GOLDER ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION DRAFT REPORT APp, no”Golder Associates Ltd. Buna Bch Couble, Condo VEC 6C6 : Golder ‘eopre 60a) 96-400 Fox 04) 298-5253 E/04/3098 June 1, 2004 04-1411-014 Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. 300-4920 Canada Way Burnaby, BC ‘VSG 4M5 Attention: Mr, Michael MacLatchy, P.Eng. FEASIBILTY ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL STORM WATER DIVERSION TUNNEL, VICTORIA DRIVE, COQUITLAM, B.C. Ri Dear Sir: ‘As requested, Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has carried out a feasibility level geotechnical investigation and assessment of a proposed storm water diversion tunnel along the east end of Victoria Drive in Coquitlam, BC. The purpose of the investigation vwas to assess the soil conditions at select locations along the tunnel alignment and based on this information provide geotechnical comments as input to Associated Engineering's (Associated) overall assessment of the proposed storm water diversion system. ‘This work has been completed as per our letter proposal dated February 2, 2004. Comments related to tunnel alignment, depth, and required diameter are based on information received from Associated on January 9, 2004. The scope of this investigation and letter report is limited to the geotechnical aspects only, and in particular does not include any assessment of potential soil and groundwater contamination issues. This letter report and accompanying figures should be read in conjunction with the “Information and Limitations of This Report” which is appended following the text of this letter. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to this information, as it is essential that it be followed for the proper use and interpretation of this letter report. (se BEST NAGE “Ou "OWORLeACMATA SE (OFFICES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, EUROPE, AFRICA, ASIA AND AUSTRALIAAssociated Engineering (BC) Ltd. June 1, 2004 Mr. Michael MacLatchy, P.Eng. 04-1411-014 4.0 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK It is understood that consideration is being given to constructing a new storm water diversion tunnel, approximately 2.1 to 2.7 m in diameter, beneath Victoria Drive between West Smiling Creek and Deboville Slough in Coquitlam (see Figure 1); a distance of about 800 m. Based on the tunnel profile provided to us, the maximum depth of the tunnel below existing ground surface would be in the order of about 20 m. Our approach to the feasibility assessment involved the following tasks: ‘© Collection and review of available geological information: Information included soil logs fiom water supply wells located in the vicinity of the tunnel alignment and published surficial geology from the Geological Survey of Canada. * A field reconnaissance of the proposed tunnel alignment. Soil exposures in proximity to the road (and where public access was available) wer e inspected to look for evidence of bedrock near surface. + A feasibility level geotechnical investigation to assess the soil stratigraphy at select locations. * Review of soil information obtained during the geotechnical investigation and evaluation of tunnelling conditions which may be encountered during construction. Input on possible construction approaches and risks, shaft and lining requirements and order-of-magnitude costs for feasibility evaluation purposes have been prepared. 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION In order to provide an assessment level of subsurface information, a geotechnical investigation was conducted at three locations along the proposed alignment. Tentative borehole locations were selected in consideration of existing utilities, and on the topography along the alignment. The investigation was carried out between February 11" and the 16", 2004 using a truck-mounted mud rotary rig (BH04-2) owned and operated by Mud Bay Drilling Ltd and a truck mounted sonic rig (BHO4-1 and BH04-3) owned by ProSonic Ltd. and operated by Mud Bay Drilling Ltd, The three test holes were drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 2, to depths ranging from approximately 18 and 20 m below existing ground surface, which in the case of BH04-1 and BH04-3 extended through the anticipated tunnel horizon. Soil samples at discrete locations were obtained at approximate 3 to 4 m intervals using a split spoon soil sampler within the Golder AssociatesAssociated Engineering (BC) Ltd. June 1, 2004 Mr. Michael MacLatchy, P-Eng. 04-1411-014 mud rotary hole (BH04-2), while the two sonic holes produced a continuous core sample of the soil encountered. All field work was carried out under the full-time monitoring of a member of our geotechnical engineering staff who located the boreholes in the field, visually examined and logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and collected representative soil samples for detailed examination. Detailed soil descriptions for the stratigraphy encountered are presented on the Record of Borehole sheets presented in Appendix I following the text of this report For the purposes of groundwater monitoring, each of the three boreholes were completed with standpipe piezometers and groundwater levels in the all piezometers were measured on February 23, 2004 (approximately one week after the field program was completed) to permit the water levels in the piezometers to equilibrate. ‘The recorded groundwater levels are noted on the attached borehole logs. 3,0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGY 3.1 Geological Setting Based on published geological information (Map No. 1484A, Geological Survey of Canada, 1980), the entire route is underlain by glacial drift of the Vashon Drift and Capilano Sediments formation, which in turn overlies bedrock. The glacial drift is inferred to comprise lodgment and minor flow till-like deposits, with lenses and interbedded layers of glaciofluvial sands, silts and gravels. 3.2 Inferred Subsurface Conditions ‘A profile and cross-section illustrating the subsurface stratigraphy is presented in Figure 2. The general stratigraphy underlying the asphalt surfacing along the proposed tunnel alignment is comprised of compact to dense granular pavement structure and road fills, overlying a very dense glacial till-like deposit of sand and gravel with trace to some silt and clay. The three boreholes were terminated prior to encountering bedrock; however, cobbles and/or boulders (inferred to be at least 150 mm (cobbles) to 500 mm (boulders)) were encountered at cach location Within the till deposit, lenses of sand and cleaner zones of sand and gravel with only trace amounts of silt were observed within the continuous core samples obtained in BHO04-1, located towards the east end of the proposed tunnel section, and in BH04-3, located towards the west end of the tunnel alignment, The drilling method used for Golder AssociatesAssociated Engineering (BC) Ltd. June 1, 2004 Mr. Michael MacLatchy, P.Eng. 04-1411-014 BHO4-2, did not produce a continuous soil core; however, it can be inferred that similar zones would be present throughout the deposit. 3.3 Groundwater Conditions The groundwater levels recorded at each of the standpipe piezometers are indicated on the borehole logs attached in Appendix I following the text of this letter. Within boreholes BHO4-2 and BHO4-3 (central and west boreholes), the water level was observed at a depth of 12.6 m and 15.6 m respectively. On the east end of the alignment, artesian pressures were encountered within BH04-1. For BH04-1, at the time of drilling and on the subsequent site visit to record the groundwater levels, the groundwater level ‘was observed to be greater than the existing ground surface. At this time, no additional tests have been conducted to assess whether this layer is continuous; however, with the installation of the piezometer, this work could be completed at a later date, once a decision on the tunnel alignment, and depth has been made. The piezometer within BHO4-1 was finished with a removable specialized cap to seal the well opening Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with precipitation, and perched water levels could exist within the observed layered stratigraphy. Additional groundwater monitoring should be completed for detailed design purposes, as well as to provide additional information for tunnelling contractors as part of a tender package 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.41 Summary of Requirements and Installation Techniques ‘The alignment proposed by Associated Engineering requires the crossing of the Smiling Creek and the adjacent unnamed creek within a tunneled section. If it is required that these crossings be done in tunnel, the alignment would have to lowered significantly from that shown in order to allow for adequate soil cover beneath the creek bed. Alternatively, consideration could be given to crossing the creeks using open-cut construction methods once applicable fisheries permits have been obtained. The profile of the proposed alignment is shown on Figure 2. As shown, the tunnel is approximately 500m long and is shorter than ABs proposed length. The length as shown is based on maintaining a minimum of 6m of tll cover at the portals. This tunnel length may be further reduced by increasing the length of the sewer constructed in open cut (Le. increasing the maximum depth of open cut). ‘We understand that it is currently envisaged that a 2.1 to 2.7 m diameter tunnel will be required for the proposed storm water diversion tunnel. Given the planned diameter, and Golder AssociatesAssociated Engineering (BC) Ltd. June 1, 2004 Mr. Michael MacLatchy, P-Eng. -5- 04-1411-014 the required length of tunnel, it is our opinion that this installation can most feasibly be completed using conventional tunnelling techniques. Use of an alternative trenchless construction method, pipejacking, would only be considered feasible if intermeadiate shafis were installed to significantly reduce the drive length. This would increase the surface impacts and would likely make the methods uneconomic, unless intermediate shafis were required for manholes. 4.2 Tunnelling Methodology For the anticipated soil conditions, excavation of the tunnel is expected to be carried out using tunneling equipment which provides support to the ground immediately behind the face (equipment referred to as a tunnel shield, also referred to as a tunnel boring machine (TBM)) and allows installation of tunnel support behin¢ the tunnel shield. Excavation of the soil is carried out using various types of equipment, ranging from manual means, to rotating cutting wheel type TBM’s. Tunnel liners are conventionally installed using one of two methods — one pass and two pass systems, The two pass method, requires initial installation of a temporary liner immediately behind the TBM. The temporary liner for the anticipated soil types typically involves the use of steel ribs and lagging. The final liner may consist of a cast-in-place (CIP) concrete liner placed inside of the temporary liner, or a product pipe of smaller diameter installed within the tunnel and the resulting annulus between the product pipe and the temporary liner grouted, The one pass method typically involves the use of precast concrete “segments” which are erected to form a complete circular tunnel liner, immediately behind the TBM Since these concrete segments are designed and constructed ‘o perform for long term use, no further liner installation is required, hence the term “one pass”. This type of system is rarely used in this region, except for large tunneling projects. The final selection of the lining system would typicelly be completed as part of the detailed design. For the reasons indicated above, it is likely that the “two pass” method would be utilized. The selection of a CIP liner or use of product pipe grouted into the ‘tunnel and would be based on hydraulic considerations es well as cost considerations. The tunnelling is carried out from shafts or pits. The size of the pit depends on TBM type and size, as well as requirements for muck handing and equipment/pipe installation Based on the tunnel profile provided, and contingent on sufficient working space being made available, it is envisaged that the tunnel would be constructed from an enlargement at the end of the trench excavation, rather than an actual shaft. At this time, it is not clear whether intermediate shaft (manholes) will be necessary for operational requirements, Golder AssociatesAssociated Engineering (BC) Ltd. June 1, 2004 Mr. Michael MacLatchy, P.Eng. 04-1411-014 however, for tunnelling purposes a intermediate shaft would not be required. As indicated previously, if a number of intermediate manholes are required, considerations could be given to constructing the sewer using the pipejacking method, 4.3 Geotechnical Assessment of Tunnelling Conditions Based on our review of the soil conditions encountered it is our opinion that construction of the proposed tunnel is feasible; however, there are some risks associated with tunnelling that could have cost implications for the project which need to be managed. + Cobbles and houlders. The cobbles and boulders within the glacial drift deposit present some risk as they may cause delays in the tunnel progress if or sufficient size, or if encountered at the edge of the excavation. ‘The level of risk associated with encountering boulders is dependent on the number and size of boulders present in the till and the type of TBM selected for construction (different TBMs can handle different sizes of boulders). The appropriate selection of the TBM and cutting head would reduce the likelihood of significant construction delays. Means of obstruction removal, such as pneumatic hammers, controlled blasting and hydraulic splitting should be available should a boulder size be encountered that the selected TBM could not handle, + Bedrock. Although bedrock was not encountered at the drill hole locations, it should be noted that additional investigation will be required to decrease the uncertainty of encountering bedrock elsewhere. This risk should be further evaluated in subsequent phases of project design to facilitate TBM selection and cost estimating. + Groundwater, Most types of tunnelling equipment are highly sensitive to the potential for groundwater inflows. This type of tisk is generally considered to be Jow in the soil types which are anticipated, due to the presence of fine grained soils, which limit soil permeability. Exceptions to this include areas where clean sands or gravels are encountered. Also of concer is the ar‘esian conditions that exist on the east end of the alignment. The extent of this zone should be further evaluated prior to construction so that appropriate remediation measures (such as dewatering) can be planned and implemented. The level of risk associated with this tunnel is not significantly different than that associated with other similar diameter tunnels constructed in till. The construction techniques necessary to successfully complete the tunnel construction are well understood, and there are a number of skilled contractors that have the equipment and the experience to do so. There are a number of tunnels which have been completed locally in Golder AssociatesAssociated Engineering (BC) Ltd. June 1, 2004 Mr. Michael MacLatchy, P-Eng, -7 04-1411-014 similar types of soils (glacial till) that serve as precedence for this type of construction, ‘These include: + BC Hydro: Hill Avenue transmission tunnel; + BCHydro: Burnaby lake tunnel; + GVRD: Central Park water tunnel; + GVRD Vernon Drive Sewer Tunnel; + GVRD: Highbury tunnel; + CPRail: Dunsmuir tunnel, and, + GYRD Trout Lake Trunk Sewer (to be constructed in Summer 2004). The level of investigation and the allocation of construction risk between Owner and Contractor should be carefully considered during the design process so that the final design and subsequent construction contract is tailored to the City's risk tolerance. It is current industry practice that a sufficient level of investigation will help to reduce much of the risk associated with the construction of this tunnel. 4.4 Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate For the purposes of further assessment of feasibility, a preliminary cost estimate has been prepareé. This order of magnitude cost estimate is based on estimates prepared for other similarly sized tunnels in similar ground conditions. At this time, we have not discussed the project with any tunnelling contractors nor have we obtained specific construction estimates for this tunnel, It is anticipated that construction cost estimates will be refined at both the preliminary and detailed design phases of the project. Excluding engineering and construction inspection, we estimate the total cost of driving a 500 m long, 2.1 to 2.7 m LD. cast-in-place concrete-lined tunnel to be $3.2 million. This cost includes the cost of constructing two trench enlargements for entry and exit points. Appropriate contingencies (suggest 30%) should be added to this value for budgeting purposes to recognize the preliminary nature of the estimate. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN We understand that alternative storm water diversion alignments are being considered and therefore, we recommend that any additional geotechnical investigation, laboratory soils indexing testing and any groundwater tests only be completed once a decision on whether the Victoria Drive tunnel alignment is the preferred option has been made. Golder AssociatesAssociated Engineering (BC) Ltd. June 1, 2004 Mr, Michael MacLatchy, P.Eng. 04-1411-014 If the tunel option is selected for preliminary design, additional geotechnical investigations should be undertaken, The level of investigation necessary is dependent on the level of subsurface risk that the City is prepared to take, and on the type of construction contract that the City chooses to use, both of which will have construction cost implications, In some cases, where sufficient geotechnical information has been collected, a geotechnical baseline report (GBR) can be prepared and forwarded to prospective tunnelling contractors. This type of report has been accepted as common practice within the tunneling industry, although mainly for larger tunnels or for complicated ground conditions. In the report, the geotechnical engineer would make an assessment of the soil conditions and prepare a statement of “baseline” conditions. This baseline is used as a basis for determination of “differing site conditions”, Variations from this baseline, should they occur, may result in a claim for differing site conditions and payment to the Contractor. This type of construction contract reduces the tunnelling risks for a contractor and therefore generally reduces overall construction bid prices. Alternatively, the City could ask that all the construction risk be taken on by the Contractor, This strategy would likely result in higher bid prices, with the relative magnitude dependent on the level of geotechnical information available and perceived geotechnical risk. Once a decision has been reached, we would be pleased to discuss this issue further, and provide a more further comment on the recommended approach. 6.0 CLOSURE We trust that the information provided herein meets with your present requirements. Should you have any questions or concems regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours very truly, GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. John W. Scholte, P. Eng. Trevor P. Fitzell, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer Principal JWS/TPF (jae Golder Associates"ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (80) LTD, ‘STORN SEWER DIVERSION TUNNEL | REFERENCE ‘Source: Tthion (1995 Orbophotos),OMTI Sp 3] Datum: NAD 83 Projection: UTM Zone 103 C00 FUE _N\Bue-Craphice Project\2008\ 341 Noe REVISION DATE:04/06/1 10:46am —I. 0.7} | I | | 974 cue 32.00, F1ev 30.00 (Preliminary) Exev 34,00 euev 32.00 e1ey 30.00 e1ey 26.00 eugy 24.00, eu 22.00, Lev 20.00, _y. (FEB 23, 2004) LEV 18.00, Approximate Extent of Tunnel (Preliminary) (FEB 23,2008) ELEY 14.00 cue 12.00, Please refer to Rpt 04-141 1-014 for detailed soil logs. LEGEND - Approximate Borehcle Location REFERENCES 1) Base Plan Provided by AE(BC) (January 9, 2004) "(FEB 29, 2008) PROFILE Asphalt a er ‘SAND, some gravel | SAND, some sit SAND & GRAVEL, trace sit trace clay pos ee vith cobbles, wit boulders Gravelly SAND, trace sit |) SAND & GRAVEL, trace clay, wth cobbles, with boulders Organic SILT Water love observation PRELIMINARY| NOTE 1. DATA CONCERNING THE VARIOUS STRATA HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT BOREHOLE LOCATIONS ONLY. ‘THE SOIL STRATIGRAPHY BETWEEN BOREHOLES HAS BEEN INFERRED FROM GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND ‘SO MAY VARY FROM THAT SHOWN. 2.NO PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN FOR ACCURATE ‘SURVEYING OF BOREHOLE LOCATIONS. 3. REF. PLAN PROVIDED AE(BO). 44. REF. TUNNEL ALIGNMENT AE (BO) JANUARY 9, 2004 1 8.00 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING ‘STORM SEWER DIVERSION TUNNEL COQUITLAM, B.C. TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN & PROFILE @rssti. 2 FIGURE 2PROVEGT No: O4-1411-014 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH04-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATON om Vier te on DATE: uh. 16, 20 OAT: Gein Stee a: 3]. el. lsl_2_ #2 X ve eg snore 2 escaenon = (S&-(8]2/8[auqnsmeon ny gg 9] —witkcamerrencew —/px| —NS™ALATIN al] sper Fa|=™ wavs 8] RAR mr 1BS Fp ear =| “2 Bae ea Etntaroacae fix cursegmasem eons Fol [| F =) | | smeer * 0) fe) fay aah = E «| | [Seeasrsrace on same FS] [on cimcshirscoes [a oe ct Seca towatemcneh fe] || ‘Very dens, matst, grey, sity SAND and] Ta |oo| E | | | siererisreamasne H steasins E ale 15 ver ae ogo, ats Soeareeumoreta) 1 caer af E a on t “l=! Eo) | | ease ert fe SEE oe C 7 End of BOREHOLE, ™ 3 ; 4 g Hg 4 fi §| ocpruscne Loccee:er ve souRECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH04-2 3, | $, ———* oT Te. ee Fa ae) y A pp Pp sof 1 tat STANDPIPE a : cancer ie er ee : neiataton . ‘ We 78 S| TL [ena suc - ° + + oe ggemom Pet 2} | | ti ‘api won Garey Same of Sours op Soom a) est Taco iz 7j SE a j Ea 3 i 8] oermsoue Moder “pocunon Liaw SelePROMECT No: oatantane RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH04-3 SHEET 1 0F 1 r ane =a EEL ee ae fa] 3 cescrerin ela Ele Slaagmmor arg pe omsncomeremcer ge] sean Bi ieee sere li Etat ance fy + Omer E | | |ssazicosarsnerse 1. a SoH E || Renee Hy | EEN I He AT Dexboun sty Bano sacrewver, fe [| Re a cores tg amn c vo E al | besser fit Sree cam gereenmsas Pee] | | Dons, moist, grey-brown SAND, some * | Sertoli Se on =) ‘Dans, mola, groy brown SAND and Boot ae a oe = B j g 3 3 3 vermont ‘sominy Le Beers. aeREPORT APPENDIX B - MINUTES OF THE MARCH 30, 2004 MEETINGCITY OF COQUITLAM HYDE CREEK IWMP - DIVERSION ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT Record of Meeting DATE: Tuesday, March 30%, 2004 FILE: 022313-5-1-010 TIME: 2:00 PM PAGE: 1 OF 4 LOCATION: Coquitlam City Hall, Conference Room 339 PRESENT: Ken Wright (KW) ~ City of Coquitlam (City) Emily Chu (EC) ~ City of Coquitlam (City) Dana Soong (DS) + City of Coquitlam (City) Jason Cordoni (JC) ~ City of Coquitlam (City) John van der Eerden (IVE) ~ Associated Engineering (AE) Mike Mackatchy(MM) ——_- Associated Engineering (AE) DISTRIBUTION: — Those Present Jamie Fitzgerald ~ Associated Engineering (AE) ‘These minutes are considered to be complete and correct. Please advise the writer within one week of any errors or omissions, otherwise these minutes will be considered to be an accurate record of the discussions, ACTION BY. DISCUSSION: Info MM discussed the three alignment options being considered. Because of property impacts and construction difficulties the proposed Roxton Avenue alignment is now least favoured. Prior to the receipt of the geotechnical assessment of the Victoria Drive tunnel the preferred alignment was the B.C. Hydro right of way and variants thereof. The Hyde Creek IWMP will be finalized using the B.C. Hydro alignment and any possible shift to the Victoria Drive alignment will only occur after further analysis and as an addendum of the HCIWMP. Info JVE and MM discussed the draft geotechnical feasibility study prepared by Golder Associates for the proposed Victoria Drive diversion alignment tunnel. Golder’s draft report indicates that a tunnel under the high ground on Victoria Drive is considered feasible at this stage. Any difficulties encountered with cobbles or boulders could be overcome, though some risk, in terms of cost increases, remains. ASSOCIATED le ENGINEERINGDATE: SUBJECT: Record of Meeting Tuesday, March 304, 2004 FILE: 022313-5-1-010 Diversion Alignment Evaluation PAGE: 20F 4 CTION BY Info Info DISCUSSION Cost of the tunnel will depend partially upon how tisk is allocated. If al risk is allocated to the contractor then this will be built into the contractor's bid price and higher starting bids will be received. If bidding is based on a”baseline” geotechnical assessment which outlines ‘expected ground conditions, and the owner will cover the cost of any ‘unexpected ground conditions (difficulties) encountered, then lower overall prices are possible. Further geotechnical investigation, ie, additional boreholes, is required at the pre-design or detailed design stage to increase the reliability of the soils strata information and improve the accuracy of the price estimates, Capital cost issues were discussed for the three alignments. Even though the draft report from Golder indicated that a tunnel on Victoria Drive was feasible this alternative appears to have a higher capital cost than the B.C. Hydro alignment, by approximately $2.3 M based on initial estimates. However, the cost of acquiring property for the four large 10 year detention ponds along Victoria Drive, required for the B.C. Hydro alignment, may be higher than first estimated. The property involved is already subdivided, serviced and developed to a degree and likely has a higher purchase cost than the global purchase price used in the anal} for the entire watershed. Ifthe purchase price for land along Victoria Drive is significantly higher than first estimated this could reduce or climinate the capital cost differential between the B.C. Hydro alignment and the Victoria Drive alignment. Further, EC estimated that the additional tax revenue and service connection fees from the roughly eighty additional residential units that are possible with the Victoria Drive alignment over the B.C. Hydro alignment (due to smaller ponds) was considerable. ASSocIATED se ENGINEERINGDATE: SUBJECT: Record of Meeting ‘Tuesday, March 30%, 2004 FILE: 022313-5-1-010 Diversion Alignment Evaluation PAGE: 3 OF 4 a ACTION BY Info Info CUSSION KW pointed out that there was an additional operational cost savings with the smaller ponds required for the Victoria Drive alignment versus B.C, Hydro alignments. ‘MM Note: Associated Engineering has not carried outa life cycle analysis to date. However, ifthe City can provide the expected differential in tax and other revenue we can carry out a basic life cyele costing. EC pointed out that the proposed B.C. Hydro alignment also cuts diagonally actoss some properties including a future school/park site. ‘This may encumber the B.C. Hydro alignment with similar difficulties ‘as were identified for the Roxton Avenue alignment. Asa group exercise the attendees worked through an evaluation matrix to determine the preferred alignment altemative. Various factors and considerations were discussed, given weightings and scored for each of the three available alternatives. The foregoing discussions were included in this evaluation. The resulting evaluation matrix is attached. Despite a higher estimated capital cost and risk of difficulties due to the proposed tunnel, the Victoria Drive alignment scored significantly higher than the other two alternatives. Due to milestone dates in the neighbourhood planning processes, the City requires the final HCIWMP report on April 19", 2004, for internal review prior to submitting to standing committee on April 26%, 2004, Prior to this, the City is organizing an additional Advisory Committee meeting for April 7, 2004 (tentative). ‘The City considers that confirmation that the DeBoville Slough can asocae, AS” eNoINeERINGDATE: SUBJECT: Record of Meeting ‘Tuesday, March 30%, 2004 FILE: 022313-5-1-010 Diversion Alignment Evaluation PAGE: 40F 4 ees ACTION BY Prepared by Mebe We DISCUSSION receive the stormwater discharge from the diversion critical to the overall HCIWMP. While the DeBoville Slough assessment does not have to be submitted in a complete form by this date, the City requires that the ability to discharge to the slough be confirmed no later than April 23%, 2004, Associated Engineering to submit final HCIWMP report for April 19%, 2004. Associated Engineering will finalize the HCIWMP using the B.C. Hydro alignment. If the Victoria Drive alignment is ultimately selected this would be addressed outside fo the HCIWMP. Associated Engineering to advance DeBoville Slough assessment sufficiently to confirm that stormwater diversion can feasibly discharge to the slough by April 23%, 2004, Associated Engineering to carry out assessment of the Victoria Drive alignment to complete the Diversion Alignment Assessment assignment. This work is additional to the work already completed to prepare the B.C. Hydro alignment for the final draft HCIWMP submission, as directed by the City. Michael MacLatchy, Ph.D., P.Eng., Water Resources Engineer MM/kk, Attachment Associate IE eNoINeeRINGREPORT APPENDIX C - MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 2005 MEETING ct[Associated | crobat peeseecrive Date: Jan.17/08 File: ——022313-6-1-010 Engineering | (oct rocus, Time: 9:00am. Page: 10f4 project: HYDE CREEK - DIVERSION ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT - cient: CITY OF COQUITLAM Location: Coquitlam City Hall, Conference Room 339 Prosent: Ken Wright (KW) ~ City of Coquitlam (City) Dana Soong (DS) - City Dave Currie (DC) - City Mike lviney (Ml) - City John van der Eerden (JVE) ~ Associated Engineering (AE) Mike MacLatchy (MM) ~ AE Distribution: Those Present RECORD OF MEETING Jamie Fitzgerald — AE These minutes are considered to be complete and correct. Please advise the writer within one week of any errors or omissions, otherwise these minutes will be considered to be an accurate record of the discussions. Action By: Discussion: Info IVE discussed the project history with respect to the three proposed alignments forthe diversion in the lower part of the watershed. Over the life of the study, the alignment had evolved from B.C. Hydro, to Roxton Avenue and then to Victoria Drive. Because of uncertainty over the Victoria Drive alignment, the main Hyde Creek Integrated ‘Watershed Management Plan report was finalized using the B.C. Hydro alignment, Both the Roxton Avenue and B.C. Hydro alignments have significant private property impacts due to the engineering requirement to maintain a constant downward grade. In contrast, the Vietoria Drive alignment is located solely on existing corridors and negates the need for large Tier 2 detention ponds in the lower part of the watershed. Therefore further investigations of Vietoria Drive were pursued. info JIVE discussed the two geotechnical investigations undertaken’ Golder Associates provided a preliminary feasibility assessment that indicated that the Victoria Drive tunnel was possible, with an expected cost of $3.2 milion, plus engineering and contingencies totalling 45%. Any difficulties encountered with cobbles or boulders could be overcome, though some risk, in terms of cost increases, remains,‘Associated Record of Meeting Engineering | tocAc roc January 17, 2005 -2- Action By: Info Subsequently, the City retained EBA to cary out a more extensive investigation of the tunnel option on Victoria Drive. Their investigation indicated the tunnel was technically feasible, but considerably more expensive, at $9.6 milion. The main factor driving the cost increase was EBA's concer with artesian pressures that may be encountered in sand lenses. In EBA's ‘pinion, this required the use of a more technically sophisticated, and more expensive, pressure balance type of tunnel boring machine. Notably, EBA also indicated that the tunnel should be considerably longer at 630 m than the ‘original length indicated by Golder of 500 m. EBA specified this length to overcome anticipated ‘ground water conditions at the entry and exit pits for the tunnel The City directed Associated Engineering to investigate the potential for a pressure system through the sag on Victoria Drive upstream of Rocklin Street Several variants were possible to deal with the isolation of those areas of the watershed that would be below the HGL of the proposed pressure system, and hence unable to direct peak ‘stormwater flows into the diversion. These options include: © Over control of higher areas to compensate for the inability to service the isolated areas below the system HGL. Pumping of excess peak storm water flows to the crest of the peak flow diversion. Detention ponds for the isolated areas. ‘Source control for the isolated areas. ‘The last two options would pose challenges in providing the same level of service (10-year retum period) as the diversion. MM discussed two configurations for the pressure system. The first would use minimum cover in traversing the high ground on Victoria Drive, with a gentler slope on the HGL, requiring larger pipe diameters. The alternative configuration places the diversion in a deep cut through the high ground, allowing for a steeper slope on the HGL and resultant smaller pipes. The practical limit for depth of cut is approximately 6 m to bottom of trench. DC and DS expressed concems with the deep cut configurations as the City has encountered problems with deep excavations including a sewer installation on Coast Meridian, near the pressure system location,Associated neering | 100A Focus, 5 January 17, 2005 -3- Info Info Info Info AE Info Record of Meeting ‘Lowa penspecrive Discussion: MM discussed concepts for handling peak flows from isolated areas. ‘Over control of higher areas was least complex, and retained the same level of service. Detention ponds would require a large footprint in the lower reaches of the watershed for the isolated areas; elimination of large ponds was one of the reasons Victoria Drive was finally selected. Pumping of peak stromwater flows would require a relatively expensive and complex pump station, and source controls would likely not provide the necessary 100-year level of service, For the over-control option, MM pointed out that the Tier 1 water quality ponds could continue to be located in the lowest elevations of the service area, only the flow control structures would need to be above the HGL of the pressure system. High flows generated within the isolated area, in excess of the twice per year storm, would continue to bypass the pond enroute to the creek system (Smiling Creek). ‘Several operational issues relating to the operation of the pressure pipe were discussed. After storm events, it wll be necessary to drain, inspect and clean the inverted siphon. Drainage, and possibly removal of sediment, could be done with automatic valves or pumping. Water from the lowest portion of the inverted siphon would require setting of sediment prior to discharge to the creek. Ideally, water should not be allowed to remain in the diversion for long periods of ime, as it could become too warm and anoxic, with impacts to DeBoville Siough once flushed out by the next storm, DS and MI pointed out that the inverted siphon could utilize a nozzle or orifice that constantly discharges whenever water was in the inverted siphon. A larger relief valve could be used to provide faster drainage and flushing of sediment when required. Alternatively, inverted siphon ‘could be drained by pumping with the discharge at the crest of the Victoria Drive ridge. MM to investigate the parameters of these approaches for comment in the final report, MI and DS concerned with need to inspect and maintain siphon after each storm, quantity of ‘sediment that was likely to accumulate, potential for blockages of relief valves. MM commented that Service Area #1 is now included in the plan for the diversion, and represents approximately $1.5 milion in additional capital costs, Cost estimates have been updated to Associated Engineering's best estimate of 2005 dollars.Associated Engineering January 17, 2005 -4- Action By: Info Info Prepared by: Record of Meeting ioe peesrecive toeat roc Discussion: DC commented that the extra cost of the tunnel made it impractical, given the City’s budget ‘As a group exercise the attendees worked through an evaluation matrix to determine the preferred Victoria Drive option. Various factors and considerations were discussed, including construction and operational issues, and effectiveness at providing flood protection and drainage. ‘The foregoing discussions were included in this evaluation. The resulting evaluation matrix is attached Although slightly favoured in some categories, the tunnel did not score as highly as the pressure system options, Various weightings and scores were tried for the various factors, including construction cost, O&M and operational complexity. However, the outcome was insensitive in terms of preferred option ‘The pressure system with a shallow cut through the Victoria Drive high ground was preferred by City staff ida. ileehdiby Michael MacLatchy, Ph.D., P.Eng. Water Resources Engineer MMint[Stormwater [Flooding and potential property and infrast [Environmental impacts (stream crossings, [Erosion and sedimentation of natural waterai [Hydraulic Performance (internal - grade/ai [Subtotal Weighted Score 3% 8. 3.1% 22.9% 38.2% [Capital Cost [Operations and maintenance coats [Subtotal Weighted Score F Factors [Construction ComplexityiRisk Disruption to pubic (.e. road closures, detour [Ease of Implementation 235% [Scheduling 25% [Operational ComplexiiyiRisk 70 7.6% [Subtotal Weighted Score 3H 23.1% TOTAL Weighted Score 434 100% Na0228 73H YDGYIDiv-Vie Opi Reponl|Argnmenk Matra MOD3 Ns]victons Dive Matix 2% 15.3% 38.2% slsls} | Sis) 7.5% 38% Hyde Creek. Table 9-1 Integrated Watershed City of Coguittam Evaluation Matrix for Victoria Drive Configuration Options Management PlantREPORT APPENDIX D - REVISED HCIMWP TABLES AND FIGURES baModer Diameter Tength “Slope Link ID (om) (m) we DIV-C10 2750 ~30 1.90% DIV-C20A 2750 40 4.48% DIV-C20B 2750 60. 15.83% Div-c22 600 490 8.42% Div-c24 600 200 8.00% Div-c26 600 80 | _6.25% DIV-C30A 2750 420 7.92% ~ DIV-C30B 2750 70. 5.71% DIV-C35B 900 220 8.64% 4.59 DiV-C80 1050 380 3.50 DiVv-c70 1050 630, 1.60 DIV-C75 71050 60 7.60 DIV-C80B, 1950 335 9.84 ~DIV-C85 1800 400 8.72 Div-c90 1800 400 7.30 DIV-C100 71800 200 730 | DiV-C110 1500 140 731 DiV-C120 1200 300 520 DiV-C130 1200 80 520 | | Div-ci40 1200 40 5.20 DIV-C150 600 430 0.87 Div-c160 1200 100 4.35 DiVv-ct70 4200 120 4.35 DIV-C180 1200 200 | 4.35 DIV-C190 600 200 0.74 Div-C200 1200 180 3.62 Div-c2t0 41200 60 362 Div-C220 4200 200 3.62 DIV-C230 900 250 2.67 ‘Indicates Inverted Siphon (Pressurized) Portion of Diversion System! ‘Negative slope indicates pipe slopes upward in Downstream Direction NN0223131HYDGYIDiv-Vic-OptiReport\Diversion Details - VicOpt xis] HCIWMP Table 5-1 City of Coquitiam Table 5-1 Diversion Details Hyde Creek Integrated Watershed ‘Managment PlanFORD RG. (POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION PEAK FLOW RATES Regime Flow Paramotor Service Area thal Qyp (mis) | g(mitsy | Qg(m%s) | io (m’ts) | oe ms) | “Design Fiow Rate (msia)_| tert | Peak Into 135 | 288 278 301 | 386 | 2 ha Peak Flow fiom Pond to Hyde Creek oat oat oat “oat | oat 80m Peak Flow Bypassing Pond 0.00 oss | oss | ose 088 | 0.50 mils | _Total Peak Fiow to Hyde Crosk oat ‘ora | 128 128 [128 _ Peak Flow to Diversion 146 156 148 4178 258 | Peak fw 247 238 268 Pei Fow from Pond to Hyde Crook a4 oad 86 Peak Flow Bypassing Pond 075 078 075 “Total Peak Flaw to Hyde Greek 181 181 ser | Peak Fiow to Diversion. 058 105: Peak infow — 8 ons Toa Ta | ae ‘Peak Flow rom Pond to Hyde Greek 028 | 028 | 0.28 | 028 Peak Flow Bypassing Pond 030 | 020 0.30 ‘Total Peak Flow o Hyde Creek ost ‘et O58 = Peak iow to Diversion 045. O85, 0.89 — Peak flow 18 Tat Z Peak Flow tom Pond oat oat Peak Flow Bypassing Pond 02, 032 | Total Peak Flow o Hyde Creek ost ‘oat “Total Peak Flow to Watkins Crock 042 042 - Peak Frow to Diversion | 040 Tet — Peak tow 16. 138, 238 zee as 28 ha esi Flow rom Pond ost 064 64 an 407 Peak Fiow Bypassing Pond 0.00 ot 0.88 088 086 0.638. mis “Total Peak Flow o Hyde Creek. 035 O87 ost O91 091 ‘Total Poak Flow to Watkins Greek 048 0.29 030 9.39 030 Peak Fiow to Diversion 105 "108 08 13s P28 1 a - Tier 4 ek now, ‘o96 TBA ha = —— Poni Fw trom Pond | 0.18 | o24 Peak Flow Bypassing Pond 0.00 ont “Tote Peak Flow to Hyde Crosk oT ‘013 “Total Peak Flow to Wetkins Creek 2 022 Pac Fiow to Diversion os3 | ost -—e 166 | 3s 185 ha ‘Beak Flow from Pond to West Sing Creok oar [122 781 m Peak Flow Bypassing Pond 0.00 oat | 1218 m’is____| Total Peak Flow to Wost Smiling Crook | os? 165. Peak Flow to Diversion | 080 ‘008 Peak inow: — 760 2.08 2 Peak Fow fom Pond to Wakins Gresk [ose 056 056 Peak Flow Bypassing Pond ‘ost om ont “Tota Peak Flow to Watkins Greek ‘0.83 [427 128 a “Peak Flow to Diversion 088 “fone tar Hyde Cresk Cy of Coguttam! Integrated Watershed (iy efor Contam ‘Table 6.2 Pond Detale ‘Management Pana “Peak infow 08s aa | a3 on 84 ha ak Fw trom Pond 20. 026 028 028 om 45m | Peak iow 6ypatsing Pond | 000 019 as oat oat 0.256 me Total Peak Flow to Hyde C —| 008 [020 | 031 | ost oat “ota Peak Fou to Viakns Creek on | 028 038 0.36 036 285 088 O58 33 | 135 Tier! Tai 753 2 29 | 38 Hs he - 080 076 075 076 075 ‘sm ‘000 0.38 a7 72 07 0746 mie Tatal Peak Fiow to Sing Cresk ‘om | ost | 06a 067 087 “Teil Peak Fow to Wesi Sing Cresk | ot ost ose 082 bet Peak Flow to iverson 087 082 Ose 1.10 181 O78 18 1a Ta 020 025 ozs | 02s 191m! Peak Few Bypassing Pons (0.00 02s | oss 088 | 02s mie | Tail Peak Fiow to Sling Cres 050 ore 078 068 “068 O88 ak flows routed fo aversion are accom ion of service area, net lows to pond and creek remain a5 above Peano sor | —a96—| aes | sae | ar = ee eee tar 454 tr wn Fok Fou Bypareng Pond 00 | a7 | 455 | 155 | 155 Tal Peak Few a Sing reat tas 200258 | a7 [ae —_ | pea Ft Dien [ite 8a ‘tert ees ser |e mite aas—| 052 —| as} 082 21m YY B56 Tats Peat Fone vse Cook | 008 | 06 | a2 | a Tal Peso Srna Grok 933 | ass | a7 | a = Pankow Diao 30} 80} aes fe ERT = —_ Terk ce Peak inflow 4.20 4153 1.98 252 ea Pankow fom Pd das} 092 os | 928 etm | prak on Sypasing Pond | — 000 | 020 ost | ost 0316 mis Tal Pax ows Sing Grask Toe ose | ae Tal eat nyse oat ot} oe Peni How'o Den — 238 tie | 179 ol: Lowa porno Pond 1 Soni Aras bolon HL of Dean ln outed fo deri a sccomlehed y ovreonr of poe prion of sere ars, et Nowe pond and Greskreman 985 TET STOS ie-OpARepan et Fw Senay SOR ISP Shay tte Crone cay ot coastany Iiaratd ts (Cy af Port Contr Table 6.2 Pond Dotalls Management Panstom Waar Dion 8 Assciniad Fetes sre rah] Cosby | Unto Capa | TOOT sp| ia Lorem set | concen cca zo} of eo) Sonne] wo | ‘eo Siem] St a So) fam] a So) “saan zo} a] | sree] seenteo) 55 el ‘io] al ‘mo] Soaan] zeal a] | ‘e0] Sra] Zeal oo 3] ‘eo| siasrieo] sae ‘32 ‘ ‘220] “saeasoo) “Se ‘a : "se] Seow] Stoo ze 4 ico] Sono] Sa 2m] sof | Pio] Seen] $320] fa] do oo] Smee] 9 foal Sa) So) Suan] Sasa fos] et So] Soran] Sere tom] “oy ec | iso] sof 2] sto we] dof do] Seat Sex io] foo) Sant S20 i] ‘oo] Sena] ae ‘sof fof ‘Hoo] Soo] S200 fm] Sof oo] once] S509 Ym] ef oo] “Sanceo] sae Yo] | Woo] Seco] Se eo] so] Cr te feof foo] stool st tao] te] | Hsia Sto) tam] 29 oo] Sago] eae ‘am ‘e) Sizooi0] Stan tam] joo] soo] Semowo] am] oo] 20] “teaooo] oe am] 2] Noo] szzaooo] gz ‘S| am] | ie] arom) aaa a seve} stcooro] sna ao] tam) ao] sacooma] soon | ion Sto] Sicoomm) «Soa a ei Tama arom its J} 2] | y Be 39] wy se} Fe] al Comsat Water Gon Fonds | sears ace ats car Tent aur ore ramets ra ‘Dyaeion Copal Co ‘stom Water Pana Cap Cet| rand Yra_singsnoo v0 SCORER Coan Aaa ROR ty onan Tobie 74 nego trod Sy etbed canton Estimated Capita and 0 Cost for Recommended Stormuator Management System enogenert anLEGEND i =a # fim eo B ' 10.56ho(2). "tee we om BER? oven B N . or ensure fb r ), — Ten ToS ep mara eae i NG Lettre B a he ae eal Nest) |) ; BERS oar \ ; ! x yd ines) ‘ x (BELOW SYSTEM MOL) ie ae a ae cosh] osteo) Neate ame eo e tJ eel : : i py} h A DEVELOPMENT FES fp RESERVE , 2 sibton on o sos fap oii el ae REOURED 8 DRVGLOPNENT RESERVE ac PINE CONE/ BURKE MO! ( A Semen eae mene + PROVINCIAL PARK \_ Bi WO cere : E ei ae ~ = ‘ — ‘ Thy NS zB cosh wo) i f 1 ": i I i feel ca ~~ ee) a | “VORIFY SCALES PROJECT No. | 022313, _ HYDE CREEK . ASSOCIATED Sa 8500 CITY OF COQUITLAM AND & INTEGRATED WATERSHED eames ssocua, Ar pate ea or AND Sia DesGNeD ww Ciry OF PORT COQUITU MANAGEMENT PLAN Wo ate ene. [av ‘SUBJECT Cheenti: CHECKED "RECOWMENDED STORM WATER DRAWING NUMBER [REV, NO. | SHEET ae HERE: aS ser —| SM FIGURE 5-2Hyde Creek @ Victoria Drive: : Half-Year Hydrograph Comparison 24 30 36 42 48 Time (hours) VELOPMENT POS Figure 5.3AFlow (m*/s) Hyde Creek @ Victoria Drive: 5-Year Hydrograph Comparison Time (hours) —PRE-DEVELOPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT 48. Figure 5.3BFlow (m*/s) 14 12 10 10-Year Hydrograph Comparison Hyde Creek @ Victoria Drive: 2 18 24 30 36 42 Time (hours) »RE-DEVELOPMENT 48 Figure 5.3CFlow (m/s) Hyde Creek @ Victoria Drive: 100-Year Hydrograph Comparison + | | | 12 18 24 30 36 Time (hours) —PRE-DEVELOPMENT _ POST-DEVELOPMENT| 48. Figure 5.3DCedar Ditch above DeBoville Slough: Half-Year Hydrograph Comparison Time (hours) (——PRE-DEVELOPMENT __ POST-DEVELOPMENT ~~ DIVERSION] Figure 5.44Cedar Ditch above DeBoville Slough: 5-Year Hydrograph Comparison 35 7 Time (hours) PRE-DEVELOPMENT —__ POST-DEVELOPME! Figure 5.4B40 36 30 25 Flow (m*/s) 8 15 10 Cedar Ditch above DeBoville Slough: 10-Year Hydrograph Comparison Time (hours) DIVERSION | Figure 5.4CCedar Ditch above DeBoville Slough: 100-Year Hydrograph Comparison 45 - - 35 aa -DEVELOPMENT Figure 5.4DFlow (m/s) 28 20 15 10 Hyde Creek above Cedar Ditch: Half-Year Hydrograph Comparison XX esc ic 7 Ha. 12 18 24 30 36 42 Time (hours) OPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT DIVERSION 48 Figure 5.5AFlow (m/s) 35 30 25 8 a 10 |} Hyde Creek above Cedar Ditch: 5-Year Hydrograph Comparison 18 24 30 36 42 48 Time (hours) ENT POST-DEVELOPMENT “= DIVERSION | Figure 5.5BHyde Creek above Cedar Ditch: 10-Year Hydrograph Comparison 35 48 Time (hours) POST-DEVELOPMENT ~~ DIVERSION | Figure 5.5CHyde Creek above Cedar Ditch: 100-Year Hydrograph Comparison 45 Time (hours) - POST-DEVELOPMENT DIVERSION Figure 5.5DQO Time PRE-DEVELOPMENT 24 30 36 (hours) POST-DEVELOPMENT | 42 48 Figure 5.64Flow (m*/s) Smiling Creek above Hyde Creek: 5-Year Hydrograph Comparison 6 12 18 24 30 36 Time (hours) SSS REDEVELOPMENT waren EOST-DEVELOE 42 48 Figure 5.68Flow (m*/s) 14 12 10 Smiling Creek above Hyde Creek: 10-Year Hydrograph Comparison ~ 18 Time ——PRE-DEVELOPMENT 24 (hours) Bi 30 36 OST-DEVELOPMENT 42 48 Figure 5.6CFlow (m*/s) ing Creek above Hyde Creek: 100-Year Hydrograph Comparison Time (hours) *PRE-DEVELOPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT | Figure 5.6DWatkins Creek above Hyde Creek: Half-Year Hydrograph Comparison 25 2.0 05 0.0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Time (hours) VELOPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT | Figure 5.7A35 3.0 2.5 Flow (m/s) a 10 05 00 Watkins Creek above Hyde Creek: 5-Year Hydrograph Comparison 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Time (hours) LOPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT | Figure 5.78Watkins Creek above Hyde Creek: 10-Year Hydrograph Comparison 45 Time (hours) VELOPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT Figure 5.7¢Flow (m*/s) o Watkins Creek above Hyde Creek: 100-Year Hydrograph Comparison Time (hours) 48 Figure 5.7D