those

observed in the upstream reach. This is accomplished by creating steps of quiescent glides

and pools separated by more rapidly flowing riffles and side channel runs. The riffle

segments would be similar to those constructed below VDS 12 in 2001. The final crest

elevations required to access the floodplain at a median flood level cannot be set reliably

until the ORRI site is re-surveyed to a finer scale than the 1m contour interval provided by

McElhanney (2005).

Figure 5: riffle constructed to form a fish passage pool below VDS 12.

Figure 6: sockeye spawning on the upstream side of a VDS 12 riffle.


Figure 4: Froude Numbers as an indirect spawning habitat measure in the existing channel and two ORRI options.


5. Construction Costs for the ORRI Options

The cost of each component of the three ORRI options are listed in Table 1. The format

and unit costs are reproduced from the KWL study (Appendix G, November 30, 2006).

Notes on the components follow the cost summary. Depending on the availability of

funding, this may be the most critical section for deciding on the next stages of the ORRI

project. Funding sources will justifiably demand a defensible fiscal approach. Although

flood protection and habitats created are similar, the total of the KWL and optional designs

vary by a factor of fivefold.

6. What’s Next?

There are three areas to consider, office studies that can be done now, additional field

surveys to fill in data gaps (April 2007) and initial construction that may commence in the

summer or fall of 2007. Contract values are based on estimates provided in 2006.

1. Office Studies now

1a. extend the existing HEC model for the ORRI reach northwards using the 1980 and

1997 surveys of the setback dyke reach to determine if the anabranch habitats are

discernable and to provide a measure of the backwater effects upstream from the ORRI

reach (Contract Value $15K).

1b. compile the ONA Fisheries and Summit x-secs in the setback dyke reach to determine

the geometry of the observed spawning and habitat sites (Contract Value $3K).

1c. set up a data and spreadsheet file for the recently installed gauge above VDS 12 to

confirm the rating curve used in the KWL and feasibility studies.

2. Field Studies spring/summer 2007

2.1 survey Nemes-Loughheed floodplain and existing pools to refine 1 m contours

(Contract Value $8K).

2.2 map vegetation along existing right-of-way with a view to preserving the best segments

(Contract Value $3K).


2.3 tie in ONA and Summit x-secs in setback reach and update the HEC model (Contract

Value $5K).

2.4 survey water surface profile at a low, moderate a high flow stage to verify HEC and

Mike 11 models (Contract Value $3K).

2.5 lay out ORRI options on site directly (Contract Value $6K). This will provide the information required for the ORRI Committee to select the final design and project phases. 2.6 obtain project approvals (Contract Value $3K)

3. Construction summer/fall 2007

3.1 complete site cleanup ($5,000)

3.2 tender and initiate setback dyke construction as designed by KWL (Appendix A

common to all options) (Design/Build Contract Value: Items 2.14 + 2.2 = $64,000 partial

removal + $349,900 full re-construction = $413,900.)

3.3 Fall 2007: finalize channel design and prepare tender documents for 2008

7. Appendices Appendix A: KWL Setback Dyke Design, common to all options.

Appendix B: present dyke volume and cross-sections of the existing channel.

Appendix C: excavation volume and cross-sections for the FSP option (subject to minor

adjustments when the existing floodplain is surveyed in more detail).

Appendix D: excavated volumes for the KWL option are given in Table 1. The cross-

sections derived from the Mike 11 model are shown in drawings SW8 to SW12, KWL Final

Report . There are no equivalent HEC model cross-sections or digital files available. Two

cross-sections typical of the east side and the west side of the ORRI reach from Drawing

SW10 are shown with notes on the new channel and floodplain cut and fill.

___________________________________________________________________

report submitted January 29/07 Robert Newbury PEng


Table 1: Cost Estimates for ORRI options (format from Appendix G, KWL Final Report) Item

Description

Unit Price

KWL quantity

KWL cost $

FSP quantity

FSP cost $

MHP quantity

MHP cost $

1.0 General 1.1 Bonding and Insurance 40,000 14,000 10,000 1.2 Mobilization/Demobilization 100,000 33,000 25,000 1.3 Instream Diversions 75,000 x x 1.4 Bypass Pumping 50,000 x x 1.5 Dewatering 50,000 x x 1.6 Sedimentation Works 25,000 25,000 25,000 1.7 Temporary Crossing 55,000 x x SUBTOTAL FOR TASK

395,000 72,000 60,000

2.1 Common Excavation 2.1.1 Clearing m2 $1.00 15,500 15,500 5,000 4,000 2.1.2 Stripping m2 $0.50 39,000 19,500 7,000 5,000 2.1.3 Existing Dyke Asphalt Reclaim m2 $2.50 4,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2.1.4 Existing Dyke Excavation m3 $5.00 40,000 200,000 13,000 64,000 13,000 64,000 2.1.5 Bulk Channel Excavation (below

floodplain) m3 $9.00 106,000 954,000 38,575 347,175 28,000 248,000

2.1.6 River Gravel Salvage m3 $9.00 13,500 121,500 8,505 76,545 x 2.1.7 Material Disposal (assumed 2 hour

haul with no tipping fee off-site) m3 $12.00 77,000 924,000 x x

SUBTOTAL FOR TASK

2,224,500 509,690 331,000

2.2 KVR Dyke Construction (all options) 2.2.1 Clearing m2 $1.50 17,000 25,500 17,000 25,500 17,000 25,500 2.2.2 Stripping m2 $1.50 17,000 25,500 17,000 25,500 17,000 25,500 2.2.3 Salvaged Dyke Material Placement m3 $10.00 13,000 130,000 13,000 130,000 13,000 130,000 2.2.4 Supply and Place Granular Fill

Material m3 $38.00 300 11,400 300 11,400 300 11,400

2.2.5 Supply and Place Riprap m3 $50.00 750 37,500 750 37,500 750 37,500 2.2.6 Supply and Place Crushed Gravel m3 $40.00 1,500 60,000 1,500 60,000 1,500 60,000 2.2.7 Supply and Place Asphalt m2 $15.00 4,000 60,000 4,000 60,000 4,000 60,000 SUBTOTAL FOR TASK

349,900 349,900 349,900


Item

Description

Unit Price

KWL quantity

KWL cost

FSP quantity

FSP cost

MHP quantity

MHP cost

2.3 Channel Construction 2.3.1 Salvaged Gravel Placement m3 $7.00 13,000 91,000 8,505 59,535 x 2.3.2 Supply and Placement of River

Gravel (imported) m3 $40.00 9,700 388,000 x 42,680

2.3.3 Placement and Compaction of Salvaged Dyke Material

m3 $9.00 29,000 207,000 x x

2.3.4 Placement of Native Floodplain Sediments

m3 $9.00 39,000 351,000 38,575 347,175 28,000 252,000

2.3.5 Supply and Place River Cobble/Boulder Material

m3 $38.00 3,000 114,000 120,000 120,000

2.3.6 Supply and Place Granular Filter Material

m3 $38.00 500 19,000 x x

2.3.7 Supply and Place Riprap m3 $50.00 3,400 170,000 2,142 107,100 x 2.3.8 Large Wood Structures 30,000 30,000 x SUBTOTAL FOR TASK

1,370,000 698,775 162,680

2.4 Channel Bank Treatments 2.4.1 Type 1 Bank Treatment m $400.00 610 244,000 x x 2.4.2 Type 2 Bank Treatment m $250.00 1040 260,000 x x 2.4.3 Type 3 Bank Treatment m $300.00 230 69,000 x x 2.4.4 Type 4 Bank Treatment m $100.00 150 15,000 x x SUBTOTAL FOR TASK

588,000

2.5 Restoration and Planting 2.5.1 Site Restoration 20,000 20,000 20,000 2.5.2 Riparian Planting 30,000 30,000 30,000 SUBTOTAL FOR TASK

50,000 50,000 50,000

SUBTOTAL FOR ALL TASKS 4,997,400 1,645,400 953,580 Engineering/ Construction

Management 5% 250,000 82,270 46,680

Contingencies 20% 1,000,000 329,080 190,720

TOTAL AMOUNT

6,247,000

2,056,750

1,191,980


Table 1 (continued): Notes on the Cost Components of ORRI Options 1.0 General Items 1.1 Bonding and Insurance and 1.2 Mobilization/Demobilization: based on the excavation required.

Items 1.3 Instream Diversions, 1.4 Bypass Pumping, 1.5 Dewatering and 1.7 Temporary Crossing: eliminated in the FSP and MHP options.

In the KWL option the entire old channel is to be infilled and prepared for use as the new floodplain. In the FSP option 1/3 of the old channel is

retained in segments that can be used to stage the meander and side channel additions. In the MHP option the entire old channel is retained

allowing the additions to be made without diversions.

Item 1.6 Sedimentation Works: required to control sedimentation during construction for all options.

2.1 Common Excavation Items 2.11 Clearing and 2.12 Stripping: based on the amount of below floodplain excavation required.

Item 2.1.3 Existing Dyke Asphalt Reclaim: is common to all options.

Item 2.1.4 Existing Dyke Excavation: based on removing the entire existing dyke (40,000 m3) in the KWL option as it lies in the path of the new

channel and floodplain. In the FSP and MHP options only the amount required to build the setback dyke on the KVR right-of-way is removed

(13,000 m3). After the asphalt is removed from the remaining dyke segments, the tops and ends can be re-shaped into a form appropriate for

islands on the floodplain. Trees and shrubs on the sides of the dyke segments are retained.

Item 2.1.5 Bulk Channel Excavation: based on the excavation required below the existing floodplain level. In all 3 cases the estimates are

based on the 1m contour interval map of the floodplain with no existing pool surveys. More precise surveys will facilitate a more accurate cost

estimate.

Item 2.16 River Gravel Salvage: based on the portion of the existing channel that will be removed (100% in the case of the KWL option, 63% for

the FSP option and 0% for the MHP option).

Item 2.17 Material Disposal (off site, no tipping fee): This is a large component of the KWL option because of the amount of excavation

required to build a new channel and floodplain, 106,000 m3 (see Appendix D). The estimated excavation required for the FSP option is 38,575 m3

with the integration of the two existing meander pools (Appendix C). The FSP volume excavated is approximately balanced by the volume

required to fill in the un-used portions of the old channel and there is no off-site disposal or tipping cost. The smaller excavation for the MHP

options may be disposed of behind a section of the setback dyke . If the dyke boundary has to be shifted eastwards reducing the width of the

upper end of the floodplain, the flood capacity will not be affected as the original channel will still be in operation.


2.2 KVR Dyke Construction Items 2.2.1 to 2.2.7: the same for all options and have not been altered from the KWL design estimates.

2.3 Channel Construction Item 2.3.1 Salvaged Gravel Placement: reduced to the amounts salvaged in each option. The portion of the new riffle costs in the FSP and

MHP options in includes additional gravel placement.

Item 2.3.2 Supply and Placement of Imported River Gravel: reduced to the requirements for the additional upstream runs in the MHP option

and eliminated in the FSP option as portions of the old channel are retained.

Item 2.3.3 Placement and Compaction of Salvaged Dyke Material: there is no excess dyke material in the FSP or MHP options.

Item 2.3.4 Placement of Native Floodplain Sediments: adjusted to the amounts excavated.

Item 2.3.5 Supply and Place River Gravel Cobble/Boulder Material: similar costs for all projects. The FSP and MHP riffle costs are based on

similar riffles built below VDS 12.

Item 2.3.6 Supply and Place Granular Filter Material: included in the riffle costs for options FSP and MHP.

Item 2.3.7 Supply and Place Riprap: reduced in the FSP option in the retained channel sections and included in the cost of the cross-over riffles

and runs. In the MHP option the old channel is retained. The cost of local riprap in riffle sections is included in the riffle cost.

Item 2.3.8 Large Wood Structures: retained in all options as habitat cover.

2.4 Channel Bank Treatments Items 2.4.1 to 2.4.4 are not included in the FSP or MHP options as portions or the whole old channel and dyke vegetation are retained, the old

floodplain is utilized and the new channel segments are stepped to create low velocity flows in the pools and inter-riffle segments.

2.5 Restoration and Planting Items 2.5.1 Site Restoration and 2.5.2 Riparian Planting: These are important components in the whole reach ecological restoration project

and may be underestimated. Although there is less clearing required and much of the dyke vegetation is retained in the FSP and MHP options

the full costs are included as additional work.

Engineering and Contingencies are adjusted as percentage of project costs based on the total component costs.


Appendix A: Setback Dyke Design

The present west dyke materials were found to be suitable for the setback dyke (Trow

Report, KWL Appendix A). If the entire west dyke is excavated to the existing floodplain the

volume of dyke material available is approximately 38,000 to 40,000 m3 (KWL Report and

Appendix B this report). The volume required to bring the KVR grade up to the west dyke

elevation is only 13,000 m3 (KWL Appendix G Item 2.23). The entire volume is excavated

and disposed of in the KWL option. Only the amount required to build the setback dyke is

removed in the other project options. The remaining portion is re-shaped and left in place

as island refugia. This would reduce dyke removal costs from $200,000 to $64,000. The

KWL dyke design is shown below in Figure A1 (KWL Appendix F: Drawings SW5-SW7).

Figure A1: Setback Dyke Design Drawings (KWL November 30, 2006)1


1 “COBTWG is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to third parties only as required to conduct business

specifically related to the Okanagan River Restoration Works – Phase 1 (page ii, KWL Design Report November 30/06)”.


Appendix B: Existing Channel Data

Table B1: Existing Volume of Dyke Materials

1980 x-sec

Floodplain Elevation 1

(McElhanney)

Dyke x-sec area above floodplain 2

Average x-sec area

Distance Volume cut to floodplain

m ASL m2 m2 m m3

17+347 298.0 27.9

32.8 58 1902

17+289 298.0 37.6

34.6 129 4463

17+160 298.0 31.5

27.9 99 2762

17+061 298.0 24.2

32.1 162 5200

16+899 297.5 40.0

37.8 91 3440

16+808 297.5 35.6

37.8 90 3402

16+718 297.5 40.0

38.2 145 5539

16+573 297.0 36.4

37.3 154 5744

16+419 297.0 38.2

33.6 159 5342

16+260 297.0 29.1

TOTAL: 37,794

1 to be surveyed, estimates based on McElhanney 1 m interval contour map (2005) 2 to be surveyed, based on 1980 Shubert survey, BC Water Management Branch


Table B2: Excavated Volume of the Present Channel

1980 and 1997 x-sec

Area below present floodplain1

Average x-sec area

Distance Volume cut below floodplain

m2 m2 m m3

17+347 62.39

57.9 58 3358

17+289 53.36

54.3 129 7005

17+160 55.27

56.9 99 5633

17+061 58.54

60.8 162 9850

16+899 63.00

61.4 91 5587

16+808 59.83

62.0 90 5580

16+718 64.25

63.0 145 9135

16+573 61.83

58.4 154 8994

16+419 54.88

61.8 159 9826

16+260 68.77

TOTAL: 64,968

1 area based on 1980 and 1997 WMB survey and HEC model for the existing channel at

the approximate elevation of the Nemes-Lougheed floodplain.


Existing Channel Cross-Sections (1980 and 1997 surveys, feasibility study HEC model)

A typical Fall spawning period discharge of 10 cum/s is shaded in.


Appendix C: FSP option Table C1: meandering feasibility option excavation


FSP Option Cross-Sections (feasibility study model 2005)


FSP Option Cross-Sections (continued)



A typical Fall spawning period discharge of 10 cum/s is shaded in. Cross-sections on riffle

crests will be added when the floodplain survey is completed.


Appendix D: KWL Option Typical Cross-Sections from East and West side of ORRI reach (Original from Drawing

SW10, Appendix F, KWL Final Report November 30, 2006)


References

Burge, L. M. 2005. Wandering Miramichi rivers, New Brunswick, Canada. Geomorphology

69 (253-274), Elsevier.

Kerr, Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. / LGL Ltd. 2006. Okanagan River Initiative: Design

Report. November 30, 2005.

Long, K.I. 2006. The effects of redd selection and redd geometry on the survival of

incubating Okanagan sockeye eggs. MSc thesis, University of New Brunswick.

Newbury, R. 2005. Okanagan River sketch design for the Nemes and Lougheed properties

above VDS 13. ORRI Report.

Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2000. Okanagan River redd scour study.

Trow Associates Inc. 2006. Geotechnical services Okanagan River restoration initiative. (in

KWL/LGL 2006)

okanagan river restoration initiative (orri) nemes...

Documents