MEIGHAN CREEK BYPASS

Prepared For:

CITY OF ARMSTRONG

Prepared By:

INTERIOR DAMS INC

MARCH 1, 2021

ISSUED FOR ACCEPTANCE

MEIGHAN CREEK BYPASS DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT PROJECT 0130.07

Photo credit: Global News, 2017

Revision History

Date Section/Page Description

July 27, 2019 Issued for Review

June 15, 2020 Issued for Acceptance

March 1, 2021 Design changes per SRW agreement requirements, MoTI requests, and other stakeholder feedback.

Issued for Acceptance

Meighan Creek Bypass (Project 0130.07)

Design and Development Report

Interior Dams iii March 1, 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under current conditions, floodwater from the upper Meighan Creek is conveyed across

Highway 97A via four culverts. These culverts, together with the Highway 97A ditch system,

convey this water directly into the City of Armstrong stormwater system. Due to various

capacity issues identified within the City storm system, the Meighan Creek Bypass project is

proposed. This project, along with two other parallel drainage improvement projects (now

completed), are intended to mitigate the risk of flooding in lower Meighan Creek.

This document is a revised design summary of the proposed Meighan Creek Bypass and seeks

approval from the Ministry of Lands, Forests, and Natural Resources Operations and Rural

Development (MFLNRORD) and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) to

construct the works. This document includes design changes and updates per the requirements

of obtained approvals and comments received from BC Hydro, CP Rail, Fortis BC, Department

of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and statutory right-of-way agreements, as well as, received

recommendations from stakeholder engagement.

Stakeholders formally engaged include, but are not limited to, the MFLNRORD, MoTI, the Upper

Nicola Band, Little Shuswap Lake Indian Band, Splats’in First Nation, Qwelminte Secwepemc,

Neskonlith Indian Band, Adams Lake Indian Band, Okanagan Nation Alliance, Lower

Simikameen Indian Band, BC Hydro, CP Rail, Fortis BC, DFO, the Township of Spallumcheen,

the citizens of the City of Armstrong, and private and public land owners. It is understood that

additional stakeholder comments may yet be received, or new responses as a result of the

revisions herein.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the interest of those affected by flooding, we are grateful to Paul Carver, Lisa Gyorkos and

Doug MacKay on behalf of the City of Armstrong for providing assistance in the design,

collection of information, and administrative support, to Kevin Bertles of the City of Armstrong

for keeping the project on-track, in the best interest of all parties and for the coordination of

stakeholder engagement, to the City of Armstrong Mayor and Council for their persistence and

unwavering support of this project and commitment to responsible long-term flood risk

mitigation, and to all those who have been engaged or have assisted in the review,

development and progression of this project.

LIMITATIONS

The document is intended to be used by the City of Armstrong to document and communicate

the proposed Meighan Creek Bypass (Bypass) design. This document also provides technical

design details and proposed construction management procedures to construction, operation,

and facilitate design approval of the Bypass, and is not intended or valid if used for any other

application.



Interior Dams iv March 1, 2021

CERTIFICATION

This report was prepared by: March 1, 2021 Aaron Hahn, P.Eng., AScT Project Engineer



Interior Dams v March 1, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................... III

LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................. III

CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ VI

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... VII

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

2 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Meighan Creek Drainage ................................................................................................ 1

2.2 Existing Meighan Creek Drainage Works ....................................................................... 2

2.3 Recent Flooding from Meighan Creek ............................................................................ 5

2.4 Summary of the 2019 Flood Mapping, Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Report ........... 7 2.4.1 Existing Anticipated Flood Impact from the 1/200-year Meighan Creek City Hazard ........... 7 2.4.2 Summary of Mitigation Strategies and Current Progress ..................................................... 8

3 PROJECT OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................... 9

4 SCOPE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................... 9

5 DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................................................. 11

5.1 1/200-year Design Inflow for Bypass ............................................................................ 11

6 DESIGN SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 11

6.1 Fish Passage ................................................................................................................ 12

6.2 Environmental Management ......................................................................................... 12 6.2.1 MFLNRORD Section 11 Application ................................................................................... 12 6.2.2 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Notification .............................................................. 12

6.3 Bypass Flow Control Works ......................................................................................... 13

6.4 Culverts ........................................................................................................................ 13

6.5 Ditches .......................................................................................................................... 14

6.6 Operational Procedures ................................................................................................ 14

6.7 Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 15

7 LEGAL PROPERTY ................................................................................................................. 15

8 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 16

8.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 16

8.2 Construction Supervision and Testing .......................................................................... 16

8.3 Project Schedule .......................................................................................................... 17

9 TRANSFER OF FLOOD RISK .................................................................................................... 17

9.1 Review of Bypass performance .................................................................................... 19



Interior Dams vi March 1, 2021

10 LOSS ESTIMATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 20

11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 21

12 CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................. 22

13 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 23

APPENDIX A – DESIGN DRAWINGS ............................................................................................... A1

APPENDIX B – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP) ....................................................... B1

APPENDIX C – DESIGN DETAILS AND MOTI DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ................... C1

Determination of Design Flood .............................................................................................. C2 Hydrologic Statistical Frequency Analysis ......................................................................................... C2 Statistical Criteria and Tests .............................................................................................................. C2 Considerations for Missing Data ........................................................................................................ C2 Considerations for Historical Flood Records ..................................................................................... C3 Hydrologic Statistical Frequency Analysis ......................................................................................... C3 Determination of Peak Inflow at Points of Interest ............................................................................. C5 Climate Change and Uncertainty ....................................................................................................... C5

Hydraulic Design Summary of New and Existing Culverts .................................................... C7 Design summary of EXISTING culverts (directly upstream of works) ............................................... C7

Hydraulic Determination of Existing 1200mm Main Meighan Highway 97 Cross-culvert..... C10

APPENDIX D – COPY OF AQUIRED LAND SRW OR WRITTEN APPROVALS ...................................... D1

APPENDIX E– COPY OF SECTION 11 APPLICATION AND DFO LETTER ........................................... E1

APPENDIX F – FLOOD MODELING AND LOSS ESTIMATION ANALYSIS .............................................. F1

Modeling of 1/200-year City of Armstrong Hazard with Proposed Mitigation .......................... F2

Summary of model input parameters used in the HEC-RAS analysis .................................... F3 Summary of mitigated loss .................................................................................................................. F5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Summary of Active Mitigation Strategies ..................................................................... 8

Table 8-1: Critical Portions of Work & Testing Criteria ............................................................... 16

Table 8-2: Optimal Environmental Project Schedule .................................................................. 17

Table F-1: Manning Values Used (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2016) (MOE, 2000) .............. F3

Table F-2: Allowable Mean Velocities for Various Slope Protection Types (USDA, 2007) ......... F4

Table F-3: Summary of Mitigated Risk – 1/200-year Flood Impact Removed ........................... F5

Table F-4: Transportation Infrastructure Loss Estimation ........................................................... F6

Table F-5: Potable Water Infrastructure Loss Estimation ........................................................... F6

Table F-6: Estimated Loss of Wages (LoW) – Impacted Businesses and Employees by

Industry ................................................................................................................................ F6

Table F-7: Impact to Automobiles Loss Estimation ..................................................................... F7

Table F-8: Residential Structural and Content Damage Loss Estimation ................................... F8

Table F-9: Residential Property Cleanup Damages ................................................................... F9

Table F-10: Loss Due to Displacement of Residents Loss Estimation ..................................... F11



Interior Dams vii March 1, 2021

Table F-11: Loss of Rental Income (LoRI) Estimation .............................................................. F12

Table F-12: Loss of Business Profit (LoBP) Estimation ............................................................ F13

Table F-13: Impact to Non-Residential Properties Loss Estimation.......................................... F14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Existing upper Meighan Creek and upper Deep Creek sub-basins ............................ 2

Figure 2-2: Existing upper Meighan sub-catchments showing inflow locations (POI 1 and POI

2) ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2-3: Existing Meighan Drainage Works ............................................................................. 3

Figure 2-4: Plan and Profile of existing Meighan Creek Flood Overflow Diversion Weir - clip

from record drawing R2-660-515 and R2-660-516 (AMEC, 2012) ........................................ 4

Figure 2-5: Existing 900mm CSP City storm pipe downstream of POI 1 (2018) ........................... 5

Figure 2-6: Willowdale Drive - May 5, 2017 (looking east) (Adapted from Global, 2017) ............. 5

Figure 2-7: Emergency culvert blockage near Pleasant Valley Rd & Hwy 97A - May 9, 2018 ..... 6

Figure 2-8: Emergency culvert blockage north of Rosedale Rd E & Hwy 97A - May 9, 2018 ...... 6

Figure 2-9: Flooding at the commercial plazas along Smith Drive (Froats, 2018) ........................ 7

Figure 2-10: Existing 1/200-year City-wide Flood Hazard – No bypass (Modified from Interior

Dams, 2019) .......................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4-1: Proposed extension and modification of existing works - Meighan Creek Bypass ... 10

Figure 6-1: Diversion structure – LEKO 1050 headwalls and CL-10 vertical gates .................... 13

Figure 6-2: Proposed new ditch and existing ditch to be dredged .............................................. 14

Figure 9-1: Pre-active mitigation model results - 1/200-year City hazard ................................... 18

Figure 9-2: Pre-active mitigation model results - 1/200-year City hazard ................................... 18

Figure 9-3: Post-active mitigation model results of Bypass performance - 1/200-year City

hazard .................................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 9-4: City of Armstrong 1-200-year flood impact with bypass showing reduced flooding

in Deep Creek ...................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9-5: City of Armstrong flood impact showing increase flooding in Deep Creek if bypass

is opened late and floodwater behind highway is quickly released ...................................... 20

Figure C-1: Peak Annual Discharge vs. Year – Deep Creek at Armstrong (Station ID

08NM119) ........................................................................................................................... C3

Figure C-2: Flood Frequency Plot (LP3) – Deep Creek at Armstrong Station ID 08NM119 ...... C5

Figure C-3: EXISTING 900mm CSP Highway 97 cross culvert upstream of 5+005 (1st

upstream cross culvert) ....................................................................................................... C7

Figure C-4: EXISTING 900mm CSP and 1000mm CSP Highway 97 cross culverts 1+744.46

to 1+799.99 (2nd and 3rd upstream cross culvert) ................................................................ C8

Figure C-5: EXISTING 900mm CSP and 1000mm CSP Highway 97 cross culverts 1+744.46

to 1+799.99 (2nd and 3rd upstream cross culvert) ................................................................ C8

Figure C-6: NEW dual 900mm CSP from station 1+819.886 to 1+883.627 .............................. C9

Figure C-7: NEW dual 1200mm CSP from station 1+883.627 to 2+125.665 ............................ C9

Figure C-8: Existing main 1200mm CSP Meighan Creek cross culvert rating curve (at POI 1) . 10

Figure F-1: 1/200-yr City hazard – Meighan Creek input hydrograph (Interior Dams, 2019) ..... C2

Figure F-2: 1/200-yr City hazard – Deep Creek input hydrograph (Interior Dams, 2019) .......... C3



Interior Dams viii March 1, 2021

Intentionally left blank

City of Armstrong - Meighan Creek Bypass


Interior Dams 1 March 1, 2021

1 INTRODUCTION

This document is a revised design summary of the proposed Meighan Creek Bypass (Bypass)

and seeks approval from the Ministry of Lands, Forests, and Natural Resources Operations and

Rural Development (FLNRORD) and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) to

construct the works. This document includes design changes and updates per the requirements

of obtained approvals and comments received from BC Hydro, CP Rail, Fortis BC, Department

of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and statutory right-of-way agreements, as well as, received

recommendations from stakeholder engagement.

2 BACKGROUND

The City of Armstrong (City) is located in the north Okanagan of the British Columbia Interior

and has a population of approximately 5000. The City is constructed on a relatively flat valley

bottom at the confluence of two creeks, Meighan Creek and Deep Creek, and is surrounded by

rolling mountains. The Meighan Creek drainage is a smaller sub-catchment of Deep Creek that

poses a significant flood risk to the City.

2.1 Meighan Creek Drainage

Meighan Creek is located within the Okanagan Highland zone and directly adjacent to the the

boundary of the Northern Columbia Mountains zone and is a sub-drainage of Deep Creek. It

has a maximum elevation of approximately 1570 m, a relief of 1025 m, and an average

streambed slope between 10-15%. The uppermost headwaters consist of a flatter plateau-like

summit that drains via a steep and relatively incised stream channel below (Interior Dams,

2019).

Annual maximum streamflows for both Meighan Creek and Deep Creek typically occur in mid-

April to mid-May and gradually reduce in the summer months. In spring, the watershed

response time for upper Meighan Creek is short and measured to be in the range of 5-6 hours;

conversely, in winter, the stream ceases to flow, and precipitation accumulates as snow. In

comparison to the upper Deep Creek, the upper Meighan Creek catchment is eight (8) times

smaller , with a watershed response time that is roughly five [5] times slower and the upper

Deep Creek catchment response time is in the range of 26-30 hours (Interior Dams, 2019).

Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of the basins relative to the City and Highway 97A.

Under current conditions, runoff from upper Meighan Creek is collected via two separate sub-

catchments. These separate sub-catchments direct water to the hydrological points of interest

denoted POI 1 and POI 2, as illustrated in Figure 2-2.




Note: Red line shows Highway 97A, green lines illustrate the upper Meighan Creek sub-basins, and

green dots illustrate points of interest for inflow design flood determination.

Figure 2-1: Existing upper Meighan Creek and upper Deep Creek sub-basins

Figure 2-2: Existing upper Meighan sub-catchments showing inflow locations (POI 1 and POI 2)1

2.2 Existing Meighan Creek Drainage Works

Meighan Creek is conveyed through a series of natural open channels and culverted highway

crossings culverts before entering the City drainage system. Directly upstream of the City

drainage system highway drainage works consist of four [4] highway cross-culverts and two [2]

highway ditches. Figure 2-3 illustrates the location of the existing City and MoTI drainage works

1 POI 1 and POI 2 correspond to the points-of-interest used in the 2008 MoTI drainage report.

4.40 km2 10.20 km2

Meighan

Creek

Fortune

Creek

Hydrometric Station 08NM119

POI 1 POI 2

Deep Creek




with flow directions shown. Per the analysis contained within this report and the findings of the

2008 MoTI drainage report, all highway infrastructure cross-culverts are adequately sized2.

Magenta shows City culverts, red and blue shows MoTI ditch and culvert works, and green shows the

Meighan Creek mainstem.

Figure 2-3: Existing Meighan Drainage Works

Per Figure 2-3, inflow from the upper Meighan Creek mainstem sub-catchment (POI 1) is

directed to an existing 1200mm diameter corrugated steel pipe (CSP) Highway 97A cross-

culvert and connects to a City 900mm diameter CSP. This 900mm pipe is part of the City storm

system and also serves as the mainline for the Fletcher Ave to Patterson Street area storm

2 This report confirms that the existing highway culverts are adequately sized to convey the 1/200-year adopted design flow (refer to Section 5 of this report). Per the MoTI Drainage Design Report, existing highway culverts were sized to convey a 1/100-year design flow based on a simplified deterministic rational method approach. It is understood the1/100-year design flow estimate used in that report is inherently conservative; however, the capacity of culverts was estimated under inlet control conditions whereby the downstream tailwater effect is neglected. Additionally, the scope of that design report did not include an assessment or impact to, or the capacity of, downstream works (AMEC, 2009).




system. This first existing 1200mm CSP cross-culvert has an existing upstream headwall, bar-

screen, and is directly connected to the downstream 900mm City CSP3.

The existing 1200mm CSP cross-culvertr is susceptible to blockage and has much less capacity

than the downstream City 900mm. As such, the existing highway drainage system design

diverts excess water from the mainstem Meighan Creek channel to a northbound drainage ditch

via a flood overflow diversion weir (Figure 2-3). Figure 2-4 illustrates the existing Meighan

Creek flood overflow diversion weir design in plan and profile.

Figure 2-4: Plan and Profile of existing Meighan Creek Flood Overflow Diversion Weir - clip from

record drawing R2-660-515 and R2-660-516 (AMEC, 2012)4

Water that flows over the existing Meighan Creek diversion weir (partial flow from POI 1) and

water that comes directly from runoff (flow from POI 2) is conveyed via the remaining three [3]

highway cross-culverts. These cross-culverts consist of two [2] 900mm CSP pipes and one [1]

1000mm CSP. All water conveyed across these three highway cross-culverts are directed to a

3 Prior to the 2008 Highway 97A upgrade, the City 900mm pipe was not directly connected to the 1200mm highway cross-culvert. Since the City 900mm pipe had an upstream inlet that was exposed and projecting from a fill slope, the entrance losses to this pipe would have been significantly reduced (by approximately 20-30%). 4 Invert of existing 1200mm CSP shown on record drawings vary from 2019 field survey (363.50 field). Field ground

truthing also identified a vehicular farm crossing downstream of the weir that was not in the 2008 design which may

force more water through the 1200mm CSP than was originally intended.

FLOW

FLOW




single 900mm City-owned CSP culvert (refer to Figure 2-3 for map). This 900mm pipe is part of

the City storm system and also serves as the mainline for the Smith Drive area storm system.

Figure 2-5 shows this culvert which is located directly behind a commercial plaza.

Figure 2-5: Existing 900mm CSP City storm pipe downstream of POI 1 (2018)

2.3 Recent Flooding from Meighan Creek

Significant and re-occurring flooding from Meighan Creek has occurred in recent years. On May

5th of 2017, high streamflows caused extensive flooding to numerous properties along Meighan

Creek and Deep Creek. A community care facility on Willowdale Drive was impacted, and the

City declared a local emergency (City of Armstrong, 2017).

Figure 2-6: Willowdale Drive - May 5, 2017 (looking east) (Adapted from Global, 2017)

On March 22nd of 2018, Meighan Creek again breached its banks in the Patterson Ave and

Meadow Creek Lane areas. Flooding again impacted several properties and prompted an

evacuation of the care facility of Willowdale Drive (VMS, 2018). The City responded and




declared a local state of emergency and promptly issued a media release which notified citizens

of the threat of flooding posed by a high snowpack (City of Armstrong, 2018).

On May 9, 2018, the Meighan Creek freshet overwhelmed culverts and caused overtopping at

Powerhouse Road and flooding throughout Armstrong (Figure 2-7). To mitigate flooding in

lower Meighan, the City proactively responded by installing temporary partial barriers on all four

[4] Highway 97A cross-culverts between Rosedale Road East and the Highway 97A offramp at

Pleasant Valley Road. These efforts effectively attenuated the peak flow; however, flooding

was transferred to 1994 Rosedale Avenue East (east side of highway) and to the commercial

plazas along Smith Drive. Figures 2-8 and 2-9 show the field and temporary culvert blockages

at this location. Figure 2-8 illustrates this transferred flooding to the Smith Drive area.

Figure 2-7: Emergency culvert blockage near Pleasant Valley Rd & Hwy 97A - May 9, 2018

Figure 2-8: Emergency culvert blockage north of Rosedale Rd E & Hwy 97A - May 9, 2018

EX 600mm CSP

EX 1200mm CSP




Figure 2-9: Flooding at the commercial plazas along Smith Drive (Froats, 2018)

2.4 Summary of the 2019 Flood Mapping, Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Report

On January 21st of 2019, Interior Dams Incorporated (Interior Dams) completed flood mapping

and risk assessment for the City (Interior Dams, 2019). The project included a comprehensive

determination of the 1/200-year City-wide flood hazard5 and a review of the City drainages and

storm system.

As this report (project proposal and request for approval) is a continuation of the 2019 City

integrated flood management work and direct implementation of the 2019 report

recommendations, the following sub-sections have been included to provide: 1) a summary of

the existing 1/200-year city flood hazard, 2) a list of recommended active mitigation strategies

and an update on the current progress, and 3) the anticipated impacts of constructing the

proposed Meighan Creek Bypass works.

2.4.1 Existing Anticipated Flood Impact from the 1/200-year Meighan Creek City Hazard

The 2019 risk assessment estimated the total monetary losses from the 1/200-year City-wide

flood hazard event to be approximately $21 million6 (Interior Dams, 2019). Of these potential

monetary losses, approximately 72% ($15 million) of the losses were from lower Meighan Creek

(Figure 2-10). Figure 2-1 illustrates the 1/200-year City hazard and notes the areas that

generated the most impact. For supporting information, refer to Appendix F.

5 The City flood hazard represents a city-wide flood hazard from both Meighan Creek and Deep Creek. Meighan Creek is a sub-drainage of Deep Creek. 6 Value represents 2019 Canadian dollars.




Figure 2-10: Existing 1/200-year City-wide Flood Hazard – No bypass (Modified from Interior Dams,

2019)

2.4.2 Summary of Mitigation Strategies and Current Progress

The 2019 review of the City drainages and storm system provided several findings and

recommendations. As of the issue date of this report, many of the mitigation recommendations

have already been implemented, and new ones have been added. Table 2-1 below provides a

summary of all supporting and active mitigation strategies and their current status and priority.

The mitigation strategies proposed under this application are highlighted green and bold and

completed or implemented mitigation strategies are greyed out.

Table 2-1: Summary of Active Mitigation Strategies Priority* Strategy Type Strategy Description Status

1 Passive Complete flood mapping, review of the City drainages and storm system, and develop

mitigation strategies

- completed -

2 Passive Conduct public consultation events, present mitigation strategies, and invite stakeholder

engagement

- completed -

3 Passive Update development and drainage bylaws as required

- implemented with ongoing development -

4a Active Improve Patterson Avenue to Deep Creek Crossing by improving inlet control headwall

- completed -

4b Active Improve Patterson Avenue to Deep Creek Crossing by reducing inflow to

culvert (diversion to Deep Creek)

- submitted for approval - (this project)

5 Active Improve the conveyance capacity of the lower Meighan Creek channel by dredging

- completed -

Meighan Creek

Deep Creek

Existing

flooding

upstream

of highway

72% of flood impacts to

Armstrong occur in

these areas

Sm

ith

Dr




6 Active Improve Smith Ave 900mm inlet control by installing new headwall and

increasing freeboard

- submitted for approval - (this project)

7 Active Improve Adair Street crossing on Deep Creek to reduce tailwater for the Patterson

Avenue to Deep Creek Crossing

- not yet implemented -

8 Active Improve Okanagan Street crossing on Meighan Creek

- not yet implemented -

*Note: In general, proactive passive mitigation strategies have higher priority due to their reduced cost, ease of implementation, and value in directing other active strategies. Active mitigation strategies are prioritized primarily on the cost of implementation versus the reduction of flood risk. Lower priority mitigation strategies only applicable to Deep Creek are not shown.

At the present time, the City has secured provincial funding from the Community Emergency

Preparedness Fund (CEPF) via the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) for the construction of

the proposed active mitigation works. In consideration of those continually impacted by flooding

and the current availability of funding, the City is committed to following through with the

Meighan Creek Bypass project objective in accordance with their integrated flood management

planning summarized in Table 2-1. The following sections detail the project objective and scope

of work for the Bypass.

3 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

In alignment with the City integrated flood management plan (IFMP), best practices, and the

interest of all stakeholders, the project objective is to construct the proposed Meighan Creek

Bypass to elevate capacity issues at the existing 900mm culvert through the Smith Drive

commercial plazas and reduce the total volume of floodwater through the lower Meighan Creek

and existing 1200mm Patterson Avenue culvert.

4 SCOPE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

A summary of the proposed work is as follows:

• Conduct environmental field review and necessary environmental construction management practices per the environmental management plan (EMP);

• Install one (1) vertical canal gate and headwall on an existing 900mm CSP culvert and construct a 1.12-metre-high and 12-metre-long berm behind it to provide adequate flood protection freeboard;

• Dredge 261 metres of existing ditch and remove existing vegetation;

• Install two (2) 301-metre-long twin culverts, consisting of 900mm and 1200 mm CSP complete with two (2) vertical canal gates, two (2) headwalls, eight (8) 1800mm manhole assemblies, and one (1) riprap outfall consisting of 75 m2 of Class 25 riprap;

• Construct 20-metres of open ditch at the headworks of the Bypass;

• Re-construct the railway and road open-cut crossings;

• Accommodate existing gas and water utility infrastructure; and

• Replace topsoil and re-seed disturbed areas with native grasses as per EMP or as directed by the environmental monitor.

Figure 4-1 illustrates the location and arrangement of the proposed works relative to existing

infrastructure, the City, and Highway 97A.




Magenta shows City culverts, red and blue shows MoTI ditch and culvert works, green shows the

Meighan Creek and Deep Creek mainstems, and cyan shows the new proposed Meighan Creek Bypass.

Figure 4-1: Proposed extension and modification of existing works - Meighan Creek Bypass




5 DESIGN CRITERIA

The Bypass design criterion is as follows:

• Be designed to convey the 1/200-yr design inflow of 1.75 m3/s;

• Be designed to not entrap fish or impact their migration;

• Meet applicable design standards including minimum requirements for CP Rail, MoTI,

BC Hydro, Fortis, the City, etcetera; and

• Be designed and operated to mitigate the transfer of flood risk.

In addition to the long-term criteria summarized above, temporary construction measures have

been planned to:

• Ensure all work in and about a stream be conducted to minimize impact to fish and fish

habitat and occur during the appropriate timing window7 for Meighan and Deep Creek;

• Ensure that the work is completed in-the-dry, and where required, has temporary

provisions in place to ensure work areas are isolated to manage flooding and sediment

transport (to an annual exceedance probability (AEP) of 1/10); and

• Follow all best management practices (BMPs) for work in and about a stream as

described in the attached the environmental management plan (EMP) and applicable

guidelines.

5.1 1/200-year Design Inflow for Bypass

Since the existing 1200mm CSP main Meighan Creek cross-culvert on Highway 97A at POI 1 is

susceptible to blockage (Section 2.2), is directly connected to the City storm system having

much lower conveyance capacity (Figure 2-3), and will likely divert water to POI 2 in the event of

an extreme flood condition via the existing Meighan Creek flood overflow diversion weir (Figure

2-4, Figure 2-10, and Figure C-8 in Appendix C), it was conservatively assumed – for the

purpose of sizing the Bypass only – that the adopted 1/200-year inflow value will include 50% of

the contribution of POI 1 (1.59 m3/s / 2 = 0.87 m3/s) plus 100% of the contribution of POI 2 (0.96

m3/s) which equates8 to 1.75 m3/s. This value represents the adopted 1/200-year design and

includes the addition of a 17.4% increase for climate change resilience and a compounded

+10% for uncertainty. For details of this calculation, refer to Appendix C.

6 DESIGN SUMMARY

The Meighan Creek Bypass (Bypass) is a gravity stormwater system consisting of new twin

culverts controlled by three (3) new 900mm vertical canal gates. The Bypass will divert excess

floodwater from the existing Highway 97A drainage works to Deep Creek via new dedicated twin

stormwater pipes. The Bypass is intended to be operated temporarily and only during times of

flooding, and would divert excess floodwater from the existing drainage ditch located

7 Timing window refers to a period of the calendar year that is specified by the habitat officer to be the time of the year that poses the least risk. Since a timing window is not specified by the MLFNRORD for Meighan Creek or Deep Creek, the optimal window is July 2 to August 31 based on the fish species that may exist in the vicinity and project. Per the attached environmental management plan, the species that may be present include Rainbow Trout and Kokanee. 8 Values reported to the second decimal, and therefore, have been rounded and may not add up exactly.




downstream of the Highway 97A cross-culverts9. The following sub-sections provide a

summary of the design.

6.1 Fish Passage

The Bypass is designed to not entrap fish or impact their migration. As such, the initial portion

of the Bypass consists of twin 24.3 metre-long 900mm culverts at a steep grade of -4.94%. This

is intended to generate supercritical flow velocities ranging from 1.0 m/s to 2.2 m/s for all ranges

of design flow. Based on the total length of the culvert (including the additional 277 m

thereafter) and the mean sustainable swim velocities of the fish identified10, no upstream fish

migration is expected.

As downward migration of fish is currently possible from Meighan Creek to Deep Creek via

existing works, downstream migration will be allowed; although, migration is expected to be very

limited if possible since the Bypass will divert water from existing ditch works and will not divert

water directly from Meighan Creek. Despite this, no entrapment within the proposed works is

expected since it is continuously culverted and at a negative slope all the way to Deep Creek.

6.2 Environmental Management

In conformance with the design criterion, construction is planned to coincide with the optimal

low-risk timing windows and has implemented best management practices to limit all negative

environmental impacts. Refer to the EMP for more details (Appendix B).

6.2.1 MFLNRORD Section 11 Application

This project has considered the requirements of, and provided notification to, MFLNRORD and

the project application is registered under FrontCounterBC (FCBC) Project no. 551656, virtual

application no. 100300472, and Water File 8005238.

This updated document is re-submitted for MFLNRORD review and seeks approval to construct

the works.

A copy of the original MFLNRORD submission confirmation is provided in Appendix E.

6.2.2 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Notification

This project has considered the requirements of, and provided notification to, the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and is registered under DFO File no. 20-HPAC-00552. Per the

letter received from the DFO, so long as the measures outlined in the EMP are incorporated into

the construction and operational plan, DFO is of the view that this project is not likely to cause

harm to fish and does not contravene their requirements.

9 Diversion is from existing ditch works and does not divert water directly from the Meighan Creek mainstem 10 Per the EMP provided in Appendix B the following mean and maximum swim velocities are: Sculpin (general) – Min

0.252 m/s Mean 0.525 m/s Max 0.841 m/s, Longnose dace – Mean 0.727 m/s Max 0.087 m/s, Subcaranguiform –

Mean 0.436 m/s Max 2.71 m/s (DFO, 2016).




This updated document is re-submitted for DFO records and provides an update regarding the

proposed scheduling of construction (previously proposed for 2020).

A copy of the DFO letter is provided in Appendix E.

6.3 Bypass Flow Control Works

The bypass will be controlled by three (3) vertical canal gates mounted to new pre-cast concrete

headwall structures (Figure 6-1). The gate and headwall assemblies will be located on the

existing 900mm City culvert and the new dual 900mm Bypass pipes (locations shown in Figure

4-1). For operational procedures, refer to Section 6.6.

Figure 6-1: Diversion structure – LEKO 1050 headwalls and CL-10 vertical gates

6.4 Culverts

Only the two new dedicated Bypass culverts are proposed (to be in operation only during flood

conditions). These culverts will be equipped with concrete headwalls, service manholes, and

necessary erosion protection works (i.e., riprap, slope protection, etcetera) and are designed to

conform with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) design criteria per Section

303 of the BC MoTI highways guide (MoTI, 2009). Loading criteria for all culverts have been

designed to satisfy CL 625 (for the portions under Pleasant Valley Road), E80 loading (for the

portions under the CP rail crossing), and a minimum cover of 1.2 metres was included to limit

the potential for uplift in a saturated ground condition in the event that there was no water in the

pipes (for the portions through the field). For more details regarding the proposed design and

specifications, refer to design drawings in Appendix A.




6.5 Ditches

The design includes one (1) new 20-metres long ditch at at the headworks of the Bypass.

Additionally, the design includes dredging and maintenance of 261-metres of existing ditch on

the east side of Highway 97A (refer to Appendix A drawings). Figure 6-2 illustrates the

proposed new ditch section and the existing ditch section to be dredged.

Figure 6-2: Proposed new ditch and existing ditch to be dredged

6.6 Operational Procedures

To ensure the optimal performance of the bypass, the following procedural points be are to be

followed during operation:

1. At all times, the vertical canal gates must be fitted with locks to prevent unauthorized operation;

2. At all times during non-flood conditions, the vertical canal gate on the existing 900mm culvert (upstream of the Smith Drive commercial plaza) is to be left fully open (normally open), and the new dual vertical canal gates on the new twin 900mm Bypass are to be left fully closed (normally closed);

3. In a flood condition11, the vertical canal gate on the existing 900mm culvert (upstream of the Smith Drive commercial plaza) is to be fully closed, and the new dual vertical canal gates on the Bypass should be opened 100%.

a. The Bypass should be opened as early as possible in the event of an extreme Meighan Creek flood,

b. If opening the Bypass is delayed till water is already high in the lower Meighan and upstream of the Bypass gates, the release of water should be gradual and flooding in Deep and Meighan should be monitored and optimized (contact your engineer and refer to Section 9.1 of this report);

c. If the full capacity of the Bypass is not needed, only one should be used at a time to facilitate flushing of the pipe; and

4. When the flood condition ends, all gates are to be returned to their normal positions, and the system should be inspected for scouring, debris, or other impacts from flooding or degradation, and any necessary maintenance should be performed as soon as practical.

11 A flood condition is defined as a flood that the City believes poses risk to the lower Meighan Creek.




6.7 Maintenance

The bypass gates should be inspected and lubricated on an annual basis. Ditch works between

Station 5+000 to 5+260, 1+796 to 1+820, and the outfall at Station 2-120 should be inspected

and any accumulating vegetation or floating debris should be removed. If sedimentation

accumulates in excess of 0.25m in the ditch works or in the Bypass, conduct servicing of the

Bypass pipes or dredging of the ditches to achieve the intended design grades shown on

drawings provided in Appendix A. When planning and executing dredging of the ditch works,

make necessary notifications or other arrangements with MoTI as may be required.

7 LEGAL PROPERTY

The Meighan Creek Bypass alignment crosses various types of property, including 1) private

property, 2) provincial property (MoTI and BC Hydro), and 4) intersects other statutory right of

ways (SRWs). These properties are as follows:

Property #1 (design reference stationing 1+000 to 1+812)

Ownership Type: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI)

Civic: Unknown

Plan: KAP89122, KAP732H

Status Pending MoTI design approved


Ownership Type: BC Hydro

Civic: 3990 Pleasant Valley Road

Plan H15080

Status SRW approved, design approved (refer to Appendix D)


Ownership Type: CP Rail

Civic: Unknown

Plan A403

Status: SRW approved, design approved (refer to Appendix D)


Ownership Type: Private (agricultural)

Civic: 3598 Highway 97A

Plan KAP807B

Status: SRW approved*, design approved (refer to Appendix D)

*Securing SRW required a covered pipe design per Agricultural

Land Reserve requirements (ALR)

Copies of written approvals and SRWs are provided in Appendix D.




8 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

8.1 General

The procurement of contract administration, engineering field review, environmental monitoring,

and construction services will be the responsibility of the City. Although these services have not

yet been awarded, it is understood that the City will procure competent contractors to fulfill these

services as outlined by the following sections and appendices within this report.

NOTE: At the discretion of the City, Interior Dams is prepared to provide contract

administration, field review, and coordinate environmental monitoring for this project.

8.2 Construction Supervision and Testing

Field reviews will be conducted by the undersigned or by their designated representative during

critical portions of the work (i.e., components requiring specific compaction requirements,

geometric specifications, environmental installation procedures, etcetera). All tests will be

documented in daily field reports. Drawing notes will be continuously kept and recorded for the

preparation of record drawings. Daily reports will be completed for all working days where

critical portions of the project are being completed.

Environmental monitoring will be conducted either by the environmental monitor (EM) or their

delegate as described by the EMP. The EMP is attached in Appendix B.

Table 8-1 provides a list of some of the critical portions of work and their appropriate testing

requirements.

Table 8-1: Critical Portions of Work & Testing Criteria Task Testing RequiredNOTE Frequency

Implementation of environmental protection and sediment control works

Visual inspection Upon completion (before proceeding

construction)

Site isolation Visual inspection Bird/fish survey

Before stripping or construction of any in-stream

portions of work

Supply, preparation, and placement of riprap and filter fabric

Rock measurement and Specific gravity

Visual inspection of placement Measurement of depth, width,

and length

Before placement During and/or at completion

Upon completion

Material placement (road, railroad, backfill, etcetera)

Visual inspection, measurement,

Moisture contents, Densities.

During placement and finishing

Culvert installation Visual inspection, measurement, and densities.

After bedding and periodically during material placement

Vegetation seeding and site cleanup

Visual inspection and product specification check.

Upon completion

Substantial completion Visual inspection Upon completion NOTE Performance criteria as per Appendix A and/or B.




8.3 Project Schedule

Table 8-2 proposes an optimal schedule that is timed to coincide with the applicable

environmental criterion for the riparian areas while moving forward on other components as

soon as possible.

Table 8-2: Optimal Environmental Project Schedule

Task Date

Secure funding for the project - completed -

Engage all impacted utilities and confirm compliance to utility design requirements

- completed -

Secure required private SRW and meet SRW requirements

- completed -

Secure BC Hydro SRW and approval of works - completed -

Secure CP Rail SRW and approval of works - completed -

Notify DFO of in-stream works - completed -

Apply for MoTI approval - in progress -

Apply for Section 11 approval - in progress -

Tender works May 31, 2021

Begin construction June 28, 2021

Substantially complete all works August 23, 2021

Post-construction reporting September 15, 2021

The proposed construction schedule will strictly adhere to the environmental management plan

(EMP). Since the outfall to Deep Creek is within the riparian area of a stream, this portion of the

bypass will be constructed within the least risk general timing windows.

9 TRANSFER OF FLOOD RISK

Using the existing City flood model (a two-dimensional HEC-RAS12 model developed under the

Flood Mapping and Mitigation project), a new updated model was constructed to simulate the

proposed Meighan Creek bypass which included the proposed extension and modification of

existing ditches and culverts. This model was then used to simulate the performance of the

design under 1/200-year City hazard to assess the effectiveness of the design based on the

mitigated loss. Additionally, the HEC-RAS model and the HY-8 Culvert Hydraulic Analysis

Program13 were used to assess the performance of each existing and new culvert.

Primarily, the system was simulated by routing the 1/200-year City hazard through the existing

Meighan Creek alignment with no water diverted into the new proposed Bypass pipes (no

Bypass, refer to Appendix F for more details). As expected, the extent of flooding within the

simulated lower Meighan Creek matched the 1/200-year flood mapping (Figure 9-1).

12 HEC-RAS is an acronym for the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Centre’s Hydrologic Modelling System software package. 13 HY-8 is a software developed by the US Departement of Transportation to assess the performance of culverts and includes a comprehensive assessment of tailwater flow restrictions. Software version 7.5 was used for this design.




Under the City-wide 1/200-year flood hazard, an estimated 0.38 m3/s would flow over the existing

Meighan Creek Flood Overflow Diversion Weir (refer to Figure 2-4 and Figure C-8 for more details)

Figure 9-1: Pre-active mitigation model results - 1/200-year City hazard

Per active mitigation listed as complete in Table 2-1, the Patterson headwall upgrades and

lower Meighan Creek dredging were modelled. As expected, some reduction in flooding in

lower Meighan is evident (Figure 9-2).



Figure 9-2: Pre-active mitigation model results - 1/200-year City hazard

Per the proposed works in this report, the Bypass was added to the model, and the 1/200-year

City hazard was simulated. Results indicate that almost all of the flooding in lower Meighan

Creek was effectively mitigated (Figure 9-3).






Figure 9-3: Post-active mitigation model results of Bypass performance - 1/200-year City hazard

9.1 Review of Bypass performance

Upon reviewing the model outputs shown above, it was evident that the much longer time of

concentration of upper Deep Creek allows the Bypass to optimize the conveyance of the upper

Meighan Creek flood by more quickly conveying it to Deep Creek while Deep Creek is not yet

elevated. In other words, since the use of the new Bypass conveys the Meighan Creek flood to

Deep Creek quicker, the flood is able to be conveyed through the system before the arrival of

the Deep Creek flood. This effectively offsets the hydrograph peaks, thereby reducing flood

impacts to both Meighan Creek and Deep Creek. Figure 9-4 below shows the updated City-

wide post-construction flood hazard under these operating conditions (refer to Figure 2-1 for the

pre-construction flood hazard).

Figure 9-4: City of Armstrong 1-200-year flood impact with bypass showing reduced flooding in

Deep Creek

New Bypass Diverts

Excess Floodwater

1-200/year Flood

1/200-YR FLOOD

WITH BYPASS

Deep Creek

NORTH

Meighan Creek




If the opening of the bypass was delayed until the water had already flooded upstream, flood

transfer to Deep Creek is possible since the conveyance of the Meighan Creek flood would be

delayed, and the hydrograph peaks of Meighan Creek and Deep Creek would match more

closely. Additionally, rapidly opening the Bypass under these conditions would add a surge of

water that could cause water to stack up in Deep Creek more than it otherwise would have. In

this case, additional flooding would occur behind the CN Rail, Wood Avenue and Okanagan

Street crossings; however, incremental flooding in the range of +0.1 m or less would be

expected. Although small, the additional flooding would incrementally impact the poultry plant

(red star shown in Figure 9-5). Since flooding at this location already requires a localized active

flood mitigation strategy (i.e., diking around the structure or re-contouring the surrounding land)

and since the additional depth of flooding is small, it is assumed that incremental impact from

flood transfer is acceptable.

Figure 9-5: City of Armstrong flood impact showing increase flooding in Deep Creek if Bypass is

opened late and floodwater behind highway is quickly released

10 LOSS ESTIMATION ANALYSIS

Loss estimation analysis (LEA) compares the loss of differences between implementing and not

implementing any particular mitigation option. The feasibility and effectiveness of implementing

that option are then determined by comparing the loss avoidance gained to the costs of

implementation or construction.

Based on the above, approximately $15.4 million dollars of impact from the 1/200-year flood is

mitigated by the construction and operation of the Meighan Creek bypass. As this represents

72% of the total calculated impact to the City from the 1/200-year event, the annual risk

mitigated by the bypass can be estimated using the same percentage of the total annual risk of

all flooding determined in the Flood Mapping and Mitigation Report. Based on the total annual

IF OPENED LATE




risk estimate of 1.6 million dollars per year14, this structural mitigation will reduce the annual risk

by almost 1.2 million dollars annually (72% of risk is in lower Meighan). As a result, the total

savings to all individuals and organizations can be calculated as follows:

Loss avoidance gained – Cost of bypass construction = Total net benefit

Applying the above equation, if the bypass is constructed at an assumed cost of $600,000 in

2021, the total monetary net benefit to all individuals and organizations in the first year

calculates to roughly $600,000 with an additional savings of $1.2 million thereafter. As a result,

this project should be constructed as soon as possible.

A detailed summary of the mitigated 1/200-year impacts and other supporting information is

provided in Appendix E.

11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following list provides a summary of the key information presented in this report:

1. The total monetary risk of flooding from both Meighan Creek and Deep Creek to all individuals and organizations within the City of Armstrong is estimated to cost roughly 1.6 million dollars per year;

2. Of the total monetary risk of flooding, 72% is attributed to the lower reaches of Meighan Creek;

3. The proposed Meighan Creek bypass provides the City with a feasible, cost-effective and practical design that mitigates the identified flood risk to the lower Meighan Creek and has been developed through responsible flood mitigation planning and stakeholder engagement;

4. The implementation and operation of this bypass is expected to reduce the monetary flood risk to all individuals and organizations within the City by roughly 1.2 million dollars per year; and

5. No measurable transfer of flood risk is anticipated if the proposed Meighan Creek Bypass is operated as outlined in this report.

The following list provides a summary of recommendations:

1. For MoTI and MFLNRORD – in response to this request for approval, review the findings and merits of this project proposal, and in a timely manner, provide comments or an approval to construct the works;

2. For MoTI – review the condition of works upstream of the City of Armstrong, and if necessary, service or maintain those works;

3. For the City of Armstrong – a. continue to engage in public consultation and communicate the findings of this

report and the proposed design; b. respond promptly to any comments that may be received from MoTI, FLNRORD,

or other stakeholders; c. when approval to construct the works is received, execute the proposed Meighan

Creek Bypass construction plan as outlined in Section 8-3; and d. continue to diligently implement your integrated flood management plan.

14 Represents the average annual risk of all flood events from both Meighan Creek and Deep Creek to individuals and organizations within the City of Armstrong as determined by the Flood Mapping and Mitigation Report (2019).




12 CLOSURE

I trust this report satisfies the requirements of the stated objective and has clearly demonstrated

the details of the proposed Meighan Creek Bypass project. Should you have any other

requirements or wish to further discuss any aspect of this report, do not hesitate to contact the

undersigned at the phone number below.

Yours truly,

Interior Dams Inc.

Aaron Hahn P.Eng AScT

Project Engineer

Phone (778) 480-6063

Email [email protected]

Enclosure: Appendix A: Design Details

Appendix B: Design Plans and Specifications

Appendix C: Environmental Management Plan

Appendix D: Breakdown of Budgetary Cost Estimate

Appendix E: Summary of Mitigated Impact

Appendix F: Properties requiring SRW Acquisition




13 REFERENCES

AMEC. (2009). Okanagan Highway No. 97A - Pleasant Valley Cross Road to Lansdowne Road

- Drainaged Design Report. Nanaimo, BC: AMEC Americas Ltd. - E&E Infrastructure

Division.

AMEC. (2012). Okanagan Highway No. 97A - Record Drawing R2-660-516. Nanaimo, BC:

AMEC.

APEGBC. (2017). Flood Mapping in BC-APEGBC Proffesional Practice Guidelines. Vancouver:

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC.

Bedient, P, et al. (2008). Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis - Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

British Columbia. (2016). Water Sustainability Act - Water Sustainability Regulation B.C. Reg

238/2017 as amended. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Queens Printer.

CDA. (2007-2016). Dam Safety Guidelines - Technical Bulletins. Canadian Dam Association.

City of Armstrong. (2018, April 6). City of Armstrong: Civic Web. Retrieved from Media Release:

The City of Armstrong Encourages Businesses and Residents to Educate and Prepare

Themselves on Flood Prevention Strategies:

https://armstrong.civicweb.net/document/108952/Media%20Release%20Flooding%20Pr

epardness%2004-06-2018.pdf?handle=CF98E96A349940519EAE745B056A2BE9

City of Armstrong. (2018). Request for Proposal 2018001: Flood Mapping and Mitigation.

Armstrong, BC: Public Works Department.

DFO. (1992). Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat. Victoria:

Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the BC Ministry of Environment.

DFO. (1995). Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline. Ottawa, Ontario:

Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

DFO. (2016). Fish Swimming Performance Database and Analyses. Winnipeg, Manitoba:

Ecosystems and Oceans Science - Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.

EGBC. (2018). Legislated Flood Assesments In a Changing Climate In BC. Vancouver:

Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia.

Environment Canada. (1993). Consolidated Frequency Analysis (CFA) Versino 3.1 - Reference

Manual. Ottawa, ON: Conservation & Protection - Surveys and Information Systems

Branch.

Environment Canada. (1993). Consolidated Frequency Analysis Software Version 3.1 -

Reference Manual. Ottawa, Ontario: Surveys and Information Systems Branch.




FLNRO. (2016). Plan Submission Requirements for the Construction and Rehabilitation of

Dams - BC Dam Safety Guidelines. Victoria, BC, Canada.

FLNRO. (2017). Hydrology: Hydrologic Zone Boundaries of British Columbia. Ministry of Forests

Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Froats, G. (Director). (2018). Photographs of May 2018 Flooding [Motion Picture].

Government of Canada. (2017). Weather and Climate Historical Data.

Interior Dams. (2019). City of Armstrong - Flood Mapping and Risk Assessment Report.

Armstrong, BC: Interior Dams.

MoE. (2000). Estimating Peak Floods for the Design of Culvers and Bridges for Forest Roads.

Ministry of Environment.

MOE. (2000). Riprap Design and Construction Guideline. Province of British Columbia: Ministry

of Environment, Lands and Parks - Public Safety Section - Water Management Branch.

MoTI. (2009). Section 303 Culverts. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

MWLAP. (2003). Dike Design and Construction Guide - BMPs for BC. Flood Hazard

Management Section Environmental Protection Division.

Novak, P. et al. (2011). Hydraulic Structures - Fourth Edition. New York, NY: E & FN Spon.

NRC. (1989). Hydrology of Floods in Canada - A Guilde to Planning and Design. Ottawa, ON:

Associate Committee on Hydrology.

Province of BC. (2016). Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia - 2016 Update.

Ministry of Environment.

Province of BC. (2018, October 21). Climate Change - Change in Snowpack BC. Retrieved from

British Columbia - Environmental Reporting BC:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/climate-change/snow.html

US Army Corps of Engineers. (2016). HEC-RAS River Analysis System - 2D Modeling User's

Manual Version 5.0.

USACE. (2016). HEC-SSP Statistical Software Package - User Manual. Davis, CA: Institute for

Water Resources.

USDA. (2007). Chapter 8 - Threshold Channel Design. Washington, DC.: United States

Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service.

USDoT. (2016). HY-8 Culvert Hydraulic Analysis Program - Version 7.50. U.S. Department of

Transportation.




USGS. (2018). Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency Bulletin 17C - Techniques and

Methods 4-B5. Reston, VA: US Department of the Interior & US Geological Survey.

VMS. (2018, March 23). Vernon Morning Star. Retrieved from Flooding leads to Pioneer Square

evacuation in Armstrong: https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/flooding-leads-to-

pioneer-square-evacuation/

Western University. (2021, January 6). Retrieved from Computerized Tool for the Development

of Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves under Climate Change – Version 4.5:

https://www.idf-cc-uwo.ca/home

City of Armstrong - Meighan Creek Bypass Design and Development Report

Interior Dams Appendix A-1 March 1, 2021

APPENDIX A – DESIGN DRAWINGS

BC HYDRO


Interior Dams Appendix B-1 March 1, 2021

APPENDIX B – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMP)



Interior Dams Appendix B-2 March 1, 2021

<If digitally viewing, please refer to the separate sealed .pdf document>



Interior Dams Appendix C-1 March 1, 2021

APPENDIX C – DESIGN DETAILS AND MOTI DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CLIMATE CHANGE




Determination of Design Flood

There are generally two approaches to estimating the magnitude of a design flood, either 1)

hydrological statistical frequency analysis (HSFA) of streamflow data, or 2) streamflow

simulation analysis15 (SSA) based on consideration of rainfall and snowmelt (NRC, 1989). An

SSA approach is sensitive to engineering judgement due to factors such as antecedent rainfall,

soil moisture, volume and infiltration rate, and seasonal runoff response (Bedient, P, et al.,

2008). Although SSA has its advantages due to its simple approach, an HSFA approach was

selected due to the availability of hydrometric data.

Hydrologic Statistical Frequency Analysis

The objective of the HSFA is to interpret available past records of hydrologic events in terms of

future probabilities of occurrence. The procedure involved selecting an available data series

sample of hydrometric data, fitting it to a theoretical probability distribution, and then making

hypothetical inferences about the underlying population on the basis of the fitted distribution

(NRC, 1989). Since the Deep Creek at Armstrong (ID 08NM119) historical hydrometric station

has the longest running period of record available within the geographic study area and is within

the subject basin, a single station HSFA analysis of this dataset was selected to estimate the

design 1/200-year flood at upstream points of interest. Applying the available length of record

from Deep Creek at Armstrong (N=23) and the formula R=1/4N, the estimated design flood has

a reasonable confidence to a return period of 1/92-years (CDA, 2007-2016) (NRC, 1989).

Statistical Criteria and Tests

The Run Test for General Randomness, Spearman Test for Independence, Mann-Whitney Split

Sample Test for Homogeneity, and Spearman Test for Trend (stationarity) confirmed the

dataset to be significantly random, independent, homogeneous and stationary. Additionally, the

dataset was checked for errors and outliers and none were identified.

Considerations for Missing Data

In a case where the dataset has missing data, consideration is to be given regarding whether

the data is a broken record or incomplete record16. The NRC guidelines suggests that, “in the

case of a broken record, the different record segments should normally be combined and

treated as a continuous record, unless physical changes in the period between segments have

produced non-homogeneity in the combined record” (NRC, 1989). As the dataset is a broken

record that is considered to be homogeneous the entire dataset was adopted as a combined

record. Figure A1 illustrates peak annual streamflow discharge of the larger basin downstream

of the points of interest (at Station ID 08NM119, refer to Figure C-1 for station location).

15 SSA is an approach that is independent of statistical analysis of streamflow and water level data. SSA requires

input of meteorological data (often having a specified return period) into some form of basin model characterizing the

response of the subject catchment upstream of the point of interest. 16 A broken record is a record that has missing data due to maintenance issues such as financial or staff restraints. An incomplete record is a record that has missing data due to damage or data loss due to unusually large flood events.




Figure C-1: Peak Annual Discharge vs. Year – Deep Creek at Armstrong (Station ID 08NM119)

Considerations for Historical Flood Records

Historical flood records17 were considered since they can effectively extend the period of record

and can increase the confidence of the estimated design flood (NRC, 1989) (USACE, 2016)

(Environment Canada, 1993). Based on inherent flood knowledge and other available data,

other large flood events could not be definitively ascertained, therefore, no historical floods of

record were included in the HSFA.

Hydrologic Statistical Frequency Analysis

Using the Environment Canada’s Consolidated Frequency Analysis software version 3.1 (CFA-

3) (Environment Canada, 1993) and the US Army Corps of Engineer’s Hydrologic Engineering

Center Statistical Software Package version 2.1.1 (HEC-SSP) (USACE, 2016), a statistical

frequency analysis was conducted and verified using the continuous record summarized in

Table C-1 below. This record represents annual daily maximum streamflows collected at the

Deep Creek at Adair Street location.

17 A historical flood record is a large flood that was not captured within the dataset.




Table C-1: Adopted Dataset for Single Station HSFA

Date Annual Daily Maximum

Streamflow (m3/s)

May 13, 1951 1.01 April 20, 1952 1.42 May 9, 1953 0.31 May 13, 1954 1.11 May 20, 1955 0.73 April 23, 1956 1.24 May 2, 1957 1.73 May 4, 1958 1.40 May 21, 1959 1.59 April 6, 1960 1.56 May 5, 1961 1.04 April 7, 1962 0.53

April 14, 1963 0.74 May 2, 1974 2.01 May 13, 1975 2.53 May 7, 1976 1.64

April 27, 1977 0.84 May 1, 1978 2.40 May 6, 1979 0.91

March 1, 1980 1.44 March 5, 1981 0.67 May 18, 1982 3.62 May 10, 2018 3.18 NOTE

NOTE: Datapoint was added to historical data from 2018 logger data for Deep Creek at Adair Street. The annual daily maximum was determined by averaging instantaneous streamflow by day and selecting the annual maximum.

The dataset in Table C-1 above was analyzed and fitted to the Log-Pearson III (LP3),

Lognormal (3P), Gumbel Max (EV1), and the General Extreme Value. Based on a preference

for a 3-parameter distribution, general acceptance of the distribution for flood frequency

analysis, and goodness of fit tests, the LP3 distribution was selected. Using HEC-SSP, a

general frequency analysis of the continuous dataset was conducted in accordance with USGS

Bulletin 17C (USGS, 2018). The expected value for the 1/200-year annual daily maximum

streamflows at Station ID 08NM119 is 4.75 m3/s (Figure C-2 illustrates the LP3 flood frequency

plot solution). Applying an instantaneous peaking factor of 1.2218, the instantaneous peak for

Station ID 08NM119 is estimated determined to be 5.79 m3/s, not including any climate change

considerations or factors of safety.

18 Based on real-time instantaneous streamflow logging of the 2018 flood (Interior Dams, 2019).




Note: Discharge represents annual daily maximum streamflows not yet factored for climate change.

Figure C-2: Flood Frequency Plot (LP3) – Deep Creek at Armstrong Station ID 08NM119

Determination of Peak Inflow at Points of Interest

Applying a simplified regional flood estimate approach, the basin was characterized using

Qx=KAn, where Qx is the instantaneous discharge at return period x, A is the area of the

catchment area of the point of interest (POI), and K is a constant and n is an exponent that

represent a particular basin. Generally, n is a value that is less than 1, and a suggested value

of between 0.785 and 0.600 is recommended for by the Ministry of Environment and (MoE,

2000). Using the more conservative value of 0.600 for n and instantaneous 1/200-year peak

streamflow and drainage area for Station ID 08NM119, K was calculated to be 0.305.

Applying the basin-specific equation Q200=0.305A0.600, the expected 1/200-year peak streamflow

values calculated to be 1.23 m3/s and 0.74 m3/s for POI 1 and POI 2, respectively (refer to

Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 in the main report for locations).

Climate Change and Uncertainty

Climate change is difficult to estimate and impossible to accurately predict; however, the BC

Southern Interior has already experienced significant measurable climate change over the

recent past. Based on a 2016 update of the document entitled “Indicators of Climate Change

for British Columbia”, the following changing trends19 have been identified for the BC south

interior (Province of BC, 2018) (Province of BC, 2016):

19 Only trends associated with the project’s geographic study area that are applicable to spring freshet have been listed.




• Based on available April 1st snowpack data over many years, there is a trend of -7% snow depth and -11% snow water equivalent per decade for the Southern Interior;

• The springtime average precipitation increase for the Southern Interior is +32% per century; and

• The springtime average temperature increase for the Southern Interior is +1.2˚C per century.

Springtime floods in smaller watersheds like the one of interest may become more rain-

dominated and could have potentially higher peak flows due to increased storm precipitation

intensity and warmer temperatures (EGBC, 2018). If winter continues to warm and snow-water

equivalent continues to decrease, freshet flows would occur earlier, and the total freshet volume

would be reduced. As such, any prediction regarding the impact on the potential flood

magnitude would be difficult to ascertain based on the combined impact of changing

temperature, rainfall and snowpack.

Although there are identified trends in temperature, rainfall and snowpack, the HSFA solution

found did not identify any trend based on annual daily maximum streamflows; however, that is

not to say that one does not exist. According to the BC legislated flood assessment guidelines,

“if no historical trend is detectable [and] when local or regional streamflow magnitude frequency

relations are used, apply a 10% upward adjustment in design discharge to account for likely

future change in water input from precipitation” (EGBC, 2018).

As there are becoming increasingly more climate change models available, a simplified

conservative approach would be to proportionately increase the expected streamflow by the

largest expected increase of rainfall intensity. Based on an assumed time of concentration of

approximately 6 hours20 and using the intensity-duration-frequency rainfall data for the closest

available climate station (Vernon ID 1128551), the IDF_CC Tool version 4.5 was used to

determine what the proportional increase percentage of streamflow would be based on the

expected increase of future maximum rainfall for a hypothetical worst-case 1/200-year design

storm (Western University, 2021). For climate scenarios RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5 to the

year 2100, the estimated increases were 11.2%, 17.4%, and 16.3%, respectively. As such, the

more conservative potential increase of 17.4% was adopted as the proportional increase of the

potential maximum design flow.

As for uncertainty, the HSFA analysis of the 1/200-year streamflow is only reliable to

approximately the 1/92-year return period and all hydrological assumptions and adopted

approaches introduce additional uncertainty. For this reason, an uncertainty factor of 10% was

adopted to represent the uncertainty of projecting the design flow estimate to the 1/200-year

event.

In summary, after adding the potential climate change increase of 17.4% and adding an

additional 10% for uncertainty, the adopted 1/200-year for POI 1 and POI 2 were determined to

be 1.59 m3/s and 0.96 m3/s, respectively.

20 Available time of concentration increments on IDF curves included 1, 2, 6, 20, 12, and 24 hours.




Hydraulic Design Summary of New and Existing Culverts

All new and existing21 culverts were hydraulically modelled using the Hy-8 Culvert Hydraulic

Analysis Program Version 7.50 to ensure adequate capacity under the adopted design inflow

conditions.

Design summary of EXISTING culverts (directly upstream of works)

Under the adopted design inflow conditions, 0.80 m3/s from POI 1 is flowing in the ditch on the

east side of Highway 97 upstream of the first cross-culvert (referred to as the existing Meighan

Creek flood diversion alignment on Figure 2-3 of the main report). The ditch flow would split at

the first existing 900 mm cross culvert, resulting in a 0.35 m3/s flow through the 900 mm culvert

(Figure C-4), and the remaining flow of 0.45 m3/s would continue north down the ditch to the

second and third cross culverts (Figures C-5 and C-6).

Water depth shown reflects 0.35 m3/s which corresponds to the diverted portion of the 0.80 m3/s from POI 1

Figure C-3: EXISTING 900mm CSP Highway 97 cross culvert upstream of 5+005 (1st upstream

cross culvert)

21 Refers to existing culvers directly upstream of the proposed works.

358.26 m

358.55 m 900mm CSP - 0.35 m3/s




Water depth shown reflects 0.68 m3/s of the total 1.41 m3/s corresponding to the 0.45 m3/s from POI 1 and 0.96 m3/s

from POI 2, with the remaining flow going through the 1000mm (Figure C-5)

Figure C-4: EXISTING 900mm CSP and 1000mm CSP Highway 97 cross culverts 1+744.46 to

1+799.99 (2nd and 3rd upstream cross culvert)

Water depth shown reflects 0.73 m3/s of the total 1.41 m3/s corresponding to the 0.45 m3/s from POI 1 and 0.96 m3/s

from POI 2, with the remaining flow going through the 900mm (Figure C-4)

Figure C-5: EXISTING 900mm CSP and 1000mm CSP Highway 97 cross culverts 1+744.46 to

1+799.99 (2nd and 3rd upstream cross culvert)

358.50 m

1000mm CSP - 0.73 m3/s

900mm CSP - 0.68 m3/s

358.50 m

358.11 m

358.11 m




Design summary of NEW proposed Meighan Creek Bypass culverts

Water depth shown reflects 1.75 m3/s with half flowing in each pipe

Figure C-6: NEW dual 900mm CSP from station 1+819.886 to 1+883.627

Water depth shown reflects 1.75 m3/s with half flowing in each pipe

Figure C-7: NEW dual 1200mm CSP from station 1+883.627 to 2+125.665

356.88 m

357.03 m

357.03 m

Dual900 TO

Dual 1200MH

358.11 m

1200mm CSP - 0.88 m3/s

900mm CSP - 0.88 m3/s

MH




Hydraulic Determination of Existing 1200mm Main Meighan Highway 97 Cross-culvert

The existing 1200mm main Meighan Creek Highway 97 cross culvert (located at POI 1 on

Figure 4-1 in the main report) is limited by the downstream 900mm City culvert and the tailwater

from the Meighan Creek mainstem downstream. Using HEC-RAS and empirical formulas for

the determination of flow over a lateral weir, the existing Meighan Creek 1200mm culvert rating

curve was determined. This rating curve is shown below in Figure C-8.

Figure C-8: Existing main 1200mm CSP Meighan Creek cross culvert rating curve (at POI 1)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6363.4

363.6

363.8

364.0

364.2

364.4

364.6

20210216-MitigationWorks Plan: 20210216-MitigationDitch 2021-02-17

Q Total (m3/s)

W.S

. E

lev

(m

)

Legend

W.S. Elev

Floodwater starts flowing over the existing

Meighan Creek Flood Overflow Diversion

Weir (part of existing MoTI drainage

works)

Explanatory Notes / Discussion:

(Provide brief scope statement, purpose of project and what is being achieved. Enter comments for clarification where appropriate and provide justification and evidence of engineering judgment used for items where deviations are noted in the design parameters listed above or any other deviations which are not noted in the table above.)

Refer to next page and Appendix C of the main report.

Recommended by: Engineer of Record: _Aaron Hahn, P.Eng_______________________________________________ (Print Name / Provide Seal & Signature)

Date: _March 1, 2021___________________________________________________________________________

Engineering Firm: _Interior Dams Incorporated__________________________________________________________

Accepted by BCMoTI Consultant Liaison: _______________________________________________________________ (For External Design)

Deviations and Variances Approved by the Chief Engineer: _________________________________________________ Program Contact: Chief Engineer BCMoTI

Design Component Design Life or Return Period

Design Criteria +

(Units)

Design Value

Without Climate Change

Change in Design

Value from Future Climate

Design Value

Including Climate Change

Adaptation Cost

Estimate ($)

Comments / Notes /

Deviations / Variances

Culvert 900mm

(twin culvert, x2)

1/200-year

(>1/100 req)

Hydrological Frequency Analysis

(cms)

0.68 cms

(1.36 / 2)

0.20 c,s

(+17.4%,+10%)

0.88 cms

(1.75 / 2)

Refer to Main Report Appendix

F

Refer to Main Report Appendix

C

Design Criteria Sheet for Climate Change Resilience

Pre-construction & post-construction performance of existing works Highway Infrastructure Engineering Design and Climate Change Adaptation

BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Project: Meighan Creek Bypass Type of work: Flood Control Works Location: Near Highway 97A, crossing for Pleasant Valley Road Discipline: Hydrology

Explanatory Notes

Design Purpose

Design Criteria The drainage design criterion used are based on the principals outlined in the BCMoTI Supplement to TAC Geometrics Design Guide - 1000 Hydraulics Chapter, as well as, other engineering best practices. The design inflow is based on a 1/200-year rather than a 1/100-year since it is for the purpose of City flood protection.

The project does include the only the following proposed works: - Install (1) new headwall and vertical canal gate on a City of Armstrong culvert downstream of Highway

97A (on existing culvert), - Dredge and maintain 261 metres of open ditch and re-instate existing splash pads (existing ditch),

and - Install two (2) new 900mm culverts (side by each) with headwall and vertical canal gates downstream

of Highway 97A (to be normally closed and serve as a flood bypass

The project does not include proposed any changes to the existing Highway 97A road prism, pavement, or cross-culverts. The proposed works will only reduce tailwater restrictions downstream of Highway 97A in times of flood only (when bypass is open), otherwise, no change to the highway drainage design or performance will occur (except the improvement of the existing 900mm CSP City of Armstrong culvert). Refer to the main report for more details.

The information below summarizes the proposed works and design criterion applied.

Hydrology • Flow rates are calculated using a hydrological frequency analysis of hydrometric data and a regional floodestimation method (same drainage with 23-year dataset) • Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Data to be based on Environment Canada's rain gauge, with 25years of data from1980-2007 • Time of concentration to be calculated using the Kirpich Formula and/or the Hathaway formula• The runoff coefficient to be calculated using values from Table 1020.A in the Supplement to TAC

Culverts • Culverts with spans less than 3000 mm are to be sized for the 100-year return period design flow rate• Outlet-controlled culverts are to be sized to limit the head loss across the culvert to 300 mm• Inlet-controlled culverts are to be sized to limit the headwater-to-diameter (HW/D) ratio to 1.0• Minimum culvert diameter under a highway or main road is 600 mm

Design Criteria Sheet for Climate Change ResilienceHighway Infrastructure Engineering Design and Climate Change Adaptation

BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Project: Meighan Creek Bypass Type of work: Flood Control Works Location: Highway 97A – Rosedale Rd E to Pleasant Valley Road Discipline: Hydrology

Design Life As outlined in the BCMoTI Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guide Hydraulics Chapter, the structural design life for culverts less than 3000 mm span shall be 75 years. Climate Change Risk and Climate Change Estimates In accordance with BCMoTI Climate Change Technical Circular {previously T-06/15), the potential impacts of future climate change were considered (refer to main report for summary of risk assessment, etcetera). Climate Change Estimates Future climate change is anticipated to increase the design inflow by 17.4% based on the IDFCC tool analysis of the Vernon climate station to the year 2100. Additionally, another 10% factor was applied for uncertainty. For more information, refer to Appendix C of the main report. Flow Estimate Based on the notes provided above (Hydrology section), a design flow of 1.75 m3/s was adopted for the design of the new culverts (0.88 m3/s per culvert). For more information, refer to Appendix C of the main report. Results - Culvert Hydraulics All existing culverts were confirmed to meet the required inflows (per the original 2008 design, and also reviewed again using HEC-RAS and HY-8 software). A design summary of all new and existing culverts is provided in Appendix C of the main report. .


Interior Dams Appendix D-1 March 1, 2021

APPENDIX D – COPY OF AQUIRED LAND SRW OR WRITTEN APPROVALS

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority 1401 Kalamalka Lake Road

Vernon, BC V1T 8S4 bchydro.com

FEE OWNED PROPERTY - CONDITIONAL LETTER

Joan Hornby

T&D Property Rights Services

E-mail: [email protected]

October 26, 2020

Assignment: 1198448 File: 301-1501.0(11) Circuit/Str.: Armstrong substation Your File: 0130.07

VIA EMAIL: [email protected] City of Armstrong Box 40, 3570 Bridge Street Armstrong, BC V0E 1B0 Attention: Lisa Gyorkos, Clerk II Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Proposal for diversion of Meighan Creek for flood mitigation – portion crossing BC Hydro fee-owned land for substation purposes (the “Proposed Use”) Applicant: City of Armstrong (the “Applicant”) BC Hydro Owned Lands: PID 008-734-488 PART CLOSED ROAD IN SEC 5 TP 35 K(formerly O)DYD SHOWN AS PARCEL A ON PLAN H15080 (the “Property”) Location: Armstrong substation, Hwy 97C, Armstrong, BC Drawing/Site Plan: Applicant’s Plan Profile Drawings attached (the “Drawing”)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (“BC Hydro”) has reviewed the Applicant’s request to use the Property for the Proposed Use as shown on the Drawing. BC Hydro will not allow construction of any project to commence until receipt of an executed copy of the applicable form of agreement and any required payment. The Applicant is also subject to the following terms and conditions: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: BC Hydro Indigenous Relations has concluded that no First Nations consultation is required but, given BC Hydro’s Relationship Agreement with the ONA, engagement with OKIB is required. We understand that the Applicant has been consulting them (and other First Nations) so they should already be familiar with it – the Applicant to confirm.

There are no known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Property. When constructing the Proposed Use on the Property, the Applicant must adhere to the Heritage Conservation Act with respect to protecting Heritage Resources if a "Chance find occurs".

mailto:[email protected]


- 2 -

Assignment #1198448

When constructing or maintaining the Proposed Use on the Property, the Applicant must:

• ensure noxious or nuisance weeds are not introduced to the Property;

• ensure no erosion (during or after construction) results in soils deposited to the creek diversion;

• only use certified contaminate-free, weed-free soils, gravels for backfill (documentation from source pit required) if imported soils are brought to site, and

• reseed disturbed ground with certified weed-free reclamation mix and cover with straw mulch to promote revegetation and discourage invasive species.

GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The Applicant will enter into a statutory right of way agreement (the “Agreement”) in a form

satisfactory to BC Hydro before commencing the construction of the Proposed Use. BC Hydro will prepare and send to the Applicant the final form of the Agreement for signing as soon as possible.

2. The Applicant will also arrange, at the Applicant’s cost, for a survey of the area required for the Proposed Use and the preparation of a plan (the “Plan”) to be registered at the Land Title Office with the Agreement.

3. The Applicant will pay BC Hydro the fair market value of the Applicant’s rights pursuant to the Agreement and the area of the Property required for the Proposed Use, as determined by BC Hydro.

4. This letter is not an offer for sale of the Property or any interest therein.

5. If, within 90 days after receiving the form of Agreement from BC Hydro, the Applicant fails to:

a) execute and deliver the Agreement to BC Hydro (in registrable form) together with the Plan; or

b) pay BC Hydro the fair market value of the rights under the Agreement for the area of the Property required for the Proposed Use as determined in accordance with Paragraph 3 above,

BC Hydro’s consent for the construction of the Proposed Use will be automatically revoked, and the Applicant shall, at the Applicant’s cost, remove all works and restore the Property to its prior condition.

6. If anything in this letter conflicts with the terms of the Agreement once finalized and signed by the parties, then the terms of the Agreement shall govern in respect of that subject matter, and all the other terms and conditions in this letter and the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

7. The construction of the Proposed Use must be completed within one year of the date of this letter. The Applicant (or the Applicant’s agent) must receive a prior written extension from BC Hydro if the construction is not completed by this date.

8. To ensure the integrity of BC Hydro’s works, no part of the Proposed Use may come within 10 metres of any of BC Hydro’s works.

- 3 -

Assignment #1198448

9. The Applicant is responsible for all costs of design alteration, modification, relocation and/or protection of BC Hydro’s existing works which may be required as a result of the Proposed Use. The Applicant is also responsible for any damage to BC Hydro’s infrastructure, including bridges and roads, caused by or attributable to the Proposed Use, or the activities of the Applicant or those for whom the Applicant is in law responsible.

10. To determine the approximate location of any and all underground services, the Applicant will contact BC 1 Call. If the exact location of any underground service is required, the Applicant will need to engage the services of a private locating company prior to digging.

The Applicant will also comply with the schedule of terms and conditions attached to this letter. These terms and conditions are incorporated into and form a part of this letter. Please ensure that others involved with the Proposed Use adhere to all terms and conditions.

Please acknowledge that the Applicant understands and agrees to the foregoing terms and conditions by signing the duplicate of this letter in the space provided below and returning it to this office prior to commencing activity on the Property. Please keep the original for the Applicant’s records. Please note that BC Hydro’s consent to the Proposed Use will not be effective until this office receives a copy of this letter signed by the Applicant. Accordingly, do not start any work or activities relating to the Proposed Use until we have received a signed copy of this letter.

We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the Proposed Use or any other uses of the Property. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

Per:

Joan Hornby

Property Coordinator

Property Rights Services

The Applicant hereby accepts and agrees to the foregoing terms and conditions:

________________________ __________________________ _____________________

Signature Print Name/Title Date


- 4 -

Assignment #1198448

BC Hydro Standard Terms and Conditions for Uses of BC Hydro Owned Lands

The following additional terms and conditions are incorporated into and form a part of the attached letter. Capitalized terms contained in this schedule not otherwise defined have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the attached letter.

1. Nothing in the attached letter or this schedule shall be interpreted as limiting BC Hydro’s rights pursuant to any statutory right of way registered against title to the Property.

2. This letter applies to the interest of BC Hydro only. The Applicant must also obtain permits or consents from all other applicable parties with an interest in or jurisdiction over the Proposed Use and/or the Property (including charge holders and regulators).

3. The Applicant must comply and ensure compliance with all applicable legislation, regulations, guidelines, orders and standards, including all environmental laws and Part 19 Electrical Safety of the OHSR (a copy of this regulation is available at www.WorkSafeBC.com).

4. BC Hydro will not be responsible for any damage to or interference with the Applicant’s activities, equipment or the Proposed Use arising out of BC Hydro’s activities or works anywhere on the Property. The Applicant hereby releases each of BC Hydro and its officers, directors, employees, agents and contractors (collectively, the “BC Hydro Parties”) from, any and all claims, demands, actions and causes of action, proceedings, losses, damages, costs (including legal, consulting or other professional fees), fines, orders or expenses, arising from any injuries (including injuries causing death), property damage or any other matter of whatsoever nature or kind (collectively, “Losses”), whether direct or indirect, whenever and howsoever arising which the Applicant or any of the Applicant’s directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents, invitees, permittees or licensees, as the case may be, may suffer, incur or sustain on the Property or in relation to the Proposed Use, except to the extent caused by the negligence of BC Hydro.

5. The Applicant assumes any and all risks and liabilities whatsoever, whether known or unknown, in relation to the Proposed Use and indemnifies BC Hydro from and against any and all Losses, whether direct or indirect, suffered or incurred by any of the BC Hydro Parties to the extent caused by or attributable to the Proposed Use, or any activity on the Property by the Applicant or those for whom the Applicant is responsible at law. This indemnity will survive the expiry or termination of the agreement formed by the Applicant’s acceptance of this letter and the Agreement entered into pursuant to this letter.

6. The Applicant represents and warrants that the Proposed Use complies with (and will continue to comply with) all laws, regulations, orders, bylaws, guidelines, protocols and requirements, now or in the future in force, of any governmental authority having jurisdiction in any way respecting the environment, health, occupational safety, or the protection of any form of plant or animal life, and the regulation and use of hazardous materials and waste, including but not limited to the Environmental Management Act (British Columbia), the Water Sustainability Act (British Columbia), the Fisheries Act (Canada) and the Species at Risk Act (Canada), as such legislation may be amended or replaced from time to time. The Applicant will indemnify the BC Hydro Parties in respect of any Losses which at any time may be suffered by or made against the BC Hydro Parties, including without limitation all clean-up costs, in connection with a breach of this section by the Applicant or those for whom the Applicant is in law responsible. This indemnity will survive the expiry or termination of the agreement formed by the Applicant’s acceptance of this letter and any other agreement entered into pursuant to this letter. Upon request, the Applicant will also comply with any additional environmental requirements and/or standards of BC Hydro pertaining to the Proposed Use.

7. No part of the Proposed Use on the Property may be enlarged, moved, or added to without the prior written agreement of BC Hydro. Uses or installations other than those contemplated in the attached letter require additional written agreement from BC Hydro.

8. BC Hydro may revoke its consent and terminate the agreement formed by the Applicant’s acceptance of this letter if the Applicant or any of the Applicant’s employees, agents or contractors fail to comply with the terms and conditions contained herein.

http://www.worksafebc.com/

- 5 -

Assignment #1198448

9. During the construction, existence, operation, maintenance or repair of the Proposed Use, as the case may be, the Applicant will take all steps necessary to protect BC Hydro’s equipment and works on the Property and will be responsible and will compensate BC Hydro for any damage to BC Hydro’s equipment or works. If the Proposed Use impacts or interferes with any present or future BC Hydro works, the Applicant will, at the Applicant’s expense, make any adjustments to the Proposed Use reasonably required by BC Hydro, or, upon receiving not less than 90 days’ prior written notice from Hydro, relocate the Proposed Use to an alternate location approved by BC Hydro.

10. The Proposed Use must comply with all Fire Services Act (British Columbia) requirements, and the British Columbia Fire Code, including Section 3.3, Outdoor Storage. Section 3.3 prohibits the storage of specified wood products, flammable substances, and other potentially hazardous materials beneath electrical powerlines.

11. The following are not permitted on the Property unless expressly authorized in writing by BC Hydro:

log decking stock piling of excavated, building or other material blasting storage or handling of flammable or explosive material burning fueling of vehicles and equipment deposit of any fill material regular or organized parking of vehicles buildings or portions of buildings, including foundations and eaves

12. The Applicant acknowledges that minor levels of electrical induction may be experienced due to the proximity of electrical lines and agrees that BC Hydro shall not be liable or responsible for any effect or occurrence caused or contributed to by any such electrical induction.

13. BC Hydro’s personnel must be able to access the Property at all times. Interruption of the Applicant’s activities and operations relating to the Proposed Use may be necessary for repair, maintenance, replacement or construction of BC Hydro’s electrical works.

14. Landscaping on the Property within any powerline right of way is restricted to low-growing trees, shrubs and plants not exceeding 3.0 meters in height at maturity. For vegetation immediately outside of any powerline right of way, the Applicant must not plant any vegetation that grows tall at maturity or grows with weak root systems that have a high probability of falling on BC Hydro’s electrical works. BC Hydro (including its agents and contractors) shall have the right to remove any tall-growing trees, shrubs and plants from underneath and adjacent to BC Hydro’s powerlines for line security and safety purposes from time to time.

15. All fencing must be reviewed and approved by BC Hydro prior to installation.

16. The Applicant must not make any changes in ground elevations of more than 0.5 metres from the original grade of the Property without the prior written consent of BC Hydro. The Proposed Use must not cause any deterioration of drainage patterns or soil stability within the Property.

17. Upon the completion or removal of the Proposed Use, the Property must be restored as closely as is practically possible to its original condition (or better) at the Applicant’s expense.

18. Prior to assigning BC Hydro’s consent to the Proposed Use contained in the attached letter, the Applicant must provide BC Hydro with the written agreement of any such assignee to be bound by these terms and conditions. Any purported assignment without such written agreement of the assignee will revoke BC Hydro’s consent contained in this letter.

19. No obligation in this letter will be considered to have been waived by BC Hydro unless the waiver is in writing and signed by BC Hydro, regardless of BC Hydro’s knowledge of any breach of such obligation or the passage of time.

20. If more than one person comprises the Applicant, then each such person is jointly and severally bound by the terms and conditions contained in the attached letter and this schedule of terms and conditions.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority 1401 Kalamalka Lake Road

Vernon, BC V1T 8S4 bchydro.com

FEE OWNED PROPERTY - CONDITIONAL LETTER

Joan Hornby

T&D Property Rights Services

E-mail: [email protected]

October 26, 2020

Assignment: 1198448 File: 301-1501.0(11) Circuit/Str.: Armstrong substation Your File: 0130.07

VIA EMAIL: [email protected] City of Armstrong Box 40, 3570 Bridge Street Armstrong, BC V0E 1B0 Attention: Lisa Gyorkos, Clerk II Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Proposal for diversion of Meighan Creek for flood mitigation – portion crossing BC Hydro fee-owned land for substation purposes (the “Proposed Use”) Applicant: City of Armstrong (the “Applicant”) BC Hydro Owned Lands: PID 008-734-488 PART CLOSED ROAD IN SEC 5 TP 35 K(formerly O)DYD SHOWN AS PARCEL A ON PLAN H15080 (the “Property”) Location: Armstrong substation, Hwy 97C, Armstrong, BC Drawing/Site Plan: Applicant’s Plan Profile Drawings attached (the “Drawing”)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (“BC Hydro”) has reviewed the Applicant’s request to use the Property for the Proposed Use as shown on the Drawing. BC Hydro will not allow construction of any project to commence until receipt of an executed copy of the applicable form of agreement and any required payment. The Applicant is also subject to the following terms and conditions: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: BC Hydro Indigenous Relations has concluded that no First Nations consultation is required but, given BC Hydro’s Relationship Agreement with the ONA, engagement with OKIB is required. We understand that the Applicant has been consulting them (and other First Nations) so they should already be familiar with it – the Applicant to confirm.

There are no known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Property. When constructing the Proposed Use on the Property, the Applicant must adhere to the Heritage Conservation Act with respect to protecting Heritage Resources if a "Chance find occurs".



- 2 -

Assignment #1198448

When constructing or maintaining the Proposed Use on the Property, the Applicant must:

• ensure noxious or nuisance weeds are not introduced to the Property;

• ensure no erosion (during or after construction) results in soils deposited to the creek diversion;

• only use certified contaminate-free, weed-free soils, gravels for backfill (documentation from source pit required) if imported soils are brought to site, and

• reseed disturbed ground with certified weed-free reclamation mix and cover with straw mulch to promote revegetation and discourage invasive species.

GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The Applicant will enter into a statutory right of way agreement (the “Agreement”) in a form

satisfactory to BC Hydro before commencing the construction of the Proposed Use. BC Hydro will prepare and send to the Applicant the final form of the Agreement for signing as soon as possible.

2. The Applicant will also arrange, at the Applicant’s cost, for a survey of the area required for the Proposed Use and the preparation of a plan (the “Plan”) to be registered at the Land Title Office with the Agreement.

3. The Applicant will pay BC Hydro the fair market value of the Applicant’s rights pursuant to the Agreement and the area of the Property required for the Proposed Use, as determined by BC Hydro.

4. This letter is not an offer for sale of the Property or any interest therein.

5. If, within 90 days after receiving the form of Agreement from BC Hydro, the Applicant fails to:

a) execute and deliver the Agreement to BC Hydro (in registrable form) together with the Plan; or

b) pay BC Hydro the fair market value of the rights under the Agreement for the area of the Property required for the Proposed Use as determined in accordance with Paragraph 3 above,

BC Hydro’s consent for the construction of the Proposed Use will be automatically revoked, and the Applicant shall, at the Applicant’s cost, remove all works and restore the Property to its prior condition.

6. If anything in this letter conflicts with the terms of the Agreement once finalized and signed by the parties, then the terms of the Agreement shall govern in respect of that subject matter, and all the other terms and conditions in this letter and the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

7. The construction of the Proposed Use must be completed within one year of the date of this letter. The Applicant (or the Applicant’s agent) must receive a prior written extension from BC Hydro if the construction is not completed by this date.

8. To ensure the integrity of BC Hydro’s works, no part of the Proposed Use may come within 10 metres of any of BC Hydro’s works.

- 3 -

Assignment #1198448

9. The Applicant is responsible for all costs of design alteration, modification, relocation and/or protection of BC Hydro’s existing works which may be required as a result of the Proposed Use. The Applicant is also responsible for any damage to BC Hydro’s infrastructure, including bridges and roads, caused by or attributable to the Proposed Use, or the activities of the Applicant or those for whom the Applicant is in law responsible.

10. To determine the approximate location of any and all underground services, the Applicant will contact BC 1 Call. If the exact location of any underground service is required, the Applicant will need to engage the services of a private locating company prior to digging.

The Applicant will also comply with the schedule of terms and conditions attached to this letter. These terms and conditions are incorporated into and form a part of this letter. Please ensure that others involved with the Proposed Use adhere to all terms and conditions.

Please acknowledge that the Applicant understands and agrees to the foregoing terms and conditions by signing the duplicate of this letter in the space provided below and returning it to this office prior to commencing activity on the Property. Please keep the original for the Applicant’s records. Please note that BC Hydro’s consent to the Proposed Use will not be effective until this office receives a copy of this letter signed by the Applicant. Accordingly, do not start any work or activities relating to the Proposed Use until we have received a signed copy of this letter.

We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the Proposed Use or any other uses of the Property. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

Per:

Joan Hornby

Property Coordinator

Property Rights Services

The Applicant hereby accepts and agrees to the foregoing terms and conditions:

________________________ __________________________ _____________________

Signature Print Name/Title Date


- 4 -

Assignment #1198448

BC Hydro Standard Terms and Conditions for Uses of BC Hydro Owned Lands

The following additional terms and conditions are incorporated into and form a part of the attached letter. Capitalized terms contained in this schedule not otherwise defined have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the attached letter.

1. Nothing in the attached letter or this schedule shall be interpreted as limiting BC Hydro’s rights pursuant to any statutory right of way registered against title to the Property.

2. This letter applies to the interest of BC Hydro only. The Applicant must also obtain permits or consents from all other applicable parties with an interest in or jurisdiction over the Proposed Use and/or the Property (including charge holders and regulators).

3. The Applicant must comply and ensure compliance with all applicable legislation, regulations, guidelines, orders and standards, including all environmental laws and Part 19 Electrical Safety of the OHSR (a copy of this regulation is available at www.WorkSafeBC.com).

4. BC Hydro will not be responsible for any damage to or interference with the Applicant’s activities, equipment or the Proposed Use arising out of BC Hydro’s activities or works anywhere on the Property. The Applicant hereby releases each of BC Hydro and its officers, directors, employees, agents and contractors (collectively, the “BC Hydro Parties”) from, any and all claims, demands, actions and causes of action, proceedings, losses, damages, costs (including legal, consulting or other professional fees), fines, orders or expenses, arising from any injuries (including injuries causing death), property damage or any other matter of whatsoever nature or kind (collectively, “Losses”), whether direct or indirect, whenever and howsoever arising which the Applicant or any of the Applicant’s directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents, invitees, permittees or licensees, as the case may be, may suffer, incur or sustain on the Property or in relation to the Proposed Use, except to the extent caused by the negligence of BC Hydro.

5. The Applicant assumes any and all risks and liabilities whatsoever, whether known or unknown, in relation to the Proposed Use and indemnifies BC Hydro from and against any and all Losses, whether direct or indirect, suffered or incurred by any of the BC Hydro Parties to the extent caused by or attributable to the Proposed Use, or any activity on the Property by the Applicant or those for whom the Applicant is responsible at law. This indemnity will survive the expiry or termination of the agreement formed by the Applicant’s acceptance of this letter and the Agreement entered into pursuant to this letter.

6. The Applicant represents and warrants that the Proposed Use complies with (and will continue to comply with) all laws, regulations, orders, bylaws, guidelines, protocols and requirements, now or in the future in force, of any governmental authority having jurisdiction in any way respecting the environment, health, occupational safety, or the protection of any form of plant or animal life, and the regulation and use of hazardous materials and waste, including but not limited to the Environmental Management Act (British Columbia), the Water Sustainability Act (British Columbia), the Fisheries Act (Canada) and the Species at Risk Act (Canada), as such legislation may be amended or replaced from time to time. The Applicant will indemnify the BC Hydro Parties in respect of any Losses which at any time may be suffered by or made against the BC Hydro Parties, including without limitation all clean-up costs, in connection with a breach of this section by the Applicant or those for whom the Applicant is in law responsible. This indemnity will survive the expiry or termination of the agreement formed by the Applicant’s acceptance of this letter and any other agreement entered into pursuant to this letter. Upon request, the Applicant will also comply with any additional environmental requirements and/or standards of BC Hydro pertaining to the Proposed Use.

7. No part of the Proposed Use on the Property may be enlarged, moved, or added to without the prior written agreement of BC Hydro. Uses or installations other than those contemplated in the attached letter require additional written agreement from BC Hydro.

8. BC Hydro may revoke its consent and terminate the agreement formed by the Applicant’s acceptance of this letter if the Applicant or any of the Applicant’s employees, agents or contractors fail to comply with the terms and conditions contained herein.

http://www.worksafebc.com/

- 5 -

Assignment #1198448

9. During the construction, existence, operation, maintenance or repair of the Proposed Use, as the case may be, the Applicant will take all steps necessary to protect BC Hydro’s equipment and works on the Property and will be responsible and will compensate BC Hydro for any damage to BC Hydro’s equipment or works. If the Proposed Use impacts or interferes with any present or future BC Hydro works, the Applicant will, at the Applicant’s expense, make any adjustments to the Proposed Use reasonably required by BC Hydro, or, upon receiving not less than 90 days’ prior written notice from Hydro, relocate the Proposed Use to an alternate location approved by BC Hydro.

10. The Proposed Use must comply with all Fire Services Act (British Columbia) requirements, and the British Columbia Fire Code, including Section 3.3, Outdoor Storage. Section 3.3 prohibits the storage of specified wood products, flammable substances, and other potentially hazardous materials beneath electrical powerlines.

11. The following are not permitted on the Property unless expressly authorized in writing by BC Hydro:

log decking stock piling of excavated, building or other material blasting storage or handling of flammable or explosive material burning fueling of vehicles and equipment deposit of any fill material regular or organized parking of vehicles buildings or portions of buildings, including foundations and eaves

12. The Applicant acknowledges that minor levels of electrical induction may be experienced due to the proximity of electrical lines and agrees that BC Hydro shall not be liable or responsible for any effect or occurrence caused or contributed to by any such electrical induction.

13. BC Hydro’s personnel must be able to access the Property at all times. Interruption of the Applicant’s activities and operations relating to the Proposed Use may be necessary for repair, maintenance, replacement or construction of BC Hydro’s electrical works.

14. Landscaping on the Property within any powerline right of way is restricted to low-growing trees, shrubs and plants not exceeding 3.0 meters in height at maturity. For vegetation immediately outside of any powerline right of way, the Applicant must not plant any vegetation that grows tall at maturity or grows with weak root systems that have a high probability of falling on BC Hydro’s electrical works. BC Hydro (including its agents and contractors) shall have the right to remove any tall-growing trees, shrubs and plants from underneath and adjacent to BC Hydro’s powerlines for line security and safety purposes from time to time.

15. All fencing must be reviewed and approved by BC Hydro prior to installation.

16. The Applicant must not make any changes in ground elevations of more than 0.5 metres from the original grade of the Property without the prior written consent of BC Hydro. The Proposed Use must not cause any deterioration of drainage patterns or soil stability within the Property.

17. Upon the completion or removal of the Proposed Use, the Property must be restored as closely as is practically possible to its original condition (or better) at the Applicant’s expense.

18. Prior to assigning BC Hydro’s consent to the Proposed Use contained in the attached letter, the Applicant must provide BC Hydro with the written agreement of any such assignee to be bound by these terms and conditions. Any purported assignment without such written agreement of the assignee will revoke BC Hydro’s consent contained in this letter.

19. No obligation in this letter will be considered to have been waived by BC Hydro unless the waiver is in writing and signed by BC Hydro, regardless of BC Hydro’s knowledge of any breach of such obligation or the passage of time.

20. If more than one person comprises the Applicant, then each such person is jointly and severally bound by the terms and conditions contained in the attached letter and this schedule of terms and conditions.

www.ltsa.ca Page 1 of 1

NOTICE OF REGISTRATION

Date of Issue: October 9, 2020Submitter's Name: William PollittFile Reference: 10099-040

Description: ADP/SRW - Drainage

The following application(s) have now reached final status:

PLAN APPLICATION CA8459751 FILED

SURVEY PLAN EPP105369 FILED

STATUTORY RIGHT OF WAY CA8459752 REGISTERED

COVENANT CA8459753 REGISTERED

Product support is available online at https://help.ltsa.ca. You can also call the Customer Service Centre for land title and survey practice matters, or Technical Support for all registry and product questions at 604-630-9630 or toll free at 1-877-577-LTSA (5872). Non-urgent support requests can be submitted online at https://ltsa.ca/contact-us-0.

https://help.ltsa.ca

https://help.ltsa.ca

https://ltsa.ca/contact-us-0

https://ltsa.ca/contact-us-0



Interior Dams Appendix E-1 March 1, 2021

APPENDIX E– COPY OF SECTION 11 APPLICATION AND DFO LETTER

BRrtrsHColumBrA

FCBC Project Number: 551656Virtual Application No.: 100300472Water File: 8005238

October 9,2019

City of ArmstrongPO Box 40Armstrong, BC VOE 180

fl';layor

clOcT I

Council

Agt:'rrle

I

ARMSTr.-lr\$ cF'

ii.tl {--i _i"ritlrrrrer

Fil€

Pv',i"l

ul :'G INS

1! ['Attn: Lisa Gyorkos r9t,:,9eetry-yr44J1

Re: Section { 1 of the Water Sustainability Act Application "Ghanges ln and About aStream"

Thank you for your application under the Water Sustainability Actfor approval or notification forchanges in and about a stream. You have indicated that you plan to complete flood waterdiversion over Plan KAP89122,KAP732H, H15080, A403, KAPB07B.

FrontCounter BC has accepted your application for a water approval/notification application onbehalf of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Water StewardshipAuthorizations. lf additional application fees are required they will be calculated and assessedonly if an approval is issued from this application. There will be no fee if a notification is issued

This letter does not imply approval/notification will be issued nor does it give you anyauthorization to occupy or use the Grown land under application.

During the application review, your application may be referred for comment to:r First Nations;o other government agencies having statutory responsibilities related to your application;. local governments.

Your application has been foruvarded to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural ResourceOperations Water Stewardship Authorizations for approval.

Please note that the project you have submitted to FrontCounter BC may be subject to furtherrequirements under the federal Fisheries Act. Please refer to Fisheries and Oceans Canada's"Projects Near Water'' webpage (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.calpnw-ppe/index-eng.html) forinformation on how to ensure your project complies with the Fisheries Act.

meantime, if you have any questions or concerns please contact this office

GraydonNatu I Resource Specialist

Ministry of Forests, Lands andNatural Resource Operations

Okanagan Shusrvap NaturalResource District

Mailing Addrcss:2501 - 14th AveVcrnon, BC Y7'l 821,

'Iel: (250) 558-1700Fax: (250) 549-5485

Wcbsite: rnvrv.gor'.bc.ca/for/ dos/

Pacific Region Région du Pacifique 985 McGill Place 985 place McGill Kamloops, BC, V2C 6X6 Kamloops, BC, V2C 6X6

1/3

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Pêches et Océans Canada

Your file Votre référence

August 13, 2020

Our file Notre référence

20-HPAC-00552

City of Armstrong

ATTENTION: Kevin Bertles - Chief Administrative Officer

PO Box 40

3570 Bridge St.

Armstrong, BC

V0E 1B0

Via email: [email protected]

Subject: Floodwater Bypass Construction, Meighan Creek, Armstrong – Implementation

of Measures to Avoid and Mitigate the Potential for Prohibited Effects to Fish

and Fish Habitat

Dear Kevin Bertles:

The Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (the Program) of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

(DFO) received your proposal on May 4, 2020. We understand that you propose to:

Construct a floodwater bypass to divert Meighan Creek along Highway 97 into

Deep Creek in the event of a flood.

In addition, the following aquatic species are subject to the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations

and may be found in the vicinity of your proposed work, undertaking, or activity:

Carp spp.

Our review considered the following information:

Request for Review form and supporting documents received via email on May 4,

2020:

o Environmental Management Plan for Proposed Meighan Creek Floodwater

Bypass along Highway 97, prepared by Ecoscape Environmental

Consultants Ltd., dated June 10, 2019; and

o Meighan Creek Design and Development Report, prepared by Interior

Dams Inc., dated July 27, 2019.

Your proposal has been reviewed to determine whether it is likely to result in:

the death of fish by means other than fishing and the harmful alteration, disruption

or destruction of fish habitat which are prohibited under subsections 34.4(1) and

35(1) of the Fisheries Act;


20-HPAC-00552 - 2 -

2/3

effects to listed aquatic species at risk, any part of their critical habitat or the

residences of their individuals in a manner which is prohibited under sections 32,

33 and subsection 58(1) of the Species at Risk Act.

The aforementioned outcomes are prohibited unless authorized under their respective legislation

and regulations.

To avoid and mitigate the potential for prohibited effects to fish and fish habitat (as listed above),

we recommend implementing the measures listed below:

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should be developed

and implemented by, or under the supervision of an appropriately Qualified

Environmental Professional (QEP) in accordance with all measures, standards and

best management practices (BMP’s) outlined in the Environmental Management

Plan for Proposed Meighan Creek Floodwater Bypass along Highway 97,

prepared by Ecoscape Environmental Consultants Ltd., dated June 10, 2019.

Where instream works are required, ensure the work area is first isolated from

flowing water and salvaged for fish by or under the supervision of a QEP.

Maintain flows around the work area throughout construction.

Develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to avoid causing

sedimentation of the watercourse.

Avoid disturbing or removing riparian vegetation, natural woody debris, rocks,

sand or other materials from the banks or bed of the watercourse, beyond what

was proposed.

o Avoid grubbing and clearing and make use of existing access routes.

Disturbed areas should be re-vegetated with a native species mix including grasses

and low lying shrubs. Live-staking should be incorporated in riparian areas and

throughout riprap, as deemed appropriate by a QEP.

Monitor the watercourse to observe signs of sedimentation during all phases of the

work, undertaking or activity. The Environmental Monitor (EM) should have the

ability to halt the works and take corrective action as needed.

Adhere to the appropriate least risk timing windows for instream work.

Ensure the floodwater bypass ditching maintains a consistent grade with no

appreciable depressions where fish stranding could potentially occur.

Develop a Standardized Operational Procedures (SOP) document consistent with

the Meighan Creek Design and Development Report, prepared by Interior Dams

Inc., dated July 27, 2019. Specifically, the operational procedures outlined in

Section 5.6.

A QEP will conduct a fish stranding risk assessment following the first use of the

floodwater bypass to inform the development of an appropriate fish salvage

protocol and recommend any design alterations to reduce the risk of stranding.

A QEP will conduct a fish salvage within 24 hours of end-of-use any time the

bypass activated and immediately report fish mortality to DFO.

Annual monitoring should be conducted to verify the integrity of the ditching and

infill depressions or make repairs as needed.

20-HPAC-00552 - 3 -

3/3

Provided that you incorporate these measures into your plans, the Program is of the view that

your proposal is not likely to contravene the above mentioned prohibitions and requirements.

Should your plans change, or if you have omitted some information in your proposal, further

review by the Program may be required. Consult our website (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-

ppe/index-eng.html) or consult with a qualified environmental consultant to determine if further

review may be necessary. It remains your responsibility to remain in compliance with the

Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations.

It is also your Duty to Notify DFO if you have caused, or are about to cause, the death of fish by

means other than fishing and/or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

Such notifications should be directed to the DFO-Pacific Observe, Record and Report phone line

at 1-800-465-4336 or by email at [email protected].

We recommend that you notify this office at least 10 days before starting your project and that a

copy of this letter be kept on site while the work is in progress. It remains your responsibility to

meet all other federal, territorial, provincial and municipal requirements that apply to your

proposal.

Please note that this Letter of Advice does not provide relief from the obligations set out in the

government of British Columbia’s Riparian Areas Protection Regulations (RAPR), and cannot be

construed to provide authorization pursuant to section 3(2) of the RAPR, for any work,

undertaking or activity within the Riparian Assessment Area. For more information on the

RAPR, including contacts, please visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-

animals-ecosystems/fish/riparian-areas-regulation.

If you have any questions with the content of this letter, please contact Riley Wall at our

Kamloops office at 236-334-3629 or by email at [email protected]. Please refer to the

file number referenced above when corresponding with the Program.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Henry

Section Head, BC Interior

Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program

Kamloops, BC

c.c.:

Lisa Gyorkos, City of Armstrong, via email – [email protected];

Aaron Hahn, Interior Dams, via email – [email protected]

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html


https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/fish/riparian-areas-regulation

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/fish/riparian-areas-regulation






Interior Dams Appendix F-1 March 1, 2021

APPENDIX F – FLOOD MODELING AND LOSS ESTIMATION ANALYSIS




Modeling of 1/200-year City of Armstrong Hazard with Proposed Mitigation

The adopted Meighan Creek Bypass 1/200-year design inflow is a single peak value and is

different than the adopted 1/200-year City-wide hydrograph modelled in the flood mapping and

mitigation project (refer to Section 5 and Appendix C). The difference in the magnitude of the

peaks is due in part to the different point-of-interests used for delineating the sub-catchment

drainages for the design of the Meighan Creek Bypass. Additionally, the Bypass 1/200-year

design flow peak was calculated using a more conservative approach and also used a more

conservative climate change criterion (refer to Appendix C and the Section 2.5.6 of the Flood

Mapping and Risk Assessment Report for more information).

Considering the above, and to remain consistent with the 2019 City of Armstrong flood mapping

report, the effectiveness of proposed works was modelled using the Meighan Creek and Deep

Creek inflow hydrographs as shown in Figure F-1 and Figure F-2 respectfully. These

hydrographs have been adopted to represent the City 1/200-year flood hazard. For a

comprehensive background of the development of these hydrographs, refer to the 2019 City of

Armstrong Flood Mapping and Risk Mitigation Report.

Figure F-1: 1/200-yr City hazard – Meighan Creek input hydrograph (Interior Dams, 2019)




Figure F-2: 1/200-yr City hazard – Deep Creek input hydrograph (Interior Dams, 2019)

Summary of model input parameters used in the HEC-RAS analysis

Table F-1: Manning Values Used (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2016) (MOE, 2000)

Description of surface or lining

Manning nNOTE 1

15-60 cm depth

>60 cm depth

Concrete trowel finish 0.013 0.013

Grass some weeds straight channel section 0.027 0.027

Earth bottom with rubble side 0.030 0.030

Heavy stand timber, few down trees, little undergrowth, flow below branches

0.080 0.080

Gravel riprap D50 = 2.5cm 0.033 0.030

Gravel riprap D50 = 5 cm 0.041 0.034

Rock riprap D50 = 15 cm 0.069 0.035

Rock riprap D50 = 30 cm 0.078 0.040 NOTE 1: Manning values were increased and decreased by 0.005 in the analysis for determination of design depth and scour velocity respectively.




Table F-2: Allowable Mean Velocities for Various Slope Protection Types (USDA, 2007)




Summary of mitigated loss

Using the total calculated monetary impact of the 1/200-year flood determined by the Flood

Mapping Report, Table F-3 summarizes the total mitigated impact or loss as a result of the

construction and operation of the bypass and other completed mitigation strategies22.

Table F-3: Summary of Mitigated Risk – 1/200-year Flood Impact Removed

Category Sub-category Section Sub-

Category Loss ($)

Total Loss ($)

Local Infrastructure

Electrical Power System 3.1.1 -

$770,500

Transportation System 3.1.2 $118,000

Wastewater System 3.1.3 $650,000

Potable Water System 3.1.4 $2,500

Natural Gas System 3.1.5 -

Telecommunication System 3.1.6 -

Other non-monetary impacts:

• Electrical power outage

• Local road washout(s) (non-isolating)

• Failure of WWTP functionality

• Impact to water main (not causing extended shut-down)

• Increased risk of potable water contamination

Impact to Environment

n/a 3.2 - -


• Risk of impact to red- and blue-listed species

• Contamination of water and pollution of wetlands

Impact to Cultural Values

n/a 3.3 - -


• One (1) heritage site was impacted by the flood

• 12 other heritage sites were considered to be at risk but outside of the mapped 1/200-year inundation

• Impact to the Okanagan Regional Library, Highland Park Elementary School yard, and the IPE fairgrounds

Impact to People and Society

Loss of Wages 3.4.1 $1,101,829

$10,364,977

Loss of Life 3.4.2 -

Loss of Automobiles 3.4.3.1 $1,981,461

Loss of Residential Property (includes structural, content & property)

3.4.3.2 $7,188,530

Loss due to Displacement 3.4.4 $93,157


• Stress and other non-monetary hardships related to displacement, property loss and loss of wages

• Shut-down of vital service providers including a financial institution, a grocery store, postal office, and five medical service providers (medical clinic, dental office, physiotherapy clinic, pharmacy, and optometry clinic)

• Incremental increase of risk to health and safety due to increased potential of water contamination and drowning

22 Refers to the dredging of lower Meighan Creek and the installation of a new headwall structure at Patterson Avenue.




Table F-3: Summary of Mitigated Risk – 1/200-year Flood Impact Removed

Impact to Local Economy

Loss of Rental Income 3.5.1 $66,533

$4,252,486 Loss of Business Profits 3.5.2 $467,398

Impact to Non-Residential Properties

3.5.3 $3,718,555


• Stress and other non-monetary hardships related to business displacement, property loss, and loss of profits

TOTAL MITIGATED IMPACT FROM THE 1/200-YEAR FLOOD $15,387,963

Table F-4: Transportation Infrastructure Loss Estimation

Loss Component Capital Cost1 Loss Probability Loss Estimate2

Okanagan Street (Meighan) $236,000 50% $118,000

TOTAL $118,000 NOTE1 Capital costs are based on the BC Construction and Rehabilitation Cost Guide for low volume creek bridges Invalid source specified.. NOTE2 Loss estimate is calculated in 2018 dollars.

Table F-5: Potable Water Infrastructure Loss Estimation

Loss Component Capital Cost Loss Probability Loss Percent Loss Estimate1

Buried Transmission Pipeline Crossing (Okanagan Street – Meighan Creek)

5000 50% 100% $2,500

TOTAL $2,500 NOTE1 Loss estimate is calculated in 2018 dollars.

Table F-6: Estimated Loss of Wages (LoW) – Impacted Businesses and Employees by Industry

Business Type Area/Creek Flood Impact E1 W2 EW3 LoW4

HEALTHCARE*

Medical Clinic* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 12 1.7 20.1 17,909

Dental Clinic* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 2.1 16.8 15,001

Physiotherapy Clinic* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 1.9 15.4 13,776

Pharmacy* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 15 2.1 31.5 28,126

Optometry Clinic* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 1.7 13.4 11,939

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Accounting Office Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 1.7 13.4 11,939

Notary Public Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 1.7 13.4 11,939

Investment Office Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 1.7 13.4 11,939

Insurance Broker Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 10 1.7 16.7 14,924

Real Estate Broker Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 6 2.1 12.6 11,251

Veterinary Clinic Smith Dr/Meighan Parking lot 8 0.0 0.0 -

Autobody Garage Patterson/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 2 16.3 32.6 29,083

PARKS AND PUBLIC SERVICES

Public Works Facility Patterson/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 5 3.0 15.0 13,394

Postal Office* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 6 6.6 39.9 35,589




Table F-6: Estimated Loss of Wages (LoW) – Impacted Businesses and Employees by Industry

Business Type Area/Creek Flood Impact E1 W2 EW3 LoW4

Library Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 5 7.1 35.4 31,571

CONSTRUCTION

Contractor Bldg Kirton Ave/Deep Yard 20 0.2 4.3 3,827

RETAIL

Grocery Store* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 30 7.1 212.1 189,423

Pet Retail Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 2.1 16.8 15,001

Pet Retail Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 7.1 56.6 50,513

Electronics Retail Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 5 1.7 8.4 7,462

Automotive Retailer Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 6 1.1 6.4 5,740

Health Food Retailer Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 6.9 54.9 48,982

General Merchandise Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 20 7.1 141.4 126,282

Flower Shop Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 4 0.9 3.4 3,061

Thrift Store Patterson/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 4 2.1 8.6 7,653

RESTAURANT

Pizza Eatery Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 6 2.1 12.6 11,251

Sandwich Eatery Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 6 2.1 12.6 11,251

Sushi Restaurant Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 8 7.1 56.6 50,513

Bakery Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 10 6.4 64.3 57,401

Coffee Shop Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 6 8.6 51.4 45,921

OTHER

Financial Institution* Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 12 0.0 0.0 -

Fitness Centre Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 4 2.1 8.4 7,500

Barber Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 5 6.4 32.1 28,700

Car Wash Facility Smith Dr/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 1 0.9 0.9 765

Hotel/Inn Smith Dr/Meighan Parking lot 5 0.6 3.2 2,870

Assisted Living Facility Willowdale/Meighan Bldg, parking lot 15 12.6 189.6 169,333

TOTAL $1,101,829

*These are considered vital to sustaining a community according to NDMP guidelines: communications technology, finance, healthcare, food, water, transportation, safety, government and manufacturing (Government of Canada, 2018) NOTE1 The number of working employees represents the number of full 8-hour working days of labour that are required for a typical business day. These numbers are approximate estimates based on building area and industry type. NOTE2 Weeks represent the approximate time the place of business is disrupted based on the severity of flooding (depth) at that particular business. NOTE3 EW is the product of the number of working employees to the number of weeks displaced. NOTE4 LoW is calculated in 2018 dollars.

Table F-7: Impact to Automobiles Loss Estimation

Automobile Location

Area/Creek D1 (m) NV2 DF3 (%) Total

Loss4 ($)

AUTOMOBILES AT RESIDENCES

Single Family Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.579 1.43 60% 16,720





Table F-7: Impact to Automobiles Loss Estimation

Automobile Location

Area/Creek D1 (m) NV2 DF3 (%) Total

Loss4 ($)

AUTOMOBILES AT RESIDENCES








Single Family Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.421 1.43 15% 4,180





Single Family Meadow Ck Ln/ Meighan 0.153 1.43 15% 4,180



Single Family Meadow C Ln/ Meighan 0.624 1.43 60% 16,720

Duplex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.175 2.86 15% 8,360

Duplex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.280 2.86 15% 8,360

Apartment Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.600 28.6 60% 334,406

Apartment Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.823 21.45 100% 418,008

Apartment Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.423 10.01 15% 29,261

AUTOMOBILES IN PUBLIC AREAS

Commercial Smith Dr/Meighan 0.180 99.0 15% 289,390




TOTAL $1,981,461 NOTE1 D represents the depth of flood at a particular GIS node location. NOTE2 NV represents the number of vehicles at that GIS node. NOTE3 DF is the damage function in percent. NOTE4 Values are in 2018 dollars.

Table F-8: Residential Structural and Content Damage Loss Estimation

Building Classification Area/Creek Flood Depth

(m)

Structural Damage ($/m2)

Content Damage ($/m2)

Total Residential

Loss ($)

Single Family Dwelling Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.579 986 923 113,825

Single Family Dwelling Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.718 1,034 947 101,644









Table F-8: Residential Structural and Content Damage Loss Estimation


(m)



Total Residential

Loss ($)


Single Family Dwelling Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.338 923 875 155,776

Single Family Dwelling Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.421 949 895 64,769

Single Family Dwelling Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.882 1,103 976 152,845

Single Family Dwelling Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.871 1,096 973 83,986



Single Family Dwelling Wolfden Terrace/ Meighan 0.129 907 763 74,115



Single Family Dwelling Meadow Cr Ln/ Meighan 0.153 908 775 34,834














Single Family Dwelling Meadow Cr Ln/ Meighan 0.624 1,004 934 108,210


Single Family Dwelling Okanagan St/Meighan 0.081 813 703 58,206

Duplex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.133 907 763 135,687




Apartment Complex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.600 1,105 494 1,260,243

Apartment Complex Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.823 1,177 546 1,725,318

Apartment Complex Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.423 990 434 438,905

TOTAL $7,039,405

Table F-9: Residential Property Cleanup Damages

Building Classification NRC

Classification Area/Creek Flood Depth (m) Damage ($)

Single Family Dwelling C Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.579 2,663






Table F-9: Residential Property Cleanup Damages

Building Classification NRC

Classification Area/Creek Flood Depth (m) Damage ($)







Single Family Dwelling C Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.421 2,663





Single Family Dwelling C Wolfden Terrace/ Meighan 0.129 2,663



Single Family Dwelling C Meadow Creek Ln/ Meighan 0.153 2,663
















Single Family Dwelling C Okanagan St/Meighan 0.081 2,663

Duplex C Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.133 2,663




Apartment Complex MW Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.6 15,977

Apartment Complex MW Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.823 15,977

Apartment Complex MW Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.423 15,977

TOTAL $149,125




Table F-10: Loss Due to Displacement of Residents Loss Estimation

Building Classification Area/Creek D1 (m)

DT2

(days)

Loss ($)

1-14 days

14+ days

Sum losses x 0.6

Single Family Dwelling Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.579 87 2,300 2,424 2,834









Single Family Dwelling Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.421 63 2,300 1,627 2,356





Single Family Dwelling Wolfden Terrace/ Meighan 0.129 19 2,300 166 1,480



Single Family Dwelling Meadow Creek Ln/ Meighan 0.153 23 2,300 299 1,559

Single Family Dwelling Meadow Creek Ln/ Meighan 0.376 56 2,300 1,394 2,217



Single Family Dwelling Meadow Creek Ln/ Meighan 0.024 4 1,200 0 720










Single Family Dwelling Meadow Creek Ln/ Meighan 0.624 94 2,300 2,656 2,974


Single Family Dwelling Okanagan St/Meighan 0.081 12 3,200 0 1,920

Duplex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.133 20 2,300 199 1,500




Apartment Complex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.600 90 2,300 2,523 2,894

Apartment Complex Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.823 124 2,300 3,652 3,571

Apartment Complex Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.423 64 2,300 1,660 2,376




Table F-10: Loss Due to Displacement of Residents Loss Estimation

Building Classification Area/Creek D1 (m)

DT2

(days)

Loss ($)

1-14 days

14+ days

Sum losses x 0.6

TOTAL $93,157 NOTE1 D represents the depth of flood at a particular GIS node location. NOTE2 DT represents the calculated displacement time in days.

Table F-11: Loss of Rental Income (LoRI) Estimation

Building Classification Area/Creek Displacement

Time (Months)

Rental Value

($/month) LoRI ($)

RESIDENTIAL

Single Family Dwelling Willowdale Dr/Meighan 2.90 996 924

Single Family Dwelling Willowdale Dr/Meighan 3.60 996 1,147







Single Family Dwelling Willowdale Dr/Meighan 1.70 996 542

Single Family Dwelling Patterson Ave/Meighan 2.10 996 669

Single Family Dwelling Patterson Ave/Meighan 4.40 996 1,402

Single Family Dwelling Patterson Ave/Meighan 4.37 996 1,392



Single Family Dwelling Wolfden Terrace/ Meighan 0.63 996 202



Single Family Dwelling Meadow Crk Ln/ Meighan 0.77 996 244



















Table F-11: Loss of Rental Income (LoRI) Estimation

Building Classification Area/Creek Displacement

Time (Months)

Rental Value

($/month) LoRI ($)

Single Family Dwelling Okanagan St/Meighan 0.40 996 127

Duplex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 0.67 1,992 425




Apartment Complex Willowdale Dr/Meighan 3.00 19,920 19,123

Apartment Complex Patterson Ave/Meighan 4.13 14,940 19,761

Apartment Complex Patterson Ave/Meighan 2.13 6,972 4,760

TOTAL $66,533

Table F-12: Loss of Business Profit (LoBP) Estimation

Business Type LoW NP/C LoBP

HEALTHCARE*

Medical Clinic* 17,909 2.623 46,976

Dental Clinic* 15001 0.941 14,116

Physiotherapy Clinic* 13776 1.769 24,370

Pharmacy* 28126 1.769 49,756

Optometry Clinic* 11939 1.769 21,121

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Accounting Office 11939 0.976 11,653

Notary Public 11939 0.976 11,653

Investment Office 11939 0.976 11,653

Insurance Broker 14924 0.976 14,566

Real Estate Broker 11251 0.976 10,981

Veterinary Clinic - 0.976 n/a

Autobody Garage 29083 0.976 28,385

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation Services 957 0.647 619

Trucking Facility 5740 0.647 3,714

CONSTRUCTION

Contractor Bldg 3827 0.106 406

RETAIL

Grocery Store* 189423 0.280 53,038

Pet Retail 15001 0.370 5,550

Pet Retail 50513 0.370 18,690

Electronics Retail 7462 0.370 2,761

Automotive Retailer 5740 0.370 2,124

Health Food Retailer 48982 0.370 18,123

General Merchandise 126282 0.370 46,724




Table F-12: Loss of Business Profit (LoBP) Estimation

Business Type LoW NP/C LoBP

Flower Shop 3061 0.370 1,133

Thrift Store 7653 0.370 2,832

RESTAURANT

Pizza Eatery 11251 0.126 1,418

Sandwich Eatery 11251 0.126 1,418

Sushi Restaurant 50513 0.126 6,365

Bakery 57401 0.126 7,233

Coffee Shop 45921 0.126 5,786

OTHER

Financial Institution* 0 n/a n/a

Fitness Centre 7500 0.701** 5,258

Barber 28700 0.701** 20,119

Car Wash Facility 765 0.701** 537

Storage Facility 0 0.647 n/a

Hotel/Inn 2870 0.247 709

Assisted Living Facility 169333 0.104 17,611

TOTAL $467,398

*These sectors are considered critical according to NDMP guidelines: communications technology, finance, healthcare, food, water, transportation, safety, government and manufacturing (Government of Canada, 2018). **The average NP/NC for all categories was used. NOTE1 Values are calculated in 2018 dollars.

Table F-13: Impact to Non-Residential Properties Loss Estimation


(m)


Total Damage

Office/Retail Patterson/Meighan 0.60 135 9,948

Office/Retail Patterson/Meighan 0.46 134 36,782

Office/Retail Smith Dr/Meighan 0.08 82 12,952




























Industrial/Warehouse Patterson/Meighan 0.74 23 5,808

Industrial/Warehouse Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.53 23 4,319

Industrial/Warehouse Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.40 22 6,312

Industrial/Warehouse Smith Dr/Meighan 0.05 8 5,083

TOTAL STRUCTURAL $1,216,487


(m)


Total Damage

General Office Patterson/Meighan 0.60 177 48,596

General Office Patterson/Meighan 0.46 218 16,038

General Office Smith Dr/Meighan 0.099 80 11,836

Financial Smith Dr/Meighan 0.079 63 9,950




Medical Smith Dr/Meighan 0.079 79 12,335

Medical Smith Dr/Meighan 0.079 79 35,203

Drugs Smith Dr/Meighan 0.099 33 24,649

Restaurant Smith Dr/Meighan 0.099 27 4,048




Stereos/TV Smith Dr/Meighan 0.079 276 43,420

Institution Smith Dr/Meighan 0.099 39 26,004

Personal Services Smith Dr/Meighan 0.099 24 6,149

Personal Services Smith Dr/Meighan 0.332 84 13,257

Paper Products Smith Dr/Meighan 0.332 202 129,938

Clothing Smith Dr/Meighan 0.332 405 267,704





Groceries Smith Dr/Meighan 0.332 285 678,518

Retail Smith Dr/Meighan 0.332 432 371,836

Misc Retail Smith Dr/Meighan 0.099 120 17,803



Auto Smith Dr/Meighan 0.057 17 7,680

Auto Patterson/Meighan 0.741 657 166,016

Warehouse/Industrial Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.530 588 112,763

Warehouse/Industrial Patterson Ave/Meighan 0.401 502 146,122

Warehouse/Industrial Smith Dr/Meighan 0.049 57 36,639

TOTAL CONTENT $2,502,068

TOTAL STRUCTURAL & CONTENT $3,718,555

MEIGHAN CREEK BYPASS

Documents

Transcript of MEIGHAN CREEK BYPASS