Lower Mainland Dike Assessment

LOWER MAINLAND DIKE ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

GS15LMN-054

MINISTRY OF FORESTS , LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

JULY 2015

3000427

Cover Photos (from top to bottom):

 Chilliwack Dike Breach in 1948  Vedder Canal Dikes, looking north to Fraser River  2007 Widening of Albion Dike in Maple Ridge

LOWER MAINLAND DIKE ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Surrey, British Columbia

Prepared by: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. North Vancouver, British Columbia

With Input from: Thurber Engineering Ltd. (Vancouver)

July 2015

NHC Ref No. 3000427

Prepared by:

Originally Signed By: Graeme Vass, E.I.T. Project Engineer

Reviewed by:

Originally Signed By: Monica Mannerström, P.Eng Principal

DISCLAIMER

This document has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations and their authorized representatives for specific application to the Lower Mainland Dike Assessment in BC. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any parties other than Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations.

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The NHC team would like to thank Mr. Neil Peters, P.Eng. of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for initiating this project, making available extensive background information and providing advice and support through‐out the study. The information provided by local Diking Authorities and the support received from the Fraser Basin Council, as represented by Mr. Steve Litke and the project Advisory Committee is gratefully acknowledged.

The following Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd (NHC) personnel participated in the study:

. Monica Mannerström, PEng. Project Manager

. Graeme Vass, EIT. Project Engineer

. David McLean, PEng. Specialist Input

. David Burkholder, PEng. Senior Engineer

. Greg Grzybowski, EIT Hydrotechnical Engineer

. Andromeda MacIsaac, EIT Hydrotechnical Engineer

. Megan Broswick, EIT Hydrotechnical Engineer

. Doris Leong, Ph.D. Data Analyst

. Sarah North, GISP GIS Specialist

The following Thurber Engineering Ltd (TEL) personnel provided geotechnical sub‐consultant services:

. Steven Coulter, PEng. Geotechnical Lead

. David Hill, PEng. Geotechnical Review Engineer

. Christopher Clarke, EIT Geotechnical Engineer

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment I Final Report

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment II Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Lower Mainland has been exposed to significant flooding in the past, both by the Fraser River, smaller water courses and by high ocean levels, and is now largely protected by dikes that were built over a period of several decades to variable standards. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) retained Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (NHC), assisted by Thurber Engineering Ltd. (TEL), to carry out an overview assessment of 74 dikes in the Lower Mainland to evaluate the level of protection provided by the dikes and to identify major deficiencies.

The work formed a desk‐top study utilizing information from MFLNRO, various Diking Authorities and existing reports. No field investigations were carried out. A secondary objective of the project was to summarize all the available information in a database that can readily be used as a reference and be updated over time.

The 74 dikes were further divided into a total of 118 segments and key information was collected for each segment. At MFLNRO’s request, a Microsoft Access database was used to summarize the data. A dike evaluation matrix was developed to assess each dike segment in terms of its crest height, dike geometry, geotechnical stability during floods and seismic events, erosion protection measures, vegetation/ animal control, encroachments, appurtenant structures and administrative arrangements. A rating of ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’ or ‘unacceptable’ was assigned to each characteristic.

The dikes generally do not meet current provincial standards and none fully meet or exceed the standards. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) recent research and numerical flood modelling have resulted in more accurate but also higher design flood levels; and, 2) structural and geotechnical design criteria have become more stringent over time. Upgrading the dikes to meet the updated standards is costly, particularly where major land acquisitions would be required.

A number of deficiencies were identified. In considering dike crest elevations relative to design flood levels, only 4% of the dike segments are high enough to contain the present design event, with a standard freeboard allowance of 0.6m. Another 25% generally have a freeboard of approximately 0.3 m and could potentially contain the design event. However, 17% have a crest profile roughly matching the design water surface (no freeboard) and the remaining 54% have crest profiles below design flood levels. In consideration of only dike height vs design flood level (ignoring other deficiencies and failure modes) 71% of the dikes could be expected to fail by overtopping during the design event.

Based on average rankings, 13% of the dike segments fall in the fair to good category (average score between 3 and 4), 69% ‐ or the majority of the dikes, are in the poor to fair category (score between 2 and 3) and 18% of the dike segments are in the unacceptable to poor category (score between 1 and 2).

The construction of dikes next to sloping ground over Fraser River sediment lends itself to an unfavourable environment for seismic stability. Thurber Engineering Ltd. (TEL) expects most of the dikes to experience deformation or displacement during a 1 in 2,475 year return period earthquake. Soil liquefaction of foundation soils is generally the greatest risk for seismically induced

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment III Final Report displacements. However, strain softening of fine grain foundation soils can lead to displacement for over‐steepened dikes. Many of the dikes may also experience slope stability and seepage issues during flooding events.

Unfortunately, the information required to assess seismic stability was limited and no rating could be assigned to 29% of the dike segments. None of the segments were found to meet seismic standards over their entire length, while 18% almost meet seismic standards, and 53% are seismically unstable.

The dike segments were also assessed for their general geotechnical stability. However, 22 % of the dike segments could not be rated because of insufficient information.

For the remaining 78% of dike segments that could be rated, the dikes were assessed for slope stability; seepage (piping and landside heave); and long term settlement according to the evaluation factors provided in Table 1. 10% of the segments were rated “Good”, 36% were rated “Fair”, 27% were rated “Poor” and 5% were rated “Unacceptable”.

The implication of these results is that dike segments rated “Poor” and “Unacceptable” (approx. one third of all dike segments) should be expected to experience some stability and seepage problems during the design event and may fail due to a geotechnical problem rather than by overtopping.

Considering the high cost of land, raising the dikes may be prohibitively expensive, even in locations where upgrades are feasible from geotechnical and land use perspectives. Problems related to upgrades, such as soil, seismic stability and land use limitations are outlined in the database. Adaptation to climate change impacts, such as increased peak flows and sea level rise, would require future, more significant upgrades and were not addressed in detail.

Recommendations are provided on using and updating the dike database, assessing dikes in more detail and expanding the assessment to include all dikes in BC. Flood emergency preparedness plans should be developed and dike upgrades prioritized. In some instances it may not be feasible to upgrade the dikes sufficiently and a range of structural and non‐structural flood management strategies need to be considered.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment IV Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... V LIST OF FIGURES ...... V LIST OF TABLES ...... V LIST OF APPENDICES ...... V 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ...... 2 1.3 Project Goals and Objectives ...... 2 1.4 Report Organization ...... 3 2 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 2.1 Data Sources ...... 3 2.2 Data Types ...... 4 3 DATABASE DEVELOPMENT ...... 5 4 DATA ASSESSMENT ...... 6 4.1 Dike Evaluation Matrix ...... 6 4.2 Assessment Results ...... 7 5 STUDY LIMITATIONS ...... 8 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Crest Elevation Rating Figure 2 Average Dike Rating

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Dike Evaluation Matrix Table 2 Library References Table 3 Summary of Dike Deficiencies and Assessments

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Dikes Included in Assessment / Overview of Provincial Dike Safety Standards and Standards for Lower Fraser River Dikes Appendix B Geotechnical Report Appendix C Dike Segment Deficiency Matrices

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment V Final Report

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background The Lower Mainland has been exposed to significant flooding in the past, both by the Fraser River, smaller water courses and by high ocean levels, and is now largely protected by dikes that were built over a period of several decades to variable standards. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) retained Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (NHC), assisted by Thurber Engineering Ltd. (TEL), to carry out an overview assessment of dikes in the Lower Mainland to evaluate the level of protection provided by the dikes and to identify major deficiencies.

The project forms part of a broader initiative announced by the Fraser Basin Council (FBC) to develop a Lower Mainland Flood Management Strategy to better protect communities against inundation along the Lower Fraser River from Hope to Richmond and on the coast from Squamish to White Rock. Several recent studies commissioned by MFLNRO, local municipalities and other groups indicate that the frequency and extent of flooding is likely to increase in the future in response to climate change.

The 74 dikes included in the assessment, as managed by 35 diking authorities, extend for over 500 km through the Lower Mainland, comprising about half of the total length of dikes in BC. Information regarding the dikes (regulated under the Dike Maintenance Act) is retained by MFLNRO and local diking authorities but has not been systematically analyzed with respect to their level of protection or organized into a readily accessible form.

Most of the Fraser River dikes were built to design criteria developed in the 1960’s and 1970’s by the Fraser River Flood Control Program. The Program used a design profile established in 1969 based on extrapolated historic staff gauge readings and high watermarks from 1894 (flood of record) and 1948 (second largest flood on record). Hydraulic modelling by NHC (2006 and 2008) showed that the present design flood levels would be up to 1 m higher in some areas, assuming that flood flows are confined by diking.

The Fraser River Flood Control Program also developed design criteria for sea dikes in the early 1970’s which are now considered too low. However, the Province has not yet provided detailed updated standards for sea dikes or made a requirement to raise dikes for sea level rise.

In addition to overtopping, the stability, seepage and potential piping of dikes and appurtenant structures is of primary concern. Dikes upgraded under the Fraser River Flood Control Program or under

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 1 Final Report

more recent funding programs have generally had geotechnical investigations and design. However, many other dikes have had insufficient assessment. As seismic design guidelines have only been in place for a few years, many dikes have not been assessed/designed for seismic stability.

A separate set of standards apply to dike management and concern legal rights of way, operation and maintenance. An overview of provincial dike safety standards and standards for Lower Fraser River Dikes are included in Appendix A.

1.2 Scope of Work The MFLNRO terms of reference specify compiling the following information for the dikes under review (listed in Appendix A):

 General layout, function and purpose.  Design (original criteria, dates of construction/upgrades, rationale for upgrades).  Appurtenant works with details on type, number, characteristics, age, condition and the potential influence of these works on the dikes. (Internal drainage issues not included).  Currently applicable design and management criteria.  Administrative and O/M deficiencies.  Available reference documentation.  Current level of protection.  An overall rating matrix.  Concerns regarding future upgrades (such as space limitations, soil limitations, seismic stability, alternative alignments).

Following the data collection and development of a database to summarize all the information, the terms of reference specify carrying out an overview level assessment of the dikes and identification of major deficiencies.

1.3 Project Goals and Objectives The dike overview assessment will serve to highlight where upgrades are most urgently needed and where provincial, federal or other funding could be directed to improve overall flood management within the Lower Mainland. It is recognized that other measures, in addition to dike upgrades, may be required to achieve an adequate degree of flood protection.

The project’s main goal was to complete an overview assessment of each of the 74 dikes listed in Appendix A, estimate the current level of protection provided by the dikes as far as feasible and identify major deficiencies. The work formed a desk‐top study utilizing information from MFLNRO, the various Diking Authorities and existing reports. No field investigations were carried out.

The dikes are known to largely fall below current standards and upgrades will be required over time, particularly in view of climate change impacts on flood levels. As part of the dike assessment, upgrade limitations caused by land availability, soil limitations and geotechnical stability were identified where feasible.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 2 Final Report

A secondary objective of the project was to summarize all the available information in a database that MFLNRO, diking authorities and other stakeholders can readily reference and that MFLNRO can update and expand over time.

The information provided should help to support:

 Evaluating existing flood risks to the communities protected by the dikes.  Developing by‐laws for new floodplain development.  Assessing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure.  Emergency planning and response.  Identifying major gaps and priorities to inform future flood mitigation funding.  Making Lower Mainland dike safety information more accessible.

1.4 Report Organization The report is divided into six sections. In addition to introductory Section 1, Section 2 describes the data collection process, Section 3 describes the development of the dike database and Section 4 introduces the deficiency evaluation matrix used for the assessments and summarizes key findings. Section 5 lists limitations associated with the study and Section 6 provides recommendations.

2 DATA COLLECTION

2.1 Data Sources One of the main challenges associated with the project was expediently locating the necessary background information for the dikes. Although an impressive amount of information was available from the MFLNRO Dike Management and Safety website (Important Drawings, Reports & Studies; Database, Maps & Locations of Flood Protection Works), additional material had to be retrieved from hard copy files at MFLNRO’s Surrey office and other sources. Some Ministry hard‐copy files are archived off‐site and were retrieved by MFLNRO. NHC drafted a letter for MFLNRO, which Inspector of Dikes sent to the Diking Authorities requesting up‐to‐date information.

TEL compiled and reviewed geotechnical information and completed all geotechnical assessments. A summary report by TEL is included in Appendix B. Recent dike failures in Europe and the US have commonly been the result of geotechnical and erosional failures, with dikes failing well before they are overtopped. Review of past dike failures is recommended.

The following is a list of the available information provided by MFLNRO and the Diking Authorities.

1) As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports (ABD) 2) Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps (LMDIM) 3) Flood Protection Program Reports (FPP)

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 3 Final Report

4) Diking Authority Responses (DAR) 5) Dike Inspection Reports (DIR) 6) Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports (RFP) 7) Operations‐Maintenance Library (OM) 8) Other Reports (OR) 9) Water Library (W)

Every report or document provided was assigned a specific code based on the information type and dike location. For example an As‐Built Dike Drawing for a Richmond dike was given a code of “ABD‐RICH‐###” and was included in the digital reference library developed for the study. The MFLNRO “Water Library Index – Mainland” was extensively used and relevant studies extracted for reference.

Numerous Diking Authorities participated in the project by providing information such as recent dike crest surveys, inspection reports and engineering assessments. All this information has been incorporated into the Digital Library (comprised of 924 reports and documents) provided to MFLNRO at the conclusion of this project. A summary of all the data analysed for this assessment is provided in Table 2.

2.2 Data Types The 74 dikes included in the assessment were further divided into a total of 118 segments, each segment being of relatively uniform quality. Dikes, their segments and start/end stations are shown in Figure 1.

The following information was summarized for each dike:

 A GPS number (unique number used for dike identification) and name as provided by MFLNRO.

 Coordinates of start and end points, including length.

 General layout and purpose.

 Pertinent reference information.

For each dike segment the following characteristics were compiled:

 The segment name, its coordinates, length and the rationale for dividing the dike into the particular segment.

 A representative water /land side slope and crest width.

 The relevant dike standard the segment was built to.

 A description of the foreshore.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 4 Final Report

 A flood geometry coefficient corresponding to the estimated average internal hydraulic gradient” which is related to the difference between the flood level and average ground surface on the landside, and the base width of the dike (see the Seepage section of Appendix B for further explanation).

 A description of the subsurface material.

 Information on the geotechnical stability during a flood, including seepage (See Appendix B).

 Information on the seismic stability (See Appendix B).

 The available average and minimum freeboard and the flow the dike can likely withstand without overtopping, including corresponding Annual Exceedance Probability levels.

 Potential issues with raising or upgrading the dikes.

 The history of dike construction and past upgrades, the rationale for the upgrades and relevant design criteria applied.

 Relevant reference documents.

3 DATABASE DEVELOPMENT

MFLNRO specified that Microsoft Access software be used for the database. Should MFLNRO wish to convert to another software in the future, this can easily be accomplished.

Initially, a draft checklist of dike information was prepared and following MFLNRO’s approval, a database was designed to summarize this information. Scripts were written to transfer information from MFLNRO’s existing database to the new database. Available web‐based information was directly downloaded into the database. A digital version of the database is attached and a digital reference library is provided on an external hard drive.

Main tabs within the database are:

 Input – for inputting information on the dike authority, dike, dike segment and library references.

 Report – for generating detailed printed reports.

 Admin – for system administration.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 5 Final Report

The database was populated by developing a comprehensive Excel spreadsheet and then directly importing the information into the database. Care was taken to ensure accurate data transfer. However, the database should be considered a draft and revisions and updates are likely required over time.

4 DATA ASSESSMENT

4.1 Dike Evaluation Matrix A dike evaluation matrix (Table 1) was developed to assess each dike segment and all evaluations were incorporated into the database. The matrix is a key tool developed by the project. Assessments were based on available information and did not involve fieldwork or original analyses. A set of nine characteristics, or rating items were used to evaluate each segment, including:

1. A comparison of the dike crest level versus the design flood level, in view of the overall stability of the channel.

2. The dike geometry (crest width, land side slope, water side slope) as compared to acceptable standards.

3. The general geotechnical stability under flood conditions (seepage, including piping / land heave and long‐term settlement).

4. The seismic geotechnical stability.

5. The exposure of the dike to erosion in terms of the location of dike, erosive forces and quality of protection.

6. The vegetation management and potential problems caused by animal activities.

7. The degree of encroachment caused by buildings, roads or other infrastructure.

8. The presence of appurtenant structures – their type, operational status, interface, pipe crossings, buried utilities etc.

9. Administrative arrangements, such as rights of way, access routes, the availability of operation and maintenance manuals, inspection procedures and any emergency preparedness plans.

Definitions for “good (=4)”, “fair (=3)”, “poor (=2)” and “unacceptable (=1)” standards were developed for each rating item to allow consistent evaluation of dike segments. Completed deficiency matrices are included in Appendix C.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 6 Final Report 4.2 Assessment Results A number of deficiencies were identified. In considering dike crest elevations relative to design flood levels, only 4% of the dike segments are high enough to contain the present design event, with a standard freeboard allowance of 0.6 m. Another 25% generally have a freeboard of approximately 0.3 m and could potentially contain the design event. However, 17% of the dikes have a crest profile roughly matching the design water surface (no freeboard) and the remaining 54% have crest profiles below design flood levels. In consideration of dike height vs design flood level (and not considering other deficiencies and failure modes) 71% of the dikes could be expected to fail by overtopping during the design event. The dike crest ratings are summarized in Table 3.

Based on average rankings, 13% of the dike segments fall in the good to fair category (average score between 4 and 3), 69% ‐ or the majority of the dikes, are in the fair to poor category (score between 3 and 2) and 18% of the dike segments are in the poor to unacceptable category (score between 2 and 1). The average rankings are included in Table 3.

A summary assessment statement was completed for each dike, based on the weakest segment of the dike. These provide general comments on the vulnerability of each dike to overtopping, geometric, geotechnical or erosion failures, including comments on administrative arrangements. The summary assessments are presented in Table 3.

The minimum dike crest levels were compared to previously simulated flood profiles for a range of flood conditions, to give an indication of the approximate return period flood the dike may presently withstand. This information was readily available only for the lower Fraser River, in the reach where design levels are determined by freshet flows. The assessments showed that none of the dikes are sufficiently high to meet the 1894 flood design standard (which has an approximate Annual Exceedance Probability – AEP of 1:500). In general, Fraser River dikes can withstand the 1:100 flood (at Mission), with a few capable of containing the 1:200 flood, but none fully meeting the design standard. Some of the dikes will experience localized overtopping already at the 1:20 AEP flood level.

The construction of dikes next to sloping ground over Fraser River sediment lends itself to an unfavourable environment for seismic stability. TEL expects most of the dikes to experience deformation or displacement during a 1 in 2475 year return period earthquake. Soil liquefaction of foundation soils is generally the greatest risk for seismically induced displacements. However, strain softening of fine grain foundation soils can lead to displacement for over‐steepened dikes.

The dike segments were also assessed for their general geotechnical stability. However, 22 % of the dike segments could not be rated because of insufficient information.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 7 Final Report For the remaining 78% of dike segments that could be rated, the dikes were assessed for slope stability; seepage (piping and landside heave); and long term settlement according to the evaluation factors provided in Table 1. 10% of the segments were rated “Good”, 36% were rated “Fair”, 27% were rated “Poor” and 5% were rated “Unacceptable”.

The implication of these results is that dike segments rated “Poor” and “Unacceptable” (approximately one third of all dike segments) should be expected to experience some stability and seepage problems during the design event and may fail due to a geotechnical problem rather than by overtopping.

5 STUDY LIMITATIONS

Several limitations are associated with the dike overview assessment:

 The assessments were based on available information. The reference material used was cited in the database, in a manner as complete as possible. Attempts were made to compile all available information for each dike. However, the information collected may not be complete and some relevant reports and data may have been overlooked. In some instances, only limited information was available and assumptions regarding the dikes and dike segments had to be made. Where there were serious questions about the accuracy of the rating and reliability of the information available, unrated gaps were left in the evaluations. The assessment was limited to a desk‐top study and no fieldwork or original analysis was completed.

 NHC and TEL did not assess the accuracy of the available information and previous findings were directly utilized without review. NHC and TEL do not take responsibility for previous work completed by others.

 Design water surface profiles used in the crest evaluations assume no dike breaching, no peak flow attenuation and no floodplain storage. The maximum Mission flows that the Fraser dikes can withstand, as tabulated in the database, are approximate only.

 Time and budget constraints limited the depth of the assessments to a general overview level and it is recommended that more in‐depth analyses of the diking be completed in the future.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 8 Final Report

6 RECOMMENDATIONS

Almost all of the dikes are substandard and most will not withstand the provincially adopted design flood events. While this study has several limitations and more detailed work is required for specific dikes, the study results have significant implications for each of the major components of flood management: 1) Dike Safety; 2) Emergency Response; and, 3) Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management. It is recommended that the Province:

1. Carry out more detailed assessments of the Lower Mainland dikes. It should be recognized that the present project only provides an overview level assessment.

2. Make the database available to Diking Authorities and other stakeholders. Use the Dike Evaluation Matrix as a consistent methodology for assessing the dikes.

3. Make any corrections to the database as required. Maintain the database over time as dikes are upgraded, new information becomes available or modifications are required. Develop a weighted ranking system for fine‐tuning the dike segment ratings.

4. Extend the dike overview assessment to cover all dikes in BC that fall under the Dike Maintenance Act and include this additional information in the database.

5. In connection with the Lower Mainland flood vulnerability assessment currently underway, identify which dikes most urgently need upgrading in terms of assets at risk and the substandard quality of particular dikes. Prioritize the necessary upgrades.

6. Develop and implement detailed emergency flood preparedness plans for the Lower Mainland.

7. Develop floodplain maps based on different dike breach scenarios. For Fraser River, evaluate the potential reduction in river levels provided by flood waters being stored in parts of the floodplain. (From the 1894 high watermark at Mission, the reduction in flood levels due to unconfined flow, or inundation of the entire floodplain, is approximately 1 m.)

8. Update the Fraser River design profile using 2D modelling. More accurate 2D modelling may show that design flood levels in back channels and along set‐back dikes, are lower than those estimated by the existing 1D model.

9. Review the adopted standard freeboard requirement of 0.6 m.

10. Develop comprehensive flood management plans that consider a range of structural and non‐ structural flood management strategies in addition to dikes. These plans must recognize that dikes are not fail‐safe and that in some cases, upgrading dikes to withstand the design events may not be feasible, especially when climate change is considered.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 9 Final Report

11. Consider establishing an over‐arching agency to lead flood management and develop appropriate funding mechanisms to support comprehensive planning and dike upgrading by diking authorities.

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 10 Final Report

Tables

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 11 Final Report

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 12 Final Report Table 1. Dike Evaluation Matrix

Typical Rating Rationale Rating Item Good (=4) Fair (=3) Poor (=2) Unacceptable (=1) 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL Dike ties into high ground or otherwise prevents backwater flooding. Crest Dike ties into high ground or otherwise prevents backwater flooding. A Dike ties into high ground or otherwise prevents backwater flooding. Crest Dike does not tie into high ground or there is risk of backwater flooding. Crest levels exceed DCL's (freeboard requirements are fully met). minimum freeboard of 0.3 m is available over most of the dike length. Some levels exceed design flood levels. Some lower spots exist that can be plugged levels fall below design flood levels. Long-term bed aggradation or debris depositions are unlikely to impact the lower spots exist that can be plugged during floods. during floods. Bed aggradation or debris depositions are compromising the capacity of the design profile significantly or, there is a regular channel maintenance program Long-term bed aggradation or debris depositions may to some extent impact Long-term bed aggradation or debris depositions have taken place affecting dike and channel maintenance is inadequate. in effect. the design profile but the channel is fairly well maintained or rates are low. the design profile but, the channel has occasionally been maintained in the There is significant lateral instability affecting the design profile and the Lateral channel changes are unlikely to raise the design profile. Lateral channel changes may to some extent change the design profile. past. There is lateral instability and the design profile has changed over time. profile is not regularly updated.

2. Geometry - Crest width Crest width meets applicable standards and side slopes meet or exceed Crest width and side slopes generally meet applicable standards. Deficiencies Crest widths are less than fair and/or side slopes are over-steepened in some Crest widths and/or side slopes are consistently inadequate. - Landside slope relevant specifications. (Crest width > 4 m, landside slope > 3H:1V, waterside unlikely to compromise the dike stability. locations, causing concern. - Waterside slope slope > 2.5H:1V).

3. Geotechnical Stability - General - Dike stability under flood conditions Dike is stable during present design flood conditions and can likely be raised Minor stability problems expected during design flood event but these will Some stability problems may occur during the design flood but damage is Dike is likely to fail due to geotechnical problems at flood levels less than the (<1 m) for future design levels without affecting stability. unlikely diminish the dike performance. Raising the dike for future design likely to be repairable. Raising the dike for future flood conditions is not design event and prior to overtopping. Raising the dike is not feasible (poor flood conditions may be problematic. possible without extensive reconstruction. foundation and fill materials).

- Seepage (piping and landside heave) Seepage and landside heave have not been observed in the past and are not Minor seepage problems may occur. Piping / landheave has been observed in the past. Significant piping / landheave has been observed in the past and are potential expected for present design flood conditions. causes for breaching.

- Long term settlement Long-term settlement is minimal. Settlement may require minor raising of dike to maintain design levels. The dike has settled and settlement is likely to continue. Extensive settlement has been observed.

4. Geotechnical Stability - Seismic Dike meets seismic standards. Dike almost meets seismic standards. Dike is seismically unstable. The dike is seismically unstable.

5. Erosion Protection - Location of dike No protection is required because dike is well set back from river or ocean and There is erosive action but it does not jepordize the stability of the dike. Riprap is undersized or not properly tied-in. Slumping or other damage has Erosion protection is inadequate. Dike may potentially fail due to erosive - Exposure to erosion flow velocities are low/ wave action limited. Or, dike has adequate erosion Riprap appears to be properly designed but has some weaknesses. Erosion been reported and repairs should be undertaken. Protection may withstand action of the dike or immediate foundation material. - Quality of protection protection. protection needs monitoring. design flood.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control - Vegetation type/ sod cover No woody vegetation or brush obscuring dike slopes. Vegetation is Minimal woody vegetation. Dike slopes generally well maintained. Some Small woody vegetation. Dike slopes covered with brush and difficult to Large woody vegetation that would cause problems in windfall. Slopes - Animal burrows, other animal activities predominantly grasses that are regularly mowed. No reported animal animal burrows and/or other activity impacting dike sideslopes / crest inspect. Some animal burrows, other animal damage or activities impacting covered with thick brush. Significant animal activity with unrepaired burrows impacting dike sideslopes and/or crest burrows, other animal damage or acivities impacting dike sideslopes / crest. reported but damage has been repaired. dike sideslopes / crest. or other severe damage to dike sideslopes or crest.

7. Encroachments - Buildings No buildings or fences encroach on the dike ROW / access and there are no Some buildings marginally enroach on dike ROW. Roads / RWs cross the dike, Buildings encroach on ROW. Fences obstruct inspection personnel or Buildings significantly encroach on dike. Road / RW crossings result in major - Road - RW crossings/ land use road / RW crossings affecting the dike. The dike is not used as a road/railroad causing a slight lowering in the dike crest. A main road is located on the dike. emergency response. Road / RW crossings result in minor gaps that can be gaps that are difficult to fill in order to prevent flooding. Top of dike is used and there are no conflicting land-uses. No fences or conflicting land-uses. blocked during design flood. No conflicting land-use. for housing, parking etc.

8. Appurtenant Structures - Types of structures Pumpstations and floodboxes are in good working order. Seepage is Pumpstations and floodboxes are operational. Structures are aging and were Pumpstations and floodboxes are in poor condition. Culverts have corroded Some pumpstations / floodboxes are likely to malfunction during flood - Operational status prevented along structure / dike interface. Culverts are flapgated and in good built to previous standards. Some seepage has been observed but adequate and weathered. Flapgates allow some leakage. There is some risk of interface conditions. Flapgates do not close properly. Culverts may collapse. There is a - Interface seepage order. Or, there are no appurtenant structures. No buried utilities cross the repairs have been made. Culverts / flapgates have some corrosion / seepage. Multiple utilities, some longitudinal in dike. high risk of interface seepage. Major longitudinal utilities in dike. - Pipe crossings dike. weathering. A few buried utilities cross the dike. - Buried utilities 9. Administrative Arrangements - Status of ROW's and legal access Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all parts of the dike. IOD ROWs and legal access are available but some refinements are required. There ROWs and access are inadequate. There is an OM manual but inspections are There are no formal ROWs or access arrangements. Dikes are partly blocked - Operation/ Maintenance Manual approved OM manuals are available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports is an OM manual and the dike is inspected. There is no emergency response irregular and reports not provided. There is no emergency response plan. by private fencing. OM manual is incomplete and there is no emergency - Regular inspections provided to IOD. Emergency supplies are available and there is a flood plan. response plan. - Emergency supplies/response response plan. Table 2 - Library References

Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects ABB‐0M‐M‐9 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 6, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Pump Motors ABB‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, Barrowtown Pump Station, Abbotsford General Instructions ABB‐OM‐M‐10 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 7, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Stork Pumps ABB‐OM‐M‐11 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 8, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Trashrake ABB‐OM‐M‐12 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 9, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Diesel Generator ABB‐OM‐M‐13 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 10, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Crane ABB‐OM‐M‐14 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 11, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Gates ABB‐OM‐M‐15 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 12, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Mechanical‐Miscellaneous ABB‐OM‐M‐16 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 13, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Equipment Test Records ABB‐OM‐M‐17 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, As Constructed Works ABB‐OM‐M‐18 O&M Manual A Guide to the Barrowtown Pump Station and Sumas Prairie Floodplain Abbotsford ABB‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, Barrowtown Pump Station, Abbotsford Appendix 8, Geotechnical Report Annexes ABB‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, Barrowtown Pump Station, Abbotsford Appendix 8, Geotechnical Report ABB‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 1, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Instructions ABB‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 2, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, 25 kV Equipment ABB‐OM‐M‐6 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 3, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Motor Starters ABB‐OM‐M‐7 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 4, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Controle Console ABB‐OM‐M‐8 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Book 5, Barrowtown Pump Abbotsford Station, Electrical Miscellaneous ABD‐ABB‐001 As‐Built Drawings abb_om_m_17_entiredocument Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐002 As‐Built Drawings mat_om_m4entiredocument Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐003 As‐Built Drawings SUM‐OM‐C‐1 Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐004 As‐Built Drawings SUM‐OM‐C‐2 Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐005 As‐Built Drawings UMFW 2007 Abb CompRpt. Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐006 As‐Built Drawings UMFW 2007 James Tr Plnt. Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐007 As‐Built Drawings UMFW 2007 Matsqui Dwgs. Abbotsford pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 1 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects ABD‐ABB‐008 As‐Built Drawings UMFW 2007 Vedder Dwgs. Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐009 As‐Built Drawings R‐A1‐1‐9 Abbotsford pdf ABD‐ABB‐010 As‐Built Drawings VedderMgmtAreaPlan Abbotsford pdf ABD‐CHEHALIS As‐Built Drawings Chehalis 4810064‐001‐002_FIG 101‐107_RI Chehalis Indian Band pdf ABD‐CHIL‐001 As‐Built Drawings chi_om_m5_entire Chiliwack pdf ABD‐CHIL‐002 As‐Built Drawings 2703_chilliwack_dikes Chiliwack pdf ABD‐CHIL‐003 As‐Built Drawings chilliwack_UMFW2007 Chiliwack pdf ABD‐CHIL‐004 As‐Built Drawings vedder_geotech_Report Chiliwack pdf ABD‐COQUIT‐001 As‐Built Drawings COQ‐OM‐M‐4 entire document Coquitlam pdf ABD‐DELTA‐001 As‐Built Drawings DEL‐OM‐M‐3 entire document Delta pdf ABD‐DELTA‐002 As‐Built Drawings DEL‐OM‐M‐4 entire document Delta pdf ABD‐DELTA‐003 As‐Built Drawings R‐D1‐1‐10 Delta pdf ABD‐GV As‐Built Drawings GLE‐OM‐M‐2 Glen Valley pdf ABD‐HOPE As‐Built Drawings HOPE_5409 Hope pdf ABD‐KENT‐001 As‐Built Drawings KEN‐OM‐M‐3 entire document Kent pdf ABD‐KENT‐002 As‐Built Drawings Kent_UMFW_2007 Kent pdf ABD‐LANGLEY As‐Built Drawings LAN‐0M‐M‐1 Langley pdf ABD‐LFR‐001 As‐Built Drawings Constr_Mat_Low_Fras_Dikes Lower Fraser River pdf ABD‐LFR‐002 As‐Built Drawings fr_upstream_storage Lower Fraser River pdf ABD‐LFR‐003 As‐Built Drawings Stabilty_Low_Fras_Dikes Lower Fraser River pdf ABD‐MISSION‐001 As‐Built Drawings MIS‐OM‐M‐2 entire document Mission pdf ABD‐MISSION‐002 As‐Built Drawings UMFW_2007_Silverdale_Dike Mission pdf ABD‐MR As‐Built Drawings 07‐02‐02B_Rpt District of Maple Ridge pdf ABD‐MR‐001 As‐Built Drawings 07‐02‐02B_Rpt Maple Ridge Mission pdf ABD‐MR‐002 As‐Built Drawings albion_dyke_umfw2007 Maple Ridge Mission pdf ABD‐MUD‐001 As‐Built Drawings sur_om_m4 Mud Bay pdf ABD‐MV‐001 As‐Built Drawings colony fm geot Metro Vancouver pdf ABD‐MV‐002 As‐Built Drawings Colony_Farm Metro Vancouver pdf ABD‐NW As‐Built Drawings new_om_m2entire_document New Westminster pdf ABD‐PM‐001 As‐Built Drawings PIT‐OM‐M‐4 entire doc Pitt Meadows pdf ABD‐PM‐002 As‐Built Drawings PIT‐OM‐M‐5 entire document Pitt Meadows pdf ABD‐PTCOQ‐001 As‐Built Drawings Coquitlam R left bank dwgs Port Coquitlam pdf ABD‐PTCOQ‐002 As‐Built Drawings COQ‐OM‐M‐4 entire document Port Coquitlam pdf ABD‐PTCOQ‐003 As‐Built Drawings Pitt R Dike geot Port Coquitlam pdf ABD‐PTCOQ‐004 As‐Built Drawings Pitt R right bank dwgs Port Coquitlam pdf ABD‐RICH‐001 As‐Built Drawings Comp‐Plan Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐002 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐1entire document Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐003 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐2entiredocument Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐004 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐3entire document Richmond pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 2 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects ABD‐RICH‐005 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐4 Entire Doc Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐006 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐5 entire doc Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐007 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐6entiredocument Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐008 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐10entiredocument Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐009 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐12entiredocument Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐010 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐15 entire doc Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐011 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐16entiredocument Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐012 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐17 entire doc Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐013 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐18A entire document Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐014 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐18B entire document Richmond pdf ABD‐RICH‐015 As‐Built Drawings RIC‐OM‐C‐19Entiredocument Richmond pdf ABD‐SILVERDALE As‐Built Drawings UMFW_2007_Silverdale_Dike District of Mission pdf ABD‐SQUA As‐Built Drawings FHPF2007‐08 Squamish pdf ABD‐SURREY‐001 As‐Built Drawings fpaf_00_2_42 Surrey pdf ABD‐SURREY‐002 As‐Built Drawings r_s4_1_4 Surrey pdf ABD‐SURREY‐003 As‐Built Drawings south_westminster_rpt Surrey pdf ABD‐VAN As‐Built Drawings VCR‐OM‐C‐2 entire document Vancouver pdf CHI‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual Vedder River Set Back Dykes ‐ Geotechnical Report ‐ November, 1978 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐10 O&M Manual Vedder River Gravel Removal ‐ Photographs ‐ 1996 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐11 O&M Manual Vedder River Floodway Capacity (1995) ‐ March, 1997 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐12 O&M Manual Evaluation of Habitat Changes and Environmental Impacts Following the 1995 Chilliwack Gravel Excavations ‐ Vedder River ‐ May, 1997 ‐ extra copy is Water library #2187‐ W CHI‐OM‐C‐13 O&M Manual Vedder River Flood Capacity Check ‐ Vol. 1, Report and Appendix 1, June, 1997 ‐ Chilliwack Water library #2293‐W CHI‐OM‐C‐14 O&M Manual Vedder River Flood Capacity Check ‐ Vol. 2 ‐ Appendices 2 and 3 ‐ June, 1997 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐15 O&M Manual Vedder River Gravel Mining 1996 ‐ July, 1997 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐16 O&M Manual Vedder River Set Back Dykes Improvements ‐ December, 1997 ‐ extra copy is Chilliwack Water library #2291‐W CHI‐OM‐C‐17 O&M Manual Vedder R. Set Back Dykes Improvements, Mar 1998, Water library #2292‐W Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐18 O&M Manual Vedder River Gravel Mining 1997 ‐ May, 1998 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐19 O&M Manual CIVL 596 ‐ Hydraulic Modelling and Sediment Transport Investigation: Chilliwack Vedder/Lower Chilliwack River ‐ November, 1998 CHI‐OM‐C‐2 O&M Manual Vedder River Floodway Management Plan 1979 ‐ Background Report ‐ July, 1979 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐20 O&M Manual Vedder Canal Review of Sedimentation and Vegetation Growth in Relation to Chilliwack Flood Capacity ‐ May, 1999 CHI‐OM‐C‐21 O&M Manual Habitat Changes and Environmental Impacts Following 1996 Gravel Excavations Chilliwack on the Vedder River ‐ June, 1999 CHI‐OM‐C‐22 O&M Manual Gravel Removal Constraints, Guidelines, and Planning Procedures for the Chilliwack Protection of Fish Habitat: The Vedder River Floodway Protection Program, 1994 to 1998 ‐ October, 1999

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 3 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects CHI‐OM‐C‐3 O&M Manual Vedder River Long Term Flood Control Works ‐ April, 1991 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐C‐4 O&M Manual Report on Improvement of the Approach Flow of the Vedder River to the Southern Chilliwack Railway of B.C. Bridge ‐ November 5, 1991 CHI‐OM‐C‐5 O&M Manual Vedder River Gravel Removal Environmental Monitor's Report 1994 ‐ September Chilliwack 30, 1994 CHI‐OM‐C‐6 O&M Manual Assessment of the Environmental Impacts from 1994 Vedder River Gravel Bar Chilliwack Excavations ‐ September, 1995 CHI‐OM‐C‐7 O&M Manual Report on the Floodplain Mapping Study ‐ Vedder River ‐ An Overview of the Chilliwack Study Undertaken to Produce Preliminary Floodplain Mapping for the Vedder River (Vedder Canal to Vedder Crossing) ‐ December, 1985 CHI‐OM‐C‐8 O&M Manual Vedder River Gravel Removal Environmental Monitor's Report 1995 ‐ December, Chilliwack 1995 CHI‐OM‐C‐9 O&M Manual Report on Vedder River Gravel Management Plan ‐ February 1, 1996 Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions regarding all Flood Control Works in City of Chilliwack, VOL. 1, Chilliwack General Instructions CHI‐OM‐M‐10 O&M Manual O & M Manual, Drainage Pump Station, Cattermole Industrial Estates Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐11 O&M Manual O & M Manual, Sanitary Pump Station No. 42, Cattermole Industrial Estates Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐12 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Response Plan, April 1, 2010 Revision Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Collinson Pumphouse Equipment Chilliwack Manual CHI‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, McGillivray Pumphouse Equipment Chilliwack Manual CHI‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, As Constructed Chilliwack Works CHI‐OM‐M‐6 O&M Manual Chilliwack River Training Berm, Project No. 9037E003, As Constructed Works Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐7 O&M Manual East Dyke Upgrades Phase 1 ‐ Station 10 + 62 to 12 + 250 Construction Report Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐8 O&M Manual O & M Manual, Flood Mitigation Works, Cattermole Lands Dike Works Chilliwack CHI‐OM‐M‐9 O&M Manual Construction Completion Report, As‐Built, Cattermole Industrial Estates Dyke Chilliwack Manual CHI‐OM‐T‐1 O&M Manual FAV 63157 South Western B.C. Flooding, November 1995 Project Documentation ‐ Upper Fraser Valley Chilliwack River, Coquihalla River, Frosst Creek, Legace Creek, Silverhope Creek, Vedder River ‐ VOL 1 ‐ Costs CHI‐OM‐T‐2 O&M Manual FAV 63157 South Western B.C. Flooding, November 1995 ‐ Project Upper Fraser Valley Documentation ‐ Chilliwack River, Coquihalla River, Frosst Creek, Legace Creek, Silverhope Creek, Vedder River ‐ VOL 2. ‐ Technical Reviews CHI‐OM‐T‐3 O&M Manual FAV 63157 South Western B.C. Flooding, November 1995 Project Documentation ‐ Upper Fraser Valley Chilliwack River, Coquihalla River, Frosst Creek, Legace Creek, Silverhope Creek, Vedder River ‐ VOL. 3 ‐ Construction Drawings and Photographs COQ‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam COQ‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 4 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects COQ‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, As Constructed Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam Works COQ‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Pitt River Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Part 1, As Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam Constructed Works COQ‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Manufacturers' Data, Cedar Drive Pump Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam Station COQ‐OM‐M‐6 O&M Manual O & M Instructions ‐ Flood Control Gates at Como and Nelson Creeks Coquitlam Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam DAR‐ABB‐001 Diking Authority Responses Nooksack‐Sumas Flood Hazard Assessment Guide Feb 2015 Abbotsford pdf DAR‐ABB‐002 Diking Authority Responses D895 Abbotsford pdf DAR‐BURNABY‐001 Diking Authority Responses 2008 Fraser River Dyking Assessment KWL ‐ Executive Summary Burnaby pdf DAR‐BURNABY‐002 Diking Authority Responses Fraser River Dyking Assessment ‐ Nov 2008 Burnaby pdf DAR‐CHEHALIS‐001 Diking Authority Responses Chehalis ecopy Memo 2014‐03‐21 001 Chehalis Indian Band pdf DAR‐CHEHALIS‐002 Diking Authority Responses Chehalis ecopy Memo 2014‐03‐21 001 Chehalis Indian Band pdf DAR‐COQDD‐001 Diking Authority Responses email_DSoong_20150204 Coquitlam Dyking District pdf DAR‐COQUITLAM‐001 Diking Authority Responses CITYDOCS‐#1807733‐v1‐Coquitlam_and_Fraser_Rivers_Floodplain_Mapping_‐ City of Coquitlam pdf _Draft_Report_‐_October__2014 DAR‐COQUITLAM‐002 Diking Authority Responses Scott Creek ‐ Coquitlam River City of Coquitlam pdf DAR‐COQUITLAM‐003 Diking Authority Responses Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device (1) City of Coquitlam pdf DAR‐COQUITLAM‐004 Diking Authority Responses 07ScottC03300057D City of Coquitlam pdf DAR‐COQUITLAM‐005 Diking Authority Responses 07Colony03293410D City of Coquitlam pdf DAR‐COQUITLAM‐006 Diking Authority Responses Fraser River City of Coquitlam pdf DAR‐DELTA‐001 Diking Authority Responses OUT ‐ fr HCF to Northwest Hydraulic re Dike Assessment FEb 4 2015 Delta pdf DAR‐DELTA‐002 Diking Authority Responses Flood Management Study 1 Delta pdf DAR‐DELTA‐003 Diking Authority Responses Boundary Bay Dyke 2007 Bank Protection Rehabilitation Works June 2008 Kerr Delta pdf Wood Leidal DAR‐DELTA‐004 Diking Authority Responses Boundary Bay Dyke 2003 Bank Protection Works February 2004 Kerr Wood Leidal Delta pdf DAR‐DELTA‐005 Diking Authority Responses BBay Seawall Condition Assessment ‐ AE 2007 Delta pdf DAR‐DELTA‐006 Diking Authority Responses 1403423‐001 Ladner Dike Geot and Seismic Stability Analysis Delta pdf DAR‐DELTA‐007 Diking Authority Responses 2007 Westham Island Bank Protection Works June 2007 Kerr Wood Leidal Delta pdf DAR‐Dewdney‐001 Diking Authority Responses Document.rtf Dewdney rtf DAR‐Dewdney‐002 Diking Authority Responses GeoMedia Interim Report December 17, 2012 Dewdney pdf DAR‐FVRD‐001 Diking Authority Responses 20100610‐CascadesGravelMgmt‐Rev1 FVRD pdf DAR‐FVRD‐002 Diking Authority Responses 20100706‐DMA ltr‐Cascade FVRD pdf DAR‐FVRD‐003 Diking Authority Responses Carratt‐CascadeCompletionReport FVRD pdf DAR‐FVRD‐004 Diking Authority Responses CascadeGravelRemoval‐CompRpt FVRD pdf DAR‐HHS‐001 Diking Authority Responses email_BMalfait_20150205 Village of Harrison Hot Springs pdf DAR‐HOPE‐001 Diking Authority Responses email_RBlackwell_20150204 Hope pdf DAR‐HOPE‐002 Diking Authority Responses 20150113130423935 Hope pdf DAR‐Kent‐001 Diking Authority Responses DistrictOfKent_MConnolly_20150120 District of Kent pdf DAR‐Kent‐002 Diking Authority Responses Dike Crest Survey for Kent 2014 District of Kent xlsx

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 5 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects DAR‐Kent‐003 Diking Authority Responses email_MThiessen_20150204 District of Kent pdf DAR‐LANGLEY‐001 Diking Authority Responses Dike Assessment Project ‐ MFLNRO Township of Langley xlsx DAR‐MR‐001 Diking Authority Responses CONFIDENTIAL_Maple Ridge Albion and Road 13 BGC Partial Draft Report 2013 District of Maple Ridge pdf DAR‐MR‐001 Diking Authority Responses Att. 1, Dike maintenance Agreement Metro Vancouver pdf DAR‐MR‐002 Diking Authority Responses Att. 2. Dike Maintenance Operating Agreement Metro Vancouver pdf DAR‐MR‐003 Diking Authority Responses Att. 3 2014 COL Dike Inspections Metro Vancouver pdf DAR‐MR‐004 Diking Authority Responses email_CSchoenefuhs_20150206 Metro Vancouver pdf DAR‐MUD‐001 Diking Authority Responses Mud Bay and Colebrook Dike Assessment and Functional Plan.pdf Mud Bay pdf DAR‐MUD‐002 Diking Authority Responses 2009 MUD BAY DIKE REPAIR ÔÇô NICOMEKL RIVER NEAR WARDS MARINA Mud Bay pdf DAR‐MUD‐003 Diking Authority Responses 1214280025‐001‐L‐Rev0 0802_12 MBDD Report FINAL Mud Bay pdf DAR‐MUD‐004 Diking Authority Responses MBDD 2014 dike inspection Mud Bay docx DAR‐NEW‐001 Diking Authority Responses DIR and O&M.pdf Newman Creek/Ocean point pdf DAR‐NNICOMEN‐001 Diking Authority Responses North Nicomen Dyking District ‐ DIOD Audit Nov 1 2012 North Nicomen Dyking District pdf DAR‐NVOS‐001 Diking Authority Responses NVOS.Dikes.2015 North Vancouver Outdoor School pdf DAR‐PM‐001 Diking Authority Responses RE_ Dike Assessment Report Pitt Meadows Pitt Meadows pdf DAR‐PM‐002 Diking Authority Responses PittMeadows_Dyke Land Owner Status Pitt Meadows pdf DAR‐PMV‐001 Diking Authority Responses email_JPenner_20150204 Port Metro Vancouver pdf DAR‐PMV‐002 Diking Authority Responses 2014 Deering Island Shoreline Protection Assessment Report ‐ WorleyParsons Port Metro Vancouver pdf DAR‐SQUA‐001 Diking Authority Responses Squamish_DRoulston_20150129_work summary Squamish word DAR‐SQUA‐002 Diking Authority Responses 20150224‐FINAL DRAFT_BackgroundReport Squamish pdf DAR‐SURREY‐001 Diking Authority Responses Letter Surrey, Colebrook pdf DAR‐SURREY‐002 Diking Authority Responses Floodproofing 152nd Street near Bear Creek ‐ Functional Requirments Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐003 Diking Authority Responses 1 Fraser River Dyke and Pump Station Assessment ‐ Final Report ‐ Jan 2009 Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐004 Diking Authority Responses Central Serpentine Dyke Preliminary Design Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐005 Diking Authority Responses Bear Creek Dyke Tie In ‐ Geotechnical Design Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐006 Diking Authority Responses 2012 Dyke Infrastructure Inventory Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐007 Diking Authority Responses Nicomekl_Dyke_Profiles_2014_Sheet1of3 Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐008 Diking Authority Responses 2014 Nicomekl Dyke Profiles Binder Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐009 Diking Authority Responses Nicomekl_Dyke_Profiles_2014_Sheet2of3 Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐010 Diking Authority Responses Nicomekl_Dyke_Profiles_2014_Sheet3of3 Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐011 Diking Authority Responses 2014 City of Surrey Inspection Reports‐ GPS sections 294‐297, 366 and 293 Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐014 Diking Authority Responses 2014 Fraser River Dyke Profile Binder Surrey pdf DAR‐SURREY‐015 Diking Authority Responses Dec_9_14_Arc_Mod Surrey xls DAR‐SURREY‐016 Diking Authority Responses Crescent_Jan_12_15_Mod Surrey xls DAR‐SURREY‐017 Diking Authority Responses Jan_6_15_Mod Surrey xls DAR‐WM‐001 Diking Authority Responses CNW_DOCS‐#548465‐v1‐2014_Dyke_Inspection_Report West Minster doc DAR‐WM‐002 Diking Authority Responses email_GOtieno_20150204a West Minster pdf DAR‐WM‐003 Diking Authority Responses email_GOtieno_20150204b West Minster pdf DAR‐WM‐004 Diking Authority Responses 3679_FMS Conceptual Plan_FINAL West Minster pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 6 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects DAR‐WM‐005 Diking Authority Responses Floodplain Management Strategy ‐ Feasibility Plan West Minster pdf DAR‐WM‐006 Diking Authority Responses FMS_Feasibiliy_Plan_Appendx_A_Figures West Minster pdf DEL‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual Completion Report ‐ Westham Island Flood Box 132 Delta DEL‐OM‐C‐2 O&M Manual Boundary Bay Dyke 2003 Bank Protection Works Delta DEL‐OM‐CR‐1 O&M Manual Completion Report ‐ Westham Island Flood Box 132 Delta DEL‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions Delta DEL‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions Delta DEL‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Book 1, As Delta Constructed Drawings DEL‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Book, 2, As Delta Constructed Drawings DEL‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual Canoe Pass 2002 Dyke Upgrading ‐ February 2003 Delta DEL‐OM‐T‐1 O&M Manual Overview Report on Delta Dyke System Delta DEW‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions ‐ extra copy Dewdney Area Improvement Dist is report library #404‐W DEW‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual ADDENDUM to O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Dike Improvements Dewdney Area Improvement Dist between Dike Chainages 11,855m and 12,200m DIR‐001 Dike Inspection Report 2011 307 Trethewey Edge RPT Trethewey pdf DIR‐002 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Abbotsford, City of 1 Matsqui RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐003 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Abbotsford, City of 2 Vedder RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐004 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Abbotsford, City of 3 Sumas RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐005 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Abbotsford, City of RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐006 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Burnaby, City of RPT Burnaby pdf DIR‐007 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Chilliwack, City of RPT Chiliwack pdf DIR‐008 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Delta, Corporation of RPT Delta pdf DIR‐009 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Dewdney RPT Dewdney pdf DIR‐010 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Fraser Valley Regional District RPT FVRD pdf DIR‐011 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Glen Valley RPT Glen Valley pdf DIR‐012 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Harrison Hot Springs RPT Harrison Hot Springs pdf DIR‐013 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Hope RPT Hope pdf DIR‐014 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Kent RPT Kent pdf DIR‐015 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Lower Mainland Dike Inspection Report Summary Lower Mainland Word DIR‐016 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Maple Ridge Road No 13 RPT Maple Ridge pdf DIR‐017 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Maple Ridge, District RPT Maple Ridge pdf DIR‐018 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Metro Van RPT Metro Vancouver pdf DIR‐019 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Mission, District RPT Mission pdf DIR‐020 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Mud Bay 136 RPT Mud Bay pdf DIR‐021 Dike Inspection Report 2011 New Westminster, City RPT New Westminster pdf DIR‐022 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Nicomen Island Improvement District RPT Nicomen Island pdf DIR‐023 Dike Inspection Report 2011 North Nicomen Diking District RPT North Nicomen pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 7 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects DIR‐024 Dike Inspection Report 2011 North Vancouver Outdoor School #44 RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐025 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Pitt Meadows RPT Pitt Meadows pdf DIR‐026 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Port Coquitlam RPT Port Coquitlam pdf DIR‐027 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Port Metro Vancouver RPT Port Metro Vancouver pdf DIR‐028 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Richmond RPT Richmond pdf DIR‐029 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Squamish 282 Cheekye Berm RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐030 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Squamish 283 Town Dike RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐031 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Squamish 284 Mamquam RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐032 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Squamish 285 RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐033 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Squamish 286 Stawamus RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐034 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Squamish, District of RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐035 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Squamish‐Lillooet RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐036 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Surrey Dyking District RPT Surrey pdf DIR‐037 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Surrey, City of RPT Surrey pdf DIR‐038 Dike Inspection Report 2011 Tsawwassen FN RPT Tsawwassen pdf DIR‐039 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Abbotsford, City of Sumas RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐040 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Abbotsford, City of Vedder RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐041 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Barnston Inspection RPT Barnston pdf DIR‐042 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Barnston Island RPT Barnston pdf DIR‐043 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Burnaby City of Dike Inspection Photos Burnaby pdf DIR‐044 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Burnaby City of Dike Inspection RPT Burnaby pdf DIR‐045 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Chehalis Indian Band CON only Chehalis Indian Band pdf DIR‐046 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Chilliwack Dyke Inspection RPT Chiliwack pdf DIR‐047 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Coquitlam, City of inspection RPT Coquitlam pdf DIR‐048 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Delta, Corporation of RPT Delta pdf DIR‐049 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Dewdney Area Improvement RPT Dewdney pdf DIR‐050 Dike Inspection Report 2012 District of Hope RPT Hope pdf DIR‐051 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Fraser Valley Regional District 66 Cascade Creek RPT Cascade Creek pdf DIR‐052 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Fraser Valley Regional District 155 Wilson Road RPT Wilson Road pdf DIR‐053 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Fraser Valley Regional District 168 Lindel Beach Frosst Creek RPT Lindel Beach Frosst Creek pdf DIR‐054 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Fraser Valley Regional District 368 Baker Trails RPT Baker Trails pdf DIR‐055 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Fraser Valley Regional District 380 Elbow Creek RPT Elbow Creek pdf DIR‐056 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Fraser Valley Regional District ltr of late submission for 2012 report FVRD pdf DIR‐057 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Harrison Hot Springs, Village of Harrison Hot Springs pdf DIR‐058 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Kent, District of 108 Kent Dike A RPT Kent pdf DIR‐059 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Langley RPT Langley pdf DIR‐060 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Maple Ridge 128 Albion RPT Maple Ridge pdf DIR‐061 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Maple Ridge Road No 13 RPT Maple Ridge pdf DIR‐062 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Matsqui Dyke Inspection RPT Abbotsford pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 8 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects DIR‐063 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Mission 134 Mission City RPT Mission pdf DIR‐064 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Mission 135 Silverdale RPT Mission pdf DIR‐065 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Mud Bay 136 RPT Mud Bay pdf DIR‐066 Dike Inspection Report 2012 New Westminster 140 Queensborough RPT New Westminster pdf DIR‐067 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Nicomen Island 144 RPT Nicomen Island pdf DIR‐068 Dike Inspection Report 2012 North Nicomen 223 RPT North Nicomen Word DIR‐069 Dike Inspection Report 2012 North Vancouver Outdoor School 224 RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐070 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Pitt Meadows RPT Pitt Meadows pdf DIR‐071 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Port Coquitlam RPT Port Coquitlam pdf DIR‐072 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Port Metro Vancouver 222 Deering Island RPT Port Metro Vancouver pdf DIR‐073 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Richmon 271 Sea Dike RPT Richmond pdf DIR‐074 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Squamish District RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐075 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Surrey City 293 294 295 297 366 RPT Surrey pdf DIR‐076 Dike Inspection Report 2012 Surrey Dyking District 293 RPT Surrey pdf DIR‐077 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Abbotsford, City of Matsqui RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐078 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Abbotsford, City of Sumas RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐079 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Abbotsford, City of Vedder RPT Abbotsford pdf DIR‐080 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Barnston Island DD RPT Barnston pdf DIR‐081 Dike Inspection Report 2013 BURNABY RPT Burnaby pdf DIR‐082 Dike Inspection Report 2013 CHEHALIS RPT Chehalis Indian Band pdf DIR‐083 Dike Inspection Report 2013 CHILLIWACK RPT Chiliwack pdf DIR‐084 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Compliance Statistics ‐ DMA Regulated Dikes with Diking Authorities FVRD Excel DIR‐085 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Delta RPT Delta pdf DIR‐086 Dike Inspection Report 2013 DEWDNEY AREA ID RPT Dewdney pdf DIR‐087 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Dike reports Mission and Silverdale Mission Email DIR‐088 Dike Inspection Report 2013 District of Kent Dike Inspection Kent Email DIR‐089 Dike Inspection Report 2013 GLEN VALLEY RPT Glen Valley pdf DIR‐090 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Harrison Hot Springs Dike Rpt Harrison Hot Springs pdf DIR‐091 Dike Inspection Report 2013 HOPE RPT Hope pdf DIR‐092 Dike Inspection Report 2013 MAPLE RIDGE ROAD 13 DD RPT Maple Ridge pdf DIR‐093 Dike Inspection Report 2013 MAPLE RIDGE RPT Maple Ridge pdf DIR‐094 Dike Inspection Report 2013 MUDBAY RPT Mud Bay pdf DIR‐095 Dike Inspection Report 2013 NEW WESTMINSTER RPT New Westminster pdf DIR‐096 Dike Inspection Report 2013 North Nicomen Diking District North Nicomen Email DIR‐097 Dike Inspection Report 2013 PEMBERTON RPT Pemberton pdf DIR‐098 Dike Inspection Report 2013 PITT MEADOWS RPT Pitt Meadows pdf DIR‐099 Dike Inspection Report 2013 POCO RPT Port Coquitlam pdf DIR‐100 Dike Inspection Report 2013 SQUAMISH LILLOOET RD RPT Squamish pdf DIR‐101 Dike Inspection Report 2013 SUNSHINE COAST RD RPT Sunshine Coast pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 9 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects DIR‐102 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Surrey RPT Surrey pdf DIR‐103 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Whistler RPT Whistler pdf DIR‐104 Dike Inspection Report City of Coquitlam 2013 Dike Inspection Coquitlam Email DIR‐105 Dike Inspection Report Copy of Lower Mainland Dike Assessment ‐ List of Dikes Lower Mainland Excel DIR‐106 Dike Inspection Report District of Maple Ridge Dike_Study_DRAFT 11March2013 Maple Ridge Word DIR‐107 Dike Inspection Report 2013 Silverdale dike report Mission pdf DIR‐108 Dike Inspection Report 2001 Annual Inspection Ocean Point/Newman Creek pdf DIR‐109 Dike Inspection Report 2005 Flood Protection Inspection Report Disctric of Pitt Meadows Word DSG‐001 Dike Standards and Guidelines Dike Design and Construction Guide Best Management Practices for BC N/A pdf DSG‐002 Dike Standards and Guidelines Environmental Guidelines for Vegetation Management on Flood Protection Works N/A pdf to Protect Public Safety and the Environment DSG‐003 Dike Standards and Guidelines Flood Protection Works Inspection Guide N/A pdf DSG‐004 Dike Standards and Guidelines Guidelines for Management of Flood Protection Works in British Columbia N/A pdf DSG‐005 Dike Standards and Guidelines Riprap Design and Consturction Guide N/A pdf DSG‐006 Dike Standards and Guidelines sea_dike_guidelines N/A pdf DSG‐007 Dike Standards and Guidelines seismic_guidelines_dikes‐2014‐2nd_edition N/A pdf FPP‐001 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Abbotsford 2010‐1‐012 Barrowtown Pump Station Completion Report Abbotsford pdf FPP‐002 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Abbotsford 2010‐2‐043 Barrowtown Electrical Upgrades Final Report Abbotsford pdf FPP‐003 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Abbotsford 2010‐1‐012 Barrowtown O and M manual Abbotsford pdf FPP‐004 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Abbotsford 2010‐1‐012 Barrowtown Record Drawings Abbotsford pdf FPP‐005 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Burnaby 2010‐1‐015 Fraser River foreshore dike‐ Reach 7 and 8, Burnaby pdf Byrne Floodbox Completion Report FPP‐006 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Chiliwack 044 As‐Built Report West Dyke Right Bank ‐ FINAL Report Chiliwack pdf FPP‐007 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Chiliwack 044 West Dyke Relief Wells Chiliwack pdf FPP‐008 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Chiliwack 26876 East Dykes ‐ Greyell Section Completion Report Chiliwack pdf FPP‐009 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Chiliwack 27548 ‐ West Dike Upgrades Report Chiliwack pdf FPP‐010 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Chiliwack 2010‐3‐018 Completion Report for Orchard Slough Check Chiliwack pdf Dam FPP‐011 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Delta 26845 Westham Island Dike Upgrade ‐ Project Completion Delta pdf Report FPP‐012 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Delta 27282 Project Completion Report ‐ Boundary Bay Dike Delta pdf Foreshore Upgrade FPP‐013 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Delta 40974, 40973, 40973 3 Projects Boundary Bay Dike Upgrade, Delta pdf Beharrel PS, Oliver PS Comp. Report FPP‐014 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 DAID 2010‐2‐012 Hatzic Lake Pump Station Project Completion Report Dewdney pdf FPP‐015 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Hope 27690 Silverhope Completion Report Hope pdf FPP‐016 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Kent 056 Duncan‐Bateson Flood Pump Station Project Final Kent pdf Completion Report FPP‐017 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Kent 41705 Hammesley Pump Station Floodbox completion report Kent pdf FPP‐018 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Township of Langley 26971 West Langley Dike Completion Report Langley pdf FPP‐019 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission 125 Project Completion Report Mission word Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 10 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects FPP‐020 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 As‐Constructed ‐ Sheet 1 Mission pdf FPP‐021 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 As‐Constructed ‐ Sheet 3 Mission pdf FPP‐022 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 As‐Constructed ‐ Sheet 4 Mission pdf FPP‐023 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 As‐Constructed ‐ Sheet 5 Mission pdf FPP‐024 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 As‐Constructed ‐ Sheet 6 Mission pdf FPP‐025 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 As‐Constructed ‐ Title Sheet Mission pdf FPP‐026 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 As‐Constructed ‐ Sheet 6 Mission pdf FPP‐027 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Mission Dyke 125 ‐ 2009 Sheet 7 ‐ AsConstructed ‐ Racetrack to CPR Mission pdf FPP‐028 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Mission City Dike Imporvement Project Completion Report Mission pdf FPP‐029 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 NIID 119 Bank Stabilization Project Completion Report Nicomen Island pdf FPP‐030 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 North Van Distric ‐ Lynnmour Dike Flood Protection Completion District of North Vancouver pdf Report FPP‐031 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Pitt Meadows 052 Pump Station Project Drawings Pitt Meadows pdf FPP‐032 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Pitt Meadows 052 Pump Station DMA Approval Pitt Meadows pdf FPP‐033 Flood Protection Program Intake 08‐09 Pitt Meadows 052 Pump Station Project Completion Report Pitt Meadows pdf FPP‐034 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Richmond 27363 No4 PS Project Completion Report Richmond pdf FPP‐035 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Richmond 27563 Middle Arm Dike Upgrade proj compltn report Richmond pdf FPP‐036 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Richmond 2010‐1‐002 No3 PS Project Completion Report Richmond pdf FPP‐037 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Richmond 2010‐2‐047 Williams Rd PS Project Completion Report Richmond pdf FPP‐038 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 Richmond 2010‐2‐049 No1 PS Project Comletion Report Richmond pdf FPP‐039 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Squamish Dike Upgrade 27691 Project Completion Report Squamish pdf FPP‐040 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T2 Squamish Electrical Upgrade Harris Slough Completion Report Squamish pdf FPP‐041 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T2 Squamish Stawamus River Riprap Upgrades Appendices Squamish pdf FPP‐042 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T2 Squamish Stawamus River Riprap Upgrades Squamish pdf FPP‐043 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T2 Squamish Whittaker Slough Flood Box Upgrade Squamish pdf FPP‐044 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T3 Squamish Cheekye Sediment KWL Squamish pdf FPP‐045 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T3 Squamish EM Report Judd Slough Squamish pdf FPP‐046 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T3 Squamish Mamquam SedimentKWL Squamish pdf FPP‐047 Flood Protection Program Intake 2010 T3 Squamish NorthYards Dike report Squamish pdf FPP‐048 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Surrey MS4810‐002‐11 Record Drawings (Aug2011) Surrey pdf FPP‐049 Flood Protection Program Intake 09‐10 Surrey Project Completion Report Surrey pdf FRA‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Control INDEX Fraser Valley Regional District FVR‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Dewdney Area I.D., Fraser Valley Regional District As Constructed Drawings ‐ extra copy is report #405‐W FVR‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual Skumplasph I.R. No. 16 ‐ 1999 Mitigative Flood Protection Works ‐ Skumalasph I.R. Fraser Valley Regional District No. 16, Nicomen Island Improvement/North Nicomen ‐ Project Completion Report FVR‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual 1996‐1999 Nicomen Island, Fraser River Bank Protection, Nicomen Island Dike km Fraser Valley Regional District 8.0 at Fraser Edge Farms (Stoker property) FVR‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual O & M Maintenance Manual ‐ Baker Trails Village ‐ Tank Creek Debris Berm and Fraser Valley Regional District Basin

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 11 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects FVR‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual O & M Manual, Baker Trails Village ‐ Guy Creek Protection Works Fraser Valley Regional District FVR‐OM‐M‐6 O&M Manual O & M Maintenance Manual ‐ Completion of Erosion Protection Works, Wash Fraser Valley Regional District Creek, Baker Trails Village, Chilliwack BC FVR‐OM‐M‐7 O&M Manual O & M Maintenance Manual ‐ Cascade/Carratt Creek Flood Mitigation Works Fraser Valley Regional District FVR‐OM‐M‐8 O&M Manual O & M Manual ‐ Elbow Creek Flood Mitigation Works Fraser Valley Regional District FVR‐OM‐M‐9 O&M Manual O & M Manual ‐ Frosst Creek Flood Mitigation Works Fraser Valley Regional District GLE‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions Glen Valley Dyking District GLE‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Glen Valley Dyking District, Glen Valley Dyking District CONTRACT 1, VOL. 2, Drawings, Project 22, West Wingdyke & Fraser River Bank Protection GLE‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Glen Valley Dyking District, Glen Valley Dyking District CONTRACT 2, VOL. 2, Project 22, East Wingdyke & Pumphouse Dyke Upgrading Google‐Earth Other Resources Google Earth is a virtual globe, map and geographical information program BC www Google‐Maps Other Resources Google Maps is a desktop and mobile web mapping service application and BC www technology GVR‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual Inventory of Dikes with No Local Authority Lower Mainland GVR‐OM‐T‐1 O&M Manual Greater Vancouver Greenway Vision ‐ An Environmental and Recreational G.V.R.D. Greenway Network and Assessment of the Potential Contribution of Existing and Future GVRD Rights‐of‐Way GVR‐OM‐T‐2 O&M Manual 1998 Annual Report ‐ Livable Region Strategic Plan G.V.R.D. GVR‐OM‐T‐3 O&M Manual 1999 Annual Report ‐ Livable Region Strategic Plan G.V.R.D. HAR‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, General Instructions Harrison Hot Springs HAR‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, As Constructed Harrison Hot Springs Drawings HOP‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Design of Proposed Flood Protection Hope Works for the Town of Hope ‐ Coquihalla River HOP‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Coquihalla River Flood Mitigation Works Hope including DRAWINGS iMapBC Other Resources iMapBC allows access to map datasets hosted in the BC Geographic Warehouse BC www KEN‐0M‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions ‐ extra copy Kent is Water library #2285‐W KEN‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions Kent KEN‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, As Constructed Drawings ‐ extra Kent copy is Water library #2289‐W LAN‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Northwest Langley Dyke Upgrade, As‐Constructed Report Langley LMDIM‐BARNSTON Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map barnston_isl_16 Barnston Island pdf LMDIM‐BURNABY Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map burnaby_4 City of Burnaby pdf LMDIM‐CHILLIWACK Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map chilliwack_22 City of Chilliwack pdf LMDIM‐COQDD Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map coqudd_12 Coquitlam Dyking District pdf LMDIM‐COQUITLAM Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map coquit_city_10 City of Coquitlam pdf LMDIM‐DELTA Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map delta_6 Delta pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 12 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects LMDIM‐FVRD‐Chilliwack Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map fvrd_chilliwack_23 Chilliwack pdf LMDIM‐Harrison Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map harrison_29 Harrison Hot Springs pdf LMDIM‐HOPE Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map hope_30 Hope pdf LMDIM‐Kent Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map kent_28 Kent pdf LMDIM‐Langley Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map langley_17 Langley pdf LMDIM‐Mission Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map mission_20 Mission pdf LMDIM‐MR Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map maple_ridge_18 Maple Ridge pdf LMDIM‐Nicomen Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map nicomen_isl_27 Nicomen pdf LMDIM‐PM‐1 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map pitt_me_s_14 Pitt Meadows pdf LMDIM‐PM‐2 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map pitt_me_n_13 Pitt Meadows pdf LMDIM‐PQ‐1 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map p_coquitlam_11 Port Coquitlam pdf LMDIM‐RICH Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map richmond_3 Richmond pdf LMDIM‐SQUA‐1 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map squamish_n_31 Squamish North pdf LMDIM‐SQUA‐2 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map squamish_s_32 Squamish South pdf LMDIM‐SURREY‐1 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map s_surrey_9 South Surrey pdf LMDIM‐SURREY‐2 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map surrey_city_7 City of Surrey pdf LMDIM‐SURREY‐3 Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map surrey_dd_8 Surrey Diking District pdf LMDIM‐TRETH Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map trethewey_15 Trethewey‐Edge Dyking District pdf LMDIM‐VAN Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Map vancouver_1 Vancouver Southlands pdf MAT‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Pump Data Matsqui MAT‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions Matsqui MAT‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions Matsqui MAT‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, As Constructed Matsqui Drawings MIS‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, Mission Dykes, General Mission Instructions ‐ extra in Water library #715‐W MIS‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Mission Dykes, Mission Project 7, Contract No. 1, Drawings ‐ extra in Water library #723‐W MIS‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Legal Map Mission NEW‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions ‐ extra copy New Westminster is Water library #2286‐W NEW‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Queensborough area, As New Westminster Constructed Drawings NIC‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Nicomen Island Floodbox/Dyke Repair Design/Building Mission Contract CLM03‐48 NIC‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Manual ‐ Nicomen Island Improvement District for Pennington Pump Nicomen Island Station & Bank Protection Works 2001 NIC‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Manual ‐ Nicomen Island Improvement District for Pennington Pump Nicomen Island Station & Bank Protection Works 2002 OR‐001 Other Report Delta Marina Garden Geotechnical & Seismic Displacement Assessment Delta pdf OR‐003 Other Report Vedder‐Report_2014_TT_IFU Abbotsford pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 13 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects OR‐004 Other Report Fraser_River_Design_Flood_Level_Update‐Hope_to_Mission_Final_Report Hope to Mission pdf OR‐005 Other Report GSAGF2‐263 ‐ Nicomen Island Engineering Study ‐ SRFP Nicomen Island pdf OR‐006 Other Report Hayco‐R03‐4810144‐O and M Man New Works Wilson Rd Dike‐R[1] FVRD pdf OR‐007 Other Report #4743_FraserUpdateFullReport(No Maps) Mission to Ocean pdf OR‐008 Other Report Map1_GaugeLocationsMap_300dpi Mission to Ocean pdf OR‐009 Other Report Map2_HydraulicModelMapDS_150dpi Mission to Ocean pdf OR‐010 Other Report Map3_HydraulicModelMapUS_150dpi Mission to Ocean pdf OR‐011 Other Report Map4_WSDikeMapDS_300dpi Mission to Ocean pdf OR‐012 Other Report Map5_WSDikeMapUS_300dpi Mission to Ocean pdf OR‐013 Other Report FLNRO Fraser River Dike Survey Hope to Mission 2014 Hope to Mission xls OR‐014 Other Report Final Report ‐ Fraser and Harrison Rivers Hydrologic and Hydraulic Investigations City of Chilliwack pdf (Hard Copy) OR‐015 Other Report Sigma Cascade _Carratt flood protection works FVRD Cascade‐Carratt pdf OR‐016 Other Report fvrd_cascade_26 FVRD Cascade‐Carratt pdf OR‐017 Other Report item 6‐1 memo re cascade carratt crk FVRD Cascade‐Carratt pdf OR‐018 Other Report Item 07‐02 1‐Staff report re Repeal of Cascade Creek Service Area FVRD Cascade‐Carratt pdf OR‐019 Other Report Item 09‐16‐03 2 Golder Associates Report ‐ Cascade Creek FVRD Cascade‐Carratt pdf OR‐020 Other Report item‐7‐2‐2‐‐bylaw‐0514‐‐‐cascade‐carratt‐fld‐prot‐serv‐area‐amend FVRD Cascade‐Carratt pdf OR‐021 Other Report Item 09‐04 Memo re Nicomen Island Dike Inspection Nicomen Island pdf OR‐022 Other Report 08‐190 Fraser River Dikes Assessment Fort Langley ‐ Salmon River pdf OR‐023 Other Report NHC_FloodplainReview_Jan2013Final_NoMap Surrey pdf OR‐024 Other Report Item 4‐11 Re Debris Hazard ‐ Guy Crk update FVRD pdf OR‐025 Other Report R‐R3‐1‐1 Richmond pdf OR‐026 Other Report dcd610_Northwest_Hydraulic_Coquihalla_RiverFlood_Hazard_Mgmt_1994_Study Hope pdf OR‐027 Other Report dcd610_Northwest_Hydraulic_Coquihalla_RiverFlood_Hazard_Mgmt_1994_Study Hope pdf (Appendices) (Hard Copy) OR‐028 Other Report 2011‐01‐31 Coquihalla River Dyke Study ‐ Kerr Wood Leidal Hope pdf OR‐029 Other Report 300319 Draft Report_R1_mm Surrey docx OR‐030 Other Report cost_of_adaptation‐final_report_oct2012 Delta pdf OR‐031 Other Report Crescent Beach Adaptation Study Report Surrey pdf OR‐032 Other Report 9 ‐ Mud Bay and Colebrook Dike Assessment and Functional Plan Surrey, Colebrook, Mud Bay pdf OR‐033 Other Report sea_dike_guidelines All pdf OR‐034 Other Report Item 09‐04 Memo re Nicomen Island Dike Inspection Nicomen Island pdf OR‐035 Other Report Nico Wynd Dyke Assessment Surrey pdf OR‐036 Other Report Nico Wynd Dyke Assessment (Appendix) Surrey pdf OR‐037 Other Report 1214470324‐007‐R‐Rev0 Island 22 Wing Dyke Realign Completion Rep Chilliwack pdf

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 14 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects OR‐038 Other Report Frosst Creek Assessment of Potential Flooding and Sedimentation FVRD‐Frosst Creek docx (Hard Copy) OR‐039 Other Report Operation and Maintenance Manual of Ocean Point (near Newman Creek Newman Creek/Ocean Point pdf Shoreline GPS #67) OR‐040 Other Report Area 4 Dike ‐ 1 Pitt Meadows docx OR‐041 Other Report Serpentine & Nicomekl River Climate Change Floodplain Review Phase 2 ‐ Final Surrey pdf Draft Report ‐ NHC Ref. No 300319 OR‐042 Other Report Elbow Creek WWTP ‐ Flood Protection Requirements ‐ NHC Ref. No 35095 Surrey pdf OR‐044 Other Report IOD Letter to Cities of Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam Re Design Flow Mar 2009 Port Coquitlam pdf OR‐045 Other Report Coquitlam R Design Flood report‐final Jan 2009 Coquitlam pdf OR‐046 Other Report WMC Coquitlam Dam Flood Routing Report‐rev2 Feb 2006 Coquitlam pdf OR‐047 Other Report Marathon Ind Park Dike GPS 26 survey 07Colony03293410D Coquitlam pdf OR‐048 Other Report Area 1 Dike Pitt Meadows pdf OR‐049 Other Report Pitt Meadows ‐ Area 3 Dyke Survey Results from 2007 Pitt Meadows pdf PIT‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions ‐ ARDSA Pitt Meadows Project No. 217739 PIT‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions Pitt Meadows PIT‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Appendix 2, Pitt Meadows Pitt Meadows Pumping Stations, Kennedy, McKechnie, and Baynes Pump Stations Instructions PIT‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Contracts 1, 1A, 3, 4, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 As Constructed Drawings PIT‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Book 2, Contracts 12‐ Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge 16, As Constructed Drawings PIT‐OM‐T‐1 O&M Manual Pitt Meadows Construction Report ‐ FPAF 03‐02‐19 Pitt Meadows RIC‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 1, Sea Dyke Improvements Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐10 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 8 Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐11 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 8A, Drainage Improvements ‐ Duck Island Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐12 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 9 Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐13 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 10, North Dyke Improvements, No. 5 Rd. to No. 8 Rd. Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐14 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 12, North Dyke Improvements, No. 8 Rd. to Boundary Rd. Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐15 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 13 Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐16 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 14 Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐17 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 15, South Dyke Improvements, Lafarge to Crown Zellerbach Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐18 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Project 3, Contract 15, South Dyke Improvements, Lafarge to Crown Richmond Zellerbach DRAWINGS RIC‐OM‐C‐19 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 16, South Dyke Improvements, Crown Zellerbach to Steveston Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐2 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 2, South Dyke Improvements, East of Lafarge Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐20 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 17, South Dyke ‐ West Sector, Drainage Discharge Structures Richmond 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 15 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects RIC‐OM‐C‐21 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Project 3, Contract 17, South Dyke ‐ West Sector, Drainage Discharge Richmond Structures 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34 DRAWINGS RIC‐OM‐C‐22 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 18A, Drainage Discharge Structures Nos. 13, 22 and 35A Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐23 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 18A Drainage Disch. Structures DWGS Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐24 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 18B, Drainage Discharge Structures Nos. 14, 15, 18 and 25 Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐25 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Project 3, Contract 18B, Drainage Discharge Structures Nos. 14, 15, 18 Richmond and 25, DRAWINGS RIC‐OM‐C‐26 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 18C, Drainage Discharge Structures Nos. 16 and 23 Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐27 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 19, Miscellaneous Dyke Works Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐3 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 3, Supply and Supervision of Installation of Pumping Equipment Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐4 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 4, North Dyke Improvements, Cambie Rd to No. 5 Rd. Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐5 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Project 3, Contract 4, North Dyke Improvements, Cambie Rd to No. 5 Richmond Rd., DRAWINGS RIC‐OM‐C‐6 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 5, North Dyke Improvements, Westminster Highway to Cambie Richmond Rd RIC‐OM‐C‐7 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Project 3, Contract 5, North Dyke Improvements, Westminster Richmond Highway to Cambie Rd, DRAWINGS RIC‐OM‐C‐8 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 6, Supply and Supervision of Installation of Pumping Equipment Richmond RIC‐OM‐C‐9 O&M Manual Project 3, Contract 7, Richmond RIC‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions Richmond RIC‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions, Book Richmond 1 of 2 RIC‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 2, Pumpstation Instructions, Book Richmond 2 of 2 SQU‐OM‐C1 O&M Manual District of Squamish Flood Migaon Works Operaon andMaintenance Manual Squamish March 1999 File FPAF 98‐02‐31 SQU‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual Flood Mitigation Works Operation and Maintenance Manual ‐ Volume 2 "As‐ Squamish Constructed" Drawings SQU‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Manual, Flood Mitigation Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions Squamish SQU‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Manual, Flood Mitigation Works, VOL. 2, Drawings Squamish SQU‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Manual, Flood Mitigation Works, VOL. 3, Folded Drawings Squamish SQU‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Jason Creek Flood Mitigation Works Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District SQU‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual O & M Manual, Flood Control & Shoreline Protection Measures at Furry Creek Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District Development ‐ Oceanside Lands ‐ Marina Phase (Development North of Furry Creek) SUM‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual Upper Sumas River Dyke ‐ Contract 1 As Constructed Sumas SUM‐OM‐C‐2 O&M Manual Upper Sumas River Dyke ‐ Contract 2 As Constructed Sumas SUM‐OM‐C‐2 O&M Manual Upper Sumas River Contract 2 As Constructed Surrey SUR‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Colebrook Dyking District, Serpentine Surrey Flood Control Works SUR‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Serpentine River and Crescent Beach Surrey

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 16 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects SUR‐OM‐M‐3 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 1, General Instructions ‐ extra copy Surrey is Water library #2288‐W SUR‐OM‐M‐4 O&M Manual O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, Mud Bay Dyking District, Serpentine and Surrey Nicomekl Rivers SUR‐OM‐M‐5 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, Serpentine and Surrey Nicomekl Dams, General Instructions and As Constructed Drawings SUR‐OM‐M‐6 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 3, As Constructed Surrey Works SUR‐OM‐M‐7 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ O & M Instructions, Flood Control Works, VOL. 4, As Constructed Surrey Works for Contract No. 2. SUR‐OM‐M‐8 O&M Manual Operation and Maintenance Instructions ‐ Flood Control Works ‐ General Surrey Instructions SUR‐OM‐T‐1 O&M Manual Maccaferri Gabions ‐ Installation Guide Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐10 O&M Manual Flygt Pumps and Generators ‐ incl. Rental rates Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐11 O&M Manual Deputy Inspector of Dykes Manual Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐12 O&M Manual Lower Fraser Valley Flood Response ‐ Site Assessment Information ‐ April, 1991 Surrey n.b. EMPTY BINDER SUR‐OM‐T‐13 O&M Manual Lower Mainland Region Flood Response Site Assessment Manual ‐ Freshet '99 ‐ Surrey Dyke Patrol Guidelines ‐ SW Sector SUR‐OM‐T‐14 O&M Manual City of Chilliwack ‐ Vedder River Right Setback Dyke ‐ Project 99‐02‐113 Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐15 O&M Manual Vedder River Set Back Dykes Improvement ‐ March 1998 ‐ by Bland Engineering Surrey Ltd. SUR‐OM‐T‐2 O&M Manual Armtek (Armco) Water Control Gates Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐3 O&M Manual Waterman Sluice Gates, Flap Gates, Water Control Valves Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐4 O&M Manual Flygt Pumps and Monitoring Units Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐5 O&M Manual Big'O' Corrugated Storm/Culvert Pipe Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐6 O&M Manual Slope Indicator Co. Instrumentation ‐ Slope Indicator 1000 Inclinometer System Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐7 O&M Manual Cook Screen Technologies Inc ‐ Cylindrical Intake Screens ‐ An Engineers' Guide Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐8 O&M Manual Ashbrook‐Simon‐Hartley Coplastix Flexible Flap Valves Surrey SUR‐OM‐T‐9 O&M Manual Flygt Pumps ‐ 7000 Surrey TEMP‐OM‐1 O&M Manual Richmond Section (no cover) Richmond TEMP‐OM‐10 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Control 1968 Agreement, Project no. 10 District of Coquitlam, Coquitlam Coquitlam River Flood Control Works, Contract No. 5, Dyke Construction Maple Creek to Dewdney Trunk Road (10/5) #342965 TEMP‐OM‐11 O&M Manual District of Coquitlam and City of Port Coquitlam (Proj. 15) (C‐1 Port Coquitlam TEMP‐OM‐12 O&M Manual City of Port Coquitlam, Pitt River Dyke Upgrade, April 1999‐Project No. 99‐02‐20 Port Coquitlam (99‐02‐20‐21) TEMP‐OM‐13 O&M Manual 1983‐84 Flood Control Program, Westham Island ‐ Contract no. 1 Dyke Delta Reconstruction. Delta TEMP‐OM‐14 O&M Manual 1984‐85 Flood Control Program Westham Island ‐ Contract No. 2 Dyke Delta Reconstruction as constructed drawings, Delta

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 17 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects TEMP‐OM‐15 O&M Manual The Corporation of Delta, Westham Island Flood Control Outfall Improvements, Delta Flood Box 131 & 131A. Drawing List TEMP‐OM‐16 O&M Manual Delta, Fraser River Flood Control 1968 Agreement Project No. 6 District of Delta, Delta Contract No. 18 Construction of Main Drains Westham Island as constructed drawings TEMP‐OM‐17 O&M Manual Detla C‐23 Details Delta TEMP‐OM‐18 O&M Manual Contract No. 23 Dyke Reconstruction Tilbury Slough as constructed drawings, Tilbury Delta (C‐23) TEMP‐OM‐19 O&M Manual Delta, Contract No. 22, Dyke Reconstruction Tilbury Island as constructed Delta drawings (C‐22) TEMP‐OM‐2 O&M Manual City of Port Coquitlam Reserve I.R. No. 2 Port Coquitlam TEMP‐OM‐20 O&M Manual Delta Delta TEMP‐OM‐21 O&M Manual Delta (C‐20) Details Delta TEMP‐OM‐22 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Control 1968 Agreement Project No 6, District of Delta, Delta Contract No. 20, Dyke/Road Reconstruction River Road East, Watermain as constructed drawings (C‐20) TEMP‐OM‐23 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ VOL. 3, Part 2, Coquitlam River Flood Control Works ‐ As Constructed Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam Works TEMP‐OM‐3 O&M Manual Coquitlam River Flood Control Works Dyke Through I.R. No.2No. 342986 Coquitlam TEMP‐OM‐4 O&M Manual Operaon & Maintenance Instrucons Flood Control WorksCanada ‐Brish Fraser Valley Regional District Columbia Fraser River Flood Control 1968Agreement, City of Coquitlam and City of Port Coquitlam TEMP‐OM‐5 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Control 1968 Agreement, Project No. 10‐City of Port Coquitlam Port Coquitlam River Flood Control Works, Contract No. 1 Dyke Construction McAllister Ave. To Pitt River Road (10/1) #342929 TEMP‐OM‐6 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Control 1968 Agreement Project No. 10 City of Port Coquitlam Port Coquitlam Coquitlam River Flood Control Works, Contract No. 2A Lions Park Drive, Lougheed Hwy to C.P.R. (10/2A) No. 342947 TEMP‐OM‐7 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Control 1968 Agreement Project no. 10 District of Coquitlam Coquitlam Coquitlam River Flood Control Works, Contract No. 5 Dyke Construction Maple Creek to Dewdney Trunk Road TEMP‐OM‐8 O&M Manual Scott Creek (10/3) No. 342952 Scott Creek TEMP‐OM‐9 O&M Manual Fraser River Flood Control 1968 Agreement, Project No. 10, City of Port Port Coquitlam Coquitlam, Coquitlam River Flood Control Works, Contract No. 4 Dyke Construction, Kingsway Ave. To Maple Creek (10/4) #342953 TRE‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual Dike Operation and Maintenance Manual ‐ Template Trethewy‐Edge DD VCR‐OM‐C‐1 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Deering Island Development, Contract No. 2, Shoreline Protection, As‐ Vancouver Built Cross Sections ‐ September 1990 VCR‐OM‐C‐2 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Deering Island Development, Contract No. 2, Shoreline Protection, As‐ Vancouver Built DRAWINGS ‐ April 1990 VCR‐OM‐M‐1 O&M Manual Shoreline Maintenance Manual, Park Georgia Properties, Deering Island ‐ extra Vancouver copy is Water library #2294‐W

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 18 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects VCR‐OM‐M‐2 O&M Manual OVERSIZE ‐ Post Dredging Cross Sections, Dredging Conducted December 1990 ‐ Vancouver Deering Island Development Ltd. W‐0002 Water Library Index Report FLOOD CONTROL IN THE SCOTT CREEK WATERSHED COQUITLAM scanned W‐0003 Water Library Index Report FLOOD CONTROL FOR SCOTT CREEK IN THE EAGLE RIDGE DEVELOPEMENT AREA COQUITLAM scanned W‐0009 Water Library Index Report COQUIHALLA RIVER‐A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE FLOOD HOPE scanned PROTECTION W‐0012 Water Library Index Report CANADA‐B.C. FRASER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL AGREEMENT; NICOMEN ISLAND MISSION scanned W‐0013 Water Library Index Report SOUTHWEST B.C. DECEMBER 1980 FLOODING‐SQUAMISH TO D`ARCY SQUAMISH scanned W‐0022 Water Library Index Report PROPOSED DRAINAGE SCHEME FOR CASTLEMAN ROAD AREA‐CHILLIWACK CHILLIWACK Box 1 W‐0023 Water Library Index Report COQUIHALLA RIVER‐DESIGN OF PROPOSED FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS ‐ 2 HOPE scanned COPIES W‐0024 Water Library Index Report SERPENTINE & NICOMEKL RIVERS‐DYKE UPGRADING ‐ REPORT MISSING SURREY unknown W‐0028 Water Library Index Report CHEEKEYE FAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT ON HAZARD AREAS AND PROTECTIVE SQUAMISH scanned WORK W‐0034 Water Library Index Report NICOMEN ISLAND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DRAINAGE STUDY MISSION NORTH scanned W‐0035 Water Library Index Report INTERNAL DRAINAGE CRITERIA FOR MAPLE RIDGE DYKING DISTRICT MAPLE RIDGE Box 1 W‐0036 Water Library Index Report DEBRIS TORRENT & FLOODING HAZARDS, HWY. 99, HOWE SOUND ‐ Shelf 4 ‐ HOWE SOUND unknown journal shelf W‐0041 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER FLOODWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN ‐ REPORT MISSING CHILLIWACK unknown W‐0042 Water Library Index Report MATSQUI PRAIRIE DRAINAGE STUDY PHASE II MATSQUI Box 1 W‐0043 Water Library Index Report EFFECTS OF LOGGING ON THE HYDROLOGY OF THE COQUITLAM RIVER COQUITLAM Box 1 WATERSHED W‐0071 Water Library Index Report FROSST CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY CHILLIWACK scanned W‐0079 Water Library Index Report MATSQUI PRAIRIE DRAINAGE STUDY & IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY MATSQUI Box 2 W‐0080 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER FLOOD CONTROL WORKS FINAL DESIGN REPORT COQUITLAM scanned W‐0082 Water Library Index Report GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SLOPE STABILITY IN THE CHILLIWACK VALLEY CHILLIWACK Box 2 W‐0083 Water Library Index Report FLOOD PROTECTION DISTRICT OF CHILLIWACK, MINTO LANDING TO CHILLIWACK CHILLIWACK scanned W‐0101 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY COQUITLAM scanned W‐0102 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY "MAP SUPPLEMENT" ‐ Shelf COQUITLAM Nov 28, 4 ‐ journal shelf 2012 signed out by Neil Peters.B ox 2 W‐0103 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY "BACKGROUND REPORT" COQUITLAM Box 2 W‐0107 Water Library Index Report JACK CEWE LTD. COQUITLAM GRAVEL PITS PHASE I COQUITLAM Box 2 W‐0111 Water Library Index Report THE COQUITLAM RIVER ‐ REPORT MISSING COQUITLAM Box 2 W‐0113 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM AREA MOUNTAIN STUDY COQUITLAM Box 2 W‐0127 Water Library Index Report OCEAN SHOREZONE STUDY SURREY Box 2 W‐0132 Water Library Index Report PT. MOODY/COQUITLAM DEBRIS FLOW LANDSLIDE STUDY COQUITLAM Box 2

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 19 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐0133 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM/PT. MOODY DRAINAGE AREA COQUITLAM Box 2 W‐0149 Water Library Index Report SOIL SURVEY OF DELTA & RICHMOND MUNICIPALITIES RICHMOND/DELTA unknown W‐0151 Water Library Index Report SOIL SURVEY OF LANGLEY MUNICIPALITY & BARNSTON ISLAND LANGLEY ET AL unknown W‐0152 Water Library Index Report SOIL SURVEY OF MATSQUI MUNICIPALITY & SUMAS MOUNTAIN MATSQUI ET AL unknown W‐0155 Water Library Index Report SOIL SURVEY OF MISSION AREA MISSION unknown W‐0157 Water Library Index Report SOILS OF THE LANGLEY‐VANCOUVER MAP AREA LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐0158 Water Library Index Report SOILS OF THE LANGLEY‐VANCOUVER MAP AREA VOLUME 2 LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐0159 Water Library Index Report SOILS OF THE LANGLEY‐VANCOUVER MAP AREA VOLUME 3 LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐0160 Water Library Index Report SOILS OF THE LANGLEY‐VANCOUVER MAP AREA VOLUME 6 LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐0201 Water Library Index Report BENCH MARKS, LOWER FRASER VALLEY DYKING DIST (NORTH SIDE) MISSION SOUTH Box 2 W‐0204 Water Library Index Report BENCH MARKS, CHILLIWACK LAKE ROAD CHILLIWACK Box 3 W‐0212 Water Library Index Report SURREY, MASTER DRAINAGE PROGRAM DESIGN MANUAL, HYD MODEL ‐ REPORT SURREY unknown MISSING W‐0213 Water Library Index Report SURREY, MASTER DRAINAGE PROGRAM DESIGN MANUAL, HYD DATA SURREY unknown COLLECTION ‐ REPORT MISSING W‐0219 Water Library Index Report RHYOLITE RESOURCES INC. HARRISON LAKE, (NAGYVILLE) PROPERTY HARRISON Box 3 W‐0241 Water Library Index Report KELLY LAKE‐CHEEKEYE TRANSMISSION LINE‐‐ENV STUDIES SQUAMISH Box 15 W‐0242 Water Library Index Report KELLY LAKE‐CHEEKEYE 500KV LINE ROUTE LOCATION REPORT SQUAMISH Box 15 W‐0243 Water Library Index Report KELLY LAKE‐CHEEKEYE 500KV LINE SUMMARY REPORT SQUAMISH Box 15 W‐0244 Water Library Index Report KELLY LAKE‐CHEEKEYE 500KV LINE, NORTHWESTERN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SQUAMISH Box 15 W‐0249 Water Library Index Report DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN CHILLIWACK CHILLIWACK Box 15 W‐0250 Water Library Index Report INVENTORY OF LAND USE & WATER MANAGEMENT IN NICOMEKL‐SERPENTINE RICHMOND Box 15 FLOODPLAIN W‐0254 Water Library Index Report STAWAMUS RIVER AT VALLEYCLIFF SUBDIVISION ‐ REPORT MISSING SQUAMISH unknown W‐0313 Water Library Index Report SERPENTINE‐NICOMEKL IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY STUDY ‐ REPORT MISSING SURREY unknown W‐0314 Water Library Index Report SERPENTINE‐NICOMEKL STUDIES AND PROJECTS‐STATUS REPORT ‐ REPORT SURREY unknown MISSING W‐0315 Water Library Index Report SERPENTINE‐NICOMEKL WATER SUPPLY STUDY‐UPDATE ‐ REPORT MISSING SURREY unknown W‐0316 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER SUPPLY BLOCK PLAN CHILLIWACK Box 15 W‐0321 Water Library Index Report DEWDNEY AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DYKE REHABILITATION PROGRAM MISSION scanned W‐0331 Water Library Index Report COQUIHALLA RIVER ‐ DESIGN OF PROPOSED FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS FOR HOPE scanned THE TOWN OF HOPE ‐ FILE P76‐69 W‐0331A Water Library Index Report COQUIHALLA RIVER ‐ DESIGN OF PROPOSED FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS FOR HOPE scanned THE TOWN OF HOPE ‐ FILE P76‐69 ‐ INCLUDES MAPS W‐0342 Water Library Index Report EAST DELTA DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION DELTA Box 16 W‐0373 Water Library Index Report COQUIHALLA RIVER‐DYKE MAINTENANCE MANUAL ‐ moved to Regional Dyke HOPE unknown O&M Library W‐0393 Water Library Index Report VILLAGE OF HARRISON ENGINEERING REPORT FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT HARRISON scanned PLAN

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 20 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐0404 Water Library Index Report CANADA‐BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT ‐ DEWDNEY NICOMEN ISLAND Box 17 AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT VOL.1 ‐ GENERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL WORKS ‐ 2 COPIES ‐ X‐REF O&M 0008.1.1‐W‐OM‐M W‐0405 Water Library Index Report CANADA‐BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT ‐ DEWDNEY NICOMEN ISLAND unknown AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT VOL.2 ‐ GENERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL WORKS ‐ 2 COPIES ‐ X‐REF O&M 0008.2.1‐W‐OM‐M ‐ Shelf 4 ‐ journal shelf W‐0419 Water Library Index Report CASCADE‐CARRATT CREEK FLOOD CONTROL ‐ REPORT MISSING MISSION unknown W‐0426 Water Library Index Report LAND USE IMPLICATIONS OF DEBRIS TORRENT & FLOODING HAZARDS ‐ HWY 99 HOWE SOUND scanned W‐0438 Water Library Index Report DEWDNEY AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT‐HISTORY AND PROBLEMS MISSION scanned W‐0455 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER‐FLOODPLAIN MAPPING STUDY ‐ REPORT MISSING CHILLIWACK scanned W‐0463 Water Library Index Report FRASER DELTA STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN LOWER MAINLAND Box 17 W‐0507 Water Library Index Report PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY FOR SILVERDALE AREA NEAR MISSION CITY,B.C. MISSION Box 18 W‐0519 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN ENGINEERING STUDY ‐ DISTRICT OF ABBOTSFORD scanned ABBOSFORD W‐0522 Water Library Index Report MASTER DRAINAGE PROGRAM‐DESIGN MANUAL FOR STRMWTR CONTROL SURREY Box 18 OPRTNG INSTRUCT. W‐0523 Water Library Index Report TOWNSHIP OF RICHMOND‐TECHNICAL REPORT (FINAL) ‐ REPORT MISSING RICHMOND scanned W‐0524 Water Library Index Report REPORT ON STORM DRAINAGE OUTFALL: MATSQUI INSTITUTION MATSQUI Box 18 W‐0527 Water Library Index Report REVIEW OF STABILITY, MAPLE RIDGE WATERFRONT MAPLE RIDGE Box 18 W‐0528 Water Library Index Report EFFECTS OF DYKE CONSTRUCTION ON NORTH ALOUETTE RIVER FLOOD LEVELS MAPLE RIDGE scanned W‐0536 Water Library Index Report FRASER‐DELTA STRATEGIC PLAN: BACKGROUND REPORTS FRASER DELTA scanned W‐0552 Water Library Index Report FARM IMPACTS OF INTERNAL DRAINAGE PROJECTS IN RICHMOND/DELTA DELTA Box 18 W‐0554 Water Library Index Report CHEHALIS RIVER FLOOD AND EROSION PROTECTION (PRELIMINARY REPORT) SQUAMISH scanned W‐0637 Water Library Index Report EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL WORKS, COQUITLAM RIVER GRAVEL PITS COQUITLAM Box 18 W‐0642 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER UPSTREAM STORAGE REPORT,FLOODING FRASER RIVER Box 19 W‐0655 Water Library Index Report GEOHYDRAULIC STATUS AND FUTURE OF THE FRASER RIVER DELTA L. FRASER RIVER Box 19 W‐0686 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER DYKE REHABILITATION REPORT COQUITLAM scanned W‐0690 Water Library Index Report FRASER R. FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT PROGRESS REPORT FRASER RIVER scanned W‐0696 Water Library Index Report GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE‐POSSIBLE PIPELINE CORRIDORS ‐ STAWAMUS SQUAMISH Box 19 RIVER W‐0704 Water Library Index Report MATSQUI PRAIRIE DRAINAGE & IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY GVWD MATSQUI unknown CORROSION CONTROL INITIATIVE FINAL DRAFT REPORT ‐ REPORT MISSING W‐0706 Water Library Index Report FLOOD CONTROL AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY OF THE VEDDER RIVER CHILLIWACK unknown W‐0713 Water Library Index Report CANADA B.C. FRASER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT ‐ Analysis of FRASER RIVER scanned Benefits and Summary of Costs W‐0715 Water Library Index Report CANADA‐BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT ‐ MISSION MISSION Box 19 DYKES ‐ VOL. 1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL WORKS ‐ X‐REF O&M 0016.1.1‐W‐OM‐M W‐0716 Water Library Index Report OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS FLOOD CONTROL WORKS GLEN VALLEY Box 19 VOLUME 1

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 21 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐0717 Water Library Index Report DRAINAGE STUDY REPORT, NICOMEN ISLAND NICOMEN Box 19 W‐0719 Water Library Index Report CND‐BC FRASER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL'68 AGREEMENT COQUITLAM RVR COQUITLAM scanned CONTROL WORKS W‐0722 Water Library Index Report O & M INSTRUCTIONS, FLOOD CONTROL WORKS, GLEN VALLEY DYKING DISTRICT, GLEN VALLEY unknown CONTRACT 1, VOL. 2, DRAWINGS, PROJECT 22, WEST WINGDYKE & FRASER RIVER BANK PROTECTION ‐ Moved to O&M Library ‐ Report #0011.2.0‐W‐OM‐M W‐0723 Water Library Index Report CANADA‐BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT ‐ MISSION MISSION unknown DYKES VOL. 2 ‐ AS CONSTRUCTED DRAWINGS RE GENERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL WORKS ‐ X‐REF O&M 0016.2.1‐W‐OM‐M ‐ Shelf 4 ‐ journal shelf W‐0740 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER BANK EROSION (8936RO53) CHILLIWACK unknown W‐0761 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN MAPS B.C. unknown W‐0781 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM R., ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD POTENTIAL DOWNSTREAM OF B.C. COQUITLAM scanned HYDRO DAMS. RPT#2267 W‐0782 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER TRAINING BERM ‐ ‐ moved to Regional Dyke O&M Library CHILLIWACK Box 20 W‐0786 Water Library Index Report NIKOMEKL‐SERPENTINE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL STUDY SURREY unknown W‐0788 Water Library Index Report APPROACH FLOW OF THE VEDDER RIVER TO THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY OF BC VEDDER scanned BRIDGE W‐0791 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER LONG TIME FLOOD CONTROL WORKS VEDDER scanned W‐0793 Water Library Index Report CHEHALIS AND HARRISON RIVERS AT CHEHALIS I.R. #5 HARRISON MILLS Box 20 W‐0794 Water Library Index Report IMPACT OF BERM AT SLESSE PARK ON DOWNSTREAM REACHES OF CHILLIWACK CHILLIWACK Box 20 RIVER W‐0797 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH R. FLOODING, AUG 31, SEPT 1, 2, 1991. PROPOSED RESTORATION SQUAMISH Box 21 WORK. OIC #1298 W‐0798 Water Library Index Report PROMONTORY MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY, DISTRICT OF CHILLIWACK CHILLIWACK Box 21 W‐0815 Water Library Index Report SUMAS RIVER AND VEDDER CANAL CROSS SECTIONS AND PROFILES, PROJECT SUMAS unknown #9105R037 W‐0821 Water Library Index Report WEST SUMAS FLOODING, NOVEMBER 1990 ABBOTSFORD scanned W‐0822 Water Library Index Report FLOODING OF WEST SUMAS PRAIRIE, NOVEMBER 9 ‐ 12, 1990 ABBOTSFORD scanned W‐0840 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER, EMERGENCY REMEDIAL MEASURES VEDDER scanned W‐0868 Water Library Index Report SHORELINE SALES PROGRAM HAZARD STUDY, INDIAN ARM, LILLOOET LAKE, AND B.C. SOUTH unknown HARRISON LK W‐0879 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER HAZARD MANAGEMENT OUTLINE PLAN CHILLIWACK scanned W‐0880 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY INTERIM REPORT CHILLIWACK scanned W‐0881 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY INTERIM REPORT VOLUME 2 CHILLIWACK scanned W‐0892 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN HOWE SOUND unknown W‐0894 Water Library Index Report EFFECTS OF FILL PLACEMENT ON GROUNDWATER AND DRAINAGE IN NEW WESTMINSTER scanned QUEENSBOROUGH W‐0901 Water Library Index Report FROSST CREEK CROSS SECTIONS ‐ PROJECT NO. 8903R048 CHILLIWACK scanned W‐0928 Water Library Index Report DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE COTTONWOOD STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY MAPLE RIDGE Box 21 WATERCOURSE INVENTORY AND RAVINE STABILITY ASSESSMENT W‐0945 Water Library Index Report SUMAS RIVER AND VEDDER CANAL DEPOSITION ‐ CHANNEL SURVEY SUMAS RIVER/VEDDER scanned

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 22 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐0955 Water Library Index Report LOWER FLOODPLAIN DRAINAGE STUDY ‐ CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM PORT COQUITLAM scanned W‐0958 Water Library Index Report A GUIDE TO THE BARROWTOWN PUMP STATION AND SUMAS PRAIRIE ABBOTSFORD unknown FLOODPLAIN W‐0961 Water Library Index Report 1988‐1989 SERPENTINE RIVER PUMPING UPDATE AND DESIGN STUDY SURREY scanned W‐0965 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER SETBACK FOR EROSION FRASER‐CHEAM scanned W‐0966 Water Library Index Report DERIVATION OF FLOODPROOFING CONDITIONS FOR THE FRASER RIVER FRASER RIVER unknown FLOODPLAIN W‐0973 Water Library Index Report COQUIHALLA RIVER FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY ‐ Final COQUIHALLA RIVER scanned W‐0973A Water Library Index Report COQUIHALLA RIVER FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY ‐ Appendices A, B, C, COQUIHALLA RIVER scanned & D W‐0975 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH ‐ FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY ‐ Background Report SQUAMISH scanned W‐0976 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH ‐ FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY ‐ FINAL REPORT SQUAMISH scanned W‐1007 Water Library Index Report CASCADE & CARRATT CREEKS CROSS SECTIONS (85 RPP 8) LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐1008 Water Library Index Report CASCADE/CARRATT CREEKS (88RPP1) LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐1017 Water Library Index Report HYDROLOGICAL STUDY OF NICOMEKL RIVER ‐ UPSTREAM OF 184 STREET, SURREY scanned SURREY, BC W‐1026 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM: INFORMATION GUIDE FRASER VALLEY scanned W‐1058 Water Library Index Report HYDROLOGY AND WATER USE FOR SALMON STREAMS IN THE FRASER DELTA CANADA Box 22 HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA, BRITISH COLUMBIA ‐ CANADIAN MANUSCRIPT REPORT OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES NO. 2238 W‐1068 Water Library Index Report DISTRICT OF MISSION ‐ MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ENGINEERING ‐ CEDAR VALLEY MISSION Box 22 W‐1072 Water Library Index Report FISHERIES & OCEANS CANADA SALMONID ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM 1992/93 B.C. scanned CHEHALIS RIVER FLOOD PREVENTION FEASIBILITY STUDY W‐1073 Water Library Index Report FISHERIES & OCEANS CANADA SEP‐RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BRANCH PRE‐ B.C. scanned DESIGN REPORT ON CHEHALIS RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AT CHEHALIS HATCHERY W‐1077 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER GRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN B.C. scanned W‐1100 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER FLOOD RISK MAPPING ‐ REPORT MISSING B.C. scanned W‐1128 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN MAPPING‐ANNUAL REPORT 1994‐1995 CANADA Box 22 W‐1129 Water Library Index Report FLOOD IN JANUARY, 1935 SUMAS AREA, BC BC scanned W‐1131 Water Library Index Report DEWDNEY‐ALOUETTE REGIONAL DISTRICT CASCADE‐CARRATT CREEK FLOOD BC scanned CONTROL OUTLINE REPORT W‐1142 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RIVER TRAINING BERM PROJECT NO. 9037E003 BC scanned W‐1146 Water Library Index Report ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN ABBOTSFORD scanned W‐1149 Water Library Index Report TECHNICAL REPORT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY RICHMOND scanned W‐1164 Water Library Index Report SERPENTINE RIVER PUMPING FEASIBILITY STUDY SURREY scanned W‐1173 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK RV AT RYDER CREEK ‐ REPORT MISSING BC unknown W‐1190 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER FLOOD CONTROL WORKS‐PROJECT REPORT‐PHASE 2 BC scanned W‐1197 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER & MAIN TRIBUTARIES‐FLOOD PROFILE ‐ REPORT MISSING BC scanned W‐2005 Water Library Index Report POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF THE BERM AT LEISURE VALLEY ON DOWNSTREAM BC scanned REACHES OF FROSST CREEK

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 23 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐2008 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, SERPENTINE AND NICOMEKL RIVERS ‐ DESIGN SURREY scanned BRIEF VOLUME 1 W‐2016 Water Library Index Report MUD BAY DYKING DISTRICT SERPENTINE AND NICOMEKL RIVERS FLOOD BC scanned CONTROL WORKS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL W‐2021 Water Library Index Report NICOMEKL‐SERPENTINE FLOOD CONTROL STUDY BC scanned W‐2030 Water Library Index Report FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN BC Box 22 W‐2045 Water Library Index Report PROPOSAL FOR CHILLIWACK RV VALLEY HAZARD MGMT. STUDY BC scanned W‐2048 Water Library Index Report DEWDNEY‐ALOUETTE REG. DIST.‐HATZIC PRAIRIE STUDY FRASER VALLEY REG DISTRICT scanned W‐2079 Water Library Index Report CITY OF SURREY ‐ NICOMEKL AND SERPENTINE INTEGRATED WATERSHED STUDY SURREY BC scanned STRATEGIC PLAN FOR LOWLANDS FLOOD CONTROL VOL 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, BACKGROUND & RECOMMENDATIONS W‐2080 Water Library Index Report CITY OF SURREY ‐ NICOMEKL AND SERPENTINE INTEGRATED WATERSHED STUDY SURREY BC scanned STRATEGIC PLAN FOR LOWLANDS FLOOD CONTROL VOL 2 HYDROTECHNICAL EVALUATION W‐2081 Water Library Index Report CITY OF SURREY ‐ NICOMEKL AND SERPENTINE INTEGRATED WATERSHED STUDY SURREY BC scanned STRATEGIC PLAN FOR LOWLANDS FLOOD CONTROL VOL 3 AGRICULTURAL EVALUATION W‐2082 Water Library Index Report CITY OF SURREY ‐ NICOMEKL AND SERPENTINE INTEGRATED WATERSHED STUDY SURREY BC scanned STRATEGIC PLAN FOR LOWLANDS FLOOD CONTROL VOL 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION W‐2104 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER EMERGENCY REMEDIAL MEASURES LOWER MAINLAND scanned W‐2127 Water Library Index Report A DESIGN BRIEF ON THE FLOODPLAIN MAPPING STUDY ALOUETTE AND NORTH LOWER MAINLAND scanned ALOUETTE RIVERS W‐2128 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM SERPENTINE AND NICOMEKL RIVERS DESIGN LOWER MAINLAND scanned BRIEF VOL. 1 W‐2137 Water Library Index Report ENGINEERING STUDY OF THE CASCADE/CARRATT CREEK FLOOD PROTECTION CASCADE/CARRATT CK scanned WORKS W‐2141 Water Library Index Report FOREST RENEWAL BC OPERATIONAL INVENTORY PROGRAM ‐ SQUAMISH RIVER SQUAMISH Box 23 WATERSHED W‐2144 Water Library Index Report STAWAMUS RIVER FISH HABITAT, RIPARIAN AND CHANNEL ASSESSMENTS STAWAMUS RIVER Box 23 W‐2156 Water Library Index Report REPORT ON THE FRASER VALLEY DYKING SYSTEM FRASER VALLEY scanned W‐2170 Water Library Index Report THE SUMAS RIVER FLOOD ROUTING STUDY ‐ INTERIM REPORT, VOL. 2 SUMAS RIVER unknown W‐2176 Water Library Index Report WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY: STAWAMUS RIVER, MASHITER CREEK, SIGURD STAWAMUS RIVER, MASHITER CREEK, unknown CREEK, & CHANCE CREEK ‐ REPORT MISSING SIGURD C W‐2188 Water Library Index Report MATSQUI RIVERFRONT EROSION PROTECTION GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL scanned PARKS W‐2202 Water Library Index Report NICOMEN ISLAND FRASER RIVER BANK PROTECTION AT STOKER FARM ‐ NICOMEN ISLAND, B.C. scanned CONSTRUCTION REPORT ‐ 1996 AND 1999 W‐2204 Water Library Index Report BUNTZEN AND COQUITLAM DAMS EMERGENCY PLANNING GUIDE BINDER NO. COQUITLAM, B.C. unknown 29 ‐ RETURNED TO BC HYDRO AS REQUESTED, AUG 9/05 W‐2207 Water Library Index Report DISCUSSIONS ‐ UPDATING DESIGN FLOWS ‐ CHILLIWACK AND COQUIHALLA RIVERS ABBOTSFORD AND CHILLIWACK, B.C. scanned W‐2218 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER GRAVEL REACH HYDRAULIC MODELING STUDY ‐ FINAL REPORT ‐ FRASER MAINSTEM scanned CITY OF CHILLIWACK Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 24 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐2226 Water Library Index Report FLOOD & WATER DAMAGE CONFERENCE IN VANCOUVER ON MARCH 31, 2000 BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 24 W‐2230 Water Library Index Report DISTRICT OF CHILLIWACK ‐ FRASER RIVER EROSION PROTECTION PROPOSAL FOR CHILLIWACK scanned ENGINEERING SERVICES W‐2232 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ON ALLUVIAL FANS BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown W‐2246 Water Library Index Report CHEAKAMUS DAM ‐ EMERGENCY PLANNING GUIDE ‐ SUPERSEDES 326‐W ‐ SQUAMISH BC unknown RETURNED TO BC HYDRO AS REQUESTED, AUG 9/05 W‐2247 Water Library Index Report FLOOD CONTROL WORKS FOR THE VEDDER RIVER, PHASE III ‐ REPORT MISSING CHILLIWACK scanned W‐2260 Water Library Index Report STAWAMUS RIVER AND MASHITER CREEK INTEGRATED WATERSHED SQUAMISH Box 24 MANAGEMENT PLAN ‐ SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 W‐2282 Water Library Index Report HEALTH OF THE FRASER RIVER AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM, VOL. I ‐ A SYNTHESIS OF ENVIRONMENT CANADA Box 24 RESEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER THE FRASER RIVER ACTION PLAN ‐ DOE FRAP 1998‐11 W‐2283 Water Library Index Report HEALTH OF THE FRASER RIVER AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM, VOL. II ‐ A SYNTHESIS OF ENVIRONMENT CANADA Box 24 RESEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER THE FRASER RIVER ACTION PLAN ‐ DOE FRAP 1998‐11 W‐2289 Water Library Index Report CANADA‐BC FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT ‐ DISTRICT OF KENT VOL.3 ‐ AS DISTRICT OF KENT unknown CONSTRUCTED DRAWINGS RE GENERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL WORKS ‐ ‐ X‐REF O&M 0014.3.1‐W‐OM‐M ‐ 2 COPIES ‐ Shelf 4 ‐ journal shelf W‐2290 Water Library Index Report VEDDER SET‐BACK DYKES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, X‐REF O&M LIBRARY 0031.0.0‐ CHILLIWACK scanned W‐OM‐V W‐2291 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER SET BACK DIKES IMPROVEMENTS ‐ DRAFT ‐ O&M LIBRARY CHILLIWACK scanned 0045.0.0‐W‐OM‐V W‐2292 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER SET BACK DIKES IMPROVEMENTS ‐ O&M LIBRARY 0046.0.0‐W‐OM‐ CHILLIWACK scanned V W‐2293 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER FLOOD CAPACITY CHECK ‐ VOL. 1 ‐ REPORT AND APPENDIX 1 ‐ CHILLIWACK scanned O&M LIBRARY 0043.1.1‐W‐OM‐V W‐2294 Water Library Index Report PARK GEORGIA PROPERTIES LTD. ‐ DEERING ISLAND ‐ SHORELINE MAINTENANCE VANCOUVER scanned MANUAL ‐ X‐REF O&M LIBRARY 0024.1.0‐W‐OM‐M W‐2295 Water Library Index Report CANADA‐BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOOD CONTROL 1968 AGREEMENT ‐ DISTRICTS OF PITT MEADOWS AND MAPLE RIDGE unknown PITT MEADOWS AND MAPLE RIDGE ‐ VOL. 3, BOOK 2 ‐ AS CONSTRUCTED DRAWINGS RE GENERAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL WORKS ‐ ‐ X‐REF O&M 0019.3.2‐W‐OM‐M ‐ Shelf 4 W‐2304 Water Library Index Report THE CITY OF CHILLIWACK FINAL REPORT FRASER AND HARRISON RIVERS CHILLIWACK scanned HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATIONS W‐2322 Water Library Index Report FIRST NATIONS WATER RIGHTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: A HISTORICAL SUMMARY CHILLIWACK, HOPE Box 24 OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHEHALIS LAKE FIRST NATION W‐2326 Water Library Index Report MATSQUI BEND EROSION MATSQUI, BC scanned W‐2347 Water Library Index Report DEWDNEY‐ALOUETTE REGIONAL DISTRICT ‐ HATZIC PRAIRIE DRAINAGE STUDY, DEWDNEY ALOUETTE REGIONAL scanned VOL. 1 DISTRICT W‐2348 Water Library Index Report DEWDNEY‐ALOUETTE REGIONAL DISTRICT ‐ HATZIC PRAIRIE DRAINAGE STUDY, DEWDNEY ALOUETTE REGIONAL scanned VOL. 1 DISTRICT

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 25 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐2352 Water Library Index Report TURN OVER PACKAGE FOR REPAIR OF THE SERPENTINE RIVER CROSSING DYKES SURREY BC scanned 1989/1999 FPAF 98‐02‐11 W‐2356 Water Library Index Report GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ‐ FRASER RIVER WATER LINE CROSSING ‐ ABBOTSFORD B.C. Box 24 MISSION AND ABBOTSFORD, B.C. W‐2380 Water Library Index Report CHEHALIS RIVER FAN FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY KENT, BC scanned W‐2381 Water Library Index Report CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OF MITIGATIVEMEASURES TO RAISE DYKES TO KENT, BC scanned NEW DESIGN PROFILE ‐ 2001 ‐ FINAL REPORT ‐ DISTRICT OF KENT W‐2383 Water Library Index Report CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OF MITIGATIVEMEASURES TO RAISE DYKES TO NICOMEN ISLAND scanned NEW DESIGN PROFILE ‐ 2001 ‐ FINAL REPORT ‐ NICOMEN ISLAND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT W‐2388 Water Library Index Report DEERING ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT #2 ‐ SHORELINE PROTECTION; AS‐ DEERING ISLAND unknown BUILT CROSS SECTIONS ‐ Bottom of Journal shelf W‐2389 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER AT RIDGEDALE NEAR MATSQUI RIVER ‐ CROSS SECTIONS 1983 AND MATSQUI, BC unknown 1951 ‐ Bottom of Journal shelf W‐2390 Water Library Index Report GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS IN BRITISH BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown COLUMBIA W‐2418 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER DIKE STUDY ‐ HOCKADAY STREET TO FRASER RIVER ‐ FINAL COQUITLAM AND PORT COQUITLAM, scanned REPORT (2 COPIES) B.C. W‐2419 Water Library Index Report BOUNDARY BAY DYKE / SEAWALL PROTECTION (2 COPIES) DELTA, B.C. scanned W‐2433 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER CROSS SECTION SURVEYS OCTOBER‐DECEMBER 2000 COQUITLAM RIVER scanned W‐2434 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF PITT RIVER ROAD‐REPORT ON NAVIGATION COQUITLAM RIVER scanned AND FLOOD PROTECTION ISSUES RELATING TO FIRST NATION LANDS W‐2435 Water Library Index Report FINAL REPORT OF THE FRASER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM FRASER RIVER scanned W‐2440 Water Library Index Report FLOOD & EROSION DAMAGE MITIGATION PLAN ‐ STAGE 1 ‐ ZONE 2. CHAWATHIL LOWER FRASER VALLEY unknown TO TSAWWASSEN W‐2448 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER HYDRAULIC PROFILE UPDATE VEDDER RIVER , B.C. scanned W‐2454 Water Library Index Report ISLAND 22 EROSION MITIGATION INVESTIGATION FINAL REPORT CHILLIWACK scanned W‐2468 Water Library Index Report LOWER MAINLAND FLOOD RESPONSE SITE ASSESSMENT MANUAL (7 copies) Vancouver, Rchmd, Delta, Bby, N. scanned West, S W‐2480 Water Library Index Report LINDELL BEACH ‐ FROSST CREEK FROSST CREEK scanned W‐2493 Water Library Index Report WILSON ROAD DIKE ‐ CHILLIWACK RIVER CHILLIWACK RIVER scanned W‐2494 Water Library Index Report COLONY FARMS ‐ FRASER RIVER FRASER RIVER scanned W‐2506 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM D.D. ‐ PITT RIVER & DE BOVILLE SLOUGH PITT RIVER & DE BOVILLE SLOUGH unknown W‐2520 Water Library Index Report WATER RELEASES AT THE CHEAKAMUS POWER PLANT: A REVIEW OF LICENCED CHEAKAMUS Box 4 DIVERSION OPERATIONS W‐2522 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK COMMUNITY WATERSHED SNAP SHOT: A PROFILE OF THE NATURAL CHILLIWACK Box 4 FEATURES, HUMAN USES AND STATES OF THE ELK CREEK AND RYDER CREEK WATERSHEDS W‐2551 Water Library Index Report DESIGN FLOOD ESTIMATES IN MOUNTAIN STREAMS ‐ THE NEED FOR A BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 4 GEOMORPHIC APPROACH W‐2562 Water Library Index Report RECOVERY PLAN SOUTH WESTERN B.C. FLOODING, INVENTORY OF RESTORATION SOUTH WESTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 4 PROJECTS

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 26 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐2622 Water Library Index Report CITY OF CHILLIWACK ‐ FRASER RIVER DYKE UPGRADE CHILLIWACK scanned W‐2628 Water Library Index Report THE SQUAMISH RIVER ESTUARY ‐ STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE TO B.C. Box 4 1974 W‐2639 Water Library Index Report AN ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT IN CANADA BC Box 4 W‐2640 Water Library Index Report MANAGING FLOOD HAZARD AND RISK ‐ REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT Canada Box 4 PANEL W‐2642 Water Library Index Report APPENDIX E ‐ FURRY CREEK FLOOD STUDY FURRY CREEK scanned W‐2648 Water Library Index Report CITY OF ABBOTSFORD ‐ SUMAS RIVER FLOOD STUDY ‐ FARM SURVEY REPORT ABBOTSFORD scanned W‐2651 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH SEA DYKE UPGRADE ASSESSMENT SQUAMISH scanned W‐2656 Water Library Index Report LOWER FRASER RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING STUDY LOWER FRASER VALLEY scanned W‐2658 Water Library Index Report PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR CHEEKEYE FAN DEFLECTION BERMS SQUAMISH scanned W‐2659 Water Library Index Report BANK EROSION AND PROPOSED DIKE STABILIZATION MEASURES ‐ BARNSTON SURREY scanned ISLAND W‐2660 Water Library Index Report NON‐STRUCTURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS FOR THE LOWER FRASER LOWER FRASER VALLEY Box 4 VALLEY, BC W‐2664 Water Library Index Report SUMAS PRAIRIE FLOOD HAZARD INVESTIGATION INTERIM REPORT 2003 ABBOTSFORD scanned W‐2666 Water Library Index Report OVERVIEW REPORT ON DELTA DYKE SYSTEM DELTA scanned W‐2677 Water Library Index Report BOUNDARY BAY VILLAGE FLOOD PROTECTION CONCEPTS BOUNDARY BAY scanned W‐2681 Water Library Index Report DEPUTY MINISTER'S TOUR OF THE LOWER MAINLAND REGION'S LOWER FRASER LOWER MAINLAND Box 4 VALLEY AND SEA‐TO‐SKY CORRIDOR W‐2685 Water Library Index Report COQUITLAM/BUNTZEN WATER USE PLAN UPDATE OF MAPS OF POTENTIAL COQUITLAM scanned FLOODING FOR COQUITLAM RIVER (BC HYDRO REF. NO. QO‐1095) W‐2692 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODPROOFING POLICY IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY VANCOUVER Box 4 W‐2696 Water Library Index Report FLOODPLAIN MAPPING ‐ GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS VANCOUVER scanned W‐2703 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK FLOOD PROTECTION DYKES UPGRADE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ‐ CHILLIWACK scanned CHILLIWACK BC W‐2707 Water Library Index Report PROJECT NO. FBC‐JPC1‐03, LOWER FRASER RIVER FLOOD PROFILE HYDRAULIC LOWER MAINLAND Box 6 MODEL SCOPING STUDY W‐2709 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER HYDRAULIC PROFILE UPDATE ‐ APRIL 2004 ‐ FINAL REPORT CHILLIWACK scanned W‐2719 Water Library Index Report SHORELINE STRUCTURES, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN B.C. Box 7 W‐2720 Water Library Index Report PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR CHEEKEYE FAN DEFLECTION BERMS SQUAMISH unknown W‐2729 Water Library Index Report DEVELOPMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT METHODS FOR NOLA DIKES BRITISH COLUMBIA scanned W‐2773 Water Library Index Report BOUNDARY BAY DYKE FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS DELTA scanned W‐2775 Water Library Index Report SEISMIC STABILITY STUDY OF THE DYKES AT SOUTH END OF NO. 5 ROAD, RICHMOND scanned RICHMOND: FIELD AND GEOLOGICAL SUMMARY REPORT W‐2776 Water Library Index Report NO. 5 ROAD DYKE EARTHQUAKE STABILITY RESEARCH PROJECT, DYKE ROAD, RICHMOND scanned RICHMOND: FINAL SUMMARY REPORT W‐2777 Water Library Index Report SEISMIC STABILITY STUDY OF THE SEA DYKES AT THE MARINER'S VILLAGE RICHMOND scanned W‐2778 Water Library Index Report A REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF THE LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ALONG THE RICHMOND RICHMOND scanned DYKES

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 27 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐2780 Water Library Index Report SOUTH DYKE REHABILITATION STRATEGY NO. 4 ROAD TO NO. 5 ROAD RICHMOND RICHMOND scanned BC W‐2781 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER HYDRAULIC PROFILE UPDATE JUNE 2005 CHILLIWACK scanned W‐2785 Water Library Index Report RECREATIONAL RESIDENTIAL LEASE LOT ASSESSMENTS REPORT, HARRISON LAKE, HARRISON LAKE Box 8 BC ‐ VOLUME 1 OF 2 W‐2786 Water Library Index Report FRASER AND HARRISON RIVERS HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATIONS CHILLIWACK scanned W‐2805 Water Library Coquitlam River Flood Hazard Mitigation Options Coquitlam pdf W‐2806 Water Library Index Report LOWER FRASER RIVER HYDRAULIC MODEL ‐ PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROFILE LOWER MAINLAND scanned W‐2809 Water Library Index Report SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL CHEHALIS scanned FOR CHEHALIS RIVER DYKE WORKS INCLUDING SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN W‐2812 Water Library Index Report CHEHALIS RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION DESIGN BRIEF CHEHALIS RIVER scanned W‐2813 Water Library Index Report WUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR SECTION 9 APPLICATION FOR CHEHALIS CHEHALIS RIVER scanned RIVER DYKE WORKS W‐2817 Water Library Index Report CITY OF SURREY FLOOD PROTECTION REVIEW FRASER RIVER FLOOD PLAIN FRASER RIVER unknown AREA PROJECT 4800‐708 W‐2818 Water Library Index Report INTERIM REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES AND PROGRESS OF THE FRASER VALLEY FRASER RIVER scanned DYKING BOARD FROM ITS INCEPTION ON JULY 22/48 TO JAN 31/49 A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND NINE DAYS W‐2820 Water Library Index Report IN THE ARMS OF THE MOUNTAINS ‐ A HISTORY OF THE CHILLIWACK RIVER VALLEY CHILLIWACK RIVER unknown W‐2823 Water Library Index Report CITY OF SURREY ‐ FLOOD PROTECTION REVIEW ‐ FRASER RIVER FLOOD PLAIN FRASER RIVER scanned AREA PROJECT 4800‐708 W‐2828 Water Library Index Report BOUNDARY BAY DYKE/SEAWALL PROTECTION ‐ FINAL REPORT BOUNDARY BAY scanned W‐2831 Water Library Index Report SUMMARY REPORT FOR FINAL OPTION SELECTION RICHMOND DYKE SEISMIC RICHMOND scanned UPGRADE NO. 4 ROAD TO NO. 5 ROAD SOUTH ‐ DRAFT SCANNED W‐2839 Water Library Index Report FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN ‐ BACKGROUND REPORT SQUAMISH scanned W‐2846 Water Library Index Report FLOOD MAP ATLAS ‐ LOWER MAINLAND REGION FRASER FRESHET MASTER PLAN/ FRASER RIVER scanned DIKE INVENTORY MAP INDEX W‐2847 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER DYKE GEOTECHNIAL ASSESSMENT AND UPGRADING PLAN SQUAMISH RIVER unknown W‐2848 Water Library Index Report MAGNITUDE OF FLOODS BRITISH COLUMBIA YUKON TERRITORY ‐ VOLUME 1 BC Box 9 W‐2849 Water Library Index Report MAGNITUDE OF FLOODS BRITISH COLUMBIA YUKON TERRITORY ‐ VOLUME 2 BC Box 9 W‐2852 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING ‐ CITY OF ABBOTSFORD (MATSQUI PRAIRIE) FRASER RIVER scanned W‐2853 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING ‐ DISTRICT OF KENT ‐ VILLIAGE OF FRASER RIVER scanned HARRISON HOT SPRINGS W‐2855 Water Library Index Report GRAVEL REMOVAL WORKS, CASCADE CREEK, MISSION BC CASCADE CREEK scanned W‐2856 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING ‐ DISTRICT OF MISSION FRASER RIVER scanned W‐2859 Water Library Index Report FROSST CREEK ‐ ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FLOODING & SEDIMENTATION CHILLIWACK unknown W‐2860 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ ABBOTSFORD ‐ UPGRADES TO THE JAMES TREATMENT ABBOTSFORD scanned CENTRE AND MATSQUI DIKE NO 1 W‐2861 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ CHILLIWACK ‐ UPGRADE EAST DIKE ‐ CRITICAL SECTIONS CHILLIWACK scanned AND TOWER ROAD TO CARTMELL ROAD GPS DIKE NOS 17 AND 19 W‐2866 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ DELTA ‐ WESTHAM ISLAND EROSION PROTECTION GPS DELTA scanned DIKE NO 42

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 28 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐2868 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ DEWDNEY ‐ DEWDNEY AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DEWDNEY B.C. scanned UPGRADING OF DIKE GPS DIKE NO 47 W‐2872 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ HARRISON HOT SPRINGS ‐ HARRISON HOT SPRINGS DIKE HARRISON HOT SPRINGS scanned REPAIRS GPS DIKE NO 76 W‐2875 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ DISTRICT OF KENT ‐ KENT (HARRISON MILLS) DIKE REPAIR KENT (DISTRICT OF) scanned GPS DIKE NO 108 W‐2877 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ LANGLEY ‐ WEST LANGLEY (208TH STREET) DIKE LANGLEY scanned IMPROVEMENTS GPS DIKE NO 118 W‐2878 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ MAPLE RIDGE ‐ ALBION PUMP STATION PHASE 2 ALBION MAPLE RIDGE scanned (KANAKA CREEK) DIKE REPAIRS ALBION DIKE REPAIRS GPS DIKE NO 135 W‐2880 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ MISSION ‐ CASCADE CREEK MISSION scanned W‐2881 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ MISSION ‐ SILVERDALE AND MISSIION DIKE MISSION scanned IMPROVEMENTS GPS DIKE NO 135,134 W‐2882 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ NEW WESTMINSTER ‐ QUEENSBOROUGH DIKE REPAIR NEW WESTMINSTER scanned GPS DIKE NO 140 W‐2884 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ PITT MEADOWS ‐ DIKE IMPROVEMENTS GPS DIKE NOS PITT MEADOWS scanned 243,244 AND 246 W‐2885 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ PORT COQUITLAM ‐ PORT COQUITLAM DIKE PORT COQUITLAM scanned IMPROVEMENTS, COQUITLAM RIVE DIKE IMPROVEMENTS GPS DIKE NO 252 AND 253 W‐2888 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ RICHMOND ‐ SOUTH DIKE ‐ NO 7 TO NO 8 ROAD EROSION RICHMOND scanned PROTECTION W‐2889 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ SURREY ‐ BARNSTON ISLAND DIKING EROSION SURREY scanned INSTALLATION OF EROSION PROTECTION GPS DIKE NO 5 W‐2890 Water Library Index Report FLOOD WORKS ‐ 2007 ‐ SURREY ‐ SOUTHWESTMINSTER (FRASER RIVER) DIKE SURREY scanned IMPROVEMENTS GPS DIKE NO 296 W‐2906 Water Library Index Report RICHMOND DIKES REMEDIAL TREATMENT RICHMOND DIKES scanned W‐2907 Water Library Index Report ACTIVITIES OF THE FRASER RIVER JOINT ADVISORY BOARD TWENTY SECOND FRASER VALLEY unknown FINAL ANNUAL REPORT FLOOD CONTROL FRASER VALLEY W‐2908 Water Library Index Report GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DEWDNEY DISTRICT EMERGENCY DIKE UPGRADE 2007 MISSION scanned FRASER RIVER FRESHET MISSION BC W‐2909 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER HYDRAULIC PROFILE 2008 UPDATE VEDDER RIVER , B.C. scanned W‐2910 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LOWER FRASER LOWER FRASER VALLEY scanned VALLEY PROJECTS W‐2914 Water Library Index Report FROSST CREEK ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FLOODING AND SEDIMENTATION CHILLIWACK scanned W‐2936 Water Library Index Report LOWER FRASER VALLEY DIKE STUDY CONSTRUCTION FRASER RIVER unknown W‐2938 Water Library Index Report LOWER FRASER RIVER 2008 FRESHET FLOOD LEVEL FORECASTING ‐ FINAL REPORT FRASER RIVER unknown W‐2940 Water Library Index Report BACCARAT INVESTMENTS LTD, NEWMAN CREEK DEVELOPMENT WEST NORTH VANCOUVER unknown VANCOUVER, BC ‐ OPERATING MANUAL OF OCEAN POINT GPS #67 W‐2944 Water Library Index Report PROJECTED SEA LEVEL CHANGES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE 21ST CENTURY BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 14 W‐2946 Water Library Index Report BOUNDARY BAY DYKE 2005 BANK PROTECTION WORKS BOUNDARY BAY scanned

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 29 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐2949 Water Library Index Report CITY OF SURREY OLD LOGGING DITCH CONVEYANCE WORK AND PUMPSTATION SURREY scanned DESIGN VERIFICATION W‐2950 Water Library Index Report HWY 10 AND HWY 15 PROJECTS BRIDGE CROSSINGS IN THE SERPENTINE‐ SURREY scanned NICOMEKL LOWLANDS/HYDRAULIC RATIONALE FOR ALTERNATIVE FREEBOARD CRITERIA W‐2962 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER DYKE GEOTECHNIAL ASSESSMENT AND UPGRADING PLAN SQUAMISH scanned W‐2964 Water Library Index Report FLOOD DAMAGE RECOVERY ‐ 2004 DYKE INSPECTION REPORT SQUAMISH scanned W‐2965 Water Library Index Report PERFORMANCE OF DRAINAGE PUMP STATIONS IN OCTOBER 2003 FLOOD SQUAMISH scanned W‐2967 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER AND MAMQUAM RIVER SURVEY AND RIVER ASSESSMENT SQUAMISH scanned W‐2991 Water Library Index Report FLOOD OBSERVER TRAINING MANUAL 2008 BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown W‐2994 Water Library Index Report THE CITY OF CHILLIWACK ‐ FRASER & HARRISON RIVERS HYDROLOGIC AND CHILLIWACK scanned HYDRAULIC INVESTATIONS ‐ W‐2998 Water Library Index Report TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY, WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (FINAL REPORT) (1 copy BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 14 and 1 duplicate copy) W‐3004 Water Library Index Report VEDDER RIVER HYDRAULIC REPORT UPDATE 2010 CHILLIWACK scanned W‐3012 Water Library Index Report FRASER RIVER BANK PROTECTION SOUTH BANK, DOWNSTREAM OF AGASSIZ‐ KENT (DISTRICT OF) scanned ROSEDALE BRIDGE W‐3015 Water Library Index Report CHILLIWACK WING DYKES ‐ FEASIBILITY STUDY CHILLIWACK scanned W‐3023 Water Library Index Report FIRST NATIONS EMERGENCY SERVICES SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOOD & BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 10 EROSION DAMAGE MITIGATION PLAN STAGE 1 ZONE 1 WEST COAST & VANCOUVER ISLAND VOLUME 1 OF 2 W‐3024 Water Library Index Report FIRST NATIONS EMERGENCY SERVICES SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOOD & BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 10 EROSION DAMAGE MITIGATION PLAN STAGE 1 ZONE 1 WEST COAST & VANCOUVER ISLAND VOLUME 2 OF 2 W‐3028 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER AND MAMQUAM RIVER SURVEY AND FLOOD ASSESSMENT SQUAMISH RIVER scanned W‐3031 Water Library Index Report FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT INFORMATION TOOLS (5 COPIES) BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown W‐3033 Water Library Index Report SUMAS PRAIRIE FLOOD ANIMATIONS (2 DISKS) SUMAS unknown W‐3034 Water Library Index Report QA HP1055 FORMAT PLOTFILES WLAP FLOOD HAZARD PROJECT BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown W‐3036 Water Library Index Report FLOOD MAPPING LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐3037 Water Library Index Report FLOOD MAPS (LOWERMAINLAND) LOWER MAINLAND unknown W‐3037A Water Library Index Report BC FLOODPLAIN MAPS BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown W‐3038 Water Library Index Report D‐895 FRASER RIVER DYKE FRASER RIVER unknown W‐3052 Water Library Index Report DRILL HOLE LOG LOWER FRASER VALLEY DYKES scanned W‐3053 Water Library Index Report STABILITY OF THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY DYKES scanned W‐3057 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER DIKES GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH SQUAMISH scanned W‐3059 Water Library Index Report TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY, WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (FINAL REPORT) LANGLEY unknown W‐3061 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER AND MAMQUAM RIVER SURVEY AND FLOOD ASSESSMENT SQUAMISH RIVERMAMQUAM scanned W‐3062 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER AND MAMQUAM RIVER SURVEY AND RIVER ASSESSMENT SQUAMISH RIVER,MAMQUAM RIVER scanned APPENDICES A, B, C, D, AND E W‐3071 Water Library Index Report SEISMIC DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DIKES (Dike Embankment Failure at Capitol Lake BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown Nisqually Earthquake, Feb 2001) (Hanshin Earthquake, 1995)

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 30 of 31 Legend: ABD ‐ As‐Built Dike Drawings and Significant Reports RFP ‐ Fraser Basin Council Catalogue Reports LMDIM ‐ Lower Mainland Dike Inventory Maps OM ‐ Operations‐Maintenance Library Library References FPP ‐ Flood Protection Program Reports OR ‐ Other Reports DAR ‐ Dike Authority Responses W ‐ Water Library DIR ‐ Dike Inspection Reports Code Category Title Location Format Subjects W‐3072 Water Library Index Report CITY OF CHILLIWACK VEDDER RIVER, INSPECTION OF RIVER BANK PROTECTION CHILLIWACK scanned 2010 FINAL REPORT W‐3073 Water Library Index Report US Overﬂow Summary / Recorded Informaon for the 1990Flood of West Sumas WEST SUMAS PRAIRIE scanned Prairie (Nov 10‐13, 1990) W‐3075 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER AND MAMQUAM RIVER SURVEY AND FLOOD ASSESSMENT Squamish River & Mamquam River scanned W‐3076 Water Library Index Report SQUAMISH RIVER AND MAMQUAM RIVER SURVEY AND RIVER ASSESSMENT Squamish River & Mamquam River scanned APPENDICES A,B,C,D AND E W‐3079 Water Library Index Report CASCADE CREEK DYKE operations & maintenance manual CASCADE CREEK scanned W‐3105 Water Library Index Report LOCAL GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT FOR BC LINKING DATA TO PROTECTION BRITISH COLUMBIA Box 28 PRACTICES (Thesis ‐ UBC ‐ Dept of Resource Management & Environmental Studies) W‐3115 Water Library Index Report LOWER FRASER VALLEY FLOOD RESPONSE SITE ASSESSMENT INFORMATION FRASER VALLEY Box 27 W‐3120 Water Library Index Report City of Coquitlam DeBoville Slough Assessment COQUITLAM scanned W‐3121 Water Library Index Report Coquitlam Dyking District North De Bouville Dyke COQUITLAM scanned W‐3122 Water Library Index Report Magnitude of Floods British Columbia Yukon Territory Vol 3 BRITISH COLUMBIA unknown W‐3123 Water Library Index Report Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations. Seismic Assessment of Section Maple Ridge scanned of Albion Dike, Maple Ridge, BC W‐3125 Water Library Index Report Richmond Flood Management Strategy Technical Memorandum #2 Richmond scanned W‐3126 Water Library Index Report Mid Island Dike Scoping Study EB3673 Richmond scanned W‐3128 Water Library Index Report Geotechnical Site Assessment Albion Pump Station site Dock Street R.O.W., Maple Maple Ridge scanned Ridge, BC W‐3129 Water Library Index Report 1983 ‐ 1984 Flood Control Program. Coquitlam Dyking District Contract #2 ‐ North Coquitlam scanned Deboville Slough Floodbox Construction W‐3130 Water Library Index Report Fraser River Flood Control Program under 1968 Federal ‐ Provincial Agreement: Coquitlam scanned City of Port Coquitlam and District of Coquitlam Flood Control Works. Report on Final Design ‐ First Stage W‐3132 Water Library Index Report Fraser River Board Preliminary Report on Flood Control and Hydro‐Electric Power BC scanned in the Fraser River Basin W‐3133 Water Library Index Report The Reclamation of Pitt Meadows BC scanned W‐3135 Water Library Index Report Serpentine, Nicomekl & Campbell Rivers ‐ Climate Change Floodplain Review ‐ Fraser Valley scanned Final Report W‐3136 Water Library Index Report Barnston Island Dike Assessment 2012 ‐ Final Report Surrey scanned W‐3137 Water Library Index Report Coquitlam Dyking District Dike Assessment 2012 ‐ Final Report Coquitlam scanned

Thursday, July 02, 2015 Page 31 of 31 Table 3 - Summary of Dike Deficiencies and Assessments

Average Dike Segment Diking Authority GPS No. and Dike Name Segment (no. and chainage) Segment Length (km) Crest Elevation Rating Summary Assessment (for weakest segment only) Rating

1: (B) 6+767 to 0+000 6.8 3 2.8 The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Abbostsford, City of 1 ‐ Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike may fail due to erosion. Adminis arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is (B) 6+767 to 0+000. 2: (A) 4+877 to 0+000 4.9 3 3.1

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Abbostsford, City of 2 ‐ Vedder 1: 0+000 to 4+138 4.1 3 3.4 generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 4+138.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. General geotechnical conditions could not be inf Abbostsford, City of 3 ‐ Sumas Lake Reclamation 1: 0+000 to 16+704 16.7 1 3.0 Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 16+704.

1: 8+000 to 2+438 5.6 1 1.8 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. It is likely to fail due to geotechnical concerns prior to Barnston Island Diking District 5 ‐ Barnston Island overtopping. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segme 2: 8+000 to 2+438 4.4 1 1.9 to 2+438.

12 ‐ Trapp Road ‐ Byrne Creek (Big The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be exp Burnaby, City of 1: 0+000 to 7+000 7.0 1 1.8 Bend Area) design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike may fail due to erosion. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 7+000.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Burnaby, City of 365 ‐ Byrne Creek 1: 0+000 to 4+350 4.4 1 1.9 geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segme to 4+350.

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Chehalis Indian Band 379 ‐ Chehalis Dike 1: 0+000 to 2+365 2.4 2 3.4 generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is s erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 2+365.

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Chilliwack, City of 2 ‐ Vedder 2: 4+138 to 8+400 4.3 2 3.0 generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 4+138 to 8+400.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected und Chilliwack, City of 15 ‐ West Dike 1: 11+524 to 3+200 8.3 1 2.9 flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 11+524 to 3+200.

16 ‐ Town Dyke (and Wolfe Road pump The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Chilliwack, City of 1: 0+000 to 4+245 4.2 1 2.9 station) geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 4+245.

1: 0+000 to 1+919 1.9 3 2.4 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. General geotechnical conditions could not be inf Chilliwack, City of 17 ‐ Island 22 ( Wing Dike) Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The dike may fail due to erosion. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment is 1+919 to 3+437. 2: 1+919 to 3+437 1.5 1 2.7

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry generally meets standards. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Chilliwack, City of 18 ‐ Hope Slough Wall 1: 0+000 to 1+170 1.2 1 2.7 geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 t

1: 0+034 to 3+434 3.4 3 3.2 The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Chilliwack, City of 19 ‐ East Dike Rosedale to Young Rd generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action an 2: 3+434 to 16+468 13.0 2 2.9 should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 3+434 to 16+468.

The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Chilliwack, City of 20 ‐ Vedder River Set Back 1: 3+925 to 0+000 3.9 3 3.2 meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 3+925 to 0+000. Average Dike Segment Diking Authority GPS No. and Dike Name Segment (no. and chainage) Segment Length (km) Crest Elevation Rating Summary Assessment (for weakest segment only) Rating

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry generally meets standards. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Chilliwack, City of 381 ‐ Cattermole 1: 0+000 to 3+600 3.6 1 2.9 geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 3+600.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Colebrook Diking District 22 ‐ Colebrook 1: 0+000 to 3+154 3.2 1 2.2 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Se 0+000 to 3+154.

1: 2+000 to 4+635 2.6 1 2.0 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. It is likely to fail due to geotechnical concerns prior to Coquitlam Diking District 192 ‐ Coquitlam Diking District overtopping. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segme 2: 0+000 to 2+000 2.0 1 2.4 to 4+635.

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Coquitlam, City of 26 ‐ Marathon Industrial Park 1: 0+000 to 0+900 0.9 2 2.1 consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion should monitored. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 0+900.

The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Coquitlam, City of 27 ‐ Coquitlam 1: 0+000 to 1+200 1.2 3 2.5 substandard, causing concern. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 1+200.

1: 0+000 to 14+750 14.8 1 2.6 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Delta, Corporation of 42 ‐ Boundary Bay are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment i 2: 14+750 to 17+050 2.3 1 2.3 17+050.

1: 9+156 to 13+734 4.6 2 2.4

2: 7+749 to 9+156 1.4 1 2.4 43 ‐ Westham Island ‐ SeaReach/Canoe The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. Stability problems may occur under design flood Delta, Corporation of Pass 3: 13+734 to 15+722 2.0 3 2.8 but are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike may fail due to erosion. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+237 to 3+800.

4: 0+237 to 3+800 3.6 1 2.2

The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Delta, Corporation of 44 ‐ Marina Gardens 1: 0+000 to 3+500 3.5 3 2.7 meets standards. It is stable under design flood conditions, no seepage or heave is expected. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be mon Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 3+500.

1: 0+152 to 13+134 13.0 3 2.4 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be exp Delta, Corporation of 45 ‐ River Road DELTA 2: 0+000 to 1+814 1.8 1 2.1 design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest 0+000 to 1+814. 3: 0+000 to 6+332 6.3 2 1.8

The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Delta, Corporation of 46 ‐ Delta ‐ Sea 1: 6+332 to 10+698 4.4 3 2.7 meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion should be repaired. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 6+332 to 10+698.

1: 6+000 to 0+000 6.0 1 2.8 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry generally meets standards. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Dewdney Area Improvement District 47 ‐ Dewdney 2: 8+702 to 6+000 2.7 1 3.0 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Se 6+000 to 0+000. 3: 12+189 to 8+702 3.5 1 3.0

1: 1+570 to 0+000 1.6 1 1.1

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Fraser Valley Regional District 66 ‐ Cascade ‐ Carratt Creeks 2: 0+956 to 0+000 1.0 1 1.7 geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The dike may fail due to erosion. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Segment is 1+570 to 0+000.

3: 1+235 to 0+000 1.2 1 1.7

The dike generally meets freeboard requirements and there are no significant issues with channel instability. The dike geometry meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as se Fraser Valley Regional District 155 ‐ Wilson Road Dike 1: 0+000 to 0+859 0.9 4 3.5 be expected under design flood conditions. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakes is 0+000 to 0+859.

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Fraser Valley Regional District 168 ‐ Lindell Beach (Frosst Creek) 1: 0+000 to 1+276 1.3 2 2.3 substandard, causing concern. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The d bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 1+276. Average Dike Segment Diking Authority GPS No. and Dike Name Segment (no. and chainage) Segment Length (km) Crest Elevation Rating Summary Assessment (for weakest segment only) Rating

368 ‐ Baker Trails (Guy Creek and Tank 1: 0+000 to 0+216 (Tank Creek) 0.2 3 3.3 Creek) The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Fraser Valley Regional District substandard, causing concern. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 0+216 (Tank Creek). 368 ‐ 2: 0+000 to 0+165 (Guy Creek) 0.2 3 3.4

The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Fraser Valley Regional District 380 ‐ Elbow Creek 1: 0+000 to 0+813 0.8 3 2.6 meets standards. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrange inadequate. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 0+813. 1: 3+550 to 0+000 3.6 1 2.6 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Glen Valley Diking District 68 ‐ Glen Valley 2: 0+000 to 3+700 3.7 1 2.2 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Wea Segment is 0+000 to 3+700. 3: 0+000 to 4+357 4.4 1 2.4

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Harrison Hot Springs, Village of 76 ‐ Harrison Hot Springs 1: 0+000 to 1+550 1.6 2 2.6 generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is s erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 1+550.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can b Hope, District of 78 ‐ River Parade Flood Protection 1: 0+930 to 0+000 0.9 1 2.8 under design flood conditions. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are Weakest Segment is 0+930 to 0+000.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. It is stable under design flood conditions, no see Hope, District of 79 ‐ Glenhalla Subdivision 1: 1+010 to 0+000 1.0 1 2.4 heave is expected. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are inadequate Segment is 1+010 to 0+000.

1: 0+000 to 1+900 1.9 2 3.1 The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Kent, District of 108 ‐ Kent Dike A generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is s erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 1+900 to 5+890 2: 1+900 to 5+890 4.0 2 2.8

The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Kent, District of 382 ‐ Kent Dike B1: 0+000 to 1+000 1.0 3 3.1 standards. It is stable under design flood conditions, no seepage or heave is expected. The dike is seismically unstable. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements r refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 1+000.

1: 0+000 to 1+615 1.6 3 3.0 The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Kent, District of 383 ‐ Kent Dike C meets standards. It is stable under design flood conditions, no seepage or heave is expected. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be mon 2: 1+615 to 4+207 2.6 3 3.1 Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 1+615.

1: 0+000 to 2+256 2.3 3 3.0 The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Kent, District of 384 ‐ Kent Dike D substandard, causing concern. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suff 2: 2+256 to 7+814 5.6 2 2.8 damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 2+256 to 7+814.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. Stability problems may occur under design flood Langley, Township of 117 ‐ Fort Langley ‐ Salmon River 1: 1+219 to 0+000 1.2 1 2.4 but are likely repairable. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require re Weakest Segment is 1+219 to 0+000.

1: 2+200 to 0+000 2.2 1 2.7 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can b Langley, Township of 118 ‐ West Langley under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest 2+200 to 0+000. 2: 3+095 to 2+200 0.9 1 2.8

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Maple Ridge Road No. 13 Dyking District 126 ‐ Maple Ridge Road 13 1: 0+000 to 0+300 0.3 1 2.1 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment i 0+300.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. It is likely to fail due to geotechnical concerns prior to Maple Ridge, District of 128 ‐ Albion 1: 2+618 to 0+000 2.6 1 1.3 overtopping. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike may fail due to erosion. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Segment is 2+618 to 0+000. Average Dike Segment Diking Authority GPS No. and Dike Name Segment (no. and chainage) Segment Length (km) Crest Elevation Rating Summary Assessment (for weakest segment only) Rating

1: 0+000 to 2+000 2.0 1 2.2 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. Stability problems may occur under design flood Metro Vancouver 74 ‐ Colony Farm GVRD but are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements require refinement. W 2: 0+000 to 2+700 (West Dike) 2.7 1 2.2 Segment is 0+000 to 2+000.

1: (B) 0+122 to 0+400 0.3 1 2.6 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be exp Mission, District of 134 ‐ Mission City 2: (B) 0+400 to 1+100 0.7 1 2.6 design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Se 0+122 to 0+400. 3: (A) 1+100 to 3+597 2.5 3 2.8

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Mission, District of 135 ‐ Silverdale 1: 4+100 to 0+000 4.1 1 2.1 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segme to 0+000.

1: 0+000 to 3+904 3.9 1 1.9 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Mud Bay Diking District 136 ‐ Mud Bay 2: 3+904 to 6+304 2.4 1 2.0 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Seg 0+000 to 3+904. 3: 0+000 to 4+846 4.8 1 2.1

1: 3+669 to ‐0+123 3.6 2 2.1 The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g New Westminster, City of 140 ‐ Queensborough substandard, causing concern. Stability problems may occur under design flood conditions but are likely repairable. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The dike/riv 2: 3+450 to 6+706 3.3 3 3.1 suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 3+669 to ‐0+123.

1: 0+000 to 18+500 18.5 1 1.8

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. General geotechnical conditions could not be inf Nicomen Island Improvement District 144 ‐ Nicomen Island dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 18+ 2: 18+500 to 35+000 16.5 1 2.3

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is substandard, causing concern. It is likely to fail due to geotechnical concerns pr North Nicomen Diking District 223 ‐ North Nicomen Dike 1: 0+000 to 3+368 3.4 1 1.9 overtopping. The dike is seismically unstable. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 3+368.

North Vancovuer Outdoor School ‐ School The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred 224 ‐ North Vancouver Outdoor School 1: 0+440 to 2+864 2.4 1 2.1 District #44 geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The dike may fail due to erosion. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+440 to 2+864.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. It is likely to fail due to geotechnical concerns prior to Pitt Meadows, City of 243 ‐ Pitt Meadows 1 ‐ Alouette River 1: 0+000 to 9+911 9.9 1 2.2 overtopping. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+ 9+911.

1: 11+717 to 5+161 6.6 1 2.6 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be exp Pitt Meadows, City of 244 ‐ Pitt Meadows 2: 2+910 to 5+161 7.9 2 2.8 design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segme to 5+161. 3: 11+256 to 2+910 8.3 1 2.6

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond 245 ‐ Pitt Polder ‐ Pitt River (Sturgeon Pitt Meadows, City of 1: 15+390 to 0+000 15.4 1 1.7 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Segment is 15 Slough) 0+000.

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Pitt Meadows, City of 246 ‐ Pitt Meadows 2 ‐ Pitt River 1: 0+000 to 8+731 8.7 2 2.7 generally meets standards. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There are no erosion problems. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 8+731.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Pitt Meadows, City of 328 ‐ North Alouette Right Bank 1: 0+000 to 2+535 2.5 1 2.3 seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 2+535. Average Dike Segment Diking Authority GPS No. and Dike Name Segment (no. and chainage) Segment Length (km) Crest Elevation Rating Summary Assessment (for weakest segment only) Rating

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Port Coquitlam, City of 252 ‐ Coquitlam River 1: 0+000 to 7+995 8.0 1 2.4 are likely repairable. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refine Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 7+995.

The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Port Coquitlam, City of 253 ‐ Port Coquitlam (Pitt River) 1: 0+000 to 9+420 9.4 3 2.6 substandard, causing concern. Stability problems may occur under design flood conditions but are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and e should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 9+420.

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Port Metro Vancouver 222 ‐ Deering Island 1: 0+000 to 0+715 1.4 2 2.2 consistently inadequate. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered e damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 0+715.

1: 25+300 to 19+708 5.6 3 2.8

2: 19+708 to 4+500 15.2 3 2.7 The dike has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m, potentially with some low spots. In some instances long‐term aggradation could have an impact on the design profile. The dike geometry Richmond, City of 271 ‐ Richmond ‐ Sea Dike 3: 26+883 to 32+690 5.8 3 2.4 meets standards. Stability problems may occur under design flood conditions but are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 26+883 to 32+690. 4: 32+690 to 49+286 16.6 3 2.6

5: 4+500 to 0+000 4.5 3 3.0

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry generally meets standards. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred 281 ‐ Cheakamus River Training Berm Squamish, District of 1: 1+060 to 0+000 1.1 1 2.1 geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Segment i U/S Outdoor School 0+000.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Squamish, District of 282 ‐ Cheekye Berm 1: 0+000 to 0+461 0.5 1 1.8 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are lacking. Weakest Seg 0+000 to 0+461.

1: 2+129 to 0+000 2.1 2 2.4 The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Squamish, District of 284 ‐ Mamquam consistently inadequate. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered e 2: 3+144 to 0+000 3.1 3 2.4 damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 2+129 to 0+000.

1: 12+495 to 6+410 6.1 1 1.8 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Squamish, District of 285 ‐ Squamish River are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest 2: 6+300 to 2+857 3.4 1 1.9 12+495 to 6+410.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Squamish, District of 286 ‐ Stawamus River 1: 2+469 to 0+000 2.5 1 2.3 geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. The dike may fail due to erosion. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 2+469 to 0+000.

1: 0+000 to 0+800 (Right bank and north 0.8 4 3.3 of Furry Creek) The dike generally meets freeboard requirements and there are no significant issues with channel instability. The dike geometry meets standards. General geotechnical conditions cou Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District 288 ‐ Furry Creek Dike inferred. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest S 2: 0+000 to 0+900 (Left bank and south 0+000 to 0+800 (Right bank and north of Furry Creek). 0.9 4 3.3 of Furry Creek)

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Strata Corp LMS 483 ‐ Newman Creek, Ocean 67 ‐ Ocean Point Near Newman Creek 1: 0+000 to 0+480 0.5 2 3.4 meets standards. It is stable under design flood conditions, no seepage or heave is expected. Seismic geotechnical conditions could not be inferred. There is some erosive action and e Point c/o Pacific Asset Management Corporation should be monitored. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 0+000 to 0+480.

1: 7+210 to 0+000 7.2 2 2.1

2: 14+562 to 7+210 7.4 3 2.2 The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Surrey Dyking District 293 ‐ Nicomekl‐Serpentine consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood conditions but are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion 3: 12+100 to 19+100 7.0 3 2.2 and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest Segment is 7+210 to 0+000.

4: 0+000 to 12+100 12.1 4 2.1 Average Dike Segment Diking Authority GPS No. and Dike Name Segment (no. and chainage) Segment Length (km) Crest Elevation Rating Summary Assessment (for weakest segment only) Rating

1: 0+000 to 1+688 1.7 1 2.3 The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be exp Surrey, City of 294 ‐ Crescent Beach Sea Dike design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Se 2: 0+476 to 1+500 1.0 1 2.8 0+000 to 1+688.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. General geotechnical conditions could not be inferred Surrey, City of 295 ‐ West of Colebrooke Sea Dike 1: 3+154 to 4+313 1.2 1 2.3 seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 3+154 to 4+313.

1: 0+100 to 3+570 3.5 3 2.3 The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g Surrey, City of 296 ‐ South Westminster consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood conditions but are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion 2: 3+570 to 5+240 1.7 2 2.2 monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segment is 3+570 to 5+240.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Surrey, City of 297 ‐ East of Colebrook Diking District 1: 0+000 to 1+250 1.3 1 2.0 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Wea Segment is 0+000 to 1+250.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Surrey, City of 366 ‐ Nico‐Wynd 1: 0+000 to 1+700 1.7 1 1.7 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suffered erosion damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are inadequate. Weakest 0+000 to 1+700.

The dike is presently too low. The dike design profile likely needs to be updated. The dike geometry is consistently inadequate. Stability problems may occur under design flood cond Trethewey‐Edge Diking District 307 ‐ Trethewey‐Edge 1: 0+000 to 4+620 4.6 1 2.1 are likely repairable. The dike is seismically unstable. There is some erosive action and erosion should be monitored. Administrative arrangements require refinement. Weakest Segme to 4+620.

The dike crest exceeds the design water surface profile but there is essentially no freeboard. There may be channel instabilities affecting the design profile in the near‐term. The dike g 386 ‐ Tsawwassen Dike (breakwater Tsawwassen First Nation 1: 10+698 to 14+330 3.6 2 2.4 substandard, causing concern. Minor stability problems, such as seepage, can be expected under design flood conditions. The dike is seismically unstable. The dike/river bank has suff dike) damage and should be repaired. Administrative arrangements are sufficient. Weakest Segment is 10+690 to 14+330.

Figures

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 13 Final Report

Lower Mainland Dike Assessment 14 Final Report 1+060 281 - 1 - Cheakamus River Training Berm U/S Outdoor School (! 0+000 !((! 0+000 0+440 224 - 1 - North Vancouver Outdoor School 2+864 0+800 !( (! !( !((! !( 0+000 0+000 282 - 1 - Cheekye Berm

12+495 (! 0+461 285 - 1 - Squamish River 0+900 6+410 0+000 284 - 2 - Mamquam 3+144

6+300 !((! (! 285 - 2 - Squamish River (! 2+857 2+129 284 - 1 - Mamquam !( (! 0+000 0+000 (! 283 - 1 - Town Dike Squamish !( !( 1+473 2+469 286 - 1 - Stawamus River 0+000

0+000

0+480

(! !( 0+000 288 - 1 - Furry Creek Dike 0+800 (! !( !( 0+000 288 - 2 - Furry Creek Dike 0+900 !( (! !( (!

0+000 78 - 1 - River Parade Flood Protection 4+635 1+010 192 - 1 - Coquitlam Diking District (! 0+000 2+000 79 - 1 - Glenhalla Subdivision 2+000 15+390 0+000 0+930 192 - 2 - Coquitlam Diking District 245 - 1 - Pitt Polder - Pitt River (Sturgeon Slough) 76 - 1 - Harrison Hot Springs 0+000 0+000 0+000 1+550 0+000 67 - 1 - Ocean Point Near Newman Creek 253 - 1 - Port Coquitlam (Pitt River) 0+480 9+420 (! !( 0+000 ! 0+000 0+000 ( 379 - 1 - Chehalis Dike 252 - 1 - Coquitlam River !( 246 - 1 - Pitt Meadows 2 - Pitt River 1+570 2+365 (! 7+995 !( 8+731 0+000 4+207 !( (! (! 66 - 1 - Cascade - Carratt Creeks !( (! 2+535 383 - 2 - Kent Dike C 27 - 1 - Coquitlam (! 0+000 0+813 (! !( 0+000 1+615 1+200 328 - 1 - North Alouette Right Bank (! !( 380 - 1 - Elbow Creek 0 2 4 6 8 (! 0+000 66 - 2 - Cascade - Carratt Creeks 0+000 1+615 KM (! !( !( 0+956 0+000 !(!( (! 383 - 1 - Kent Dike C 74 - 1 - Colony Farm GVRD !((! 9+911 ! !( !( (! 0+000 ! 0+000 0+000 2+000 ( 243 - 1 - Pitt Meadows 1 - Alouette River 7+814 0+000 108 - 1 - Kent Dike A (! (! 0+000 66 - 3 - Cascade - Carratt Creeks 384 - 2 - Kent Dike D 74 - 2 - Colony Farm GVRD !( !( 1+900 2+910 1+235 2+256 0+715 0+000 2+700 (! !( 12 - 1 - Trapp Road - (! 244 - 3 - Pitt Meadows 0+000 !( 222 - 1 - Deering Island 0+000 0+000 (! Byrne Creek (Big Bend Area) (! 0+000 !( !((! !( 2+910 11+256 (! 307 - 1 - Trethewey-Edge !((! 0+000 26 - 1 - Marathon Industrial Park 17 - 1 - Island 22 ( Wing Dike) 7+000 !( 244 - 2 - Pitt Meadows 4+620 384 - 1 - Kent Dike D 1+919 1+919 (! !( 0+900 ! (!!( 1+900 0+000 -0+123 !(( 5+161 0+300 2+256 !( 17 - 2 - Island 22 ( Wing Dike) 126 - 1 - Maple Ridge Road 13 !((! 108 - 2 - Kent Dike A !( (! 365 - 1 - 140 - 1 - Queensborough !( 5+161 244 - 1 - Pitt Meadows 18+500 0+000 3+437 5+890 Byrne Creek 3+669 0+000 (! (! 11+717 0+122 144 - 1 - Nicomen Island 4+350 0+100 !( !((! 0+000 (! 296 - 1 - South Westminster (! 0+000 134 - 1 - Mission City 0+000 (! (! 12+189 16+468 382 - 1 - Kent Dike B !( 2+438 !(!( !((! 3+570 128 - 1 - Albion 4+357 0+400 223 - 1 - North Nicomen Dike !((! (! (! (! !( 47 - 3 - Dewdney 19 - 2 - East Dike Rosedale 1+000 !( 5 - 2 - Barnston Island (! 68 - 3 - Glen Valley to Young Rd 3+570 !((! (! 2+618 3+368 (! 8+000 (! 0+400 8+702 3+434 0+000 !( (! !( !((! 0+034 19+708 (! 296 - 2 - South Westminster !( 3+095 !( 19+708 !( !( 2+438 !( 134 - 2 - Mission City 8+702 271 - 1 - Richmond 5+240 118 - 2 - (! 19 - 1 - East Dike Rosedale 271 - 2 - Richmond (! 5 - 1 - Barnston Island West Langley 1+100 to Young Rd !((! - Sea Dike !( 3+450 47 - 2 - Dewdney - Sea Dike 25+300 8+000 (! 0+000 3+434 140 - 2 - Queensborough 0+000 2+200 6+000 35+000 4+500 (! 1+100 118 - 1 - West Langley !( !((! !( 18 - 1 - Hope Slough Wall 4+500 26+883 6+706 (! 144 - 2 - Nicomen Island 1+219 134 - 3 - Mission City 6+000 3+600 1+170 271 - 3 - Richmond - Sea Dike 1+250 2+200 18+500 271 - 5 - Richmond - Sea Dike (! 47 - 1 - Dewdney 381 - 1 - Cattermole 32+690 117 - 1 - Fort Langley !( 3+597 !((! 30 Gostick Place 0+000 297 - 1 - East of Colebrook - Salmon River !( 0+000 !((! 0+000 0+000 North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3G3 Diking District 0+000 (! !( (! !( 16 - 1 - Town Dyke 49+286 32+690 0+000 Canada 3+154 0+000 (! 271 - 4 - Richmond - Sea Dike 0+152 (! !( !( (and Wolfe Road pump station) Office: 604.980.6011 22 - 1 - 0+000 (! 0+000 !( !((! 4+245 Fax: 604.980.9264 45 - 1 - River Road DELTA Colebrook 3+200 0+000 68 - 1 - Glen Valley !((! 4+138 www.nhcweb.com (! d !( 13+134 293 - 4 - Nicomekl-Serpentine !((! 15 - 1 - West Dike x m 44 - 1 - Marina Gardens 3+550 0+000 2 - 2 - Vedder 0+216 . 0+000 3 11+524 0+000 p 12+100 a 3+500 3+154 8+400 368 - 1 - Baker Trails (Tank Creek) SCALE - 1:130,000 M 136 - 1 - 3+700 135 - 1 - Silverdale !(!( t n

7+749 (! 20 - 1 - Vedder River e

(! 295 - 1 - West of Mud Bay 0+000 m !( 68 - 2 - Glen Valley 0 2 4 6 8 s 43 - 2 - Westham Isl. 12+100 4+100 6+767 Set Back s (! e Colebrooke Sea Dike 3+904 !( !( s ± s - SeaReach/Canoe Pass 3+800 0+000 KM 3+925 A 4+313 293 - 3 - Nicomekl-Serpentine 1 - 1 - Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) 0+000 e (! k 9+156 !( (! (! i 43 - 4... 0+000 !( !( D !((! 0+000 (! _ 19+100 (! 368 - 2 - Baker Trails (Guy Creek) p !((! 0+237 45 - 2 - River (!! a (! (! !(( Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 10N M 15+722 (! (! !( (! !( 0+165 _ Road DELTA !( !( !( N (! Units: METRES S 43 - 3... !((! (! (! M !( 0+000 _ 1+814 14+750 0+000 14+562 !( 7 2

13+734 4 3+904 ! 0 9+156 !(( 1 - 2 - Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) Engineer GIS Reviewer 0

42 - 1 - Boundary Bay 293 - 2 - Nicomekl-Serpentine 0 3 0+000 136 - 2 - Mud Bay 0+000 \ S 43 - 1 - Westham Isl. !((! 7+210 4+877 4+138 (! GV MSN MM I Dike Segment Start Point G (! \ (! 6+304 (! 155 - 1 - Wilson Road Dike t - SeaReach/Canoe Pass !( 45 - 3 - River !( n !( 7+210 2 - 1 - Vedder e 0+000 0+859 m Road DELTA !( Dike Segment End Point Job Number Date s

13+734 s

0+000 e 294 - 1 - Crescent Beach Sea Dike 293 - 1 - Nicomekl-Serpentine s 6+332 (! !( 3000427 29-JUL-2015 s ! A !( ( Crest Elevation Rating

0+000 e 1+688 16+704 k i D

!((! Unacceptable d !( 3 - 1 - Sumas Lake Reclamation n a 0+476 0+000 l 0+000 !( n i 6+332 0+000 Poor LOWER MAINLAND a M 294 - 2 - Crescent Beach Sea Dike 366 - 1 - Nico-Wynd (! r 46 - 1 - Delta - Sea 136 - 3 - Mud Bay 1+276 e (! 14+750 w !( 1+500 o

1+700 Fair DIKE ASSESSMENT L 168 - 1 - Lindell Beach (Frosst Creek)

10+698 4+846 7

42 - 2 - Boundary Bay 2 4

!( 0+000 0 10+698 Good 0

17+050 0 3 CREST ELEVATION \

!( (! e

386 - 1 - Tsawwassen Dike v i Dikes Not Assessed t c

(breakwater dike) A \ s

14+330 RATING t c

Dikes are labelled with: e j o r

GPS Number - Segment Number - Dike Name P \ n a v

DATA SOURCES: -

For description of ratings, see dike deficiency matrix. e

FIGURE 1 l i f

Background Images: July 2000 Landsat 7 from Geomatic Canada, Centre for Topographic Information n i a m \ \ 1+060 281 - 1 - Cheakamus River Training Berm U/S Outdoor School (! 0+000 !((! 0+000 0+440 224 - 1 - North Vancouver Outdoor School 2+864 0+800 !( (! !( !((! !( 0+000 0+000 282 - 1 - Cheekye Berm

12+495 (! 0+461 285 - 1 - Squamish River 0+900 6+410 0+000 284 - 2 - Mamquam 3+144

6+300 !((! (! 285 - 2 - Squamish River (! 2+857 2+129 284 - 1 - Mamquam !( (! 0+000 0+000 (! 283 - 1 - Town Dike Squamish !( !( 1+473 2+469 286 - 1 - Stawamus River 0+000

0+000

0+480

(! !( 0+000 288 - 1 - Furry Creek Dike 0+800 (! !( !( 0+000 288 - 2 - Furry Creek Dike 0+900 !( (! !( (!

7+749 (! 20 - 1 - Vedder River e

13+734 4 3+904 ! 0 9+156 !(( 1 - 2 - Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) Engineer GIS Reviewer 0

42 - 1 - Boundary Bay 293 - 2 - Nicomekl-Serpentine 0 3 0+000 136 - 2 - Mud Bay 0+000 \ S 43 - 1 - Westham Isl. !((! 7+210 4+877 4+138 GV MSN MM I G

(! \ (! 6+304 (! 155 - 1 - Wilson Road Dike ! t - SeaReach/Canoe Pass !( 45 - 3 - River !( ( n

Dike Segment Start Point e !( 7+210 2 - 1 - Vedder 0+000 0+859 m Road DELTA Job Number Date s

13+734 s

0+000 e 294 - 1 - Crescent Beach Sea Dike 293 - 1 - Nicomekl-Serpentine !( Dike Segment End Point s 6+332 (! !( 3000427 29-JUL-2015 s ! A !( (

0+000 e 1+688 16+704 k Average Dike Rating i D

!((! d !( 3 - 1 - Sumas Lake Reclamation n a 0+476 0+000 l 0+000 !( Poor - Unacceptable n i 6+332 0+000 LOWER MAINLAND a M 294 - 2 - Crescent Beach Sea Dike 366 - 1 - Nico-Wynd (! r 46 - 1 - Delta - Sea 136 - 3 - Mud Bay 1+276 Fair - Poor e (! 14+750 w !( 1+500 o

1+700 DIKE ASSESSMENT L 168 - 1 - Lindell Beach (Frosst Creek)

10+698 4+846 7

42 - 2 - Boundary Bay Good - Fair 2 4

!( 0+000 0

10+698 0

17+050 0 3 Dikes Not Assessed AVERAGE DIKE \ !( (! e

386 - 1 - Tsawwassen Dike v i t c

(breakwater dike) A \ s

14+330 RATING t c

Dikes are labelled with: e j o r

GPS Number - Segment Number - Dike Name P \ n a v

DATA SOURCES: -

For description of ratings, see dike deficiency matrix. e

FIGURE 2 l i f

Background Images: July 2000 Landsat 7 from Geomatic Canada, Centre for Topographic Information n i a m \ \

APPENDIX A

Dikes Included in Assessment/ Overview of Provincial Dike Safety Standards and Standards for Lower Fraser River Dikes

Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations Flood Safety Section RFP – Lower Mainland Dike Assessment

Appendix B List of Lower Mainland Dikes

Approximate Dike Diking Authority GPS # Dike Name Length (km) Abbotsford, City of 1 Matsqui 11.3 Abbotsford, City of 2 Vedder 8.4 Abbotsford, City of 3 Sumas Lake Reclamation 16.8 Barnston Island Diking 5 Barnston Island District 10.0 Burnaby, City of 12 Trap Road - Byrne Road (Big Bend Area) 0.2 Burnaby, City of 365 Byrne Creek Not available Chehalis Indian Band 379 Chehalis Dike Not available Chilliwack, City of 15 West Dike 11.5 Chilliwack, City of 16 Town Dike 4.2 Island 22 Chilliwack, City of 17 (Wing Dike) 3.4 Chilliwack, City of 18 Hope Slough Wall 1.2 Chilliwack, City of 19 East Dike (Rosedale to Young Rd) 16.5 Chilliwack, City of 20 Vedder River Set Back 7.6 Chilliwack, City of 381 Cattermole Not available Colebrook Diking District* 22 Colebrook 4.7 Coquitlam Diking District 192 Coquitlam Diking District 4.7 Coquitlam, City of 26 Marathon Industrial Park 1.4 Coquitlam, City of 27 Coquitlam 1.2 Delta, Corporation of 42 Boundary Bay 17.6 Delta, Corporation of 43 Westham Island 10.9 Delta, Corporation of 44 Marina Gardens 0.8 Delta, Corporation of 45 River Road 21.3 Delta, Corporation of 46 Delta-Sea 1.6 Dewdney Area 47 Dewdney Improvement District 10.9 Fraser Valley Regional 66 Cascade Creek District 3.2 Fraser Valley Regional 155 Wilson Road District 0.9 Fraser Valley Regional 168 Lindell Beach (Frosst Creek) District 1.3 Fraser Valley Regional 368 Baker Trails (Guy Creek & Tank Creek) District Not available Fraser Valley Regional 380 Elbow Creek District Not available Glen Valley Diking District 68 Glen Valley 7.1 17

Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations Flood Safety Section RFP – Lower Mainland Dike Assessment

Harrison Hot Springs, 76 Harrison Hot Springs Village of 1.5 Hope, District of 78 River Parade Flood Protection 0.9 Hope, District of 79 Glenhalla Subdivision 1.0 Kent, District of 108 Kent Dike A Not available Kent, District of 382 Kent Dike B Not available Kent, District of 383 Kent Dike C Not available

Kent, District of 384 Kent Dike D Combined Length A to D = 18.7 Langley, Township of 117 Fort Langley - Salmon River 1.2 Langley, Township of 118 West Langley 2.9 Maple Ridge Road No. 13 126 Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District 0.3 Maple Ridge, District of 128 Albion 2.6 Metro Vancouver 74 Colony Farm GVRD 4.9 Mission, District of 134 Mission City 3.1 Mission, District of 135 Silverdale 4.0 Mud Bay Diking District 136 Mud Bay 8.8 New Westminster, City of 140 Queensborough 6.8 Nicomen Island 144 Nicomen Island Improvement District 34.9 North Nicomen Diking 223 North Nicomen Dike District 3.5 North Vancouver Outdoor 224 North Vancouver Outdoor School School School District #44 1.8 Pitt Meadows, 243 Pitt Meadows 1 - Alouette River City of 10.5 Pitt Meadows, 244 Pitt Meadows City of 22.7 Pitt Meadows, 245 Pitt Polder - Pitt River (Sturgeon Slough) City of 18.9 Pitt Meadows, 246 Pitt Meadows 2 - Pitt River City of 8.7 Pitt Meadows, 328 North Alouette Right Bank City of Not available Port Coquitlam, City of 252 Coquitlam River 5.0 Port Coquitlam, City of 253 Port Coquitlam (Pitt River) 9.3 Port Metro Vancouver 222 Deering Island 1.4 Richmond, City of 271 Richmond - Sea Dike 47.6 Cheakamus River Training Berm U/S Outdoor Squamish, District of 281 School 1.1 Squamish, District of 282 Cheekye Berm 0.5 Squamish, District of 283 Town Dike SQAM 1.0 Squamish, District of 284 Mamquam 5.4 Squamish, District of 285 Squamish River 9.7 Squamish, District of 286 Stawamus River 2.4 18

Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations Flood Safety Section RFP – Lower Mainland Dike Assessment

Squamish-Lillooet Regional 288 Furry Creek Dike District Not available Strata Corp LMS 483 - Newman Creek, Ocean 67 Ocean Point Near Newman Creek Point c/o Pacific Asset Management Corporation 0.5 Surrey Dyking District* 293 Nicomekl-Serpentine 75.6 Surrey, City of 294 Crescent Beach Sea Dike 2.6 Surrey, City of 295 West of Colebrooke Sea 1.1 Surrey, City of 296 South Westminster 5.1 Surrey, City of 297 East of Colebrook Diking District 1.3 Surrey, City of 366 Nico-Wynd Not available Trethewey-Edge Diking 307 Trethewey-Edge District 4.6 Tsawwassen First Nation 46 Tsawwassen Dike 3.0 *diking authority in Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act transition

The above dikes can be located on maps in two ways as detailed below.

To access the Lower Mainland Dike Inventory maps, please visit:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/fhm-2012/maps.html

To locate a dike on iMapBC 2.0, please follow the steps below:

1. Go to - http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/sv/imapbc/ 2. Click on Maps & Data Sources tab 3. Click on Add DataBC Layers near top left hand corner 4. Click on “+” sign next to Fresh Water and Marine 5. Click within box next to Flood Protection Structural Works so that the check sign is displayed 6. Click OK 7. Click on Analysis tab 8. Click on Simple Query 9. Click on arrow next to box that says AVG_HORZ 10. Click on FLOOD_PROTECTION_SYSTEM_ID 11. In the box to the right of the box that says Equals input the Dike GPS number 12. Click on Run 13. Click on any of the results that pop up 14. Click on Zoom to Feature 15. Zoom out and pan as necessary to see entire dike and it location

From RFP: Overview of Provincial Dike Safety Standards and Standards for Lower Fraser River Dikes Prepared by N. Peters, Inspector of Dikes, October 2014

Very few of the Lower Fraser River dikes generally meet current provincial standards and none of the dikes fully meet or exceed these standards. The main reason for this is that design criteria developed in the 1960’s and 1970’s by the Fraser River Flood Control Program (e.g. 1969 flood profile) are now outdated and many of the dikes have not been upgraded to updated standards.

Current provincial standards are outlined in the various guideline documents related to Dike Maintenance Act (DMA) approvals published on the ministry’s Dike Safety web pages: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/fhm-2012/safety_index.html

To summarize these standards:

1. Design and construction to contain the “designated flood”.

• For most rivers and streams in the province: “designated flood” means, “a flood, which may occur in any given year, of such magnitude as to equal a flood having a 200-year recurrence interval, based on a frequency analysis of unregulated historic flood records or by regional analysis where there is inadequate stream flow data available. Where the flow of a large watercourse is controlled by a major dam, the designated flood shall be set on a site-specific basis.”

• For the Lower Fraser River: the dike crest elevation should be at, or higher than the most recent and ministry endorsed modelled design profile based on the 1894 estimated peak flow at Hope (considered to have a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years – or approximately a 1 in 500 probability per year) plus 0.6 m freeboard. For the Mission to Richmond/Delta Reach the design levels are provided in:

b. Fraser River Hydraulic Model Update Report, March 2008 (Hope to Mission Information Superseded by March 2014 Report) http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/fhm-2012/draw_report.html#8

For the Hope to Mission Reach the design levels are provided in: c. Fraser River Design Flood Level Update Hope to Mission, Final Report March 2014 ( 9mb)

• Design, construction supervision and certification by a Professional Engineer (this standard addresses dike stability, seepage, erosion, and other key design and construction considerations).

• Compliance with seismic guidelines (these guidelines apply to major upgrades of High Consequence Dikes and new High Consequence Dikes).

• Sea dikes must have site specific design criteria based on location and wave exposure. Fraser River Flood Control Program criteria developed in the early 1970’s for sea dikes are now considered by most coastal engineering practitioners to be too low, but the Province has not yet provided detailed updated standards, or made a requirement to raise the dikes for sea level rise.

• Current requirements for DMA approvals (as of fall 2014) permit construction to levels without climate change, but that designs (e.g. geometry, land requirements etc.) take into account, and allow for future raising of sea dikes for sea level rise and future raising of river dikes for increased levels/flows due to climate change.

2. Effective dike management program by the local diking authority. • The diking authority must have complete legal access/ rights of way for operation and maintenance of the dike. • Operation and maintenance must address ongoing issues such as vegetation control, erosion, replacement of aging appurtenant structures etc. • For new dikes the local government jurisdiction must agree to own the dike and be the diking authority responsible for ongoing operation and maintenance of the dike.

From Mission to Hope there are approximately 15 separate Fraser River dikes totalling 146 km in length. Based on recent (2013 and 2014) dike crest surveys and the updated flood profile for the gravel reach, almost all of the dikes were found to have inadequate freeboard and are at high risk of overtopping during a design flood event. Only the Matsqui dike in Abbotsford (which is affected by an erosion problem at Matsqui Bend) generally meets the design level and freeboard requirements.

For the reach downstream from Mission, considering river dikes, sea dikes in the Fraser Delta and dikes on major tributaries (e.g. Pitt River), there are more than 30 separate dikes totalling a few hundred km in length. Information collated in the March 2008 “Fraser River Hydraulic Model Update” report, referred to above, indicates that most of the river dikes have significant deficiencies in dike crest elevation.

While dike crest elevation vs. design level is a relatively easy parameter to assess, the integrity of the dike and appurtenant structures with respect to stability, seepage and potential piping failures is also a primary concern. Dikes upgraded under the Fraser River Flood Control Program and sections of dike upgraded with more recent funding programs have generally had geotechnical investigations and design. However, many other dikes have had insufficient geotechnical assessment. As seismic design guidelines have only been in place for a few years, many dikes have not been assessed for seismic stability.

APPENDIX B

Geotechnical Report by TEL

LOWER MAINLAND DIKE ASSESSMENT GEOTECHNICAL FRAMEWORK

Thurber Engineering Ltd. (Thurber) was retained by Northwest Hydraulic Consultant’s (nhc) to assist with the preparation of system-wide database that summarizes the current conditions of the flood control dikes in the Lower Mainland diking system for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO). The primary objective of the project was to complete an overview level assessment of each dike segment and identify major deficiencies and provide an estimate of the current level of flood protection.

1. PROGRAM OF WORK

Due to limited budget and the almost 120 segments of dike in the study, Thurber proposed to provide, on a subjective basis, a geotechnical assessment of the level of confidence in the stability, seepage and settlement for each dike segment for input into nhc’s risk matrix. No slope stability, seepage or settlement analyses were included in the scope of work. Thurber’s deliverable for the project was to populate nhc’s risk matrix table. nhc provided information required to assess the stability of dikes including dike geometry and location, flood heights, and freeboard during the design flood. nhc also provided Thurber with various reports, emails, letters and studies from their and MFLNRO’s libraries for review for each of the dike segments. The level of geotechnical data provided in these documents was highly variable. A limited number of the documents contained detailed test hole logs, geotechnical analyses and descriptions, others provided only a brief geotechnical overview of the area and some contained no geotechnical information whatsoever.

We have listed all the relevant reports that were used in our assessment in nhc’s dike assessment spreadsheet. Reports which had a geotechnical focus were relied upon heavily in our assessment.

Thurber’s input comprised assigning a rating and providing comments on the anticipated geotechnical performance of the dike segments where there was sufficient geotechnical information to do so. The ratings and comments were provided for anticipated geotechnical performance under flood conditions (i.e. non-seismic) including slope stability, seepage (i.e. piping/heave), and settlement. Seismic stability was assessed based on conformance to the performance criteria for a 1 in 2475 year return period earthquake as defined in the Ministry of Forest, Land and Natural Resource Operations’ (MFLNRO’s) 2014 Seismic Design Guidelines for Dikes.

The ratings were assigned based on any geotechnical information in relevant reports and engineering judgement. The non-seismic geotechnical concerns were rated on a scale of 4 to 1 (4 = Good, 3 = Fair, 2 = Poor and 1 = Unacceptable). Seismic stability was rated on a scale of 4 to 2 (4 = Good, 3 = Marginal, 2 = Poor/Unacceptable). It is important to note that a rating with a “*” next to it indicates that there was no site-specific geotechnical information available and geotechnical conditions were inferred based on typical soil conditions expected in the area. In cases where there was insufficient data to assess geotechnical conditions, the cell was left blank.

E-File: a_cjc_lower mainland dyke geotechnical framework_rev 2 JUne 16 2015

2. SLOPE STABILITY

Slope stability ratings depended primarily on the foreshore/riverbank slope, dike slope, flood height, and the foundation soils. Dikes with ratings of 3 or 2 are expected to be repairable should damage arise during a flood.

Rating Description 4 (Good) Dike is expected to be stable during present design flood conditions and can likely be raised (<1m) for future design levels without affecting stability. 3 (Fair) Minor stability problems expected during design flood event but these are unlikely to diminish the dike performance. Raising the dike for future design flood conditions may be problematic. 2 (Poor) Some stability problems may occur during the design flood but damage is likely to be repairable. Raising the dike for future flood conditions is not possible without extensive reconstruction. 1 Dike is likely to fail due to geotechnical problems at flood levels less than (Unacceptable) the design event and prior to overtopping. Raising the dike is not feasible (poor foundation and fill materials). No geotechnical information available.

3. SEEPAGE

Seepage ratings depended primarily on seepage path length, the internal hydraulic gradient during flood levels, foundation soil conditions (permeable, impermeable or permeable with a relatively impermeable crust), and previously observed seepage concerns. An estimated average internal hydraulic gradient was calculated by dividing the flood height above the base of dike by the distance from the landside toe to the vertical projection of the flood water level on the waterside of the dike. If this estimated average internal hydraulic gradient was less than 0.15 then the seepage conditions were deemed 4 = Good. Internal hydraulic gradients higher than 0.15 were accordingly more poorly rated, subject to engineering judgement. This method yields similar results to the Safe Weighted Creep Ratios recommended by Lane (1934) for sandy dike foundations.

Client: northwest hydraulic consultants Date: June 16, 2015 File No.: 17-338-114 E-File: a_cjc_lower mainland dyke geotechnical framework_rev 2 JUne 16 2015 Page 2 of 4

Rating Description 4 (Good) Piping through the dike is not expected. Seepage and landside heave have not been observed in the past. 3 (Fair) Minor seepage problems may occur, including piping of the dike and landside heave. 2 (Poor) Piping or landside heave has been observed in the past. Assumed hydraulic gradients are high and piping may occur through the dike during flood water levels. 1 Significant piping or landside heave has been observed in the past and are (Unacceptable) potential causes for breaching. No geotechnical information available.

4. SETTLEMENT

Settlement ratings were primarily based on the presence of organic or fine grained, compressible soils in the foundation and the height of the dike. If there was soft, compressible soil below the dikes then they would be rated poor or unacceptable. If peat was present it was given an unacceptable rating.

Rating Description 4 (Good) Long-term settlement is minimal. Dike foundation is mostly coarse grained soil. 3 (Fair) Settlement may require minor raising of dike to maintain design levels. Dike foundation is mostly coarse-grained soil with some silt/clay. 2 (Poor) The dike has settled and settlement is likely to continue. Very thick silt/clay is present in the foundation of the dike. Very little to no organic soil. 1 Extensive settlement has been observed. Peat and/or organic soil is present (Unacceptable) in the foundation of the dike. No geotechnical information available.

5. SEISMIC STABILITY

Seismic stability ratings (i.e. conformance with MFLNRO’s 2014 Seismic Design Guidelines for 1:2475 year event) relied primarily on the foundation soil type, any test hole logs that included standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts, and any geotechnical reports that included seismic analysis. Assessment of seismic stability becomes much more difficult to assess upstream along the Fraser River because the soil typically becomes coarser and gravelly. The relative density, and liquefaction potential of gravelly soils is difficult to assess, there is greater uncertainty with field and laboratory test results and the resultant liquefaction assessment than for the sandy soils encountered downstream.

Client: northwest hydraulic consultants Date: June 16, 2015 File No.: 17-338-114 E-File: a_cjc_lower mainland dyke geotechnical framework_rev 2 JUne 16 2015 Page 3 of 4

APPENDIX C

Dike Segment Deficiency Matrices

Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Abbotsford, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 1: Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) Dike Segment 1: (B) 6+767 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DIR‐002; DIR‐ The DCL at an approximate middle chainage of 077; DIR‐ 3+000m is 9.8m and the crest elevation is 9.85m. 062; OR‐013 Minimum freeboard is 0.5m and average is 0.55m, almost meeting freeboard requirements. There is a low point at the upstream end by Page Road. The DCL at this location is 10.3m and the crest elevation is approximately 9.3m. This is the only significantly low point on the dike crest. In this reach of the Fraser, the channel has slightly degraded over time.

2. Geometry3 DIR‐002; DIR‐ Crest widths are typically reported as 5m, but the 2007 077; DIR‐ proposed upgrade cross sections suggest a crest width 063; ABD‐ of 3.66m (less than 4m standard). Riverside dike slopes ABB‐007; do not typically have riprap protection and appear to DAR‐ABB‐002 have a slope of 2.5H:1V (less than standard of 3H:1V). Landside slopes were designed to a minimum of 2.5H:1V. In addition, some oversteepened areas on land side have been reported in the 2013 inspection.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 ABD‐ABB‐005 A few seepage ponding areas were observed, but these dissapeared as 2013 freshet water levels dissipated.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 ABD‐ABB‐005 Possible liquefaction of sands that could effect dike stability and cause lateral spreading.

5. Erosion Protection1 DAR‐ABB‐ No significant erosion protection reported for the 002; DIR‐ majority of the dike length as it is somewhat set back 002; DIR‐ from the LB of the Fraser River. Some sections of the 077; DIR‐063 riverbank are under severe erosional attack in the form of scallops and may threaten the dike. Remediation studies are underway.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐002; DIR‐ No significant vegetation or animal issues reported in 077; DIR‐063 2013 inspection. Annual vegetation management program is in place.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐002; DIR‐ Private properties are located adjacent to the dike and 077; DIR‐ in the past have resulted in vegetation being planted 063; Google along the side of the dike. Road crossings at Kelleher Earth; iMap St, Walters St, and Beharrell Rd are approximately 10m wide paved surfaces.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐002; DIR‐ 2 Pump Stations: Dejong and Vanderloo were reported 077; DIR‐063 to be in excellent condition. Some seepage has been reported around the Dejong Pump Station.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Abbotsford, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 1: Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) Dike Segment 1: (B) 6+767 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐077; No significant ROW access issues reported. O&M ABD‐ABB‐002 Manual is available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Abbotsford, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 1: Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) Dike Segment 2: (A) 4+877 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐007; DIR‐ The DCL at an approximate middle chainage of 002; DIR‐ 2+500m is 9.3m and the crest elevation is 9.25m. Dike 077; DIR‐ nearly meets minimum freeboard requirement of 063; ABD‐ 0.6m. There is a low point at the downstream end ABB‐007; where the DCL is 9.2m and the crest elevation is 7.8m. ABD‐ABB‐ However, in a flood event this spot can likely be 006; ABD‐ blocked using temporary measures. ABB‐005; iMap

2. Geometry3 DIR‐002; DIR‐ Crest widths are reported to be a minimum of 4m, but 077; DIR‐ the 2007 proposed upgrade cross sections report a 063; ABD‐ crest width of 3.66m (less than 4m standard). Riverside ABB‐007; slopes do not have continuous riprap protection and ABD‐ABB‐ appear to have a slope of 2.5H:1V (meets standard). 006; ABD‐ Landside slopes were designed to a minimum of ABB‐005; 2.5H:1V. Some oversteepened areas on land side were iMap reported in the 2013 inspection. The new works around the James Treatment Plant have riprap protection and meets standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 ABD‐ABB‐005 A few seepage ponding areas were observed, but these dissapeared as 2013 freshet water levels dissipated. Seepage may be a concern through the dyke and through the base where silt crust is thin.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 ABD‐ABB‐005 Possible liquefaction of sands that could effect dike stability and cause lateral spreading.

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐002; DIR‐ No significant erosion protection reported for the 077; DIR‐063 majority of the dike length as it is mostly set back from the LB of the Fraser River. Riprap is in place for the new works around the James Treatment Plant and no loss of material or slumping issues were reported in the 2013. The river bank is riprapped, some undersized rock.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐002; DIR‐ No significant vegetation or animal issues reported 077; DIR‐063 from 2013 inspection. Annual vegetation management program is in place.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐002; DIR‐ The dike is adjacent to the James Treatment Plant and 077; DIR‐063 multiple private properties. No major issues have been reported from direct encroachment onto the dike. The railroad crosses the dike at the downstream section with a 10m wide approximate track width.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Abbotsford, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 1: Matsqui (Abbotsford dike) Dike Segment 2: (A) 4+877 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐002; DIR‐ 2 Pump Stations: Matsqui and MacLennan. All 077; DIR‐063 discharge valves were reported to be in excellent condition. However, the Matsqui Station Floodbox expansion joints require resealing and the tide gates need to be replaced.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐077; No significant ROW acess issues reported. O&M ABD‐ABB‐002 Manual

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Abbotsford, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 2: Vedder Dike Segment 2: 4+138 to 8+400 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 ABD‐ABB‐ The DCL at an approximate middle chainage of 008; iMap; 6+000m is 11.15m and the crest elevation is 10.8m. ABD‐ABB‐ Overall, there is minimal freeboard across the entire 005; OR‐013 segment, estimated as 0.25m, not meeting standard. Upstream gravel management program in place.

2. Geometry3 ABD‐ABB‐ The design cross sections state a crest width of a 008; iMap; minimum of 3.66m with crest widths generally ABD‐ABB‐ reported to be greater than 4m. Land side slope is 005; 3H:1V and river side slope is 2.5H:1V, meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 ABD‐ABB‐ Seepage and settlement could cause instability. 009; ABD‐ Insufficient freeboard. Drainage blanket, if in‐fact ABB‐001 built, has been placed on landslide which should help seepage below and through the dike.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 ABD‐ABB‐ Liqeufaction and lateral spreading likely under larger 009; ABD‐ earthquakes. ABB‐001

5. Erosion Protection2 DIR‐007; DIR‐ No erosion protection noted. Some instabilities 046; DIR‐083 recorded in Chilliwack 2012 and 2013 inspection reports north of Community Street. However, most locations are stable.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐007; DIR‐ No significant vegetation or animal issues reported 046; DIR‐ from 2013 inspection. Annual vegetation management 084; program is in place.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐007; DIR‐ Roads, fences and private property are adjacent to the 046; DIR‐ dike for portions of the land side in the upstream 084; Google reaches. This is less of a concern downstream, where Earth; iMap most of the dike runs adjacent to farmland.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐003; DIR‐ Barrowton Pump Station. The station has four vertical 079; DIR‐ shaft mixed flow pumps in concrete volute castings. 040; Google Each pump can pump approximately 8.055 cms when Earth; iMap; running at full speed. No issues were noted from 2013 FPP‐001 diver inspection. All components are noted as clear and in good condition.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐079 No significant ROW access issues reported. O&M Manual

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Abbotsford, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 3: Sumas Lake Reclamation Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 16+704 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DIR‐004; DIR‐ Average freeboard is less than 0.2m and the lowest 039; DIR‐ crest elevation (Cole Rd Crossing) is set approximately 078; ABD‐ 0.6m below the design WL. Overtopping is expected ABB‐003; during Nooksack River overflow. ABD‐ABB‐ 004;DAR‐ ABB‐001

2. Geometry2 DIR‐004; DIR‐ The Crest width varies from 3 to 6m, landside slopes 039; DIR‐ are in the range of 2.5H:1V to 2H:1V and waterside 078; ABD‐ slopes are 2H:1V. Dike designed to agricultural ABB‐003; standards. ABD‐ABB‐ 005; iMap

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐078 No seepage or piping reported.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐004; DIR‐ No significant riprap protection reported in as‐built 039; DIR‐ drawings. No concerns based on recent inspections. 078;

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐004; DIR‐ No significant vegetation or animal issues reported 039; DIR‐078; from 2013 inspection. Annual vegetation management program is in place.

7. Encroachments2 DIR‐004; DIR‐ The dike runs adjacent to roads, fences, bridges, and 039; DIR‐ private property. Previous issues with landowners 078; clearing land near the dike and damaging the face of the dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐004; DIR‐ 2 floodboxes, 4 culverts, of unknown dimensions, and 039; DIR‐ one set of stairs. No issues reported from 2013 078; inspection, all are noted as clear and in good condition.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐078 No significant ROW access issues reported. O&M Manual

2. Geometry1 W‐3136 Side slopes of 1.5H:1V are over‐steep and do not meet BC Dike Design and Construction Guide standards for agricultural dikes of 2H:1V. Crest pavement in poor condition, dyke is on average 5 m wide.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General1 W‐3136 settlement from heavy trucks observed; sections with high rate of seepage; may fail from seepage, piping or erosion prior to overtopping; Evidence or history of active seepage that may have transported minor amounts (limited area of small boils) of material from levee or foundation; saturated landward levee slope or toe not exceeding 25% of dike height with no evidence of instability; Minor slope stability issues will likely not diminish proper dike performance.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3136 Lateral displacements are likely.

5. Erosion Protection2 W‐3136; DIR‐ Bank erosion occurring in several locations, some 042 sections with high erosion potential, dike generally set back from river bank by 20m or more; annual inspection reports between 1970‐2000 have noted bank erosion problems, ruts in the road pavement, some slumping of the road embankment; 5 sites requiring erosion protection (riprap armouring) were identified in 2008 but have not been installed as of 2012; foreshore erosion ongoing.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 W‐3136 Annual inspection reports between 1970‐2000 have noted rodent/muskrat activity and trees felled by beavers. Side slopes are grassed and clean of trees.

7. Encroachments3 W‐3136 Dike acts as main road around perimeter of island; in some areas fencing and hydro poles encroach on the dike

8. Appurtenant Structures2 W‐3136 Internal drainage network in poor condition, ditches on private land not maintained, several culverts under‐ sized or plugged; no ditches draining Katzie First Nation; pump station has several safety deficiencies and will reach end of useful life in 5 years; flood‐box (2 ‐ 5'x5 concrete boxes with hinged gates) requires stop‐logs for back‐up; 2008 recommendation to lower and upgrade flood‐box and add pump to pump station

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Barnston Island Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 5: Barnston Island Dike Segment 1: 8+000 to 2+438 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements2 W‐3136 Incorporated under Drainage Ditch and Dike Act, originally to expire on Dec 31, 2010 but extended to Dec 31, 2015. Proposed transfer of dike responsibilities and assets to Metro Vancouver; concerns with transfer include: lack of full legal ROW, lack of maintenance agreement with MOTI and legal authority for dike section crossing Katzie IR No.3; dike and appurtenant works currently maintained by BIDD on annual budget raised from levy paid by land owners, upkeep done on volunteer basis, MOTI mows dike slopes on a cost‐share basis. No proper OM

2. Geometry1 Side slopes of 1.5H:1V are over‐steep and do not meet BC Dike Design and Construction Guide standards for agricultural dikes of 2H:1V. Crest pavement in poor condition, dyke is on average 5 m wide which exceeds standards.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3136 Lateral displacements are likely.

5. Erosion Protection2 W‐3136; DIR‐ Bank erosion occurring in several locations, some dike 042 sections have high erosion potential; annual inspection reports between 1970‐2000 noted bank erosion problems, ruts in the road pavement, some slumping of the road embankment; sections where riprap is in poor condition; foreshore erosion ongoing.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 W‐3136 Annual inspection reports between 1970‐2000 have noted rodent/muskrat activity and trees felled by beavers. Side slopes are grassed and clean of trees.

7. Encroachments3 W‐3136 Dike acts as main road around perimeter of island; in some areas fencing and hydro poles encroach on the dike; some housing within 5 m of top of bank.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 W‐3136 Internal drainage network in poor condition, ditches on private land not maintained, several culverts under‐ sized or plugged.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Barnston Island Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 5: Barnston Island Dike Segment 2: 8+000 to 2+438 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements3 W‐3136 Incorporated under Drainage Ditch and Dike Act, originally to expire on Dec 31, 2010 but extended to Dec 31, 2015. Proposed transfer of dike responsibilities and assets to Metro Vancouver; concerns with transfer include: lack of full legal ROW, lack of maintenance agreement with MOTI and legal authority for dike section crossing Katzie IR No.3; dike and appurtenant works currently maintained by BIDD on annual budget raised from levy paid by land owners, upkeep done on volunteer basis, MOTI mows dike slopes on a cost‐share basis. No proper OM

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Burnaby, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 12: Trapp Road ‐ Byrne Road (Big Bend Area) Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 7+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐ The dike is fragmented and consists of several BURNABY‐ segments of variable quality. The recently constructed 001 section between Tillicum St and Byrne Rd exceeds the DCL by 0.4 m. However, other sections are reported to have low crest elevations or spaces without any dikes. Protection is not continuous.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐ Crest width is 4m, where definable. Side slopes are BURNABY‐ reported as 4H:1V for set back sections with some 001 2H:1V sections where dike alignment crosses Kinder Morgan Pipeline. Crest width and side slopes locally meet provincial requirements. Other sections of the dike require upgrading.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DAR‐ New work and dikes at 4H:1V should be fine. There is BURNABY‐ a wide variety of dike structures along this segment 002 and geotechnical stability factors are likely of no concern for recent works but of large concern for some of the older works.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐ Liqeufaction and lateral spreading likely under larger BURNABY‐ earthquakes. 002

5. Erosion Protection1 FPP‐005; The dike section adjacent Riverbend Court is reported DAR‐ to contain uniform riprap. Other riverbank dike BURNABY‐ sections have no riprap protection and erosion issues 002 have been reported.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐081 No vegetation or animal issues reported, quality variable.

7. Encroachments2 Google Multiple railroad crossings, road crossings, highway Maps; FPP‐ crossing, GVRD sanitary main, gas pipeline. Conflict 005 with existing Kinder Morgan gas pipeline involves unacceptable settlement upon the utilities caused by linear fill of the dike. Plans reported to narrow the crest to 3 m in these areas.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 DIR‐081 2 Floodboxes, 2 Culverts, Stairs. Fenwick St Outfall and Byrne Rd Outfall flapgate pivot pins and swing arms are damaged and worn, inhibiting watertight seal. Branches and debris are accumulating in floodboxes.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Burnaby, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 12: Trapp Road ‐ Byrne Road (Big Bend Area) Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 7+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements2 DIR‐081; FPP‐ Annual inspections. Settlement gauges installed in 005; DAR‐ 1999 monitor long term settlement around a Metro BURNABY‐ Vancouver force main. In a flood sandbagging would 002 be needed to provide temporary protection. There are ROW access issues along multiple sections of this dike segment.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Burnaby, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 365: Byrne Creek Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 4+350 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.86 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DIR‐081 The channel is aggrading between the Byrne Creek sediment pond and the North Fraser Way bridge crossing which is reducing the channel capacity. The downstream end of the creek is in the Fraser floodplain and dikes are below the Fraser DCL.

2. Geometry1 Dike was built substandard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection2 Dike appears to have some riprap, condition not known.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐081 Established riparian vegetation including mature trees and shrubs is limiting access to the top of the dike, obstructing the toe, and resulting in the potential for uprooting close to the dike slopes along Byrne Creek. There is no annual vegetation management plan and permission must be granted by both MOE and DFO before any brush cutting can be carried out due to fish habitat regulations.

7. Encroachments3 FPP‐005 Railroad crossing ROW, Road crossing, Highway Crossing of approximately 35 m width, GVRD Sanitary Main, Gas Pipeline.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC; DIR‐ 6 Floodboxes, 1 culvert of unknown dimensions. No 081 issues reported for upgraded Byrne Creek floodbox.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 FPP‐005 One gate on the Byrne Creek floodbox is typically left open to allow for fish passage and regular exchange of estuarine waters. In the event of a flood warning the floodbox needs to be inspected/tested to ensure operation allows for a proper seal during a flood event.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chehalis Indian Band Deficiency Matrix Dike 379: Chehalis Dike Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 2+365 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.38 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 ABD‐ The crest elevation roughly equals the DCL (eg. at CHEHALIS; W‐ approx 1+150 the crest is at 22.0m and DCL is 22.0m), 2812 meeting standards. The channel is aggrading in the lower reaches of the Chehalis River, monitoring and channel maintenance is required.

2. Geometry3 ABD‐ The crest width is reported as 4m. Landside slopes CHEHALIS range from 2H:1V to 3H:1V and riverside slopes are 2H:1V where upgrades were completed. The new works appear to meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DIR‐082 No seepage or piping reported from 2013 dike inspection. Dike dimensions are appropriate. Side slopes are steeper than recommended for general dikes.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 ABD‐ Riprap protection along the riverside slope is CHEHALIS comprised of Type, 1, 2, and 3 rock with nominal thicknesses of 650, 400, and 280mm material, built to a slope of 2H:1V. Gabion baskets provide stability at upstream end of dike.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐082 No significant vegetation reported to be growing on the dike slopes, however recolonisation from surrounding riparian area will require that the annual vegetation maintenance plan is carried out.

7. Encroachments4 DIR‐082; No significant encroachments reported from 2013 Google Maps inspection or noted from satellite imagery.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMap BC No significant appurtenant structures reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DAR‐ No ROW access issues reported, Annual monitoring CHEHALIS‐ inspection, O&M Manual. 002

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 2: Vedder Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 4+138 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐013; DIR‐ The DCL at an approximate middle chainage of 003; DIR‐ 2+000m is 11.2m and the crest elevation is 11.2m. 079; DIR‐ Overall the dike meets the the 2003 BC Dike Design 040; ADB‐ and Construction Guide minimum freeboard ABB‐001; requirement of 0.3m. Gravel deposition needs to be iMap BC monitored.

2. Geometry3 FPP‐009 Crests from recent upgrades are reported to have been designed to a 4m width. Both riverside and landside slopes are reported as 2.5H:1V almost meeting standards. Ground conditions around the dike toe have been improved.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 FPP‐009; New seepage control infrastructure including releif ABD‐ABB‐009 drains were incorperated into the upgraded section.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 FPP‐009; Liqeufaction and lateral spreading likely under larger ABD‐ABB‐009 earthquakes.

5. Erosion Protection4 FPP‐009; DIR‐ No significant riprap erosion protection reported. 003; DIR‐ Riverside slope typically constructed with fill having a 079; DIR‐040; 75mm particle size 83‐100% finer. No concerns in inspection reports, the dike is typically set back from the river bank.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐003; DIR‐ No significant vegetation or animal issues reported 079; DIR‐040; from 2013 inspection. Annual vegetation management program is in place.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐003; DIR‐ Private properties are located adjacent to dike. Road 079; DIR‐ crossing of approximately 6m. 040; Google Earth; iMap;

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐083 No significant appurtenant structures reported except at outlet.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐083 No significant ROW access issues reported. O&M Manual

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 15: West Dike Dike Segment 1: 11+524 to 3+200 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.89 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐004 The dike is generally below the design flood water surface.

2. Geometry4 iMap BC; Crest width is 5m. Landside slopes are 3H:1V and ABD‐CHIL‐ riverside slopes 2.5H:1V. Riverside slopes have erosion 001; LMDIM‐ protection along both sides of the Vedder Canal. CHILLIWACK

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 FPP‐006 During the freshet seepage and piping are a concern. Relief drains were implemented in recent upgrades closer to the Fraser River sections of the dike.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 FPP‐006 Liqeufaction and lateral spreading likely under larger earthquakes.

5. Erosion Protection4 LMDIM‐ There is erosion protection, size and condition CHILLIWACK unknown but assumed to be adequate.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐083 No significant vegetation or animal activity reported from recent 2013 inspection. Annual vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments3 LMDIM‐ Spectra Gas Pipeline ROW, and BC Hydro ROW. Private CHILLIWACK properties and a golf course are located adjacent to the dike. No access issues reported from 2013 inspection.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐083 2 Pump Stations, and 4 Floodboxes with no reported issues from latest inspection report. Spectra pipeline crosses the dike.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 CHI‐OM‐M‐1No reported ROW access restrictions. Operations and Maintenance Manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 16: Town Dyke (and Wolfe Road pump station) Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 4+245 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.86 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐013 Dike does not meet freeboard requirements. For example, the DCL at an approximate middle chainage of 3+000m is 12.6m and the crest elevation 11.5m.

2. Geometry2 ABD‐CHIL‐ The geometry of the dike varies from 10m at road 001; iMap BC surfaces to 4m near Hope Slough. Both riverside and landside slopes appear to be 2H:1V and have no erosion protection, not meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐083 Insufficient data to assess ‐ No seepage or piping reported from 2013 inspection.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic Likely underlain by sands that may be liquefiable.

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐083 There is no significant erosion protection. Dike is well set back from Fraser River and erosive potential of Hope Slough is likely minimal.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐083 Light vegetation on dike slopes. No issues reported but requires brushing.

7. Encroachments3 LMDIM‐ Multiple road crossings and private properties exist CHILLIWACK; adjacent to the dike. No issues reported. Google Maps; DIR‐ 083

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐083 1 Pump Station, 5 Floodboxes with no issues reported

9. Administrative Arrangements4 CHI‐OM‐M‐1No ROW access issues reported. Operations and Maintenance Manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 17: Island 22 ( Wing Dike) Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+919 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.43 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐004 Dike does not meet freeboard requirements. The DCL at an approximate middle chainage of 1+000m is 13.2m and the crest elevation is 12.8m.

2. Geometry2 ABD‐CHIL‐001 Crest width is 5m and forms a gravel road. Side slopes are designed at 2H:1V and do not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐083 Insufficient geotechnical data to assess ‐ No seepage or piping reported from 2013 inspection. Wide crest. Dike slopes are generally ok but a 2H:1V water side slope is a little steep.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic Likely underlain by sands that may be liquefiable.

5. Erosion Protection1 DIR‐083 Riprap in place along downstream section riverbank but severe erosion has been reported.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DIR‐083 No significant vegetation or animal activity reported. However grasses, shrubs and trees are present.

7. Encroachments4 Google No encroachments reported from 2013 inspection. Maps; Google Earth

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMap BC No significant Appurtenant Structures reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 CHI‐OM‐M‐1No ROW access issues reported. Operations and Maintenance Manual available. Dike/ erosion protection not maintained.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 17: Island 22 ( Wing Dike) Dike Segment 2: 1+919 to 3+437 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.71 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐004 Dike crest falls below the design flood level for entire segment for example the DCL at an approximate middle chainage of 2+500m is 11.9m and the crest elevation is 11.5m. The dike forms the Cartmell Rd embankment. A short section was re‐aligned in 2014 due to erosion issues and may be slightly higher. Dike does not tie into high ground.

2. Geometry3 iMap BC; OR‐ Crest surface is paved (Cartmell Rd) and 8m wide. The 037 upgraded dike section landside slope was constructed at 2.5H:1V or 2H:1V if the height was >2m, and riverside slope was constructed at 2H:1V with and without riprap protection.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐083 Insufficient geotechnical data to assess ‐ No seepage or piping reported from 2013 inspection. Dike slopes are generally too steep.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic Likely underlain by sands that may be liquefiable.

5. Erosion Protection2 DIR‐083 Riprap protection is in place along LB of Minto Slough and in some locations has deteriorated with loss of material and erosion.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐083 No significant vegetation or animal activity reported from 2013 inspection. From photos, dike is vegetated with grass and shrubs.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐083 Several driveway, boat ramp approximately 15m wide.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐083 Culvert of unreported dimensions. Stairs. No issues reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 CHI‐OM‐M‐1Dike ROW have no reported access issues. Operations and Maintenance Manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 18: Hope Slough Wall Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+170 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.71 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 ABD‐CHIL‐ Dike does not meet freeboard requirements. The DCL 001; OR‐013 at an approximate middle chainage of 0+500m is 12.7m and the crest elevation is 11.4m.

2. Geometry3 iMap BC; The structure is a flood wall with a crest width of 0.8m. ABD‐CHIL‐001

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General iMap BC; DIR‐ Concrete Wall with caulking joints inspected and no 083 issues reported. Unknown foundation soil conditions.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic The base of the wall may experience lateral displacement during an earthquake

5. Erosion Protection3 No erosion protection. Bank below flood wall is densely vegetated and flow velocities slow. Still some erosion potential from trees overtopping.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DIR‐083 Trees are growing adjacent to the riverside of the flood wall. Vegetation management and weed wacking is conducted annually but appears inadequate. (To some degree, vegetation stabilizes base of flood wall).

7. Encroachments3 Road crossing where the Menzies St Bridge crosses the slough and bisects the wall with a 15 m wide section. Housing nearby.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐083 8 storm sewer outfalls/pumping chambers all reported to be in good condition from 2103 inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐083; CHI‐ No significant ROW access issues reported from 2013 OM‐M‐1 inspection. However, private properties located next to flood wall. Operations and Maintenance Manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 19: East Dike Rosedale to Young Rd Dike Segment 1: 0+034 to 3+434 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐013 The dike generally has a freeboard of 0.5 m but there are some lower spots. Design profile is potentially influenced by gravel depositions and lateral channel activity.

2. Geometry3 iMap BC; Crest width is typically 5m as a minimum. Landside ABD‐CHIL‐003 slope is 2.5H:1V, and riverside slope is 2H:1V. (The as‐ built drawings report a crest width of 3.650m, and a riverside slope with no erosion protection of 2H:1V, which does not meet standards.) It appears crest widths were built wider, especially in the areas where the dike is used as a road.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 ABD‐CHIL‐002 The dikes were constructed from sands and gravels readily available from the Chilliwack area and a reference to 'dirty sand and gravel' being placed on the riverside of the dike was made. Relief pits, relief wells, and slough blankets are in place to provide groundwater pressure relief. Dikes may be quite permeable in locations but should be stable.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 ABD‐CHIL‐002 Loose wet sands may be prone to liquefaction and lateral spreading

5. Erosion Protection3 LMDIM‐ Riprap protection is in place along dike sections CHILLIWACK; running immediately adjacent to the LB of the Fraser DIR‐083 River. Some erosion and loss of material was noted near Camp Slough. The river bank is actively eroding in some areas from undercutting of the bank toe. Bathymetric monitoring program in place.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐083 Dike slopes are vegetated and there is a bi‐yearly vegetation management program. Particularly vegetation is monitored and cleared from relief wells and relief pits.

7. Encroachments3 LMDIM‐ Pipeline crossing of unknown dimensions; road CHILLIWACK; crossing the dike is approximately 10m wide. Multiple Google private properties exist adjacent to the dike but ROW Earth; DIR‐ encroachment has not been reported. 083

8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐002; DIR‐ Floodbox, CHIP outlet structure. No issues reported. 083

9. Administrative Arrangements4 CHI‐OM‐M‐1Dike ROW appears to be intact, with no access restrictions reported. O&M Manual

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 19: East Dike Rosedale to Young Rd Dike Segment 2: 3+434 to 16+468 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.89 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐013 Dike freeboard is less than 0.6m, averaging from 0.2 to 0.5 m. The design profile is sensitive to gravel depositions and lateral shifting of the river. Water levels are affected by two‐dimensional flow patterns.

2. Geometry3 iMap BC; Crest width is typically reported as 5m. The 2007 ABD‐CHIL‐ upgrades report a landside slope of 2.5H:1V, and 003; FPP‐008 riverside slope of 2H:1V. The riverside slope appears not to meet standards even though 2011 upgrade report states that the 2003 BC Dike Design and Construction Guide Best Management practices were followed. Older sections may be slightly deficient in the riverside slope steepness.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 ABD‐CHIL‐002 The dikes were constructed from sands and gravels readily available from the Chilliwack area and a reference to 'dirty sand and gravel' being placed on the riverside of the dike was made. Relief pits, relief wells, and slough blankets are in place to provide groundwater pressure relief. Dikes may be quite permeable in locations but should be stable.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 ABD‐CHIL‐002 Loose wet sands may be prone to liquefaction and lateral spreading

5. Erosion Protection3 LMDIM‐ Erosion protection exists along LB of Fraser River for CHILLIWACK; downstream reach. No major problems reported from FPP‐010 2013 inspection. Extensive previous bank erosion at Carey Point.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐083 Unauthorized construction of irrigation piping. Multiple private properties exist adjacent to the dike but ROW encroachment has not been reported.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 OR‐002; DIR‐ 4 Floodboxes and a culvert of unreported dimensions. 083 All floodboxes inspected and exercised with no issues reported.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 19: East Dike Rosedale to Young Rd Dike Segment 2: 3+434 to 16+468 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 FPP‐010; CHI‐ The majority of the dike is constructed within existing OM‐M‐1 ROW's. One section of dike that did not have statutory ROW registered when dike footprint was widened resulted in the City entering into negotiations with the land owner. The land owner provided consent for a fence to be built along ROW boundary and the easement was registered after construction was completed. Operations and Maintenance Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 20: Vedder River Set Back Dike Segment 1: 3+925 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DIR‐007; DIR‐ The DCL at an approximate middle chainage (XS35 in 046; DIR‐ 2014 report) is 10.0m and the crest elevation of the 083; ABD‐ left and right banks are 11.2m and 10.5m respectively. CHIL‐001; OR‐ (Specified freeboard = 0.75 m?). Unclear if dikes tie 003; ABD‐ into high ground at upstream ends. ABB‐009; iMap; Google Earth:

2. Geometry3 DIR‐007; DIR‐ The crest width varies from 3 to 5m, small portions of 046; DIR‐ the landside slopes are oversteepened to 1.5H:1V. 083; ABD‐ Most of the dike has riverside slopes in the range of CHIL‐001; OR‐ 3H:1V and landside slopes 4H:1V consistent with the 003; ABD‐ original design. ABB‐009; iMap; Google Earth; ABD‐ CHIL‐004

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 ABD‐CHIL‐ The dyke is appropriately dimensioned. Foundation 004; ABD‐ soils are typically granular. Some areas have a silt CHIL‐001; crust that may cause heave of the base. There may be ABD‐ABB‐009 some zones with thicker silt beneath the dike where settlement may be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 ABD‐CHIL‐ Foundations soils are typically compact to dense but 004; ABD‐ there are some loose granular zones that may liquefy CHIL‐001; and induce lateral spreading. ABD‐ABB‐009

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐007; DIR‐ Dikes are partly protected with riprap. Some loss of 046; DIR‐ rock reported along RB section. Status of erosion 083; Google protection requires annual monitoring. Earth; iMap

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐007; DIR‐ No significant vegetation or animal issues reported 046; DIR‐ from 2013 inspection. Annual vegetation management 083; Google program is in place. Earth; iMap

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐007; DIR‐ Roads, fences and private property are adjacent to the 046; DIR‐ dike on the land side. 083; Google Earth; iMap

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 20: Vedder River Set Back Dike Segment 1: 3+925 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐007; DIR‐ Multiple floodboxes. No issues reported from 2013 046; DIR‐ inspection, all are noted as clear and in good condition. 083; Google Earth; iMap

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐083 No significant ROW access issues reported. O&M Manual

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Chilliwack, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 381: Cattermole Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 3+600 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.86 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐004 The dike has no freeboard and is substandard, eg. at an approximate middle chainage of 1+800m, the DCL is 11.6m and the crest elevation is 11.0m.

2. Geometry3 Roads run along top of dike and crest width likely exceeds standards. Sideslopes may be oversteep but adequate considering extra crest width.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐083 No seepage or piping reported from 2013 dike inspection.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection4 Google Riverside slope along log sort slough appears to have Earth; DIR‐ riprap protection. Setback dike sections do not have 083 any armouring.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐083 Small shrubs and grasses growing along dike slopes. No significant vegetation issues reported and annual mowing conducted.

7. Encroachments3 Google Maps Multiple road crossings and driveways cross the dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐083 Pump station and floodbox reported to be in good condition.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 CHI‐OM‐M‐1 Industrial properties located adjacent to the dike but no ROW issues reported. O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Colebrook Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 22: Colebrook Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 3+154 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐029; DIR‐ The crest does not meet freeboard standards the 094; OR‐041 downstream section, exposed to Mud Bay, is significantly below the required height.

2. Geometry1 OR‐029 Upstream section has a crest width of 3.5 m and side slopes that range between 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V. The downstream section exposed to Mud Bay has oversteepened side slopes, particularly on the landside slope where 1H:1V or steeper slopes are noted.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 OR‐029;DAR‐ Some settlement of the dike has occurred. Dike MUD‐001 subsidence is of primary concern as silty sediments prevail in this location. No seepage or piping reported. Dikes are mostly riprapped. Some sloughing noted by Golder. Settlement and foundation bearing failure may be a concern with dike raises.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 DAR‐MUD‐ Strain softening of the foundation soils likely during an 001 earthquake and lateral spreading/bearing failure possible with steep dikes.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐MUD‐ The original dike had riprap protection along much of 001 the riverside slope. However some sections show sloughing and a erosion. Loss of material is reported at multiple locations along the dike. Mud Bay is described as being a low energy bay resulting in low erosive stresses to the dike, however, wave action is reported.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DAR‐MUD‐ No significant vegetation or animal issues reported 001

7. Encroachments2 DAR‐MUD‐ Highway 99 crosses the dike and is approximately 50 001; Google m wide shoulder to shoulder. Railway also crosses dike Earth with a 20 m wide section before it enters Mud Bay Park. Dike footprint is confined on the landside by farm ditches.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 DAR‐MUD‐ Two floodboxes are located along the upstream 001 section: The first is reported as being plugged and no longer used and the second is reportedly in good working condition. The downstream section has a pump station with 3 floodboxes and 3 pump outlets. The flood boxes are in working condition, however flapgates have extensive oyster growth upon them and require maintenance. A additional floodbox located west of the railway has infilled from excessive siltation.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Colebrook Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 22: Colebrook Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 3+154 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 DAR‐MUD‐ No significant access or ROW issues reported. O&M 001; SUR‐ Manual OM‐M‐1

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Coquitlam, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 26: Marathon Industrial Park Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+900 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.14 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 DAR‐ The DCL is 5.25m at the junction of the Coquitlam and COQUITLAM‐ Fraser Rivers and the crest elevation is on average 4.7 005; DAR‐ m with low spots of 4.13 m‐ the dike does not meet COQUITLAM‐ freeboard requirements. 001; OR‐047

2. Geometry1 Not known, assumed to be sub‐standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐047 No seepage or piping issues reported. No geotechnical data available.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data available.

5. Erosion Protection3 LMDIM‐ Riprap protection along Fraser Riverbank with no COQUITLAM issues reported

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐104 Vegetation in the form of mature trees growing close to the toe

7. Encroachments2 Google Earth Boat ramp approximately 10 m wide underneath Port Mann Bridge

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐047 1 Pump Station and 3 Floodboxes. No issues reported

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DIR‐047 Downstream end of dike runs adjacent to private property owned by Procrane Inc. However existing City of Coquitlam ROW for dike / flood protection is identified on the land title. Upstream end of dike runs through the Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area which is BC Crown Lands.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Coquitlam, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 27: Coquitlam Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+200 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.50 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐ On the Coquitlam River the DCL is 7.3m just upstream COQUITLAM‐ of the mouth of Scott Creek and the crest elevation is 001; DAR‐ reported as 7.5m. However, for the Scott Creek COQUITLAM‐ section the 1999 survey data shows the dike is usually 004 less than 1m high. No design flood level could be found for Scott Creek. It is likely that overall the dike does not meet standards.

2. Geometry2 ABD‐PTCOQ‐ Crest width is reported to be between 4 and 3.66 m 002 for the Coquitlam River and Scott Creek sections respectively. Slopes range from 3H:1V to 2H:1V on the riverside and along the Coquitlam segment landside slopes are non‐distinguishable as properties have filled in to the dike crest elevation. Overall the dike does not appear to meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DAR‐ No seepage or piping reported from 2014 inspection. COQUITLAM‐ Dyke slopes and crest are reasonable. Crest should be 003 widened while maintaining dike slopes.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic 0

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐ No riprap erosion protection reported. COQUITLAM‐ 003

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DAR‐ Mature trees and smaller vegetation are reported to COQUITLAM‐ be growing near the toe of the dike along the Scott 003 Creek section.

7. Encroachments2 iMap BC BC Hydro ROW, Road bridge crossings, Railway ROW

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DAR‐ 2 floodboxes with no issues reported COQUITLAM‐ 003

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐ ROW issues (BC Hydro, private property.) No annual COQUITLAM‐ vegetation maintenance possible. O&M Manual. 002; COQ‐ OM‐M‐1

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 42: Boundary Bay Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 14+750 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007; DEL‐ On average dike crest is 0.5 m below the 200‐year OM‐M‐3; design flood water level.

2. Geometry3 DEL‐OM‐M‐3; In general, riverside slope of 3H:1V and landslide slope of 2.5H:1V meet standards while the crest width of 3.6 m is less than the 4 m standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 FPP‐012; OR‐ Dike geometry is currently adequate but will need to 030; W‐ be raised to accomodate flood height. Settlements are 2666; OR‐033 a major concernt to dike stability.the drainage ditch along the majority of the reach is extremely deep and uncontrolled maintenance could exacerbate seepage and piping issues; land elevations in the area behind th dike subsiding at rate of approximately 1‐2mm/yr

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 FPP‐012; OR‐ The sand layers will likely liquefy during an earthquake 030 but the location and extent of the sand is unknown. Lateral spreading likely.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐085; FPP‐ Excavated toe with 300 mm thick filter layer 012; OR‐033 comprised of 200 mm diameter crushed rock plus 1200 mm riprap layer; armoured with conventional riprap; ongoing erosion protection upgrades through 2015; deep ditch along inside toe of dike where uncontrolled ditch maintenance could exacerbate dike stability issues by deepening the ditch resulting in loss of toe stability. Existing earth dike is grass covered with no visible erosion protection on east‐west section; fetch and wave exposure is limited to the north of the dike which is primarily coastal marsh; quality of dike diminishes toward south end where there is limited erosion protection consisting of light riprap (dimensions unknown), broken concrete and concrete elements; some of lighter riprap pulled out of slope by wave action and lies scattered in the sand beyond the toe of the dyke; a longshore bar and dune system fronts the dyke along the southerly 400 m; repairs of erosion completed in 2013;

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DIR‐085; W‐ The majority of the interior dike slope is overgrown 2666 with low‐lying vegetation and inspection of the slope surface is not possible; multl‐year vegetation management plan in place; annual grading program in place.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 42: Boundary Bay Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 14+750 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 7. Encroachments2 W‐2666; OR‐ One property owner has constructed a pond inside and 033 against the dyke; some private property access along the crest is used by farming vehicles; gravel road with some paved sections located on crest.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐085; W‐ New Oliver Pumpstation in 2012 between 112th ‐ 2666 104th St., floodboxes and pumpstation upgraded under FRFCP. Beharrel station reconstructed in late 1990s/early 2000s, pump specification and design criteria unknown. Ladner Airport Pumpstation consists of 3 ‐ 30 hp, 8000 GPM pumps. Beach grove pumpstation consists of 3 pumps, 1 ‐ FLYGT 15178 GMP and 2 ‐ 32 hp, 5807 GPM. An additional pumphouse, located near 12 Ave, has 3 pumps of un‐ defined capacity. No deficiencies notes in 2011 dike inspection report.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐085; DIR‐ Regular inspection reports submitted, 048; DIR‐ Operation/Maintenance manuals available; no info on 008; DEL‐OM‐ ROW; Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal M‐3; FPP‐011 with natural hazards. Publicly maintained dike along Boundary Bay Regional Park; dyke on 12th Avenue is within existing ROW areas, but no ROW established for dyke south of 12th Avenue; no inspection report for this section in 2013.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 42: Boundary Bay Dike Segment 2: 14+750 to 17+050 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.33 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐2828; Vertical seawall at Beach Grove, 1.5 m above breach DAR‐DELTA‐ grade, known to be non‐standard and has overtopped 001 in recent events.

2. Geometry1 Does not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 The dike crest is wide but the dike slopes are too steep. Damage is likely during a flood event. Settlements may be a significant issue. Piping through the dike and dike foundation may be possible.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 The sand layers will most likely liquefy during an earthquake. Lateral spreading is likely and may be significant.

5. Erosion Protection3 W‐2828; DIR‐ 2007 condition of concrete seawall at Beach Grove 048; DAR‐ was good, no signs of abnormal weathering, spalling, DELTA‐005 cracking, corrosion, or settlement

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐048; W‐ N/A 2828

7. Encroachments3 Encroaching houses; staircases..

8. Appurtenant Structures4 N/A

9. Administrative Arrangements2 OR‐030; W‐ Private seawalls do not form a continuous, uniform 2828; DAR‐ barrier; Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal DELTA‐001; with natural hazards. DIR‐085; ; FPP‐011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 43: Westham Island ‐ SeaReach/Canoe Pass Dike Segment 1: 9+156 to 13+734 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 DAR‐DELTA‐ The dike section was constructed without freeboard 001 and the dike crest is less than 0.3 m above the 200‐ year design flood level. It does not meet standards. Other dike segments at island are even lower and will overtop sooner than this section. Island is accessible over one‐lane wooden bridge.

2. Geometry3 W‐2666 Side slopes are 2H:1V which meet agricultural dike standards but crest width is 3.6 m and does not meet the 4m standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐DELTA‐ Slopes of dike are steep and stability problems may 007; OR‐030 occur during flood event. Piping and ground heave are possible. Some settlement should be expected.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Soil liquefaction and lateral spreading probable. 007; OR‐030

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐085 No erosion protection exists. No major erosion issues noted in recent inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 Multi‐year vegetation management plan in place, and no major issues noted in previous dike inspection report.

7. Encroachments2 Main road runs along top of dike and underground utilities encroach upon dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐085 7 flood boxes consisting of 12", 24", and 30" CMP culverts with flapgate and irrigation gate run along dike segment. Condition of floodgates unknown but no major issues noted in recent inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Some sections of Westham Island is without ROWs; 001 Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal with natural hazards, and multi‐year vegetation management plan in place.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 43: Westham Island ‐ SeaReach/Canoe Pass Dike Segment 2: 7+749 to 9+156 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Constructed without freeboard; dike crest is on 001; W‐2666 average 0.2 m below the design flood water level with sections 0.6 m below design flood water surface along bird sanctuary road.

2. Geometry2 W‐2666 Side slopes are 4H:1V which exceeds agricultural dike standards in the BC Dike Design and Construction Guidelines. Crest width of 6.7 m exceeds dike crest width standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Piping and ground heave are possible. Some 007; OR‐030 settlement should be expected.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Soil liquefaction and lateral spreading probable. 007; OR‐030

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐085 No erosion protection. No major erosion issues noted in recent inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 Multi‐year vegetation management plan in place, and no major issues noted in previous dike inspection report.

7. Encroachments3 Main road runs along top of dike and underground utilities encroach upon dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐085 36" and 30" dia. concrete pipes with flapgate and irrigation gate. Condition of floodboxes unknown but no major issues noted in recent inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Some sections of Westham Island without ROWs; 001; ; FPP‐ Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal with 011 natural hazards, and multi‐year vegetation management plan in place.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 43: Westham Island ‐ SeaReach/Canoe Pass Dike Segment 3: 13+734 to 15+722 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Most of the dike segment is constructed with dike 001 crest elevation that exceeds DCL. 1.5 km of the segment has a minimum freeboard of 0.3 m. Low point in dike at Westham Island Road that has crest elevation below design flood elevation. Flooding may occur from overtopping of lower dike segments on island.

2. Geometry3 W‐2666 Side slopes are 3H:1V and 2H:1V for landside and riverside respectively which meet agricultural dike standards in the BC Dike Design and Construction Guidelines. Crest width of 3 m does not meet the 4m dike crest width standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Settlement of the dike will occur during dike raises. 007; OR‐030; Minor instability and piping/heave of the foundation FPP‐011 may be expected locally.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Soil liquefaction and lateral spreading probable. 007; OR‐030; FPP‐011

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐085; W‐ River instability and toe scour observed in 2002; no 2666 bank protection noted. No major issues noted in recent inspection; inspection reports not available for all sections of Westham Island dike each year.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 Multi‐year vegetation management plan in place, and no major issues noted in previous dike inspection report.

7. Encroachments3 FPP‐011 Trim Road runs along top of dike section, which is used by a few residents and occasionally trafficked by heavy farm equipment. Westham Road crosses dike and results in dike crest elevation below design flood elevation.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐085 1 ‐ 30" dia. CMP with flapgate and irrigation gate and 1‐ 24" concrete pipe. Condition of floodboxes unknown but no major issues noted in recent inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 43: Westham Island ‐ SeaReach/Canoe Pass Dike Segment 4: 0+237 to 3+800 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Dike crest elevation on average at design flood water 001 surface elevation with portions of dike crest providing 0.3 m of freeboard. High point in dike near London Slough providing greater than 2 m freeboard.

2. Geometry3 W‐2666 Side slopes are 2H:1V which meet agricultural standards. Crest width of 3.6 m does not meet the 4m dike crest width standard.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Soil liquefaction and lateral spreading probable. 007; OR‐030

5. Erosion Protection1 DIR‐085; River instability and toe scour noted in 2002; scour W2666; DAR‐ hole not repaired in 2007 works; active erosion and DELTA‐007 slumping observed during 2007 works on slopes just upstream of existing flood box that empties into Fraser reach near Kirkland Road; deterioration/damage to dike crest and slopes and slumping observed in 2011 inspection, unsure if addressed since 2013 inspection report does not note any issues; inspection reports not available for all sections of Westham Island dike each year

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 No issues noted in inspection reports, multi‐year veg management plan in place

7. Encroachments3 Road runs along top of dike, dike passes through marina

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐085; DIR‐ Structures consist of 1 ‐ 1.2 m dia. CMP, no mention of 048; DIR‐008 flapgate; 2‐1.2 m dia. PVC pipes with slide gates and concrete headwalls; 1‐0.6 m dia. PVC pipe with concrete headwalls and irrigation control slide gates; 2 ‐ 24"dia. 56' long CMP with flapgate, screen, and landside irrigation screw gate. Condition of floodboxes unknown but no major issues noted in recent inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 44: Marina Gardens Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 3+500 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.67 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 On average dike crest meets or exceeds the DCL of 3.5 m GD. One low spot in dike crest that is 0.5 m below design flood water surface elevation.

2. Geometry3 Crest width of 4 m and landside slope of 3H:1V meet standards. Waterside slope steeper than 2.5H:1V standard at 2H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 OR‐001 Some settlement can be expected. Landside slope of 2H:1V is acceptable given dike height and crest width.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐001 Soil liquefaction very likely. Lateral displacement are a concern.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐085; W‐ No major issues noted in recent inspection; portions of 2666 dyke along Green Slough are currently retained by lock‐ block wall and require assessment to determine if stability acceptable.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 No issues noted in inspection reports, woody vegetation; multi‐year veg management plan in place

7. Encroachments1 iMapBC Dike passes through ship yard, groyne, parking lot at north end; Ferry Road runs along top of dike; housing developments immediately adjacent to dike crest on southern section and dike passes through fenced yards.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐085; One floodbox located on Ferry Road near River Road. No type, dimensions, or conditions of floodbox listed but no major issues noted in recent inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 FPP‐011; OR‐ Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal with 001 natural hazards; OM manual available; limited access through marina and golf course

2. Geometry3 W‐2666 Side slopes and dike crest width meet or exceed standards. Some sections have oversteepend side slopes but deficiencies are unlikely to compromise stability.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Some settlement should be expect in portions of the 006; W‐2666 dike. Some minor seepage problems through the foundation are possible. Potential river bank instability due to sediment transport and dredging, dyke toe instability and close proximity to interior ditches in some segments

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. 006; W‐2666

5. Erosion Protection2 DIR‐085; W‐ 2002 observations of erosion of dike and overbank 2666 slopes in isolated areas and riprap appears undersized; loss of rock and 12 m section eroded away near Annacis Island ‐ to be rebuilt with tailing and armourment June/July 2013; boat waves in Deas Slough have increased erosion of overbank in past. Approximately 300 m of existing bank protection requires replacement with larger size, properly engineered rip rap near 3+871 m.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 No issues noted in inspection report, multi‐year veg management plan in place

7. Encroachments1 W‐266; River road runs along top of dike; section where fence iMapBC; runs along right side adjacent to hotel; dike runs through cement plant where there is no access and cannot be surveyed; fencing in some sections; Highway 99 transects the dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 45: River Road DELTA Dike Segment 1: 0+152 to 13+134 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures3 W‐2666; 10 floodbox structures consisting of CMPs, rectangular DAR‐DELTA‐ concrete floodboxes and concrete pipes, and 1 timber 002 box. All structures have gates and trash screens. In 2002, a full structural inspection was to be conducted of Mitchell Floodbox (timber box structure). Operation of some drainage structures may need review; Macdonald pump stations consists of 2‐ 60hp 14,500 GPM pumps. Tilbury pump station consists of 1 ‐ 30hp, 3827 GPM pump. Pump stations function well during storms; conveyance restrictions are primary cause for drainage concerns.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐DELTA‐ No ROW on Tilbury Island east of Hopcott Road where 001; FPP‐011 dike runs through cement plant; Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal with natural hazards, OM manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 45: River Road DELTA Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 1+814 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 Dike crest level from 0+000 to 0+800 is below design flood level of 2.9 m. From 0+800 to 1+900 dike crest elevation provides 0.3 m of freeboard. None of the dike segment crest elevations is at or exceeds the DCL. Gap in dike at Chisholm St approx. 400m), opening currently sandbagged during high flow.

2. Geometry3 Side slopes and dike crest width generally meet standards. Some sections have oversteepend side slopes but deficiencies are unlikely to compromise stability.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Golder 2014 completed geotechnical investigation and 006; W‐2666 seismic stability analyis ‐ low risk of piping failure on landside of dike, Factor of Safety failur above 1.5, stable against flood loads and ground water flow; liquefaction potential of overbank silt and loose sand deposits is low under 100 year earthquake, high under 475 year and 2475 year earthquake level

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. 006; W‐2666

5. Erosion Protection3 W‐2666 Ongoing erosion of dike slope along Deas Slough; dike segment not in direct contact with Fraser River current. Dike is not set‐back from river but riverside slope of 3H:1V meets standards for unprotected bank slope.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 River Road runs along crest of dike with development along both banks. Grass and small trees growing along banks. No annual dike inspection report.

7. Encroachments2 W‐2666 River Road runs along dike crest; development along Regatta Way has obscured original dyke crest. Structures densely constructed adjacent to the dike which could pose problems for future upgrades to dike. Industrial buildings and docks built along riverside slope.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 3 ‐ 5'x7' concrete box floodboxes with gates and trash screen downstream of Green Slough pumpstation which consists of 2 ‐ 100hp, 22000 GPM pumps, 1 ‐ 44hp, 12010 gpm pump and 1 ‐ 32996 GPM pump. Condition of structures known as there is no annual dike inspection report.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 45: River Road DELTA Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 1+814 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements1 FPP‐011; DIR‐ ROW west of Westminster Ave. are either not being 085 enforced or are not acquired. Dike crest needs to be defined here otherwise alternate crest location should be formalized (approx 900 m). Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal with natural hazards; annual inspection reports do not cover this dike section.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 45: River Road DELTA Dike Segment 3: 0+000 to 6+332 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 DAR‐DELTA‐ Crest levels generally above design flood level and 001; W‐2666 provide 0.3 m of freeboard. Between Ellliot and entrance to Ladner Harbour, dyke in and around businesses is fragmented and non‐standard. Low and discontinuous dyke crest and obstructed dyke crest west of Elliot Road; low dyke crest at Westham Island Bridge; obscured dike crest in some areas; Chisholm Street has low areas and non‐standard dike sections.

2. Geometry1 Water side slope is generally oversteep at 2H:1V compared to standard of 2.5H:1V. Landside slope of 2.5H:1V is at standard; crest width of 3.6 m is under 4 m standard.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. 006; W‐2666

5. Erosion Protection2 W‐2666; The overbank amongst the private residences is iMapBC eroding in some locations, and an oversteepened toe was observed. There is no erosion protection from Ladner Harbor to the Mason Canal. Recent work has been done in the Canoe Pass below the water level. No riprap at Brunswick Point where overbank is extensive and there is a low potential of erosion. Dimensions and gradation of bank protection unknown.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 River Road runs along crest of dike with development along both banks. Grass and small trees growing along banks. No annual dike inspection report.

7. Encroachments1 iMapBC; W‐ Residential access and fences along dike in some 2666 sections; River Road runs along dike crest; between Elliot Street and entrance to Ladner Harbour, crest is occupied by number of commercial and industrial businesses; numerous structure have been constructed on the overbank, across dike crest, on dike slopes.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 45: River Road DELTA Dike Segment 3: 0+000 to 6+332 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures3 W‐2666 Chilukthan Pumpstation, 1‐44hp 6600 GPM, 1‐100hp 20000 GPM, and 1‐ 33000 GPM pump. Mason Pumpstation, 1‐3432 GPM, 2‐ 42245 GPM pumps. Condition of pumps unknown, no annual dike inspection report.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐DELTA‐ Inadequate rights of way width along the 4100 blocks 001; FPP‐ of River Road W for future dike raising initiatives; no 011; W‐2666 ROWs for some parcels in the 3100 to 3500 blocks of River Road West, private ownership of the overbank limits the Corporation's ability to mitigate the erosion. Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal with natural hazards; annual inspection reports do not cover this dike section; Delta has standard operating guidelines to sandbag deficient areas (gaps in dykes and walls) during high water conditions

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Delta, Corporation of Deficiency Matrix Dike 46: Delta ‐ Sea Dike Segment 1: 6+332 to 10+698 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.67 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐DELTA‐ Majority of dike crest elevation is at DCL of 3.4 m GDC. 002; OR‐007 Some minor section below DCL but provide 0.3 m of freeboard. Ties into River Road dike and Tsawwassen First Nation Dike

2. Geometry3 W‐2666 Side slopes and dike crest width meet or exceed standards. Some sections have oversteepend side slopes but deficiencies are unlikely to compromise stability.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐2666; DEL‐ Settlements are likely. Seepage through the dike and OM‐M‐3 foundation may cause piping. Potential of dyke instability, piping, etc. at Brunswick Point due to shifting thalweg

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐2666; DEL‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. OM‐M‐3

5. Erosion Protection2 DIR‐085; W‐ Isolated regions of bank protection creep and 2666 slumping; sand boils observed at toe of dyke near Morris Road; no issues noted in 2013 inspection report; some very minor loss of rock on TFN lands noted in 2011; riprap upgrades noted in 2012 inspection report, dimensions and gradation not noted.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 No issues noted in 2011‐2013 inspection reports, multi‐ year vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments3 Major highway Deltaport Way crosses dyke, south end at Ferry Causeway, crest is not used as a road. The crest is gated or obstructed with no‐post barrier along Canoe Pass. There are few access points to the dike along Roberts Bank.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐085 Five steel pipes and corrugated steel arches run through the dike, condition of these structures unknown but no issues noted in 2011‐2013 inspection reports.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 W‐2666; FP‐ There are few access points to dyke along Roberts 011; OR‐002 Bank at Brunswick Point; Delta has an Emergency Response Plan to deal with natural hazards; Portion owned by TFN starts at 34th Street, continues to where the sea dike meets the breakwater dike and extends east to 41B street: Corporation of Delta is responsible for annual inspections, maintenance and minor repairs. Ownership of dike is split between Tsawassen FN and Corporation of Delta.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Dewdney Area Improvement District Deficiency Matrix Dike 47: Dewdney Dike Segment 1: 6+000 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐004; OR‐ Crest levels fall below design flood levels by a max of ‐ 012; FPP‐ 0.3 m. Most of the crest is approximately 0.1m above 014; DAR‐ design levels. Dewdney‐001

2. Geometry3 GoogleEarth Dike updated in 2007; Crest width meets applicable / ArcGIS Esri standards, crest width= 4 m, but landside slope varies topography; from 2‐3H:1V, waterside slope = 2.5H:1V). OR‐004; OR‐ 012; FPP‐ 014; DAR‐ Dewdney‐001

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 FPP‐014 High flood height and 2.5H:1V landside slope could lead to piping through the dike during flood events. Heave of the ground is possible in a few locations where thin silt crusts are present over sand.Settlements are likely due to thickness of clayey silt in the foundation. Landslide slope may have stability issues during high flood levels.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 FPP‐014 Liqeufaction of the underlain sands is likely but the thick clayey silt that is present throughout most of the site may limit liquefaction damage. Lateral spreading is still likely, more so if the river is deep next to the dike.

5. Erosion Protection2 OR‐004; OR‐ Dike is not setback far enough from river to allow 012; FPP‐ reduced velocities. Riprap is damaged and slumping is 014; DAR‐ reported from 4104m (Newton Road) to 6635m. Dewdney‐001 Repairs should be undertaken. Protection may or may not withstand design flood. Erosion protection design details unknown.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 OR‐004; OR‐ No woody vegetation or brush obscuring dike slopes. 012; FPP‐ Vegetation is predominantly grasses that are mowed 014; DAR‐ twice yearly (spring and fall) for the full length, both Dewdney‐001 exterior and interior slopes. No reported animal burrows, other animal damage or activities impacting dike sideslopes / crest.

7. Encroachments3 OR‐004; OR‐ Roads cross the dike (Lougheed Hwy, Hatzic Slough), 012; FPP‐ causing a slight lowering in the dike crest. A main road 014; DAR‐ is located on the dike (Dike Road). No fences or Dewdney‐001 conflicting land‐uses.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Dewdney Area Improvement District Deficiency Matrix Dike 47: Dewdney Dike Segment 1: 6+000 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐004; OR‐ Pumpstations and floodboxes are in good working 012; FPP‐ order (upgraded in 2014). Seepage is prevented along 014; DAR‐ structure / dike interface. Culverts are flapgated and in Dewdney‐001 good order.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 OR‐004; OR‐ Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all 012; FPP‐ parts of the dike. DAID has no access issues to the Dike 014; DAR‐ or Pumping Stations as the majority of the land is Dewdney‐001 owned by DAID and the small amount not owned by DAID is Crown land. IOD approved OM manuals are available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports provided to IOD. DAID Dike inspection reports are done every year and forwarded to the inspector of Dikes including 2014. O&M manual unknown.

2. Geometry3 OR‐004; OR‐ Dike updated in 2007; crest width meets applicable 012; FPP‐ standards, side slopes somewhat below standards. 014; DAR‐ (Crest width= 4 m, landside slope = 2‐3H:1V, waterside Dewdney‐001 slope = 2.5H:1V).

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 FPP‐014 Heave of the ground is possible in a few locations where thin silt crusts are present over sand.Settlements are likely due to thickness of clayey silt in the foundation. Landslide slope may have stability issues during high flood levels.

5. Erosion Protection3 OR‐004; OR‐ Dike immediately adjacent to river; inspections report 012; FPP‐ that the dike has adequate erosion protection. Erosion 014; DAR‐ protection design criteria and details unavailable. Dewdney‐001

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 OR‐004; OR‐ No woody vegetation or brush obscuring dike slopes. 012; FPP‐ Vegetation is predominantly grasses that are mowed 014; DAR‐ twice yearly (spring and call) for the full length, both Dewdney‐001 exterior and interior slopes. No reported animal burrows, other animal damage or activities impacting dike sideslopes / crest.

7. Encroachments3 OR‐004; OR‐ A main road is located on the dike (Dike Road). No 012; FPP‐ fences or conflicting land‐uses. 014; DAR‐ Dewdney‐001

8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐004; OR‐ There are no appurtenant structures. 012; FPP‐ 014; DAR‐ Dewdney‐001

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Dewdney Area Improvement District Deficiency Matrix Dike 47: Dewdney Dike Segment 2: 8+702 to 6+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 OR‐004; OR‐ Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all 012; FPP‐ parts of the dike. DAID has no access issues to the Dike 014; DAR‐ or Pumping Stations as the majority of the land is Dewdney‐001 owned by DAID and the small amount not owned by DAID is Crown land. IOD approved OM manuals are available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports provided to IOD. DAID Dike inspection reports are done every year and forwarded to the inspector of Dikes including 2014. O&M manual unknown.

2. Geometry3 GoogleEarth Dike updated in 2007; crest width meets applicable / ArcGIS Esri standards, side slopes somewhat below standards. topography; (Crest width= 4 m, landside slope = 2‐3H:1V, waterside OR‐004; OR‐ slope = 2.5H:1V). 012; FPP‐ 014; DAR‐ Dewdney‐001

5. Erosion Protection3 OR‐004; OR‐ Dike is well set back from river and flow velocities are 012; FPP‐ likely low from 10500m to 12189m. Some riprap 014; DAR‐ protection is used along dike adjacent to river and Dewdney‐001 setback dike. No slumping or erosion has been reported.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 OR‐004; OR‐ No woody vegetation or brush obscuring dike slopes. 012; FPP‐ Vegetation is predominantly grasses that are mowed 014; DAR‐ twice yearly (spring and call) for the full length, both Dewdney‐001 exterior and interior slopes. No reported animal burrows, other animal damage or activities impacting dike sideslopes / crest.

7. Encroachments3 OR‐004; OR‐ Roads / RWs cross the dike (CR Railway), causing a 012; FPP‐ slight lowering in the dike crest. A main road is located 014; DAR‐ on the dike (Dike Road and Bell Road). No fences or Dewdney‐001 conflicting land‐uses.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐004; OR‐ There are no appurtenant structures. 012; FPP‐ 014; DAR‐ Dewdney‐001

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Dewdney Area Improvement District Deficiency Matrix Dike 47: Dewdney Dike Segment 3: 12+189 to 8+702 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 OR‐004; OR‐ Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all 012; FPP‐ parts of the dike. DAID has no access issues to the Dike 014; DAR‐ or Pumping Stations as the majority of the land is Dewdney‐001 owned by DAID and the small amount not owned by DAID is Crown land. IOD approved OM manuals are available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports provided to IOD. DAID Dike inspection reports are done every year and forwarded to the inspector of Dikes including 2014. O&M manual unknown.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 66: Cascade Creek Dike Segment 1: 1+570 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.14 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐FVRD‐ No up‐to‐date DCL information for this creek has been 001; OR‐016 found. Gravel deposition and channel aggradation in this section of the river is consistently high (0.6m+ every three years or so). Limited information is available about crest elevations, although a 2009 inspection suggests that dike levels are uneven and a low point was noted at 1+175m.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐FVRD‐ Dike slopes designed to 1.5V:1H (2006) and therefore 001; OR‐015; consistently inadequate. Dike crest minimum width is OR‐016; OR‐ estimated at 4m. Changes to the dike crest have been 019 observed at station 0+925m to 0+550m, where it appears the crest has been cleared and resurfaced with gravel *possibly from river gravel stockpiles near dike. This was not authorized by the diking authority.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General OR‐019 Dikes slopes are too steep and may be unstable during flood event. Golder has noted that the dike had settled previously.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic Unknown

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐FVRD‐ Riprap is located on waterside slope station from 001; OR‐018; 1+600m to 0+800m. No details are available on riprap DAR‐FVRD‐ design specifications / criteria. The dike surface was 003 observed to have minor rutting as of 2009. Long‐term riprap upgrading was recommended in 2008.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DAR‐FVRD‐ Trees, low shrub and vegetation are growing on the 001;OR‐019 riprap, on dike slopes and on the base of the dike. Sections of the dike are overgrown and the dike crest has been narrowed by the growth of small trees. No animal activity reported.

7. Encroachments1 DAR‐FVRD‐ Stations 1+400m to 1+600m form an access road and 001;OR‐020 parking lot for the regional park.

8. Appurtenant Structures1 DAR‐FVRD‐ Stations 1+400m to 1+600m form an access road and 001; OR‐016; parking lot for the regional park. No buried utilities OR‐021 cross the dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 66: Cascade Creek Dike Segment 1: 1+570 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements1 OR‐017; OR‐ There are no formal ROWs or access arrangements. 018; OR‐019; Dikes are partly blocked by private fencing. ROWs and OR‐020; DAR‐ access are inadequate (some areas are privately FVRD‐001; owned and there has been contention regarding DAR‐FVRD‐ access). There is an OM manual but inspections are 003; OR‐016 irregular and reports not provided. Inspections appear to take place only when gravel removal is reviewed. There is no emergency response plan.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 66: Cascade Creek Dike Segment 2: 0+956 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.71 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐FVRD‐ No up‐to‐date DCL information for this creek has been 003; OR‐016 found. Gravel deposition and channel aggradation in this section of the river is consistently high (0.6m+ every three years or so). Limited information is available about crest elevations, although repairs and some crest raising were completed in 2008.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐FVRD‐ Dike slopes designed to 1.5V:1H and therefore 003; OR‐015; consistently inadequate. Dike crest minimum width is OR‐016; OR‐ estimated at 4m. Repairs were made in 2008. 019

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General OR‐019 Dikes slopes are too steep and may be unstable during flood event. Golder has noted that the dike had settled previously.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic Unknown

5. Erosion Protection1 DAR‐FVRD‐ Riprap protection along sections of dike; some 003; OR‐016 installed/repaired in 2008. Riprap design specifications unknown. Recommendations made for extension of bank protection and upgrading of existing works in 2008. This area has a history of avulsions.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 GoogleEarth Small woody vegetation located on/near dam slopes. 2015 image; No inspection reports available. DAR‐FVRD‐ 003; OR‐016; OR‐019

7. Encroachments2 OR‐017; OR‐ There are no formal ROWs or access arrangements. 018; OR‐019; Dikes are partly blocked by private fencing. ROWs and OR‐020; DAR‐ access are inadequate (some areas are privately FVRD‐001; owned and there has been contention regarding DAR‐FVRD‐ access). Carratt Road crosses the dike. The dike is not 003; OR‐016 used as a road/railroad and there are no conflicting land‐uses.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DAR‐FVRD‐ There are no appurtenant structures. No buried 003; OR‐016 utilities cross the dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 66: Cascade Creek Dike Segment 2: 0+956 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐FVRD‐ There are no formal ROWs or access arrangements. 003; OR‐016; Dikes are partly blocked by private fencing. ROWs and OR‐017; OR‐ access are inadequate (some areas are privately 018; OR‐019; owned and there has been contention regarding OR‐020 access). There is an O&M manual but inspections are irregular and reports not provided. Inspections appear to take place only when gravel removal is reviewed. There is no emergency response plan.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 66: Cascade Creek Dike Segment 3: 1+235 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.71 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐FVRD‐ No recent DCL information available. It should be 003; OR‐016 noted however, that gravel deposition and channel aggradation in this section of the river is consistently high (0.6m+ every three years or so). Limited information is available about crest elevations, although sections were raised in 2008 .

2. Geometry1 DAR‐FVRD‐ Dike slopes designed to 1.5V:1H and consistently 003; OR‐015; inadequate. Dike crest minimum width is estimated at OR‐016; OR‐ 4m. Repairs were made in 2008. 019

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General OR‐019 Dikes slopes are too steep and may be unstable during flood event. Golder has noted that the dike had settled previously.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic Unknown

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐FVRD‐ Riprap protection along length of dike from 1+235m to 003; OR‐016 approx 0+125m (2015 aerial photos); some sections installed/repaired in 2008. Riprap design specifications unknown. Recommendations were made in 2008 for extension of bank protection and upgrading of existing works. Current condition of riprap unknown (system erodes due to debris floods/flows every few years). This area has a history of avulsions.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 GoogleEarth Downstream section of dike has large woody 2015 image; vegetation that would cause problems in windfall. DAR‐FVRD‐ Slopes covered with thick brush. 003; OR‐016

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DAR‐FVRD‐ There are no appurtenant structures. No buried 003; OR‐016 utilities cross the dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 66: Cascade Creek Dike Segment 3: 1+235 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements1 OR‐016 ROWs and access are inadequate (some areas are privately owned and there has been contention regarding access). There is an O&M manual but inspections are irregular and reports not provided. Inspections appear to take place only when gravel removal is reviewed. There is no emergency response plan.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 155: Wilson Road Dike Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+859 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 4 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.50 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL4 OR‐006 The dike crest appears to exceed the DCL (eg at an approximate middle chainage, the DCL is 60.25 m and the crest elevation is 61.0m).

2. Geometry4 W‐2493; OR‐ The crest width is typically 4m or greater. Riverside 006 slopes with riprap protection range from 1.5H:1V to 2.5H:1V and landside slopes are reported at 2.5H:1V generally meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐2493; DIR‐ "Previously scour has developed a cutbank that is 052 undermining the bank and leaving remaining riprap material exposed to fall into the river. The latest 2012 inspection report has not stated whether this problem persists, no seepage or piping issues reported." ‐ nhc. Waterside slope of the dike is steeper than recommended but is heavily riprapped. Foundations soils are likely granular.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data

5. Erosion Protection4 OR‐006; DIR‐ In most locations along the riverside, where the dike is 052 not setback, riprap armouring is in place. Riprap is reported to be of 2000mm and 1000mm nominal thicknesses. No loss o0f protection or holes in the existing riprap reported from recent 2012 inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐052; OR‐ Trees are growing within 2m of the toe with the 006 potential for uprooting; multi‐annual vegetation management program in place.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐052; OR‐ Perimeter fencing beyond toe of dike in areas where 006 the riverside dike fronts onto private property. No significant encroachments reported in recent 2012 inspection.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC; 2 Floodboxes with 600mm steel pipes, drainage culvert W2493; OR‐ with flapgate that appears to be in working order but 006; DIR‐052 has to be manually closed during flood events. 1‐250 mm steel pipe. No major issues reported from 2012 inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐052; OR‐ ROW established for all sections of dike. No significant 006 access issues reported from 2012 inspection. Thorough Operations and Maintenance Manual created in 2009. Yearly dike inspection conducted.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 168: Lindell Beach (Frosst Creek) Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+276 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.25 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐038 The dike is located on an unstable alluvial fan and there is high potential for sediment accumulation. Regular sediment removal from sediment basins is required to reduce channel infilling and maintain sufficient channel capacity. Although the present crest height exceeds the DCL (eg at an approximate middle chainage of 1+000m the DCL is 51.5m and the crest elevation is 52.6m) this available freeboard may quickly be reduced.

2. Geometry2 W‐2480 Crest width is approximately 3m, landside slope is 1.5H:1V, riverside slope varies from 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V and overall the dike geometry does not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DIR‐053 "Slumping reported along certain dike sections, no seepage or piping reported." ‐ nhc.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic Site is likely underlian by liqeufiable sands.

5. Erosion Protection2 W‐2480; OR‐ Riprap armouring present along most riverside bank, 038 typically Class II (800mm), but reported as being variable in size with some pieces larger than 1m. Loss of rock has been reported and it is assumed that existing bank protection has gaps in it.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐053 Vegetation is growing on the dike slopes including large trees with the potential for uprooting and small riparian bushes and shrubs.

7. Encroachments2 W‐2914; OR‐ Private properties at Lindell Beach are located 037 adjacent to the dike to the point where there is not enough room to widen dike at the downstream end.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐002; DIR‐ No significant appurtenant structures reported. Fence 053 along set back section of dike

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DIR‐053 Mostly, no ROW access issues reported, however private properties encroach on dike ROW in downstream sections. There is a Private property gate along top of dike. O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 368: Baker Trails (Guy Creek and Tank Creek) Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+216 (Tank Creek) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.29 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 Berm was built to guide/ contain debris flows/floods rather than 200‐year design flow. Some sediment aggradation.

2. Geometry2 Berm has a narrow crest with steep side slopes.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐054 Evidence of localized disturbance and displacement of the sideslopes of the berm was observed about 20 m downstream of the upstream end of the works.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐054 Riprap armouring of unknown dimensions is in place on the water side of the berm, with no signs of significant deterioration, dislodgement, or movement observed.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐054 The crest and sideslopes of the berm are vegetated with grass and small shrubs.

7. Encroachments4 DIR‐054 Access road at the downstream end of the berm.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐054 A 600 mm corrugated metal culvert conveys flow under the access road at the end of the protection works. The culvert is approximately 60% full of sediment.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐054; FVR‐ No ROW access issues reported, Annual monitoring OM‐M‐4 inspection, O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 368: Baker Trails (Guy Creek and Tank Creek) Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 0+165 (Guy Creek) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.43 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 Berm was built to guide/ contain debris flows/floods rather than 200‐year design flow. Some sediment aggradation.

2. Geometry2 Berm has a narrow crest with steep side slopes.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐054 Upstream channel appears to be stable. Debris basins are stabilized with Maccaferri MacMat and a Lock‐ Block retaining wall on the southwest side. No evidence of erosion, cracking, sloughing, subsidence, or instability observed along either training berm. Two types of anchors were used in original construction: 1) A hollow IBO type (grout injection bored) anchor in granular materials with a shotcrete facing applied in areas where sloughing occurred during excavation, and 2) a solid bare bar in finer grained materials.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐054 Training berms are lined with riprap of unspecified dimensions. The height of the erosion protection varies and is as high as 3.5m in some areas.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 iMap BC; DIR‐ Slopes are vegetated but annual maintenance plan is 054 in place.

7. Encroachments4 DIR‐054 No significant encroachments reported.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐054 No significant appurtenant structures reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐054; FVR‐ No ROW access issues reported, annual monitoring OM‐M‐4 inspection, O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Fraser Valley Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 380: Elbow Creek Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+813 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.57 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐042 DCL is 0.6 m above natural grade. Dike crest elevations appear adequate but channel capacity could be reduced by aggradation. Sediment basin on upper creek must be maintained.

2. Geometry3 Dikes appear to meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection4 LMDIM‐Kent Upstream section West of Morris Valley Road is reported to have riprap protection. No issues reported from recent 2012 inspection report.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐055 Uncontrolled vegetation growing on both slopes including trees growing on crest and slopes.

7. Encroachments1 DIR‐055 Private properties have encroached on landside slope. Owners have constructed foot paths/stairs, placed gravel, and planted on slope. One owner has set out lawn furniture on the crest of the dike. Morris Valley Road bisects the two sections of the dike leaving an approximately 50 m wide length of road surface. Some fences exist on private property boundaries.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐002; DIR‐ No significant appurtenant structures reported. 055

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DIR‐055 ROW is not adequate within subdivision reaches. Private property's are located along the landside toe of the dike. Annual inspections are conducted by FVRD.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Glen Valley Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 68: Glen Valley Dike Segment 1: 3+550 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 ABD‐GV Crest levels fall below design flood levels by a max of ‐ 1.2 m. Most of the crest is approximately ‐0.4m below design levels.

2. Geometry2 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Crest width and side slopes generally meet applicable 089; DIR‐ standards (minimum design width is 3.7 m). Side 011; OR‐011 slopes meet requirements. Deficiencies unlikely to compromise the dike stability.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 GV Test hole Flood height is quite high and the landside slope should be made flatter (3H:1V) and/or crest width should be increased. Seepage through the dike may cause some piping during flooding. Settlement is expected to be high with new construction.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 GV Test hole Thick layer of silt will reduce the impact of liquefaction of sand layers and depth but could still be prone to strain softening and some lateral displacement

5. Erosion Protection2 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Minimal protection is required over much of the dike 089; DIR‐ because dike is well set back from river and flow 011; OR‐011 velocities are likely low/ wave action limited. Dike has riprap protection along toe at adjacent ditch. Riprap design specifications unknown. No observed issues with riprap.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ No woody vegetation or brush obscuring dike slopes. 089; DIR‐ Vegetation is predominantly grasses that are mowed 011; OR‐011 yearly for the full length, both exterior and interior slopes. No reported animal burrows, other animal damage or activities impacting dike sideslopes / crest.

7. Encroachments3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ A main road is located on the dike (Dike Road). Road 089; DIR‐ crossing causes a 1m+ drop in crest elevation at 88th 011; OR‐011 Avenue. Road crossing results in minor gap that can be blocked during design flood. No conflicting land‐use.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Floodbox removed. Seepage is prevented along 089; DIR‐ structure / dike interface. Culverts are in good order. 011; OR‐011

9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all 089; DIR‐ parts of the dike. IOD approved O&M manuals are 011; OR‐011 available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports provided to IOD. Emergency supplies are available and there is a flood response plan.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Glen Valley Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 68: Glen Valley Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 3+700 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 ABD‐GV Crest levels fall below design flood levels by a max of ‐ 1.5 m along the dike road. Most of the crest is approximately ‐1m below design levels (especially along road).

2. Geometry1 ABD‐GV; Crest width meets applicable standard (minimum iMAP BC design width is 4 m). Side slopes meet requirements along dike section, but no information is available along the road. Road may not be designed as dike. Deficiencies may compromise the dike stability.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 Landside slope should be made flatter (3H:1V) and/or crest width should be increased. Seepage through the dike may cause some piping during flooding. Settlement is expected to be high with new construction.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 Thick layer of silt will reduce the impact of liquefaction of sand layers and depth but could still be prone to strain softening and some lateral displacement

5. Erosion Protection2 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Minimal protection is required over much of the dike 089; DIR‐ because dike is well set back from river and flow 011; OR‐011 velocities are likely low/ wave action limited. Dike has riprap protection along toe at adjacent ditch. No observed issues with riprap. Riprap design specifications unknown.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ No woody vegetation or brush obscuring dike slopes. 089; DIR‐ Reportedly, vegetation is predominantly grasses that 011; OR‐011 are mowed yearly for the full length, both exterior and interior slopes. (Aerial mapping suggests that some areas adjacent to 2730m to 3700m are wooded.) No reported animal burrows, other animal damage or activities impacting dike sideslopes / crest.

7. Encroachments2 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ A main road is located on portions of the dike. 089; DIR‐ Multiple road crossing may cause drops in elevations 011; OR‐011 crests (survey data along road is unavailable). No conflicting land‐use.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Seepage is prevented along structure / dike interface. 089; DIR‐ Culverts are in good order. 011; OR‐011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Glen Valley Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 68: Glen Valley Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 3+700 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all 089; DIR‐ parts of the dike. IOD approved O&M manuals are 011; OR‐011 available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports provided to IOD. Emergency supplies are available and there is a flood response plan.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Glen Valley Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 68: Glen Valley Dike Segment 3: 0+000 to 4+357 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 ABD‐GV Crest levels fall below design flood levels by a max of ‐ 0.8 m along the dike road. Most of the crest is approximately ‐0.4m below design levels.

2. Geometry3 ABD‐GV Crest width acceptable (min 4.6 m), but side slopes around dike curves and at access ramps are steeper than design (landside slope 3H:1V, waterside slope 2.5H:1V).

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 Flood height is quite high and the landside slope should be made flatter (3H:1V) and/or crest width should be increased. Seepage through the dike may cause some piping during flooding. Settlement is expected to be high with new construction.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 Thick layer of silt will reduce the impact of liquefaction of sand layers and depth but could still be prone to strain softening and some lateral displacement

5. Erosion Protection3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Minimal protection is required over much of the dike 089; DIR‐ because dike is well set back from river and flow 011; OR‐011 velocities are likely low/ wave action limited. Riprap in place along channel for Banson Canal. No observed issues with riprap. Riprap design criteria and specifications unknown.

7. Encroachments2 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ No buildings or fences encroach on the dike ROW / 089; DIR‐ access, but the dike is adjacent to a road / RW 011; OR‐011 crossings. Dike partly forms railroad embankment and local road.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Seepage is prevented along structure / dike interface. 089; DIR‐ Culverts are in good order. As of 2013, gaskets on 011; OR‐011 flood gates were observed to be leaking and the seal on the discharge pipe for pump 1 needed to be replaced. These were to be repaired/replaced the following summer. No confirmation data available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Glen Valley Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 68: Glen Valley Dike Segment 3: 0+000 to 4+357 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐GV; DIR‐ Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all 089; DIR‐ parts of the dike. IOD approved OM manuals are 011; OR‐011 available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports provided to IOD. Emergency supplies are available and there is a flood response plan.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Harrison Hot Springs, Village of Deficiency Matrix Dike 76: Harrison Hot Springs Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+550 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.63 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐013; OR‐ The DCL is the 13.9m design flood level (reported by 014 nhc) plus a 0.6m freeboard for a total elevation of 14.5m whereas the crest elevation at a mid chainage of 0+750 is 13.8m. Some crest elevations are reported to be higher than the design flood level, however overall the dike does not meet minimum requirements.

2. Geometry3 HAR‐OM‐M‐ Dike sections adjacent to the Miami Creek floodbox 2; W‐2872 have designed crest width of 6m. Landside and waterside slopes with riprap protection is 2H:1V. However newer works in front of Harrison Hot Springs Hotel have a reported riverside slope of 1.5H:1V (with riprap protection) and does not meet standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DIR‐090 No seepage, erosion, or obvious geotechnical issues reported. Construction drawings show an impervious core which will help landside stability and should reduce seepage issues through the dike. Dike is 2H:1H which is steeper than recommended, although it is riprapped. No geotechnical data available

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data available.

5. Erosion Protection3 W‐2872; DIR‐ Riprap protection in front of Harrison Hot Springs 091 Hotel added to repair sections where existing riprap and soil had been eroded during recent storms. It is possible that storm activity since 2007 has continued erosion of riprap however no issues have been reported in recent dike inspection reports.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐090 Trees growing <2m from toe of landside slope.

7. Encroachments3 OR‐013; Boat Launch approximately 12m wide crosses dike. Google Earth

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMaps‐BC; Stairs, Pump Station, 2 Flood Boxes, 1 Retaining Wall, OR‐002 Outlet with no issues reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐090 Annual inspection, O&M Manual, no ROW access issues reported

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Hope, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 78: River Parade Flood Protection Dike Segment 1: 0+930 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.75 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DIR‐091; OR‐ The DCL just downstream from the Kawkawa Bridge is 027 the design flood level from Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study (NHC 1994) of 53.8m plus 0.6m freeboard for a total of 54.8m. The crest elevation is approximately 54.0m. The channel is gradually aggrading, particularly along LB in this reach. The reported crest elevation does not meet standards.

2. Geometry2 iMap BC; According to as‐built drawings, crest width is 3.6m. ABD‐HOPE Landside and riverside slopes are reported as 2H:1V and does not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 ABD‐HOPE; No geotechnical data available. Dike crest is narrower DIR‐091 than recommended and slopes are steeper than recommended, however there is riprap. Seepage through the dike may cause some minor piping depending on the material used to construct the dike. Foundation is expected to be granular and should not have significant settlement.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data available.

5. Erosion Protection3 LMDIM‐HOPE Some riprap in place along downstream section, likely has experienced some deterioration since original construction in 1982.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐091 No significant vegetation or animal disturbances on dike slopes reported.

7. Encroachments2 DIR‐091 Kawkawa Lake Road crosses the dike with a 20 m wide section. Private properties follow the landside with multiple fence crossings. The downstream end of the dike terminates at the railway crossing.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐091; Stairs. No significant appurtenant structures reported. iMap BC

9. Administrative Arrangements4 HOP‐OM‐M‐ Annual inspection, Operation and Maintenance 1; HOP‐OM‐ Manual, No ROW access issues. M‐2; DIR‐091

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Hope, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 79: Glenhalla Subdivision Dike Segment 1: 1+010 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.38 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐027; DIR‐ The DCL (at an approximate middle chainage from the 091; OR‐028 1994 nhc Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study) is the design flood level of 64m plus 0.6m freeboard for a total of 64.8m, compared to the crest elevation of approximately 63.1m. Coquihalla River is aggrading, reducing the channel capacity.

2. Geometry2 iMap BC; Crest width is reported as 3.6m on the as‐built ABD‐HOPE; drawings. Landside slope is 3H:1V and riverside slope is DAR‐HOPE‐ 2H:1V. Overall the dike is described as being 001 substandard, and does not meet the current standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 ABD‐HOPE; No geotechnical data available. Dike slopes are as DIR‐091 recommended in 2003 BC Dike Design and Construction Guide. Crest width is less than recommended but flood height is quite small. Settlements are unlikely to be significant (likely granular foundation). Dike crest is composed of 50mm deep layer of 20mm minus crushed gravel. No reported evidence of seepage or piping

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data available.

5. Erosion Protection3 LMDIM‐ Riprap placed on riverside slope for entire dike reach. HOPE; DAR‐ Inspection reports show some deterioration in bank HOPE‐002 protection since original construction in 1982.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐091; Light woody vegetation growing on dike slopes, annual DAR‐HOPE‐ vegetation control in place. 002

7. Encroachments2 DAR‐HOPE‐ Private properties back on to land side of dike and 001 access is refused on 7 of 24 residences.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 iMap BC; 5 culverts, 3 floodboxes, 6 sets of stairs. Culvert DAR‐HOPE‐ between house NO. 30 and 40 on Robertson Crescent 001 is being filled in with sediment. District of Hope was clearing by hand because no access for a machine.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐HOPE‐ Access is not granted to 7 of the 24 adjacent private 001; HOP‐ properties. Operation and Maintenance Manual. OM‐M‐1; HOP‐OM‐M‐2

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 108: Kent Dike A Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+900 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.13 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐004 Crest elevation at 1+000 is 21.3m GDC and DCL is 21.6m GDC. Crest elevation provides some freeboard.

2. Geometry3 iMaps BC; Average crest width is 3.6 m wide with some isolated 6 ASB‐Kent m sections. Landside slope is 2.5H:1V, riverside slope is 2.5H:1V. not meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 ABD‐KENT‐ Crest material is 1" minus crushed gravel with the dike 001 consisting of 3" minus gravel. No issues geotechnical issues identified during previous 400 mm crest lift in 2001. Foundation material is unknown therefore settlement and seepage instability are unknown.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data available.

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐058 No bank armourment indicated. Dike is setback from Fraser river on Maria Slough. No erosion issues noted.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐058, DIR‐ Trees close to toe, cattle damage, tree plantings and 014 unauthorized excavation adjacent to Cutler Rd. Vegetation removal plan exists and slopes are noted to be in good condition during annual dike inspection.

7. Encroachments3 LMDIM‐Kent; Westcoast Transmission Gas Pipeline ROW, and iMapBC Canadian Pacific Railway ROW encroach on dike. Dike is used as a single lane road with several houses built adjacent.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMaps BC Fences along crest, condition and extent unknown.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐058 Standard ROW in place and there is legal access along the crest of the dike. Vegetation plan is in place and annual dike inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 108: Kent Dike A Dike Segment 2: 1+900 to 5+890 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.75 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐004 The dike crest typically incorporates a freeboard of 0.3 m with occasional low spots. Profile could also be affected by channel change.

2. Geometry3 iMaps BC; Average crest width is 3.6 m wide with some isolated 6 ASB‐Kent m sections. Landside and river side slopes are 2.5H:1V. The crest width is below the 4 m standard, and the riverside slope is below the 3H:1V standard.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data available.

5. Erosion Protection3 iMaps BC; At upstream end, dike follows the Fraser River and is ASB‐Kent riprap protected. Significant exposure to high river velocities in the past. Protection is of unspecified thickness and gradation. Over downstream reach, dike is well set back and has no riprap.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 Trees close to toe, cattle damage, tree plantings and unauthorized excavation adjacent to Cutler Rd. Vegetation removal plan exists and slopes are noted to be in good condition during annual dike inspection.

7. Encroachments2 iMaps BC; Several roads cross over the dike. Powerline ROW, LMDIM‐Kent Sewer ROW, and Westcoast Transmission Co gas pipeline ROW encroach on the dike. Dike crest used as a single lane access road.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMaps BC 2 "flap" flood boxes consisting of 24" dia. 78' CMP located at the Agassiz Slough. Condition of the flood boxes unknown. Several gates and fences along the crest.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐014; DIR‐ Standard ROW in place and there is legal access along 058 the crest of the dike. Vegetation plan is in place and annual dike inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 382: Kent Dike B Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐Kent‐ Crest height varies, average freeboard is about 0.2 m. 002 At 0+500m DCL is 18.6m and crest elevation is 18.2m GDC (0.4m freeboard). Low point at chainage 0+900 has ‐0.1 m freeboard. Dike ties into high ground at Hopyard Mtn. and Little Mtn.

2. Geometry4 ASB‐Kent Crest width is 6 m, landside slope is 2.5H:1V, riverside slope is 3H:1V meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 iMAP BC; W‐ "Crest material is 1" minus crushed gravel with the 2381; W‐ dike consisting of 3" minus gravel. No issues 3052 geotechnical issues identified during previous 400 mm crest lift in 2001. Toe drains consisting of 3" minus gravel constructed along landside to address seepage." ‐ nhc. Dike slopes and crest are as recommended and therefore dike stability is good. Some minor piping/heave on the landside may occur along portions of the dike.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible along portions of the dike.

5. Erosion Protection4 LMDIM‐Kent Dike is well set back and not exposed to main channel of Fraser. No erosion protection on dike. There is continuous erosion protection along the river bank.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 iMAP BC Trees close to toe, cattle damage, and tree plantings. Vegetation removal plan exists and slopes are noted to be in good condition during annual dike inspection.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐014; Driveway near end of Dike at approx 0+750m, minor DAR‐004 encroachments include minor tree plantings and excavation in front of toe near private property. Established ROW along dike. Single lane road along crest of dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMAP BC 24" CMP floodbox with flapgate at 1+000. Condition of floodbox unknown. Several fences and gates along dike crest.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐014 Letter was sent to land‐owners requesting that they remove tree plantings and restore dike slope. Annual surface and vegetative management plan. Established ROW for dike and legal access to dike. Annual dike inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 383: Kent Dike C Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+615 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐Kent‐ Crest height varies, average freeboard is about 0.4 m. 002 At 1+600m DCL is 17.1m and 2014 crest elevation is 17 m GDC which provides 0.5 m freeboard. Dike ties into Hopyard Mtn and continuing dike on west end.

2. Geometry3 ASB‐Kent Crest width is 3.6m, landside slope is 2.5H:1V, riverside slope is 3H:1V. Side slopes meet standards but crest width is less than 4 m standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 ASB‐Kent; W‐ "Crest material is 1" minus crushed gravel with the 3052 dike consisting of 3" minus gravel. No issues geotechnical issues identified during previous 400 mm crest lift in 2001. Toe drains consisting of 3" minus gravel constructed along landside to address seepage." ‐ nhc. Crest width is narrower than recommended. Seepage/piping and settlement are to be minimal.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible along portions of the dike.

5. Erosion Protection3 LMDIM ‐ Kent Dike runs along backchannel and is not exposed to main channel of Fraser. There is continuous erosion protection along the river bank.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 iMAP BC Trees close to toe, cattle damage, and tree plantings. Vegetation removal plan in place and slopes are noted to be in good condition during annual dike inspection.

7. Encroachments3 iMAP BC; Road crossing, gravel stockpiling and heavy machine LMDIM‐Kent; damage at south end of Hamilton Rd. No ROW DIR‐014 encroaching on dike and no building along dike. Established ROW along dike. Single lane road along crest of dike. Staff gauge and several gates along dike. No utilities or other structures running through or over dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMAP BC No structures reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐014 Annual surface and vegetative management plan. Established ROW for dike and legal access to dike. Annual dike inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 383: Kent Dike C Dike Segment 2: 1+615 to 4+207 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐Kent‐ Crest height varies, average freeboard is about 0.5 m. 002 At 3+000m DCL is 16.7m and 2014 dike crest elevation is 16.6m GDC. Dike ties into Agassiz Mtn and previous dike segment.

2. Geometry3 iMAP BC; Crest width is 3.6m, landside slope is 2.5H:1V, riverside ASB‐Kent slope is 3H:1V. Side slopes meet standards but crest width is below 4 m standard

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 ASB‐Kent; W‐ "Crest material is 1" minus crushed gravel with the 3052 dike consisting of 3" minus gravel. No issues geotechnical issues identified during previous 400 mm crest lift in 2001. Topsoil removed on top of landside berm along toe of dike and 0.6 m layer filter blanket placed. Gradation of filter blanket unknown." ‐ nhc. Crest width is narrower than recommended. Seepage/piping and settlement are to be minimal.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible along portions of the dike.

5. Erosion Protection4 LMDIM ‐ Kent Dike is well set back from Fraser River. No erosion protection on dike but continuous riprap along river bank.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 Planted fields, lightly vegetated foreshore. Vegetation removal plan exists and slopes are noted to be in good condition during annual dike inspection.

7. Encroachments3 iMAP BC Road crossing encroaches on dike, railway crossing and powerline ROW. Established ROW along dike. Single lane road along crest of dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐Kent‐ 3 ‐ 2x2 m concrete Floodboxes near Mountain Slough, 001 Hammersly Pump station located at Mountain Slough: 2 pumps, 1 ‐ 125 HP, 23500 GPM; 1‐50HP, 11500 GPM. O&M manual provided for pumps but requires upgrading.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐014 Annual surface and vegetation management plan. Established ROW for dike and legal access to dike. Annual dike inspection. IOD approved O&M manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 384: Kent Dike D Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 2+256 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐Kent‐ Crest height varies, average freeboard is about 0.3 m. 002 At 1+300m DCL is 14.4m and 2014 dike crest elevation is 14.2 m GDC. Dike ties into high ground at Mt. Woodside at Duncan Quarry.

2. Geometry3 iMAP BC; Original Crest width was 4 m, landside slope was ASB‐Kent; W‐ 2.5H:1V, riverside slope was 3H:1V. Side slopes and 1875 crest width met standards of FRFCP however, dike was raised in 2007 without widening the base so some sections may no longer meet the design criteria.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 iMAP BC; "Crest material is 1" minus crushed gravel with the ASB‐Kent; W‐ dike consisting of 3" minus gravel. No issues 3052 geotechnical issues identified during previous 400 mm crest lift in 2001. Toe drains consisting of 3" minus gravel constructed along landside to address seepage."‐ nhc. Some settlement should be expected from silt in the foundation.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible along portions of the dike.

5. Erosion Protection4 LMDIM ‐ Kent Dike is set back from Fraser River from 0+000 to 1+800 but follows the river from 1+800 to 2+256. No erosion protection on dike but riverbank has continuous protection where the dike follows the river.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 iMap BC Vegetation along riverfront where dike is set back and follows Bateson Slough. Vegetation removal plan exists and slopes are noted to be in good condition during annual dike inspection.

7. Encroachments3 iMap BC Railroad crossing over crest of dike and crest of dike used as a single lane road. No conflicting land‐uses and legal dike ROW established.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC 42" dia. x 142; CMP with concrete discharge headwall and flapgate floodbox. Condition of floodbox unknown.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐014 Annual surface and vegetative management plan. Established ROW for dike and legal access to dike. Annual dike inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 384: Kent Dike D Dike Segment 2: 2+256 to 7+814 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 DAR‐Kent‐ Crest height varies, average freeboard is about 0.1 m. 002 At 5+000m DCL is 14.3m and 2014 dike crest elevation is 13.9m. Dike ties into Agassiz Mtn.

2. Geometry2 iMap BC; Crest width is 5m, landside slope is 2.5H:1V, riverside ASB‐Kent; W‐ slope is 3H:1V which meets standards. However 2007 2875 upgrade report states that during site visit some dike slopes were steeper than 2H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐2875; "Crest material consists of 0.15 m of 1" minus crushed DAR‐Kent‐ gravel. Dike consists of 3" minus gravel. From 2+256 ‐ 003; W‐3052 3+621 dike material consists of sand and gravel fill with a 2 m wide silt core. During 2007 increase to dike crest elevation possible oversteepened banks were noted in several locations. Thurber Engineering was to complete seepage and slope stability analyses. No record of this work can currently be found." ‐ nhc. Dike slopes are assumed to be as 2.5:1 and 3:1. Some settlement should be expected from silt in the foundation.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible along portions of the dike.

5. Erosion Protection2 LMDIM ‐ Kent From 2+ 256 to 2+456 the District of Kent placed riprap along edge of dike damaged by high freshet flows. Design specifications and gradation unkown. Remaining dike does not have any riprap protection but with 3H:1V riverside side slope appears stable. Oversteep 2H:1V slopes noticed during 2007 work does not meet BC standards.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 Google Earth Foreshore is vegetated with riparian species and gravel/sand bars have developed. Vegetation removal plan exists and slopes are noted to be in good condition during annual dike inspection.

7. Encroachments3 iMap BC; There are low points in the dike due to railroad DAR‐Kent‐ crossing, Lougheed Highway crossing, and 003 unauthorized works to install a wider driveway (6+000m). No houses built along dike, and dike crest is used as a single lane road.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMap BC 3 ‐ 24" dia. CMP flood boxes with flapgates. Condition of floodboxes known. Duncan‐Bateson Pump station upgraded to contain two 750 lps drainage pumps discharging via two new 700 mm HDPE lines through the dike. Some fences and gates along dike crest.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Kent, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 384: Kent Dike D Dike Segment 2: 2+256 to 7+814 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 DIR‐014 Annual surface and vegetation management plan. Established ROW for dike and legal access to dike. Annual dike inspection. IOD approved O&M manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Langley, Township of Deficiency Matrix Dike 117: Fort Langley ‐ Salmon River Dike Segment 1: 1+219 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.38 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 For example at 0+600m, the DCL is 7.4 m and the crest elevation is 6.5m,well below standard.

2. Geometry2 FPP‐029 Crest width is less than 4m along the whole length, except where fill has been placed along the riverside for a viewing platform on the Fort‐to‐Fort Trail. Landside slopes are over‐steep in areas of the golf course and there is an inflection point where slopes flatten out half‐way down, indicative of some upgrade works.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐ "Dike is not designed to withstand seismic events, LANGLEY‐ however no seepage or piping issues reported. Some 001; FPP‐029 deterioration of dike crest in section adjacent to golf course with minor slumping reported." ‐ nhc

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 Google Sections of the Fraser River bank have riprap, however Earth, DIR‐ none reported on the slope of the dike when it is set 059 back from the river bank. No deterioration of riprap reported, however updated assessment of erosion protection required.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DIR‐059; FPP‐ Vegetation maintenance good overall, but one section 029 of trees by the downstream section near the landside toe that do not pose a significant hazard but may limit further repairs or maintenance. An area of animal burrows exists in the landside dike face near the Salmon River Pump Station.

7. Encroachments3 Google Maps Road crossing, private residences adjacent to upstream section of dike along Singh Rd, Fort Langley Golf club adjacent to dike along downstream section.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC; OR‐ 3 Turbine Outlets, 1 Floodbox, Pump Station, with no 002; DAR‐ issues reported LANGLEY‐001

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐ No major access issues, dikes are in ROW's or adjacent LANGLEY‐ land is owned by the Township of Langley. No O&M 001; FPP‐028 Manual. Gate exists at the golf course but access not reported to be affected.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Langley, Township of Deficiency Matrix Dike 118: West Langley Dike Segment 1: 2+200 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.67 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 In 2011, 550 m of dike was raised to the full design crest level of approx. 6.7m, however the remaining sections are low.The crest is some 0.8 m below the DCL at Station 1+000m and dike is well below standard.

2. Geometry3 iMap BC; FPP‐ The dike geometry varies. An upgraded 550 m section 029 has a minimum width of 4m, riverside slope with riprap protection of 2H:1V, and landside slope of 3H:1V. However, dike sections not upgraded have crest widths as little as 3m(section west of bridge). Landside slope is 3H:1V, Riverside slope is 2H:1V and too steep, not meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 FPP‐018 Upgraded dike section includes a lockblock retaining wall supporting landside toe. Hydraulic exit gradients are generally less than 0.5, therefore boiling and piping are expected to be minimal. Seepage flow per linear foot of dike exiting from the landside toe is approximated at 44 L/day. Static stability assessment estimates the end of construction target FoS = 1.3 and steady‐state seepage target FoS = 1.5. Possible to raise rest of dike to meet current standards. Settlements may be significant and dike raises should be overbuilt to account for this.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 FPP‐018 Golder calculated seismically induced settlements to be up to 600 mm. Lateral displacements are likely.

5. Erosion Protection3 FPP‐029 New works has riprap armouring on riverside slope composed of 550 mm Class Riprap on top of 150mm rock filter. No deterioration of riprap protection reported.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 FPP‐029 Some blackberry bushes on dike slopes.

7. Encroachments1 DAR‐ Private property encroaches on ROW; road crossings. LANGLEY‐ At the Burnco facility the foundation for one half of a 001; FPP‐028 rail mounted crane has been built into the dike section and could cause future impact upon the dike, also a warehouse building, and a conveyor encroach on the dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMaps BC; 3 Culverts, 1 Floodbox with no issues reported DAR‐ LANGLEY‐001

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Langley, Township of Deficiency Matrix Dike 118: West Langley Dike Segment 1: 2+200 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements2 DIR‐059; Private property does not allow for ROW access at the DAR‐ Mainland Sand and Gravel site and the Burnco facility. LANGLEY‐ Widening the dike is not thought to be possible 001; FPP‐ without adequate ROW establishment at these sites. 029; LAN‐ O&M manual. OM‐M‐1

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Langley, Township of Deficiency Matrix Dike 118: West Langley Dike Segment 2: 3+095 to 2+200 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 Portions of the crest are about 0.4 m below the DCL (eg 2+500) with the majority being 0.4 m below the design flood level.

2. Geometry2 FPP‐029 Between 208th St and the Yorkson Creek Pump Station, crest width is typically greater than 4m. The landside slope is steeper than 2H:1V and does not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 FPP‐018 No seepage or piping issues reported. Very thick silt to clay silt with traces of organics in foundation. Settlements are expected to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 FPP‐018 Seismically induced settlements will affect the dike. Lateral displacements are likely.

5. Erosion Protection4 iMaps BC; Dike is well set back from river so no significant LMDIM‐ erosion protection is required. Langley

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 FPP‐029 (pp Blackberry and tall grasses. 202)

7. Encroachments3 Google Earth Road crossing at 208th street is approximately 15 m wide.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMaps BC; Pump Station, Flood Box, Outlet, Slipways with no DAR‐ issues reported. LANGLEY‐001

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐ Annual inspection, 2+945 to 3+095 section not LANGLEY‐ covered by ROW. Lack of ROW access for tie‐in 001; FPP‐028 location at Yorkson Creek Pump Station . O&M manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Maple Ridge Road No. 13 Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 126: Maple Ridge Road 13 Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+300 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐MR‐001 Crest elevation is consistently below design flood elevation. For example, at 0+150 crest elevation is 5.8m and DCL is 6.6m. Dike ties into higher ground at 0+000 m and into the Albion Dike at the CP Rail crossing of River Road (0+3000m)

2. Geometry1 DAR‐MR‐001 Crest is up to 10m wide. Landside slopes vary between 1.2 and 2H:1V and waterside slopes vary between 1.6 and 2.5H:1V. Side slopes are oversteep and do not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐MR‐ Crest material is pavement. Dike is constructed from 001; ABD earth fill. Seepage is likely. Seepage analysis suggested MR; W‐3123 that the steep landside dike slopes have a FS = 1.2 which is lower than the accepted FS of 1.4. Slumping noted around fire hydrant. Drainage ditch along landside toe that has constrained capacity and frequently floods Rieboldt Park.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3123 Extensive liquefaction, seismically induced settlements and lateral spreading are likely.

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐MR‐001 No significant erosion protection reported. Dike is set back from Kanaka Creek by 20 to 30 m. Some erosion was noted in 2013 at three adjacent locations on the waterside slope.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DAR‐MR‐001 Slopes are vegetated with mowed grass but some trees growing on dike and heavily vegetated floodplain with mature trees and brush along landside toe. Dike crest is a paved road. Vegetation management plan around pump station.

7. Encroachments3 DAR‐MR‐001 Lougheed Hwy crosses dike and culverted driveways encroach on dike. Dike crest acts as a public road (Tamarack Lane). Utilities run through dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC Spencer Creek pump station was built in 1957 with 2 pumps, and a third submersible pump added in 1988. Pumps are 1 ‐ 40 hp 16" outlet dia., 7500 GPM, 1 ‐ 100 hp 24" outlet dia. 22000 GPM, 1 ‐ 44 hp, 500 mm outlet dia. 7000 GPM. Flood Box is a 1.8 m square concrete box culvert with invert elevation of ‐0.2 m GDC and automated gate installed in 2010 to allow fish passage. Minor upgrades to the station (unspecified) in 2010. Debris blockages are common at pump intake.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Maple Ridge Road No. 13 Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 126: Maple Ridge Road 13 Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+300 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements2 DIR‐061 Annual inspections; O&M manuals for pump station are deficient. No legal ROW established, dike crest is a road and provides access. Vegetation management plan unknown.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Maple Ridge, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 128: Albion Dike Segment 1: 2+618 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.33 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 Crest elevation is below design flood water level (eg at 1+350 crest is at 6.4m GDC and DCL is 7.3m). There are many large gaps throughout the dike length with some sections fully removed by landowners. Dike does not tie into high ground, from 2+320 to 2+618 the dike is missing and only has a proposed alignment.

2. Geometry1 iMap BC; Geometry varies but for most of the dike, the crest DAR‐MR‐001 width is 3m. Landside slope is typically 3H:1V. Riverside slope varies but is reported to average 1.6H:1V. Some oversteepened riverside slopes could be heavily eroded and fail during a high flow event.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General1 DAR‐MR‐ "Dike is constructed from earth fill. Seepage is 001; ASB‐ predicted along downstream face of dike. Seepage and MR; W‐3128; possible piping likely since dike was originally W‐3123 constructed. Previous sloughing events noted from oversteepened and concave appearance of waterside of dike likely from fallen trees."‐nhc Settlements will be significant and might be very high locally if there is in fact hog fuel below portions of the dike.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3128 Extensive liquefaction, seismically induced settlements and lateral spreading are likely. " Seismic study conducted in 2011 concluded that the dike is underlain by soils susceptible to liquefaction under the 1:475 design seismic event. Dike expected to become unstable, experience significant lateral deformation."‐ nhc

5. Erosion Protection1 W‐3128 Riprap has been placed along sections of Fraser River RB that experienced erosion. No filter layer placed between angular riprap and dike material. Dike is not set back and runs adjacent to the Fraser River and Kanaka Creek. Erosion has occurred along the Fraser at the upstream end of the Albion Dike, at 236th Street. Bank erosion during a flood event is considered a significant hazard.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DAR‐MR‐001 Vegetation management minimal allowing large trees to grow on the dike slopes and low brush to obstruct views of the dike's condition.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Maple Ridge, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 128: Albion Dike Segment 1: 2+618 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 7. Encroachments1 DAR‐MR‐ Terasen Gas Pipeline ROW and road crossings 001; iMap BC encroach on dike. The full extent of the dike falls on private property without any ROW established, industrial buildings built along the crest, and no access to the dike crest. Large gaps exist throughout the industrial section of the dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 ABD‐MR; Albion pump station includes two 44 hp, 500lps Flygt iMap BC; pumps discharging via 2‐600 mm dia. CMP with flap DAR‐001 gates at a design outlet invert of 3.81 m, and a 1200 x 1800 mm precast concrete floodbox with a top hinge flap gate and design outlet invert of 1.4 m. Some seepage issues have been noted in the past with the most recent seepage protection installed in 2007 (design specifications unknown). A 300 mm dia. CMP dike drain with flapgate was installed at 0+150 m in December of 1992. A flapgated, 200 mm concrete pipe sewer outfall transects the dike at 23283 McKay Ave. Stairs, fences and gates are constructed along the dike.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DIR‐060 No legal access (ROW) for construction and maintenance. Entire dike located on private property. Local diking district lacks administrative, technical and financial resources to operate and maintain diking system.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Metro Vancouver Deficiency Matrix Dike 74: Colony Farm GVRD Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 2+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 ABD‐MV‐ Dike ties into higher ground but crest levels fall below 001; ABD‐ DCLs. MV‐002

2. Geometry2 ABD‐MV‐ Crest width generally meets applicable standards but 001; ABD‐ side slopes observed to be oversteepened at some MV‐002 locations and reported in 2007 as 2H:1V (land and water),causing concern. Updated 2007 design drawings unavailable at this time.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 ABD‐MV‐001 Settlements are likely to be very high and the foundation soils are quite weak. Stability is an issue with the side slopes being 2H:1V

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 ABD‐MV‐001 2 ‐ There are some sand layers that are likely to liquefy. Lateral displacement and strain softening of the silt is likely.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐MR‐003 Some work was performed in spring 2014 to fix slumping on ditch side of dike; slope was rebuilt with "large" rip‐rap boulders. No other damage has been reported. Riprap design specifications / criteria are unknown. Protection may withstand design flood.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 ABD‐MV‐ By agreement, dikes are cut to toe once a year in 001; ABD‐ October. Crest cuts are performed throughout the MV‐002; year. Beaver presence noted in 2007 but not in reports DAR‐MR‐003 since.

7. Encroachments3 ABD‐MV‐ Some buildings marginally encroach on dike ROW. 001; ABD‐ Roads and one bridge merge with the dike. The dike MV‐002 merges into the Mary Hill Bypass. A main road is located on the dike. No fences or conflicting land‐uses.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 ABD‐MV‐ GVRD pipeline crosses dike. Dike has four flood boxes 001; ABD‐ and several pumpstations; current conditions and MV‐002 design standards are unknown. Information on seepage risk is unknown.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐MV‐ Standard ROWs are in place, there is legal access to all 001; ABD‐ parts of the dike. IOD approved OM manuals are MV‐002 available. Dike is regularly inspected and reports provided to IOD. Availability of emergency flood response plan not known.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Metro Vancouver Deficiency Matrix Dike 74: Colony Farm GVRD Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 2+700 (West Dike) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 ABD‐MV‐ Dike ties into higher ground. Crest levels fall below 001; ABD‐ DCLs. MV‐002

2. Geometry2 ABD‐MV‐ Crest width generally meets standards but side slopes 001; ABD‐ observed to be oversteepened at some locations and MV‐002 reported in 2007 as 2H:1V, land and water side, causing concern. Updated 2007 design drawings unavailable.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 ABD‐MV‐001 Settlements are likely to be very high and the foundation soils are quite weak. Stability is an issue with the side slopes being 2H:1V

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 ABD‐MV‐001 There are some sand layers that are likely to liquefy. Lateral displacement and strain softening of the silt is likely.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐MR‐003 No damage reported but riprap design specifications / criteria not known. Fraser flow velocities are low.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 ABD‐MV‐ By agreement, dikes are cut to toe once a year in 001; ABD‐ October. Crest cuts are performed throughout the MV‐002; year. No animal /vegetative issues have been reported. DAR‐MR‐003

7. Encroachments3 ABD‐MV‐ No buildings encroach on dike ROW. Roads and one 001; ABD‐ bridge merge with the dike, causing a slight lowering MV‐002 in the dike crest. A main road is located on the dike. No fences or conflicting land‐uses.

8. Appurtenant Structures1 ABD‐MV‐ Dike known to have one floodbox; no information is 001; ABD‐ available about this structure. Current condition and MV‐002 design standards are unknown. Information on seepage risk is unknown.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Mission, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 134: Mission City Dike Segment 1: (B) 0+122 to 0+400 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐004 The dike is below the design water level or has inadequate freeboard.

2. Geometry3 iMap BC; Crest width is 3.6 m with the upgraded section ABD‐Mission generally having a width of 4 m. The landside slope is 2.5H:1V, Riverside Slope is 3H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 iMap BC; W‐ "Crest material is concrete, some sections are gravel. 2881 Section from 0+775 to 0+975 has been upgraded to include an impermeable core with a width of 1m which meets BC Dike Design and Construction Guide standards and has been constructed to meet BC Dike Seismic Standards." ‐ nhc. Seepage problems are anticipated to be minor and settlement is not anticipated to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 FPP‐028 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible.

5. Erosion Protection3 W‐2881 Riprap with a thickness of 800 mm and D50 of 600 mm has been installed to withstand 1:200 year event. There are some access ramps along the river.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 iMap BC Foreshore is industrial area with minimal woody vegetation. Dike slopes are generally well maintained but blackberry bushes are growing along slope.

7. Encroachments2 iMap BC: W‐ Dike has 3 sawmills, railway crossing, multiple road 2881; crossings, and encroaching fences. Raising the dike LMDIM‐ would be difficult in several locations due to Mission encroaching buildings.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC Culvert and floodbox identified on iMap BC but condition of structures unknown. Buried utilities are an issue in front of the Harbor Authority building. Upgraded dike at this location could not be built to have a 4 m crest width.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐063 Dike is regularly inspected with a multiyear vegetative management plan in place.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Mission, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 134: Mission City Dike Segment 2: (B) 0+400 to 1+100 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐004 Upgraded dike section from 0+775 to 0+975 meets or exceeds the DCL of 9.6 m. Other sections are sub‐ standard, for example at 0+750m, DCL is 9.6m and the dike crest is 8.5m GDC (2014 survey) .

2. Geometry3 iMAP BC; Crest width is 3.8m. Landside slope is 2.5H:1V; ABD‐MISSION Riverside Slope is 3H:1V; generally meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 FPP‐028 "Dike fil consists of 2.5 ‐ 3m of clayey to sandy silt trace boulders overlain by 3 m silty sand to coarse gravelly sand with gravel dike crest. Based on available information there is no dike core. Slope stability evaluated using Slope/W (2009), static factors of safety vary from 1.3 to 1.9, considered acceptable. Seepage analysed with Seep/W at design flood elevation of 9.0 m there will be approximately 0.8 m3/day per meter of through seepage and 3.0m3/day per meter for under seepage." ‐ nhc. Seepage problems are anticipated to be minor and settlement is not anticipated to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 FPP‐028 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible.

5. Erosion Protection3 FPP‐028 Riprap placed sporadically along water side of dike slope, D50 unknown.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 iMAP BC Some brush on foreshore, crest top is gravel and industrial buildings.

7. Encroachments2 iMAP BC; DIR‐ Industrial buildings along crest and straddling dike 063 structure (within dike ROW), CPR rail shack next to rail bridge.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMAP BC Stairs, buildings along crest, 24" dia. Flood Box .

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐063 Dike is regularly inspected by IOD with a multiyear vegetative management plan in place.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Mission, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 134: Mission City Dike Segment 3: (A) 1+100 to 3+597 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐007 Crest level provides generally 0.3 m of freeboard with several low lying spots.

2. Geometry4 iMap BC; Average crest width is 8.3m; Landside slope is 2.5H:1V; ABD‐MISSION Riverside Slope is 3H:1V which meets standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 iMap BC; W‐ "Wide crest sections, raised gravel crest. Limited 2881 borehole information available, impervious dike core added in 2008‐09 upgrades. Toe blankets added where seepage analysis and exit gradients were modelled to being excessive during a flood event." ‐ nhc. Seepage problems are anticipated to be minor and settlement is not anticipated to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 FPP‐028 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible.

5. Erosion Protection4 LMDIM‐ No significant erosion protection, dike is mostly Mission setback from foreshore.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 iMap BC; W‐ Multiyear vegetative management plan in place. 2881

7. Encroachments2 iMap BC Railway crossing ROW, Hwy 11 bisects dike at downstream end. No legal ROW established for dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 iMap BC; 2 Pump Stations, 2 Floodboxes, 3 Culverts, Stairs. LMDIM‐ Condition and operating status unknown. Mission

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐063 Dike is regularly inspected and a multiyear vegetative management plan in place.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Mission, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 135: Silverdale Dike Segment 1: 4+100 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 Crest elevation roughly matches design water level but there is no freeboard allowance.

2. Geometry1 iMap BC; Crest width varies with an average minimum width of ABD‐ 3m (<4m). Landside and riverside slopes are reported SILVERDALE as 2H:1V and are over steep.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DIR 107; W‐ "Dike is composed of earthen fill with minor ponding 3052 on either side of dike. No other information provided." ‐ nhc. Significant settlements are likely and dike slopes may become unstable during flood levels.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible.

5. Erosion Protection3 iMap BC; W‐ Dike is set back from Fraser River along most of its 2881 length. Some riprap placed where the dike ties in to high ground north of the Lougheed Highway.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR 107 Blackberry bushes, trees growing on slope, some knotweed. Minor damage to dike due to cattle. Multi‐ year vegetation management plan in place involving mowing, minor grubbing, and minor surface grading.

7. Encroachments2 W‐ No ROW for dike established, need property owners 2881;iMap permission for alterations to dike. Railway ROW, road BC; DIR‐107 crossings, and low points along dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR 107 Fences along crest of dike, 2 Pump Station, 3 flood boxes, and an unknown amount of field drains are constructed along the dike. Condition and operational status of structures unknown.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR 017 Annual inspection. No ROW for dike established, need property owners permission for alterations to dike. Log on top of dike is blocking access West of Mill property. Chainlink and metal gates block access at points due to private property owners.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Mud Bay Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 136: Mud Bay Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 3+904 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.89 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐029; DIR‐ DCL downstream of Hwy 99 at approximately 3+290m 094, OR‐041 is 3.9m and crest elevation is 3.0m and the dike does not meet standards. Dike approximately 100‐200m upstream of Highway 99 is lowest and was overtopped for approximately 15 minutes in December 2012 storm surge.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐MUD‐ Crest width ranges from 3 ‐ 5m. Riverside slope ranges 001 between 0.5H:1V to 2H:1V, and landside slope has an average of approximately 4H:1V. Dike does not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐MUD‐ Some settlement of the dike has occurred. Dike 001; DAR‐ subsidence is of primary concern as silty sediments MUD‐004 prevail in this location. No seepage or piping reported. Dikes are mostly riprapped, although some areas the riprap is poor. Some sloughing noted by Golder. Settlement and foundation bearing failure may be a concern with dike raises.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐MUD‐ Strain softening of the foundation soils likely during an 001; DAR‐ earthquake and lateral spreading/bearing failure MUD‐004 possible with steep dikes. Liquefiable soils are also likely in the foundation.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐MUD‐ Riprap is in relatively poor condition at downstream 001 end facing Mud Bay. Riprap protection is typically undersized and not appropriately tied in. Dike is susceptible to erosion at downstream sections that are exposed to wave action from Mud Bay.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐094 Hawksberry tree growing on dike.

7. Encroachments3 LMDIM‐ Highway 99 crosses dike and is approximately 50 m SURREY‐1; wide shoulder to shoulder. BC Hydro ROW for Google Earth powerline crossing. At downstream end of dike the landside slope is confined by private farmland and ditches.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐MUD‐ 3 Floodboxes. The floodbox East of Highway 99 is 001 reported to be in good working order, however West of Highway 99 the first floodbox is apparently the last remaining corrugated steel floodbox within the district and has collapsed. The second remaining floodbox consists of a PVC culvert has good quality riprap and is reported to be in good condition.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Mud Bay Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 136: Mud Bay Dike Segment 2: 3+904 to 6+304 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐029; OR‐ DCL at approximately middle chainage is 4.24m and 041 crest elevation is 3.20m. The dike, consisting of the Burlington Northern Railway embankment, does not meet coastal standards.

2. Geometry1 Crest is narrow (with single railroad track) and side slopes are steep.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection2 Riprap protection on ocean side. No design information.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 Landside slope covered with large trees, brush and other vegetation.

7. Encroachments3 Dike access road and drainage ditch parallel railroad.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 None reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 None reported.

2. Geometry2 DAR‐MUD‐ Crest width is typically 4m. Riverside slope, following 001; DAR‐ dike upgrades, is 2H:1V but steepens to 1.5H:1V , and MUD‐002 landside slope, where no landward properties have been filled to the crest, are reported at 2H:1V. In areas where new works have been undertaken, standards are met.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐MUD‐ "Area of tension cracks on landside , and sloughing. 003; DAR‐004 Evidence of land pushing out. No significant seepage or piping reported" ‐ nhc. Some settlement of the dike has occurred. Dike subsidence is of primary concern as silty sediments prevail in this location. No seepage or piping reported. Dikes are mostly riprapped but is undersized. Some sloughing noted by Golder. Settlement and foundation bearing failure may be a concern with dike raises.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Strain softening of the foundation soils likely during an earthquake and lateral spreading/bearing failure possible with steep dikes. Liquefiable soils are also likely in the foundation.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐MUD‐ Rounded undersized riprap protection is in place for 001; DIR‐094 most of the dike. Dike is susceptible to erosion at downstream sections exposed to wave action from Mud Bay.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DAR‐MUD‐ Vegetation is reported to be growing on the dike 003 slopes but is typically small grasses and bushes.

7. Encroachments2 DAR‐MUD‐ Numerous backyards adjacent to the landside slope 001: LMDIM‐ have infilled up to the crest elevation. Sewer pipeline SURREY‐001; crosses dike and there is railway ROW at the DAR‐MUD‐ downstream end of the dike. Unauthorized activities 003 where boulders were rearranged have altered the crest and waterside slope in order to facilitate access to the water. Materials, boats, and debris were found on the waterside slope.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Mud Bay Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 136: Mud Bay Dike Segment 3: 0+000 to 4+846 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐MUD‐ Six floodboxes constructed of different materials. Just 001; iMap BC downstream of the Nicomekl Sea Dam floodbox No. 125‐07 is reported to be in good working condition but requires vegetation removal at the flap gate. At Floodbox No.133‐02 there is significant volume of sediment accumulation at the inlet with the potential to block the inlet.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 SUR‐OM‐M‐ O&M manual. Adequate ROW not available for all 4; DAR‐MUD‐ sections of dike. 001

2. Geometry2 ABD‐NW; Crest width of 3.6 m and side slopes on both sides of iMac; DAR‐ 2H:1V are below standard, causing concern. WM‐002; DAR‐WM‐ 006; OR‐007, OR‐011

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 Dike is appropriately sized but is reported to be in fair to poor condition. Seepage through the dike is not expected to cause piping. Unknown settlement conditions.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection2 ABD‐NW; Riprap in several locations has experienced fines iMac; DAR‐ erosion as well as adjacent dike settlement and WM‐002; slumping. It is unclear whether the protection can DAR‐WM‐ withstand the design flood, and repairs should be 006; OR‐007, undertaken. As‐built riprap / erosion protection OR‐011 specifications and design criteria are unknown .

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 ABD‐NW; Some sporadic trees adjacent / along dike. Some areas iMac; DAR‐ of the dike are trimmed annually, but this is not WM‐002; continuous. In some places, dike slopes are covered DAR‐WM‐ with brush and difficult to inspect. Invasive vegetative 006; OR‐007, species noted on toe. No animal burrows observed, OR‐011 but tree scraping and other indications of beaver presence noted along dike sideslopes / crest.

7. Encroachments2 ABD‐NW; Buildings encroach on ROW. Fences obstruct iMac; DAR‐ inspections and emergency response. Road crossings WM‐002; result in minor gaps that can be blocked during design DAR‐WM‐ flood. No conflicting land‐use. Dike used as main road. 006; OR‐007, OR‐011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: New Westminster, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 140: Queensborough Dike Segment 1: 3+669 to ‐0+123 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures2 ABD‐NW; Wood Street pump station / flood box has structural iMac; DAR‐ deficiencies that the City is investigating and planning WM‐002; on repairing. There is significant corrosion of the main DAR‐WM‐ steel beam pump support. This pump station is 006; OR‐007, scheduled for full rehabilitation within a year (noted in OR‐011 2014). Stanley Street Pump Station/flood box in good repair. Multiple utilities, some longitudinal in dike.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐NW; ROWs and legal access are available but some iMac; DAR‐ refinements are required. There is an O&M manual WM‐002; and the dike is inspected. There is no information DAR‐WM‐ available on an emergency response plan. 006; OR‐007, OR‐011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: New Westminster, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 140: Queensborough Dike Segment 2: 3+450 to 6+706 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.13 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 ABD‐NW; Crest levels are above design flood level by a min of iMac; DAR‐ 0.09m. Most of the crest is approximately 0.35m WM‐002; above the flood level. DAR‐WM‐ 006; OR‐007, OR‐011

2. Geometry4 ABD‐NW; Crest width meets applicable standards and side slopes iMac; DAR‐ meet or exceed relevant specifications. (Crest width > WM‐002; 4 m, landside slope = 3H:1V, waterside slope = DAR‐WM‐ 2.5H:1V). 006; OR‐007, OR‐011

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 Dike is appropriately sized. Seepage through the dike is not expected to cause piping. Unknown settlement conditions.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 ABD‐NW; There is erosive action but it does not appear to iMac; DAR‐ jeopardize the stability of the dike. Riprap information WM‐002; limited, but no erosion / slumping / settlement DAR‐WM‐ reported. Erosion protection needs monitoring. Riprap 006; OR‐007, / erosion protection specifications and design criteria OR‐011 are unknown .

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 ABD‐NW; No woody vegetation or brush obscuring dike slopes, iMac; DAR‐ although some trees adjacent to dike. Vegetation is WM‐002; predominantly grasses that are mowed annually. No DAR‐WM‐ reported animal burrows, other animal damage or 006; OR‐007, activities impacting dike sideslopes / crest. OR‐011

7. Encroachments3 ABD‐NW; Buildings encroach on ROW. Fences obstruct iMac; DAR‐ inspection personnel or emergency response. Road WM‐002; crossings result in minor gaps that can be blocked DAR‐WM‐ during design flood. No conflicting land‐use. Dike used 006; OR‐007, as main road. OR‐011

8. Appurtenant Structures2 ABD‐NW; Pumpstations and floodboxes are in good working iMac; DAR‐ order (replaced in 2005 at Cart PS). Seepage is WM‐002; prevented along structure / dike interface. Culverts DAR‐WM‐ are in good order. Likely major longitudinal utilities in 006; OR‐007, dike. OR‐011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: New Westminster, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 140: Queensborough Dike Segment 2: 3+450 to 6+706 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐NW; ROWs and legal access are available but some iMac; DAR‐ refinements are required. There is an O&M manual WM‐002; and the dike is regularly inspected. There is no DAR‐WM‐ information available on an emergency response plan. 006; OR‐007, OR‐011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Nicomen Island Improvement District Deficiency Matrix Dike 144: Nicomen Island Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 18+500 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.75 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐004 Dike crest is well below DCL and there is no freeboard allowance (eg at 9+000, the DCL is 11.5m and 2014 crest elevation survey is 10.4m).

2. Geometry2 iMaps BC; W‐ Crest width for new works is reported to meet the 2383; W‐ minimum width of 4m, landside slope is 4H:1V, 2202; OR‐034 riverside slope is 2‐2.5H:1V, meeting standards. A 2007 assessment reported that crest widths were narrow and dike slopes were often steeper than 2H:1V on both slopes therefore it is likely that older sections of the dike do not meet current standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐067; OR‐ "Sinkhole approximately one foot in diameter was 034; W‐3052 found on the landside of the dike a couple of metres from the toe. After excavation it was found to be a rotting piece of wood. A 2007 assessment noted ponding occuring on the landside of the dike. Active sand boils noted."‐nhc

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Liquefaction and lateral displacements likely.

5. Erosion Protection2 LMDIM‐ Some riverbank, upstream of recent works in exposed Nicomen; Fraser River locations, is experiencing scouring and DIR‐067 riprap armouring may have deteriorated since the 2012 dike inspection. Some poorly interlocked and displaced riprap around Floodbox No 172. Overall, the dike is setback for most of its length.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐067; OR‐ Trees reported to be growing on the dike slopes, 034 animal burrows and pathways are noted along the dike section.

7. Encroachments3 LMDIM‐ Multiple road crossings Nicomen

8. Appurtenant Structures2 iMAP BC; 8 Floodboxes, 2 Pump Stations, 1 Culvert. Inspection of LMDIM‐ the flapgate on Floodbox 168 showed that the flapgate Nicomen; OR‐ was appropriately sealed however that seepage was 021 likely entering the drain pipe through cracks. After inserting an inflatable plug in the downstream end of the drain pipe to induce greater hydrostatic pressures within the dike fill, it was noted that seepage increased and a boil developed on the landside of the dike.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DIR‐067; FVR‐ Annual inspection, O&M manual exists, 2007 dike OM‐M‐3 assessment noted several private gates on the dike crest were damaged or inoperable.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Nicomen Island Improvement District Deficiency Matrix Dike 144: Nicomen Island Dike Segment 2: 18+500 to 35+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.25 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐013 The dike crest is well below the DCL (eg at approximately 27+000 DCL is 10.6 m and 2014 surveyed crest elevation is reported as 9.5m).

2. Geometry2 W‐2383; OR‐ Crest width averages a minimum of 3.5m, or less than 034 4 m standard. Both landside and riverside slopes are designed to 3H:1V which meets standards. However, a 2007 dike assessment noted that some slopes are as steep as 1.2H : 1V and crest widths become quite narrow in some places and dike does not generally meet current provincial standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DIR‐067; OR‐ "A boil was discovered beside Negrin South Pump 034; OR‐021; Station. Seepage and ponding on the lanside of the ; W‐3052 dike is reported along much of the dike segment." ‐ nhc. Dike width is less than recommended.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Liquefaction and lateral displacements likely.

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐067; No significant riprap armouring reported, however LMDIM‐ dike runs along Nicomen Slough and is not typically Nicomen subject to erosive flows.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐067; OR‐ Trees growing on slope of dike, brush cutting needed 034 in multiple locations. Animal burrows and pathways are noted along dike segment.

7. Encroachments3 Google Lougheed Highway bisects dike twice with a 10m wide Earth; OR‐002 section. Dike also runs along the side of the highway upstream on Nicomen Slough. Smaller roads end at dike but do not cross.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐067 Stairs, 3 Flood Boxes, Culvert, Pump Station. Pumps are reported to vibrate and one is reported as drawing more amperage than it should.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐067 Annual inspection, O&M manual exists , 2007 dike assessment notes that vehicle access is restricted by narrow crest widths or gates.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: No local authority ‐ Lower Mainland Deficiency Matrix Dike 192: Coquitlam Dyking District Dike Segment 1: 2+000 to 4+635 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 The dike crest is below the design water level and there is negative freeboard (eg the DCL at approximately 3+300m is 5.5m and crest elevation is 4.8m). The dike segment does not meet standards. There is a low section near the end of the dike at a historical slough location, that indicates settlement of the dike . The settlement is likely due to a sub‐surface organic layer.

2. Geometry1 W‐3137 A 2012 dike assessment report concluded the dike is sub‐standard with crest widths of less than 4m and side slopes oversteepened up to 1H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General1 W‐3137 Dike is described as being substandard. The dike is generally narrow, with steep side slopes, and has erosion issues. The existing ditch on the landside of the dike does not conform to recommended design standards and therefore possible seepage and piping issues exist.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3137 Liqeufaction of the underlain sands and lateral displacement of the dike is likely.

5. Erosion Protection2 W‐3137 Existing erosion protection along the Pitt River has 20 to 25m long reaches of failed riprap revetment, with oversteep slopes and visible gaps. The riprap erosion protection is intermittent and does not appear to be adequately keyed in at the toe.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 W‐3137 Light vegetation on dike slopes, blackberry bushes, animal burrows and trails present.

7. Encroachments4 W‐3137 Some private residences adjacent to the dike, however no significant encroachments noted.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 W‐3137 Pump station described as being in good condition however may not meet updated pumping requirements. Floodbox, and culvert of unreported dimensions exist with no reported issues.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 W‐3137 No ROW access issues reported, O&M manual drafted in 2012 dike assessment. Administrative issues.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: No local authority ‐ Lower Mainland Deficiency Matrix Dike 192: Coquitlam Dyking District Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 2+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐3137; OR‐ The crest elevation is below the design water level and 007 freeboard is negative (eg at approximately the middle chainage along De Boville Slough, the DCL is 5.5m and crest elevation is between 4.5 ‐ 4.8m.

2. Geometry1 W‐3137 A 2012 dike assessment report concluded the dike is sub‐standard with crest widths of less than 4m and side slopes oversteepened up to 1H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 W‐3137 Slumping reported along certain dike sections. The 2012 dike assessment states that due to the substandard nature of the dike geometry the concern for seepage and damage to the dike through piping exists.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 W‐3137 Some lateral displacement is possible but the foundation soils consist mostly of silt. There may be some liquefiable sand at depth but the test holes did not go past 13 m.

5. Erosion Protection4 W‐3137 No significant erosion protection reported. Flow velocities are generally low.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 W‐3137 Dike slope is vegetated and animal activity is reported.

7. Encroachments3 W‐3137 No significant encroachments, upstream end of dike ties into Cedar Dr.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 W‐3137 No structures reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 W‐3137 No ROW access issues reported, O&M manual drafted in 2012 dike assessment Administrative issues.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: North Nicomen Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 223: North Nicomen Dike Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 3+368 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.89 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐1100; OR‐ The crest elevation, reported in 1995 as 7.5 m at an 007; DAR‐ approximate middle chainage, is significantly below NNICOMEN‐ the DCL along Nicomen Slough of 11.0m. Taylor Rd 001 acts as a dike but is reported to have a crest elevation of 8.6 to 8.8m, also providing substandard protection.

2. Geometry2 W‐1100; From a 1995 survey it appears that the dike geometry DAR‐ along the Taylor Rd has side slopes of 3H:1V and a NNICOMEN‐ crest width of greater than 4m. But based on reported 001 deficiencies, the crest widths and side slopes appear to vary and not meet standards everywhere.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General1 DAR‐ During the 2012 freshet high water levels in Nicomen NNICOMEN‐ Slough resulted in over 20 open seepage paths noted 001; W‐3052 on the landside of the dike within a 100m section of dike. Sand cones and turbidity in ponded water were noted indicating internal erosion of the dike structure was occurring. No other geotechnical data available.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 Liquefaction and lateral displacements likely.

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐096 No riprap erosion protection reported.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DIR‐096 Blackberry bushes and small woody vegetation growing on slope, annual mowing required but access is limited in some locations.

7. Encroachments2 Google Maps Road crossings, driveways. The dike terminates at the railroad and is likely raised to meet the track elevation.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 OR‐002; 2 flood boxes, 4 pipe crossings. Culverts and flood iMap BC; DIR‐ gates are reported to be functioning adequately after 096 high water levels experienced in 2012. However, some debris removal maintenance required for submerged floodbox.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DIR‐096; No annual maintenance plan. No O&M manual. Access DAR‐ refused by landowner at the Southwest end of Taylor NNICOMEN‐ Road. Gate across dike crest restricts access. 001

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: North Vancouver Outdoor School School District #44 Deficiency Matrix Dike 224: North Vancouver Outdoor School Dike Segment 1: 0+440 to 2+864 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.14 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐2964; Upstream end (Bob's berm) is a low, non‐standard DAR‐NVOS‐ dike, not providing flood protection to the 200 year 001 flood level. The entire dike system is sub‐standard, not tied into higher ground and susceptible to overtopping and outflanking.

2. Geometry1 W‐2964 Crest width is inadequate and side slopes are over‐ steepened.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DAR‐024 Significant seepage through dike upstream of Bihouse on Canoe Pond.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection1 W‐2964 Bob's berm and Canoe Pond dike have no bank protection but there is riprap along the main dike in some places. Significant erosion occurred along the toe during the October 2003 flood.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 W‐2964, Dense vegetation along side slopes of Bob's berm and DAR‐NVOS‐ Canoe Pond dike. There are large cottonwood trees 001 with trunk diameters up to 600mm, and large trees and heavy vegetation have been an ongoing concern for 30 years. Vegetation management is limited to removal of small vegetation on main dike, performed on an annual basis.

7. Encroachments4 No roadways, fences, or buildings encroach on dike; observation platform constructed on river bank near outfall of Paradise Spawning Channel.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DAR‐NVOS‐ No appurtenant structures. 001

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐NVOS‐ NVOS is the owner and maintenance authority, 001 structures are located on land owned by NVOS. No known impediments for access or right of ways; no OM manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Pitt Meadows, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 243: Pitt Meadows 1 ‐ Alouette River Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 9+911 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐2884; DIR‐ On average the dike crest elevation is just below the 109; OR‐048 design flood water surface elevation of 4.55 m GSC but has many sections that are 0.6 m below this.

2. Geometry1 DIR‐109 The dike crest width of 3.66 m is less than the standard 4 m. The side slopes of 1.5H:1V are consistently overly steep.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General1 W‐3052 Dike is narrower and steeper than recommended. Flood height is high. Soft and compressible foundation soils.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 W‐3052 Dike is likely to be unstability during an seismic conditions due the dike slope steepness. Portions may be underlain by liquefiable sand.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐098; DIR‐ No erosion protection on dike slopes. Prolonged use of 109 heavy trucks during wet conditions would damage the crest surface.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 iMapBC; DAR‐ Crest is soft and muddy; frequent repairs required due PM‐001; DIR‐ to local beaver population burrowing into the dike 098 creating sink holes and cave‐ins; vegetation maintained annually.

7. Encroachments3 iMapBC; DIR‐ Neaves Rd crosses dike at each end; road/recreational 109 path along crest of dike for entire perimeter. Cranberry and blueberry production by Aquilini Farms has resulted in the filling of borrow ditches and digging of major drainage channels, some of which extends to the toe of the dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐098; FPP‐ 1 floodbox, no issues noted in inspection report, major 033 upgrade of pump station completed in 2010 with 2 ‐ ABS submersible pumps of 22,900 GPM capacity each.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐PM‐001 Dike ROW defined in legal plans; no OM Manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Pitt Meadows, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 244: Pitt Meadows Dike Segment 1: 11+717 to 5+161 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007 Crest elevation is below DCL by 0.5 m on average with section from 10+000 to 11+500 being below the design flood water surface elevation.

2. Geometry3 Side slopes of 3H:1V meet standards while the average crest width of 3.66m is below the 4 m standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐3052 Dike slopes are as recommended. Seepage through the dike may cause minor piping and settlements are likely to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 The sand below the silt is likely liquefiable and can produce lateral displacements.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐098 No bank protection noted on dike as‐built drawings but some riprap likely on river bank. No erosion issues noted in inspection report.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐098 Regular maintenance 3‐4 times/yr, vegetation reduces visibility at toe of dike; minimal woody vegetation.

7. Encroachments3 DIR‐025 Top of dyke is Trans Canada trail, also becomes paved Fraser Dyke Road, Fraser Way, and Wharf St in sections; crossing of Pitt Meadows Airport roadway with control gate in place, crossing at Golden Ears Bridge.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DAR‐PM‐001 Pumpstation pumps are being replaced, so far Baynes Road and McKechnie Road pumpstations have been completed with new motor control centers. No issues reported in inspection

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐PM‐ Combination of City Controlled ‐ Active Road, City 002; DIR‐025 Controlled ‐ Legal Road ROW, Private Land ‐ City SROW in place, Probable City Control (Dyke ROW defined in legal plans), Private Land ‐ No SROW, and unknown status for section in Maple Ridge; no maintenance of dike surface at Katzie Reserve.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Pitt Meadows, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 244: Pitt Meadows Dike Segment 2: 2+910 to 5+161 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐007 Dike crest elevation provides 0.3 m of freeboard over the design flood water surface elevation with small sections along Douglas Reach that meet or exceed the DCL.

2. Geometry3 Crest width is generally 3.66m or less than standard 4 m. Riverside slope is 3H:1V and landside slope ranges from 2H to 3H:1V generally meeting standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐3052 Dike slopes are as recommended. Settlements are likely to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 The sand below the silt is likely liquefiable and can produce lateral displacements.

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐098 Dike is set‐back from the river's edge along the Douglas Reach and sporadic riprap placement of unknown dimensions and gradation has been placed along the bank. No erosion issues noted in inspection reports.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐098 Regular maintenance 3‐4 times/yr, saplings removed from dike slope and regular mowing and brushing occur; vegetation reduces visibility at toe of dike; minimal woody vegetation.

7. Encroachments3 Lougheed Highway and CN Rail cross the dike. Dike crosses Katzie Slough; crest of dike is Trans Canada Trail. Ford Rd ends at dike toe. Mainly agricultural areas along toe of dike. No access issues noted during inspection.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐098; Agricultural culverts run through dike (drainage for IMAPBC; cranberry fields), Kennedy Pumpstation has 4 pumps DAR‐PM‐001 of un‐specified capacity draining Katzie Slough. Pumpstation is scheduled to have new pumps and controls in future years. No issues reported in inspection

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐PM‐002 Dike ROW defined in legal plans, sections at Lougheed Highway and railway crossing are under CPR/MOT ownership. O&M manual exist for pumpstations. Yearly dike inspections implemented.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Pitt Meadows, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 244: Pitt Meadows Dike Segment 3: 11+256 to 2+910 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 PIT‐OM‐M‐4; Dike crest elevations for the entire dike segment are OR‐048; OR‐ below the design flood water surface elevation. 049

2. Geometry3 PIT‐OM‐M‐4Crest width is typically 3.66m ( less than 4 m standard). Landside and riverside slopes generally meet standards of respectively 3H:1V and 2 to 3H:1V or flatter with some seepage control.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐3052 Dike slopes are as recommended. Seepage through the dike may cause minor piping and settlements are likely to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 W‐3052 Dike is likely to be unstability during an seismic conditions due the dike slope steepness. Portions may be underlain by liquefiable sand.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐098 Some riprap armourment along short stretches of Alouette River (approx. 200 m long) consisting of 600 mm thick rock layer (size gradation un‐specified). No erosion issues noted in inspection reports.

7. Encroachments3 IMAPBC; Neaves Rd. and Harris Rd crossings; McKechnie Road DAR‐PM‐002 Pumpstation drains Cranberry Slough and has 3 pumps of un‐specific capacity. McKechnie Road pumpstation has new motor control center and new automated trash rack installed. Four 1.5 x 1.5 m concrete floodboxes with tophung gates installed at north end of Reichenback Rd. Crest of dike is Trans Canada Trail. No issues noted in inspection reports.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐098 No issues reported in inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐PM‐002 Dike ROW defined in legal plans, section of crown land between Harris and Hale Rds, section SE of Neaves Rd in Maple Ridge with unknown ROW status. O&M manual exists for McKechnie Road Pumpstation. Yearly dike inspections implemented.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Pitt Meadows, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 245: Pitt Polder ‐ Pitt River (Sturgeon Slough) Dike Segment 1: 15+390 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.67 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐007; Dike crest is well below the design flood water surface iMapBC elevation, in some locations 0.9 m below; crest is rutted, uneven and narrow in places along Sturgeon Slough.

2. Geometry1 Dike is sub‐standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 W‐3052 No dike geometry. Settlements are likely to be very high due to the organic content in the foundation soils.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 W‐3052 Dike is likely to be unstability during an seismic conditions due the dike slope steepness. Portions may be underlain by liquefiable sand.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐098 Extent of riprap not known. No erosion issues reported in inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DAR‐PM‐ Frequent repairs required to repair beaver damage 001; DIR‐098 (sink holes and cave ins); regular maintenance 3‐4 times/yr.

7. Encroachments1 iMapBC Various structures located on crest at northern end ‐ crest and sideslopes extensively modified with boat ramps, kiosks, fences; major roads along dike crest

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐098 No inventory found but no issues reported in inspection reports.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐PM‐ Private land, municipality has no SROW access; no OM 001; DAR‐ manual available. PM‐002

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Pitt Meadows, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 246: Pitt Meadows 2 ‐ Pitt River Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 8+731 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.67 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐007 Dike crest meets or exceeds DCL along Pitt River for about 4 km but other reaches have a freeboard of 0.3 m or less. Status along Alouette River not known.

2. Geometry3 Crest width is generally 3.66m (less than 4 m standard) but side slopes meet standards: riverside slope is 3H:1V and landside 2 to 3H:1V or flatter with some seepage control.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐3052 Dike slopes are as recommended. Settlements are likely to be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3052 The sand below the silt is likely liquefiable and can produce lateral displacements.

5. Erosion Protection4 DIR‐098 No erosion protection noted, dike is set‐back from river's edge. No erosion issues noted in inspection reports.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DAR‐PM‐ Frequent repairs required along Alouette River 001; DIR‐098 because of beaver damage. Beavers burrow into the dike creating sink holes and cave ins; regular maintenance of vegetation 3‐4 times a year, saplings removed from dike slope and regular mowing and brushing occur; some woody vegetation.

7. Encroachments3 Harris Road crosses the dike at Alouette River. Mainly agricultural land. Entire length of dike crest is Trans Canada trail way.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐098 Fenton Pumpstation drains Fenton Slough and consists of 2 ‐ FLYGT pumps of un‐specified capacity and 1 ‐ 1.5x1.7 m and 2 ‐ 1.7x1.8 m concrete culverts with gates. Upgrades scheduled to the pumps, controls and trash racks. No issues mentioned in inspection report.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐PM‐002 Dike ROW defined in legal plans. Dike section along North Alouette River has no statutory ROW in place and is on private land. O&M manual exists for Fenton Pumpstation. Yearly vegetation plan in place.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Pitt Meadows, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 328: North Alouette Right Bank Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 2+535 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.25 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐2127; OR‐ DCL is approximately 5.6 m (Pitt River freshet design 007 flood level + 0.6m) and dike crest averages 5.0 m. There is no freeboard. Dike is substandard.

2. Geometry1 Crest width appears to be below standard and sideslopes may be oversteep.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General W‐3052

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 W‐3052 Dike is likely to be unstability during an seismic conditions due the dike slope steepness. Portions may be underlain by liquefiable sand.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐098 Velocities are low, there is no riprap. No issues reported in inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐098 Regular maintenance 3‐4 times/yr; mainly grassy slopes.

7. Encroachments3 Neaves Rd crosses the dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐098 No mention of appurtenant structures.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐PM‐002 Private Land, District has no SROW access.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Port Coquitlam, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 252: Coquitlam River Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 7+995 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.50 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 W‐2805; Even with the BC Hydro flood buffer agreement, the DAR‐ dikes do not have sufficient freeboard to prevent COQUITLAM‐ overtopping during the reduced design flow of 371 001 cms. Channel aggradation due to sediment deposition plus potential log debris jams at bridges and other constrictions may also result in dike overtopping.

2. Geometry1 W‐2885; Some portions are oversteepened at 1.5H:1V, or DAR‐ steeper, with 3.66 m crest width. During 2007 COQUITLAM‐ upgrades, due to environmental and time constraints, 001; W‐2805 riverside and landside slopes were left at 2H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 The dike slopes are steeper than recommended. Seepage may cause foundation heave on the landside of the dike where there is a thin layer of silt on the surface. Settlements are likely to be greater on the southern portion of the dike, closer to the Fraser River.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic No geotechnical data.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐099; W‐ Riprap bank protection is placed along 200 m 2885; W‐ downstream of CP Rail Bridge, having a D50 rock size 2805 of 100kg. A 100 m long section of lock‐block wall runs along the top of the river bank in this area where a garage on private property was located too close to river. An erosion area was identified 500 m upstream of Lougheed Highway and extends for a length of 20 m with max height of 2.5 m. Riprap has been placed immediately downstream of this area but is oversteep at 1.2H:1V and containing loose rock in places. Asphalt of Poco trail is cracking; no other issues reported.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DIR‐099 Tall grass and shrub vegetation reduces visibility to each toe, trees growing on the slope/bank and toe of dike with potential for uprooting. Multi‐year management plan in place; area has active recreational use.

7. Encroachments3 W‐2805 Garage on a private property was constructed in the dike ROW; standard dike cross section cannot be maintained when raising dike crest. CN Rail bridge crossing at southern end of Lions Park; Lougheed HWY crosses dike upstream of Rail bridge. Poco Trail runs along dike crest; crosses Pitt River Rd.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Port Coquitlam, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 252: Coquitlam River Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 7+995 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐099 3 floodboxes located along right bank and 2 flood boxes located along left bank. Reeve Park Pumpstation has 2‐75hp 1000 LPS screw pumps with spillway. Flood control gates located at Como and Nelson Creeks. Condition of structures unknown but no issues noted in dike inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 O&M manuals available for dikes and pump stations. Multi‐year management plan in place. Some structures built in dike ROW that will prevent future dike improvements from meeting side‐slope standards.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Port Coquitlam, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 253: Port Coquitlam (Pitt River) Dike Segment 1: 0 to 9+420 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 W‐2885 Dike crest elevation along Pitt River matches the DCL of El. 5.5 m over the entire length. Deboville Slough dike crest elevation exceeds the design flood water surface elevation and has upwards of 0.2m of freeboard close to the Pitt River.

2. Geometry2 W‐2885 Works implemented in 2007 resulted in a 4 m crest width, meeting standards. Due to environmental and time constraints the riverside and landside slopes were left at 2H:1V or below standards. .

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 W‐3137 The top silt layer is variable thickness, some areas could have significant settlements due to thick silt and other areas could have foundation heave due to thin silt.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐3137 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible along portions of the dike.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐099 Riprap protection placed on dike slopes only at pumpstations and with a slope of 1.5H:1V. Riprap placed along riverside slope at Valiant Log Sort Ltd's log sort. No reported issues from inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐099 Multi‐year vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments2 ABD‐PTCOQ‐ Gap in dyke where CPR track crosses; Cedar Drive runs 002 along dike crest. Valiant Log Sort Ltd has log sort encroaching on dike ROW.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐099 Several pumpstations ‐ Cedar Drive pumpstation, 1 50hp, 200LPS pump; McLean Creek pumpstation, 1‐ 60ph pump with 1050mm steel discharge pipe and flapgate; Laurier pumpstation, 1‐85ph FLYGT 1250 GPM pump; Dominon pumpstation, 3‐100hp FLYGT 1000LPS pumps, 1‐ 305hp FLYGT 2200 LPS pump. Old Harbour Street pumpstation, 2‐150hp 1400 LPS pumps with 36" discharge pipes. New Harbour Street pumpstation, 2 screw pumps. All associated floodboxes have flapgates and trash screens. Condition of structures not described but no issues reported in inspection report.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 iMapBC Dike north of Lincoln Ave is in City of Coquitlam but is maintained by Port Coquitlam. O&M manuals exist for pumpstations. Multi‐year vegetation plan in place.

2. Geometry1 ABD‐VAN Crest widths of 3 m is less than 4 m standard. Riverside slope of 1.4H:1V and landside slopes of 2H:1V are consistently steeper than standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 DAR‐PMV‐ There is not expect to be any seepage issues. Minor 002; VCR‐ settlement may occur from new construction of the OM‐C‐2 dike. Some minor slope instability of the riprap has been observed. Water side slope is steep but heavily riprapped. Land side slope has been filled behind for housing.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 DAR‐PMV‐ Likely underlain by liquefiable sands that will produce 002 lateral displacements.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐PMV‐ Riprap on riverside designed to resist 1.0m waves from 002 tug and vessel traffic, 0.6 m waves from wind and 1.5 m/s river currents. It protects against scour and undermining to an elevation of ‐6.9 m by a self‐ launching apron. The riprap on the slough face is designed to resist wind waves of 0.3 m. The upper slope is constructed of concrete block walls. In 2014, concrete block walls were generally in serviceable condition with minor gaps between blocks and localized vegetation growth. Some settlement of gravel base material has resulted in localized misalignment and undermining of the concrete blocks but has not affected the functionality of the wall. Riprap slopes are generally in serviceable condition but with localized slope failures, slippage, and some localized areas of displaced armour rocks. No significant erosion or undermining of slopes below low water; areas repaired in 2005 remain stable with no signs of erosion.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Port Metro Vancouver Deficiency Matrix Dike 222: Deering Island Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+715 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DAR‐PMV‐ According to 2014 report: removal of vegetation 002 growth needed to prevent further misalignment of concrete black wall or slope failures of riprap slope. There are a number of trees, shrubs, other vegetation growing on upper portion of riprap slope ‐ development of root structures and accumulation of soil could eventually destabilize the upper slope. Localized areas of vegetation planted by home owners along lock‐blocks and concrete blocks preventing access for visual inspections.

7. Encroachments2 DAR‐PMV‐ Carrington Street access bridge; accretion of sediment 002 along north side of island may require dredging for boat operator access; interior dike forms Deering Island Park recreational path; boat ramps built into dikes along north side.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DAR‐PMV‐ No flood boxes/pump stations present. 002

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐PMV‐ Park Georgia Properties Ltd. entered into a 'Shoreline 002 Maintenance Agreement" with the North Fraser Port Authority (now PMV) to provide required maintenance after 1990 and conduct annual inspections. Local strata/home owners should be encouraged to remove vegetation as required; OM Manual available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Richmond, City of, Engineering Planning Deficiency Matrix Dike 271: Richmond ‐ Sea Dike Dike Segment 1: 25+300 to 19+708 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐007; OR‐ Crest elevation is below DCL but provides 0.3 m of 043 freeboard for entire section.

2. Geometry3 ABD‐RICH‐ Average crest width of 7.3 m exceeds standard. 009 Riverside slope of 3H:1V meets standards but landside slopes of 2H:1V are steeper than standard. Dike is continuous around Lulu Island.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 OR‐025; W‐ Some areas of the dike may experience significant 2778 settlement due to underlying peat. Heave and piping are a risk in certain areas where the silt crust is thin over river sand.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐025; W‐ Some portions of the dike have river sand near the 2778 surface where others have thick silt and peat at the surface.

5. Erosion Protection3 ABD‐RICH‐ Riprap bank protection placed along entire bank, 009 gradation and dimensions un‐reported but regular riprap repairs have taken place twice a year.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐028 Regular vegetation control performed; vegetation management plan in place. Saplings removed from dike slopes.

7. Encroachments3 ABD‐RICH‐ Multiple ditch and road crossings; River Road lies along 009 dike crest.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMapBC 3‐ pump stations: Queens Road North pumpstation, 3‐ 70hp pumps and 1‐35 hp pump, total 51600 gpm; Nelson Rd pumpstation, pumps and capacity not reported; No 8 Road North pumpstation, 3‐60hp pumps, 1‐32 hp pump, total 39000 GPM. 1 floodbox comprised of 2‐36" dia. CMPs with flapgates. Condition of structures not reported but no issues reported in inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 ABD‐RICH‐ City owns and operates diking system, construction 009; DIR‐028 and maintenance lies with Richmond dike authority; OM Manuals available.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Richmond, City of, Engineering Planning Deficiency Matrix Dike 271: Richmond ‐ Sea Dike Dike Segment 2: 19+708 to 4+500 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.67 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐007; OR‐ Crest elevation is below DCL but provides 0.3 m of 043 freeboard for entire section.

2. Geometry3 ABD‐RICH‐ Average crest width of 5 m exceeds standards but 008;ABD‐ riverside and landside slopes of 2H:1V are overly RICH‐006; steep. Dike is continuous around Lulu Island. ABD‐RICH‐ 005

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 OR‐025; W‐ Flood height is quite low. Some minor settlement 2778 should be expected from the silt. Minor heave and piping are possible on the landside of the dike but the hydraulic gradient is quite low (land side is not much lower than flood elevation).

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐025; W‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. 2778

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐028; Erosion noted between No. 4 Rd and Duck Island, and ABD‐RICH‐ at Capstan Way. Riprap bank protection placed along 009 bank sporadically, gradation and dimensions un‐ reported but regular riprap repairs have taken place twice a year.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 iMapBC; DIR‐ Overgrown with blackberries near No. 3 road, 028 overgrown banks east of Oak St bridge; regular vegetation control performed; vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments2 ABD‐RICH‐ Multiple road crossings; boat launch ramp crosses dike 003 west of Hamilton Road; River Road lies along dike crest; section with series of buildings and access points; dike passes through mill.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMapBC; DIR‐ 11 pump stations along dike segment with varying 028 capacity. 4‐ floodboxes both CMP and concrete culverts. Condition of structures not reported but no issues mentioned in inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐RICH‐ City owns and operates diking system, construction 009; DIR‐028 and maintenance lies with Richmond dike authority; OM Manuals available; limited access through Richmond Marina.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Richmond, City of, Engineering Planning Deficiency Matrix Dike 271: Richmond ‐ Sea Dike Dike Segment 3: 26+883 to 32+690 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐007; OR‐ Dike crest levels meet or exceed DCL except just 043 upstream of Don Island

2. Geometry3 ABD‐RICH‐ Average crest width of 3.66 m is below the 4 m 003 standard. Riverside and landside slopes of respectively 3H:1V and 2.5H:1V meet standards. Isolated section with oversteepened landside slope. Dike is continuous around Lulu Island.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐025; W‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. 2778

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐028; Riprap placed along riverside bank but not continuous; ABD‐RICH‐ gradation and dimensions not reported. Regular riprap 003 repairs have taken place twice a year.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐028 Regular vegetation control performed; vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments1 iMapBC Multiple road crossings, major roads along dike crest; dike is a parking lot in some areas; in others the dike is made up of the concrete wall of a storage building. Utilities run longitudinally in the dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMapBC; DIR‐ 4‐pumpstations with varying capacities and 3 ‐ 028 floodboxes comprising of both CMP and concrete pipe culverts with flapgates. Condition of structures not reported but no issues noted during inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 ABD‐RICH‐ City owns and operates diking system, construction 003; DIR‐028 and maintenance lies with Richmond dike authority; OM Manuals available;

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Richmond, City of, Engineering Planning Deficiency Matrix Dike 271: Richmond ‐ Sea Dike Dike Segment 4: 32+690 to 49+286 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.56 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐007; OR‐ Dike crest elevation is generally below the DCL but 043 provides at least 0.3 m of freeboard. Dike is discontinuous between No. 7 and No. 8 roads.

2. Geometry3 ABD‐RICH‐ Average crest width of 5.5 m exceeds standard, 003 riverside slope of 3H:1V meets standards but landside slope of 2H:1V is too steep. Dike is continuous around Lulu Island.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 OR‐025; W‐ Some minor settlement should be expected from the 2778 silt. Some heave and piping are possible on the landside of the dike where there is a thin silt layer over sand.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐025; W‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. 2778

5. Erosion Protection3 iMapBC; DIR‐ Sporadic riprap placement along dike segment, 028 gradation and dimensions not reported. Majority of segment west of HWY 99 is set back from the dike by 30‐50 m. Regular riprap repairs have taken place twice a year. There are gabion baskets near Triangle Road.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐028 Regular vegetation control performed; vegetation management plan in place. Saplings removed from dike slopes.

7. Encroachments1 iMapBC Multiple road crossings and major roads along dike crest; Steveston boat basin uses crest for storage. Many buildings encroaching on crest from 3rd Ave. to No.1 Road.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMapBC; DIR‐ 9 pumpstations with varying capacities and 9 028 floodboxes comprising of both CMP and concrete pipe culverts with flapgates. 3 agricultural culverts run through the dike. Condition of structures not reported but no issues noted during inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 W‐2888 ROW/access issue at Fraser Wharves; OM Manuals available; some dike areas with no access.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Richmond, City of, Engineering Planning Deficiency Matrix Dike 271: Richmond ‐ Sea Dike Dike Segment 5: 4+500 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐007; OR‐ Dike crest elevation is generally below the DCL but 043 provides some freeboard.

2. Geometry3 ABD‐RICH‐ Dike crest width is under the 4 m standard. The 002 Fraser River Flood Control Program design for the sea dike as shown in the as constructed drawings is crest width 3.7 m; landside slope 2.5H:1V ; and waterside slope 5H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 OR‐025; W‐ Some settlement may occure due to the underlying silt 2778 layer. Land side dike slope is steeper than recommended.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐025; W‐ Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible. 2778

5. Erosion Protection3 iMapBC; DIR‐ Dike is set‐back from the shore by 30‐40 m. No riprap 028 placed along oceanside but shore is vegetated with shrubs and grasses. Drainage channel runs along toe of landside slope.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐028 Banks are grass covered, regular vegetation control performed; vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments3 iMapBC Dike is constructed through Garry Point Park. Houses are set‐back from the dike ROW.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMapBC; DIR‐ 4‐ pumpstations with varying capacities are located 028 along the dike. Condition of structures not reported but no issues noted during inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 City owns and operates diking system, construction and maintenance lies with Richmond dike authority; OM Manuals available. ROW is established and maintained.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 281: Cheakamus River Training Berm U/S Outdoor School Dike Segment 1: 1+060 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.14 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Mixture of discontinuous, non‐standard dikes, low at 001; W‐ various locations, entire system known to be below 2964; DAR‐ 200 year flood level, particularly downstream 340m; NVOS‐001; does not tie in to higher ground at downstream end. DAR‐SQUA‐ 002

2. Geometry3 DAR‐SQUA‐ 2004 upgrades state that standard dike dimensions 001; W‐2964 were achieved (4m crest width and riverside/landside slopes of 3H:1V and 2 to 3H:1V or flatter with some seepage control respectively).

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General DAR‐NVOS‐ significant seepage through dike upstream of Bighouse 001 on Canoe Pond

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection2 W‐2964; Riprap not replaced after October 2003 flood; DAR‐NVOS‐ downstream 340 m is not armoured; small sinkhole 001 near gates at Paradise Valley Road may indicate internal erosion of fill and damage to structure; some loss of riprap on lower bench of dike at administration facility.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DAR‐NVOS‐ Trees in or near dike (within 2m of toe) with potential 001; DIR‐074 for uprooting, yearly maintenance done by NVOS or POS, some small diameter trees removed; large trees and heavy vegetation an ongoing concern for 30 years. Management has been limited and Gorbuscha dikes are in need of work. Some of the eastern berms have been cleared but significant areas have heavy vegetation.

7. Encroachments3 Paradise Valley Road crosses Cheakamus River at dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐002 Submerged fisheries intake with landside gate. 600 mm dia. steel drainage culvert with flap gate 100 m downstream of intake. No issues reported.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐SQUA‐ No SROWs (mostly private dikes); historically, DOS has 001; DAR‐ not taken any responsibility for this dike and any NVOS‐001; maintenance or changes have occurred through School District #44 (SD#44) actions.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 282: Cheekye Berm Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+461 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐2964; Dike was constructed informally, does not provide DAR‐SQUA‐ protection against the 200 year flood but prevents 001; SQ‐OM‐ flooding from relatively frequent flood events. Dike is C‐1 not continuous.

2. Geometry1 W‐2964 Sub‐standard geometry; crest elevation ranges from 1.5 to 4 m and side slopes are as steep as 1.5H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 W‐2377 The dike slopes are very steep and may become unstable during the design flood level. Seepage through the dike during flooding may cause minor piping depending on the dike material. Settlements are expected to be low.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 W‐2377 Seismic slope stability is likely quite low given the steep slopes of the dike. There may be liquefiable sands on the western portion near the Cheakamus River.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐SQUA‐ Riprap revetment at upstream end was constructed 001; DAR‐ using boulders salvaged from channel and material SQUA‐002 from nearby talus slide.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Vegetation growth restricts vehicular passage along 001; DIR‐ most of berm; vegetation maintenance needed from 034; W‐ along entire length. DFO has provided approval to 2964; DIR‐ remove vegetation with two inch diameter or less. All 074 access points are well maintained and clear of debris. Vegetation prevents access and reduces visibility at each toe. There are plans to remove larger diameter trees; historically vegetation management has been poor due to unclear maintenance responsibility.

7. Encroachments3 Access obstructed by three rock boulders along crest upstream of Highway 99.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐034; No appurtenant structures. DAR‐SQUA‐ 002

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Lack of SROW for Cheekeye Berm upstream of 001; W‐ Highway 99; access obstructed; regular maintenance 2964; DAR‐ only occurs along BC Hydro right‐of‐way. Unclear who SQUA‐002 is responsible for maintenance of dikes.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 283: Town Dike SQAM Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+473 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.63 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐2964; Howe Sound coastal design flood level is 4.1 m DAR‐SQUA‐ (including freeboard). Dike crest is below the DCL and 002; section along Mamquam Blind Channel is particularly low. There is risk of the dike being outflanked. (Very significant expansion required to meet provincial SLR targets for Year 2100.)

2. Geometry1 W‐2964 Dike is sub‐standard, discontinuous, narrow‐crested (2‐ 3 m width); with side slopes overly steep at 1.5H:1V.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Likely underlain by liquefiable sands that will produce lateral displacements.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐034; W‐ The dike is set back from Howe sound; majority is not 2964; protected by riprap but there is some riprap along Cattermole Slough that protects west side of slough. The riprap is overall in good condition but some erosion is evident around large vegetation. Local sloughing observed north of Victoria St.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 W‐2964; DIR‐ Eastern portion is overgrown with blackberry and 034; DIR‐074 other vegetation; northwest end is overgrown with large trees up to 400mm diameter; North of Victoria St, large trees are tilting in dike slope and local sloughing can be seen. Vegetation on various sections of the dike hamper access, trees in or near dike (within 2m from toe) with potential for uprooting. Multi‐year vegetation management planned, pending DFO approval. Trees of two inch diameter or less have been removed; large vegetation remains.

7. Encroachments1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Application for development immediately behind 002 Town Dike; some areas of dike crest expansive and used as local construction work area.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐034; 2 ‐ CMP floodboxes, condition not reported but no DAR‐SQUA‐ issues noted in inspections; downtown stormwater 002 studies have recommended future ancillary drainage pump station at Sixth Ave.

9. Administrative Arrangements1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Statutory right of way available at Aqua/Skye 001; development, no SROW for remainder.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 284: Mamquam Dike Segment 1: 2+129 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 W‐3061; Dike has insufficient freeboard at CN rail bridge DAR‐SQUA‐ crossing, otherwise crest levels generally meet DCL. 001 During 1980s river bed material was removed near BC Rail Bridge but sediment has re‐accumulated during high flows.

2. Geometry2 W‐3061; W‐ Dyke crest generally sufficiently wide (>4.0m) but 3057; DAR‐ oversteepened landside and riverside slope in some SQUA‐002 sections.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 Thurber Dike is very high. Crest width is as recommended but 2004 slopes are steeper than recommended. Some testholes instability may occur during flooding event. Piping/heaving and settlement are expected to be minor.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Thurber Some sand and gravel layers may be susceptible to 2004 liquefaction and may cause lateral spreading. testholes

5. Erosion Protection2 FPP‐046; Riprap on riverside, gradation and dimensions not DAR‐SQUA‐ reported. At confluence of Mamquam and Squamish 001; w‐3061; Rivers, there is continued erosion due to Mamquam W‐2964 flows cutting into overbank, potentially threatening the Squamish River dike. Riprap quality varies; there is limited toe protection in some areas; erosion is visible. Isolated areas of deep scour upstream of BC Hydro right‐of‐way and downstream to Government Road; dike mostly located along river except for 600m section (1+800 to 1+200) that is set back and has a wide overbank.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Moderate to heavy vegetation between 2+075 and 001; DIR‐ 1+800; downstream there are several very large trees. 034; W‐ The vegetation reduces visibility of each toe, trees in 2964; DIR‐ or near dike (within 2m of toe) with potential for 074 uprooting. There is a multi‐year management plan in place. Pending DFO approval, trees < 2in diameter are to be removed but need to also remove large trees on dike slope.

7. Encroachments3 W‐975; DAR‐ Dike crossed by 2 BC Hydro transmission rights‐of‐way; SQUA‐002 Highway 99 and Government Road crosses dike at grade; BC Rail crossing (apparent low point in dike).

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐034 No ancillary floodboxes or pump stations.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 284: Mamquam Dike Segment 1: 2+129 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 DAR‐SQUA‐ Continuous SROW; district holds SROW tenure for all 001; DAR‐ portions of dike between Centennial Way and CN Rail SQUA‐002 bridge.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 284: Mamquam Dike Segment 2: 3+144 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐SQUA‐ Low points at Highway 99 and CN Rail Crossing, 001; W‐3061 otherwise freeboard typically sufficient. Design profile could be affected by gravel depositions and avulsions.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐SQUA‐ There are 10 sections with oversteepened slopes or 001; W‐ inadequate cross‐section; some sections seem to 3057; W‐ depend on vegetation for stability. 2964; DAR‐ SQUA‐002

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 Thurber Crest width is as recommended but slopes are steeper 2004 than recommended. Some instability may occur testholes during flooding event but likely will be repairable. Piping/heaving and settlement are expected to be minor.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Thurber Some sand and gravel layers may be susceptible to 2004 liquefaction and may cause lateral spreading. testholes

5. Erosion Protection2 W‐3061; W‐ The dike is predominantly setback from river but there 2964; DAR‐ are several back channels adjacent to the dike that SQUA‐001; have no bank protection. Erosion protection is limited DIR‐034; FPP‐ to a short reach of lower‐slope revetment near 046 Government Road (in good condition) and a reach near the golf course. This riprap appears to be undersized, especially on the upper slope and generally riprap is in moderate to moderately‐poor condition. In some areas, the toe is heavily eroded or over‐steepened.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐034; W‐ Large coniferous and deciduous vegetation makes 2964; DIR‐ inspection difficult; vegetation reduces visibility to 074 each toe; trees in or near dike (within 2m from toe) with potential for uprooting. Management plan pending.

7. Encroachments3 W‐975; DAR‐ Where Highway 99 crosses the dike, there are gaps SQUA‐001; designed to be rapidly closed off by temporary berms DAR‐SQUA‐ from adjacent stockpile of fill. The material is 002 becoming overgrown with vegetation. There are at‐ grade crossings at Government Road and CN Rail mainline. BC Hydro transmission lines cross dike at two locations upstream of Highway 99.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DIR‐034 No appurtenant structures.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 284: Mamquam Dike Segment 2: 3+144 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements4 DAR‐SQUA‐ SLRD has established a continuous ROW for the dike 001 and has Emergency Plan. The dike crest is accessible along the full length of the dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 285: Squamish River Dike Segment 1: 12+495 to 6+410 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐2962; The degree of protection offered by the dike varies: 1) DAR‐SQUA‐ At upper Judd Slough there is insufficient freeboard; 2) 002 At Lower Judd Slough, the dike crest is at or slightly lower than the design water surface elevation except at Eagle Run and North Yards where there is some freeboard. In summary, 4.6 km of dike is below design flood level, 2.2 km of dike has insufficient freeboard and 4.4 km of dike meets DCL.

2. Geometry1 W‐3061; Dike crest is generally sufficiently wide but sideslopes DAR‐SQUA‐ are oversteepened. 002

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐SQUA‐ "seepage / piping observed in Eagle Viewing Dike area; 001; W‐ major area of concern is stability of dyke structure 3061; W‐ combined with seepage through the dyke leading to a 2962 piping related failure; two areas near Government Road and Dryden Creek of particular concern/high hazard; high risk of seepage at Judd slough, Dryden Creek, North Yards; high risk of slope failure between Judd Slough and Mid‐Island; bulk fill has been placed to control landside seepage under flood flow conditions near Dryden pump station and downstream where there were signs of boils and sinkholes near dyke toe;" ‐ nhc. A portion of dike at Judd Slough was improved/repaired in 2013. Dike slopes are steeper than recommended.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐SQUA‐ Near continuous erosion protection installed along 001; FPP‐ bank for the full length of the dike but quality varies. 039; DIR‐ Some riprap is exposed to severe erosion. Riprap was 034; DIR‐ also installed on the set‐back dike between Waiwakum 074; DAR‐ IR No 14 and Akiwucks IR No 15 (270 m length). Bank SQUA‐002 erosion observed at Upper Judd Slough and Mamquam confluence. The setback width is typically narrow and there is limited bank protection in some areas; the riprap quality is unknown. All riverside dike sections have full height riprap protection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 285: Squamish River Dike Segment 1: 12+495 to 6+410 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 W‐2964; DIR‐ Large vegetation is growing on the lower dike slopes 034; DIR‐074 which requires attention. Large cottonwood trees in the riprap are a particular concern in the reach downstream of Judd Slough. Vegetation reduces visibility along the dike toe, there are trees in or near the dike with potential for uprooting. Vegetation removal takes place on DOS property but removal on private property needs to be addressed.

7. Encroachments3 DAR‐SQUA‐ Upgrades made to gates and driveways adjacent to 001 dike in Upper Judd Slough. Unauthorized fill placed along landside of dike north of Harris Slough pump station.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐SQUA‐ Regular upgrades completed over the last decade 001; W‐ including upgrade of Harris Slough pump station to 3061; W‐ address capacity issues, as well as undersized culvert 2964; and forebay storage issues at Dryden Creek. In 2006, W2965; DAR‐ the Harris Slough Pump Station was upgraded. SQUA‐002

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐SQUA‐ Dike does not have continuous SROW. Areas with 001; DAR‐ SROW exists at: Upper Judd Slough (3 properties), SQUA‐002 Eagle Viewing Area (1 property), 4 Squamish Nation reserves (Waiwakum IR 14, Aikwucks IR 15, Seaichem IR 16, Kowtain IR 17); legal status of dike where it crosses First Nations is unclear. O&M manual exists for dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 285: Squamish River Dike Segment 2: 6+300 to 2+857 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.89 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 W‐3061; Dike crest elevation, particularly towards downstream DAR‐SQUA‐ end of dike, falls below present design water surface 002 elevation.

2. Geometry1 W‐3061; W‐ Dike crests are generally wider than 4m but sideslopes 3057; DAR‐ are oversteepened. SQUA‐002

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 A portion of dike at North yards was improved/repaired in 2013. Dike slopes are steeper than recommended. Seepage/piping/heave have all been observed and is a major risk to the dikes.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible.

5. Erosion Protection3 W‐2964; Most reaches of the riverbank have riprap that DAR‐SQUA‐ protects a variable width setback between the bank 001; DIR‐074 and dike. Some erosion of bank observed at 2+650 but protection is generally in reasonably good condition. It is unclear if there is sufficient toe protection. The riprap was sourced from Alice Lake talus and has < 0.9 m diameter. The dike setback is narrow in some areas and the bank is protected with substandard riprap.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 W‐2964; DIR‐ Large trees grow on lower dike slopes, tree toppling 034; DIR‐074 reported at 2+650. The vegetation reduces visibility along dike toes and trees in or near the dike have potential for uprooting. There is a proposed vegetation management plan, pending DFO approval. Trees on DOS property of < 2in diameter were removed last year.

7. Encroachments3 W‐2964; Government Road and parallel overhead utilities are DAR‐SQUA‐ located immediately adjacent to landside dike toe 002 midway between Whittaker Slough and Squamish Spit access ‐ nearest utility supports were relocated to accommodate dike upgrades in 2013. Active railway spur track located immediately adjacent to landside toe of dike near West Coast Railway Heritage Park.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DIR‐034; Floodbox reported as "damaged" but details not iMapBC provided.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐SQUA‐ SROW at CN Rail Bridge to Edgewater Park, otherwise 001 no SROW. Land is a combination of Crown, district‐ owned and private land. The crest of the dike is accessible over its entire length and supports significant public traffic.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish, District of Deficiency Matrix Dike 286: Stawamus River Dike Segment 1: 2+469 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.29 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 FPP‐042; The dike crest is below the design water surface DAR‐SQUA‐ elevation at several points (near Westway Ave, 002 upstream of Hwy 99, at Hwy 99, through Stawamus IR 24) and is only slightly higher than fan grade. It ties into Mamquam FSR at upstream end but does not tie into high ground at downstream end. The dike ranges in height from nominal (where steep river channel is well incised) to about 2m.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Landside slope is oversteepened in some areas to 001; W2964 maximize functional crest width without removing mature trees. Crest width generally exceeds 4 m standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General Dike side slopes are much steeper than recommended.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection1 FPP‐042; Upper 950 m reach is protected with continuous riprap DAR‐SQUA‐ revetment while the mid 700 m of dike and revetment 001; W‐ constructed in 1980s remains unrepaired and 2964; DIR‐ vulnerable to further failure. The lower 750 m of dike 034; DIR‐074 is set back from the river and does not have bank protection. The quality of the riprap varies. ranging from poor to relatively good. Slopes are too steep, rock size too small, toe conditions marginal and presence of vegetation have reduced effectiveness of the protection. There are potential debris flood hazards.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DAR‐SQUA‐ Dike is heavily vegetated in some locations; vegetation 001; DIR‐ reduces visibility to dike toes; trees in or near dike 034; W‐ (within 2m from toe) with potential for uprooting; 2964; DIR‐ large scale vegetation removal required. Routine 074 vegetation removal is carried out to remove small vegetation but larger trees remain. The vegetation control is inconsistent.

7. Encroachments4 DAR‐SQUA‐ No buildings, fences, or roads encroach on dike. 001

8. Appurtenant Structures4 W‐2964; DIR‐ Stormwater detention pond is in good condition and is 034 designed to overflow across dike crest. This may potentially damage the dike surface. No appurtenant works.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DAR‐SQUA‐ Continuous SROW for entire length of dike. Dike crest 001 is accessible along its full length.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 288: Furry Creek Dike Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+800 (Right bank and north of Furry Creek) Crest Elevation Rating 4 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.29 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5Crest elevation exceeds the DCL for the entire dike segment, however, the design flood water surface elevation is from 1998 and may need updating. Dike ties into highground at both ends.

2. Geometry4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5Protected riverside slope of 2H:1V meets standard. The surrounding land is at roughly the dike crest elevation, giving a crest width exceeding 4 m standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐035; Dike is set‐back from the water 40‐50 m in some SQU‐OM‐M‐5 locations. Riverside slope is continuously protected with riprap armour ranging from D50 700 to 1600 mm at a 2H:1V slope which meets design standards. No issues noted in inspection; suggested works include using planting and/or native materials to protect south side of development.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DIR‐035; No issues noted in inspection, no multi‐year vegetation SQU‐OM‐M‐5 management plan in place; large woody vegetation on waterside slopes.

7. Encroachments3 SQU‐OM‐M‐5Housing properties immediately adjacent to dike crest, no landside slope exists. CN Rail Bridge encroaches on upstream dike end, erosion protection (D50 of 1600 mm, thickness of 2700 mm at 2H:1V) constructed around bridge piers and abutment, ties into dike.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5 1 ‐ 250mm dia. sewage outfall pipe and 4 outfalls consisting of concrete and PVC pipes. No issues noted, outfall protected with riprap.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5A ROW is registered against the title of the property for access by the SLRD and MELP. An encroachment agreement is in place to allow the SLRD to access the portion of the system within the CN Rail ROW. Responsibilities for operations and maintenance of the system rest with the SLRD. Sediment removal plan in place for post 1:200yr flood events with deposition zone indicated.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District Deficiency Matrix Dike 288: Furry Creek Dike Dike Segment 2: 0+000 to 0+900 (Left bank and south of Furry Creek) Crest Elevation Rating 4 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.29 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5Crest elevation exceeds the DCL for the entire dike segment, however, the design flood water surface elevation is from 2004 and may need updating. Dike ties into highground at both ends.

2. Geometry4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5Protected riverside slope of 2H:1V meets standard. The surrounding land is at roughly the dike crest elevation, giving a crest width exceeding 4 m standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 SQU‐OM‐M‐5All slopes have riprap protection designed to handle a 200 year design flood event and extreme high tide with wind generated wave (design criteria for significant wave height not reported). Ocean dike is set‐back by >40 m. No issues noted in inspection; suggested works include using planting and/or native materials to protect south side of development.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 SQU‐OM‐M‐5No issues noted in inspection, no multi‐year vegetation management plan in place; large woody vegetation on waterside slopes.

7. Encroachments4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5 Established ROW for dike. Housing complex behind dike but not encroaching on ROW and designed with construction set‐back from ROW. CN Rail Bridge and Road Bridge encroach on river dike but SLRD has agreement with CN Rail for access. Top of dike 100 m downstream of rail bridge used as access road.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 SQU‐OM‐M‐52‐600mm dia. CMP culverts 20 m long downstream of overflow dike. Condition not reported. No issues noted.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 SQU‐OM‐M‐5Stormwater Management Plan in place for new development. Overflow dike designed as emergency floodway, conveys water around the housing development via golf course fairway and into Howe Sound. A ROW is registered against the title of the property for access by the SLRD and MELP. An encroachment agreement is in place to allow the SLRD to access the portion of the system within the CN Rail ROW. Responsibilities for operations and maintenance of the system rest with the SLRD. Sediment removal plan in place for post 1:200yr flood events with deposition zone indicated.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Strata Corp LMS 483 ‐ Newman Creek, Ocean Point c/o Pac Deficiency Matrix Dike 67: Ocean Point Near Newman Creek Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 0+480 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 3.38 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 OR‐039 Top of revetment at 3.0 m, top of cap wall (placed boulder) at El. 4 m GSC. Design water surface elevation = sum of significant wave height and 200‐year high tide event which is Elevation 3.58 m GSC. Revetment not designed to stop wave run‐up but to mitigate erosion caused by storm. Crest elevation (3.0 m) is below design water surface elevation. Ties into high ground/bedrock on both extents.

2. Geometry4 OR‐039 Side slope of 1.5H:1V was designed with riprap sized to handle 100‐year wind waves with an extreme high tide event and to resemble existing slope. Crest ties into high ground and extends 25 m.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 Emails No expected issues regarding stability, seepage or regarding settlement. Ocean Point

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic

5. Erosion Protection3 iMapBC; DIR‐ D50 1000 mm dia. riprap placed along ocean slope at 108; OR‐039 1.5H:1V above HWL and 2H:1V below HWL. Wave action has resulted in dislodging of some of the rock fragments but no instability of slope detected. Overall condition of revetment is good. Isolated steeper slopes due to dislodgment of surface rock, and isolated flattening of slope below HWL due to shifting of major rock. At north extent by mouth of Newman Creek extensive erosion of the toe had occurred but was repaired and no further issues have been noted.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DIR‐108; OR‐ Water side slopes are rip‐rap only, no vegetation 039 present. No issues noted in dike inspection report.

7. Encroachments2 Google Maps Boat ramp present; housing properties are situated directly on dike crest

8. Appurtenant Structures4 OR‐039 1 culvert of un‐reported dia. and condition. No issues reported in dike inspection

9. Administrative Arrangements4 DAR‐NEW‐ As of March 1, 2012, Strata Plan LMS483 appointed 001 Pacific Asset Management as the Strata Manager. The dike is the responsibility of the strata manager. Rod Hope, a resident of Ocean Point oversees the on‐site maintenance of the property. Yearly inspections occur. O&M manual exists, but content is minimal and does not provide details on vegetation plan, emergency response plan, maintenance.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 293: Nicomekl‐Serpentine Dike Segment 1: 7+210 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 DAR‐SURREY‐ Freeboard is compromised. In the roughly 3 km long 008; OR‐041 reach upstream of the sea‐dam, the design water surface is within 0.3 m of the dike crest and for the upstream remainder of the dike within 0.6 m.

2. Geometry1 Side slopes are oversteepened, crest is narrow.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐SURREY‐ "There has been erosion and scour observed at surface 011 associated with pipe and conduit penetrations. The potential for internal erosion and loss of ground associated with pipe penetrations is present." ‐ nhc. Settlement are likely to be high and there is ongoing subsidence in the area. Dike slopes are steeper than recommended.

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Eroded riprap at dike toe near 40 Ave. However, no 006 deterioration/damage to dike crest and slopes noted in 2014 inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DAR‐SURREY‐ There are trees within 2 m of toe; some sites are 011; DAR‐ surrounded by dense vegetation which prevents SURREY‐006 inspection and access. Over 100 trees were removed in 2014 and there is an annual program in place to remove additional trees. In some cases, the vegetation has interfered with the operation of flap‐gates.

7. Encroachments3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Some unauthorized construction of mechanical and 011 piping infrastructure has been reported (three were removed in 2014). Major road crossings include 152nd Street, 40th Ave and 168th St. The crossings are typically 10m wide or more.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC; There are a number of floodboxes, some are DAR‐SURREY‐ approaching the end of service life and an annual 011; DAR‐ replacement program is in place. Three pumpstations SURREY‐006 are located in the reach. Also 5 culverts and 2 outlets of unreported dimensions cross the dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 293: Nicomekl‐Serpentine Dike Segment 1: 7+210 to 0+000 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐SURREY‐ There is adequate legal access and rights of way from 005; DAR‐ left bank 0+220 to 0+780. However, some fences SURREY‐006 either documented or undocumented in the City’s as‐ built drawings, were observed to cross the dike restricting or preventing access to one section of the dyke. O&M manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 293: Nicomekl‐Serpentine Dike Segment 2: 14+562 to 7+210 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 DAR‐SURREY‐ The dike crest meets DCL requirements except at the 008; OR‐041 very upstream end. The dike may not be tied in to high ground near 192nd St.

2. Geometry1 Side slopes are oversteepened and crest width less than standard (4 m).

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐SURREY‐ There has been no deterioration/damage to erosion 011 protection according to 2014 inspection report.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 iMapBC; DAR‐ Dike is overgrown with vegetation in some areas, very SURREY‐011; thick blackberry bushes. Access to carry out DAR‐SURREY‐ inspections is poor. 006

7. Encroachments3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Some unauthorized construction of mechanical and 011; Google piping infrastructure has been reported. 176th St and Earth 192nd St cross the dike, 25m and 15m wide respectively.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC; There are 16 floodboxes of various dimensions with DAR‐SURREY‐ some approaching the end of their service life. MN‐ 011; DAR‐ 9477‐L is reported to not have a flap gate. There is an SURREY‐006 annual replacement program in place. There are four pump stations.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐SURREY‐ There are some fences, either documented or 006 undocumented in the City’s as‐built drawings that were observed to cross the dike restricting or preventing ROW access. O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 293: Nicomekl‐Serpentine Dike Segment 3: 12+100 to 19+100 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 OR‐041 Freeboard is compromised and the design water surface is within 0.3‐0.6 m of the dike crest.

2. Geometry1 iMAP BC; Dike crest width appears to be roughly 3m over most DAR‐SURREY‐ of the dike. Riverside slopes typically range from 004 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V becoming flatter near the dike base. Landside slopes are variable but generally 2H:1V or flatter. The dike does not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 DAR‐SURREY‐ "There has been erosion and scour observed at surface 011; DAR‐ associated with pipe and conduit penetrations. The SURREY‐006 potential for internal erosion and loss of ground associated with pipe penetrations is present." ‐ nhc. Settlement are likely to be high and there is ongoing subsidence in the area. Dike slopes are steeper than recommended.

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No deterioration/damage to erosion protection 011 reported in 2014 inspection. Extent of protection is unclear.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 iMapBC; DAR‐ There are some very overgrown sections, dirt may be SURREY‐011; too soft to drive on when wet; extensive rodent dens DAR‐SURREY‐ along low water line, 2‐3 feet in diameter; trees within 006; DIR‐076 2 m of toe. Dense vegetation prevents inspection and access. There is an annual vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Some unauthorized construction of mechanical and 011 piping infrastructure reported. The 152nd St road crossing is approximately 10m wide; there is a railway crossing at Colebrook Rd.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐SURREY‐ There are about 25 floodboxes along the reach. Some 011; DAR‐ floodboxes are approaching the end of their service SURREY‐006 life, annual replacement program in place. There are four pump stations, of these LS‐1194‐R is reported to have a 1200 mm CSP that has holes in it and LS‐6998‐R with a 600mm CSP is in poor condition.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 293: Nicomekl‐Serpentine Dike Segment 3: 12+100 to 19+100 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐SURREY‐ There are some fences, either documented or 001; DAR‐ undocumented in the City’s as‐built drawings that SURREY‐006 cross the dike restricting or preventing ROW access. O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 293: Nicomekl‐Serpentine Dike Segment 4: 0+000 to 12+100 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 4 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL4 DAR‐SURREY‐ The dike network generally has 0.6 m freeboard but 005; OR‐041 with some low sections along Hyland Creek and the 168 St North and South Canals.

2. Geometry1 iMAP BC; Dike crest width appears to be 3m over most of the DAR‐SURREY‐ dike sections. Riverside slopes typically range from 004 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V becoming flatter near the dike base. Landside slopes are variable but generally can be described as 2H:1V or flatter. Dike does not meet standards.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐SURREY‐ The dike network has some riprap. There is a section 011 with a concrete wall inset into the dike. The rock protecting one bridge abutment has slumped and restoration is needed.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control1 DAR‐SURREY‐ There are trees within 2 m of toe; some dense 011; DAR‐ vegetation prevents inspection and access. SURREY‐006; DIR‐076

7. Encroachments3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Some unauthorized construction of mechanical and 011; Google piping infrastructure. 64th Avenue, 168th St, Fraser Earth Highway , 176th St and 80th Ave are the main road crossings, typically 10m wide or more. There is a railway crossing north of 56 Ave,

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐SURREY‐ There are some 50 floodboxes, some likely 011; DAR‐ approaching the end of their service life. There is an SURREY‐006 annual replacement program in place. Multiple pump stations are present along the dike.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey Dyking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 293: Nicomekl‐Serpentine Dike Segment 4: 0+000 to 12+100 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 9. Administrative Arrangements2 DAR‐SURREY‐ There are some fences, either documented or 011; DAR‐ undocumented in the City’s as‐built drawings that SURREY‐006 were observed to cross the dike restricting or preventing ROW access. O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 294: Crescent Beach Sea Dike Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+688 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.33 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 SUR‐OM‐M‐ The 2010 DCL is reported as 3.95 m, with the minimum 2; OR‐023; crest elevation at 2.9 m and an average crest level of OR‐041 3.3m. The dike is substandard.

2. Geometry1 iMap BC; The crest width is reported as 3m in the sheltered SUR‐OM‐M‐ sections on the landside of the peninsula. Oceanside 2; DSG‐006 slopes with Type 3 riprap has slopes between 2H:1V to 3H:1V. The geometry is sub‐standard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 OR‐031 Some minor instability may occur during flood conditions and some minor settlement may occur.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐031 The silt may loose strength during seismic loading. Although not found at the nearby pump station, liquefiable soils may be present.

5. Erosion Protection3 SUR‐OM‐M‐ Riprap protection is present, often on both seaside and 2; DAR‐ landside slopes. 600mm of Class 3 riprap typically SURREY‐011 overlayes 300mm of Class 1 material. Minor erosion of the dike crest and slopes in various locations was reported from the 2014 inspection. Timber Groynes with riprap protection also extend out from the foreshore perpendicular to the beach.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No significant vegetation or animal activity issues were 011 noted in 2014 inspection. There is a multi‐year vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments2 Google Maps A footpath has worn down dike slopes and led to some erosion. The government wharf crosses the dike with a 3m width. Also, the dike crest crosses a parking lot at McBride Road.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 iMap BC; Floodbox, and an outlet of unreported dimensions DAR‐SURREY‐ and 7 sets of stairs. No issues reported from 2014 dike 011 inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No ROW access issues reported. O&M Manual. 001; SUR‐ OM‐M‐2

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 294: Crescent Beach Sea Dike Dike Segment 2: 0+476 to 1+500 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.78 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 SUR‐OM‐M‐ The 2010 DCL is reported as 4.0 m and the minimum 2; OR‐023; crest elevation is 3.3 m. The most recent 2015 survey OR‐041 reports an average crest level of 3.3m. The dike has negative freeboard.

2. Geometry2 iMap BC; The crest width is reported as 3m and sideslopes in SUR‐OM‐M‐ some areas are oversteepened. The geometry is 2; DSG‐006 substandard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General4 OR‐031 Some minor settlement may be expected.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐031 The silt may loose strength during seismic loading. Although not found at the nearby pump station, liquefiable soils may be present.

5. Erosion Protection3 SUR‐OM‐M‐ Riprap protection is present on both seaside and 2; DAR‐ landside slopes in some areas. 600mm of Class 3 SURREY‐011 riprap typically overlayes 300mm of Class 1 material. Minor erosion of the dike crest and slopes in various locations was reported from the 2014 inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control4 DAR‐SURREY‐ No significant vegetation or animal activity. There is a 011 multi‐year vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments3 Google Maps Private property yard is adjacent to the dike at the southern end.

8. Appurtenant Structures4 DAR‐SURREY‐ No significant appurtenant structures reported in 2013 011 inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No ROW access issues reported. O&M Manual. 001; SUR‐ OM‐M‐2

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 295: West of Colebrooke Sea Dike Dike Segment 1: 3+154 to 4+313 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.25 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐023; OR‐ The dike has a DCL of 4.05m and the crest elevation is 041 3.15m. The dike is substandard and has negative freeboard.

2. Geometry1 iMap BC; OR‐ The crest width is between 1‐3m and side slopes are 032 overly steep. The geometry is substandard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General Insufficient geotechnical data and dike data to assess.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Dike is likely underlain by liquefiable soils.

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Dike is protected with riprap. No loss of rock material 011 reported however the dike is exposed to Mud Bay and likely experiences significant erosive forces from wave action. Some loose rock on beach, originating from revetment.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No significant vegetation issues reported from 2014 011 inspection, multi‐year vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No significant encroachments reported. The dike runs 011; Google adjacent to the Vancouver‐Blaine Highway. Maps

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No significant appurtenant structures reported. 011

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No significant ROW access issues reported in 2014 dike 011; inspection. Annual inspection in place. O&M manual reported.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 296: South Westminster Dike Segment 1: 0+100 to 3+570 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 3 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.33 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL3 FPP‐049; OR‐ The dike crest averages about 0.3‐0.4m above the DCL. 007; DAR‐ There are some deep gaps that utilize stop logs or SURREY‐014; other temporary measures during flood events.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐SURREY‐ Crest width narrow and landside slope oversteepened. 011

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 FPP‐049 "Concrete walls not constructed with appropriate foundations, leading to substantial settlement along alignment" ‐ nhc. Peat is found under some portions of the dike and significant settlement is expected. Some piping/heave of the landside foundation is possible along localized portions of the dike. Dike is narrower than recommended.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 The loose sand layers are susceptible to liquefaction and significant displacements are likely.

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Minor riprap removal, rock needs to be replaced at 011 2+433.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Vegetation to be trimmed back at 2+433 & 1+557, 011 multi‐year vegetation plan in place.

7. Encroachments2 FPP‐049 The dike is cut by a number of crossings, roads and railway.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No issues noted in inspection. (Details on 011 floodboxes/pumpstations not available).

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No issues noted in inspection. (Details not available). 011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 296: South Westminster Dike Segment 2: 3+570 to 5+240 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.22 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 FPP‐049; OR‐ The dike crest elevation varies by almost 2.5 m, from 007; DAR‐ exceeding the DCL to about 1.3 m below it. Some gaps SURREY‐014 are blocked with stop logs or other measures during flood events.

2. Geometry1 DAR‐SURREY‐ Crest width meets standard but landside slopes are 011 oversteep.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 The loose sand layers are susceptible to liquefaction and significant displacements are likely.

5. Erosion Protection3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Dike is generally set back, is not well defined. No issues 011 reported in inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No issues reported in inspection, multi‐year vegetation 011 management plan in place]

7. Encroachments2 FPP‐049 The dike is cut by a number of crossings, roads and railway.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No issues noted in inspection. (Details on 011 floodboxes/pumpstations not available).

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No issues noted in inspection. (Details not available). 011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 297: East of Colebrook Diking District Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+250 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.00 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐023; OR‐ The minimum dike crest elevation is 2.84 m and the 030 DCL is 3.84 m. Dike is substandard.

2. Geometry1 OR‐032 The crest width is approximately 3.5m, and the dike side slopes range from 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V. The dike geometry is substandard.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 "settlement of dike has occurred with noticeable variations or undulations in dike crest near 1+100 (also 0+700, 0+800); dike is subject to subsidence/settlement due to inferred soft and/or organic soils" ‐ nhc. Dike slopes are steeper than recommended and this may cause instability during flood levels. Settlement are likely to be high and there is ongoing subsidence in the area.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐SURREY‐ There is continuous riprap along the dike, some 011; OR‐032 rounded and some angular rock. Some loss of material has been noted through sloughing/slumping along the oversteepened banks. The dike is subject to erosion from wave attack and due to downcutting of river under ebb flow or re‐alignment of thalweg.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DAR‐SURREY‐ Some vines have grown across the dike crest; multi‐ 011; OR‐032 year vegetation management plan in place.

7. Encroachments3 The dike footprint is confined on the landside by farm ditches.

8. Appurtenant Structures2 OR‐032 There are two floodboxes and one pumpstation. There is a plugged floodbox near POI 6, which is absent from the provincial database. The landside and riverside of the floodbox is only visible during low tide. Approximately, 200m from the Highway 99 crossing the second floodbox was reported to be in good condition.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DAR‐SURREY‐ No major ROW access issues reported. O&M Manual. 011

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 366: Nico‐Wynd Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+700 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 1.67 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 OR‐035; OR‐ The design water level is within 0.3 m of the design 041 crest elevation ‐ dike is substandard. There are two small informal dikes upstream of the east end of the main dike that are in poor condition, and are not expected to provide reliable protection. To the west, the dike ties into higher ground near Crescent Road.

2. Geometry1 The crest width is generally around 3m. Side slopes range from 0.5H:1V ‐ 1.5H:1V and are significantly oversteepened in many locations.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 OR‐035; OR‐ "Seepage has been reported through the dike above 036 Floodbox #2 when the landside sluice gate on the floodbox is closed. Further evidence that seepage has occurred through the dike salt water intrusion is thought to be adversely affecting plants along the perimeter of the golf course ponds that are directly connected to the western floodbox. Minor seepage issues has also been reprted at Floodbox 3 and 4." ‐ nhc. Golder's inspection on January 30 and February 7, 2007 indicated the dike was in good condition, even with the steep slopes. The slopes are steeper than recommended and there is likely soft soil beneath. Settlement are likely to be high and there is ongoing subsidence in the area.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 OR‐035; OR‐ Strain softening of the foundation soils likely during an 036 earthquake and lateral spreading/bearing failure possible with steep dikes. Liquefiable soils are also likely in the foundation.

5. Erosion Protection2 DAR‐SURREY‐ The erosion protection varies: immediately upstream 011; OR‐035 of the marina, riverside dike slope is protected by a series of vertical timber piles ‐ this wall is failing and significant erosion has occurred behind the wall. The riverside slope upstream of the marina is covered with concrete debris and small boulders in reasonable condition. Near the upstream end of the dike, erosion protection is in the form of concrete rubble, riprap and vegetation. Dimensions of riprap protection not reported.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Surrey, City of Deficiency Matrix Dike 366: Nico‐Wynd Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 1+700 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DAR‐SURREY‐ There is a multi‐year vegetation management plan in 011; OR‐035 place. Riverside connection at west end of dike is somewhat overgrown; also overgrown section at eastern end. Landside dike side slopes are covered in thick vegetation including trees which makes inspection difficult.

7. Encroachments1 OR‐035 There is a path along western section of dike with fencing in place, as well as a road with concrete wall at dike level. A road runs on top of the dike for its full length. The landside slope through the central reach is very flat and forms the fairway for golf course.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 DAR‐SURREY‐ 7 Floodboxes, 1 culvert, no reported dimensions. 011; OR‐035 Floodbx # 1 has a vertically mounted flap gate that appears to be in satisfactory condition, but the collar between the headwall and culvert has become separated and is in need of repair (2014). Pipe wall is covered with extensive barnacles and oyster growth and visual inspection of pipe for corrosion or joint separation is not possible. Floodboxes 3 and 4 are thought to be in similar condition and have similar 600mm diameter dimensions.

9. Administrative Arrangements2 OR‐035 ROW missing for western section, ROW needs to be established. Annual inspection.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Trethewey‐Edge Diking District Deficiency Matrix Dike 307: Trethewey‐Edge Dike Segment 1: 0+000 to 4+620 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 1 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.11 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL1 DIR‐001 The DCL is thought to be higher than the current crest elevation for most of the dyke. A 2007 Geo Media Engineering Report suggests raising the dike over its entire length. It is the local Diking Authority's intent to raise the dike crest to approximately 7m geodetic. The North Alouette River has breached its banks onto 132nd Ave East due to flooding from heavy rains.

2. Geometry1 DIR‐001 The crest width is typically less than 4m and both riverside and landside slopes are oversteepened to 1H:1V in places. Overall, the dike does not meet standards.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General2 W‐3052 Dike is steeper than recommended over soft soils. Flood height is high. Soft and compressible foundation soils.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic2 W‐3052 Dike is likely to be unstability during an seismic conditions due the dike slope steepness. Portions may be underlain by liquefiable sand.

5. Erosion Protection3 DIR‐001; Some erosion protection on the LB of the North LMDIM‐ Alouette River but none reported on the slope of the TRETH dike. No issues with riprap reported from 2011 dike inspection.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control2 DIR‐001 In areas where riverside slope is oversteepened (1H:1V) it is hard to mow. There is a multi‐year vegetation management plan in place. Pets are reported to be eroding slope.

7. Encroachments2 DIR‐001 It is likely that future road widening may encroach onto existing dyke footprint at 1+030 to 1+100 and a narrower dike footprint would be needed ‐ flood walls are proposed in this case. 132nd Ave and 216th Street follow the crest of the dike. A horse stable on private property encroaches on dike crest.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 iMap BC; DIR‐ 2 Floodboxes, 1 outlet, and 2 culverts ‐ no dimensions 001 provided. No issues reported in 2011 inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements3 DIR‐001 No Significant ROW access issues reported in 2011 dike inspection. O&M Manual.

Thursday, July 30, 2015 Region 2: Lower Mainland Dike Segment Authority: Tsawwassen First Nation Deficiency Matrix Dike 386: Tsawwassen Dike (breakwater dike) Dike Segment 1: 10+698 to 14+330 Rating values range from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Good) Crest Elevation Rating 2 Rating ItemRating Lib.Ref.Codes Rationale Avg. Dike Seg. Rating 2.44 1. Crest Elevation vs DCL2 W‐2666; DCL, based on Westham Dike DCL, is estimated at DAR‐DELTA‐ approximately 3.5m. No current crest elevations were 002 available, but overall the breakwater is described as having a low crest elevation.

2. Geometry2 W‐2666 The crest width from a typical cross section is 3.66m, landside slope appears to be 2.5H:1V, and oceanside slope with erosion protection appears to be designed to a 2.5H:1V slope.

3. Geotechnical Stability ‐ General3 W‐2666 Some slope instability, settlement and piping/heave should be expected although it shouldn't be significant.

4. Geotechnical Stability ‐ Seismic1 Sand is likely to liquefy and lateral spreading is possible.

5. Erosion Protection2 DIR‐085; Riprap of unreported dimensions is in place along most iMapBC sea‐side slopes, no issues noted in 2013 inspection report.

6. Vegetation/Animal Control3 DIR‐085 No issues noted in 2013 inspection report.

7. Encroachments2 Google Maps There are several openings.

8. Appurtenant Structures3 W‐2666; OR‐ The primary dike contains at least 3 culvert crossings 002 and one bridge crossing of unreported dimensions that allow controlled inundation of the tidal flat between the primary and secondary dikes. The Brandrith Pumpstation located near the BC Ferries causeway was upgraded in 1998 and has no significant issues reported from recent 2013 inspection.

9. Administrative Arrangements4 OR‐002 Corporation of Delta is responsible for annual inspections, maintenance and minor repairs. Ownership of dike is split between Tsawassen FN and Corporation of Delta. Portion owned by TFN starts at 34th Street, continues to where the sea dike meets the breakwater dike and extends east to 41B street.

Thursday, July 30, 2015